Do I need a Full Frame?

[runnah]

I now have a full frame camera and I can attest that all my photos are now much better. Each photo now has exciting subjects, dynamic lighting and tells an emotional story. I also lost 10 lbs while eating the things I love.

 

[Derrel]

I now have a full frame camera and I can attest that all my photos are now much better. Each photo now has exciting subjects, dynamic lighting and tells an emotional story. I also lost 10 lbs while eating the things I love.

Dude-you totally forgot to add the part where you tell us that you: "Make $1,134 a day from home, typing on the keyboard. Easy money-making opportunities, reply for details to sillyfakejobs_BS$makingopps.com"

 

[runnah]

Dude-you totally forgot to add the part where you tell us that you: "Make $1,134 a day from home, typing on the keyboard. Easy money-making opportunities, reply for details to sillyfakejobs_BS$makingopps.com"

Well I can tell you but you need to buy my DVDs for 3 easy payments of $49.99 plus shipping and handling.

 

[Rick58]

Let me shovel away some of this testosterone and ask a simple question.
In my film days, you always shot the largest format possible for a given situation. You did this for one reason...image quality.
This debate would never even have existed because this was a given fact. If not, everyone would have shot 110 film with the best glass affordable.
I never would have even considered buying a camera that used PART of a 35mm frame. Now comes the question. Is this still a factor? From what I've been reading here, it's not...so much.

 

[Derrel]

Let me shovel away some of this testosterone and ask a simple question.
In my film days, you always shot the largest format possible for a given situation. You did this for one reason...image quality.
This debate would never even have existed because this was a given fact. If not, everyone would have shot 110 film with the best glass affordable.
I never would have even considered buying a camera that used PART of a 35mm frame. Now comes the question. Is this still a factor? From what I've been reading here, it's not...so much.

Well...the technical image quality of the newest APS-C sensors has really gone up over the last few model generations. An APS-C camera that's up at the top of the heap, like say the Nikon D7100, now has better dynamic range, deeper color depth, and better typical performance that older, 2003-2008 era full-frame cameras from Canon. Canon was the only significant maker of full-frame digital cameras in that era. So today, a Nikon D7100's average performance in decent light is easily,easily better than the performance of say, a $7,999 EOS 1Ds 11-MP or a newer EOS 1Ds 16.7 MP Mark III variant of the 1Ds model; higher resolution, better dynamic range by far, and better color depth. Today's best APS-C cameras have technical image quality that is as good, or better, than older, full-frame "pro" cameras had.

Buuuuuuut....the way the images "look" still differs somewhat between FF and APS-C. Foreground/background separation in wide-angle images for example...MUCH trickier to get with the smaller APS-C sensor cameras on wide-angle shots. And even with longer lenses, like 50mm and 85 and 105mm and 135, or with the 70-200 or 300mm f/4 or even 300/2.8, the smaller-format cameras render backgrounds more in-focus than the FX cameras do--which can be either a good thing, or a bad thing, or neither.

The other issue is what lenses the smaller format cameras FORCE the shooter to use in confined spaces; indoors, the FF camera have the edge, based on the lenses that exist, and the focal lengths that must be used, or can be used. In wide-open spaces and at longer distances, many people prefer the smaller field of view that high-grade, "crop-frame" cameras give with telephoto lenses. Shoot some studio groups in a small room with an APS-C camera an 19mm lens setting...the images look like cr@p. Photograph tiny birds on FX and 12MP (like a D700 or original 5D) with a 300mm and the birds look tiny: shoot with a 16- to 24 MP APS-C sensor with a 1.5x to 1.6x FOV factor, and the images have alllllll the pixels basically on "the subject".

With a new ultra-high MP camera like the Nikon D800, the user has a choice of a full-field 36 megapixel shooting mode OR what is it? A 16 megapixel crop-frame shooting mode. So, in that way, the D800 offers users both an FX and a DX format camera in one body.

 

[bc_steve]

Is the difference in DOF simply because to frame the same shot from the same spot, you use a longer lens on the FF camera or is there something else going on?

 

[Derrel]

Is the difference in DOF simply because to frame the same shot from the same spot, you use a longer lens on the FF camera or is there something else going on?

I wish I could give a realllllly simple answer, but I cannot. I often use the following example. Full-frame camera, man and a woman, standing, full-length portrait using an 85mm prime lens for lens aperture, image quality, whatever. With the FF camera, you shoot from 20 feet away, and get an 8.5 foot tall field of coverage. With a 1.6x Canon, same 85mm lens, you must be 34 feet distant to get the same, 8.5 foot tall field of coverage. NET result? The greatly longer camera-to-subject distance with the 1.6x camera means that there is MORE depth of field, AND ALSO, the background will be significantly more-recognizable at normal f/stops.

The smaller the camera format, the MORE depth of field it gives at each picture angle of view. That is an unchanging optical "law". Depth of field is not linear in the way it works. At longer distances, the depth of field from a smaller sensor camera increases VERY rapidly.(see the LAST point in the bullet points below!) With smaller film or sensors, once the focused distance gets out there into the 20-30 foot range, the shorter lenses are all approaching, or at Hyperfocal Focus distance, or beyond. This means for eample, with small-sensor cameras, it is EASY to get almost in finite depth of field, from very close, to Infinity. Easily. Which can be a good thing, it truly can.

The subject has multiple issues, but this might be the very best single,ACCURATE and TRUE article I've seen on the web:

Depth of Field, Digital Photography and Crop Sensor Cameras - Bob Atkins Photography

Just a few of the highlights!!!

" For an equivalent field of view, a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera has at least 1.6x MORE depth of field that a 35mm full frame camera would have - when the focus distance is significantly less then the hyperfocal distance (but the 35mm format needs a lens with 1.6x the focal length to give the same view).

• Using the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, the a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera image has 1.6x LESS depth of field than the 35mm image would have (but they would be different images of course since the field of view would be different)

• If you use the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body and crop the full frame 35mm image to give the same view as the APS-C crop image, the depth of field is IDENTICAL

• If you use the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, then shoot from different distances so that the view is the same, the Canon APS-C crop sensor camera image will have 1.6x MORE DOF then the full frame image.

• Close to the hyperfocal distance, the Canon APS-C crop sensor camera has a much more than 1.6x the DOF of a 35mm full frame camera. The hyperfocal distance of a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera is 1.6x less than that of a 35mm full frame camera when used with a lens giving the same field of view."

 

[Rick58]

But Derrel, how is this different the film? A 90mm is a standard lens on medium format, but the same lens is a telephoto in 35mm or wide angle in large format. Film size = sensor size

 

[Derrel]

But Derrel, how is this different the film? A 90mm is a standard lens on medium format, but the same lens is a telephoto in 35mm or wide angle in large format. Film size = sensor size

It's STILL the same as with film. Digital medium format is still often used for catalog and fashion, swimwear, and lingerie photos, where shallow depth of field images, in BRIGHT light, are often desired by the client. For example, the Victoria's Secret lingerie and swimwear shoots, the Sports Illustrated-type of bikini + location shoots...on a lot of those types of shoots, the guys go with one-size-bigger-than-24x36, which is digital medium-format (which is itself NOT "full-frame" 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9, but is instead a cropped down version of full-format 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x7!). Let's call digital medium format, on average, similar to 645 rollfilm.

Here is the all-rights-released, NON-copyrighted Wikipedia comparison image file of digital sensor sizes illustration:

See the square millimeter SIZE of digital medium format??? It's huge, compared to the size of an APS-C frame from a Canon. This means that those fashionistas can get selective focus, in bright tropical sunshine, and have BIG files with tons of resolution, for easy detail retouching, and also--gain the benefits of cameras that can do high-speed, full-daylight flash fill synchronizing with leaf shutters. So, in many ways, we're still where we were: medium format still offers the advantage that made it so wonderful: leaf shutter lenses for flash synch AND reliability; in a camera that costs $29,000, if the shutter is dead, the camera is a paperweight; if all one needs is to slap on another $2,000 lens, then the camera has a brand new shutter...in EACH lens. The medium format camera is a film-holder and a lens receptacle.

If you want a digital 126 Instamatic...a $99 camera from Panasonic or Canon, or your iPhone 4 or 5 or Samsung Galaxy is that camera...only BETTER. Your new Nikon Df 16MP FX is the equivalent to your beloved older Nikon F2...only the Df has better image quality, at up to maybe 10 times the ISO level! Compare an F2's film image at 400 ASA with Kodacolor Gold 400 negative film with a Nikon Df shot made at ISO 4,000.

 

[Derrel]

fashion images shot on medium-format digital - Google Search

CLick on a few links...

DSLR vrs a Medium Format Digital Back: Why I bought a Hasselblad | motivelife

Blog @ BorrowLenses

IJ Productions | Melbourne based Australian Photographer | Commercial Advertising Fashion Product Photography - Part 6

 

[ShootRaw]

I would like a full frame camera to a) take advantage of lower light situations b) make the most of my lenses and c) enjoy it like HD. yipikaye mother.....

How so?

Well, most of the FX cameras I've looked at upgrading to (D600, D800) are so much better than my D7100 in lower light.
I am now in the process of switching out my DX lenses for FX lenses, so I wish to take advantage of them when I upgrade.

I was talking for my own reasons for wanting full frame, not technical reasons why people buy them in the first place

I would disagree that the D600 is so much better in low light than the D7100..