Canon EF-S 18-135 f3.5 -5.6 IS USM on my 80D. It came with the camera and is the only one I have so far. Will add something sharper and faster in the 18-35 range and/or something wider at some point, but this may still be my walk-around.

I'm still new here - new enough to know when I'm confused. Never heard of ETTR or ETBR before, so with a little help from Google, I know what the acronyms mean. At least superficially. There was another thread here today about underexposing because you can recover detail in the shadows but not in blown out highlights.

So are we saying that in low contrast (i.e low DR?) scenes, over expose (ETTR) but in high contrast scenes, underexpose?

I thought the whole idea of a crop sensor was you didn't even have to take a picture of the crops, it could sense how well they were growing.

Seriously, though, the biggest difference between crop sensor and FF is probably cost. A 24MP crop sensor like my Canon EOS 80D can be had for about $1000, or less for refurbished. I got a refurb kit direct from Canon with 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens for $1199. A 24MP FF with comparable features, e.g. Nikon D750 with 24-120 kit lens was $2400. Might have been able to find refurb for a little less. In addition, FF lenses are more expensive, as has been pointed out. So the cost difference, apples to apples, is close to 2x. Which is why I went crop sensor until I get to a point where it clearly does not meet my needs - and that may never happen.

I've had prints done at Photographic Solutions in Norwalk CT. They use Epson Stylus Pro inkjet printers and can do 1440x2880 dpi with up to ten colors of archival pigment inks. They've done some nice 8x10s for me from my SONY Rx100, $18 each. $52 for archival 16x20 print. Maybe overkill? Will check out FAA and Costco.

After a lot of study and lots of input from uhh, I decided on the 80D. I struggled to decide FF or crop sensor. I could have gone Ff with a coupe of lenses and still not sure sure I'd have everything I needed. I knew what I WANTED, but since I really couldn't be sure what I NEEDED and what would meet my needs, I decided to get into the DSLR game relatively inexpensively, so went with the 80D with 18-135 kit lens. Will I need more telephoto? Wider? Faster? Sharper image for larger prints?Time will tell, but for now, this is a great camera and will do a good job, if not a great job, for anything I want to do. And, with the money I saved, I can buy the glass I need when I know what I need. I did decide to pay a few hundred more for the 80D than the T6s. Suspect I'll have a long learning curve before I can really take advantage.

My advice would be to upgrade when you hit the wall - when what you have won't do what you need. Maybe you need a better body, maybe you need better glass. When you know this, you'll know what to do.

Actually, the second shot was the Canon - which you said was sightly sharper. I'm glad to hear you say they are virtually identical (at least in terms of sharpness), since I couldn't tell. What threw me at first, the Sony at f/5.0 had more dof than the Canon at f/5.6. but it's actual aperture, not f stop that determines dof, so the smaller Sony with at f/5.0 actually has smaller aperture than the Canon at f/5.6.

Right?

Thanks.

First shot was the Sony, second the Canon. Canon was f/5.6, Sony f/5. More dof with the Sony because the Sony lens has a smaller lens, hence smaller aperture at similar f/stop?

Yes, I know the images aren't interesting. I was just taking a shot right outside my front door to compare the two cameras and wanted to see how much better the Canon would be.

I want to be able to print 16x20. I understand that for best quality you need 250, or preferably 300 dpi.

Do I understand then, that when the camera gives me a dpi number, it is making an "assumption" about print size, and my Sony and my Canon are making different assumptions? If I have 4000 pixels by 6000 pixels and each pixel can produce a dot, simple arithmetic would suggest I have 200 dpi at 20x30 and 250 dpi at 16x24, and 72 ppi at 55.6 x83.3, which would seem to be what Babu said. Or is there more to it?
55.6x 83.3.

Anyway, which image looked sharper?

Thanks.

Got my new Canon EOS 80D and took some test shots (18-135 kit lens). Camera looks great, feels great. Images look very good, but computer says the resolution is 72 dpi - several shots over a range of exposure settings, e.g., f5.6, 1/125, 35mm ISO 200. Certainly nothing extreme about those settings. With my Sony RX 100, computer says the resolution is 350dpi, again across a range of settings. I took the same shot with my Sony at f5, 1/100, 37mm, ISO 125. I could go back and re-do the shots with exactly the same settings, but I would think this is close enough.

Both shots look acceptably sharp on my screen even with significant magnification. Both were shot with IQ set to large/fine JPEG. At full size on my screen it's about 9x13. Even with the length at 4x both look good. My eye is not yet trained, but it's hard to tell which is better.

So, two questions. First, do these dpi numbers mean anything? Seems all my shots with the Canon are 72 dpi, and all my shots with the Rx 100 are 350 dpi, so it's just a number for the camera and I'm guessing they each define dpi differently so it's apples to oranges. 350 is great, 72 is poor, but the Canon looks a lot better than 72. Really can't believe the Canon is actually 72 dpi.

Second, which image do you think is better/sharper?

Thanks!

I'm still in the learning mode here (finally ordered my new camera - Canon EOS 80D EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Kit Refurbished - it will be here before Xmas - thanks to the hog for your great input).

So correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that if you put a FF lens on a crop sensor camera, as melismus said, because some of the light "is thrown away" you have to "adjust" the "effective" f-stop. But if you put a crop sensor lens, designed to focus all the light on the smaller sensor, on crop sensor camera, then as Longshadow wrote, same amount of light caught on a smaller sensor - so you don't need to adjust the f-stop (but you still need to adjust the focal length).

Another old guy weighing in here...

I abandoned film a long time ago, Canon FT QL w 50mm and 135mm lenses. I've used a few point and shoot Canon Powershot cameras which were quite nice and allowed me to shoot manual or not lose control to the automatic features. Upgraded a few years back to a 20 MP Sony RX-100. Great camera, fits in my pocket. Now I want to upgrade to DSLR. I decided to limit my search to Canon and Nikon. Good long term compatibility with new lenses and old cameras. Even so, decision is too complicated.

I came down to a fundamental choice between APS and FF format, and looked at Canon 80D (APS) and Nikon D750. Both are 24 MP and both give me all the features I want, but the FF will give more sharpness on large prints for a high price. With a refurb D750 and a couple of good lenses, I'm around $3000. That's a lot for anyone to spend unless they're sure they need it, and for me, it's really a lot. With the 80D and a few good lenses, still around $2,000. Still a lot. And both choices leave me with questions.

Where I am now is, since it is so hard to decide, get into the game cheaper and take it step by step. I can get a refurb 80D w 18-135 lens for $849. It will probably do everything I want. If I find I need more wide angle sharpness Sigma has a great 18-35 for about $800. I can save a few hundred vs the 80D by going with the 760D, and my choice is now down to whether the added features in the 80D are worth it.

Thanks to the hog for helping me get this far!

This has been a real education. Thanks for all the great input.

I get that comparing the Nikon D750 to the Canon 80D is comparing apples and oranges. But I am comparing what appears to be, for my purpose, the best crop frame and the best full frame (750D beats Canon 6D). Without unlimited finds, I have to make some sort of compromise.

Thinking on it further, my landscapes aren't all wide angle. For example, sunrises where the sun is large. Or "landscapes" where I zoom in somewhat on a particular point of interest. And, I do other stuff too. What got me looking at this is I'd like to take a photography tour next year. Maybe arches or Bryce. When I was there, I didn't have the opportunity to take as many photos as I wanted. I took a look at some of my favorite images with point and shoot cameras, and they range from 27 to 114mm (35 mm equivalent). And they're pretty sharp and noise free.

I would love to have two cameras, a crop sensor for most of the time and a FF for really serious work. The crop sensor, smaller, lighter, more portable.

I've looked at a bunch of images on line (Flickr groups), and I find you can make beautiful images with any of these cameras. One camera vs another in the same class can make a difference of at most 4 to 6 mega pixels (18 or 20 vs 24). However, a top notch lens vs a "kit" lens can make a difference of 10 perceived mega pixels based on dxomark, and I so see this in the on line images. Kit lenses are noticeably not as sharp at 16x20. I see why people say spend the money on glass first. But, in many types of images, they are sharp enough that only a critic or perfectionist would care.

Thanks, amfoto1 for the in-depth analysis. Noise is a concern with the 80D. No doubt, the 750D is better. But, from the images I saw, you can still print pretty big up to ISO 800. From my film days, 800 was really, really fast. I like the Sigma 18-35 which is very highly rated at a reasonable price. It gives me a moderate wide angle at 29 mm eq and a "normal" 50mm eq. As you point out, there may be issues with the 70-200mm, and I don't need to spend $1,000-plus on a 70-200 at this point. Glad you got me off that. The cheap, and maybe temporary solution is the 18-135 kit lens for the 80D, which gets over 200mm eq. Not the best, but not really bad, and I can't afford the best. I did see some nice images made with it. With a refurb 80D, I can do this for under $2000. Maybe add a good 10-18 or 10-22 later when I know what I really need. But I should also take another look at some of the cheaper APS cameras, like the Canon 760D as well as the Nikon D5500 and D7100 - maybe one of those with better glass. Need to look at lens prices and performance.

Option two is still the 750D. I can do the kit AF-S 24-120 F/4 G ED VC for $2299.95 and add or upgrade glass later. That beats the Canon 18-135 by a wide margin, but gives me a narrower range of focal lengths, and less money to buy more glass.

One other question: re weatherproofing or environmental sealing. I'm not so interested in shooting a a rainstorm. Rather, I like to shoot at the beach. I might get my feet in the water. There is often spray, or at least salt air. I keep the camera inside a shirt or jacket when I'm not shooting. Is environmental sealing critical here? Does it make any difference at all? Should I avoid the articulated screen?

Thanks again!

Thanks,

I think I understand the difference between crop sensor and FF. Maybe I've got this wrong, but it is my understanding that that with APS you do use all the pixels, but you don't use all the light with a lens designed for full frame because some of the light is focused beyond the dimensions of the smaller sensor. And, smaller pixels capture less light. So, you need a slower shutter speed or higher ISO. Should not be a problem when there is a lot of light. I do like sunsets and sunrises and that may be an issue, but may still be solved with a tripod.

I get the point about the numbers so I looked at a lot of images. No doubt the D750 images are sharper (as the numbers would predict). I also found that sharpness varied more with the glass than with the camera (which is also what the numbers would suggest). With landscapes, I also found that the most beautiful images were not always the sharpest. Ideally, I would have want a full frame 5D series at more than 30MP, but that busts the budget and the D750 stretches it quite a bit.

I did a little more digging on the Tamron lens issue and it looks like a firmware issue that has been solved. I also found a refurb Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L at the same prices at the Tamron, so I may just duck the issue. I know, 70-200 is not your typical landscape lens, but I don't only do landscapes.

I should also say I lean toward Canon since my son has Canon and we can share lenses, and from what I read Canon is generally better in terms of innovation, quality, and service (do you agree?), though Nikon seems to give you a bit more for your money in terms of features and IQ (according to the numbers).

Will want to make a decision soon.

Thanks!

On an earlier post I had some questions about using DxOMark ratings to help select a camera and lens(es) that would let get me print gallery quality 16x20 landscape prints. Of course, I want to do other things, too. Thanks for all the great discussion around this.

After lots of research I'm thinking it's between the Nikon D750 or the Canon EOS 80D. Both have 24MP, environmental sealing, WiFi, lots of AF points, articulated screen. The 80D is lighter and much less expensive. I could add the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 to either and an 18-35 for wide angle (possibly the Sigma on the Canon, very highly rated for $800). No doubt the D750 is more camera, but not sure it's enough to justify the big price difference. And, Canon has the 80D refurb with one year warranty. I like the savings (D750 plus two really good lenses is a stretch), and I also like the convenience of the smaller lighter APS format. Maybe upgrade, or just add a full frame later.

But, I am reading about problems with the Tamron 70-200 and the 80D. Will not autofocus. Camera freezes in live view. Doesn't seem to be a problem with other Canon APS cameras. Does anyone know if this is a real problem? Has it been fixed?

Any other comments?

Thanks again!