Sell me on full frame cameras...

[runnah]

Can you give me some personal examples of instances where you've thought to yourself "boy I am glad I am shooting this in full frame as opposed to an identical quality camera in APS-C".

A common example of this is with portrait and similar styles of photography where one is often working indoors or fairly close to their subjects, with a limited space to move back. With a crop sensor camera many often find that in such situations they need to use a wide angle lens (eg a 30mm) to get the frame that they want. However once you drop out of telephoto lenses and move into wide angles (around under 50mm) you start to introduce perspective distortion.
This is when areas closer to the camera will get enlarged over those further away, so big noses, hands, feet etc... Now some software can correct for this, but you lose image quality and it adds another phase into editing.
A larger, 35mm, sensor lets people frame those shots on a 50mm lens (or longer) which eliminates this problem and is thus a key reason why, even though there are very good crop sensor cameras, 35mm (and larger) sensor cameras are a popular choice and studio and wedding work .

Thank you! This is exactly what I was looking for. Sounds to me like I wouldn't see a tons of benefits of going full frame. 90% of the time I am shooting outside and in very open areas where I have the space to move about. I never shoot in studios or models. The distortion I have run into, when it has been an issue I have been able is easily correct in PS.

 

[Overread]

The way I see it distortion avoiding, cleaner high ISO performance and reduced depth of field, by around one stops worth of aperture in general (at least I know this is roughly true for macro work) - those are the primary gains that you get for a 35mm sensor over the crop sensor cameras.

Now if any of those are important to you then fullframe can be far more appealing as an option over crop sensor. However if you're not really going to make a major use of any of those specific features you might not find it the tool for you. Also remember that fullframe have tended to be a little behind crop sensors in some other areas (eg AF performance) so even if you are shooting in low light you've got to consider if the AF of the fullframe camera is going to be up to the task (eg canon side I know some who shoot in low light and use a 7D instead of a 5D or 5DMII because of the 7D's vastly superior AF - of course the 5DMIII is now on the market to balance that out - if you can afford its much higher price point).

 

[jwbryson1]

I'd say that the most profound difference between APS-C and full frame, is the improved level of noise at higher ISO.

Other benefits are (usually) an overall improvement in image quality, a shallower DOF (given similar circumstances) and a wider angle of view.

These are the reasons I would love to move up from my D90 to a D600, but I refuse to spend the $$$ at this point. I have other more important things to spend money on, like my mortgage, kids, and retirement planning.

 

[kundalini]

This may or may not be of any help. I posted this thread a little over two years ago, on a Sunday when I had nowhere and no way I was driving that day.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rence-between-full-frame-cropped-sensors.html


It needs an update.

 

[jwbryson1]

This may or may not be of any help. I posted this thread a little over two years ago, on a Sunday when I had nowhere and no way I was driving that day.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rence-between-full-frame-cropped-sensors.html


It needs an update.

Okay, please don't shoot me. I've seen that post a number of times, and I still do not understand what I am looking at. It's a bunch of photos of the monkey, but which is DX, which is FX? I don't understand what I am supposed to be comparing in those images. Can you flush this out some please? :mrgreen:

 

[ghache]

just do it.

 

[greybeard]

What do you do with the pictures you take? I print a few now and then but mostly post them to the internet and view them on my computer. Going FX for me makes absolutely no sense. But, if I was a professional wedding or landscape photographer, then making the switch would make a lot of sense. Best bet would be to rent some FX equipment and just see how much of an improvement, if any, it made in your work. (jmho)

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I went FF when my D7000 caused me to backup into walls in normal size studios when trying to use normal portrait lenses heh

Plus depth of field, for example, an 85mm lens on my FF will render more than my D7000 did.

Not to mention image quality as many have said. Tonal resolution and dynamic range blow away the D7000 I had

 

[jwbryson1]

I went FF when my D7000 caused me to backup into walls in normal size studios when trying to use normal portrait lenses

Been there done that. Very annoying. :mrgreen:

 

[kundalini]

This may or may not be of any help. I posted this thread a little over two years ago, on a Sunday when I had nowhere and no way I was driving that day.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rence-between-full-frame-cropped-sensors.html


It needs an update.

Okay, please don't shoot me. I've seen that post a number of times, and I still do not understand what I am looking at. It's a bunch of photos of the monkey, but which is DX, which is FX? I don't understand what I am supposed to be comparing in those images. Can you flush this out some please? :mrgreen:

The intent was to demonstrate the variance in Field of View (FoV) between a Nikon APS-C (DX) sensor and a Full Frame (FX) sensor rather than the misunderstood "extra reach" a cropped camera will give. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens regardless of the sensor size. Look beyond the monkey. I took two common focal length prime lenses, 35mm and 50mm. The side-by-side images demonstrate this fairly well IMO. You'll also notice further down that a 35mm lens on a cropped body will yield a very close approximation that a 50mm lens will produce on a full framed body. Even further down, the 100% crops shows how the FF sensor renders a smoother bokeh, again, IMO. Plus, the tequila was at a perfect temperature and tasting mighty fine that day.

 

[gryffinwings]

I went FF when my D7000 caused me to backup into walls in normal size studios when trying to use normal portrait lenses heh

Plus depth of field, for example, an 85mm lens on my FF will render more than my D7000 did.

Not to mention image quality as many have said. Tonal resolution and dynamic range blow away the D7000 I had

Why were you using the 85mm for portrait work, you should have been using a 50mm to do that, using an 85mm on a DX in studios makes no sense, you could have saved money and got a 50mm and that would have put you where you want to be.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I went FF when my D7000 caused me to backup into walls in normal size studios when trying to use normal portrait lenses heh

Plus depth of field, for example, an 85mm lens on my FF will render more than my D7000 did.

Not to mention image quality as many have said. Tonal resolution and dynamic range blow away the D7000 I had

Why were you using the 85mm for portrait work, you should have been using a 50mm to do that, using an 85mm on a DX in studios makes no sense, you could have saved money and got a 50mm and that would have put you where you want to be.

What are you talking about, I have a 50 1.4 I use in the studio too? I wanted to shoot at 85mm, and that was an example.

Asides, whether on DX or FX 85 is 85 characteristics on the model. Just on the DX you have to back way the $#%^ up plus you lose depth of field performance

Full frame win win =)

 

[kundalini]

Why were you using the 85mm for portrait work, you should have been using a 50mm to do that, using an 85mm on a DX in studios makes no sense, you could have saved money and got a 50mm and that would have put you where you want to be.

The Nikkor 85mm lens, whether f/1.4 or f/1.8, G or D mount, is a superior lens to the 50mm in any iteration.

 

[invisible]

Other benefits are (usually) an overall improvement in image quality, a shallower DOF (given similar circumstances) and a wider angle of view.
Another thing to consider might be (maybe less these days) is that a typical full frame camera is overall a higher level body with more 'professional' ergonomics and build quality. But with the new, cheaper full frame bodies, this is less true.

In addition to what Mike said above, RAW files from a full-frame camera give you much more latitude in post-processing, for example when dodging/burning. This, for me, is priceless. In certain circumstances when a DX camera would force you to resort to HDR or compositing, a full-frame camera would allow you to get away with a single frame.

To your point regarding not using the DX mode in a FX camera because it would defeat the point, I agree – but only to a certain extent. You'll be getting a smaller file, but still getting all the benefits of a big sensor (except the wider angle of view, of course). If you have good DX glass – a great example being the Tokina 11-16– you can use it on a full-frame camera and be a very happy camper – I know this from personal experience.

A "disadvantage" that I'm not sure has been mentioned in this thread is that a full-frame camera will expose bad glass. For example, the Nikon AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6 D ED (which I think is a full-frame lens) will look like trash.

For reference, I shoot with a D700 and a D300.

 

[gryffinwings]

Why were you using the 85mm for portrait work, you should have been using a 50mm to do that, using an 85mm on a DX in studios makes no sense, you could have saved money and got a 50mm and that would have put you where you want to be.

The Nikkor 85mm lens, whether f/1.4 or f/1.8, G or D mount, is a superior lens to the 50mm in any iteration.

Ok, you say that, but why? I've never used one, why is it superior. To be honest you can pretty much get whatever look you want in post processing as long as you get the exposure right. What does the 85mm offer over the 50mm.