Do I need a Full Frame?

amolitor · Nov 27, 2013

I pretty sure his discussion of DoF is actually wrong, there's more to it than simply using a longer lens.

amolitor · Nov 27, 2013

Also, I hate his pictures. They're copies of all the other landscape photographer's pictures. Look, it's purple/blue and orange/yellow all over the place! This picture will go great with the new couch!

pixmedic · Nov 27, 2013

amolitor said:
I pretty sure his discussion of DoF is actually wrong, there's more to it than simply using a longer lens.

doesn't aperture affect DOF as well? or have I just been doing it wrong?

oldhippy · Nov 27, 2013

Good friend- since departed once told me. " if you really want a certain thing, buy it. If you don't and you go with the lesser. Sure you be happy. But deep inside you will always wish you had your top choice. We're not here forever, live a little. Ed

Derrel · Nov 27, 2013

He glossed over the depth of field issue, possibly because he doesn't fully understand the subject, or possibly because he didn't think readers would be able to understand whatever it is that he might have written. Depth of field is a challenging topic to write about; maybe you recall the week-long series The Online Photographer did about DOF a couple years ago? It was a mess of conflicting ideas, concepts, half-truths, and old folktales.

Oddly, I happened to be by The Luminous Landscape yesterday, and I managed to find and read this essay among the mess that is their new site, filled with $10 interviews of photographers. Seriously? $10 for a fricking interview? Talk about a blatant money grab. But then, I know Kevin and Michael NEED money to buy those new Phase 180 $80,000 medium format camera systems they use and run through like Altoids.

Full Frame Myth

limr · Nov 27, 2013

I am the poster child for not upgrading equipment because I feel I've 'outgrown it.' I used the same camera and lens for 20 years because every time I took a crappy picture with it, I thought, "Man, I have to get better at using this camera!" These days when I use medium-format or a different 35mm, I do so not because they are 'upgrades' but because they are different and I can accomplish different things with them. I have an image in mind that I'd like to try, and I choose the camera that is best suited to capturing the image the way I envision it in my head.

Whenever I go over to a DSLR, it will most likely be a crop sensor because I plan on buying Pentax (to go with the seven lenses I already have for Pentax bodies) and they do not yet make a camera with a full frame sensor. I might, though, just wait for Pentax to come out with full frame. Sure, it might feel more intuitive to me to shoot "35mm" format in digital, but I also don't plan on ever buying more than one DSLR, so I might as well go for something that will last me a long time.

I did try to read that whole article, but dear lord, how the technical discussion made my eyes glaze over!

runnah · Nov 27, 2013

Derrel said:
He glossed over the depth of field issue, possibly because he doesn't fully understand the subject, or possibly because he didn't think readers would be able to understand whatever it is that he might have written. Depth of field is a challenging topic to write about; maybe you recall the week-long series The Online Photographer did about DOF a couple years ago? It was a mess of conflicting ideas, concepts, half-truths, and old folktales.

This is one of the best explanations I've heard. A little "mathy", but good.

Braineack · Nov 27, 2013

pixmedic said:
amolitor said:

I pretty sure his discussion of DoF is actually wrong, there's more to it than simply using a longer lens.

Click to expand...

doesn't aperture affect DOF as well? or have I just been doing it wrong?

Yes, but I've also read that not only is the DOF different between crop and full, you also technically lose a stop of aperture.

I'll have to say, as someone who just bought a d600, I didn't take the decision to buy it over a D7100 lightly.

Derrel · Nov 27, 2013

The camera makers are pushing full-frame d-slrs as both halo products, and as profit makers for themselves.

The new battle ground is the entry-level full-frame market, with Sony trying to get in there with the A7 at $1699, and Canon and Nikon striving for a $2,000 or so offering. Sony's A7r is a 36-megapixel camera trying to draw sales away from the D800 by undercutting it on price, but also delivering the mirrorless advantages, AND also offering some very tech-oriented imaging features that prosumer customers will read about on-line and fall in love with.

I think five years ago, full frame was really a huge benefit to image quality, and to higher ISO shooting. But sensors have become much,much better, and now the gap between APS-C and Full-Frame digital sensors in not as wide as it once was. The advantage is now not as clear as it used to be in terms of image quality--EXCEPT in lower light situations and/or at High ISO settings, where bigger really *is better*.

But if a person wants more depth of field for a given picture angle, then the smaller sensors deliver more depth of field. In fact, for some situations, the m4/3 cameras would be the best choice today. Look at Ysarex's new Fuji XE-2, and its KILLER-sharp, metal-barrel, new Fujinon lenses...a 2x FOV factor means deeper depth of field than a person can get at wide f/stops, a killer new X-Trans sensor technology, beautiful color, and a smallish, lightish camera that looks kind of cool, and which delivers hyperfocal depth of field pretty easily for when that's wanted.

Maybe some people should be asking themselves, "Do I need a m4/3 camera system?"

mmaria · Nov 28, 2013

I'm one of the rare here that shoot an Olympus dslr. It has 2x crop factor and my particular camera introduce noise even at iso 400, max is iso 1600, unusable. Imagine to shoot with just that? figure my limitations? And now, can you imagine what I was pushed to learn because those limitations? But I'm very grateful for it, had to say that.
I didn't want to upgrade until I felt I was ready to make a huge step forward. It's been a long time since I outgrew my camera, but it's ok, no rush. Sometimes when I get a gear lust I just wait until it passes...

I couldn't care less about latest, the "bestest" actually, don't care about those no matter in what terms and areas we talk about. I don't like what's modern, brands, what is in, what is expensive, what most people like...I don't like talking about equipment.
I don't like being judged and underestimated for what gear I use, but I do, all the time.

I've just bought a 6d, not with me yet, but I bought it because I know why and what do I want a ff for. Do I need a ff, well there is just few things in my life that I really need.

Cameras are just tools!

And this guy Nick...I read the article about "5 tips for beginners" and forgave him about some things that bugged me but after this one about ff, I pretty much don't need to read anything else written by him.

JMO

SCraig · Nov 28, 2013

Derrel said:
...
I think five years ago, full frame was really a huge benefit to image quality, and to higher ISO shooting. But sensors have become much,much better, and now the gap between APS-C and Full-Frame digital sensors in not as wide as it once was. The advantage is now not as clear as it used to be in terms of image quality--EXCEPT in lower light situations and/or at High ISO settings, where bigger really *is better*.

This is an important concept that many people fail to understand. One of the drawbacks of simply searching for things on the internet is that dates are not always obvious, and in situations like this they are very important due to the advances in sensors over the past few years.

As recently as 3 or 4 years ago there was truly a significant gap between the performance of crop-sensor and full-frame cameras. Camera makers have dramatically narrowed that gap over the past couple of years and now it is more of a sliver than a gap, and in reality the only time it comes into play is, as Derrel mentioned, during low-light / high-ISO situations.