Theoretically speaking...

[DibblyDobbler]

I'm standing taking a landscape photo on my 60D with 10-22mm on (at roughly 11mm) - standing right next to me another chap is taking the same shot on a 6D with 17-40 (at 17mm).

The field of view is exactly the same, and we use the same aperture, iso, shutter etc

Comparing the two resulting shots (on a normal screen) would they:

a) look to all intents and purposes exactly the same
b) the one taken with 60D and 10-22 would be better*
c) the one taken with 6D and 17-40 would be better*
d) Dibbly you've drunk too much go to bed

• where better means sharper, more vibrant colours - whatever

[jimmy156]

I would imagine that the one shot with a 6d would be better, L glass, newer camera with full frame sensor etc.

However i think most people would be hard pushed to tell the difference to be perfectly honest, i'm not sure i could.

[AndrewEH1]

The different sensors might be noticeable.

I suspect the 6D will be 'better' although whether it will easy to see the difference, who knows...

[DibblyDobbler]

Thanks for the replies chaps - I just can't quite get my head around whether or not the 'upgrade' would be worth the candle...

[jimmy156]

do it!


seriously though, remember the 6d wont do some stuff as well as your 60d. I suspect (might be wrong?) that it will have a slower frame rate, not as good AF etc.

Also if i moved to FF i would find my 400mm lens only being 400 and not 640mm very limiting, and would also have to invest in an EF500mm f/4 II and 1.4 III tc. To do this i would have to sell the house, which im not sure would go down to well with the OH

[2slo]

Which gear takes the better shot? The one with the better photographer behind it.
I've spent a lot of money on the kit I use. That way, if the results are st, the problem lies with the nut at the back of the camera.
The 17-40 f/4 is a very good lens btw. If it makes you happy, do it. You never know what's round the next corner. HTH

[K12beano]

Even if "everything else is equal", I think the laws of physics would determine:

a) a narrower depth of field on the longer lens/bigger sensor

b) I can't think of anything else, although something is gnawing at me about the potential for different diffraction issues as you stop down.

[DibblyDobbler]

2slo said:

You never know what's round the next corner.

buy before you die ?!

[DibblyDobbler]

K12beano said:

Even if "everything else is equal", I think the laws of physics would determine:

a) a narrower depth of field on the longer lens/bigger sensor

b) I can't think of anything else, although something is gnawing at me about the potential for different diffraction issues as you stop down.

Thanks

Narrower dof would be a bad thing for a landscape shot though wouldn't it ?

I guess I would hope I'd get higher resolution therefor sharper pics - but would it be noticeable ?

[Magic919]

For a landscape I'd expect you both to use a tripod, stop down to a small aperture and maybe use hyperfocal distance. Can't say I'd expect any visible difference in DoF.

[2slo]

DibblyDobbler said:

2slo said:

You never know what's round the next corner.

buy before you die ?!

Lol, I was thinking more along the lines of work changes or Mrs DD deciding she has to have a new kitchen etc, not you going on your final journey!

[GetCarter]

Magic919 said:

For a landscape I'd expect you both to use a tripod

Up until 3 years ago I would have 'expected' myself to do this. However times have changed and I now take at least 75% of my landscapes handheld - Full Frame with high ISO, no appreciable noise.

Today's (7,360px wide), with a 100% crop below:

[GetCarter]

BTW, not dissing tripods... still the safest way to get a good shot, just not 'needed' much of the time these days with proper full frame bodies and expensive glass.

Oh and stop farting around DD, go buy!

[14-7]

GetCarter said:

stop farting around DD, go buy!

[Phunk]

I have a 17-40 and a 60d. It's good, but you don't get the benefit of it till you go full frame.

The 16-35 though, mmmmmm

[markmullen]

I've got the 17-40 on full frame and it covers 99% of my landscapes, a good combo.

[DibblyDobbler]

14-7 said:

GetCarter said:

stop farting around DD, go buy!

That's probably what I needed to hear!

Thanks all for the advice - I will probably continue to ponder for a while yet and see if they get any cheaper.
Look out for the next exciting thread...

[RobDickinson]

First you wouldn't shoot them both at the same aperture, you stop the ff body down a bit more.

Secondly the 10-22 IMO is a better all round lens than the 17-40 optically BUT due to equivalence you get higher resolution on the FF body.

FF sensor will give a cleaner image in terms of noise, even at base ISO. It will also have better dynamic range (probably) more colour range and accuracy. You notice this in shots with lots of foliage.

The difference isnt huge, but it is there.

and I seem to be using tripods more and more.. :O

[markmullen]

I use tripods for all my landscapes, it makes lining up grads a lite more accurate, also ensuring horizons are spot on level etc.

[DibblyDobbler]

RobDickinson said:

First you wouldn't shoot them both at the same aperture, you stop the ff body down a bit more.

Secondly the 10-22 IMO is a better all round lens than the 17-40 optically BUT due to equivalence you get higher resolution on the FF body.

FF sensor will give a cleaner image in terms of noise, even at base ISO. It will also have better dynamic range (probably) more colour range and accuracy. You notice this in shots with lots of foliage.

The difference isnt huge, but it is there.

and I seem to be using tripods more and more.. :O

Thanks Rob

Your thoughts on the two lenses kind of confirms what I have read - this is putting me off a bit. Also I do use the adjustable screen on the 60D a lot...