Change to full frame better or same as crop

Noa Put · November 7th, 2013, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Benda

The full frame at f/2.8 would be about the same as the crop factor at f/1.8, OR, in a really dark room, let me keep the ISO at 2500 and shoot at f/1.8 where the crop factor, I'd have to push the ISO into some really noisy levels.

"Full frame" and f-stop are not linked when it comes to low light, if that where the case a 5dII should have the same low light performance as a 5dIII since both are full frame, ISO and f-stop are, so it all depends how well a camera can handle high ISO's which can enable you to close down the iris more so you have a more usable dof while a camera that gets noisy much faster at a higher iso needs to open the iris much more resulting in a much shallower dof.

Dave Partington · November 7th, 2013, 05:55 PM

Kinda late to this thread, and I admit I haven't read every post fully, but here's my take….

We've been from all camcorders to all DSLR, then back to camcorders for some things and full frame DSLRs for others.

Why?

DSLRs (and in particular the 5D3) are awesome at two things:

1) Shallow DOF when you 'want' it

2) They can absolutely bite the nuts off a camcorder in low light.

OTOH they have a couple of major drawbacks:

1) The shallow DOF is a major PITA if you're stood at the front of a darkish church and you're trying to get both B+G in focus (from a side angle) while keeping the ISO low enough to not worry about noise. Even F8 won't do it sometimes (and the longer the lens, the more you need to stop down!). If you're at the back of a church and at 200mm f4 you still don't have enough DOF to get the B+G and minister in focus. You get to choose which, but you can't have both.

2) The short recording times (12mins 5D2, 20 mins D800, 29.59 5D3)

3) The poor audio support (although the 5D3 is not bad if you have an external feed)

They also miss the zebras and focus peeking and waveforms etc etc.

Batteries don't last long. Hell, my Canon XF100s run all day long on one battery while the 5D3 requires several changes, some of which need to be planned well if we're using them for dark environments for speeches that are dragging on.

There is no doubt, the 5D3 is the mutts nuts in low light. ISO6400 (if properly exposed) is usable. 8000 in a pinch. I've shipped footage shot at 12800 and not worried about it (a little kiss from neat video). You can just about shoot in the dark with a 24mm f1.4 lens, but then that's not a cheap one. Bars at a couple of venues come to mind for this setup. The camcorders just about die.

The 24-105L and 70-200 f2.8 are our normal goto kit with the 50 f1.4 and a couple of samyangs as backup.

But, there's no substitute for being able to throw the camcorder in to AF mode as the bride is walking towards you and the DOF afforded by the 1/3" chip gives you lots of room for error if people are moving around in speeches.

So, I'd hate to be back in the either/or camp. I like having both tools available to me, especially when I'm at a venue with crap (cough) "intimate" lighting with dark wood wall panels and I'm shooting a couple with dark skins. Oh man, the DSLR comes right out of bag then, no messing!

Damn. There's never a do all, be all piece of kit out there. Everything is a compromise and I guess it always will be.

Eric Coughlin · November 7th, 2013, 09:38 PM

My understanding is that low light capabilities are generally related to two factors, pixel size and the camera processor's capability of handling ISOs. The reason the 5D III is better in low light than the 5D II is because the III has an improved processor.

As for pixel size, the larger the pixels are physically on the sensor reading, the more light that can be gathered on the pixel.

The 5D III's sensor size is 36mm × 24mm and its sensor is 22.3 Megapixels. So a 36mm x 24mm sensor is 864 square millimeters, and 22,300,000 pixels / 864 square millimeters is 25,810 pixels per square millimeter.

The 7D's sensor size is 22.3mm × 14.9mm and its sensor is 18.0 Megapixels. So a 22.3mm × 14.9mm sensor is 332.27 square millimeters, and 18,000,000 pixels / 332.27 square millimeters is 54,173 pixels per square millimeter.

The C100's sensor size is 24.6mm x 13.8mm and its sensor is 8.3 Megapixels. So a 24.6mm x 13.8mm sensor is 339.48 square millimeters, and 8,300,000 pixels / 339.48 square millimeters is 24,449 pixels per square millimeter.

As for a 1/3" traditional video camera, the XH-A1s's sensor size is 4.8mm x 3.6mm and its sensor is 1.67 Megapixels (though it has three CCD chips, so I'm not sure how that effects things). So a 4.8mm x 3.6mm sensor is 17.28 square millimeters, and 1,670,000 pixels / 17.28 square millimeters is 96,644 pixels per square millimeter.

So to sum up the amount of pixels that are crammed onto a square millimeter...
5D Mark III: 25,810
7D: 54,173
C100: 24,449
XH-A1s: 96,644

The smaller the number of pixels that are crammed into a square millimeter, the larger the pixels are. The larger the pixels, the more light each pixel can gather. So based on those numbers, the C100 is slightly better in low light than the 5D Mark III, which actually reflects real world results as well. Of course, again, the camera's processor also has a say in the matter.

Steve Bleasdale · November 8th, 2013, 07:28 AM

There is no doubt, the 5D3 is the mutts nuts in low light. ISO6400 (if properly exposed) is usable. 8000 in a pinch. I've shipped footage shot at 12800 and not worried about it (a little kiss from neat video). You can just about shoot in the dark with a 24mm f1.4 lens, but then that's not a cheap one. Bars at a couple of venues come to mind for this setup. The camcorders just about die.

The 24-105L and 70-200 f2.8 are our normal goto kit with the 50 f1.4 and a couple of samyangs as backup.

But, there's no substitute for being able to throw the camcorder in to AF mode as the bride is walking towards you and the DOF afforded by the 1/3" chip gives you lots of room for error if people are moving around in speeches.

So, I'd hate to be back in the either/or camp. I like having both tools available to me, especially when I'm at a venue with crap (cough) "intimate" lighting with dark wood wall panels and I'm shooting a couple with dark skins. Oh man, the DSLR comes right out of bag then, no messing!

Damn. There's never a do all, be all piece of kit out there. Everything is a compromise and I guess it always will be.[/QUOTE]

Exactly what im saying Dave nice one and that's my arsenal I want. unless a gh3 owner can tell me otherwise....

Steve Bleasdale · November 26th, 2013, 01:56 PM

Would anyone swap their 5d iii for the c100? One push button focus, peaking, fantastic low light, great dynamic range or has the 5d iii got better shallow depth of field. steve

Arthur Gannis · November 26th, 2013, 02:23 PM

Just get the Sony A7, it will be out soon on the shelves. 1/2 the price of that 5D abd with the money saved will get you a few really nice primes to do your thing in low light.

Steve Bleasdale · November 26th, 2013, 02:43 PM

Jeez Arthur, that looks decent, pheeew cant keep up..C100, 5d iii, sony rx10, sony a7, 70d, what else...

Arthur Gannis · November 26th, 2013, 03:12 PM

I would scratch off the C100, the 70d, even the 5D3, and seriously look at them Sony's. That auto focus on video mode will make shooting a wedding a breeze. This bokeh and DOF thing is way too hyped about. You can still get that effect with F2.8 if you know to manipulate distance and focal length. If you really want F1.4 territory, then the A7 has it with Carl Zeiss glass.

Dave Partington · November 26th, 2013, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Bleasdale

Would anyone swap their 5d iii for the c100? One push button focus, peaking, fantastic low light, great dynamic range or has the 5d iii got better shallow depth of field. steve

I'd swap in a heart beat if the C100 wasn't quite so expensive. I'm seriously considering picking one up though…..

The shallow DOF on the 5D3 is great, but can also be a problem (i.e. when you want more DOF). The C100 images are so much sharper and the C100 is even better in low light.

With the dual pixel AF mode coming next year as an upgrade, the C100 looks even better.

In fact, if any one has a C100 they would like to swap for a 5D3 (with some adjustment of course) then gimme a shout!

Steve Bleasdale · November 26th, 2013, 03:52 PM

Haha nice one Dave it looks tempting alright, my wife is barking mad already at me looking at one but it does look easier to use than a dslr. Got all the lens and the body is £3700 but should come down soon. Arthur onto something though that a7 looks great!!

Steve Bleasdale · November 26th, 2013, 04:47 PM

Arthur already there seems moire issues with the a7

Arthur Gannis · November 26th, 2013, 06:35 PM

Moire ?? then how about the 36mp version A7r ?

Steve Bleasdale · November 27th, 2013, 03:16 AM

More expensive Arthur than the 5d iii...I think they are all gimmiks from Sony to just exploit the market and get those millions in...

Dave Partington · November 27th, 2013, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Gannis

Moire ?? then how about the 36mp version A7r ?

If the 36MP D800 was anything to go by, yes there will be moire (I shot with one for a season). More MP doesn't always mean better video.

Dave Partington · November 28th, 2013, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Gannis

Just get the Sony A7, it will be out soon on the shelves. 1/2 the price of that 5D abd with the money saved will get you a few really nice primes to do your thing in low light.

Take a look at this then…. comparison of moire & aliasing on the A7 vs 5D3.

Resolution / Aliasing / Comparison: Sony A7 vs. A7r vs. Canon 5D mark III cinema5D

November 7th, 2013, 05:55 PM	#62
Dave Partington Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: York, England Posts: 1,323	Re: Change to full frame better or same as crop Kinda late to this thread, and I admit I haven't read every post fully, but here's my take…. We've been from all camcorders to all DSLR, then back to camcorders for some things and full frame DSLRs for others. Why? DSLRs (and in particular the 5D3) are awesome at two things: 1) Shallow DOF when you 'want' it 2) They can absolutely bite the nuts off a camcorder in low light. OTOH they have a couple of major drawbacks: 1) The shallow DOF is a major PITA if you're stood at the front of a darkish church and you're trying to get both B+G in focus (from a side angle) while keeping the ISO low enough to not worry about noise. Even F8 won't do it sometimes (and the longer the lens, the more you need to stop down!). If you're at the back of a church and at 200mm f4 you still don't have enough DOF to get the B+G and minister in focus. You get to choose which, but you can't have both. 2) The short recording times (12mins 5D2, 20 mins D800, 29.59 5D3) 3) The poor audio support (although the 5D3 is not bad if you have an external feed) They also miss the zebras and focus peeking and waveforms etc etc. Batteries don't last long. Hell, my Canon XF100s run all day long on one battery while the 5D3 requires several changes, some of which need to be planned well if we're using them for dark environments for speeches that are dragging on. There is no doubt, the 5D3 is the mutts nuts in low light. ISO6400 (if properly exposed) is usable. 8000 in a pinch. I've shipped footage shot at 12800 and not worried about it (a little kiss from neat video). You can just about shoot in the dark with a 24mm f1.4 lens, but then that's not a cheap one. Bars at a couple of venues come to mind for this setup. The camcorders just about die. The 24-105L and 70-200 f2.8 are our normal goto kit with the 50 f1.4 and a couple of samyangs as backup. But, there's no substitute for being able to throw the camcorder in to AF mode as the bride is walking towards you and the DOF afforded by the 1/3" chip gives you lots of room for error if people are moving around in speeches. So, I'd hate to be back in the either/or camp. I like having both tools available to me, especially when I'm at a venue with crap (cough) "intimate" lighting with dark wood wall panels and I'm shooting a couple with dark skins. Oh man, the DSLR comes right out of bag then, no messing! Damn. There's never a do all, be all piece of kit out there. Everything is a compromise and I guess it always will be. __________________ Qualified UAV Pilot with CAA PFAW Aerial Photo / Aerial Video \| Corporate Video Production

November 7th, 2013, 09:38 PM	#63
Eric Coughlin Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 72	Re: Change to full frame better or same as crop My understanding is that low light capabilities are generally related to two factors, pixel size and the camera processor's capability of handling ISOs. The reason the 5D III is better in low light than the 5D II is because the III has an improved processor. As for pixel size, the larger the pixels are physically on the sensor reading, the more light that can be gathered on the pixel. The 5D III's sensor size is 36mm × 24mm and its sensor is 22.3 Megapixels. So a 36mm x 24mm sensor is 864 square millimeters, and 22,300,000 pixels / 864 square millimeters is 25,810 pixels per square millimeter. The 7D's sensor size is 22.3mm × 14.9mm and its sensor is 18.0 Megapixels. So a 22.3mm × 14.9mm sensor is 332.27 square millimeters, and 18,000,000 pixels / 332.27 square millimeters is 54,173 pixels per square millimeter. The C100's sensor size is 24.6mm x 13.8mm and its sensor is 8.3 Megapixels. So a 24.6mm x 13.8mm sensor is 339.48 square millimeters, and 8,300,000 pixels / 339.48 square millimeters is 24,449 pixels per square millimeter. As for a 1/3" traditional video camera, the XH-A1s's sensor size is 4.8mm x 3.6mm and its sensor is 1.67 Megapixels (though it has three CCD chips, so I'm not sure how that effects things). So a 4.8mm x 3.6mm sensor is 17.28 square millimeters, and 1,670,000 pixels / 17.28 square millimeters is 96,644 pixels per square millimeter. So to sum up the amount of pixels that are crammed onto a square millimeter... 5D Mark III: 25,810 7D: 54,173 C100: 24,449 XH-A1s: 96,644 The smaller the number of pixels that are crammed into a square millimeter, the larger the pixels are. The larger the pixels, the more light each pixel can gather. So based on those numbers, the C100 is slightly better in low light than the 5D Mark III, which actually reflects real world results as well. Of course, again, the camera's processor also has a say in the matter. __________________ https://Vimeo.com/TwoSenseFilms http://TwoSenseFilms.com

November 8th, 2013, 07:28 AM	#64
Steve Bleasdale Trustee Join Date: May 2010 Location: England liverpool Posts: 1,343	Re: Change to full frame better or same as crop There is no doubt, the 5D3 is the mutts nuts in low light. ISO6400 (if properly exposed) is usable. 8000 in a pinch. I've shipped footage shot at 12800 and not worried about it (a little kiss from neat video). You can just about shoot in the dark with a 24mm f1.4 lens, but then that's not a cheap one. Bars at a couple of venues come to mind for this setup. The camcorders just about die. The 24-105L and 70-200 f2.8 are our normal goto kit with the 50 f1.4 and a couple of samyangs as backup. But, there's no substitute for being able to throw the camcorder in to AF mode as the bride is walking towards you and the DOF afforded by the 1/3" chip gives you lots of room for error if people are moving around in speeches. So, I'd hate to be back in the either/or camp. I like having both tools available to me, especially when I'm at a venue with crap (cough) "intimate" lighting with dark wood wall panels and I'm shooting a couple with dark skins. Oh man, the DSLR comes right out of bag then, no messing! Damn. There's never a do all, be all piece of kit out there. Everything is a compromise and I guess it always will be.[/QUOTE] Exactly what im saying Dave nice one and that's my arsenal I want. unless a gh3 owner can tell me otherwise....

November 26th, 2013, 01:56 PM	#65
Steve Bleasdale Trustee Join Date: May 2010 Location: England liverpool Posts: 1,343	Re: Change to full frame better or same as crop Would anyone swap their 5d iii for the c100? One push button focus, peaking, fantastic low light, great dynamic range or has the 5d iii got better shallow depth of field. steve

November 26th, 2013, 02:23 PM	#66
Arthur Gannis Major Player Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: New Jersey USA Posts: 504	Re: Change to full frame better or same as crop Just get the Sony A7, it will be out soon on the shelves. 1/2 the price of that 5D abd with the money saved will get you a few really nice primes to do your thing in low light.

November 26th, 2013, 02:43 PM	#67
Steve Bleasdale Trustee Join Date: May 2010 Location: England liverpool Posts: 1,343	Re: Change to full frame better or same as crop Jeez Arthur, that looks decent, pheeew cant keep up..C100, 5d iii, sony rx10, sony a7, 70d, what else...

November 26th, 2013, 03:12 PM	#68
Arthur Gannis Major Player Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: New Jersey USA Posts: 504	Re: Change to full frame better or same as crop I would scratch off the C100, the 70d, even the 5D3, and seriously look at them Sony's. That auto focus on video mode will make shooting a wedding a breeze. This bokeh and DOF thing is way too hyped about. You can still get that effect with F2.8 if you know to manipulate distance and focal length. If you really want F1.4 territory, then the A7 has it with Carl Zeiss glass.

November 26th, 2013, 03:52 PM	#70
Steve Bleasdale Trustee Join Date: May 2010 Location: England liverpool Posts: 1,343	Re: Change to full frame better or same as crop Haha nice one Dave it looks tempting alright, my wife is barking mad already at me looking at one but it does look easier to use than a dslr. Got all the lens and the body is £3700 but should come down soon. Arthur onto something though that a7 looks great!!

November 26th, 2013, 04:47 PM	#71
Steve Bleasdale Trustee Join Date: May 2010 Location: England liverpool Posts: 1,343	Re: Change to full frame better or same as crop Arthur already there seems moire issues with the a7

November 26th, 2013, 06:35 PM	#72
Arthur Gannis Major Player Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: New Jersey USA Posts: 504	Re: Change to full frame better or same as crop Moire ?? then how about the 36mp version A7r ?

November 27th, 2013, 03:16 AM	#73
Steve Bleasdale Trustee Join Date: May 2010 Location: England liverpool Posts: 1,343	Re: Change to full frame better or same as crop More expensive Arthur than the 5d iii...I think they are all gimmiks from Sony to just exploit the market and get those millions in...