What's new

Do I need a Full Frame?

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?

Sure it does, on alternate tuesday's that occur after the correct solstice, assuming of course jupiter is aligned properly with mars at the time. I'm pretty sure I've got a link to an online calculator for that.. hang on..

Lol
 
Well I used to shoot film, so looks like it's okay that I bought a D600; since that's the only reason to get one. ;)

I used to shoot film too - but I don't want a full frame. Dang. Serious dilemma. Lol

I always thought you used one of these ? Is it one of those fangled 110s? Eitherway, no need for a FF.
http://media.officeworks.com.au/ims_docs/52/5284BECE2F985020E10080000AF11387.JPG
$5284BECE2F985020E10080000AF11387.webp


:thumbup:
 
Last edited:
Well I used to shoot film, so looks like it's okay that I bought a D600; since that's the only reason to get one. ;)

I used to shoot film too - but I don't want a full frame. Dang. Serious dilemma. Lol

I always thought you used one of these ? Is it one of those fangled 110s? Eitherway, no need for a FF.
http://media.officeworks.com.au/ims_docs/52/5284BECE2F985020E10080000AF11387.JPG
View attachment 61141


:thumbup:

Hey! Have you been taking stuff out of my camera bag? Lol
 
Sorry, I keep my D600. You cant have it. No matter how many times you claim I wouldnt need it ! :greenpbl:

For Nikon specifically, the really good glas is FX. So why would I want to throw away more than 50% of the possible sensor size ? Also changing the meaning of focal lengths as well, making wide angles really hard to archieve with FX glas.

Also, 36x24mm is the largest size current sensors can be manufactured at in one piece. Thus 36x24mm sensors offer the best low light performance. Larger sensor sizes apparently need to use the CCD technology, which sadly runs with a higher noise background, unless cooled. I often photograph in low light, and the advantage from using full frame is very noticeable this way.
 
My desire for wanting to go full frame is simply in lenses. I grew up shooting on film, both point and shoots and on SLR's of just about every level. To me, 24mm is 24mm. I know that it's going to give me an 86* Angle of view. To get a near equivalent on a crop body, I'd need a 15mm lens, which gives an 86* angle of view. But I need to be realistic here. I love shooting wide angle for my own interests outside of my portrait studio. Though I don't have one, the widest (zoom) lens Nikon makes starts at 10mm, which on a DX gives 109*. Wide, yes, I'll give it that. But I don't like how slow that aperture is (f/4), hence I ended up with a Tokina f/2.8 11-16, which starts at 104*. But even if Nikon made a comparable lens to, say a 14-24, it would have to be somewhere in the neiborhood of 8 or 9mm - that 15mm I mentioned earlier. Now of course, I could sell my 11-16 and replace it with a Sigma 8-16, but again...there's that nasty aperture again, which is variable at f/4.5 at its widest to f/5.6 at the long end. It's not worth it to me, despite the fact that I rarely shoot faster than f/8 for landscapes. Though, I will admit, 2.8 does have a good deal of advantage when shooting hand held at dusk, which is why I mostly use fast zooms. Yes, for the most part, working that fast just isn't needed in most situations, but I live in Alaska where fighting available light, come winter, is what we do here. Even on a tripod, sometimes I struggle to get the shot I'm after, as I have to keep the shutter open longer.

That's all wide angle though. When I think about the longer side of things and shooting, say birds or distant wildlife, You bet, even if I currently had a full frame, I'd be reaching for my D7100...but I always use FF long lenses. at 300mm on a crop sensor, I'm looking at roughly a 5* angle of view. To achieve that same angle on a full frame, I'd be looking at needing a 460mm lens, which, as we all know gets pretty expensive, and I don't use teleconverters unless I have no other choice.

Realistically, there are pros and cons to every format. DX (or APS-C) is really good to make use of longer lenses for when you need that extra reach. But when you need to go wide, unless you're going to a mirrorless system, there really isn't a better alternative, especially when you take lenses into account. But I need to be honest here. M 4/3 puts us back to square 1, in terms of angle of view/mm. Its directly the same as its full frame counter part, when you divide its focal length in half. My problem with with M4/3 is purely in its focus tracking. Though it's gotten better in this last year, it's still not quite up to where I'd want it at, personally. They produce some outstanding images. I'll give them that, especially when you're looking at the EM-1 with the more expensive lenses.

There's a tool for every job. Sometimes a full frame camera is the answer. Sometimes, it isn't. As Solarflare points out, the best glass is in the realm of full frame, though if you look hard enough, some crop sensor lenses can come close. I know I want to eventually get a full frame camera for reasons I mentioned above, but would I use it in my portrait studio? Maybe, maybe not. And you just can't beat the reach of a DX body with full frame lenses in terms of going long. Realistically, the average person wouldn't be able to tell the difference in an identical images, shot with a crop sensor and a full frame. You really have to know what you're looking for. When it comes to taking a hike up a mountain, would I want to carry even my D7100 and a couple lenses? I can tell you now, I wouldn't...It may not seem like much when you're packing up a bag at first, but that body and a couple-few lenses gets heavy after a while. Which is where a nice mirrorless system comes in...
 
Last edited:
I have a digital torque wrench that buzzes and beeps when I reach my torque.
 
I really like the idea of having an extra 1.3 or 1.6 when using a long lens, and with a 1.4 extender as well, it works even better. But for a wide angle, full frame is great. It all depends on what you are shooting and with what lens.
 
To me the biggest issue with 1.5x or 1.6x cameras is when doing traditional portrait-type shots, or social photos where the photographer wants to make the background disappear, or to be sublimated. Especially when working with seamless paper rolls, which have a fixed width. WJay happens a lot is that with the APS-C camera, the depth of field is so great that in normal, real-world locations, the crop-sensor forces the photographer to dip down into the 18,19,20mm length to do a full-length shot, or a group shot of six or more, and is often forced to work from FARTHER BACK, which compounds the DOF issue.

If you start looking for it, you'll start to see all sorts of background 'issues' that APS-C bodies bring to traditional studio shooting when you use 9-foot wide seamless rolls, or when you shoot on-location. You'll see that with your 85mm lens, you need to be 35 feet away with a crop body for a full-length shot, and at that distance even at f/4, the background's pretty recognizable. If you're shooting in sunlight, you'll end up at f/8 to f/16, and you'll have very little background control. But the 17,18,19,20mm group shots on APS-C camera tend to look crappy. NOBODY looks good when shot with a 17,18,19,20mm lens....even the 30-35mm length that you need so,so often with a crop-body indoors looks sub-par compared with a longer lens.

It's a matter of perspective, which is based only on DISTANCE, and then it's made even worse by short focal length and apparent perspective distortion (not the same thing as perspective, and then the two are made worse by the lack of ability to get foreground/background separation via shallow DOF, due to the smaller format of the APS-C capture format. The smaller the capture format, the worse the camera is for certain kinds of people work, especially in-studio, where in most locations,m you have only a 9-foot-wide background, and only about a 5- to 10 foot "apron" of seamless on which you can pose people.

The "Look" of lenses like 85mm and 105mm and 135mm teles has long been understood by higher-end shooters, and the "look" of 24x36mm shot with lenses that were designed for 24x36 is kind of the hallmark of many of today's best wedding and portrait and fashion shooters. The "look" is one reason the Canon 5D-II and 5D-III cameras have taken over the high-end wedding and portrait biz...the "look" is different. When you need to shoot something like a 50mm normal as your "short tele", the look is sub-standard compared against how it looks with a premium 85mm lens. When your group shots are shot with the bottom end of a 17-55 zoom, they look crappy.
 
That post was a mix of being a little silly and making some valid points. It was basically a mess.
 
Anyway, my whole point on that post is that what he's saying is "You don't need full frame... you need a camera that meets your requirements." Okay, sure. That's about as exciting as saying "Don't buy a sports car if you need a pickup truck". It's also about as revolutionary as saying "It's raining out. Wear a raincoat." It's stated like it's some big amazing thing, though.

"DON'T LET PEOPLE TELL YOU THAT YOU NEED TO WEAR A RAINCOAT OUT WHEN IT'S NOT RAINING! THIS IS AMAZING INFORMATION PEOPLE. I WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE. READY? IF ITS NOT RAINING YOU DON'T NEED A RAINCOAT!"

Ok yeah, wow. Awesome man. Thanks. You really saved my ass there.

Now what he sort of glazes over is that ... for some people ... whatever full frame camera option is out there may be a better match for their requirements. Full frame cameras TEND to have better low light handling, better color representation, etc. They also tend to be made from better stuff, so if you need a more rugged body with more weatherproofing, or light up buttons... odds are good the full frame option is going to be the one to have these features.

Will such a thing make you a better photographer? No, of course not. But it is possible that such a thing will be what you need to get the pictures you want... or at least get them as higher quality pictures. (lower noise and whatnot)

If he had posted it with the theme of "you don't NECESSARILY need a full frame camera", it would have been super great.
 
I think his point is actually that the differences between full frame and crop are so minor as to hardly matter. He's got a definite point. The differences in high ISO/noise/etc are still present, but sensor generation matters a LOT more than full frame versus crop.

Given that he's a landscape guy who usually wants more DoF rather than less, I am pretty sure he has a built-in bias against noticing the main substantive difference, which is the treatment of DoF.
 
Ok, but if you're in the market and looking at the same generation of sensors across full frame and crop sensor cameras...

And yes good point on the bias.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top Bottom