Upgraded from an XSi (450D) to a 5D Mark II. Thoughts and pics. (corrected)

[Ish]

I lost a lens cap, too. It fell into a tiger enclosure... They can keep it...

Dale

LOL!! Love this. Wish I'd been there! I knew they must have put video capture on the dSLR for a reason

Now you've had the camera a bit longer I was wondering whether you had any real world differences between the cameras? Also you have you done any more pushing it to the ISO low light extremes?

When my next student loan comes in hopefully canon will have announced a 5Diii and depending on the body only price it will be that or hunting eBay and gumtree for a 5Dii.

I don't really have a camera at the moment (only a Hasselblad film camera) so I am really looking for something that works really well in low light where the film just can't keep up.

Also I am studying film at university and with a 5D I would probably be able to make improvements to some videos I am making on DLSR's like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJwcreczL4A

A question on depth of field. I realise that full frame is said to have shallower depth of field but is that due to the wider angle? For example if you where using a 50mm lens on a crop and FF and framed them the same the FF would have a shallow depth of field because you would have to be physically closer and I think depth of field follows the inverse square law? Or is it something completely different?

Cheers!

Depth of field: I haven't noticed anything like this, but to be honest, I haven't been out an awful lot yet. It's a case of chance would be a fine thing! Suggest you have a look at the reviews of the two cameras on DPReview. They go into a lot of fine detail on their tests under controlled conditions which you might find useful.

Whichever camera you go for, you're not going to be disappointed. Shooting video doesn't really interest me so I haven't even looked at that side of the camera. I decided not to bother waiting for a 5DIII. By the time they introduce it, iron the bugs out of it and I wait for the price to drop, I could have months and months of using a great camera like the 5DII.

At this size, the differences will be minimal, you need to evaluate large prints or extreme crops to see any real differences. That's why output matters and those espousing the benefits of extreme resolution are normally spouting wishful thinking. For 90% the shots fir 90% of the people, the differences are minimal and processing will take care of at least 5% of what's left.

Personally, I don't see much saturation difference, I see exposure differences, which are either an effect of the meter or the larger amount of light in the slightly larger field of view of the FX sensor and some contrast differences, which could be moot if these were shot in raw and converted as raw converters tend to do different things for different imaging sensors.

Paul

I've only been using jpg's for these shots. Even at jpg the file size on the 5DII is too large to upload and I'm having to resize the pictures first. I have a free account at ImageShack which I opened to share photos with this forum and the individual size limitation is smaller than the file size. This is a new problem that I didn't have with the 450D. I'll have to decide what to do about it.

Awesome. The low light differences are stunning which is not surprising. It's one of the obvious benefits of the 5DMII. I've been thinking of moving to FF and this is not helping!

Enjoy your new kit, and hope to see some of your work with this setup in the POTD thread!

EDIT: You mentioned your discontent with the supplied strap... I recently replaced my strap with the Canon L6 strap (it comes with the 1Ds)... it's much nicer than the standard strap, doesn't have the camera model embroidery, but does have nice red racing stripes! Got mine off ebay. However, even this might seem pretentious.

That's okay, it's all your fault anyway! (Just kidding!) I was very impressed with the quality you were getting from your 17-55 compared with what you had before and decided I would upgrade my lens when I could. The rest you know!

The low light capabilities of the 7D are pretty good, as shown in your thread. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the two.

Thanks for the info about the strap. I think what I might do first is use the small Domke bag which I'll pick up from the person who's got it for me in a couple of weeks, and just use a wrist strap for security. See how it goes.


I'll know I've finally got this camera mastered when I find the pop-up flash button.

 

[acearchie]

I'll know I've finally got this camera mastered when I find the pop-up flash button.

Dont joke! My friend at uni who bought one of these out of the blue was struggling for days to find it! Didn't have the heart to tell him so he's probably still looking!

 

[Designer Dale]

////
I've only been using jpg's for these shots. Even at jpg the file size on the 5DII is too large to upload and I'm having to resize the pictures first. I have a free account at ImageShack which I opened to share photos with this forum and the individual size limitation is smaller than the file size. This is a new problem that I didn't have with the 450D. I'll have to decide what to do about it.///

The average raw files on my 450 are 12MB. The 5D mkII will give 25 MB files, so yes, you will have size issues when posting to the Net. It is my belief that FF cameras are most useful for people who sell large prints and shoot full HD @ 30 fps. I can get an 8x10 300 dpi print from my crop body camera without Resampling in PhotoShop. When I posted the photo below to POTD, I had to knock it down to 1200x800 @ 96 dpi to fit on a screen without scrolling. I'm not knocking your purchase. If you want it, fine, but why do you need it?

Dale

 

[Cliff3]

The only time I upload a full resolution image to a gallery is if there is a reasonable likelihood it is going to be printed either by me or a potential customer. I was shooting club motorsport events in 2009 and part of 2010, and uploading the 200-300 keepers from the day's shoot as full resolution jpegs took forever. Otherwise I generally keep the photos I post to online galleries around 1024px on the long side, or less.

That has nothing to do with FF or crop sensor, it has everything to do with file size.

 

[VirtualRain]

It is my belief that FF cameras are most useful for people who sell large prints and shoot full HD @ 30 fps.

Dale

As the OP shows, I think one of the biggest advantages of FF is the low light capability. Almost anyone can benefit from that.

 

[Designer Dale]

As the OP shows, I think one of the biggest advantages of FF is the low light capability. Almost anyone can benefit from that.

Agreed. But 12000 is still a big jump from the range of the 450. It gets too noisy at 800. Where do photographers actually use 64000, anyway?

Dale

 

[Cliff3]

Agreed. But 12000 is still a big jump from the range of the 450. It gets too noisy at 800. Where do photographers actually use 64000, anyway?

Dale

Dunno about ISO64,000, but the photo in this post was shot at ISO6400 (D700 with 80-200 AF-S F2.8 at 105mm, f2.8 and 1/125). Generally speaking, it's effin' dark in that museum...

 

[VirtualRain]

Agreed. But 12000 is still a big jump from the range of the 450. It gets too noisy at 800. Where do photographers actually use 64000, anyway?

Dale

I was just looking at the ISO 6400 results... where night turns into day The high ISO images in post #1 look incredibly clean to me. If you're right about ISO 800 being the top for the 450, that's a good 3 stops of improvement here. It's also at least a stop better than my 7D, although I don't think my 7D looks that clean at 3200.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see what Canon can do with a 5DMKIII... if they can improve low light performance another stop and keep the price in the same ball-park, I'll have my 7D up on CL in a flash.

When you consider the cost of fast glass, high ISO performance is highly under valued IMHO.

 

[flosseR]

The bokeh question is actually not fully correct.

The bokeh wil be the same, you just have to crop the ff image to fit the crop image size.

I have shot both FF and crop a LOT.. and I just went back to crop because FF just is not anymore what it used to be... at least for people that don't make any money off it. Low light sure but even there, as Thom Hogan nicely stated, Crop is now nearly caught up with FF.

If you shoot a photo with a 50mm f1.4 on a FF and on a crop and then crop the FF shot to match the crop dimensions and FOV, i bet you would be hard pressed to notice any difference. This comes especially to play when you shoot at f1.8 or faster where the background becomes a wash of colors anyway...

Personally I think using bokeh as a justification to get a ff body is highly overrated...

Now when we talk wide angle.. yes FF is king with real 12mm lenses or the spectacular 14-24 AF-S .. but then again from what I have seen the tokina 11-16 is no slouch either...

 

[Ish]

The average raw files on my 450 are 12MB. The 5D mkII will give 25 MB files, so yes, you will have size issues when posting to the Net. It is my belief that FF cameras are most useful for people who sell large prints and shoot full HD @ 30 fps. I can get an 8x10 300 dpi print from my crop body camera without Resampling in PhotoShop. When I posted the photo below to POTD, I had to knock it down to 1200x800 @ 96 dpi to fit on a screen without scrolling. I'm not knocking your purchase. If you want it, fine, but why do you need it?

Dale

Unless you want the extra field of view, given a comparable performance with whatever you're comparing it to, you don't really need it just for posting on the web. By the time you've knocked the file size down, some of the advantages have been cancelled out. I'm not going to say it makes no difference at all, but that's not where it will really shine.

One of the other things I will use it for is shooting photos for exhibition backdrops where they get blown up to 2m x 2m. I think it will really help there.

I was just looking at the ISO 6400 results... where night turns into day The high ISO images in post #1 look incredibly clean to me. If you're right about ISO 800 being the top for the 450, that's a good 3 stops of improvement here. It's also at least a stop better than my 7D, although I don't think my 7D looks that clean at 3200.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see what Canon can do with a 5DMKIII... if they can improve low light performance another stop and keep the price in the same ball-park, I'll have my 7D up on CL in a flash.

When you consider the cost of fast glass, high ISO performance is highly under valued IMHO.

The top ISO on the 450D is 1600 but it's very noisy. It's amazing how far low light capabilities have improved in a very short time. The 6400 ISO is the highest on the 5DII but there are two ISO expansion settings which I haven't tried. Looking at the actual ISO figures that Paul posted though, the claimed numbers are way out.

I enjoy using natural light to take photos. I'm really looking forward to summer evenings again. Some people can take incredible photos using strobes but I haven't got that far yet. Just as well really, by the time I've sold the 450D and bought a tripod, anything more than the odd filter will have to wait a while!

 

[Designer Dale]

Dunno about ISO64,000, but the photo in this post was shot at ISO6400 (D700 with 80-200 AF-S F2.8 at 105mm, f2.8 and 1/125). Generally speaking, it's effin' dark in that museum...

I thought there was an off-camera light source in that photo. Great clarity.

///
Anyway, I'll be interested to see what Canon can do with a 5DMKIII... if they can improve low light performance another stop and keep the price in the same ball-park, I'll have my 7D up on CL in a flash.

When you consider the cost of fast glass, high ISO performance is highly under valued IMHO.

I'm in Tacoma. When you get to the point of selling, hit me up with a PM. We could meet at Peace Park.

///
One of the other things I will use it for is shooting photos for exhibition backdrops where they get blown up to 2m x 2m. I think it will really help there.

Huge prints is where all that extra detail will do you good. Enjoy your camera.

Dale

 

[Full of Win]

Low light sure but even there, as Thom Hogan nicely stated, Crop is now nearly caught up with FF.

I have yet to see a comparison of similar generations of Full Frame vs. Crop Frame cameras, where the full frame is not, at least, 1 to 2 stops better in high ISO performance. I just don't think they have caught up yet, at least when I process raw files from the cameras.

 

[Eaton Photos]

It is my belief that FF cameras are most useful for people who sell large prints and shoot full HD @ 30 fps. I can get an 8x10 300 dpi print from my crop body camera without Resampling in PhotoShop.

What does FF have to do with selling large prints. Your perception regarding FF is majorly mis-guided. All variables aside, a knowledgeable shooter can shoot a Landscape with a 4MP 1D, and blow it up to 24X36, and you wouldn't be able to tell that it was shot with a 1D, unless you were standing 12 inches away from it. Pixels are not everything. DOF & ISO are the more important variables when it comes to FF vs. Crop.

When it comes to printing, DPI has nothing to do with output/ printing, and does not matter, it is just a number. DPI, should not to be confused with PPI. PPI dictates output/ detail when printing.

Regarding ISO, FF will give you better/ cleaner resulting images (1 to 2 Stops Difference) at the higher ISO's, compared to a 1.6 Crop Body. When I am shooting in Low Light/ HS Sports, I am constantly using ISO 5000 or 6400, & sometimes even up to 12800. However, one must nail the exposure properly, or noise will show its ugly head.

 

[Designer Dale]

I'm a bit lost with your second paragraph. Pixels are electronic things. They exist on sensors and computer monitors. You can't print a pixel. Printers use dots to create an image. More dots means a sharper print image. 300 dpi is standard for printing.

Dale

 

[OreoCookie]

I have yet to see a comparison of similar generations of Full Frame vs. Crop Frame cameras, where the full frame is not, at least, 1 to 2 stops better in high ISO performance. I just don't think they have caught up yet, at least when I process raw files from the cameras.

The laws of physics tell us that in principle larger sensors have advantages when it comes to noise and such. However, I think the question here is a bit different: to me, it's that you no longer need a full frame body to make high quality shots at ISO 3,200 or so. I have recently replaced a D80 with a D7000 and I must say it's a ginormeous step up in terms of image quality. Whether or not shots at ISO 6,400 are considered usable is, IMO a matter of personal taste. I haven't really field tested my camera, pushing it to its limits, but at least at ISO 3,200 the D7000 delivers perfectly usable and nice-looking shots. The noise looks very much like film grain and thus doesn't distract too much from the image.*

Previously, you had to have a full frame body to make certain shots, and now you probably don't. Of course, if you constantly have to use ISO 5,000+, then you're no longer in the standard demographic. On the other hand, just a generation ago or so (if you in the Canon camp), you couldn't use such high ISO values with full frame bodies either.

* From what I've seen, Canon's latest sensor which is found in, e. g. the 60D and the 600D are a similar step up in IQ compared to the previous generation sensor. I'm just mentioning Nikon bodies here, because I have personal experience with them.

 

[carlgo]

Do people stand back at galleries when viewing large prints? This is not my observation at all. It does depend on the subject matter.

But, since many FF shooters are also fans of prime lenses which often means cropping, and most DX shooter use zooms and don't have to crop, what is the normal net gain in resolution for FF?

 

[thatisme]

There may not be too many technical differences now days between crop and FF sensors since the technology is very mature at this point in the game. It used to be there were 2 main reasons for FF. A) Better light gathering abilities (many factors in this one) and B) the ability to get better use of wide angle lenses. B still is present, but A is becoming more and more irrelevant, as even smaller sensors can gather low light images with relatively low sensor noise. Is there still a difference? I would say probably, but it's not as noticeable.

Where I see a difference, and it is more a "feeling" than anything else, is that images produced from smaller sensors have more of a digital capture feel to them vs. those from a FF camera which tend to yield more film-like results. It's pretty noticeable in the OP's test shots (at least to my eye), where the XSi images just don't have that same natural smoothness to them as his/her 5DII images. Some of this difference is from the number of pixels in the sensor itself, as one may expect that the 21 MP image from the 5D has more "data" in the scene than the XSi's 12+ MP.

Each person has their own reasons and justifications for owning a FF camera. Who is to say their justification is not valid when most of the field of Photography is based on "Feel" and "Feelings"?

 

[flosseR]

well, about the comparison of Crop vs. FF.. one has to take into consideration that this is a 450D vs. a 5d mark 2... wouldn't it be better to compare a 7d vs a mark 2? I am just saying.. It would be the same to compare a high ISO shot from a Nikon D50 vs a D700..

dunno.. just saying...

 

[thatisme]

well, about the comparison of Crop vs. FF.. one has to take into consideration that this is a 450D vs. a 5d mark 2... wouldn't it be better to compare a 7d vs a mark 2? I am just saying.. It would be the same to compare a high ISO shot from a Nikon D50 vs a D700..

dunno.. just saying...

Absolutely... you would be comparing a newer sensor design (7D) to the older one in the 5Dm2, but still the current generation for each of the cameras... Im sure the ISO gap would be much more narrow if you compared against the 60D.

 

[Ish]

I'd love to see more camera comparisons. I just did those two because that's what I had. I'm afraid I'll be away for a week from tomorrow morning and might not get a chance to contribute to the discussion for a while.

Take care.
Ish

 

[acearchie]

* From what I've seen, Canon's latest sensor which is found in, e. g. the 60D and the 600D are a similar step up in IQ compared to the previous generation sensor. I'm just mentioning Nikon bodies here, because I have personal experience with them.

From what I have heard the sensor in the 600d is exactly the same as that in the 550d. Some reviewers have even complained that some of the low iso black noise issues are suffered by both models.

Trust my luck that after I have read this information it is no nowhere to be found online otherwise I would have referenced it here.

 

[firestarter]

well, about the comparison of Crop vs. FF.. one has to take into consideration that this is a 450D vs. a 5d mark 2... wouldn't it be better to compare a 7d vs a mark 2? I am just saying.. It would be the same to compare a high ISO shot from a Nikon D50 vs a D700..

dunno.. just saying...

I'm seeing less noise with my 5DII than my 550D (which has the same sensor as the 7D).

If you do the maths and compare sensor size, the 5DII sensor is 2.6 times the surface area of the 550D/600D/60D/7D cropped sensor. If you filled the FF sensor with the same density of pixels as the 18mpix 7D, the FF camera would be 46.8mpix!!

The 7D sensor is a newer generation, so probably makes better use of sensor area (fill factor), but 2.6x difference in basic sensor geometry is difficult to overcome. Physics is overwhelmingly in your favour on the larger chip.

I'm also seeing less sharpness on my 550D than my 5DII. The cropped sensor uses the innermost 'sweet spot' of lenses, but I do think that the tighter packed sensor reveals lens weakness, especially shooting wide open.

So, I'd say that I'm seeing both higher noise and reduced sharpness on the cropped sensor camera, even before taking the 21.1 vs 18mpix resolution into account (which really isn't that big a difference - 8% linear detail).