A warning on Full Frame

menthel said:
Nope. A lot of people here are lying to themselves that one would improve their photography! ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's claiming that full frame will 'fix' their photos, that's the sort of thing a high street "salesman" might suggest :lol: Us full framers prefer the quality, clarity, dynamic range, colours etc. of the bigger, better sensor and the impact it has on the images captured.
 
daugirdas said:
Well, yes and no. Film is not really a relevant part of the equation. For me and many others on here, the quality of FF comes from the better sensors on FF (larger, sharper pixels, with more dynamic range, exposure latitude and far less noise). Film just doesn't cut it even against cheaper APS-C digital cameras, sorry.

An expensive [FF] camera also makes you think more about your photography and how the pro gear is used. It is certainly a good driver for improvement, even if it doesn't do it by itself. If you were given a hasselblad you would probably think of something special to shoot with it.

We could talk similarly about cars as well. There are Clio's and polo's and there are better ones like passat or A6. All of the (well mostly) can get you from A to B, and perhaps even back.
Click to expand...

So anyone without a full frame camera is just snapping away at everyone without thinking are they? Gear snobbery is silly an that statement bizarre!
As for film not cutting it I am getting great shots that are easily equal to those of my 7d.

At least you have justified your own spending, eh? ;)
 
viewfromthenorth said:
I went full frame (D700) because of it's amazing high ISO abilities. At the time (Jan 2009) it was as good as you'd get apart from the D3. If there'd have been a DX format camera that was as good I'd have saved myself a ton of money, as it was the D7000 took another 2 years to come out and I don't know if it's on a par with the D700's high ISO ability. I'd consider going back to DX when the D700 wears out, I've no emotional attachment to the format.
Click to expand...

While it has the best and latest crop sensor available, the D7000 is certainly not on a par with the D700, high ISO wise.
 
manualfocus-g said:
I don't think anyone's claiming that full frame will 'fix' their photos, that's the sort of thing a high street "salesman" might suggest :lol: Us full framers prefer the quality, clarity, dynamic range, colours etc. of the bigger, better sensor and the impact it has on the images captured.
Click to expand...

Well said. My 5dmkII is superior than my 7d in all those points above.
 
menthel said:
Nope. A lot of people here are lying to themselves that one would improve their photography! ;)
Click to expand...

it would improve their photography... not to the lengths some hope, but you will have better iso capability, in my eyes better colour reproduction, greater DOF control....

menthel, that itch will never go away you know :-)
 
Last edited:
It's a case of the right tool for the job. I'm mainly shooting landscapes at the moment, so have got a full frame camera. However, if I was still shooting motorsport/action on a regular basis I would still be shooting a cropped sensor camera.

What is best for you may not be best for everyone else...
 
Oh god isnt that the truth! I went from a 1000D with the kit lens to 5dmarkii and havent looked back, now have 85mm 1.2, 70-200 ISii, 24-105 L and still going! :bang:

THIS is the reason there are no rich photographers! lol
 
As I often say in relation to motorcycles (on performance grounds) - a good rider will easily go quickly on a cheap, old bike.

A less talented rider won't be a better rider on an expensive new bike; but they may well be a quicker rider still.

Similarly, while a skilled photographer may get amazing pictures with a £5 disposable, a less talented photographer may well be more likely to do well with top end kit that focuses faster, is sharper and works much better across more conditions.
 
Osmo said:
Scott, have you got any like for like examples of this you could post? I mean same subject composition but one from D300 and the other from D700 - adjusted just for field of view of course and straight from camera.

I have been sitting on the fence for ages now about making the move to FF - but reading this thread has made me think I should fall over into the FF side!
(Secretly holding out for 'D800' but bored waiting now!)

I've obviously had a search on the web for this (possibly not very well!) but I can find some great shots from both the D300 and D700 but no direct comparisons! Could you direct me to a suitable site? :thumbs:

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Guys,

Can anyone help me out with this - - it's a lot of money to spend if I can't see any difference myself.

It's fine if the experts among us can clearly see a difference between high end DX and FX formats but if an amateur of limited talent can't, then it's not worth the outlay!

Thanks all

Osmo
 
Last edited:
Osmo said:
Scott, have you got any like for like examples of this you could post? I mean same subject composition but one from D300 and the other from D700 - adjusted just for field of view of course and straight from camera.

I have been sitting on the fence for ages now about making the move to FF - but reading this thread has made me think I should fall over into the FF side!
(Secretly holding out for 'D800' but bored waiting now!)

I've obviously had a search on the web for this (possibly not very well!) but I can find some great shots from both the D300 and D700 but no direct comparisons! Could you direct me to a suitable site? :thumbs:

Thanks.
Click to expand...

sorry missed this will try sort some out soon.
 
Osmo said:
Guys,

Can anyone help me out with this - - it's a lot of money to spend if I can't see any difference myself.

It's fine if the experts among us can clearly see a difference between high end DX and FX formats but if an amateur of limited talent can't, then it's not worth the outlay!

Thanks all

Osmo
Click to expand...

will find some, but its hard to explain, the d300 produces wonderfull images, but the d700 can shoot all day long at iso 6400 no probs,
pics that i know i dont like at over iso 1000 on the d300 the d700 can do iso 6400 no probs.
 
So is it just the enhanced iso capability...I keep hearing about FF 'loveliness'.

Thanks Scott for the reply.

PS Honiton! - I have family in Ottery!
 
Thanks buddy. Nope, a bit isolated up here in Bedfordshire from friends and family!

I'm originally an Exmouthian - don't hold that against me though! :D

Very nice of you for the offer of a trial on your D700!!
 
Last edited:
Osmo said:
Guys,

Can anyone help me out with this - - it's a lot of money to spend if I can't see any difference myself.

It's fine if the experts among us can clearly see a difference between high end DX and FX formats but if an amateur of limited talent can't, then it's not worth the outlay!

Thanks all

Osmo
Click to expand...

I suggest to spend the money when you can see the difference and know it would benefit you. A large VF may be important enough for some people.
 
Use film? cheaper and more satisfying ;)
 
I'm holding off FF for the time being by promising myself the 5D Mk3.
Fortunately Canon are taking their time with it!

I'm also feeling the urge to try film.
 
retrogamer1990 said:
Use film? cheaper and more satisfying ;)
Click to expand...

And what a satisfaction it is! £5 a film each time, £4 to develop, more for englargements (prices may vary from shop to shop), far more to scan it at crappy resolution and so on. Then you realise the kid in the shop did an awful job developing your film yet again. Oh, and the scans aren't even worthy 6mp Nikon D40 IQ. But who cares, since since shooting film is COOL. Next day it will only cost £30 down the drain, and so on.

I was fortunate enough to realise it after 2 film rolls. I wouldn't touch it again, at least within 35mm format. Large (and probably medium), could have enough resolution to make it worth it, but definitely not 35mm.

P.S. Shooting film is not environmentally friendly, and kills a beaver a day :lol:
 
daugirdas said:
And what a satisfaction it is! £5 a film each time, £4 to develop, more for englargements (prices may vary from shop to shop), far more to scan it at crappy resolution and so on. Then you realise the kid in the shop did an awful job developing your film yet again. Oh, and the scans aren't even worthy 6mp Nikon D40 IQ. But who cares, since since shooting film is COOL. Next day it will only cost £30 down the drain, and so on.

I was fortunate enough to realise it after 2 film rolls. I wouldn't touch it again, at least within 35mm format. Large (and probably medium), could have enough resolution to make it worth it, but definitely not 35mm.

P.S. Shooting film is not environmentally friendly, and kills a beaver a day :lol:
Click to expand...

You need to get dev and scans somewhere else then. However your views are not shared by all and good quality 35mm film photography is possible and not prohibitive. You can even recycle the dev fluids and reclaim some money from the silver now! ;)

Not that we are going to change your views.
 
What's the main difference between a crop and ff? Better IQ? Faster Nd more accurate af? Better ISO? Should I jump straight to a ff from my cropped Canon 400d?
 
jonneymendoza said:
What's the main difference between a crop and ff? Better IQ? Faster Nd more accurate af? Better ISO? Should I jump straight to a ff from my cropped Canon 400d?
Click to expand...

The biggest difference is your field of view with FF Vs Crop as FF is obviously wider.
This means you can get closer to your subject with a FF camera to achieve the same framing of you subject.
This greatly affects DOF, as the closer you are to the subject the less DOF you have, so your able to achieve much more Bokehlicious pictures that isolates the subject better from a crappy background.

It also increases the effective resolution of your glass, which basically means images are also sharper with FF cameras.

Then there is the ISO and dynamic range advantage that is often associated with FF camera's. DX sensor quality is often about a generation behind in terms of ISO, Dynamic range etc.

In short, YES it will improve your pictures even if your crap at photography, but of course you can't buy photographic skill, so the biggest factor to your photography will always be you.

I'm personally biding my time before I move up to full frame from my D7K until I can afford it, and by that time I'l probably pick up a D800.

To help with the waiting, every time I get the FF itch, I check out this guys pictures from his 500D...
 
1Ds Classic to 60D is an interesting comparison because the 60D is so much newer and sensor technology improves fairly quickly. Clearly the 1Ds will have a much nicer viewfinder (large viewfinder - mmm :)) and is weather sealed, and better built and so on, but do you find the IQ better from it? I looked it up on DXOMark and apart from somewhat better high ISO (and I'm not sure but I think the higher megapixel count punishes the 60d on this) the 60d comes out as superior.

How does real world experience stack up to this?


(PS I'm not trying to claim current APS-C compares to current FF. I included the 1Ds III in the link above for reference, and as you would expect it destroys the 60D!)
 
^^^
According to DXOMark my D7K is about even to the 1Ds MK III Lol!
I personally don't put too much weight on DXO mark as I don't think it takes into account the strength of things like AA filters etc, that can have a noticeable impact on things like sharpness.
I can't give you a comparison, but the following is my opinion.
The 60D may give better results in things like colour depth and dynamic range due to new processes and architecture, but what it won't do (obviously), is have any effect on field of view and depth of field (the last one being the biggest draw for me), and it also won't increase the effective resolution of your glass.
 
I like FF and crop, as I only have 1Ds2 I don't get any appreciable noise improvement over the 7D I also have. The only real benefit to me is the better depth of field control I get. The larger view finder doesn't make a difference to me to be honest. If I had to keep one body it would be the 7D, it has many more modern features and does everything I throw at it. I rarely print above A3 either. I'm hoping the 5D3 will be something I could sell both bodies for... but we'll see.
 
MomentCapture said:
^^^
According to DXOMark my D7K is about even to the 1Ds MK III Lol!
I personally don't put too much weight on DXO mark as I don't think it takes into account the strength of things like AA filters etc, that can have a noticeable impact on things like sharpness.
I can't give you a comparison, but the following is my opinion.
The 60D may give better results in things like colour depth and dynamic range due to new processes and architecture, but what it won't do (obviously), is have any effect on field of view and depth of field (the last one being the biggest draw for me), and it also won't increase the effective resolution of your glass.
Click to expand...

I think its really going to boil down to personal taste on this one - to be honest I wasn't planning to hang on to this 1ds for very long, I bought it because it was a bargain price.

Obviously the 60D has all the bells and whistles - electronic level, large screen, tilting screen, battery life, megapixels, etc etc etc etc etc!!!

The 1DS is hard to use, has a clumsy interface, a rubbish screen and a rubbish battery life.

BUT

The viewfinder is just amazing, and when I get things right pictures pop.
The build quality is amazing as well.
However its impossible to chimp which means that when I get home I realise that I messed things up quite often.

Its a hard compromise, but its also a refreshing change - with a 60D things seem almost too easy. I guess if I need to get things right without a second chance I would pick up the 60D, but for fun I would definitely use the 1ds.

Its a bit like comparing a new Japanese car with lots of gimmicks, and an old vintage car.
 
I find the depth of field argument odd, I agree you can get a narrower depth of field on a ff camera but I can get a depth of field so narrow with my 7d that makes it almost unusable! The viewfinder on the 7d is also very bright and as near as dammit 100%. I think a lot of what is said in this thread is from reading rather than actual experience.
 
menthel said:
I find the depth of field argument odd, I agree you can get a narrower depth of field on a ff camera but I can get a depth of field so narrow with my 7d that makes it almost unusable! The viewfinder on the 7d is also very bright and as near as dammit 100%. I think a lot of what is said in this thread is from reading rather than actual experience.
Click to expand...

Well your 7D does have 100% coverage according to dpreview - so you know what I have just discovered!

I used to scorn people who said ' my images just are so magical on FF' but there is something to it - if you haven't already tried FF, then I suggest you do...... or NOT! :rules:
 
travellingcello said:
Well your 7D does have 100% coverage according to dpreview - so you know what I have just discovered!

I used to scorn people who said ' my images just are so magical on FF' but there is something to it - if you haven't already tried FF, then I suggest you do...... or NOT! :rules:
Click to expand...

I have seen enough ff digital images and also film to know there is a difference but the real jump, for me is up to mf, either digital or film!
 
menthel said:
I find the depth of field argument odd, I agree you can get a narrower depth of field on a ff camera but I can get a depth of field so narrow with my 7d that makes it almost unusable! The viewfinder on the 7d is also very bright and as near as dammit 100%. I think a lot of what is said in this thread is from reading rather than actual experience.
Click to expand...

Yes it's easy if you in the world of macro or headshots, but if your doing something like a full length portrait, your going to have a real hard time knocking the background completely OOF with a crop.
 
menthel said:
I have seen enough ff digital images and also film to know there is a difference but the real jump, for me is up to mf, either digital or film!
Click to expand...

Strangely, (at the moment at least) MF does nothing for me, it's too big and bulky, and imo FF already has plenty of shallow DOF, Fov etc...
 
MomentCapture said:
Yes it's easy if you in the world of macro or headshots, but if your doing something like a full length portrait, your going to have a real hard time knocking the background completely OOF with a crop.
Click to expand...

You can with the right kit and technique. My point is that kit isn't the be all and end all. There is enough control with a 1.5 to 1.6 crop camera for the vast majority of photography. FF is not the panacea that some here believe it to be to fix poor photographic skill. Not that I know about great photos!
 
travellingcello said:
I think its really going to boil down to personal taste on this one - to be honest I wasn't planning to hang on to this 1ds for very long, I bought it because it was a bargain price.

Obviously the 60D has all the bells and whistles - electronic level, large screen, tilting screen, battery life, megapixels, etc etc etc etc etc!!!

The 1DS is hard to use, has a clumsy interface, a rubbish screen and a rubbish battery life.

BUT

The viewfinder is just amazing, and when I get things right pictures pop.
The build quality is amazing as well.
However its impossible to chimp which means that when I get home I realise that I messed things up quite often.

Its a hard compromise, but its also a refreshing change - with a 60D things seem almost too easy. I guess if I need to get things right without a second chance I would pick up the 60D, but for fun I would definitely use the 1ds.

Its a bit like comparing a new Japanese car with lots of gimmicks, and an old vintage car.
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense, and I know what you mean. Its the reason I picked up an EOS 50E a while ago, sometimes it's nice to break out some black and white film and go and play. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top