- This topic is empty.
Canon 7D or 5D MK2
-
markcapilitan wrote:
…And with a full frame sensor, the bokeh is much better…
AFAIK, bokeh depends on the glass, not the sensor.
sasar wrote:
markcapilitan wrote:
…And with a full frame sensor, the bokeh is much better…
AFAIK, bokeh depends on the glass, not the sensor.
I’d say both, but mostly on the lens.
You can try with DoF calculator http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false; – shallower DoF = better blur. But DO NOT forget about CROP FACTOR! Otherwise you can get false impression/results.
Another story is picture quality on the border. Bigger sensors are more demanding in this matter, and borders from FX cameras are usually less sharp, and vignette is more apparent.Piotr, you see, bokeh and blur are two different things. Bokeh depends on glass and the amount of blades it has & aperture used.
Yes, there will be less DoF at a given aperature with an increasing sensor size. That said, f1.8 is likely is fast as most people would need. Of course, the OP is interested in landscape photography, where the shallower DoF may be a drawback, depending on the quality of the lens when stopped down.
you will never regret buying a professional piece of kit – the 5D will last longer and allow you to branch into other areas of photography.
5d mkii and 450 D owner.sasar wrote:
Piotr, you see, bokeh and blur are two different things. Bokeh depends on glass and the amount of blades it has & aperture used.
Sorry, but light spots are not the bokeh. I know that amount of blades has an impact on shape of light spots and stars formation on light sources, but this are not the bokeh exclusively. Out of focus blur is more important.
b318isp wrote:Yes, there will be less DoF at a given aperature with an increasing sensor size. That said, f1.8 is likely is fast as most people would need. Of course, the OP is interested in landscape photography, where the shallower DoF may be a drawback, depending on the quality of the lens when stopped down.
I put the stress on the ‘crop factor’. Sure, bigger sensor gives shallower dof, but 100mm on FX is like 66mm on DX (I mean angle of view). When you compare this focal lengths, you gonna get slightly different numbers.
For landscape photography 20mm at f/5.6 (object 3m from photographer) you get everything on the photo sharp on a distance from 1.3m to infinity. Whereas on APS-C sensor the same 20mm lens at f/5.6 focused on 3m gives DoF from 1.7m to ca. 15m only.
In general FX cameras are better for landscaping and DX/aps-c for macro and tele shots.I’d suggest you to try to see how dof compares for fx and dx for same aperture and focal lengths equivalents (angles of view).
Piotr M wrote:
…Sorry, but light spots are not the bokeh…
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said bokeh is light spots, I did however say that it depends on blades & glass used, because this is what makes out of focus blur. But I think we are off the subject now.
Piotr M wrote:
sasar wrote:
markcapilitan wrote:
…And with a full frame sensor, the bokeh is much better…
AFAIK, bokeh depends on the glass, not the sensor.
I’d say both, but mostly on the lens.
You can try with DoF calculator http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false; – shallower DoF = better blur. But DO NOT forget about CROP FACTOR! Otherwise you can get false impression/results.
Another story is picture quality on the border. Bigger sensors are more demanding in this matter, and borders from FX cameras are usually less sharp, and vignette is more apparent.These are confusing answers-
Not that I know anything about an answer to the original question,
but a 5D might be preferable for everything but maximum reach with longer lenses-
I wouldn’t have a clue about the finer points-Bokeh, however you spell it, is the quality of the out of focus areas of a picture, not the amount of it-
that’s a limitation of depth of field.
It’s about how a particular lens renders those oof areas.It’s not about lack of resolution at the edge of a frame, since that resolution only applies to subjects in the plane of focus.
You can’t resolve something that’s out of focus-
Though the quality of an image from a soft focus lens is the subject of long running discussion,
I can’t see how it would relate to lenses from this manufacturer.
If a lens fails to focus at the plane of focus, it’s soft, it’s not bokeh-It’s not about vignetting, since that’s about lens coverage-
again, I know nothing about Canon, and the confusing selection of lens mounts,
or even if these two cameras can accept the same lenses-If you want to compare bokeh, then you’re comparing lenses-
and diaphragms, and their position.
If you choose two different formats, then you’ll be comparing two different lenses to produce the same picture,
and if you want to have the same depth of field, or the same amount of oof area,
then you’ll be using two different apertures.Although the op never asked about this, perhaps the greater magnification offered by the bigger frame
might allow a greater investigation into bokeh,
since you’re maximizing the oof area-
but you won’t be using the same lens to produce the same picture with the smaller camera-So, I’d have to agree with Sasar, bokeh is a quality produced by a lens-
how you crop from that lens is up to you-Sasar,
Blades Are not responsible for rendering of out of focus blur. They are responsible for shape of light spots. More blades makes them more pleasant in appearance, more round. That’s it. Nothing more. The optics is responsible for out of focus blur. I’ve seen lovely smooth OOF blur got with shabby lens with 7 blades only (nikkor 50/1.8D). Blades aren’t even rounded! Every nikon user loves this lens for its sharpness and pleasant bokeh in a very attractive price.jb7,
Bokeh – it is a proper spelling. No confusion about it.
However, it is not measurable. It is hard to call it a parameter in photography. I understand your point about optics and its influence on rendering of out of focus blur. But you can’t state that shallower depth of field has no influence on bokeh. Depth of field has a major impact on bokeh. For example. Take nikkor 200/2. This lens is rendering the smoothest bokeh I’ve ever seen, but when you stop down there is no nice blur any more, because depth of field is huge.
Obviously lens construction has an impact on OOF blur rendering, but it is not a secret that really good bokeh you get only when you apply wide aperture primes. Zooms with some exceptions are not good for portraits, because the bokeh they produce is not smooth i.e. tamron 17-50/2.8. It is a very nice and sharp lens, but even at 50mm f/2.8 the bokeh is poor.
Weird bokeh is produced also by canon DOF lenses. The light spots look like onion (concentric rings). Another weird bokeh you get using mirror lenses. Light spots look like doughnuts. I’ve seen some funny macro photos taken with a tamron mirror lens (500mm).Bokeh is a very interesting subject, but we’ve should return to the main topic though.
Piotr M wrote:
Sasar,
Blades Are not responsible for rendering of out of focus blur. They are responsible for shape of light spots.I don’t understand-
light spots, or disks, are what we use to make images-
isn’t that statement self-contradictory?You don’t have to believe me, but you might have more of a job arguing with Merklinger-
and not just about the spelling-
The shape of the diaphragm does contribute to the rendering of out of focus areas-http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml
Piotr M wrote:
jb7,
… you can’t state that shallower depth of field has no influence on bokeh.I didn’t.
However, when you say that ” shallower DoF = better blur ” in the context of discussion on bokeh,
then that’s an over-simplification.What I did say was ” Bokeh, however you spell it, is the quality of the out of focus areas of a picture, not the amount of it- “
Anyway, there are plenty of good discussion on the subject out there if you want to find it-
Merklinger is as good a place as any to start.well. we’re getting a bit off topic here….
I know just as many pros that use either/both cameras and formats. Personally, I don’t think the difference between DX/FX is THAT sensational to waste thousands of web discussions on, (esp. compared to, say, 4×5″ or bigger). So my suggestion is to get a 7D and good glass, and for fun, a 4×5″ for the difference in cost to the 5D – :)Well done Fine Print, a man/person after my own heart.
Maybe i was a bit ‘off’ in my condemnation of such rather waffle, anyway it wasnt printed, i didnt think it was non printable i have to say.
I was getting quiet ‘bombed’ with mega technics and its true good photography is about more than technique, a good eye, a sharp eye, inventiveness, quick snap and great compo, with a half decent camera.
One person a year ago told me that he had taught and met ,many a disabled person taking magnificent shots with a simple ‘point and shoot’
I know technic quality of some fine digital cameras is required in the very top range, but generally just a good camera and a ‘get on with approach is the prudent approach’
sorry for the technic folk but for a person who lacks that minutae of technical experience, i was rather disgruntled of being notified of more of it, and more of it ditto etc et al.
happy snapping. Took a great pic the other day, one that has sparked off the stream of creative conciousness over one small find in one small part of my one small garden.
wee mirrors and reflections gave me an hour of experiementation on composition and position of objects, i had a ball, with great result.
er, a point and shoot!HEY Shutter bug, why no camera! you were one of the first i got to know here?
what happened the camera!!? :(
annI went for a 7D recently as I didn’t want to shell out the extra €€ for a 5D MkII and I will mostly be taking shots at the Road Racing evevnts so the extra reach that the crop factor will give me is very useful.
If I was a landscape photographer I would not be looking at the 7D, it would be a 5D as the full frame will be better for that application. Get decent glass no matter what you go for but for the price of the 5D you could get a 7D with some quality primes or a 17-40L etc etc.
Horses for courses.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
