Full Frame SLRs...why or why not?

[musicaleCA]

Then our disagreement is one of miscommunication, not misunderstanding. My comments were specifically referring to DoF, and not to framing. I've heard plenty of people say that DoF is actually changed by the sensor size, when in fact it isn't.

As you said, the difference does go both ways. Hence, my personal opinion is that while this is a difference, sure, it's not something worth quibbling over.

 

[Big]

It's not so much the crop factor as the size of the sensor itself. What makes a DSLR better than a point and shoot? The main thing (image quality wise) is the much larger sensor. The same principle applies.....a much bigger sensor is going to capture much more data. It will have better dynamic range, much better noise at all iso levels (especially high ISO)...a crop sensor will never capture the same high iso performance as full frame. People are shooting stuff on full frame in the neighborhood of 24,000 iso compared to crop sensors that usually max out at 3200-6400. Plus a D700 at iso 3200-6400 looks about as clean as a D90 (which itself is good for higher iso) at around 800.

Edit: I don't know much about Canon's. All of what I said above was basically comparing a D3/D700 to a D90/D300....as Nikon full frame vs. crop is where my knowledge lies (and ends...lol).

This is also something I have been wondering about. Does the ratio change for ISO between point and shoots and DSLRs? What I mean is, for example, I am taking a picture indoors with my p&s of a birthday party, low light, and an ISO of 800 to be able to see the subject. Will ISO 800 be sufficient enough for a DSLR or will I have to raise it to say, 3200 or higher to be equal to an 800 from my p&s? I'm asking because I've seen shots taken at around 12,000 or 24,000 ISO and I would think that it would be completely nothing but noise. Would you need an ISO of 12,800 (highest of the Canon 50D) to be equivilent to an 800 ISO (just for example) of a P&S? I hope I'm not confusing the heck out of people...

 

[kundalini]

No, it pertains to sensors. I said all things being equal. Take an EF 50mm and slap it on a full-frame as opposed to a crop, and you're going to get more vignetting and softness on the corners than the crop, because the crop is only taking the image from the centre sweet spot of the lens.

The sensor only records the light that is passing THROUGH THE LENS.

I don't know Canon nomenclature for their lenses. Is an EF lens designed for a cropped sensor, much like Nikkor's DX lens? If so, then all things aren't equal. Mounting a lens designed for a cropped sensor on a full frame may likely cause issues as you described because that is not how the lens was engineered to be used. But vignetting, softness at borders and DoF is a product of the lens, not the sensor.

 

[tsaraleksi]

It's not so much the crop factor as the size of the sensor itself. What makes a DSLR better than a point and shoot? The main thing (image quality wise) is the much larger sensor. The same principle applies.....a much bigger sensor is going to capture much more data. It will have better dynamic range, much better noise at all iso levels (especially high ISO)...a crop sensor will never capture the same high iso performance as full frame. People are shooting stuff on full frame in the neighborhood of 24,000 iso compared to crop sensors that usually max out at 3200-6400. Plus a D700 at iso 3200-6400 looks about as clean as a D90 (which itself is good for higher iso) at around 800.

Edit: I don't know much about Canon's. All of what I said above was basically comparing a D3/D700 to a D90/D300....as Nikon full frame vs. crop is where my knowledge lies (and ends...lol).

This is also something I have been wondering about. Does the ratio change for ISO between point and shoots and DSLRs? What I mean is, for example, I am taking a picture indoors with my p&s of a birthday party, low light, and an ISO of 800 to be able to see the subject. Will ISO 800 be sufficient enough for a DSLR or will I have to raise it to say, 3200 or higher to be equal to an 800 from my p&s? I'm asking because I've seen shots taken at around 12,000 or 24,000 ISO and I would think that it would be completely nothing but noise. Would you need an ISO of 12,800 (highest of the Canon 50D) to be equivilent to an 800 ISO (just for example) of a P&S? I hope I'm not confusing the heck out of people...

I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but, within some range (usually 1/2 stop or so, it varies some but not a ton) ISO is a fixed parameter, defined by a an outside standards committee, and it dates to well before the digital era. So 800 is 800 when it comes to light sensitivity. Obviously the noise level are going to vary from camera to camera, just as the amount of grain in a given film varied from camera to camera before the digital era.

 

[Big]

I don't know Canon nomenclature for their lenses. Is an EF lens designed for a cropped sensor, much like Nikkor's DX lens? If so, then all things aren't equal. Mounting a lens designed for a cropped sensor on a full frame may likely cause issues as you described because that is not how the lens was engineered to be used. But vignetting, softness at borders and DoF is a product of the lens, not the sensor.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but, within some range (usually 1/2 stop or so, it varies some but not a ton) ISO is a fixed parameter, defined by a an outside standards committee, and it dates to well before the digital era. So 800 is 800 when it comes to light sensitivity. Obviously the noise level are going to vary from camera to camera, just as the amount of grain in a given film varied from camera to camera before the digital era.

MusicaleCA...
From what I see, the majority of the lenses made my Canon are EF. It would make more sense to me to buy an EF over an EF-S because full frame DSLRs are designed for EF lenses. That way if you upgrade from crop to full, you don't have a bunch of useless glass...The advanced entry models like the Canon 50D or entry level Rebels both use EF/EF-s lenses.

kundalini...
Thanks you pretty much answered my question. That's exactly what I was wondering. If I used ISO 800 or 1600 indoors (which has lots of grain) would 800 or 1600 ISO on a DSLR like the 50D be perfect for the job since the DSLR will handle 800 ISO better than my p&s. Looks like I will be all set. That's about the extent of my low light shooting. I just hate grain when I don't want it that's all (which I rarely do)... Maybe someday I will upgrade to a 5D MarkII but until then the 50D should be good for now. Anything is pretty much better than what I have.

 

[kundalini]

Big, It depends on the type of sensor. My D80 has a CCD sensor and I rarely use it above ISO400. My D300 have CMOS sensor and can handle higher ISO's with much more ease even though it is a cropped sensor as well.

I'm sure Canon is probably in the same boat with sensor development, that the older technology is shadowed by the newer sensors.

 

[UUilliam]

You will always get grain tbh.. the best way to get rid of it is run it through Noise ninja (photoshop plugin) or resize the image to about 1/3rd the image size then use genuine fractuals to blow it back up

 

[Big]

Big, It depends on the type of sensor. My D80 has a CCD sensor and I rarely use it above ISO400. My D300 have CMOS sensor and can handle higher ISO's with much more ease even though it is a cropped sensor as well.

I'm sure Canon is probably in the same boat with sensor development, that the older technology is shadowed by the newer sensors.

My Powershot can't shoot over 200 without noise. It sucks trying to do low light shooting. If I want a noise free shot, then I have to drop the shutter speed and raise the aperture. Then I need to deal with motion. Slow shutter speed=blur motion which I'm sure you know.

 

[manaheim]

One thing people overlook...

The OP said "you can always take a few steps back"... sometimes, you CANNOT. I take lots of pictures of smallish spaces... interiors of buildings... office spaces, bathrooms, etc. I spend a good part of my life quite literally backed into a corner... a full frame camera gives you more width on an equal focal length lens, and sometimes that is absolutely critical.

 

[Big]

One thing people overlook...

The OP said "you can always take a few steps back"... sometimes, you CANNOT. I take lots of pictures of smallish spaces... interiors of buildings... office spaces, bathrooms, etc. I spend a good part of my life quite literally backed into a corner... a full frame camera gives you more width on an equal focal length lens, and sometimes that is absolutely critical.

I believe my exact quote was "couldn't you just stand a couple feet further back to get more in the shot (in some cases)?" In some cases meaning not always... If it is a major problem, couldn't you use a wide angle lens (maybe not something as dramatic as a fish eye) with a crop sensor to get the same effect from a full frame? May I add btw...what would you need a camera for in a bathroom??? :scratch: In general, I would figure anything that happens in there is not something most would want to capture.

 

[Village Idiot]

Because when I want noise in my photos, I have to use photoshop to get it.

Perfectly usable ISO 6400:

 

[Soocom1]

I answered this question on another web site years ago, and got royal hell for my answer. Mostly because I pointed out something very, very few people know about or even understand.
But here is my two cents worth:
First Build quality of a Pro end camera (with very few exceptions) truly is designed for Pro-End work.
Think of trying to enter a Honda Accord into NASCAR. Obviously you won’t. The NASCAR cars are designed for racing, the Honda for Day to day. Ironically the Honda is better built: Why? Try using parts from a NASCAR in a regular car, guess what: won’t work. The parts are NOT designed for regular day to day use. They are designed for short, very hard and very heavy use for short races. Whereas the Honda parts are designed for 100,000 miles or more of regular day to day abuse. The NASCAR parts will break in about 5000 miles or less.
Now you have to reverse logic here: So think that way except opposite for your pro-end Camera… Its designed for day to day use, where as your consumer grade or even pro-sumer is designed for the regular amateur, and the BBQ where Aunt May and Uncle Fester shows up. NOT for income generation. BIG difference; (yes I know all the exceptions)
Second, size DOES matter. This business of crop factor is a funny little system that got created for no other reason than to explain in lay-man’s terms something few understand.
In the world of cartography we call it projection. In a 3-diminsional world, you CANNOT re-produce images of 3D objects (x-y-z) in 2D (x-y) without distortion. So you create a way of “projecting” the image onto a flat area (film/sensor) where you reduce as much of that distortion as possible.
Try the old orange peel trick: (Peel an orange in two and then try to lay it out flat. You get a bulge in the middle. Then peel another one using a grid pattern. That’s when it’ll lay out flat, but distorted). The pieces won’t fit exactly together when laid out flat.
The same holds true for a camera: The further away from an object you get, the more distortion takes place. This is where the Depth of Field (DoF) issues comes in. This is true with ALL photography. A cropped sensor (APS or APS-C) working with a system designed for 35mm (Full Frame) will reduce the image area dramatically. Such reduction in size dramatically increases the distortion. In Photography it’s called Perspective distortion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)
For this reason smaller lenses and shorter distances KILLS your DoF and where your optics come in to play. Another point here is the Aspect Ratio: 2/3 vs 4/5. Now without going deep into it, it’s the ratio of height to width. Strangely enough, the 4/5 system actually reduces the distortion created. This distortion is measured in a Ratio of Actual image size vs. what is reproduced on film / digital. Consumer grade and pro-sumer cameras do not have as much engineering to reproduce this. Pro end cameras do. You may not see it, but it is defiantly there.
In medium format, the reason the image looks sooooooo much better is because not only are you capturing more data (resolution) but also the image distortion is much less because the image area is closer to a 1:1 size and visual ratio, whereas 35mm with a 50mm non-macro lens is still around a 0.85:1 ratio.
Third; Optic quality is extremely important here: The problem lies in the fact that the smaller the area, the less data can be reproduced and the harder it becomes for the optics to allow DoF. You literally are squeezing light into a limited space. Plus the refraction of light creates its own problems with Chromatic Aberrations (CA) et al. So higher priced and better quality optic really do play a huge role in this, and cannot be understated. Thus the Canon “L” series are DEFINATLY worth the money. Thus “Pro End”.
P.S. the Ef are the Full Frame, the EF-S are the APS lenses…
Basically, you get what you pay for.

 

[manaheim]

I believe my exact quote was "couldn't you just stand a couple feet further back to get more in the shot (in some cases)?" In some cases meaning not always... If it is a major problem, couldn't you use a wide angle lens (maybe not something as dramatic as a fish eye)with a crop sensor to get the same effect from a full frame?

No. In some situations, even the widest angle lens you can get isn't enough... sometimes even a fisheye isn't enough... you need absolutely as much width as you can possibly get... it is fundamentally impossible to get a full shot of a typical bathroom, for example. And this is even keeping in mind that there are lenses available for crop-sensors that are CRAZY wide. Like the Sigma 10-20mm that I use... even that is not wide enough.

May I add btw...what would you need a camera for in a bathroom??? :scratch: In general, I would figure anything that happens in there is not something most would want to capture.

Well, in my case... real estate.

But also consider a skyline... there is a NOTABLE difference between 10mm and 14mm on a skyline shot... and again, you can't always just back up a few steps... one because a skyline is so far away that a few steps won't make much of a difference and two because a few steps could walk you into a building... or a swamp... or just put an obstruction in front of you that you don't want.

So my point here is that there are other cases, and probably plenty of them I just haven't thought of yet.

By the way, in some cases you can stitch shots together to solve this problem, but that's working around a limitation vs. just being able to line up and expose the image and move on to the next one.

 

[Dwig]

Then our disagreement is one of miscommunication, not misunderstanding. My comments were specifically referring to DoF, ...

True, but they are just as silly as me saying that my Toyota Corolla is just as fast as my neighbor's Ferarri; after all they will reach pretty much the same terminal velocity if you drop them from a plane.

When the format changes, the only reasonable comparison is a comparision using lenses yielding the same field of view. Who would care that a long lens on one format yields more or less DOF than a wide lens on another format. You are standing a point X and shooting subject Y; you are interested in the DOF you would get with either of two cameras of different formats. You don't want different pictures so you must compare lenses of proportionally different focal lengths.

When you do the reasonable comparisions that have actual meaning in the real world you will find that the smaller the format the greater the DOF that results from using the same f/stop when you compare lenses that allow you to stand in the same spot (to get the same perspective) and give the same FOV.

With the common "crop sensor" camera (1.5x-2x crop factor, APS-c through 4/3rds) the difference is modest but real. Neither is better by any stretch of the imagination (those saying one is better have no imagination, period). You get more with the smaller format (better for typical landscapes but worse for portraits and similar) and less with the larger (better for getting out of focus background in portraits but more difficult to get some landscapes sharp foreground and background). You pays your money and makes your choice.

 

[Big]

I believe my exact quote was "couldn't you just stand a couple feet further back to get more in the shot (in some cases)?" In some cases meaning not always... If it is a major problem, couldn't you use a wide angle lens (maybe not something as dramatic as a fish eye)with a crop sensor to get the same effect from a full frame?

No. In some situations, even the widest angle lens you can get isn't enough... sometimes even a fisheye isn't enough... you need absolutely as much width as you can possibly get... it is fundamentally impossible to get a full shot of a typical bathroom, for example. And this is even keeping in mind that there are lenses available for crop-sensors that are CRAZY wide. Like the Sigma 10-20mm that I use... even that is not wide enough.

May I add btw...what would you need a camera for in a bathroom??? :scratch: In general, I would figure anything that happens in there is not something most would want to capture.

Well, in my case... real estate.

But also consider a skyline... there is a NOTABLE difference between 10mm and 14mm on a skyline shot... and again, you can't always just back up a few steps... one because a skyline is so far away that a few steps won't make much of a difference and two because a few steps could walk you into a building... or a swamp... or just put an obstruction in front of you that you don't want.

So my point here is that there are other cases, and probably plenty of them I just haven't thought of yet.

By the way, in some cases you can stitch shots together to solve this problem, but that's working around a limitation vs. just being able to line up and expose the image and move on to the next one.

I guess we just use the right tool for the job. I have heard that crop sensors are better for telephoto lenses and wildlife photography which is mainly what I will be doing. I figured since a crop sensor is what I have been using and also introduced to, it wouldn't be a big deal getting another crop sensor camera. While I remember, I wanted to ask if you yourself have done any photo stitching with a DSLR. My p&s has the mode built in and I have used it quite a bit but I didn't know how it works with a camera that doesn't specifically have a designated mode for it. Can you do it in Photoshop with regular JPEG images?


Edit: BTW I looked at your site Chris, and you do do some really nice work with real estate. I see what you mean with seeing more in the photo when I looked at the bathroom shots.