Can someone explain to me about this Full Sensor stuff?

[2WheelPhoto]

In NIkon, a full-frame camera is a professionally-capable camera, with TOP-line autofocusing, metering, and build quality and speed of sub-systems. Nikon makes the D700, D3s, and D3x. Prices are from $2700 to $7500, last time I checked...and with those prices, Nikon's own Nikon Professional Services classifications, and real-world considerations, FUll-frame or "FX NIkon" bodies are professionally-capable cameras. Few in number of models.

Canon makes the 5D Mark II, also about $2,700. Not a very "professional" type of body, with a very middle-of-the-road set of body and autofocusing capabilities, but a VERY high-resolution, high-quality sensor and beautiful image quality. Canon also makes a true, professional flagship, the 1Ds series body, with the little s commonly thought of as standing for "studio"....but it's very field-capable too! Expensive, and rock-solid.



Sony's A850 and A900 full-frame cameras are very traditionally styled, well-made, solid, good-viewfindered lower-priced FF bodies. These two share the same sensel, or light-sensitive part, of the sensor used in the Nikon D3x, so both Sony cameras have a 24.7 MP sensor. The electronics and AA filter and such however, are not nearly as sophisticated as those in the D3x, and so the Sony cam's have much poorer High-ISO performance than the D3x has. Last price I saw, the A850 was $1875, a low,low price for a FF 24.7 MP d-slr.

Full-frame d-slr cameras are not really as much a concept as a finite number of ACTUAL CAMERAS, with REAL LIMITATIONS, and real, not imagined, strengths.

The pro stuff mentioned you won't get in a pro-sumer cropper (in addition to the better sensor). When I took my D700 out of the box it focused so fast I didn't realize it was focusing (with the same 24-70 compared to my D7000 focus speed). Not to mention the better viewfinder performance, two things I noticed within seconds of turning it on.

After these obvious attributes, I then notice my full frame compared to my cropper:

1) with the full frame with same lenses (at same MM focal length) I can move in closer to the subject and SIGNIFICANTLY reduce depth of field

2) less noise when I push ISO

3) pixel peeping two of same images in lightroom....well you know the deal

4) I don't have to "back way up" or "use wider angle mm" in the studio, I'm now right there with the instructor (shooting closer to the models)

Build quality? If you blindfold yourself and pick up my full frame body then pick up my cropper you'll feel the difference and know which is the pro body.

I can't agree after owning both that full frame is a "waste of money" or "not that much difference camera for camera" as some may suggest. Plus as inexpensive as crop bodies are I still have mine as back-up.

Disclaimer: I'm a newB completing a college photography certification program, please pay no mind to me whatsoever

 

[enzodm]

Derrel: topic was "full frame sensor", not "full frame camera". Let's tell all these superfunctionalities are put around full sensors only because full sensors start from a better quality (noise wise mainly).

Craig: "loss of focal length", effective or not. It depends on the side you look at it: on a crop sensor you loose the short side, because it is difficult to have very wide lenses on crop bodies.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

The selling point for me to have dropped the dime on a full sensor is depth of field performance, low image noise performance, and higher dynamic range.

Of course all the additional pro vs amateur features are sweet too, all the way to the bodies' build quality.

 

[o hey tyler]

No one has mentioned " Less depth of field " with FX ( full frame), which is important in certain situations, such as macro photography where depth of field is a problem unto itself without complicating it with this.
Quite a bit of loss in depth of field. Thus forcing slower shutter speeds, OR higher ISO to compensate, when a faster shutter is needed as well as more DOF. There's always flash, but that's not what I'm talking about. I speak of natural light, where most of Mr. Craigs work seems to be done. To say full frame high ISO is leaps and bounds better would be misleading considering there is substantial loss in image quality even with the King of high ISO, the Nikon D3S. I looked at that pretty good before going with the K5, because I wanted the D3S. I did not see $4000.00 better high ISO image quality. Better, yes a little. 4000 dollars worth, NO.

Yep. But think again. You get less depth of field... but! You can increase the f stop without needing to worry (at least not at much) about diffraction. Increasing f stop means you get less light... but! Since the sensor has better ISO performance, you can boost your ISO without worrying about image quality loss. At the end of the day, it all depends on the size. The larger the sensor/pixels, the less likely it will be limited by the overall sharpness of the lens.

You don't get "Less depth of field" on a full frame camera, that's not true as I understand it. What happens is, you have to move farther back with a crop frame camera to compose a shot (filling the frame the same amount), thus making the distance from camera to subject greater. There's not "more" depth of field from a crop frame camera, it's just increasing the distance from lens to subject.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Depth of field is a plus on a full frame. Imagine an 85mm lens. No matter what sensor size, 85mm - 85mm all day and night but you'll be farther back from your subject with the cropper and we know what that does to depth of field. I noticed this phenomenon the 1st day I was in the studio with my FF and a 24-70 lens I had used with my cropper.

This pattern may make things easier to understand for the naysayers: fullframe > crop sensor > micro 4/3s > cell phone sensor....

There are certainly sensors available bigger than full frame LoL

 

[Edsport]

Derrel: topic was "full frame sensor", not "full frame camera". Let's tell all these superfunctionalities are put around full sensors only because full sensors start from a better quality (noise wise mainly).

Craig: "loss of focal length", effective or not. It depends on the side you look at it: on a crop sensor you loose the short side, because it is difficult to have very wide lenses on crop bodies.

Actually, the topic is "Full sensor", not "full frame sensor"...

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Derrel: topic was "full frame sensor", not "full frame camera". Let's tell all these superfunctionalities are put around full sensors only because full sensors start from a better quality (noise wise mainly).

Craig: "loss of focal length", effective or not. It depends on the side you look at it: on a crop sensor you loose the short side, because it is difficult to have very wide lenses on crop bodies.

Actually, the topic is "Full sensor", not "full frame sensor"...

 

[BlairWright]

Should I buy a Full Frame DSLR?

This is one of the better FF vs Crop articles I have read. Not too technical for most people but still hits all the points.

Thanks Big Mike

 

[Village Idiot]

No one has mentioned " Less depth of field " with FX ( full frame), which is important in certain situations, such as macro photography where depth of field is a problem unto itself without complicating it with this.
Quite a bit of loss in depth of field. Thus forcing slower shutter speeds, OR higher ISO to compensate, when a faster shutter is needed as well as more DOF. There's always flash, but that's not what I'm talking about. I speak of natural light, where most of Mr. Craigs work seems to be done. To say full frame high ISO is leaps and bounds better would be misleading considering there is substantial loss in image quality even with the King of high ISO, the Nikon D3S. I looked at that pretty good before going with the K5, because I wanted the D3S. I did not see $4000.00 better high ISO image quality. Better, yes a little. 4000 dollars worth, NO.

Yep. But think again. You get less depth of field... but! You can increase the f stop without needing to worry (at least not at much) about diffraction. Increasing f stop means you get less light... but! Since the sensor has better ISO performance, you can boost your ISO without worrying about image quality loss. At the end of the day, it all depends on the size. The larger the sensor/pixels, the less likely it will be limited by the overall sharpness of the lens.

You don't get "Less depth of field" on a full frame camera, that's not true as I understand it. What happens is, you have to move farther back with a crop frame camera to compose a shot (filling the frame the same amount), thus making the distance from camera to subject greater. There's not "more" depth of field from a crop frame camera, it's just increasing the distance from lens to subject.

There's several things to attribute to it. Say you have a 100mm lens on a FF camera and a 66mm lens on a 1.5 APS-C camera to get the same FOV on each camera. The wider the lens, the more DOF. Also, the more of the lens a sensor sees the more dof. When you narrow your aperture you're using less and less of the front element which translates to using the flatter part of the lens. If you have a sensor that's naturally using a smaller portion of the front lens, it'll give you more DOF.

 

[LightSpeed]

Yep. But think again. You get less depth of field... but! You can increase the f stop without needing to worry (at least not at much) about diffraction. Increasing f stop means you get less light... but! Since the sensor has better ISO performance, you can boost your ISO without worrying about image quality loss. At the end of the day, it all depends on the size. The larger the sensor/pixels, the less likely it will be limited by the overall sharpness of the lens.

You don't get "Less depth of field" on a full frame camera, that's not true as I understand it. What happens is, you have to move farther back with a crop frame camera to compose a shot (filling the frame the same amount), thus making the distance from camera to subject greater. There's not "more" depth of field from a crop frame camera, it's just increasing the distance from lens to subject.

There's several things to attribute to it. Say you have a 100mm lens on a FF camera and a 66mm lens on a 1.5 APS-C camera to get the same FOV on each camera. The wider the lens, the more DOF. Also, the more of the lens a sensor sees the more dof. When you narrow your aperture you're using less and less of the front element which translates to using the flatter part of the lens. If you have a sensor that's naturally using a smaller portion of the front lens, it'll give you more DOF.

SCHOOLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Helen B]

When you narrow your aperture you're using less and less of the front element which translates to using the flatter part of the lens. If you have a sensor that's naturally using a smaller portion of the front lens, it'll give you more DOF.

What has how much of the front element is being used got to do with DoF? (apart from the reduction in aperture itself)

Thanks,
Helen

 

[o hey tyler]

Yep. But think again. You get less depth of field... but! You can increase the f stop without needing to worry (at least not at much) about diffraction. Increasing f stop means you get less light... but! Since the sensor has better ISO performance, you can boost your ISO without worrying about image quality loss. At the end of the day, it all depends on the size. The larger the sensor/pixels, the less likely it will be limited by the overall sharpness of the lens.

You don't get "Less depth of field" on a full frame camera, that's not true as I understand it. What happens is, you have to move farther back with a crop frame camera to compose a shot (filling the frame the same amount), thus making the distance from camera to subject greater. There's not "more" depth of field from a crop frame camera, it's just increasing the distance from lens to subject.

There's several things to attribute to it. Say you have a 100mm lens on a FF camera and a 66mm lens on a 1.5 APS-C camera to get the same FOV on each camera. The wider the lens, the more DOF. Also, the more of the lens a sensor sees the more dof. When you narrow your aperture you're using less and less of the front element which translates to using the flatter part of the lens. If you have a sensor that's naturally using a smaller portion of the front lens, it'll give you more DOF.

I'm not talking about relative field of view, I am talking about using the same focal length on both a Crop Frame and Full frame DSLR.

What has how much of the front element is being used got to do with DoF? (apart from the reduction in aperture itself)

Thanks,
Helen

Seconded, I'm not sure I understand why/how that works.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel: topic was "full frame sensor", not "full frame camera". Let's tell all these superfunctionalities are put around full sensors only because full sensors start from a better quality (noise wise mainly).

Craig: "loss of focal length", effective or not. It depends on the side you look at it: on a crop sensor you loose the short side, because it is difficult to have very wide lenses on crop bodies.

A naked sensor isn't worth a tinker's damn as a picture-maker or picture-taker...one can NOT separate the sensor from the anti-aliasing filter, and the camera's electronics. There are so few full-frame sensors being sold that each and every model is clearly identified with a SPECIFIC camera. If you want to be pedantic, fine. Why don't we discuss something REALLY important to the imaging process, which is the NECKSTRAP on the camera!!!

 

[Derrel]

When you narrow your aperture you're using less and less of the front element which translates to using the flatter part of the lens. If you have a sensor that's naturally using a smaller portion of the front lens, it'll give you more DOF.

What has how much of the front element is being used got to do with DoF? (apart from the reduction in aperture itself)

Thanks,
Helen

I simply can hardly wait to hear the answer to this "less of the front element" line of 'thinking'.