Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 23, 2013, 9:32 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

It's also amusing that you continue to make the same arguments that aren't supported by the evidence. The Canon 70-300 IS USM on an APS-C body, in addition to being smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Canon 100-400 IS USM on a 'Full Frame' body, is also sharper, and has less vignetting.

Mirrorless systems are not a suitable alternative because a primary design feature, the thin body, results in a short flange focal distance, which almost invariably results in greater field curvature (softer corners), distortion, vignetting, and CA, not to mention greater cost. Some mirrorless lenses do perform well, but they are the exception rather than the rule, and their costs are often exorbitant. And often, the cameras are capable of correcting some of these flaws, but usually at the cost of creating new flaws.

We've had these discussions before, and the only time I draw comparisons like the above is when someone else makes an off-topic generalization that runs contrary to actual data.

There are certainly things that a 'Full Frame' body can do better that an APS-C body, but few actually benefit from those things. The ones that do, however, seem to want to ignore the real benefits that APS-C systems have, and extrapolate the few true benefits into hyperbole about the overall superiority of 'Full Frame'.

I feel no need to proselytize, but merely to set the record straight.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Aug 23, 2013 at 9:36 AM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2013, 11:23 AM   #22
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
It's also amusing that you continue to make the same arguments that aren't supported by the evidence. The Canon 70-300 IS USM on an APS-C body, in addition to being smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Canon 100-400 IS USM on a 'Full Frame' body, is also sharper, and has less vignetting.
TCAV - first, is the 70-300 an aps-c only lens or full frame? Let me help you out - it is an EF, not EF-S lens.
Second question - how do the focus systems compare? Let me help you out again - the 100-400 has a superior focus system. How do I know? Because I actually use the lens and system in question. I'm not trying to read spec sheets and give advice about equipment I've never used.

So, whether a photographer is using full frame or aps-c they have the choice of 70-300 or 100-400. Talk to people that use both -the 100-400 is the better lens. NOW, the 70-300L is really a fantastic lens - which is why I suggested it. Unfortunately, your google searches won't tell you about the focus system differences between it and the non-L. In that case, it's helpful to get input from people that really use the system.

So, we're back to the fact that in the canon system, the best lenses (with possible exception of 17-55 2.8) are designed for full-frame cameras - so no real benefit to the aps body over full frame body.

In the end, that's the problem with your whole argument - none of it is based on actual experience with any of the gear in question it's all conjecture based upon what you read. There-in lies the danger of advice on the internet.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2013, 4:53 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

OMG, it's déjà vu all over again!

Yes, John, the Canon 70-300 IS USM is a 'Full Frame' lens. This is not about 'Full Frame' bodies with 'Full Frame' lenses versus APS-C bodies with APS-C only lenses. This is about 'Full Frame' bodies and their capabilities and limitations versus APS-C bodies and their capabilities and limitations. One of the capabilities of APS-C bodies that you seem to forget about on a regular basis is that they can use 'Full Frame' lenses TOO! As a result, an APS-C body can use the 70-300, and because of its narrower angle of view it provides a similar angle of view to what the 100-400 provides to a 'Full Frame' body. But what's more, because of its narrower angle of view, it actually crops out much of the imperfections in the 70-300, the result of which is that it provides better image quality on an APS-C body than what the 100-400 provides on a 'Full Frame' body.

And, yes, a 'Full Frame' body has a better AF system than an APS-C body by virtue of its more widely spaced phase detection AF sensors. But the AF sensors in 'Full Frame' bodies cover about the same portion of the angle of view as the AF Sensors in APS-C bodies, and since the APS-C bodies have more depth of field, accurate focus isn't quite as critical for APS-C bodies as it is for 'Full Frame' bodies.

While some of Canon's best lenses are designed to project a 'Full Frame' image, that doesn't mean that an APS-C body can't make equally good use of them, and often I might add, BETTER! (That's not conjecture, btw. And you can read a chart as well as I can.)

That's the problem with your whole argument: You don't truly understand where the line should be drawn. An APS-C body can use the best Canon has to offer, whether its an EF lens or an EF-S lens, not to mention all the other products available from Canon and from third parties.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2013, 6:26 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,907
Default

G'day all

Okay TC & John ..... good info, great discussion - but wait a moment please

The woman's current kit is an APS sensor'd body + the 18-55 + the 55-250

She has outgrown it and wants to go further, and for her, further is into FF territory. She has taken her present kit on o'seas trips, cruises to antarctic & trips into europe and usa - her next foray is a safari into africa

Her budget for this exercise is "up to $20k" although I have advised her to halve that

So the 6D & 24-105 are set in concrete - it is what follows that comes next. Knowing where she's aiming for, I have advised her to go for the 100-400 including the caveat 'that this entire bundle will put her into the excess baggage list on many occasions

So fellas - back to you ...
Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2013, 8:14 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Of the lenses in that class, the Canon 100-400 is among the smallest and lightest, so it's a good choice for a 'Full Frame' body in her situation.

But there are some very specific advantages that a 'Full Frame' body has over an APS-C body, and none of them benefit her situation. ... not to mention the "bigger, heavier, and more expensive" thing.

If she's going 'Full Frame', the 100-400 is a good choice, but going 'Full Frame' wasn't.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2013, 12:24 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

From a APS Sensor and the kit lens jumping to a FF and a 100-400 is a big step. Not because of ability but by size and limitations of FF.

Unless she is going to shoot action all the time i really dont see a need for such a big set up.

I have a completely different alternative for just travelling. My canon set up of 1d mark III and big lenses have stopped travelling with me for the hassle of weight and comfort.

What has replaced them is one of the lightest but greatest set up that i have never thought would replace my canon on long hauls.

A fuji X-e1, 18-55 and the 55-200. Bear in mind that these may sound exactly like your kit lens but they arent. The optical quality of these lenses are exceptionally good and the 200 is actually a 300mm in this sensor.

The OS is one of the best OS in these lenses and the whole size of this system is hardly bigger than a 5D and may be 50mm lens.

The reason i recommend this is carrying this is not a hassle and any family member can simply shoot this as a P&S yet create amazing pictures.

Dont get me wrong that i am recommending a second system, but for travel the Mirrorless are taking over as you wont miss any of those travel shots and if trained enough you can get those action shots as well.

Be aware of the limitations of AF.

Coming back to Canon, if FF is the choice, my bet would be on 6D but not on the 100-400 but more on a 70-200 F4 IS or 70-200 Non IS and probably a tele.

On the wider front just add the tamron 24-70 VC and be done with the set up. you cover all the way from 24mm to close to 400mm with the tele. But you get a very fast set up to not miss those wondering low light shots.

I am not overly in favor of 100-400 though its a great lens.

Fuji some samples
http://admiringlight.com/blog/review...200mm-r-ois/3/

http://www.martin-doppelbauer.de/foto/fujixe1/TeleZoom/

Last edited by nymphetamine; Aug 24, 2013 at 12:29 AM.
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2013, 3:34 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,749
Default

hi guys if she going to africa and has the money then 100-400 5dmk3 and a 24-105 would be my choice
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2013, 9:49 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nymphetamine View Post
Unless she is going to shoot action all the time i really dont see a need for such a big set up.
... and if she is going to shoot action all the time, the AF system in the 6D makes it a poor choice.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2013, 4:56 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

Ozzie- I'm intrigued...
You say your friend has "outgrown" her current set-up...
What does "outgrown" mean...?
Is there something she feels she's missing or cannot do with her current set up... as this might be the best place to start with any discussion on future/suitable kit...
Going Full Frame is quite a financial commitment- and I wonder if she's thought about maybe going to a higher level APS-C,rather than jump from an entry level DSLR to a Full Frame... and I'm going to say it (I can't believe this...), perhaps look at Nikon offerings also...?

Last edited by SIMON40; Aug 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM.
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2013, 6:04 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,907
Default

G'day fellas all

Again - thankyou for your responses
Her APS kit has shot its 100,000 frames over the past 1/2-dozen years and is failing her in a number of ways. She has decided upon a full frame system so I have accepted her decision. Whether it would be yours or mine is out of the discussion, it is her decision and she knows where she is going

- The camera will be a 6D
- lenses will 'probably' be canon, although she is happy to look at other makers
- no one else will use the equipment
- budget is not an issue

Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:00 PM.