Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    19

    Default Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    Hi masters,

    Currently I am using Canon 100D + Tamron 17-50 (A16), thinking whether upgrading to 6D+24-105 will improve image quality significantly?
    Let's say we are working in low-ISO environment (so forge 6D's edge on high ISO first).

    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    3,443

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    If you will be working with mainly low ISO of 100-400, I don't think you will see that much of the difference. Full Frame advantage comes in mainly at ISO above 1600 where the noise starts to get bad and dynamic range of crop sensors starts to drop faster than on FF.

    What would you be expecting the upgrades will be giving you in terms of image quality?
    Too many great equipments but too little quality photos. [My Flickr] | [My Blog]

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    19

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    Thanks for the reply.
    I mainly hope: pictures to be sharper, color to be more vivid etc.
    I work with ISO 1600 quite a lot (almost for all my indoors), and for outdoor I use <400 ISO.

    Here are some pics I shoot last weekend, at https://www.flickr.com/photos/113241...7646159473162/
    Using 100D + Tamron 17-50 + 430ex II
    Do you think there will be much room to improve if using 6D?

    Thanks again.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyStrike View Post
    If you will be working with mainly low ISO of 100-400, I don't think you will see that much of the difference. Full Frame advantage comes in mainly at ISO above 1600 where the noise starts to get bad and dynamic range of crop sensors starts to drop faster than on FF.

    What would you be expecting the upgrades will be giving you in terms of image quality?

  4. #4

    Default

    IMHO, current crop sensors won't have difficulties going to 1600 or even 3200. Especially if you are working with flash. But again, it depends on your standard as well.

    You might also like the thinner DOF and the fact that lenses "stay true to their focal length" instead of multiplied by the crop factor (i dunno what's the correct term for that). Some will also say brighter viewfinder.

    I personally chose full frame body because I like to use vintage 35mm & 50mm-ish lenses.
    Last edited by SilentSeth; 4th August 2014 at 09:31 PM.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?


  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    19

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    Thanks. Good video, which is appealing.
    Seems I should stick to my 100D.

    Quote Originally Posted by pinholecam View Post

  7. #7

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by gpliu3 View Post
    Thanks. Good video, which is appealing.
    Seems I should stick to my 100D.
    I was half joking with that link, though that video does have some good points.


    IMO, low ISO, landscape type stuff, really no big diff, even studio portraits (which are stopped down)
    A lot of the so called advantages of FF was in the past and aps-c has caught up to the point where in real world usage, the difference is very small.
    1. Wide lenses - the widest on FF is 12mm. The widest on aps-c is 12mm (eq) (Sigma 8-16)
    2. Dynamic Range - very close (and HDR, exposure blending is usually used beyond that anyway)

    Even high ISO advantage is practically at a point of little difference.
    ISO6400 and a f1.4-2.8 lens covers most real would use where there is some light, be it spill off a street lamp or a dining room.
    Beyond that, light is generally flat, so the chance for a real good photo is low anyway.
    Dynamic range is also limited if its dark. (We'd like to see things that are dark be dark, and not exposed to grey. )
    There is a difference of course, but to me, not that big a deal.
    They all look noise reduced to me anyway at 3200, 6400 (aps-c of FF ), so better to just see them at normal viewing sizes than pixel peep.


    Where I still see a difference is the DOF for the same FOV and working distance for the same FOV on FF. (which is why I use one in addition to my aps-c and compact camera)
    Last edited by pinholecam; 4th August 2014 at 10:09 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member shierwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    3,334

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    This stickie here in Newbies Corner may be of help if you have not read it.........

    http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=916732

  9. #9

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by gpliu3 View Post
    Thanks for the reply.
    I mainly hope: pictures to be sharper, color to be more vivid etc.
    I work with ISO 1600 quite a lot (almost for all my indoors), and for outdoor I use <400 ISO.

    Here are some pics I shoot last weekend, at https://www.flickr.com/photos/113241...7646159473162/
    Using 100D + Tamron 17-50 + 430ex II
    Do you think there will be much room to improve if using 6D?

    Thanks again.

    ISO 1600 on APSC is quite high.
    if u are using this ISO range its better to get FF.
    APSC better below ISO 400.

  10. #10
    Senior Member alwaysjerricky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    +65
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turbonetics View Post
    ISO 1600 on APSC is quite high. if u are using this ISO range its better to get FF. APSC better below ISO 400.
    Hmm depends on which APSC camera you are using too.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    There period where had used both Canon 5Dmk3 and 7D on same event, can't notice much different when viewing the picture. Unless try to pixel peek, or at higher iso the pictures from the older 7D has much more noise compare to the newer 5Dmk3. Most of time I try not to go beyong iso 1600 on my 7D .Unless really no choice will go beyond that (eg can't use flash), sometime it better to have that bit noisy shot then no (or blurry) shot at that moment.
    Had also shot at iso 1600/3200 on a m4/3 camera before.

  12. #12
    Senior Member SilverPine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,539

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    When I upgrade from from Canon 40D to 5DII, the major improvement are the noise control at high ISO, narrow DOF, improvement in the dynamic range when you twist the RGB curve you will notice it.
    Canon 5D II, 20-35 f/2.8L, 28-80 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L IS, 100-300 f/5.6L, 100 f/2.8 Macro

  13. #13
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,390

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by gpliu3 View Post
    I mainly hope: pictures to be sharper, color to be more vivid etc.
    Sharpness: it's a question of technique to avoid motion blur. Sharpness as image parameter is best handled in post processing where you can do fine tuning.
    Vividness: a slider in post-production.
    The Canon software tool is quite capable and you paid already for it. Adobe Lightroom costs far less than a new camera or lens. Have your explored these options?
    EOS

  14. #14

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by gpliu3 View Post
    Thanks for the reply.
    I mainly hope: pictures to be sharper, color to be more vivid etc.
    I work with ISO 1600 quite a lot (almost for all my indoors), and for outdoor I use <400 ISO.

    Here are some pics I shoot last weekend, at https://www.flickr.com/photos/113241...7646159473162/
    Using 100D + Tamron 17-50 + 430ex II
    Do you think there will be much room to improve if using 6D?

    Thanks again.
    Those are pretty good shots, imo.
    ISO1600 to get the ambient and a bounced flash to light up the subjects with soft light.
    As you can see, in many practical use (ie. environments where we shoot 'normally' like the function room in your shots); its ISO1600, 3200 or at worse 6400);
    Often we'd also fire off a bounced flash for better shaping and lighting of the subject.(unless we can't)


    With 6D, of course you will get a bit better ISO1600.
    Here is a link to DPReview's Canon 100D comparator page.
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...d-rebel-sl1/11
    You can play with that vs 6D to see the difference.
    Strangely, seems like at 1600 there is more smoothing in the 6D file and more details in the 100D one, thought the 100D file is nosier.

  15. #15
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    To improve your shots, you need to know where you shoot your subjects, many of your shots are shooting the people standing under the down light, there are distinct yellow cast on the people, beside, the skin tone are too yellowish overall.

    IMO, most people care about event photos is whether you able to get the photos, are they look good and happy in photos? so shooting with full frame won't gain much benefits, maybe it will make your set up looks more pros. beside, how many people will print any photos larger the 4R? anyway, people don't print photos nowadays, photos mostly end up in facebook, and they don't pixel-peek like photographers do.

    agree with Mod Octarine, work on your post processing, you will get better results with a lower cost.
    Last edited by catchlights; 5th August 2014 at 07:35 AM.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  16. #16
    Moderator nitewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,628
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gpliu3 View Post
    Thanks for the reply. I mainly hope: pictures to be sharper, color to be more vivid etc. I work with ISO 1600 quite a lot (almost for all my indoors), and for outdoor I use <400 ISO. Here are some pics I shoot last weekend, at https://www.flickr.com/photos/113241...7646159473162/ Using 100D + Tamron 17-50 + 430ex II Do you think there will be much room to improve if using 6D? Thanks again.
    You can try working with your current setup then denoise. One problem with mirrored FF is the weight. As for sharpness, the right handholding and settings will help. True that some lenses gives better sharpness but 17-50 is no slouch either. So just select a fast enough shutter speed while properly exposing the shot and you should be fine!

  17. #17

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by pinholecam View Post
    Those are pretty good shots, imo.
    ISO1600 to get the ambient and a bounced flash to light up the subjects with soft light.
    As you can see, in many practical use (ie. environments where we shoot 'normally' like the function room in your shots); its ISO1600, 3200 or at worse 6400);
    Often we'd also fire off a bounced flash for better shaping and lighting of the subject.(unless we can't)


    With 6D, of course you will get a bit better ISO1600.
    Here is a link to DPReview's Canon 100D comparator page.
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...d-rebel-sl1/11
    You can play with that vs 6D to see the difference.
    Strangely, seems like at 1600 there is more smoothing in the 6D file and more details in the 100D one, thought the 100D file is nosier.
    I guess the photo was cropped minimally or none at all so the noise is not obvious.
    it is definitely acceptable if u don't pixel peep or do bigger prints,but for true IQ it is always better to shoot at lower ISO.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by nitewalk View Post
    You can try working with your current setup then denoise. One problem with mirrored FF is the weight. As for sharpness, the right handholding and settings will help. True that some lenses gives better sharpness but 17-50 is no slouch either. So just select a fast enough shutter speed while properly exposing the shot and you should be fine!
    i heard many people saying and telling me to denoise in PP.
    I tried it and and my overall image and subject becomes softer.
    iam not very good in PP so was wondering is it my PP skill?
    and i heard some of them use PS to seperate the subject from the background and denoise the background to make it looks clean?
    Last edited by Turbonetics; 5th August 2014 at 09:07 AM.

  19. #19
    Moderator nitewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,628
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turbonetics View Post
    i heard many people saying and telling me to denoise in PP. I tried it and and my overall image and subject becomes softer. iam not very good in PP so was wondering is it my PP skill? and i heard some of them use PS to seperate the subject from the background and denoise the background to make it looks clean?
    Depends on what denoising technique and software i guess? I'm not too good on this to give you specific info. But i think in the process of denoising some of the details would be gone.

  20. #20
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    3,443

    Default Re: Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by gpliu3 View Post
    Thanks for the reply.
    I mainly hope: pictures to be sharper, color to be more vivid etc.
    I work with ISO 1600 quite a lot (almost for all my indoors), and for outdoor I use <400 ISO.

    Here are some pics I shoot last weekend, at https://www.flickr.com/photos/113241...7646159473162/
    Using 100D + Tamron 17-50 + 430ex II
    Do you think there will be much room to improve if using 6D?

    Thanks again.
    Your images looks pretty good to me.. If they are to be used for social media usage or small prints, I don't think there will be an issue here.

    As for sharpness and vibrancy, you can try adjusting it during post processing as others mentioned. btw, Tamron 17-50 is actually quite a sharp lens.

    The advantage of the 6D over your current will mostly be the noise handling where FF will definitely be better if you look at every images at 100%. But on a practical note, I think crop sensors + good noise reduction software will be good enough for most usage. *They will all look the same if you are uploading it to Facebook size. At that size, FF, Crop, m43 no diff to me..*

    Do also note that there's a "drawback" for FF. The shallow DOF. the f2.8 on crop and FF is different. So for some of the group shots you have in the link, it may determine if the fellow 10cm away from the person nearer to the camera will be in focus or not. So for a crop, f3.2, it will be a f4.5 which you will either increase your ISO or flash power to compensate for it.

    *Personally, for indoor events, going ISO1600 + flash is pretty norm for me, don't worry about that too much. If my 500D can handle it, I don't think yours will cause you problems.

    And Mod Catchlights definitely nailed it about the needs of the clients and moments.
    Too many great equipments but too little quality photos. [My Flickr] | [My Blog]

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •