spartacus.ret
Senior Member
it is quite stupid to let your lens stable govern your choice of a body.
What exactly is the good thing 'bout FF?
- Thread starter kimazuru
- Start date
- Status
it is quite stupid to let your lens stable govern your choice of a body.
spartacus.ret
Senior Member
terribly misinformed..
spartacus.ret
Senior Member
i tell you, the iso performance of aps-c cameras will never match a full frame. its in the physics of things. be it your now gone 450d, the 50d or even the 7d, it cannot touch a full frame body's performance:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8736840&postcount=49
Indeed and tht's why i'm deciding which to get.
FF camera still has it's reason for being expensive.
They're worth the price.
I've thought of learning flash.
Tried using them.
But flash isn't quite what i want.
The below picture was taken by my friend. To me it's brilliant and i think he've done well.
But the second picture that i took with 1ds2 is the type of photo i'm looking for.
I was shooting at ISO 1600 and holy **** NO NOISE ARH!!!!
I like natural lights.Flash can't really create that effects do they? correct me if i'm wrong.
By the way it's taken approx. at the same time. He was infront of the couple and i'm behind.
He spam flash i spam ISO
Anyway i'll learn how to use flash =D after i decide which body to get 1st. LOL
Last edited:
I suggest you go and read up on flash. Flash is very capable of producing natural looking images, like the one you shot. I don't think your friend's image is exactly the best representation of what flash photography is capable of achieving.
Is it?
I know if you have lots of equip set ups you can get very natural lightning effects.
But at situations like wedding with just one 580ex II? Still possible?
haha... thanks for the valuable information.
I'll go read more bout' flash
I've thought of learning flash.
Tried using them.
But flash isn't quite what i want.
The below picture was taken by my friend. To me it's brilliant and i think he've done well.
But the second picture that i took with 1ds2 is the type of photo i'm looking for.
I was shooting at ISO 1600 and holy **** NO NOISE ARH!!!!
I like natural lights.Flash can't really create that effects do they? correct me if i'm wrong.
By the way it's taken approx. at the same time. He was infront of the couple and i'm behind.
He spam flash i spam ISO
Anyway i'll learn how to use flash =D after i decide which body to get 1st. LOL
proper bouncing, riding of your ISO and flash compensation can recreate natural light..read neil van niekerk's articles here
its not a quest about finding the camera that does it all..but is actually about assuming responsibility on taking the picture and learning good effective techniques
Last edited:
Totally agreed with your point
same same.....
ricleo
Senior Member
it is very impractical not to consider legacy lens owned by someone before deciding on a camera body choice. Switch between full frame / crop for canon due to the efs mount is 'almost' akin to switching systems.
of course this does not apply if you are a filthy rich person with no budget limitation.
ricleo
Senior Member
a blanket assumption that is not necessarily true.
I'm quite sure the high ISO performance of the 7D is better than the high ISO performance of the original 1DS full frame camera. Just that I do not have a original 1Ds body with me to give you a high iso comparison.
Comparing same age technology, 7D vs 5D2, of course full frame will win, it is a matter of physics as you say, but sensor technology is developing continualy, and a crop camera of the future 'may' be able to win in terms of ISO performance compared to the 5D2 of today, just like how the 7D performance can be better than a full frame camera a few years back.
ricleo
Senior Member
In most cases, in my own opinion, I also prefer non-flash exposures to flash exposures, however you need to learn how to use flash to provide fill in light as well to eliminate shadows that appear on your subject's face under the eyesockets/nose/cheeks. I think your image looks better than your friend's one in these examples posted as well, but only because your friend did not expose for the background properly. I would say that lighting is different as well since you were shooting towards the stage where lighting is better, while your friend is shooting from the front of the couple towards the back of the banquet hall which will tend to have poorer lighting.
Flash when bounced and difused properly only helps to improve your exposure and add to the image. You just need to learn how to expose for the background properly as well.
Flash when bounced and difused properly only helps to improve your exposure and add to the image. You just need to learn how to expose for the background properly as well.
I've thought of learning flash.
Tried using them.
But flash isn't quite what i want.
The below picture was taken by my friend. To me it's brilliant and i think he've done well.
But the second picture that i took with 1ds2 is the type of photo i'm looking for.
I was shooting at ISO 1600 and holy **** NO NOISE ARH!!!!
I like natural lights.Flash can't really create that effects do they? correct me if i'm wrong.
By the way it's taken approx. at the same time. He was infront of the couple and i'm behind.
He spam flash i spam ISO
Anyway i'll learn how to use flash =D after i decide which body to get 1st. LOL
Last edited:
I don’t think the comparison here is about he performance of crop body vs FF body, I think they are both excellent performer, I would safely said the same for Nikon D300s or D700. When you choose a camera brand you are not just choosing the camera features but you are buying into the system specifically all the high performance quality lenses, same like why some people are obsess with Leica or Carl Zeiss.
The reason I would think why one wants to move to FF is the ability to maximize the intended design of the high performance lenses. If you notice cream of Canon are the L lenses and they are designed with a FF body in mind after they need to ensure the pro are taken care of. For example, 24-105mm f4 gave you coverage of wide angle of 24 to slight telephoto of 105mm, a very versatile and usable coverage. However, when the lens is mounted on a 1.6x crop you lose the wide angle 38.4mm-168mm. Similarly the $2.6K ultra wide zoom 16-35m will only give you 25.6 (wide angle instead of ultra wide) to 56mm (standard length). So to achieve the same focal length coverage for crop body one can only go for EF-S 17-85mm or EFS 10-22mm.
The reason I would think why one wants to move to FF is the ability to maximize the intended design of the high performance lenses. If you notice cream of Canon are the L lenses and they are designed with a FF body in mind after they need to ensure the pro are taken care of. For example, 24-105mm f4 gave you coverage of wide angle of 24 to slight telephoto of 105mm, a very versatile and usable coverage. However, when the lens is mounted on a 1.6x crop you lose the wide angle 38.4mm-168mm. Similarly the $2.6K ultra wide zoom 16-35m will only give you 25.6 (wide angle instead of ultra wide) to 56mm (standard length). So to achieve the same focal length coverage for crop body one can only go for EF-S 17-85mm or EFS 10-22mm.
BTW, I am curious too! I got the original 1Ds, can loan you to try some shots to compare high ISO! :angel:
ricleo
Senior Member
good points too, same as what someone else mentioned on this thread, to use the canon lens at their intended focal lengths.
To me, if you use the EFS lens specifically designed for crop cameras, apart from DOF, you can achieve similar or even better results than the full frame equivalents. For Tele/Super Tele lens, the 1.6 crop matters less since you are looking for a longer reach anyway, so the 1.6 crop of EFS bodies helps in a way.
7D with 10-22, 17-55IS, 70-200 F2.8IS
5D2 with 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 F2.8IS
10-22 has better distortion control and sharpness than 16-35. 17-55 IS has the same 2.8 and range as 24-70 but adds IS. 70-200 on the 7D results in much longer reach than the 5D2.
My only complaint about using the 5D2 is that i need much better/longer tele lens now when compared to using a crop camera. Hence my choice of a crop camera as backup body.
ricleo
Senior Member
cool! maybe we can meet up over the weekend and have a lowlight shooting session for some real world shots for comparison instead of some boring shots of a book cabinet or something in the house haha.... pm for further discussion
Kit
Senior Member
I'm quite surprised. High ISO files from the 1Ds is actually quite useable. Good to A4.
Bigger size.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arkitecture/3159375701/sizes/o/in/set-72157603111817854/
icelava
Senior Member
Really? I seem to be reading and hearing the opposite - 50D's sensor noise control is abysmal compared to 40D, which is why many are refusing to upgrade. The 450D's noise is terrible, but I have to live with that for now. If you want to bank on high ISO on crop bodies, 7D is your best bet now.
Beyond 7D, i am interested to know how the 60D will shape up.
- Status
Similar threads
