I have been reading with interest the discussions reagrding the release of the new EOS7D II and in particular the "complaints" regarding noise and dynamic range compared to the 5D3
I've read around the internet and I understand that the science means that you will get a "better" image from full frame rather than a cropped sensor.
What I would be interested in finding out is are the images from a full frame significantly better for real world viewing e.g an A3 size print once it's been through the ususal post processing from people who have used both. In particular could you spot the difference without pixel peeping at say 400 ISO or does the difference only become marked once the cropped sensor runs out of puff at high ISO's.
All views welcomed
I went through this when I first bought into MFT. I compared my GF1 and then G1 to my Canon 20D and 5D and after processing each shot for best effect and comparing on screen and after spending lots of dosh printing up to and including A3 I concluded...
- At low to medium ISO's you have to look very closely to see any differences.
- At the highest ISO's and when looking closely (do a big print and look very close or look at very high magnification on screen) and FF wins.
- This is a gear head geek thing. Normal people don't care.
I gave up comparing low to medium ISO shots when trying to show someone two shots, one taken with my G1 and the other taken with my 5D. When shown the first shot which just happened to be the G1 shot the person I'd roped in excitedly exclaimed "I want that picture!" I decided then and there it was a non issue and I stopped comparing shots... until I got my A7 and GX7
After using them both for some time my views haven't changed. The A7 is better than the 5D and the GX7 is better than the G1 and the A7 is better than the GX7 but only at the highest ISO's or when looking very very closely.
My advice to anyone lusting after a bigger sensor is to think about printing or viewing size and distance and ISO setting. When pushing things to extremes I think that bigger is probably better but when shooting at low to medium ISO's and printing or displaying at relatively "normal" sizes and distances (and I mean real normal person sizes and real normal person distances and not gear head geek sizes and distances) I think that mostly it doesn't matter and that other things will possibly matter more... like focus accuracy and speed and handling etc.
If anyone is genuinely and truly interested and not trolling or looking to flame I can provide A7 and GX7 raws for comparison. The points of focus and composition will be slightly different as they're real world shots. I could also supply test shots if it's a genuine request.
Mostly though I think that all this is pretty much a waste of time. If shooting at low to medium ISO's and doing so for best effect (I always ETTR if at all possible) and if processing for best effect in many instances anything from MFT and upwards should be ok. IMVHO it's only when pushing the absolute limits of ISO and print size or viewing magnification that significant image quality differences show up in the kit I've owned.