Do I need a Full Frame?

[imagemaker46]

It all really comes down to the person with the camera, you work with what you have. If the first camera you buy isn't a full frame body, then you don't know any better and learn to use it. If you have always used a full frame body and then end up using one that gives you a 1.3 difference, then you learn to work with it. I've gone from all full frame film cameras to non-full frame digital and used them without any concerns. I am back to a full frame body and it all looks the same to me.

It's the ability to work with what you have, and the skill of the person holding the camera.

Ok, well judging by the rest of your post I doubt your statement was meant this way but I have to point out that people buy non full frame for reasons other than "not knowing better".

As for myself much as I'd love to have an unlimited budget to spend on camera gear, well that just isn't my life. So I buy the equipment I can afford but I try to buy smart so I get the best bang for my buck and I have the best upgrade path available for my type of photography. I do agree that skill is a big part of getting good images. I think that perhaps what hasn't been pointed out, at least not in a clear and concise fashion, is that the higher end gear simply makes it easier for someone with the appropriate skills so it is less likely they will miss the shot they really want.

I have always bought the gear that I needed to do the job and the type of photographs I take, unfortunately for me that also means having to buy at the high end for both bodies and glass. I bought a Canon t2i as a play around camera but still use it when I would like a little 1.6 to some frames, it works just fine with good glass under good light. I had to make the choice on a 5D mklll over trying to find $9000 on a 1Dx, although with the new year looking like a lot more work coming I will have to decide again on which new body. As I noted in an earlier post the 1.3 factor on the 1D and 1Dmkll I used was great with my 300 2.8, I wasn't forced to carry the much heavier 400 2.8 around with me. The 5D is great, but the images still look mushy over 1250iso under low light.

My mention about someone buying a digital camera that is not full frame goes more to the entry level person that has never used a camera before. They don't know any different, so they simply learn with what they have. Either way, it's just a camera.

 

[kathyt]

If you can afford it...buy it. If you can't afford it...don't. Will you love it? Yep.

 

[TCampbell]

As soon as the guy starts comparing a 5D II to the 7D I started rolling my eyes. Those cameras are not actually intended for the same type of use.

I shot with a 5D II (and now a 5D III) for the ISO performance. He sort of shirked that off with a "any camera can have good ISO ... " blah blah blah. While that's a nice hypothesis... unfortunately it's not reality. It turns out I don't have my own chip fabrication plant to build my own sensors processors -- so I'm stuck buying the stuff the vendors are selling. And the vendors put the premium sensors in the expensive cameras (imagine that?) He really skirted the ISO issue. The vendors seem to be putting the most R&D into improving the high-end sensors... which eventually do seem to trickle down into the mid level and entry level bodies. Could they make an APS-C sensor with the same ISO performance as their best full-frame sensors? Sure... but they don't. (BTW, they wouldn't be able to make it with the same total resolution.)

I skimmed over his linked blog on advice to beginner photographers -- the one where he thinks learning the exposure triangle is a "trick" and he doesn't believe it. Understanding how to find the correct exposure and the trade-offs of using equivalent exposures is pretty basic to photography. That's sort of like saying I don't believe you should learn music notation when learning to play an instrument. That is ONE WAY to go about it, sure... but I don't think you'll get the results you're looking for as fast as your friends who DO take the time to learn the basics.

 

[amolitor]

He's actually not the only person who happens to think that the "exposure triangle" is a horrible pedagogical device. It seems to work for some people, but I literally cannot understand how. There's no accounting for how people learn, but sometimes there's no understanding it either.

He's certainly not saying that there's no need to grasp exposure.

 

[Derrel]

One of the observations that I have made for well over 20 years is this: When a writer tells his readers that they, "Do not need high-end gear," it's almost a sure thing that the writer himself DOES in fact, OWN and shoot the very same high-end gear that he tells his readers they ought not to be interested in. And the writer under discussion in this post is no exception. As he writes, "As a professional with tons of experience, let me tell you why I use a full-frame camera and why they get a reputation of being better."

So...once again, my observation proves accurate. It's yet another do as I say, not as I do piece. Click-bait, as amolitor so often calls it--something written to satisfy blog readers, by telling them exactly what they want to have rationalized or justified for their situations.

The same basic scenario has been around for decades. The older, established professional with a truckload of cameras, lenses, flash gear, props, and so on writes an article, in which he (we will call him Joe Pro) tells the readers, "All you need is one light. You can get great portraits with just a 50mm lens and one,single light." And so on,and so on, and so on. And yet when Joe Pro does a portrait session, he doesn't use a 50mm lens and just one light; instead, he brings out four or five lights, multiple modifiers, and an expensive, purpose-built lens that he reserves for his higher-end portraits, and uses a camera body that costs as much as a used car.

 

[astroNikon]

One of the observations that I have made for well over 20 years is this: When a writer tells his readers that they, "Do not need high-end gear," it's almost a sure thing that the writer himself DOES in fact, OWN and shoot the very same high-end gear that he tells his readers they ought not to be interested in. And the writer under discussion in this post is no exception. As he writes, "As a professional with tons of experience, let me tell you why I use a full-frame camera and why they get a reputation of being better."

So...once again, my observation proves accurate. It's yet another do as I say, not as I do piece. Click-bait, as amolitor so often calls it--something written to satisfy blog readers, by telling them exactly what they want to have rationalized or justified for their situations.

The same basic scenario has been around for decades. The older, established professional with a truckload of cameras, lenses, flash gear, props, and so on writes an article, in which he (we will call him Joe Pro) tells the readers, "All you need is one light. You can get great portraits with just a 50mm lens and one,single light." And so on,and so on, and so on. And yet when Joe Pro does a portrait session, he doesn't use a 50mm lens and just one light; instead, he brings out four or five lights, multiple modifiers, and an expensive, purpose-built lens that he reserves for his higher-end portraits, and uses a camera body that costs as much as a used car.

But does he use a tripod or handhold it ? :lmao:

 

[robbins.photo]

He's actually not the only person who happens to think that the "exposure triangle" is a horrible pedagogical device. It seems to work for some people, but I literally cannot understand how. There's no accounting for how people learn, but sometimes there's no understanding it either.

He's certainly not saying that there's no need to grasp exposure.

Ok, guess I'm confused on this one - ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture all affect exposure. How can one possibly "understand" exposure if they don't understand how these three interact? Seems completely nonsensical to me to say I "understand" exposure if I'm completely ignorant of the fact that I need to increase my ISO or my Aperture to compensate for a higher shutter speed, or if I'm unaware of what Increasing my ISO or my Aperture will do in regards to the final image. You either get it or you don't - just not seeing a third option here.

 

[astroNikon]

He's actually not the only person who happens to think that the "exposure triangle" is a horrible pedagogical device. It seems to work for some people, but I literally cannot understand how. There's no accounting for how people learn, but sometimes there's no understanding it either.

He's certainly not saying that there's no need to grasp exposure.

Ok, guess I'm confused on this one - ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture all affect exposure. How can one possibly "understand" exposure if they don't understand how these three interact? Seems completely nonsensical to me to say I "understand" exposure if I'm completely ignorant of the fact that I need to increase my ISO or my Aperture to compensate for a higher shutter speed, or if I'm unaware of what Increasing my ISO or my Aperture will do in regards to the final image. You either get it or you don't - just not seeing a third option here.

who knows .. maybe AUTO ISO then you can ignore it.
Then you have 2 things.

and only 1 if you only do S or A
let the camera do the rest of ignorance

 

[amolitor]

The "exposure triangle" is a specific, terrible, picture which completely fails to reveal a single damn thing about the relationship between the three things. The picture is terrible and yet, somehow, weirdly effective. It gives the impression of carrying a lot of information while in fact containing almost none.

Exposure can be understood without reference to this terrible picture, as evidenced by something like the first 150 years of photography.

 

[Derrel]

The "exposure triangle" is a specific, terrible, picture which completely fails to reveal a single damn thing about the relationship between the three things. The picture is terrible and yet, somehow, weirdly effective. It gives the impression of carrying a lot of information while in fact containing almost none.

Exposure can be understood without reference to this terrible picture, as evidenced by something like the first 150 years of photography.

I agree with amolitor on this; the "exposure triangle" is a very recent, digital-age concept. I had never heard of it until about five years ago. It's basically a newbie thing. I do not think it's a necessary concept in any way,shape, or form. I'm not quite sure how it came to be, or who first coined the term.

 

[robbins.photo]

The "exposure triangle" is a specific, terrible, picture which completely fails to reveal a single damn thing about the relationship between the three things. The picture is terrible and yet, somehow, weirdly effective. It gives the impression of carrying a lot of information while in fact containing almost none.

Exposure can be understood without reference to this terrible picture, as evidenced by something like the first 150 years of photography.

I agree with amolitor on this; the "exposure triangle" is a very recent, digital-age concept. I had never heard of it until about five years ago. It's basically a newbie thing. I do not think it's a necessary concept in any way,shape, or form. I'm not quite sure how it came to be, or who first coined the term.

Ok, so were actually talking about some sort of food pyramid style graphic as opposed to an understanding of ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture then? Well that makes a lot more sense.

 

[EIngerson]

The "exposure triangle" is a specific, terrible, picture which completely fails to reveal a single damn thing about the relationship between the three things. The picture is terrible and yet, somehow, weirdly effective. It gives the impression of carrying a lot of information while in fact containing almost none.

Exposure can be understood without reference to this terrible picture, as evidenced by something like the first 150 years of photography.

Ummmmmm, what?

 

[minicoop1985]

Someone mentioned learning without the exposure triangle. The very first times I ever played with manual mode on a DSLR (probably 5 years+ ago), I had absolutely no idea what the hell I was doing, and therefore just took about 40 photos of the same thing until I got one that was what I thought good at the time (it hurts my eyes looking back on it). Just played with settings. Learned about... nothing doing it. Repeated the process until realizing hey, there's a pattern here. If I adjust this, things get brighter. If I adjust that, things get blurry here and sharp here. So there is a way to learn without the triangle: trial and error. Eventually, you get the idea for what settings work in what places, but basically, you learn that triangle in some way shape or form even if you claim you didn't.

Unless your D4 is in Auto mode.

 

[amolitor]

Interesting. The phrase "exposure triangle" seems to mean two different things, depending on who you ask. One of them is a ridiculous little graphic, which exists in a bunch of different forms, which purports to illustrate the relationship between shutter speed, aperture, and ISO (but does not). The other one is simply the relationship between those three things in making an exposure.

I'm pretty sure that Nick Carver and I both mean "the useless little graphic", not the relationships between the three factors. Of course you need to grasp the relationship between the three factors that go into an exposure.

 

[EIngerson]

Or, it's the standard diagram people relate to when discussing exposure. Your arguments really aren't going anywhere Amolitor.