CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

To create this second retrospective post, I again reached into the LR catalog looking for similar images to ask the question: can you see the difference?

Chilean Flamingo by Paul Sager, on Flickr


Chilean Flamingo


The group of pairs in this post probably exhausts the visually similar images I can find. My LR catalog is mostly up-to-date, at least for keywording and collections, so that I could look for something like 'daffodil' and find all the images with that keyword. But, I found a lot of the "pre LR" images that have never been re-edited after a mass-import of the legacy portfolio back in 2016. At least for the RAWs, the edit work was quick for a few one-off images used in this post.

Chicago River North


Chicago River North


As noted before, there are plenty of images where the 10MP camera / image compares favorably to the closest full-frame version I could find. I prefer the results of this first lily over the second.

Pond lily


Denver Botanic Gardens


The original idea was EOS cropped to EOS full-frame. I could find more 'matched' subjects when I opened the comparison to include the Sony a7II 24MP full-frame body, such as below.

US Botanic Garden


Daffodils


Again, this compare pits all-Canon to a Canon lens on Sony body, a 100mm EF macro against a 200mm FD (Canon) macro.

Cactus


Barrel Cactus


From a 2023 perspective, some of these lenses are 30-years old on 10-year old digital bodies. The RAW files of the 10+ year old XTi files are as 'new' as images taken this morning in terms of processing in LR6. Some of the images, like the Chicago skyline, that's as good as I'd hope to accomplish today. In some of the other comparison images, you can see a bit of improvement, in the composition, shooting technique and the pixel resolution of the respective cameras, like the two cacti.

Speaking of 'old', another idea I tried to present was that great lenses don't change much, regardless of the camera. Many newer lens designs do provide tangible visual improvement, especially when looking at lines on a test chart. But when you look at real-life image results, you're going to be challenged to say there's a difference. That lily I liked above reports the EF 75-300 kit zoom that everyone complains about. You can see I was using it happily, back in the day, not knowing it wasn't any good.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

So which ones are full frame?

whatdat Loc: Del Valle, Tx.

Unless I missed it, you did not state which pic was was full frame & which was not.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Do I need a Full Frame Camera? No. Would I like to have a Full Frame in addition to my crop factors ones? Yes. Would I like to have a MILC in addition to DSLRs? Yes. I like cameras in general. I still have film SLR and 4x5" cameras. I do miss my 6x7 cm camera and using 6x6 cm ones.

Paul, I like your posted images, especially the flowers and cacti!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thank you Mike, Michael, Bill! For the older camera, I didn't have the lenses, skills or interest in a lot of the wildlife subjects I pursue today. That camera would have struggled in those subjects / situations, so the examples selected are some of the better ones for where it did succeed. There wouldn't be 'better ones' from this old camera for BIF.

For which is which, you can use the host Flickr pages to confirm your initial assessments.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

I never asked this question - Do I need a full-frame camera? --
However, when it was time to switch to digital - I did ask the question - Do I need a full-frame Digital?
Since the lenses, I enjoyed & continue to enjoy using were purchased for Canon 35mm Film cameras
YES, Of course, I needed a full frame

Can you tell the difference -- I don't know -- My reasoning was simple -- I didn't want to compromise my lenses.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

One of the photo mag sites had an article not long ago on how good aps-c has gotten, and most don't need a full frame now. Except when the light gets dim, or you are doing wide to ultrawide. There, FF still has the edge. Also, when the full image is used to make BIG prints with lots of detail, then use a high MP FF. Of course, many of the pros will be using a big buck medium format. I get pretty much the same thing from my personal experience.
I am planning to take my R6II FF to fly from So. California to Virginia in May for our Daughter Jasmine's graduation from Medical School. Indoor shots, very important shots also. I am taking a lightweight RF 100-400 and 1.4x for any chance birds and such. Add an RF50 f/1.8 for non-flash needs in dim light, and my, not yet delivered, RF 24-105L f/4, and I should be set. But my wife, who may be taking our train loving special needs son by Amtrak, will probably take my Sony RX10iv with a small external flash with higher GN than the tiny built-in. That way, Debra doesn't have to hassle to remember my lessons on using her T6s and bag of lenses. Or carry them for that matter. I will also give Jon an older, smaller bridge camera, so he feels part of the "recording his little sister for posterity" thing.
So in my opinion, and the author of the article, the FF still has the edge in some uses, but the average person can get by just fine with aps-c, as long as it is a good quality camera.
If it comes to it I could probably get by at the UVA graduation with my R7.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Need? No!, Want? Yes!, Have? YES!, Like? No, Love? YES!!!!.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

I like them all 👍👍👍

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I use Nikon, not Canon cameras and lenses but when it comes to full frame vs cropped sensor I do not believe it actually makes a difference. My experience with what I have, old cameras like the D7000 and the D610, tells me I do not find a significant difference between the two formats. Noise is said to be better controlled with a full frame but if it does it makes a difference in old cameras but less so with the new ones.

There is a "digital factor" when using a cropped camera but regarding the quality of the output both of my cameras render good enough files for me. I have used a 24-70 f2.8 with both cameras and although, as I have mentioned there is a modification to the images due to the digital factor the quality of the files are to my eyes excellent for both. I know others will not agree with my own findings.

Using one or the other to me is irrelevant. The full frame works beautifully with wide angles while the cropped sensor does with teles.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

There was another comment on an earlier post about the differences in low light / higher ISOs. In good light / low ISOs, all digital cameras are relatively great. Alas, my portfolio of old images don't have dark images from the ancient XTi to even try a comparison.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Myself, I went from Canon FD to Canon digital, missing the EF / EOS film camera era. After later giving up on MF cameras, I came to EOS film to share my EF lenses and AF capabilities when working with film.

Earnest Botello Loc: Hockley, Texas

Great series, Paul.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Need no, want no. If I want a larger format I have a Bronica S and a scanner.