600d versus 5Dii/iii/6D

[acearchie]

Hi guys,

In terms of photography I understand all the main concepts and at the moment I am just struggling to put them all into practice in the way that I want the photos to turn out.

My question refers to camera bodies.

I have a 600d and use it as my main workhorse, I have some film cameras and shoot a lot with them but if it's a paid job then I stick to digital.

My friend has a 5Dii and I feel like his photo's are much sharper and have much better highlight retention and less flaring.

What benefits would I get with a full frame sensor in terms of IQ? I work in lightroom and was wondering if the RAW files from a 5d allow you more control to manipulate the highlights and the shadows.

In terms of sharpness, this is a 100% crop from a shot I took a few days ago.



It's on a reasonably sharp lens (17-55mm f2.8) @ f8, 1/180th ISO100 yet to me it still feels quite soft. Focus isn't the issue as this is the "sharpest" part of the photo. This is with a fair amount of sharpening in lightroom as well. If you look to the background it also seems quite grainy/noisy although it is not coloured noise.

Am I simply going mad after editing all afternoon and this photo is perfectly sharp?

Would I see much performance gain from a full frame camera? I'm not taking in terms of auto focus, DOF, burst rate etc. but in terms of actual image IQ and data in the image to then manipulate it.

I'm not even sure if what I just wrote makes sense, I think I have just gone a bit crazy.

[ocabj]

If you're asking if a full frame body like a 5D II or III is going to have better IQ than a 600D, then yes, the full frame will.

It's simply a matter of a larger sensor with higher quality pixels.

As far as your sample photo having grain and noise, I don't think you used an optimal setting for your deliverable (I see a png). Perhaps a decently size jpeg hosted somewhere that isn't going to resample/downsample your jpeg again would be a better way to show an example photo.

[acearchie]

Originally Posted by ocabj

If you're asking if a full frame body like a 5D II or III is going to have better IQ than a 600D, then yes, the full frame will.

It's simply a matter of a larger sensor with higher quality pixels.

As far as your sample photo having grain and noise, I don't think you used an optimal setting for your deliverable (I see a png). Perhaps a decently size jpeg hosted somewhere that isn't going to resample/downsample your jpeg again would be a better way to show an example photo.

What I am wondering is where will I see an increase in the IQ?

Didn't think when uploading, it was just a screenshot and here is a JPEG. From a quick glance they look very similar though.

[nburwell]

Since you currently have the 600D, yes, you will see a IQ difference between both camera bodies. The difference won't be big, but it will be there. Is the 600D holding you back in anyway that you're thinking of going FF?

There seems to be a higher interest in FF now that the Nikon D600 and Canon 6D are available to consumers who don't want to break the bank for a camera body.

The 600D is a great camera. If you like to blow you prints up to A4 then FF will certainly benefit you. Also, high ISO in FF is handled much better than APS-C sensor bodies.

The main question to ask yourself this: Is your current camera holding you back in any way?

[Cheese&Apple]

I think the best way to find the answer to this is to experience the difference for yourself...more extensively. If possible, rent/borrow a ff body with lens and spend a weekend shooting both cameras in various situations then compare the results.

[Policar]

I upgraded from the 550D to a 5D Mark III.

Is it sharper? Sure. But it's not that big a difference. Per pixel things look similar to me (my sharper lenses are a bit sharper than that photo with better micro-contrast), but full frame is usually more forgiving except in the corners. The 17-55mm IS is very good so you need a really great lens (the original 24-70mm is kind of meh) to beat it and the IS makes up for the ISO advantage FF cameras have.

In terms of latitude, it's a bit better... slightly more highlight detail, less noise at low ISOs by a little. I can overexpose a bit more.

High ISO is way better.

The "look" is nice with a bit more micro contrast and you can get a shallow depth of field easily.

Video is much cleaner at a given ISO.

Autofocus is WAY better. The optical finder is beautiful and clear.

But for low ISO shots in which resolution is all you're going for... the difference is not huge. Try your camera next to your friend's 5DII and see if it's big enough for you (the Mark II and Mark III are about equally sharp). Try them both with the same lens, same framing (back the 600D up a bit) and at the sharpest stop if you can, both at 100ISO if that's your concern.

[kevinfulton.ca]

Originally Posted by acearchie

What I am wondering is where will I see an increase in the IQ?

Didn't think when uploading, it was just a screenshot and here is a JPEG. From a quick glance they look very similar though.

Image

Yes you will see an increase. Sharpness will be a bit better, low light performance will be better as a result of a full frame camera, but since these cameras are considered to be higher end you will benefit from other features besides just the sensor size. Better metering, AF speed, AF points (depending on model) will have help your images. Overall you will have a more capable and responsive camera.

All that being said, try borrowing your friends lens. Chances are he has a good lens to help flex his cameras muscles. While you 17-55 is still very nice it won't beat a good prime. I'm still using an old XTi, that was given a new life once I slapped on a new 85mm 1.8. You wouldn't believe the difference that good glass will make. Good luck!

[acearchie]

Originally Posted by nburwell

The main question to ask yourself this: Is your current camera holding you back in any way?

By no means is it holding me back as I have seen far better shots than I have ever taken with the same equipment but to answer a slightly different question, I think a FF camera would help me improve my photography. The faster AF, the wider FOV, the better low light and extra stop of DR all sound like they would help solve little problems I have with the 600d.

Originally Posted by Cheese&Apple

I think the best way to find the answer to this is to experience the difference for yourself...more extensively. If possible, rent/borrow a ff body with lens and spend a weekend shooting both cameras in various situations then compare the results.

I can get a 5dii out from Uni and take it for a ride. I'll probably end up doing some comparison shots to really shut myself up.

Originally Posted by Policar

Try your camera next to your friend's 5DII and see if it's big enough for you (the Mark II and Mark III are about equally sharp). Try them both with the same lens, same framing (back the 600D up a bit) and at the sharpest stop if you can, both at 100ISO if that's your concern.

Will do, I think that's the only way I'm going to figure this out.

Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca

All that being said, try borrowing your friends lens. Chances are he has a good lens to help flex his cameras muscles. While you 17-55 is still very nice it won't beat a good prime. I'm still using an old XTi, that was given a new life once I slapped on a new 85mm 1.8. You wouldn't believe the difference that good glass will make. Good luck!

He was shooting on a battered 70-200mm f4 and I'm not sure where that stands compared to the 17-55mm.

From the same shoot I did use the 50mm f1.4 stopped down and whilst it looks a little sharper I still feel my pixel peeping eye could do with some more sharpness! Ideally I would love a set of primes but I am strapped for cash as it is!

[VirtualRain]

One of the biggest problems with Canon's APS-C 18MP sensors is the aggressive anti-aliasing that's applied to eliminate moire. As a result you have to apply a lot more sharpening in post to compensate. This was one of the key differences I noticed when going from the 7D to the 5D3... my RAW images now require only very delicate sharpening and as a result I'm not fighting halo's and other artifacts to get a sharp image.

I also find there's a lot more I can do with shadow recovery with the 5D3 RAW files than I could ever do with the 7D files. There's a lot more latitude with lifting shadows due to lack of noise and retention of detail and color in the shadows.

I also believe lenses contribute to apparent sharpness in more ways than one. Besides resolving power, the added contrast you get with L quality lenses (particularly primes) gives images a sharper appearance IMHO.

Overall, the move from a 7D with 17-55 lens to a 5D3 with 24-105L was a dramatic improvement in quality right out of the camera with even more potential in post.

Also, unless you shoot manually under strobes or in bright sunlight all the time, I can't overstate the importance of auto focus accuracy and reliability which is perhaps one of the most important jobs your body has to perform. A higher end body not only has a superior focus system, but it's much more ergonomic to select a focus point rather than constantly using the focus and recompose method you're often forced into with an unergonomic body with inferior non-center points.

Last but not least, be careful how you export and what hosting service you use. I found a noticable difference in JPEG image quality between Flickr, Smugmug, Zenfolio, and Facebook for example. You don't want to go to all this trouble to get amazing sharp images only to have them pixelated by your hosting service.

[kevinfulton.ca]

He was shooting on a battered 70-200mm f4 and I'm not sure where that stands compared to the 17-55mm.

From the same shoot I did use the 50mm f1.4 stopped down and whilst it looks a little sharper I still feel my pixel peeping eye could do with some more sharpness! Ideally I would love a set of primes but I am strapped for cash as it is!

The 70-200mm is a very sharp lens. Sharper then the 50mm 1.4 in my opinion. I say this because my 85 1.8 is much sharper then my 50 1.4 and the 70-200mm f4 has very similar performance. One thing you'll find is that many of the sharpest lenses tend to be around 85mm and beyond. Which is why they are preferred when shooting portraits. If you switch to a full frame you'll have to ditch your 17-55 anyway since it is for APS-C only.

[ocabj]

The reason why ~85mm is used for portraits is not because the lenses are sharper in that range. It's because of perspective. Longer focal length means you have to stand off farther from the subject which leads to a more flattering perspective (less compression and distortion). When you shoot head or 1/2 body portraits with a short focal length lens and fill the frame, you're going to affect the look of the nose (larger) and ears (smaller).

Of course, there's nothing saying you can shoot a shorter (wider) focal length full body portrait. But you just have to be aware of your corners and barrel distortion (unless you're artistically incorporating that effect).

[hugodrax]

Originally Posted by acearchie

Hi guys,

In terms of photography I understand all the main concepts and at the moment I am just struggling to put them all into practice in the way that I want the photos to turn out.

My question refers to camera bodies.

I have a 600d and use it as my main workhorse, I have some film cameras and shoot a lot with them but if it's a paid job then I stick to digital.

My friend has a 5Dii and I feel like his photo's are much sharper and have much better highlight retention and less flaring.

What benefits would I get with a full frame sensor in terms of IQ? I work in lightroom and was wondering if the RAW files from a 5d allow you more control to manipulate the highlights and the shadows.

In terms of sharpness, this is a 100% crop from a shot I took a few days ago.

Image

It's on a reasonably sharp lens (17-55mm f2.8) @ f8, 1/180th ISO100 yet to me it still feels quite soft. Focus isn't the issue as this is the "sharpest" part of the photo. This is with a fair amount of sharpening in lightroom as well. If you look to the background it also seems quite grainy/noisy although it is not coloured noise.

Am I simply going mad after editing all afternoon and this photo is perfectly sharp?

Would I see much performance gain from a full frame camera? I'm not taking in terms of auto focus, DOF, burst rate etc. but in terms of actual image IQ and data in the image to then manipulate it.

I'm not even sure if what I just wrote makes sense, I think I have just gone a bit crazy.

The problem I see there is not the sensor, its the Post processing and some technical issues exposing the subject. that is not the sensor fault.

You need to work on your post processing of the images. Your friend probably has a lot more experience, don't confuse experience with equipment.

You should shoot RAW and process and output final to Jpeg, not start and end with Jpeg.

[kevinfulton.ca]

Originally Posted by ocabj

The reason why ~85mm is used for portraits is not because the lenses are sharper in that range. It's because of perspective. Longer focal length means you have to stand off farther from the subject which leads to a more flattering perspective (less compression and distortion). When you shoot head or 1/2 body portraits with a short focal length lens and fill the frame, you're going to affect the look of the nose (larger) and ears (smaller).

Of course, there's nothing saying you can shoot a shorter (wider) focal length full body portrait. But you just have to be aware of your corners and barrel distortion (unless you're artistically incorporating that effect).

Forgive me. What I meant was it is ONE OF THE MANY reasons its preferred. Me saying lenses 85mm and longer tend to be sharper is just through my own observation through using them and I've noticed many reviews tend to back this up. But yes, less distortion and compression are reasons they are popular.

[OreoCookie]

If I were you, I'd invest in glass, more specifically a prime lens such as Tamron's 60 mm f/2 macro lens. Its focal length, ~90 mm equivalent on full frame, is perfect for portraits and it's doesn't cost an arm and a leg. An 85 mm lens would also be an option, but I find 85 mm quite long already for a lot of portraits, although it'd still be on the long end of classical portrait focal lengths. Don't worry about full frame vs. crop so much, lenses retain their value really well (much, much better than a used car), so you will always be able to sell your APS-C lenses without losing much money.

Regarding depth of field: your portrait is shot at f/8, so I don't think that's much of an issue for you. But certainly, if you use lenses of equivalent focal lengths, full frame bodies have an advantage.

[acearchie]

Originally Posted by hugodrax

The problem I see there is not the sensor, its the Post processing and some technical issues exposing the subject. that is not the sensor fault.

You need to work on your post processing of the images. Your friend probably has a lot more experience, don't confuse experience with equipment.

You should shoot RAW and process and output final to Jpeg, not start and end with Jpeg.

I suppose that's what irritates me about him is that he doesn't have more experience, he comes and asks me quite simple questions that I think he should know especially with the sort of money that he has dropped on his kit.

I don't know where you have got the idea that I take the image with JPEG compression already applied as I now always shoot raw.

When you say technical issues exposing the issue, what do you exactly mean?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

If I were you, I'd invest in glass, more specifically a prime lens such as Tamron's 60 mm f/2 macro lens.

I use the 50mm f1.4 a lot but this shot was a full group so I was even too wide with the 50mm!

Originally Posted by VirtualRain

Snip

Thanks for this post, it's one of the most useful. I recently had a shot at ISO 1600 shot indoors with bright highlights coming from the window and it would be nice to know that I might have some more control in post with a FF camera as well as being able to use a tighter lens yet still get the same FOV.

It's nice to know that someone who has come from a very similar setup saw some good changes. I think the aspect that I am most worried about is that it is a lot of money to upgrade and I really wanted to know exactly what to expect.

I completely agree with the auto focus which is honestly pants on the 600d. Past 6pm I sort of have to shoot with my 430exii attached to use the AF assist beam just to get the shots in focus. Fortunately in the studio with modelling lights this isn't such an issue.

Thanks again for sharing your experience.

[VirtualRain]

Originally Posted by acearchie

Thanks again for sharing your experience.

NP... Here's an old thread where I first reported my thoughts on upgrading. Note it is naturally biased by my enthusiasm, having just blown $4-Grand

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1359427

[Prodo123]

I assume the microlens array on the 5D Mark III should give sharper images than any of the other cameras which you have listed.
If the given image was a 100% crop then it's not really representative of how sharp the camera can be; I think you're expecting a little too much from the 600D. Try a full headshot; that's going to be miles sharper than your sample.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by acearchie

I use the 50mm f1.4 a lot but this shot was a full group so I was even too wide with the 50mm!

I also have a 50 mm, but somehow I couldn't come to like the focal length on my crop body, it's too wide for a portrait lens and too long for a general purpose lens. 60 mm seems to fit the bill much better for me, but I'm still debating whether I should get a X100s or the 60 mm Tamron.

Originally Posted by Prodo123

I assume the microlens array on the 5D Mark III should give sharper images than any of the other cameras which you have listed.

Microlenses do not improve sharpness, they are meant to increase the number of photons collected by each photo site, thus improving the sensor's sensitivity.

[Policar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I also have a 50 mm, but somehow I couldn't come to like the focal length on my crop body, it's too wide for a portrait lens and too long for a general purpose lens. 60 mm seems to fit the bill much better for me, but I'm still debating whether I should get a X100s or the 60 mm Tamron.

I had the exact same experience with the 50mm on FF. I'm surprised 60mm is materially better, but I suppose I shouldn't be. Every little bit matters.

I find the 85mm focal length great on APS-C (not so much on FF) and the 85mm f1.8 Canon is pretty affordable, too.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Policar

I had the exact same experience with the 50mm on FF. I'm surprised 60mm is materially better, but I suppose I shouldn't be. Every little bit matters.

It's a pity Canon and Nikon still don't have fast (f/2 or faster) and affordable 24 mm primes in their lens line-ups, it's a pretty blatant oversight in my opinion. I have a 30 mm f/1.4, but I often wish for something wider (e. g. when taking pictures of 3 people indoors or so).

Originally Posted by Policar

I find the 85mm focal length great on APS-C (not so much on FF) and the 85mm f1.8 Canon is pretty affordable, too.

For me, that's a tad long, especially indoors. I don't have an 85 mm prime, but 80 mm is the starting focal length of my 80-200 mm. But if I have enough space to work with, my bazooka is definitely my favorite lens.

[ChrisA]

[QUOTE=acearchie;16604854]....
I have a 600d and use it as my main workhorse, I have some film cameras and shoot a lot with them but if it's a paid job then I stick to digital.

My friend has a 5Dii and I feel like his photo's are much sharper and have much better highlight retention and less flaring.

What benefits would I get with a full frame sensor in terms of IQ? I work in lightroom and was wondering if the RAW files from a 5d allow you more control to manipulate the highlights and the shadows./QUOTE]

The larger sensor really DOES have some advantages. However you can continue this line of reasoning and then want to move to the Hasselblad system. At some point you run out of money. For most people that means they use a cell phone camera with its tiny sensor.

Look at two camera, each has (say) 12MP but one has a smaller sensor. several things favor the largers sensor
(1) The pixels are larger more photons hit each pixels and they hold more electrons. They are larger "light buckets". This gives them an advantage in signal to noise ration and also a greater dynamic range
(2) The lens used on the larger sensor makes a larger image. Assume the lens is just as sharp as the lens used on the smaller sensor. Even if so it will appear sharper because it is not being sampled at as fine a resolution. In other words the larger sensor is not as demanding of lens quality.

We saw the same thing with film years ago. Medium format and large format cameras make better imps then "small format" (35mm) cameras

[jeremy h]

I went from a 50D to a 600D (don't ask, long story! )

The 50D took much better pictures.

Personally I really don't like the autofocus on the 600D. It regularly seems just 'a bit off'. I often get a pin sharp image followed by one that's slightly out. There seems no rhyme or reason to it.

As soon as I can I'm going to go back up the range a bit.

[nateo200]

A bit random but for me the 6D is worth every cent...I do video and photo and I am pissed that the D600 has uncompressed HDMI output BUT who knows maybe Canon will feel pressure to add this feature of magic lantern will unlock it...the D600 is just superior in allot of ways but I have 4 Canon lens, 3 EF primes and my 550D is just not what I want anymore. High ISO performance for me is so important...when I shoot video it has to be clean because I only have HD to work with and compressed HD at that...which means when blown up the grain will look worse....when I shoot a video with serious intent on my 550D I don't go over 800 ASA pretty much, if I NEED to I only go to 1250 and rarely 2500...I can blow up HD video to 2K or even 3K VERY clean if I keep the ISO's down nice. My 6D is in transit, taking a bit to get into my hands but I purchased it because I demand high ISO's, my hands shake from nerve damage, they used to be perfectly steady but infortunetly not so much anymore! If I drop below 1/80th or 1/60th things are blurry if I don't hold the camera like a sniper taking a shot from a mile away or have a tripod...with higher ISO's I can keep the shutter speed at 1/125th-1/200th (my usual range) and shoot without worrying about whether I have my aperture wide open on a lens thats ƒ/1.2 already...stopping down does wonders for sharpness.

I shoot allot of indoor stuff, with crappy lighting, I work at my church as essentially a video editor, photographer, sound mixer, director of photography, etc. under the direction of my boss who is a former TV director. I take my work very serious and thus my equipment needs to be able to dish out allot...bad autofocus isn't too much of an issue since I learned to pulled manual focus often faster (its a good skill to have!). BUT sometimes you need autofocus, kids running towards you side to side, I need that AI Servo mode to work and even though the 6D only has 2 more focus points over the 550D Ive heard the 6D focus's VERY well. The sensor doesn't seam much bigger but it really is and Im a big fan of big larger format film...watch The Dark Knight Rises and compare* the 5-perf 65mm, 15-perf 65mm (IMAX), and anamorphic 4-perf 35mm scenes, you will see a difference in quality, subtle but with digital its more pronounced in ways that I don't like. Go shoot some 645/6x6 next to some 35mm and you'll see the difference...larger sensors just have this "grand" feeling to them...for me a full frame DSLR with video is like VistaVision around my neck. I love the shallow DoF and regardless of what settings you use it has a certain feel that a crop body lacks in sometimes a large but sometimes a very small way. Still 36x24 is something I value allot...when I take a portrait of someone I want it to be the most detailed thing possible and a large sensor plate really helps with that.


(*If your watching a movie and wanna know if the 2.40:1 scenes are really anamorphic you can tell by the artifacts, well hidden with panavisions new lenses designed to look like sphericals but you can still see the curve of horizontal lines on wide shots, blue horizontal flares, less sharp on the edges, oval out of focus bokeh, squeeze out of focus elements in some cases, etc. IMAX scenes will be cropped to 1.78:1 and generally have this grand feeling to them, like one of the shots when the Army captain crosses the bridge to negotiate with Bane's henchmen, you see this frame and everything is so detailed and the people look like toys walking across the bridge. Regular 5-perf 65mm scenes are harder, not sure how Chris Nolan had these cropped but if they are indeed cropped to 2.40:1 which is likely then they will be a 2.40:1 frame with no anamorphic artifacts what so ever as Chris Nolan didn't use Super35 or anamorphic 65mm, if they are cropped to 1.78:1 then it might be harder but the shallower DoF is a nice hint)

[acearchie]

Originally Posted by ChrisA

The larger sensor really DOES have some advantages. However you can continue this line of reasoning and then want to move to the Hasselblad system. At some point you run out of money. For most people that means they use a cell phone camera with its tiny sensor.

Funnily enough I actually use a Hasselblad as my other main camera. I love the look from it but being a film camera it's expensive and difficult to monitor and as a challenge to myself I only allow 1 shot of each subject/setup so therefore if I have missed the shot I have missed the shot.

It has really helped me with my digital shooting as I now make sure that I want to take the picture and have all the settings setup before starting to shoot.

Originally Posted by nateo200

I can blow up HD video to 2K or even 3K VERY clean if I keep the ISO's down nice.

Go shoot some 645/6x6 next to some 35mm and you'll see the difference...larger sensors just have this "grand" feeling to them...for me a full frame DSLR with video is like VistaVision around my neck. I love the shallow DoF and regardless of what settings you use it has a certain feel that a crop body lacks in sometimes a large but sometimes a very small way. Still 36x24 is something I value allot...when I take a portrait of someone I want it to be the most detailed thing possible and a large sensor plate really helps with that.

Not exactly sure why you would blow HD footage up to 3K. There just isn't really any point!

I shoot 6x6 as my other camera and the extra detail and shallower depth of field is really nice. The square format really works for my shots as well. I think that I would definitely appreciate the shallower DOF and low light capabilities of the FF sensor but it's whether I can find the extra for the 5diii and whether I really need it.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by VirtualRain

Last but not least, be careful how you export and what hosting service you use. I found a noticable difference in JPEG image quality between Flickr, Smugmug, Zenfolio, and Facebook for example. You don't want to go to all this trouble to get amazing sharp images only to have them pixelated by your hosting service.

Just as an aside, would you mind briefly elaborating on this VR? Not bothered about Flickr or FB but I'm looking at some of these sites at the moment and would appreciate it if you could share your thoughts.