Allan Jeffers
EF3
Well, I think I have decided on the camera... the 5DmkII. Now the other hard part, gathering the funds
5DmkII or 7D. Jeez this is tough
- Thread starter Allan Jeffers
- Start date
Mike Hollingshead
This post isn't a crack on the camera at all, far from it as I am loving the thing more and more. It's just what to expect on full frame from your lenses. More of a crack on the 17-40L and even 16-35L by the sounds of things. $750 and $1500 lenses respectively.
17mm at F9 full picture.
100% crop somewhere around the center. Plenty sharp without any real sharpening yet. Next will be the upper right corner which tells the tale of full frame.
Pretty damn pathetic. Again, no fault of the camera obviously. But that is from an L series canon that is stopped down to F9. On a crop camera none of that would be in frame, just the full frame getting further out on the lens image. I haven't tested much yet, just noticing this on shots I took. I am doubting things will improve much past F9.
What is sad is it sounds like the $1500 16-35L II performs just as bad in the corners. So much for wide angle zoom options lol. I was considering trading in the 17-40L for that with some extra money, but not after the reading around I've done. Not sure what the plan is now in that department. It won't matter on storms/clouds/sky except for any foreground objects in the lower corners.
Here is another shot with some crops.
Past those red lines it gets pretty useless in a hurry. I'd say it can be sharpened near them a bit, just past the lines into the crappy area. 17mm again at F9. I looked at one shot at 27mm and it didn't look any better out there.
The resolution kind of blows my mind. This one towards the center and look how small of an area that is on the full version. I never live view manual focused anything either. Sharpen that a hair and the detail on a print would be pretty crazy. Consider the above isn't the focus point, as that was more on the close tree. It's just F9 DOF out there, but yeah at 17mm though.
Toast in the corners though. It doesn't have to be a huge chunk of the image though.
Big enough it is annoying however.
So, go full frame, better do some lens research as this is a sharp as hell 17-40L that goes to hell fast in the corners on full frame, even stopped down. It sounds like the $1500 16-35L will perform essentially the same in this department. Guess it is time to look at prime wide angles.
On a crop camera, the image is inside that crap area of the lens. Which gives me some hope it might allow me to sell this one lol. Just wondering more and more how much I'll want to use it on full frame. Sucks. Wonder what ultra wide options there are for full frames that are sharp in the corner. Probably the $2200 14mm lol. Seems like everything else will be 20mm or greater. Can't believe the 16-35L can't do any better in corners either.
Full frame....making your L glass look like a kit lens...well sort of. If only the area were a hair smaller it wouldn't be an issue to me. I tried to size that first one up to 16x24 to see what a print might look like and that upper right corner jumped out at me.
Noise levels aside, I'm realizing how much this argues for a 7D instead of a 5D lol. I have very little doubt I'd have better images with a 10-22 EF-s on a 7D than what I got from this 17-40L on a 5D II. Not yet sure what lens routes will cure this knowledge lol. At least my 100-400L is seeming more full frame friendly than I was thinking at first. Cheap 50mm 1.8 seems decent enough in corners from what I can tell on my limited shots with it on the 5D II.
17mm at F9 full picture.
100% crop somewhere around the center. Plenty sharp without any real sharpening yet. Next will be the upper right corner which tells the tale of full frame.
Pretty damn pathetic. Again, no fault of the camera obviously. But that is from an L series canon that is stopped down to F9. On a crop camera none of that would be in frame, just the full frame getting further out on the lens image. I haven't tested much yet, just noticing this on shots I took. I am doubting things will improve much past F9.
What is sad is it sounds like the $1500 16-35L II performs just as bad in the corners. So much for wide angle zoom options lol. I was considering trading in the 17-40L for that with some extra money, but not after the reading around I've done. Not sure what the plan is now in that department. It won't matter on storms/clouds/sky except for any foreground objects in the lower corners.
Here is another shot with some crops.
Past those red lines it gets pretty useless in a hurry. I'd say it can be sharpened near them a bit, just past the lines into the crappy area. 17mm again at F9. I looked at one shot at 27mm and it didn't look any better out there.
The resolution kind of blows my mind. This one towards the center and look how small of an area that is on the full version. I never live view manual focused anything either. Sharpen that a hair and the detail on a print would be pretty crazy. Consider the above isn't the focus point, as that was more on the close tree. It's just F9 DOF out there, but yeah at 17mm though.
Toast in the corners though. It doesn't have to be a huge chunk of the image though.
Big enough it is annoying however.
So, go full frame, better do some lens research as this is a sharp as hell 17-40L that goes to hell fast in the corners on full frame, even stopped down. It sounds like the $1500 16-35L will perform essentially the same in this department. Guess it is time to look at prime wide angles.
On a crop camera, the image is inside that crap area of the lens. Which gives me some hope it might allow me to sell this one lol. Just wondering more and more how much I'll want to use it on full frame. Sucks. Wonder what ultra wide options there are for full frames that are sharp in the corner. Probably the $2200 14mm lol. Seems like everything else will be 20mm or greater. Can't believe the 16-35L can't do any better in corners either.
Full frame....making your L glass look like a kit lens...well sort of. If only the area were a hair smaller it wouldn't be an issue to me. I tried to size that first one up to 16x24 to see what a print might look like and that upper right corner jumped out at me.
Noise levels aside, I'm realizing how much this argues for a 7D instead of a 5D lol. I have very little doubt I'd have better images with a 10-22 EF-s on a 7D than what I got from this 17-40L on a 5D II. Not yet sure what lens routes will cure this knowledge lol. At least my 100-400L is seeming more full frame friendly than I was thinking at first. Cheap 50mm 1.8 seems decent enough in corners from what I can tell on my limited shots with it on the 5D II.
Last edited by a moderator:
Darren Addy
EF5
Mike has made a very salient point in all of this discussion. Thinking about fullframe vs APS-C cannot be separated from thinking about the lenses you will need to take advantage of that resolving power. Anyone who is having trouble paying for the difference between an APS-C body and a full frame body is going to have an especially hard time paying for the quality full frame lenses needed to take advantage of that resolving power. Even then, the full frame is going to show you (vividly) any weaknesses in your lenses' construction or optical design (that you would never have noticed or would have been cropped out on the smaller sensor). You'd be better off Image-Quality-wise and versatility (more lenses/focal lengths being covered) for the money with an APS-C body.
This discussion basically confirms what a 5d photographer in Pueblo, CO told me when I was there to buy his darkroom equipment in January. If you are simply thinking "FF > APS-C" you aren't considering the whole picture.
This discussion basically confirms what a 5d photographer in Pueblo, CO told me when I was there to buy his darkroom equipment in January. If you are simply thinking "FF > APS-C" you aren't considering the whole picture.
Mike Hollingshead
Yeah my short duration look around for a wide angle alternative that is sharp in the corners is leading me to big money. 20mm F2.8 sounds horrible. I thought primes were supposed to just be the answer lol. Still got to get L versions of those evidently lol. At least if you went with full frame. Now all I need to be happy is a 14mm L and a 24-105L. Sounds like they'll work great on a full frame. *bangs head*
I can handle sort of soft in the corners, but it's just bad when it jumps out at you viewing the full image not at 100% crops even. I suppose an alternative is to just be very aware of what you include in those corners and try to avoid the issue. That and hope it doesn't bother those looking to buy images. There lies my problem.
Probably less of an issue than I'm making of it at the moment. Just seems one spends this much for a nice cam, they ought to make sure the images show it. Sort of sucking seeing stuff you never saw before lol. So then the only logical next thing to do is have to upgrade the lens to something that doesn't do that. Would love to hear of something under $2k that does that for the ultrawide(20mm or wider). Gathering I'm not going to find that. Tempted to rent a 16-35L and test it out. I wanted a faster wide angle anyway. I'd be content "only" having to go to that. Still need something from 35/40 to 100mm(my 100-400). That 24-105L sounds awesome. Man I hate photography. I'd be happy with just 3 lenses, too bad those 3 have to cost so damn much.
I can handle sort of soft in the corners, but it's just bad when it jumps out at you viewing the full image not at 100% crops even. I suppose an alternative is to just be very aware of what you include in those corners and try to avoid the issue. That and hope it doesn't bother those looking to buy images. There lies my problem.
Probably less of an issue than I'm making of it at the moment. Just seems one spends this much for a nice cam, they ought to make sure the images show it. Sort of sucking seeing stuff you never saw before lol. So then the only logical next thing to do is have to upgrade the lens to something that doesn't do that. Would love to hear of something under $2k that does that for the ultrawide(20mm or wider). Gathering I'm not going to find that. Tempted to rent a 16-35L and test it out. I wanted a faster wide angle anyway. I'd be content "only" having to go to that. Still need something from 35/40 to 100mm(my 100-400). That 24-105L sounds awesome. Man I hate photography. I'd be happy with just 3 lenses, too bad those 3 have to cost so damn much.
Brandon Goforth
Wow Mike, those are some really soft corners...I was actually going to go with the 5D mkII w/17-40L, but decided against it for several reasons. First, I already have the 10-22 so I don't have to worry about selling it and buying another lens. The 5D really only has 2 advantages over the 7D...IQ and noise due to it being a full frame vs. crop. Only problem is that from all the research I've, IQ is such a small difference it's almost unnoticeable, and really you only start to see a big difference with very large prints (which I have no use for). Same goes for noise levels, which are similar until you get over 1600 ISO, then the 5D starts to own the 7D...but I never go that high anyways. I just do long exposures at low ISO. So based on my needs, I would see only very small improvements in IQ and noise if I went to the 5D over the 7D, not enough IMO to spend an extra $1000. However, the 7D owns the 5D in every other way...it's built better, movie modes are better, more features, awesome AF, faster, and that's even with the new 5D firmware that's about to be released. So I bought the 7D this week because I couldn't justify the extra $1000 for the 5D, and I was really trying to find a good reason to make that purchase! 
Not to mention if you crop 5D images to match the size of the 7D (and get rid of the soft corners/edges), you've just lost resolution compared to the 7D.
Not to mention if you crop 5D images to match the size of the 7D (and get rid of the soft corners/edges), you've just lost resolution compared to the 7D.
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam Adkins
EF3
Mike Hollingshead
Way to go Brandon...I foresee WWIII on here now...judging by the 5D II owner numbers compared to 7D ones lol. I must admit, part of my brain is kicking the other part for not going 7D. At least the 5D III isn't being released yet.
Brandon Goforth
Yeah, I think you pretty much nailed it. If you really want to take advantage of the IQ delivered by full frame bodies, then you're going to have to pay just as much for a lens to get it done. I don't think I'm ready to spend $5000 on a body with 1 lens yet...
Brandon Goforth
Haha! Now the 5D mkIII will be the one to get. IQ will be at least as good as the mkII, and I'm sure noise will be improved some, then you'll get all of the features of the 7D that weren't included in the 5D mkII. At least, I would expect it to be this way, but who knows...Yeah, that would be a pretty amazing package there. Not sure if they'll get it out before spring 2011, but the 5D mkIII may be enough to get me to go full frame.
Darren Addy
EF5
Excellent shot, Adam. Is that cropped at all?
Adam's shot highlights another point about sharpness. If the corners are unsharp on Adam's shot (I'm not saying that they are... I haven't even looked) it isn't going to be a problem because the whole image outside of the eagle is outside of the depth of field. The corners would be soft in an otherwise soft focus anyway. Not objectionable. So it depends on what sort of images you shoot.
I think what Mike is saying is that most of the time he's dealing with landscapes that are focused at infinity and you expect everything to be sharp, even the corners. One technique (that might be borrowed from the old darkroom days) that could help hide this is called "burning in the corners". Granted, it is a technique that can overdone and vignetting at the corners can be a negative in lens design but that doesn't mean that it has no place in the final image. I personally like how (when done properly) it is subtly directing the attention of the viewer to the subject. In this case it would also be de-emphasizing the unsharp corners.
Adam's shot highlights another point about sharpness. If the corners are unsharp on Adam's shot (I'm not saying that they are... I haven't even looked) it isn't going to be a problem because the whole image outside of the eagle is outside of the depth of field. The corners would be soft in an otherwise soft focus anyway. Not objectionable. So it depends on what sort of images you shoot.
I think what Mike is saying is that most of the time he's dealing with landscapes that are focused at infinity and you expect everything to be sharp, even the corners. One technique (that might be borrowed from the old darkroom days) that could help hide this is called "burning in the corners". Granted, it is a technique that can overdone and vignetting at the corners can be a negative in lens design but that doesn't mean that it has no place in the final image. I personally like how (when done properly) it is subtly directing the attention of the viewer to the subject. In this case it would also be de-emphasizing the unsharp corners.
Mike Hollingshead
And FWIW I think I'd be tempted to just go with a T2i if I wasn't going full frame. 7D seems like overkill on anything I'd shoot. And they tend to have similar image quality levels on similarly res'd sensors coming out at a similar time, especially by the same maker. Never have seen much need to go above the rebel line and moderately regret leaving there. At least until I get some good glass on this thing lol. Errrrr, great glass. 17-40L is at least good lol. Figure if I will overkill by going to the 5D II may as well keep at it! I guess. Doh.
David Schuttler
EF5
I purchased the 7D yesterday from B&H. I am really interested in seeing how the hand held low light shooting goes vs. what I've gotten out of my 20D. Of course shooting HD with my lenses is up there too.
Allan Jeffers
EF3
Mike, I got a question, did you have Peripheral Illumination Correction set for these photos?
Adam Adkins
EF3
The eagle shot was indeed cropped. Here is another from the same day. This one was cropped very little. The 5DII delivers extraordinary sharpness, and even with full frame you can get close enough to wildlife with a bit of patience.
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=2402164&forward=
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=2402164&forward=
Mike Hollingshead
It likely was as the vignetting on that lens was fairly strong. If not I probably did some in CS4 raw converter. Why? Strangely enough it doesn't have support for the 100-400L on that but did the 17-40L.
Similar threads
