Robert Jewett wrote:
Ya'll voted:
A=5
B=15


...but, A is the Full Frame.

Can't wait for all the shit talking that'll come afterwards, "unfair testing method" blardy blah...

Robert Jewett wrote:
Ya'll voted:
A=5
B=15


...but, A is the Full Frame.

EXCELLENT!!! 

DougBPhoto wrote:
I wonder how many people guessed B because they thought it appeared to be the higher quality image (sharpness, dynamic range, etc).


I don't recall a thread where anyone was saying they could always tell images from Crop and Full Frame part, however I DO remember that even myself was saying that the suggestion that the two are identical is untrue.

Secondly, when I frame my images, I do so based on what I see in the frame and I select a lens accordingly, so if I was to shoot this same thing, I would NOT have been shooting the full frame body as the same focal length and then wasting my time cropping the resulting image.

My reasoning was exactly the opposite.  My observations have been that all other things being equal, smaller sensors/lower resolutions tend to be "sharper" out of the camera at default settings.  This is certainly evident when comparing my old D70 to my D300 (admittedly one is CCD the other CMOS which is another variable).

However, I think the image that looks softer initially may well take more post process sharpening before halos etc. than it's companion.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

EXCELLENT!!! 

You might be my only friend left.

(runs to avoid rotten tomatoes)

DougBPhoto wrote:
I wonder how many people guessed B because they thought it appeared to be the higher quality image (sharpness, dynamic range, etc).


I don't recall a thread where anyone was saying they could always tell images from Crop and Full Frame part, however I DO remember that even myself was saying that the suggestion that the two are identical is untrue.

But surely you're seen people claim full frame images are a magnitude better and that they can instantly see the difference? this is merely calling bullshit on their claims.

I was shooting highschool tennis a few weeks ago and a parent asked what camera I was using (D300). They made same comments of how fullframe so much better. I shrugged and said i used the same camera for runway and my images got picked more often than some others guys using 8x more expensive gear.

Robert Jewett wrote:
Like everyone said, hardly scientific.  And, of course, my attempts to get them to look similar just made it worse...next time, I know what to improve.

Here are unprocessed RAW files, just converted to jpeg and resized.  I placed the 7D over the 5D MIII file for perspective on what the sensor sizes look like.

I wonder what the results will be like if we tested a higher resolution crop sensor vs lower fullframe? Like a D5200 vs a D4

Robert Jewett wrote:
Just for fun...
Specs:
One 7D.
One 5DMarkIII.
24-70L at 60mm for both.
ISO 400, F2.8, 100/sec on both.
Processed in LR.

Mark III cropped to the same perspective/magnification as 7D.

Vote for which is the full framed image in responses.

"A":


"B":


[EDIT] I made an effort to match tonality, contrast, brightness, etc. with very slight adjustments in LR.  As a point of interest, if you drop the blacks on the Mark III, the color/contrast looks pretty close to the 7D.  The slight brightness differences, were there in the originals (but I did bump up the exposure a bit on both).  Also, next time, I'll also crop in camera to show the difference.

B For full frame, but the shots aren't framed right the camera turned between shots, so it's a little misleading.

For instance the two items on the left look more compressed like they were shot with a longer lense, but if you look carefully, you can see that it's caused by the camera rotation.

Robert Jewett wrote:
You might be my only friend left.

(runs to avoid rotten tomatoes)

Why would anyone throw rotten tomatoes?  If it's because they've picked the wrong picture, the problem is theirs.  If it's because I'm your only friend and I'm *so* terrible, they've got me all wrong.

Robert Jewett wrote:



But... you can kinda see my point, right?

BTW, I'll reveal at 20 total votes.

No, I don't really see the point. Are you saying that a lot of photographers said that if you take the same picture with a crop frame and a full frame and then crop and tonally adjust the ff picture to look like the crop frame sensor that they can still tell the difference?
Personally on this "test" although quite jaded I would say that picture A has more saturation in the reds than picture B. Overall the picture I like looking at most is picture B.

Yingwah Productions wrote:

I wonder what the results will be like if we tested a higher resolution crop sensor vs lower fullframe? Like a D5200 vs a D4

I wonder what the results would be if you tested the camera's the way they were meant to be tested lol. A crop frame as a crop frame and a full frame as a full frame! Now who'd a thunk?

MC Photo wrote:

B For full frame, but the shots aren't framed right the camera turned between shots, so it's a little misleading.

For instance the two items on the left look more compressed like they were shot with a longer lense, but if you look carefully, you can see that it's caused by the camera rotation.

Ah, yeah.  Saw that too.  That would be the uber expensive Really Right Stuff brackets.  One is out of square.  Trying to find a machinist's square in Africa is impossible.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
framing, dof all irrelevant. the smoothness of the gradation and enlarged circle of confusion changes the quality of the image because of the smaller original image needing to be enlarged to match the larger sensor.

the difference is easy to spot - if you know what you are looking at. you can see it in the OP 100% size, but for the sight challenged, here's the 400% view.

Maybe it's my 40 something eyes, but there's a hardly a massive difference!, just shows how freakin' awesome the 7D is and how, er well average the 5DIII is.

R_Marquez wrote:
Ha! I knew this thread would end up being funny one way or another.

I shoot with both crop and FF equally. Both are really good. Sometimes it seems like people take issue when FF is demystified.

I get that if you're zooming way in, maybe YOU can tell the difference, but most people can't. At the end of the day, most non-photographer people don't care. Just make good images.

I couldn't tell which was which, regardless of whether the test was screwed up. I mix images of the same shoot together and I can never tell which is the 5D2 or the 7D. They both look about the same.

I must have really missed the boat because I never considered a quality difference between a FF and a Crop sensor. Size difference/output, yes. Clarity/brightness of the viewfinder, yes. But I never thought of making the blanket statement that "a FF sensor takes better images than a crop."

I didn't even know this was a debate.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
framing, dof all irrelevant. the smoothness of the gradation and enlarged circle of confusion changes the quality of the image because of the smaller original image needing to be enlarged to match the larger sensor.

the difference is easy to spot - if you know what you are looking at. you can see it in the OP 100% size, but for the sight challenged, here's the 400% view.

This is interesting as I was looking at exactly the same thing, to determine that B was the FF. Now what's also interesting is that I've never shot with a FF digital.
But, I shot Kodachrome FF for over 10 years and I'm comparing with that. Maybe my comparison between FF film and FF digital is faulty.

John Allan wrote:
This is interesting as I was looking at exactly the same thing, to determine that B was the FF.

As I said, you have to know what you are looking at. Most people don't have the visual language to understand the difference in the gradations. Also there are better examples with very fine detail, which this example did not contain.

For the average user and especially those that have never dealt with high quality production (we are talking at least two-page full bleed with rotogravure or 200+ line sheet offset), it wouldn't make a speck of difference. But you can be surprised at how critical some of the top art directors and media buyer can be about the quality of the output.

The unanticipated uses sometimes can catch you off guard. Suddenly you wish you had shot it with medium format or large format. For web use it may be overkill, but I would rather be safe and have the minimum of what I need.

Michael McGowan wrote:
When you cropped the picture from the FF, then you weren't presenting a FF image. Cropped, they're both crop sensors. Your experiment is a total fail as far as telling which is FF and which is not.

The only difference between sensor sizes will be that to create a certain framing from a given distance with various sensor sizes, you need to adjust focal length. Then, you'll see the difference. Same focal length on same portion of a sensor, there's no difference. You defeated the only meaningful difference.

(shhhhh.  no-one tell him that's the point, he likes thinking he's a rebel.)

Drew Smith Photography wrote:
That was fun. Thank you for your time and effort.

7D and 5DII owner who hasn't thought once about upgrading to the 5DIII.

Okay, ... maybe once. Or twice.....





.... awww, but it's so nice and new and shiny!

I had no choice as the shutter is going in my 5DII. I hesitated a lot as the Nikon D800 is way more bang for the buck.

Yet as much as I think the 5DII is capable of a very good image the AF is flawed, and seriously flawed.

I hear the 7D works well so as long as you like the IQ, no reason to move up.

Personally I hate spending money on a nul upgrade, and my old 5DMKII is still very shiny as I baby my stuff.

Robert Jewett wrote:
Did you end up getting the Mark III?

And if so, what do you think?  I think it's the camera the Mark II should have been...and should cost $600 less.  Shrug.

Who me? Yes, and yes it's way over priced. Canon knows that as droves are going Nikon. If you do your research though Canon have a lot of lenses for what we do with models that are better and often less expensive.

For me I wanted to continue to use the 100mm macro, nothing better for the price weight and versatility as well as the 24-105 same thing.

Yet I did try the Nikon D800 a far better camera.

Extrosy wrote:
FF sensor doesn't change the DOF.  It's the LENS that determines the DOF.

That's not the whole (wait for it....) picture.  The lens is only part of the equation.  The distance to subject is no less important.  And in practical use, most of us change our focal length, subject distance or both to get the desired composition in the viewfinder.  On a smaller sensor, you're going to have to get further away or use a shorter focal length to create the same visual composition.  Either way, you'll have a different DOF.  And so, viola!  Sensor size indirectly affects DOF.

So, said simply, a FF sensor will allow you to create a shallower depth of field in practical use.  We debate this topic over and over here, but it's really just that simple.  There's a good article on the topic that's linked often: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori … r-size.htm

Image Magik wrote:

I wonder what the results would be if you tested the camera's the way they were meant to be tested lol. A crop frame as a crop frame and a full frame as a full frame! Now who'd a thunk?

you can see direct comparisons of almost every camera they reviewed for the last 4-5 years over at dpreview.com, both raw and jpeg, at every ISO