06-27-2016, 08:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2016, 09:25 AM by Brightcolours.)
Tony, Arthur already has a 70D, so probably is not looking to get equivalent lenses for FF, rather looking for something that adds to what his APS-C camera already can do.
And yes, there is no 29-216mm f5.6-9 IS STM lens for FF. There are 28-200mm lenses and 28-300mm lenses for FF, but anyway, not a reason to get a FF camera. The equivalent for the 17-55mm f2.8 APS-C lens would be a 27-88mm f4.5 lens on FF. Lenses enough to meet those criteria: Canon EF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM, Canon 24-70mm f4 L IS USM, Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC USD. But again, that is beside the point (the point being that Arhur already has an APS-C camera, so can use a 17-55mm or a 18-135mm APS-C lens, if he wants to, regardless of whether he gets a FF body next to it, or not.
Lenses like the Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM, Tamron 85mm f1.8 VC USD, Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 SL II, Zeiss Milvus 85mm f1.4, Canon EF 135mm f2.8 SF, Nikkor-H•C 85mm f1.8, Zeiss 135mm f2, the many 135mm f2.8 manual focus lenses from the past, even my 55mm f1.2's, Canon 200mm f2.8 L USM II, Canon 200mm f2 L IS USM, Laowa 105mm f2 STF, and so on and so on, all make FF very worthwhile for portraits.
In fact, if there is any area where FF is for sure good choice, it must be portrait photography. Even with cheap or old lenses.
I have full frame lenses more than capable of portraits.
Actually the thing that is pushing me towards full frame is pixel density. The DLA for the 70D is f/6.6. Since I do a lot of outdoor photography often f/8 or higher is my preference. Also macros are nice to do at f/11 or f/16 with a flash. The DLA for the 6D is f/10.5 which is a lot more versatile. Another aspect about pixel density, may just be my own perception. But looking at sample photos comparing higher density APS-C sensors, for instance Pentax K-5 vs. the newer higher pixel density K-3, I pretty much liked the K-5 better. And understand the photo comparisons were intended to show the advantage of the K-3, not the K-5. It's made me wonder if improvements we attribute to higher pixel count are not simply image processor advances, and focus system advances.
That said, the 70D image quality is good...but not always consistent. Especially with exposure. The same exact shot can vary too much in exposure. I expect autofocus and exposure might be better handled with the full frame 6D.
I also like the smaller D70 for travel. So basically I'm after more versatile, more consistent, and better overall IQ if I go to the 6D.
If your're stopping down for more depth of field F/6.6 on APC is pretty much the same as f/10.5 on FF...
with regards to pixel size I have noted that many reviews of lower resolution cameras get very positive reviews (eg sony A7s @ 12Mpix) with regards image quality, however people tend to get hung up on absolute resolution figures so cameras with higher density sensors seem to win out with image quality.
Have you considered left field choices such as Sigma DP3 quattro? By all accounts the image quality is stunning at low iso.
06-28-2016, 10:20 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2016, 10:23 AM by Brightcolours.)
Quote:I have full frame lenses more than capable of portraits.
Actually the thing that is pushing me towards full frame is pixel density. The DLA for the 70D is f/6.6. Since I do a lot of outdoor photography often f/8 or higher is my preference. Also macros are nice to do at f/11 or f/16 with a flash. The DLA for the 6D is f/10.5 which is a lot more versatile. Another aspect about pixel density, may just be my own perception. But looking at sample photos comparing higher density APS-C sensors, for instance Pentax K-5 vs. the newer higher pixel density K-3, I pretty much liked the K-5 better. And understand the photo comparisons were intended to show the advantage of the K-3, not the K-5. It's made me wonder if improvements we attribute to higher pixel count are not simply image processor advances, and focus system advances.
That said, the 70D image quality is good...but not always consistent. Especially with exposure. The same exact shot can vary too much in exposure. I expect autofocus and exposure might be better handled with the full frame 6D.
I also like the smaller D70 for travel. So basically I'm after more versatile, more consistent, and better overall IQ if I go to the 6D.
You use f8 for a purpose, right? And that purpose then being a larger DOF? To get the same DOF, you need to stop the FF camera down to f11.
You will get the same results, also regarding pixel density in relation to IQ/diffraction softening and light gathering. So that is not a good reason to go FF, since you'd get the same results. Same goes for your macro case... Same DOF on FF means stopping down more.
Also, APS-C 1:1 gives a bigger enlargement of the subject in print than FF (due to the crop factor), so max. magnification of the subject in the photo is an advantage for APS-C.
About exposure: Cameras can only guess. The 70D measures for a mid tone (or rather: it assumes a mid tone under the metering area) when using partial, spot or central weighted metering. Varying the brightness of what is under the metered area will vary the exposure. Evaluative metering tries to take an educated guess of what the scene might be like, while placing more weight on the area under the used focus point, which it assumes will be the main subject.
The 6D has the same metering modes and methodology,d will not offer much different results either.
In my opinion, the only real FF advantage is the possibility to use more shallow DOF.
On the Sigma cameras, I do not like the AA-less aliasing generator it is. Also the standard too saturated colours with colour shifts in the hues and the extremely low DR, and the overall quirkiness would make me avoid them.
You first have to get clear what you like about the photos that make you think FF. Is it the photographer's skill, is it a DOF you can't get with APS-C, is it the art of post processing which makes the results more appealing, or is it the lens used?
First of all, thanks for pointing out some very valid points. I even decided to get a lens or two before diving in.
I have a few lenses that I think can get the job done. But mostly they may not be the top level lenses I would love to have. I think it would be good to see how the perform on a full frame camera, though. I have EF 50mm f/1.8, Vivitar AF 100mm f/3.5 Macro, Tamron AF SP 180mm f/3.5 Macro, EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS**, and EF 70-200 f/4 L USM IS***
**Perhaps not super fast, but it seems like a good performer. I picked it up for $40, and was pleasantly surprised.
***On order, express delivery. I like the size and the price much better than the f/2.8 version.
I don't plan on doing a ton of portraits, but my impression is that the IQ improvement is in the format, not the lens, meaning (and I could be wrong) a portrait taken with the EF 70-200 f/4 L @ 100mm taken with the 70D will not be able to compare to the same lens with the 6D at 160mm. I may be totally wrong about this, but it is just a new thing I'd like to explore.
No way would I say the 70D is letting me down. I've taken portraits with the EF-s 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro and they are very decent. I also recently bought the EF-s 10-18mm. It is an awesome lens and almost satisfies the need for wide angle shots. I though it would quench that thirst, but instead it makes me want to see how it stacks up to my antiquated Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 Adaptall-2 lens. And sort of makes me want to look at the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 on the 6D.
There is a thing that interests me. Mostly because new lenses are so expensive, and when I started photography ten years ago it was easy to get good results with MF lenses, I bought up quite a few old MF lenses when I came across them and the were cheap or free. I have to say I can no longer get consistent results with them. But occasionally the results are outstanding. I suspect that the 70D is much more dependent on whatever electronic data modern lenses provide. Or...Can a full frame do a better job with handling exposure consistently? If not, it pretty much marks the end of a long era of getting unique abilities of old Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Tamron Adaptall-2, Sigma, and miscellaneous other old legacy lenses. Honestly the results always were inconsistent, but for a three year period I used the MF Tamron Adaptall-2 35-80mm f/2.8-3.8 Macro because it was better than the two kit lenses that came with my T1i. And unlike many people I think very highly of the two kit lenses. Even more so of the STM versions that came with the 70D.
Maybe the quality of the MF lenses doesn't stand up to the higher resolution sensor, or maybe I have lost the touch. It would be interesting to see. Despite the fact that people don't talk about it, I have to believe that the larger image circle of the 35mm lenses must cause a lot of problems due to stray light bouncing around, probably lowering contrast.
So, you see, I have a lot of curiosity about the 35mm format. And I don't think they can be settled without having two comparable quality DSLR's. I might end up hating the 6D because of my leanings towards Macro and Telephoto work. But 10 years of wondering can drive a person crazy!
From what I read the problem is not surely in the camera body.
You don't need extreme sharpness for portraits but I don't know how you can live with manual focus and portraits, you have a thin depth of field plus moving subject, not the ideal combo.
70-200f4 can be an acceptable performer but you have also the 60mm f2.8 macro that should do the job
I suggest you start shooting RAW and work on the lighting: reflectors, flashes, gray card for white balance, in portraits a white balance that is off and harsh shadows can be truly toxic.
Now about the sensor, my 50mm f1.4 shines on crop cameras for portraits while I don't like using it on 5D, however my 100mm macro is absolutely wonderful on my 5D while it is too long on crop cameras.
which pictures do I prefer 750D plus 50f1.4 or 5D plus 100mmf2.8 ?? really hard to say, both are great. my advice forget about the camera get a reflector, a flash, a grey card and start experimenting, you will discover very wonderful side of photography you were missing.
For portraits priority is lighting them come all others, anyway photo=light graph=painting/drawing so photography is just about painting with the light
I have to agree, great portraits look great generally due to great lighting. Any camera can produce great results.
Maybe head over to strobist.com and read the 101 section. A basic light setup is pretty cheap.
The 70D should behave like any (older or newer) Canon DSLR, even with manual focus lenses. And like the 6D. Only with live view metering with "unknown" lenses (without aperture value), some cameras mess up where others get "correct" exposures (in manual exposure mode). My EOS M messes things up, my 6D gets exposure and exposure simulation right.
But with cameras that mess that up, set the camera in Av mode and things work like they should.
I use old manual focus lenses and because of the big apertures I like, I put a Canon Eg-S Super Precision focus screen in my 6D. It helps with judging if the image is in focus. With small aperture lenses, however, the image gets much more darkened than with the standard focus screen (like when I use my Tamron SP 500mm f8).
If you shoot at 160mm f4 on FF, and at 100mm f4 on APS-C, the FF shot will be shot with a larger aperture size. So, you get less DOF and more blur. Because you are not using equivalent f-stops. If you however shoot the FF image with f4 x 1.6 = 6.4 (so f6.3), you will get very similar images.
Man, I feel like an idiot. I kept thinking my posts were lost because the link I got transferred me to page one! So there are a lot of points that I did not see or address. And yes, I went off on some tangents responding to older posts, and so on. Sorry!
I don't know where to start, so I'll try to go back and respond to the comments and suggestions.
-Actually, I don't mind hearing about the EF-s lenses because my idea was to maintain both systems. In fact I did look at the EF-s 18-135mm, and I must say I was very surprised by the reviews. Reason being the 18-55mm kit lens (I have 3 versions of it) have actually always been highly valued by me. Some of my favorite reviewers have heaped praise on them. So...I would have assumed the 18-55mm, 55-250 IS STM combination would be superior. All I can say is, it is surprising, though I don't think I can betray my trusty two STM kit lenses. Still, very interesting reading.
-My point about stopping down is not connected with portraiture, although there are times (shooting vacation trip shots outdoors) was sort of a separate issue. Most of my Macros are shot with a ring light at F/11 or some other higher value. If not ring light, then sometimes a camera mounted Speedlite, or built-in flash. Not always. Sometimes I use ambient light, or LED lights. But I am wondering if I might be suffering some diffraction as a result.
The other issue, is simply outdoor photography in California in the summer...LOL I set the ISO to 100 set, say, an Olympus OM 50mm f/1.8 to F/8, and ...hold on (it's 6:00pm) ...I had to use a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 because the mount for the Olympus is on some other lens, but the Olympus is much brighter, don't ask me why. Anyway, cool day, 6pm and at f/8 I'm at 1/2000th for speed. Last weekend I had to set the Oly to f/11 to be able to shoot anything!
Thirdly, and maybe I am over explaining (?) but most of my sometimes loved, sometimes hated legacy lenses really aren't sharp until f/8, so unless I purposely want a soft of shallow photo I "feel" forces to shoot at f/8 or f/11 where some lenses that are useless wide open become light sabers!
I have to go for a while, but wanted to say your comments have really helped me think about what I am after. Image quality is an illusive thing, and somebody said in another post maybe they have to get the mirrorless M3 just to get the very sweet sounding 28mm Macro. To whoever said that...I like the way you think! For ten long years I have been doing things the cheap way. (That was a Yongnuo ring light by the way). And now I just feel like pushing the limits forward a little. I've taken some good pictures with good lenses on good cameras. But I'd like to raise my own bar just a bit (a lot if I'm lucky). So I've set my sights on a few new tools. The first were pretty painless. The remaining ones such as the 6D are harder for me to be sure about.
I am "manually multiquoting" to a brightcolors post (I don't want to figure out how the MultiQuote button functions).
"But with cameras that mess that up, set the camera in Av mode and things work like they should."
-Actually AV is the mode that I almost exclusively shoot in. I thought about using a focus screen, but reviews of them have not been all that good. Maybe this has improved?
"(like when I use my Tamron SP 500mm f8)."
-Yay! This probably the one manual focus lens I would keep if I could only keep one. You can complain about what it cannot do, but what it can do is be worn on a case on my belt when I am somewhere with the possibility of wildlife in the distance. Lately I don't get the same results with it, but at worst it is like having a portable telescope!
"If you shoot at 160mm f4 on FF, and at 100mm f4 on APS-C, the FF shot will be shot with a larger aperture size."
-BC, I am confused about this statement. And I'm not attempting to argue with you, because I know from your posts that I have read that you know MUCH more than I do, and have experience with FF that I have never had. But that said, I don't understand why I would have to shoot at f/6.3. Wait maybe I do get it. A shorter depth of field when for 160mm than for 100mm focal lengths. I did not know you could calculate the effect by using the crop factor.
...But if I move closer to frame the photo the same, instead of changing the focal length, so that they are both shot at 100mm, it would still be the same result for the same f-stop, f/4. I would be closer so I would have less depth of field, and to get the equivalent depth of field I would have to increase the f-stop? To f/6.3? Or end up with a shallow depth of field?
Either way that is kind of what I am after. The choice of a shallow depth of field, or the ability to stop down without suffering a diffraction softening.
But my main premise is not about blurring, it is that the 20 MP sensor of a FF, will produce a much higher resolution photo than a 20 MP sensor on an APS-C. That it will have greater dynamic range, smoother color transitions, and less high ISO noise. I do worry about the fact that it is more appropriate for what I think of as "boring distances" - Not macro or telephoto. But I have some suspicion that macros will be better too. I have to admit I am worried, Brightcolours, about your lack of enthusiasm, since a long time ago I thought I remembered you posting, "...I recently upgraded to a 6D", and now it sounds like you are saying, "I recently upgraded to APS-C!"
I read the other posts too, but have to try to understand before I respond, but again, I think I am getting closer to where my dissatisfaction lies, and may have altered my course some as a result.
|
