Full frame 5D and 1Ds mk 111

Paul Tomlinson

Paul Tomlinson

Messages
400
Name
Paul Tomlinson
Edit My Images
No
Can anyone please tell me in simple English what the difference is between the full frame camera of the 5D and the 1Ds Mk 111 to the 40D which i am useing now,

i do understand a little about the lens size being different when fitted to these camera's but its the other bits i need to know.

:thinking:
 
The physical size of the sensor is different. 5D being the largest at full frame (same size as a frame of 35mm film), 1ds is the same, 1d is slightly smaller and has a 1.3x crop and 40d being the smallest at 1.6x crop.

DSLRsensors.png
 
The lens size doesn't change.
On the 40d, the sensor is 1.6x smaller than the full frame 1ds and 5d sensor, therefore cropping part of the sensor, and zooming in by 1.6x to the sensor - rendering a virtual 1.6x zoom on your lenses. 10 becomes 16, 50 becomes 80, etc etc.

When using your lenses on the full frame, you get exactly that - the full frame - not a zoomed in portion of the sensor.
This bigger sensor means better picture quality, and something to do with greater depth of field control.

I think that is basically the jist of it, minus the technicalities.
 
Full frame mean bigger sensor, so you see more at the same focal length to what you're used to.

To get the same shot, you need a lens with a longer length on FF and a smaller aperture.

I.e. Crop body 50mm f/1.8 needs ~ 85mm f/2.8 on FF to capture the same image
BUT the shutter would be slower (due to smaller f stop).

EF-S lenses won't fit as the mirror would smash into them when it pops up.

All lenses will suffer more vignetting on FF (slightly darker in the corners).

FF sensors should give better sharpness with the same lens since the sensor elements are larger.

FF sensor should give less noise as each cell gets more light.

Hope that helps!
 
There is info there that just a little bit to much to take in, its easy if you know what you are talking about, please forgive me for asking a simple question but will i notice a big difference in going for a full frame camera.

I have seen some excellent photographs on the cheaper end DSLR's camera's, would spending say £4500 make that much difference.
 
pearce_jj said:
FF sensors should give better sharpness with the same lens since the sensor elements are larger.
Click to expand...

Equally crop sensors only use the centre portion of the lens which is sharper anyway. Swings and roundabouts...
 
Paul Tomlinson said:
will i notice a big difference in going for a full frame camera.
Click to expand...

Yes. All your pictures will be a bigger field of view from the same lens (or looked at another way, your subjects will be smaller relative to the rest of the shot everything else being equal).

Paul Tomlinson said:
I have seen some excellent photographs on the cheaper end DSLR's camera's, would spending say £4500 make that much difference.
Click to expand...

The 1D is weather sealed and does something like 10 fps continuos shooting. Why not get the 5D for about £1200 which is slower (3fps) and not weather sealed but still has the full frame sensor.
 
Paul, I went from a 20D to a 5D and I could not believe the difference. Sure the 20D is still a good camera and exactly the right thing to pick up if I'm using a 100-400 lens. I found the 5D image quality to be just unbelieveable though. With FF you get the best results from the best glass but having said that I shoot a lot with a Sigma 70-200mm and have bought a 15-30mm too and I still like the image quality.

If you are tempted by FF I'd say hang fire and pick up a bargain 5D in a couple of months if Canon launch a new one. You would not be disappointed. I've also got a 1Ds MKII and although the difference in pixel count is there, there is honestly not a huge leap in image quality between them. The 1Ds has better autofocus, so I do get shots that I would not have got with the 5D but I'm still not giving up my 5D.
 
I personally think if your going to pay a lot of money, then you should go and try out the cameras. And im sure most people would have said that.

A lot of people do take great pictures with bad cameras, Ive seen fantastic shots with phone cameras by a photographer who uses them.

Ive also seen sooo many poor pictures taken with very expensive camera equipment.

Incidentally, the 40D is a great camera, as im sure you know.
Good luck with choosing.
 
bottomline - You are using the whole lens, finally caught up what people were doing about 50 years ago when they all use 35mm film :p
 
jerry12953 said:
Is this actually correct? Agree about focal lengths but does the aperture change as well?
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

There's no difference in the amount of light so in terms of exposure no change is needed but DoF can change if you compare the full images to each other.

If you shoot FF and crop side by side and aim to get the same frame coverage then the FF will need a longer lens to match the crop.

Longer lens = more magnification = less DoF at a given aperture.

If you shot with the same focal length on both and then cropped the full frame image to match the crop the DoF would be identical.

I hope that isn't too confusing...
 
pxl8 said:
Yes and no.

There's no difference in the amount of light so in terms of exposure no change is needed but DoF can change if you compare the full images to each other.

If you shoot FF and crop side by side and aim to get the same frame coverage then the FF will need a longer lens to match the crop.

Longer lens = more magnification = less DoF at a given aperture.

If you shot with the same focal length on both and then cropped the full frame image to match the crop the DoF would be identical.

I hope that isn't too confusing...
Click to expand...

It is a little confusing, i think what i need to do is learn more about what you are talking about,

if you fill the frame to with your subject you then don't need to do any cropping if this is correct?? then you don't need to enlarge the finale image, is this right
 
Ok, another way around is...

If you shoot the same shot from the same place the crop camera will fill it's frame with a shorter focal length than the full frame camera. In order to get exactly the same frame with both the full frame needs a longer focal length. With me so far?

DoF is a function of focal length and aperture. The longer the focal length the less DoF you have, so by using a longer focal length on the full frame body to get the same result you've lost some DoF.

If you used the same lens for both cameras the DoF would be the same but the full frame would be, erm, larger.

Hopefully that makes sense so now I'll try and confuse you again. The above doesn't take into account the "Circle of Confusion". This is the min. size of a circle when measured on the sensor that a "point" need to be to appear acceptably sharp on a print. Because the crop sensor image is being enlarged that much more the CoC needs to be smaller to start with.

When you combine the two effects they pretty much cancel each other out. To get the same shot from the same position full frame needs a longer focal length and loses DoF. The crop has more DoF but greater enlargement for printing.

Full frame loses sharpness through DoF
Crop loses sharpness from enlarged CoC

At this point you might need to lay down ;)
 
it can be easier to understand by looking at extremes.

I used to have a Fuji S6500fd, which has a 1/1.8" sensor (about 1/40th of the area of FF). Although an F2.8-4.5 lens, because the sensor is so small, it's focal length range was actually ~6-66mm.

66mm F/4.5 in field of view terms was 300mm equiv. But there was almost no control over DOF, in other words the background was relatively sharp unless you were focusing close to the lens.

But on a FF body with an actual 300mm lens at F/4.5 the DOF would be very short. So the Fuji was actually operating at an effective aperture of maybe F/9 in 35mm terms (approximated by multiplying 4.5 x 1.4 x 1.4 bring that 300mm/66 = ~4, i.e. double and double again, double being x1.4 in F stop terms because it's the diameter of a circle being referred to).

Cheers!
 
Eh?

The Fuji lens is 6-66mm regardless, as are the f/ values.

If you put the Fuji and FF side by side with a 66mm lens on both the DoF would be the same for a given aperture.
 
Yes, but you'd be looking at a tiny section 1/40th of the size. To get the same field of view (hence 300mm equiv) then a corresponding difference in f stop is req'd to obtain the same image
 
why what :D

It's easiest to get a handle on it by trying. If you have a compact with a long zoom and an SLR, set them both to some common actual focal length and f-stop (not equiv), shoot from the same location and compare the output.

Say you find 50mm f/5.6 on both, focus on something close and you'll find the background on the SLR a lot more blurred.
 
I think what's confusing you is that the Fuji lens is marked as 28-300 but in fact 50mm on the Fuji is really 11mm so you'd have to shoot 50mm on the Fuji and 11mm on full frame to compare like for like.
 
... which is my whole point :LOL:

But the DOF will not be the same in that instance.
 
Now you've completely lost me.

Are you saying that if the ff uses 11mm and the fuji 50mm (as marked) then the DoF will be different? If so, what is the cause of the difference?
 
Wow this is getting confusing.

Just read this in Langfords Advanced Photography p64.....

The effective depth of field on a DSLR (not full frame) is greater than on a 35mm camera when a lens of equivalent focal length is used at the same aperture. For example if the 50mm lens on the Nikon (1.5x) was set at f/5.6 then the DOF on the Nikon would be greater than the DOF on the 35mm camera with a 75mm lens at f/5.6 was used even though the field of view was the same.

So I would asume from that, that the P&S with a tiny sensor would have an even greater DOF with its smaller lens and sensor.

Does that make sense :thinking:
 
Yes, that's pretty much how I understand it. The increase in DoF comes from the much smaller circle of confusion the of the compact sensor. What's thowing me with pearce is comparing 66mm f/4.5 on the fuji to 300 f/4.5mm on full frame :shrug:
 
pearce_jj said:
Yes. All your pictures will be a bigger field of view from the same lens (or looked at another way, your subjects will be smaller relative to the rest of the shot everything else being equal).



The 1D is weather sealed and does something like 10 fps continuos shooting. Why not get the 5D for about £1200 which is slower (3fps) and not weather sealed but still has the full frame sensor.
Click to expand...

I have had a look at a 5D today and i think the 40D is as good it just lacks the FF of the 5D, so the 5D is out of the picture for me.

I am not sure if £4700 for a 1Ds Mk 111 body only is worth it at the moment, i want top class pictures and this camera is going to do it, what i need to do is make my mind up and buy it, its only money you can't take it with you.

I need to get a loan to pay for it, thats the problem:thinking:
 
Wait until the 5D is replaced. Get some decent L primes aswell. they will be sharper than your zooms.
 
Are we getting carried away Paul? No disrespect but if you don't know the difference between a FF and a crop sensor, are you in the market for a 1Ds?

5D's are a fantastic piece of kit. When you say you had a look at it, did you actually take any shots with it?

It's the person that's behind the camera that takes good shots, not the camera;)
 
pxl8 said:
Yes, that's pretty much how I understand it. The increase in DoF comes from the much smaller circle of confusion the of the compact sensor. What's thowing me with pearce is comparing 66mm f/4.5 on the fuji to 300 f/4.5mm on full frame :shrug:
Click to expand...

I don't think that's right. A smaller CoC (due to increased expansion in print) actually reduces the DoF. Each element of the picture becomes larger and hence smaller OOF tollerance, i.e. reduced DOF.

The increase in DoF is due to the lens being of less focal length, for the same framing. The DoF is dependent on focal length (f) and aperature only. When f is reduced, so DoF is increased.

And this is my point with the Fuji comparison. At 66mm f/4.5 with a subject distance of (say) 10m there will be little background blur. But in framing terms that will look like a shot taken with a FF 300mm (hence the 'equiv 300mm'), except that if the FF took the shot at f/4.5, the background blur would be greatly increased due to the much shorter DoF.

To get comparible DoF at 300mm would require a much smaller aperture.

Hope that helps ;-)
 
the 40d you have now is a cracking camera, why not spend the money on some L series glass, also as someone else said ,its the person not the camera that takes the picture
(unless you need bigger images)
 
It's pointless comparing 66m on the fuji and 300mm on full frame. Both are 66mm but the fuji is heavily cropped. If you took the 66mm full frame and cropped it also then you've got the same FoV result on both. The fuji might have the FoV equiv. of a 300mm but it's still a 66mm lens. Focal length isn't defined by FoV.
 
your 40d will take superb pictures. i loved my one when i had it.

if you want a FF camera, then buy the 5d. it takes amazing pictures and is a super camera. it's not weather sealed like the 1ds, but unless you're a pro-tog then you're not really needing this feature. it's not the only advantage over the 5D but it's probably the most relevant one to you.

buy some L primes aswell, to compliment the good L zooms that you have and there should be nothing stopping you taking fantastic pictures.
 
Damn! Just when you think you think you have it sussed, someone goes and throws you a curve. :thinking:

My understanding of the so-called DOF advantage of the smaller sensor size is best illustrated by an example situation:-

If two of us stood side by side photographing the same scene, you with a full frame camera and I with a crop sensor camera, but both using an identical lens, DOF would be the same on each shot. However, the full frame camera would encompass more of the scene with it's wider FOV.

If I now move backwards till I'm getting the same FOV as the full frame camera, I've increased the camera -to -subject distance and the greater distance means I now get more DOF than the full frame camera. It's all a bit geeky I suppose, but I'd suggest it's scarcely relevant to most of us anyway, and unlikely to cause us to change our shooting habits. ;)

I'm having trouble with the circle of confusion argument, because the COF is always there in every shot we take and how relevant it is ultimately depends on how big we print the image.

I've never heard of a DOF advantage being claimed for medium format (or larger) over a 35mm negative, and the difference in media sizes is even greater, so it all sounds a bit pixel peeperish for the sake of it?

I need to to think about something easier - I bumped into that Jack Daniels again last night and I always seem to come :2nd:
 
as-i-said said:
the 40d you have now is a cracking camera, why not spend the money on some L series glass, also as someone else said ,its the person not the camera that takes the picture
(unless you need bigger images)
Click to expand...

Your it is the person and not the camera, i am looking at making photography a living and not just a expensive hobby.

The 40D is a very good camera but i am looking for a main camera and the
40D will become my backup camera. There is loads of info that these kind folks are forwarding to us all and it is starting to all look a little clearer.

I start college in September for 2 years for the ND course so all this digital talk will all come clear in the end.

Many Thanks.......Paul Tomo.(y)
 
CT said:
If two of us stood side by side photographing the same scene, you with a full frame camera and I with a crop sensor camera, but both using an identical lens, DOF would be the same on each shot. However, the full frame camera would encompass more of the scene with it's wider FOV.

If I now move backwards till I'm getting the same FOV as the full frame camera, I've increased the camera -to -subject distance and the greater distance means I now get more DOF than the full frame camera.
Click to expand...

No and Yes...

CoC does come into it and the DoF calculators show that in their results:

1.6x crop, 50mm, f/4, 10ft
Near limit 9.16 ft
Far limit 11 ft
Total 1.84 ft
Circle of confusion 0.019 mm

Full frame, 50mm f/4, 10ft
Near limit 8.74 ft
Far limit 11.7 ft
Total 2.94 ft
Circle of confusion 0.03 mm

Optically the DoF is the same, but you get more DoF with full frame because the CoC is larger - details don't need to be as small to survive enlargement. Crop the full frame to 1.6x and you've balanced out the difference in DoF.

So what happens when you stand further away with your 1.6x crop?

1.6x crop, 50mm, f/4, 16ft
Near limit 14 ft
Far limit 18.8 ft
Total 4.8 ft

Now the crop has the DoF advantage.

What if you do it the other way, stay side by side but use a longer lens on the full frame?

Full frame, 80mm f/4, 10ft
Near limit 9.47 ft
Far limit 10.6 ft
Total 1.12 ft

The 1.6x crop still has the advantage.

In summary:

Side by side with the same focal length then full frame has more DoF, seemingly because the CoC is larger to start with.

Step back with the crop or use a longer lens on the full frame and the crop has more DoF. This is because of the change in magnication from being further away or using the longer lens.

Now when it comes to prints the CoC comes back into play. If you take the side by side shots and printed both at 10x8" the full frame CoC is magnified less so that print will appear sharper than the crop - the subject on the 1.6x crop print would be larger than it is on the full frame print.

If you printed the crop to only 6.25" wide then I suspect they would be equally sharp as you've compensated for the difference in CoC and the subject would be the same size on each print.

Note the difference in DoF between the two cameras is always 1.6 as is the CoC size.

What about pixel resolution/density, doesn't that have an effect?
It would seem not because the pixels are smaller than the CoC so blur would become apparent before the pixels - but it would affect how well the blur is defined.
 
CT said:
I've never heard of a DOF advantage being claimed for medium format (or larger) over a 35mm negative, and the difference in media sizes is even greater, so it all sounds a bit pixel peeperish for the sake of it?
Click to expand...

Hi CT, DoF is certainly shorter for medium format, at the same FoV...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top