"Because one day I'll upgrade to full frame"

Phil V said:
With respect, that's just your belief, you've bought a new camera and you're determined to justify the expense by asserting it'll drive you to improve.

If you want to statistically examine the likelihood of that outcome, look at the people who spend most of their time in the gear buying/selling/discussion sections and see how little those folk talk about making photographs.

Hundreds of cameras are bought every year by people on this forum, and there's no evidence to suggest that anyone's photography has improved simply due to gear.
Click to expand...

Equally with respect Phil ... I'm certainly not paddling about trying to justify the expense of a new camera by asserting that the purchase will improve my photography. I'm simply putting forward a personal view that having a different playing field to kick about in will give me a different view of the game and a whole set of different rules to play to. Right now, I'm in the early days of FF ownership and thoroughly enjoying exploring what the camera can do. Thus far it is proving remarkable!. You seem to be saying that the law of averages shows that, buying a new camera doesn't make a jot of difference to ones abilities as a photographer. If that's the case, then I think it's a shame that there are clearly many folks out there who have invested in new kit for their own reasons, and are then failing to maximise the opportunities presented to them by the more able or technically advanced gear.

I'm not saying that I'll be a better photographer in a year from now by virtue of having purchased a FF camera. (Which begs the question ...How do you define "good" ....?!) What I am saying is that making the change has given me some new opportunities to explore and I'm going to have fun exploring them and see where that leads. That there are people out there who don't do that is not under debate, but it is a shame. This isn't about owning a FF camera, or any other kind of photographic device, it's about wanting to improve and try new things and taking the opportunities to do so offered by the different approach required from the new gear.

As Jonathan says above ...

Will this camera make me a better photographer ...No!
Will it help me to improve my photography ... certainly it will.

Only time will tell, but thus far I'm feeling inspired and enjoying myself, my photography has taken on a new impetus and I'm keen to explore all that it has to offer. In that regard, the FF camera was worth every penny ...
 
I don't think there's much doubt that we could all do with a little stimulation now and then, to keep pushing on and try new things. That's what improves our photography.

That stimulation comes in many forms, and buying a new piece of kit is certainly high on the list. It doesn't have to be a new full-frame camera though! A new lens, flash gun, or even something quite humble like a few filters or extensions tubes can do the trick. Or it can be an event like a baby, a holiday, or just a day out to the zoo, an airshow, nature reserve, whatever!
 
HoppyUK said:
I don't think there's much doubt that we could all do with a little stimulation now and then, to keep pushing on and try new things. That's what improves our photography.

That stimulation comes in many forms, and buying a new piece of kit is certainly high on the list. It doesn't have to be a new full-frame camera though! A new lens, flash gun, or even something quite humble like a few filters or extensions tubes can do the trick. Or it can be an event like a baby, a holiday, or just a day out to the zoo, an airshow, nature reserve, whatever!
Click to expand...

Totally agree Richard. Anything which inspires you to look at things differently and try something new is inspirational. I just got lucky this week and received an extra special birthday pressie. It won't happen every week!!!
 
I'm a biker, have been for years. I firmly believe that every single one of my bikes has been capable of doing more than I was capable of asking of it.

I feel the same is true of many of our cameras. I've recently started an "upgrade from a D300" thread and, thanks to the members of this fine forum, I've pretty much reached the realisation that the D300 is far more capable than I.

I'm a crap photographer when compared to many. However I feel that I'm a better photographer than many too.

But hey, if anyone wants more kit and can afford to get it without sacrificing the essentials or failing to meet financial commitments then, what the hell, go for it.
 
Quite an interesting read this thread , & it's thrown me in to turmoil.....again !

Currently have a D7000 which has developed a focus issue .Which 87thou clicks on it I'm reluctant to spend on repairs so now seems like a good time to upgrade ( I tend to lose confidence in something when it goes wrong even after I've had it fixed !) .Have been tempted to go FF ,namely to D750 but this thread has me questioning that choice.......

I shoot moto x with landscape ,wildlife & macro in the main . Just got a D300 for moto x, the new camera would be back up to that in the event it went wrong .

I'm under no illusions...FF will not make me a better photographer but it might make my good results look slightly better
FF....IQ is apparently better but would I really notice ?
lenses are more expensive I belive
I would lose reach against the dx body when using it for wildlife - not good
I could afford to get a new 7100 with a couple of really good quality new lenses as against a new D750 and one 2nd hand good quality lens .
Would the D7100 be the way to go or wait to see what's coming next as it's replacement

So thanks for a good read.....& making me think.......(y)
 
Yes, you would notice the improvement in IQ!
 
blondie606 said:
lenses are more expensive I belive
Click to expand...

I don't know how true this is if you're a Canon or a Nikon shooter as their APS-C lens ranges seem to be a little lacking in some areas and some people seem to end up using FF lenses on APS-C cameras. Actually when I had my 20D I had twelve AF lenses at one time or another and only four were APS-C lenses and when my little kit bag finally stabilised I had eight lenses and only one was APS-C and eventually that went and all my remaining lenses were FF up until I sold the 20D.

So, if you use an APS-C DSLR you may find that the lenses you want are FF anyway... Just something to think about.

As to the question of what's best... if printing massive or using stratospheric ISO's I think that bigger is probably better but if not printing the size of a barn and if using only ISO 100 to something reasonable these days, say 25,000 :D then maybe anything from MFT and upwards will be fine :D Many people these days don't print and only view on screen and if doing that a 2000 pixel wide image might be easily enough.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I don't know how true this is if you're a Canon or a Nikon shooter as their APS-C lens ranges seem to be a little lacking in some areas and some people seem to end up using FF lenses on APS-C cameras. Actually when I had my 20D I had twelve AF lenses at one time or another and only four were APS-C lenses and when my little kit bag finally stabilised I had eight lenses and only one was APS-C and eventually that went and all my remaining lenses were FF up until I sold the 20D.

So, if you use an APS-C DSLR you may find that the lenses you want are FF anyway... Just something to think about.

As to the question of what's best... if printing massive or using stratospheric ISO's I think that bigger is probably better but if not printing the size of a barn and if using only ISO 100 to something reasonable these days, say 25,000 :D then maybe anything from MFT and upwards will be fine :D Many people these days don't print and only view on screen and if doing that a 2000 pixel wide image might be easily enough.
Click to expand...
Why do people keep talking about print sizes?

I can see a huge difference at lowly screen size (dynamic range, shadow detail and noiseless clarity of the shadow detail, sharpness etc even at ISO 100) but that's been discussed already.

For huge print sizes massive MP sensors have the advantage, APS-C cameras are definitely not lacking there so I can't see that as an advantage. Of course with FF you'll get better quality large prints, as you do with smaller prints, so that's completely relative.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Why do people keep talking about print sizes?

I can see a huge difference at lowly screen size (dynamic range, shadow detail and noiseless clarity of the shadow detail, sharpness etc even at ISO 100) but that's been discussed already.

For huge print sizes massive MP sensors have the advantage, APS-C cameras are definitely not lacking there so I can't see that as an advantage. Of course with FF you'll get better quality large prints, as you do with smaller prints, so that's completely relative.
Click to expand...

Because print or display size matters?

If you can see huge differences at screen sizes maybe you are looking at crap images?
 
woof woof said:
Because print or display size matters?

If you can see huge differences at screen sizes maybe you are looking at crap images?
Click to expand...
Nope, images I've taken on APS-C and full frame.

Are these crap? I don't know, but it's relative as I've taken both and can compare the technical merits directly (as others can).

The fact is, full frame sensors are better on pretty much every level. Fact.

It's up to the consumer (or business) if the added cost is worth it for them.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Nope, images I've taken on APS-C and full frame.

Are these crap? I don't know, but it's relative as I've taken both and can compare the technical merits directly (as others can).

The fact is, full frame sensors are better on pretty much every level. Fact.

It's up to the consumer (or business) if the added cost is worth it for them.
Click to expand...

Bigger may well be factually better but the question is at what point it becomes demonstrably better and whenever anyone says they can see huge differences at screen sizes I just think either they're fooling themselves or there's something wrong somewhere. Either scenario is possible.

Yes, it's up to people to decide what's best for them but the first things to do IMVHO are to approach comparisons with an open mind and try and get the best out of each system. If doing so I personally think that seeing huge differences at screen sizes is going to become a rarity.

Poor innocent me :D
 
I'm not sure I really understand your last paragraph?

I'm also confused as to why you doubt that I can see the big difference when processing and viewing the raw files produced by my own equipment on screen? Its hardly surprising. Its not about approaching it with an open mind (though I wholly agree with you there, and my mind is well and truly open, otherwise I would only own FF equipment and I wouldn't have just added a Fuji x100 to my kit bag!) I'm simply reporting my own findings, something only I can actually do, if I'm allowed to proclaim that :confused:
 
Last edited:
maybe its just me, but I find decent lenses on the 2nd hand market generally tend to be full frame, and on the 2nd hand market where I buy my lenses there is much more choice of full frame lenses, for reasonable money than there are of aps-c lenses,

so for some its not a case of one day I will upgrade so that's why I'm getting a full frame lens, it's more a case of that's what is available for my price point, in the focal range I wish to purchase, that also has the quality of build I am looking for at that particular.

as with everything it's all about compromise for most people.
 
The point about using full-frame lenses on crop-sensor cameras seems to be getting confused.

Take a common example, Canon 17-40/4 L for full-frame, vs Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. They both cover focal lengths around the 'standard' range on APS-C, but with the EF-S lens you get both longer focal length and a one stop faster aperture, plus IS as well - all major advantages. The other thing is when it comes to actually getting the full-frame camera, that 17-40 lens is no longer a standard range zoom, but a super-wide (as it was designed to be). So you end up having to reconfigure your lens range anyway.

It's true that there aren't too many lenses about optimised for APS-C/DX, but that's because the optical advantages of the smaller format run out quite quickly at longer focal lengths.
 
With the Canon 17-40/4 L you pay a lot of money but you get superior glass, a lens that will work very happily with crop and will work with FF if you decide to, with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS you get longer reach and a faster lens but with poorer quality glass and a lens that will only work with crop.
 
Merluza said:
With the Canon 17-40/4 L you pay a lot of money but you get superior glass, a lens that will work very happily with crop and will work with FF if you decide to, with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS you get longer reach and a faster lens but with poorer quality glass and a lens that will only work with crop.
Click to expand...
Have you ever compared the 17-55 IS to the 17-40L?

Because what you've said about the quality is the opposite of my experience, and the lens test charts. The 17-40L is an OK(ish) L lens, the 17-55 is the best non-L Canon zoom.
 
I'll second (third!) that, the 17-55 is a better lens than the 17-40L, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top