Sharing my thoughts and feeling about moving from APS-C (Crop Sensor) to Full Frame camera

[IronMaskDuval]

Nikon is going to offer a $300 rebate on the D750 starting April 16. Switching to FF has gotten a bit cheaper.

And perhap

Let's get this straight, as my profession is in marketing consulting and management for f1000 companies. Nikon and Cannon can only go so long labling cameras as pro and consumer bodies. They both know that at some point, both aps-c and ff cameras will be so similar in performance that they will have to seek other channels of revenue. For us to argue one type over the other is merely the affects of marketing. There are some facts that stand true, such as larger pixels being able to capture more light, but that won't stand for long either. Eventually, these companies will have to seek other sources of sustainable money once advancement hits a ceiling.

FF and APS-C will never have almost same low light performance as FF brings about twice amount of light APS-C does and thats a lot!
As APS-C sensors get better so does FF, you might argue that we are now at a point that APS-C offer more then enough performance not to need FF but then I say there isnt such a word as good enough low light performance.
I said in the past when a sensor will come out that will have around 100000ISO with IQ same as 100ISO then I might agree to say this is enough for me, until then I will drool over every new camera with better low light performance, I am sure there are people like me who think so too.
So APS-C and FF each has its advantages and disadvantages and followers.

Low light performance isn't even what it should be anyhow. When we shoot FF at high iso in low light, it gives us an image as if it was shot in the day time, rather than the ambient light and atmosphere that is really there (dark). It is NOT better in that sense. To really capture the moment in low light, one would need to use a speedlight. Twice better? I don't think so. I still have both of my cameras. I'll take some comparison shots with high DR tomorrow to compare.

 

[sashbar]

I would much prefer the images to speak rather than a photographer. I do not care about Full Frame or Half Frame until I can look at the images and and see the MEANINGFUL difference. Until then, sorry, it does not count.

 

[sashbar]

Not to be argumentative ... but adding some food for thought. I moved from FF to APS-C and my images did not get worse.

That is because you are a top pro Gary, not a FUJI Fan Boy, even though you are trying to pretend

 

[astroNikon]

next time I shoot soccer in fading light I'll have to line the field in speedlights and give it a go ... I guess the radio trigger controller is going to pay off !!

lol

oh wait, I only have 4 speedlights w/triggers

 

[fjrabon]

FF and APS-C will never have almost same low light performance as FF brings about twice amount of light APS-C does and thats a lot!

Your argument isn't so much about FF v APS-C, it's about being on the bleeding edge of sensor technology. My APS-C X100T Fuji outperforms a 5DIII in low light (or any Canon, for that matter). What you're really judging here is more Nikon's most recent full frame sensors, which are incredible, but it really is nikon specific. It doesn't hold up across APS-C v FF comparisons.

 

[fjrabon]

There's also something I see stated a lot that I think is incorrect, at least in how it's applied. "full frame lets in twice as much light" as an explanation for full frame being better in low light. Yes, this is true in a very literal sense, but it also has to disperse the light over twice sensor size. Full frame sensors don't have better low light performance because of "more light" they have better performance because they can achieve greater resolution at lower physical photosite density and thus have larger physical photosites (good for low light) while maintaining resolution. Where Sony/Nikon have changed the game here is that they've been able to have their cake and eat it too, with larger photosites packed in closer through more efficient placement and spacing.

 

[fjrabon]

I had a full frame D600 setup, and sold it (mostly because I got a very good offer for the entire system when I wasn't using it very much). Better in low light? Sure. Did it make my photography better? Not really, if at all.

The advantages to me for full frame were

1) yes, the D600's low light was pretty incredible. But I also think the current gen Nikon crop frames are pretty incredible too. Even the D7000 is pretty awesome in low light. Having used both extensively, the crop frame D7000 beat the Canon 5DII IMHO in low light. Pretty easily.

2) Typical/legacy primes are more useful. Because typical primes were originally made for full frame, they tend to be at focal lengths that were better for full frame

3) More control over depth of field. I think this is overrated, but is certainly a point for FF, I rarely feel a need to shoot at f/1.4 on full frame. Maybe some do, but I see a lot of pictures made where people shot ultra shallow DoF simply because they could, and nto because it was what was best for the image.

4) greater resolution

APS-C had a few advantages as well though

1) only uses the center portion of legacy lenses. This in fact will mean that your images overall are often sharper, as most lenses have issues around the edges, which conveniently enough, are outside of the APS-C image size.
2) Allows for usage of smaller and lighter, but just as good, DX only lenses. I'll take the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 over the garganutan full frame equivalents any day of the week. I'll take my Tamron 60mm f/2 up against most any 90mm f/2 that will do both portraits and macro. I can use the 80-200 f/2.8 as a 120-300 f/2.8, which is much more convenient for sports.
3) DX can use full frame glass (and make it better by only using the center portion), FF can't use DX glass without going into crop mode, which means you might as well have been using an APS-C body in the first place.
4) size. APS-C is smaller
5) smaller file size. This is the flipside of FF having greater resolution, they have gargantuan files. I really, honestly, rarely ever find that I need much more than 16MP on a crop frame file size wise.

Ultimately, I felt like for me, going back to APS-C made more sense, is it better? Of course not, but I fetl the pros and cons weren't all that far apart. I'm not a pixel peeper and I don't need a D800's insane micro resolution. I don't crop that much.

I think I'll eventually end up in a Fuji system when their next version of the X-Pro or XT-1 comes out and/or they have a fast tele that hits 300mm f/2.8 35mm equivalent.

I don't claim these experiences to be the "right" way, just what I found, and why I ditched my full frame D600 and kept my D7000.

 

[goodguy]

FF and APS-C will never have almost same low light performance as FF brings about twice amount of light APS-C does and thats a lot!

Your argument isn't so much about FF v APS-C, it's about being on the bleeding edge of sensor technology. My APS-C X100T Fuji outperforms a 5DIII in low light (or any Canon, for that matter). What you're really judging here is more Nikon's most recent full frame sensors, which are incredible, but it really is nikon specific. It doesn't hold up across APS-C v FF comparisons.

Well I tried to keep this a brand neutral post but the truth is that my point of reference is D7100 vs D750 which are 2 cameras that I own or owned.
The jump from the D7100 to the D750 was so big and so noticeable that for me it was an eye opener, it made a noticeable impact on my photography.
I do get cleaner images in various situations especially when lighting conditions aint ideal.

 

[fjrabon]

FF and APS-C will never have almost same low light performance as FF brings about twice amount of light APS-C does and thats a lot!

Your argument isn't so much about FF v APS-C, it's about being on the bleeding edge of sensor technology. My APS-C X100T Fuji outperforms a 5DIII in low light (or any Canon, for that matter). What you're really judging here is more Nikon's most recent full frame sensors, which are incredible, but it really is nikon specific. It doesn't hold up across APS-C v FF comparisons.

Well I tried to keep this a brand neutral post but the truth is that my point of reference is D7100 vs D750 which are 2 cameras that I own or owned.
The jump from the D7100 to the D750 was so big and so noticeable that for me it was an eye opener, it made a noticeable impact on my photography.
I do get cleaner images in various situations especially when lighting conditions aint ideal.

well, the problem is that if the crux of your argument is low light ability, you can't make it brand neutral. Nikon, Sony and Fuji APS-C cameras are better than Canon full frames in low light. It's basically as simple as that.

 

[jaomul]

FF and APS-C will never have almost same low light performance as FF brings about twice amount of light APS-C does and thats a lot!

Your argument isn't so much about FF v APS-C, it's about being on the bleeding edge of sensor technology. My APS-C X100T Fuji outperforms a 5DIII in low light (or any Canon, for that matter). What you're really judging here is more Nikon's most recent full frame sensors, which are incredible, but it really is nikon specific. It doesn't hold up across APS-C v FF comparisons.

Well I tried to keep this a brand neutral post but the truth is that my point of reference is D7100 vs D750 which are 2 cameras that I own or owned.
The jump from the D7100 to the D750 was so big and so noticeable that for me it was an eye opener, it made a noticeable impact on my photography.
I do get cleaner images in various situations especially when lighting conditions aint ideal.

well, the problem is that if the crux of your argument is low light ability, you can't make it brand neutral. Nikon, Sony and Fuji APS-C cameras are better than Canon full frames in low light. It's basically as simple as that.

Nikon have better dynamic range at lower iso values. I'm pretty sure that by iso 1600 most brands of similar spec and timeline tech wise are close.

I don't think ff Canon cameras are inferior to nikons at higher iso. Dxo says I'm wrong so maybe.

As for op and Full frame- what works for you works for you. Sensors performance is getting closer but as mentioned earlier lens function is different on different formats

 

[goodguy]

FF and APS-C will never have almost same low light performance as FF brings about twice amount of light APS-C does and thats a lot!

Your argument isn't so much about FF v APS-C, it's about being on the bleeding edge of sensor technology. My APS-C X100T Fuji outperforms a 5DIII in low light (or any Canon, for that matter). What you're really judging here is more Nikon's most recent full frame sensors, which are incredible, but it really is nikon specific. It doesn't hold up across APS-C v FF comparisons.

Well I tried to keep this a brand neutral post but the truth is that my point of reference is D7100 vs D750 which are 2 cameras that I own or owned.
The jump from the D7100 to the D750 was so big and so noticeable that for me it was an eye opener, it made a noticeable impact on my photography.
I do get cleaner images in various situations especially when lighting conditions aint ideal.

well, the problem is that if the crux of your argument is low light ability, you can't make it brand neutral. Nikon, Sony and Fuji APS-C cameras are better than Canon full frames in low light. It's basically as simple as that.

I said I tried to keep this brand neutral, it doesn't mean I am completely successful but I tried

 

[fjrabon]

FF and APS-C will never have almost same low light performance as FF brings about twice amount of light APS-C does and thats a lot!

Your argument isn't so much about FF v APS-C, it's about being on the bleeding edge of sensor technology. My APS-C X100T Fuji outperforms a 5DIII in low light (or any Canon, for that matter). What you're really judging here is more Nikon's most recent full frame sensors, which are incredible, but it really is nikon specific. It doesn't hold up across APS-C v FF comparisons.

Well I tried to keep this a brand neutral post but the truth is that my point of reference is D7100 vs D750 which are 2 cameras that I own or owned.
The jump from the D7100 to the D750 was so big and so noticeable that for me it was an eye opener, it made a noticeable impact on my photography.
I do get cleaner images in various situations especially when lighting conditions aint ideal.

well, the problem is that if the crux of your argument is low light ability, you can't make it brand neutral. Nikon, Sony and Fuji APS-C cameras are better than Canon full frames in low light. It's basically as simple as that.

Nikon have better dynamic range at lower iso values. I'm pretty sure that by iso 1600 most brands of similar spec and timeline tech wise are close.

I don't think ff Canon cameras are inferior to nikons at higher iso. Dxo says I'm wrong so maybe.

As for op and Full frame- what works for you works for you. Sensors performance is getting closer but as mentioned earlier lens function is different on different formats

i worked side by side with a Canon 5DII and a Nikon D7000, and I can tell you that in my exxperience ISO 3200 on the D7000 is better than on the 5DII.

 

[jaomul]

That's fair enough. I had a d7100 and 5dc before that and would say Canon is better up to its expanded iso 3200, but different people have different experience based on their shooting.

I use Nikon now so would like to say they are better at hi iso but I think the 6d looks cleaner at higher iso than Nikon

 

[fjrabon]

That's fair enough. I had a d7100 and 5dc before that and would say Canon is better up to its expanded iso 3200, but different people have different experience based on their shooting.

I use Nikon now so would like to say they are better at hi iso but I think the 6d looks cleaner at higher iso than Nikon

I think some of it depends on how you shoot. Nikon I think almost encourages underexpose at a lower ISO and recovery, which is kind of backwards from how we've been "taught" historically, where ETTR was more beneficial.

You really think 6D to D600 Canon is cleaner? Huh, hadn't ever seen that, not saying you are wrong, just curious, never seen that.

 

[Ysarex]

FF and APS-C will never have almost same low light performance as FF brings about twice amount of light APS-C does and thats a lot!

Your argument isn't so much about FF v APS-C, it's about being on the bleeding edge of sensor technology. My APS-C X100T Fuji outperforms a 5DIII in low light (or any Canon, for that matter). What you're really judging here is more Nikon's most recent full frame sensors, which are incredible, but it really is nikon specific. It doesn't hold up across APS-C v FF comparisons.

Bill Claff actually rates your Fuji at ISO 6400 as better than a FF Nikon D750. There's more than just sensor size effecting low light performance. Ever look at a Bayer array and wonder why there's two green filters for every one red and blue? Look at a Fuji X-Trans CFA and figure up the green to red/blue ratio -- even more green.

Joe