Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 13, 2019, 02:53:55 AM


Author Topic: dispelling the myth  (Read 29821 times)

Offline Fyrblade

  • Sr. Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 799
    • MAXXAM Originals
Re: dispelling the myth
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2014, 12:58:48 AM »
I was just involved in an argument on the Flickr Canon forum about crop vs full frame that got a little nasty.

I own one of each and like them both for their own reasons - one of which is that my crop is inexpensive and on the edge of being a throwaway.  Believe me, I consider that a big plus.

For me, it's difficult to make a sweeping statement.  There are arguments of bang for the buck, quality comparisons, usability for wildlife and so on. 

I think its fair to say that they both have their own benefits but yet, they are both close in quality.  I think to a great degree, it takes a very detail-oriented (ie pixel peeper) to see differences on the web - especially after shots have been treated and converted to JPG and resized.

I would boldly say that my best 5D Mark III shot would probably be bested by someone with any Crop if they have better PP skill than me, and believe me, that would be a fairly easy challenge.  In reality, more time educating myself in that department would probably bring a larger return than any hardware "upgrade".
_______________________________
http://www.maxxamoriginals.com

Offline Scott S

  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 420
Re: dispelling the myth
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2014, 10:24:32 PM »
1. You say one thing, and then contradict it. What are you actually trying to say? Megapixel count is worthless. It's the density and size of megapixels on the sensor you should be concerned with.

2. You made a mistake, and the client didn't notice. Good for you.

3. You obviously didn't read or understand a word I wrote. Your ego is running the show here.

4. The minor grain in the blacks was mainly exacerbated by my post processing. Because I like it. And basing your guess on grain? In a processed and web-compressed photo?  ::)  I'm done here.

well, I must say I'm surprised, I wasn't trying to upset you. either what I've said isn't making sense, or is offensive. I'm going to hope it's a simple misunderstanding. so I'll try one more time to clarify, then I'll have to move on as more will not likely be productive.

1 my point wasn't that the APS-C was better, or that more megapigels are in general. I was trying to show that I understand the post you made that more isn't always better, it matters the size and quality of those megapixels. for this reason Full frame will always have an advantage. my original post was to the effect that modern APS-C cameras have closed the gap to such a degree that for all but the most stringent pixel peeper, APS-C is now so good that, for the price, they are a fantastic deal. the "myth" I meant to dispel was that we should all aspire to a 5D and 24-70 L lens. a T5i, ir 70D with this new Sigma lens specs out as so close as to be hardly noticeable to the human eye. a quick google or flickr search will show images from one of these combinations.

2 I don't see how this is constructive at all. the customer was aware there were problems when I was shooting, and afterwards when I showed them the photos. you imply that I pulled a fast one and sold a crap product. it was a one time free shoot for a friends business. everyone involved was happy.

3 as to my ego. I put forth an observation, answered and defended my belief. read your statement again and see if it isn't the one full of ego driven put downs. you sought out to call names, imply I was incompetent, and critique I photo I simply put as an example of a photo shot at ISO 6400. I wasn't asking for a critique, I knew there was a problem, I told the customer at the time and again when I showed them. the point if you had cared to hear it was that to most people that photo was sellable.

4 why on earth would you post a heavily adjusted compressed photo, ask us to guess, and then get offended when we do? it's grainy in the dark areas, sorry it is. usually this is where full frame shines, so I assumed, apparently poorly, that this was from something with a smaller older sensor. in a way your photo proves my point all the more. you like the look of it even though it has that amount of grain. I am not wrong that I could achieve that very photo with my current setup.

Offline Scott S

  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 420
Re: dispelling the myth
« Reply #17 on: April 28, 2015, 06:14:36 PM »
I'm back! this time I'm ready though. I'm going to post two full size unadjusted photos taken at my small studio with my T5i the first is through my Sigma 17-50 2.8 and the other through my Tamron 28-75 2.8. both photos were shot in jpeg. I can't think of a much more economical setup. my question to you guys, and be fair and open minded about this, what if anything could I gain moving to a 5D and 24-70L? is a 5D better? yes, the 24-70? yes, but when is it overkill?
right click and open in a new tab to see them ful rez

here's the 17-50:



and the 28-75:

« Last Edit: April 28, 2015, 06:19:20 PM by Scott S »

Offline Fyrblade

  • Sr. Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 799
    • MAXXAM Originals
Re: dispelling the myth
« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2015, 08:14:51 PM »
It's the same ole question.. what's better, full frame vs crop.  For some applications, one might be preferable to the other.  The real answer from my experience and observations is that if you were to put the same money you'd spend on the 5D and lens kit into $2500 worth of photoshop training, you will be far, far ahead.

All cameras are great up to a point, but the mastery of the image comes in post.
_______________________________
http://www.maxxamoriginals.com

Offline Scott S

  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 420
Re: dispelling the myth
« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2015, 08:06:04 AM »
good point Fryblade. I agree, sometimes the best spent money has nothing to do with better equipment.
here is my priority list in order of importance.
1 eye. either you can see artistically or you can't. I don't think it's teachable.
2 technical ability. you have to know how to translate what you want into an image. (this is your post processing point)
3 a camera body with enough, and good enough features to get what you need.
4 a lens or two that supports your shooting needs.

so in conclusion, it is still my position that my T5i is accurate enough has high enough resolution, and has enough features for my shooting style. my Cheap Tamron 28-75 2.8 is sharp enough and has a good portrait range.

another little secret, this is the delivered crop of the above unretouched image. it's super heavily cropped and still high enough resolution to print any size I want without issue. consider that what you're looking at here is a 750x599 resize!

« Last Edit: May 01, 2015, 08:09:03 AM by Scott S »