Wednesday, July 15, 2009

36x24 vs 22x14

So I've now got a 'full frame' camera to play with and I got to wondering: is that a good thing?

I'm not sure if this is the right subject, or even the right way to make a determination, but it was kinda fun anyway.

Both of these shots used the same lens and the same manual exposure settings.

One shot with a 5D - 36mm x 24mm sensor and the other with a 40D - 22.2mm x 14.8mm. The resulting images were sized to the same 518 x 777 pixel dimensions in Photoshop Elements.

Both using a 50mm at f1.4, 1/1000th, iso 100 in the early evening shade.
I'm thinking the jury is still out on this one...


  1. Interesting comparison, I suppose part of the problem is that the 50 will appear longer on the crop sensor.

  2. I also experimented with an 85 1.8 on the 5D alongside the 50 1.4 - 40D. Same field of view, but *wide open* is a different aperture. Not sure what is more important, aperture, or field of view.

  3. I don't know Eric the numbers lose me - the question is are you enjoying the new toy?

  4. Hmmm. I don't dislike the camera. The main drive for my wanting it in the first place was the larger viewfinder. It is bigger (when compared to my 40D), but the exposure info displays are smaller and harder to read.

    The 40D has better handling, and is quicker in many ways.

    I guess the finaly determination will be in comparing prints - which I still need to do...