If FF really that much better?

[JustJazzie]

*sigh* *deep breath* *please don't throw things at me and tell me to get off stage just yet*

Okay.....if you haven't already figured it out. I am TERRIBLE at making decisions. TERRIBLE. Awful. No good. Stresses me out and I am honestly Ready to just go without anything. After many discussions, driving DH , myself, and all of TPF batty. DH was totally okay with me getting the MKIii.... When it comes down to it though, he's got major sticker shock. (Perhaps he tuned me out when I told him In the first place?) and after telling me I should just return the d7100 for the canon, he "suggested" yesterday (once it was too late to tell adorama to just ship back that darn d7100) that I stick with an aspc model. :banghead:

With the thread yesterday about GAS, I need you to all give it to me straight. If full frame is worth the wait, I will wait as long as I need to and live in camera body bliss for the next 5-10 years. With that said, I am not, and will never be a professional. I will forever be a hobbiest, who loves practicing my craft. Honest truth? The last 5 pictures (of the kids) I have actually printed I did on my home printer. BUT, this is a passion I have had for over 10 years. It's not going anywhere and I ADORE fantastic photographs. Almost nothing makes me happier.

I have never shot with a FF camera, so all I can do is read read read online reviews of people gushing over the full frame a advantage. So added to my list of Lens's that I desire, I have convinced myself that FF is the way to go, Rome and photography collections weren't built in a day after all. So if I start with a FF, THEN I can aquire all the glass my heart desires. Realistically though, that's another 2k I could be spending on an awesome macro lens and the no setup that I've been ogling......

So, be honest. Is full frame worth the wait? Will I be amazed with the awesome advantages and vow to never switch back to aspc? Or is it all hype designed to make people feel Better about spending so much?

Okay, you can start throwing things at me now.....

 

[astroNikon]

No



There are no "awesome advantages"
But there are some advantages.

I have both ... but I opted for a FF d600 instead of upgrading my d7000 to a d7100.
Comparing my d7000 16mp to my d600 24mp there are advantages.
But when cropped my d7000 is still better for sports "reach" in bright light .... a specific thing
but the FF is better in sports when I need closeup and reach at the same time.

I guess it all depends upon *your* requirements and what specifically you are doing that needs FF

But then if you have GAS .. there is no solution

 

[SnappingShark]

I say yes, but personally I can wait.

I mean from the GAS thread it sounds like I can't - but I like to feel around first - get opinions and real life examples.
Then I'll go into store and buy when I am absolutely ready, and not be a looky lou, like Derrell calls some people and try everything out and then walk out again

You should try the 5D and D7100 both and see what you prefer. You have 2 great choices there and I'm sure neither are the wrong one.

 

[hombredelmar]

It does not matter what camera you use, camera is a tool. Camera does not make pictures , a phtographer does

 

[TWright33]

It does not matter what camera you use, camera is a tool. Camera does not make pictures , a phtographer does

I think you are misinterpreting the question at hand.

 

[JustJazzie]

It does not matter what camera you use, camera is a tool. Camera does not make pictures , a phtographer does

Let's assume you have a master behind each camera. And the subjects are the same, locations are the same. Side by side, all other things being equal. On a scale of 0$-$2,000 how much better is the FF vs ASPC as an all purpose, jack of all trades DSLR?

 

[KmH]

For all purpose, jack of all trades, I would get an APS-C camera because of the crop factor.

It depends on what kind of photography you are doing.

I had both full frame and APS-C DSLR cameras, because each has advantages over the other.

I also considered a camera's AF module, metering sensor, WB adjustments, external controls, and viewfinder.

 

[astroNikon]

If you jump from an old camera, say a d70 to a modern FF then you will be amazed.
If you jump from a d7100 to a FF .. then not so much unless you like taking pictures in the dark all - the - time. then it will be better but not awesomely so.

I used to have a d70.
I love the d7000 .. quite a large improvement

the d600 wasn't a *big* improvement
Though it did have a long list of advantages for me.
Now... *all* the lenses that I bought for the d7000 after the kit lens were FF lenses. So the jump to FF was in no way painful in respect to replacing any lenses.

But during the daylight ... advantage ? umm ... not really. I still use the d7000 to take pictures of airplanes, et all or to experiment.
THe d600 has a specific advantage in my limited size studio where there is no room to "step back" because of focal length. I have yet to test it on my telescope for a real world test of darkness .. but it is heavier than my d7000 so I have to balance it on the telescope with more counterweights first.
it was cheaper for me when I wanted to go UWA than get an expensive Nikon UWA versus the d600 standard FOV .. that was my jumping point to FF

now .. I love the FF camera .. but there are no "awesome advantages" at this point. It certainly costs more. If I want wider than 17mm and stick with NIkon I have to spend alot of money .. or get a cheaper 10mm UWA for the d7000.

 

[astroNikon]

It does not matter what camera you use, camera is a tool. Camera does not make pictures , a phtographer does

Let's assume you have a master behind each camera. And the subjects are the same, locations are the same. Side by side, all other things being equal. On a scale of 0$-$2,000 how much better is the FF vs ASPC as an all purpose, jack of all trades DSLR?

You may want to be more specific ... d7100 v d610
or d7100 v d800 (which crops better with more pixel density).
d7100 v d3x ... for sports (9fps)

But I assume you are looking at the d600/d610 due to price (or canon equivalent).
the d7100 is worth what ... $1100
and the d610 is worth $1900
so there $800 difference ....

for me that is too much
now a refurb'd d600 at $1300 .. and a $200 difference I'd jump
or a $1400 lens or jump to a $1300 body .. I'd jump ...

 

[JustJazzie]

I say yes, but personally I can wait. I mean from the GAS thread it sounds like I can't - but I like to feel around first - get opinions and real life examples. Then I'll go into store and buy when I am absolutely ready, and not be a looky lou, like Derrell calls some people and try everything out and then walk out again You should try the 5D and D7100 both and see what you prefer. You have 2 great choices there and I'm sure neither are the wrong one.

Although I know it doesn't SOUND like I can wait. I can. I want to shoot my boys on dirt bikes, but they are JUST beginning so at this time, they need me "with" them over "watching" them. The only photography I have found that I can really DO with the kids around right now is macro. So once I figure out what system I am buying into. I could potentially get a macro lens and adapter for my nex NOW, while I wait to save up funds for the future,

 

[robbins.photo]

*sigh* *deep breath* *please don't throw things at me and tell me to get off stage just yet*

I don't care if you stay on the stage. JUST STAY OFF MY LAWN!

Lol

Okay.....if you haven't already figured it out. I am TERRIBLE at making decisions. TERRIBLE. Awful. No good. Stresses me out and I am honestly Ready to just go without anything. After many discussions, driving DH , myself, and all of TPF batty. DH was totally okay with me getting the MKIii.... When it comes down to it though, he's got major sticker shock. (Perhaps he tuned me out when I told him In the first place?) and after telling me I should just return the d7100 for the canon, he "suggested" yesterday (once it was too late to tell adorama to just ship back that darn d7100) that I stick with an aspc model. :banghead:

With the thread yesterday about GAS, I need you to all give it to me straight. If full frame is worth the wait, I will wait as long as I need to and live in camera body bliss for the next 5-10 years. With that said, I am not, and will never be a professional. I will forever be a hobbiest, who loves practicing my craft. Honest truth? The last 5 pictures (of the kids) I have actually printed I did on my home printer. BUT, this is a passion I have had for over 10 years. It's not going anywhere and I ADORE fantastic photographs. Almost nothing makes me happier.

I have never shot with a FF camera, so all I can do is read read read online reviews of people gushing over the full frame a advantage. So added to my list of Lens's that I desire, I have convinced myself that FF is the way to go, Rome and photography collections weren't built in a day after all. So if I start with a FF, THEN I can aquire all the glass my heart desires. Realistically though, that's another 2k I could be spending on an awesome macro lens and the no setup that I've been ogling......

So, be honest. Is full frame worth the wait? Will I be amazed with the awesome advantages and vow to never switch back to aspc? Or is it all hype designed to make people feel Better about spending so much?

Okay, you can start throwing things at me now.....

Ok, sweet. Whew.. for a minute or two there thought I was going to lose conciousness. Now, where did I put those eggs.. lol..

Seriously though, really whether or not FF is really worth it is only a question that you can answer. For me, it wouldn't be - yes, there are some advantages to full frame, better low light, wider FOV - which can come in handy in certain situations. But you won't always be shooting in those situations.

Honestly I think your best bet would be to have DH or someone go out and assemble a collection of images for you, half shot on FF and half shot on APS-C, and see for yourself if you can really tell the difference just by looking a them, I think you'll find that yes, FF does have advantages and yes it can help you get shots that APS-C might struggle with in low light, but really especially if your working with external lighting it's going to be pretty hard to tell the difference in the final product.

So really the question I'd ask myself would be, is going to FF really going to make a big enough difference in being able to get the results I want, consistently that it's worth the price difference? For many the answer to this question would be yes - it probably would. For me personally, eh, not so much. Which is why I haven't really looked at going full frame myself and probably won't for quite some time to come.

 

[fooby]

I personally made the switch to full frame as I wanted the much better ISO performance, the ability to use nice super wide angle lenses and most importantly, the better dynamic range.

The focal length actually being what it says is also handy, but not essential. If you're a native to APSC, 35mm to you means the same as 50mm to a full frame native, to whatever wider focal length would be equivalent on mirrorless to a mirrorless native.

The main big benefit is the better dynamic range, an important reason that many choose to go from full frame to medium format also.

 

[jaomul]

To OP, I have owned a few of each. If I was to say which I prefer it's fullframe, but not at the expense of not having good lenses or indeed enjoying the crop cousins. Half the reason I probably preferred fullframe was that up to recently fullframe cameras were very high spec so any ff cam I had was better than some entry crop ones I had, with better ergonomics.

A friend of mine recently got the ff bug and I tried to talk him out of it because all his crop lenses are cheap and not well reviewed. I suggested he buy good lenses first but no fullframe it was. I met him at an event the other day and he had his smaller, lighter crop with him.

I will say most who use both will say ff is better, me to. However I do think how much better is vastly over discussed and emphasised. In my discussion with my friend I put 10 various shots that I like on a screen. Half were crop, half were ff. He guessed 4 out of 10 and said he was definite about 1. The difference in moderate to good light isn't as much as you think.

 

[sscarmack]

When I was shooting that baseball game with the D4 and the 3200. I liked the fact that the 3200 got me in soooooo much closer than the D4. However, the D4 was just way more dynamic than the 3200.


So, to answer your question. Yes its that much better, but if I had a 3200 or equivalent that could give me the dynamic range of a D4, I would be sold because I love the crop factor (Yes the D4 has built in crop if you want).

 

[Braineack]

I can take just as bad of photos with my D600 as I was with my D3100.

would I ever go back? not a fat chance.