Is it the full frame?

TiCoyote

TPF Noob!
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
626
Reaction score
4
Location
New England
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
My mom got me back into photography when she picked up a D90. I started shooting with a D-Rebel.

Recently she switched over to a D700. I'd call her an "Enthusiast." She shoots amateur stuff every weekend, and just got 2 shots in a local paper.

I'm thinking of picking up a Canon 40D. Here's the thing. Mom claims that she gets MUCH better shots from her D700 than from the D90. I think that, considering her level, the only difference in image quality would come from either a better lens or the full frame sensor.

Will a full frame sensor make an appreciable difference in terms of noise reduction? I know there's a whole deal with cropping and focal length. At what point does the full-frame sensor become financially practical (or necessary, or noticeable)?
 
I've never shot full frame so I don't know, but if I were you I'd lock in on a Nikon so you can share lenses - sounds like your mom has great taste :D
 
Full-frame is a significant upgrade, if you can afford it. It's not just about noise reduction, you get better optical performance from a full frame lens as well.
 
you get better optical performance from a full frame lens as well.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. There are some high quality lenses made only for crop cameras. Plus, when using 'full frame' lenses on crop bodies, you get better corner-to-corner sharpness because you are cropping of the worst areas of the image circle.
But overall, the best lenses in either the Nikon or Canon line up, are 'full frame' lenses.

I'm thinking of picking up a Canon 40D. Here's the thing. Mom claims that she gets MUCH better shots from her D700 than from the D90. I think that, considering her level, the only difference in image quality would come from either a better lens or the full frame sensor.

Will a full frame sensor make an appreciable difference in terms of noise reduction? I know there's a whole deal with cropping and focal length. At what point does the full-frame sensor become financially practical (or necessary, or noticeable)?
A larger sensor does help, especially when it comes to digital noise at higher ISO levels. As for when it becomes practical...that's up to you. You can still get great quality images with a crop sensor camera and even make large prints.
Also, a larger sensor will give you a shallower DOF than a crop body camera.
 
Full-frame is a significant upgrade, if you can afford it. It's not just about noise reduction, you get better optical performance from a full frame lens as well.


Okay, so what do you mean specifically when you say "better optical performance"? Contrast? Color balance? Sharpness?
 
I've never shot full frame so I don't know, but if I were you I'd lock in on a Nikon so you can share lenses - sounds like your mom has great taste :D

Thats a great point, but mom lives 300 miles away, and she'd never let me touch her lenses. :thumbdown:
 
Does your mother shoot a lot of wide-angle stuff? Because that would definitely make the D700 a better choice for higher-quality shots, since full-frame shoots wider since it's not being cropped. If you shoot telephoto though, you should stick with cropped bodies because that crop factor will extend your reach by a factor of 1.6 and no loss in quality for free.
 
Full frame sensors are pretty awesome, but I haven't found that IQ is better, per-se, on either. If anything, IQ will be better on a crop sensor shooting through full frame glass because your using the best part of the lens (as others have said). High ISO noise on the D700 will, however, be a bit better than the D90. That could have a lot to do with it.

I shot with a 5D for a while, and the only thing that made my photos better was the fact that I was a physically better photographer than when I was shooting a crop camera. A good photographer can shoot with either and make equally good pictures. I've actually grown to prefer crop cameras, because you can get good, inexpensive DX wide-angles, but you cannot get inexpensive full-frame, high-quality telephotos. The only lens I really miss from the 5D is the 20mm F2.8, as you can't get decent wide-angle primes for DX.. yet. I actually can't wait to see an inexpensive 12 or 14mm F2.8 DX prime lens.

I've gotten some wonderful images on a Nikon D80... but I had overall many more on the 5D. But, it likely had a lot more to do with my skill as a photog getting better. Plus I shot through a lot more primes, which could have something to do with it too.
 
My mom got me back into photography when she picked up a D90. I started shooting with a D-Rebel.

Recently she switched over to a D700. I'd call her an "Enthusiast." She shoots amateur stuff every weekend, and just got 2 shots in a local paper.

I'm thinking of picking up a Canon 40D. Here's the thing. Mom claims that she gets MUCH better shots from her D700 than from the D90. I think that, considering her level, the only difference in image quality would come from either a better lens or the full frame sensor.

Will a full frame sensor make an appreciable difference in terms of noise reduction? I know there's a whole deal with cropping and focal length. At what point does the full-frame sensor become financially practical (or necessary, or noticeable)?

Yes, it's noticeable... don't believe clowns like Ken Rockwell. Dynamic range is most definitely better. High ISO performance is MUCH better. Corner vignetting can be an issue, though... especially with fast lenses.

I'm an "enthusiast" as well... and I have both a D90 and a D700. The D90 will have to go. My next camera will be full-frame... no question.
 
Ah, but if your dynamic range is higher and there is far less noise, the vignetting is a non-issue because that can be fixed in post...as long as you aren't getting something obscene like -3 EV at the corners. Ew. That'd be a bad lens.
 
The idea that using only the center of a lens's imaging circle on an APS-C image sensor will yield better image quality is a myth left over from long ago. The idea that the "sweet spot" of the lens will boost image quality over a full capture of the lens's imaging circle does not actually work out in practice. The Canon 24-105 L zoom for example, delivers higher image quality on a FF Canon than on a crop-body Canon.

The full-frame imager in a Nikon is 2.3x larger than an APS-C Nikon sensor, 2.5x larger than a Canon APS-C sensor. The size of a FF sensor is 864 square millimeters, an APS-C Canon is 329 sq. mm, a Nikon is 370 sq. mm. The FF sensor is much larger, and the image captured is significantly larger, and as a result the same,exact lens, used on a FF body and a crop-body will out-resolve more line pairs per millimeter on FF than on crop-frame. It's not like modern lenses have edges that absolutely "suck"; with a sensor 2.3x to 2.5x LARGER, the High ISO is better, and overall the demands put on a lens are lower on FF than on APS-C or 4/3. The same holds true of medium format lenses; they can resolve fewer lines/mm, sikply because the capture format is quite large. The Olympus 4/3 format is 17.3 x 11mm, just 0.3mm larger than the old 110 Instamatic formt--as a result, Olympus has had to design an entire series of lenses that can deliver incredibly high MTF performance. The smaller the format, the BETTER the lens must be, across a very small image circle. The "sweet spot" myth has hung on for a long time.

If your Mom says she gets better pictures from the D700 than the D90, it could be the larger sensor's different "look", as well as the superb performance at moderate ISO's like 400 to 800,and the sensor that's 2.3x larger than her D90 has. If your car had an engine 2.3x larger than it currently has, do you suppose you could spot any performance difference at all? what if your bank balance went up by a factor of 2.3x?
 
It depends (yes, I'll say it) on what you shoot.

You'll hear this often.

What are you looking for? Wildlife, sports, action? 40D/50D. Fast fps, and with the help of the APS-C sensor, you get a 1.6x crop factor on all lenses.

For night, portraiture, landscapes? Not so important for portraiture, or even for landscapes (but improvements), but in low light full frame excels. For wide-angle, yes, on APS-C you can use a 10-22mm, but it's not going to be f/2.8, unlike what you can get from full frame for ultrawide.

Ultimately, though, it's lenses. Canon's top of the range is their L series. Pro glass. What's so good? Normally, weather-proofing, but more importantly, constant max-apertures (most of the time), sharper, better colour, saturation, etc.
 
If your car had an engine 2.3x larger than it currently has, do you suppose you could spot any performance difference at all? what if your bank balance went up by a factor of 2.3x?


I think this is a false analogy. I agree that a full frame is better. But I really want to know how and why. I think you explained that pretty well earlier. But merely being bigger, doesn't necessarily make it better. What if your shoes were 2.3x bigger? Would you run faster? What if your stomach were 2.3x bigger? How would that help? What you really don't answer is at which point will I notice the difference?

I think that considering pricing and the pace of technology, an APS-C right now makes sense. In 3 years or so, if I keep up with it, and if prices come down, a full frame will make more sense. Meanwhile, the new 7D is APS-H, so maybe the new technology (small sensor) will outpace the old technology (big sensor). After all, anyone would want a smaller, lighter, cheaper camera if it could outperform a bigger, heavier, more expensive one.
 
The new 7D is not APS-H. It's APS-C.
 
No, it's not a false analogy--a FF sensor is 2.3x larger than a crop sensor in Nikon, 2.5x larger than a Canon crop sensor. The larger the capture format, the larger the pixels,and the easier it is to get high ISO performance and good dynamic range with simple technology. The larger the sensor is, the less the images need to be enlarged to make a given print size. The larger the sensor area and size, the lower the MTF modulation transfer function performance of a lens needed to deliver XXXX line pairs per picture height. The smaller a sensor, the higher the lens's MTF required to create a decent image.

Obviously, you do not have a FF camera, or you'd understand the analogy,and would know that the larger sensor cameras are the ones that cost more money,and are used in the more demanding imaging applications. And it has been so for over a century of photography.

The upcoming 7D is also NOT a 1.3x FOV size or APS-H, which is 548 square milimeters in area, or 28.7x 19mm; the upcoming 7D has a much smaller sensor, a 1.6x one measuring roughly 22.2x 14.8mm or 329 square millimeters. its high density sensor somewhat limits color richness at lower ISOs and makes the sensor top out around ISO 1600 for good image quality.
FF Nkon and anon bodies handily beat the 7D at high-ISO shooting by using--wait for it---a much larger sensor, 2.3 to 2.5x larger in area. (pedantic for a reason). Better high ISO is available, right now, for a price.

Again, the analogy is to a machine, a car,with an ENGINE, 2.3x larger. Not to a human with feet, but a mechanical device with a central component 2.3 times larger. If you want to know why a full frame is better,and why, then you need to learn a lot more about cameras and lenses,and stop disagreeing with people who already understand the difference between the various capture formats. And, sorry, but newer technology and smaller image sensors will *never* outpace larger sensors using the equivalent technology. Larger is always better in terms of delivering HIGH image quality with even the most basic of lenses. This is why a 4x5 inch film transparency shows much finer details than a 35mm small-format transparency.

Simple case in point: my first view camera was a 50-year old Linhof and I had a newish 150mm Fuji lens and an older WW II era Kodak 110mm Wide Field Ektar lens. I recall taking an Ektchrome 100 slide shot of my kitchen, from the living room with the 40 year old Ektar lens. Looking at the transparency with a 10x Peak loupe, I was amazed that I could read each and every ingredient listed in 7 point type of the side of a Coca~Cola soda bottle--clear,and plain as day. THE SAME scene shot on 35mm Ektachrome 100 professional with a modern 50mm Nikkor lens revealed blurred detail; the smaller capture area of 35mm film, SAME FILM, Ektachrome 100 Professional, with one of Nikon's sharpest-ever 50mm lenses, the 50mm f/2 of 1975, was being out-resolved by a factor of 5 or so, by a WW-II era Kodak view lens!

Old lens, new lens. Same film speed,maker, and developing lab. Same flash to illuminate the scene, Speedotron 1600 with softbox. The bigger film delivered VASTLY superior image quality....vastly better. Even with a low-technology, hand-designed (pre-computer) lens made before the formation of the Soviet Empire and the birth of the Cold War.

Yeah, what if my feet were 2.3x larger? Now *that* is a false analogy. I just gave you an example of how larger equates to better imaging performance.
If you want better images, you move to the larger capture formats. It became a good deal when the 5D got to roughly $2,100 with rebates a couple of years back. A used 5D for $995 gives you the same per-pixel image quality of a Nikon D700--actually, the Canon is a bit better, at the per pixel level than the D700. Canon's top cameras and Nikon's top cameras and Sony's top cameras are all full frame models, right now.

The point at which you will notice the difference is when you buy your first full-frame d-slr camera and import your first CF card of images into Lightroom or Nikon Capture or DPP or SilkyPix or Capture One or Adobe Bridge. APS-C does not out-perform FF in many respects,except giving deeper depth of field, at the penalty of a sensor that is 2.3 to 2.5 times smaller than a FF sensor. APS-C cameras also do not delivier the same resolution of detail as FF cameras do when using the same,exact lens; the smaller format sensor simply cannot compare to the much-larger sensor--the sensor which is 2.3-2.5x larger,and using the *same* lens. Now, which image do you suppose would be better,using the identical lens? Would the smaller image be the better image in your scenario? Would the APS-C camera "out-perform" the larger sensor camera?

Sony will have the full-frame A850 for around $1899 this fall. I think it made sense to go to FF in 2006, at $2100,with the 5D, which delivers about the same IQ as the Nikon D3 or Nikon D700. At under $2k, the new Sony a850 will be putting some downward price pressure on Canon and Nikon.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top