Full Frame camera's

Lesco

Lesco

Suspended / Banned
Messages
623
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Ive just been reading up (via wikipedia) about full frame camera's, and understand the basics of full frame as from what I have read its all based around the old 35mm frame or something like it and I read the sensor is smaller in non-full frame camera's.

So now my question, what are the advantages of a full frame camera to the amature like me, and if I was to change my Nikon DSLR to a full frame DSLR would all my lenes still fit or would I only be able to use certain ones?

I relise full frame camera's are very much more expensive as well.

Thanks in advance for any help and advice.
 
Lenses that are designed for full frame work on a crop sensor. Lenses which are designed to work on a crop sensor won't work on a full frame sensor (or will with heavy vignetting). Unsure for Nikon what tells them apart...
 
Lenses with DX in the title are designed for crop sensor bodies.
 
Well in a round about way you just answered another question I had, the diffrence between DX and FX lenes but thats sorted now.

Thanks guys
 
full frame sensors generally have larger pixel sites. Larger pixel sites mean the diffraction caused by a lenses apeture has a lesser effect on images. larger pixel sites generally means that each site is more sensitive, thus needing less amplification for a clean result - and generally better high ISO performance

Larger pixel sites generally mean the sensor can exploit a lens which has excellent MTF / resolution

However - if the sensor has more pixel sites result each pixel is the same size or smaller than all of the above doesn't normally apply. In this case only the following is relevant

- requires a lens that works well on a full frame sensor
- the focal length for the lens will give you the field of view you expect, rather than the apparently narrower one you get on a crop sensor

Full
 
It's an expensive change from DX and you probably need to ask yourself just what it will do for you. Up to A2 will print from a dx image very nicely, so unless you really need better quality in low light you may as well stick with what you have.

Or consider the new D7000 which is rumoured to have similar high ISO performance (personally I'll believe that when I see it!)
 
The fundamental difference is that full frame is just bigger. A lot bigger, like roughly 2.5x bigger. It always collects more light (better ISO, lower noise) and requires less magnification so the lenses don't have to deliver so much resolution and therefore contrast is higher. Overall better image quality.

The format magnification also drives slight differences in depth of field, ie you get less DoF with full frame, to the tune of just over one stop.

Crop format cameras need a shorter focal length lens to deliver the same field of view, but the smaller sensor size makes this easier optically when they don't have to be made to cover the larger full frame sensor size. The drawback of that of course is that if you fit a DX lens (Canon EF-S) on a full frame camera, the edges and corners are much darker, or even black, and with very poor sharpness.
 
HoppyUK said:
The fundamental difference is that full frame is just bigger. A lot bigger, like roughly 2.5x bigger. It always collects more light (better ISO, lower noise) and requires less magnification so the lenses don't have to deliver so much resolution and therefore contrast is higher. Overall better image quality.

The format magnification also drives slight differences in depth of field, ie you get less DoF with full frame, to the tune of just over one stop.

Crop format cameras need a shorter focal length lens to deliver the same field of view, but the smaller sensor size makes this easier optically when they don't have to be made to cover the larger full frame sensor size. The drawback of that of course is that if you fit a DX lens (Canon EF-S) on a full frame camera, the edges and corners are much darker, or even black, and with very poor sharpness.
Click to expand...


I believe it's 1.5 to 1.6 times bigger in most cases ! :shrug:
 
Starastin said:
I believe it's 1.5 to 1.6 times bigger in most cases ! :shrug:
Click to expand...

That's the linear crop factor, eg 1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56 area magnification.
 
HoppyUK said:
The fundamental difference is that full frame is just bigger. A lot bigger, like roughly 2.5x bigger. It always collects more light (better ISO, lower noise) and requires less magnification so the lenses don't have to deliver so much resolution and therefore contrast is higher. Overall better image quality.
Click to expand...
Per mm2, it collects exactly the same amount of light. If the crop sensor is 12MP, and the full frame sensor is 12MP, then each photosite collects more light, because it is bigger. If the full frame sensor has the same sized photsites, i.e. comparing a crop 6mp camera with a FF 15mp camera, then any noise / ISO advantages are not gained by the change in sensor size, but in cleaner amplification / better sensor design (because the pixelsites will be the same size)

HoppyUK said:
The format magnification also drives slight differences in depth of field, ie you get less DoF with full frame, to the tune of just over one stop.
Click to expand...
Sensor size has nothing to DOF. DOF is to do with aperture focal length and working distance. Where the sensor comes into play is where the COC size is compared to pixel size. large sensor sizes dont necessarily have large photosites

You are confusing the "effect" of placing the same lens on a crop and full frame sensor. If you map the crop sensor onto the full frame sensor, the image will be exactly the same, the difference is the full frame sensor is recording a wider angle of view (exactly the same view). Here is a good analogy - Its a bit like sitting in your living room, and looking at your TV - if you masked of the edges of the TV, the central unmasked part would be displaying exactly the same image. If you were hooking a video camera up to your TV, you would need a different focal length to fill in the central unmasked part of your TV screen with the equivalent image. the sensor isn't magnifying, it is just to get the same image (in terms of angle of view) imaged on the sensor, a different focal length lens needs to be put on the camera

You make this point here:

HoppyUK said:
Crop format cameras need a shorter focal length lens to deliver the same field of view,
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Richard King said:
Per mm2, it collects exactly the same amount of light. If the crop sensor is 12MP, and the full frame sensor is 12MP, then each photosite collects more light, because it is bigger. If the full frame sensor has the same sized photsites, i.e. comparing a crop 6mp camera with a FF 15mp camera, then any noise / ISO advantages are not gained by the change in sensor size, but in cleaner amplification / better sensor design (because the pixelsites will be the same size)

Sensor size has nothing to DOF. DOF is to do with aperture focal length and working distance. Where the sensor comes into play is where the COC size is compared to pixel size. large sensor sizes dont necessarily have large photosites

You are confusing the "effect" of placing the same lens on a crop and full frame sensor. If you map the crop sensor onto the full frame sensor, the image will be exactly the same, the difference is the full frame sensor is recording a wider angle of view (exactly the same view). Here is a good analogy - Its a bit like sitting in your living room, and looking at your TV - if you masked of the edges of the TV, the central unmasked part would be displaying exactly the same image. If you were hooking a video camera up to your TV, you would need a different focal length to fill in the central unmasked part of your TV screen with the equivalent image. the sensor isn't magnifying, it is just to get the same image (in terms of angle of view) imaged on the sensor, a different focal length lens needs to be put on the camera

You make this point here:
Click to expand...

I am not confusing anything.

The reason why smaller formats have shorter focal length lenses is because... erm, the sensor is smaller. It is the size of the sensor which drives everything else.

Starastin said:
hmm.. so then 4/3rds is 4 ? anyway FF FTW !!!!
Click to expand...

4/3rds refers to an ancient TV camera tube format, in the same way that these very confusing fractions are also used to describe compact camera sensors. I think it's done to conceal the fact that they so frigging small!

4:3 is also the aspect ratio, also similar to compacts, as opposed to the 3:2 of DSLRs.

The actual sensor area of 4/3rds is one quarter of full frame, hence the crop fasctor of 2x (2 x 2 = 4).
 
HoppyUK said:
I am not confusing anything.

The reason why smaller formats have shorter focal length lenses is because... erm, the sensor is smaller. It is the size of the sensor which drives everything else.
Click to expand...

the focal length of a lens is a measurable thing, and has NOTHING to do with sensor size. you can have a 1mm2 or a 1000mm2 sensor, a sheet of large format film or a APS film or a 35mm film in the back of the camera. In all instances a focal length of 100mm will be the same - 100mm, and in all instances, if we compared the same 1mm2 patch of film /sensor, the image formed would be exactly the same

fullframe.jpg


The bit that throws everyone is the images viewed full screen on a PC. When full screen the object looks more magnified on the crop sensor. In fact, if you looked at the image in 1:1 pixel view and if if both sensors had the same pixel density, the image of the object would be the same size on the screen. However if we are comparing a 12MP full frame to a 12MP crop, the crop would be showing the object using less pixels, so the object would be smaller on the screen. In the real world, you then zoom the crop lens a bit to fill the screen, at which point you really did change the focal length

In the imaginary camera above, the crop sensor is really just the middle bit of the full frame sensor. If we think about it like that, then its easy to imagine that if we cropped the middle bit out of a full frame image, the resulting photograph would have a narrower angle of view than the full framed sensor photograph. Whats really important to know here is that a lens with a focal length of 50mm in front of either sensor behaves exactly like a 50mm lens, its just with the crop sensor, we throw away the edges of the image. The resultant image may looks AS IF it were shot with a 85mm lens, but it was shot with a 50mm lens, so all the normal 50mm lens qualities apply

When the crop sensors came out, the manufacturers seized on this, and realised that if they released lenses that only performed well for the area of the crop sensor, they could use cheaper elements and produce a better result - but this came at a cost - the lenses only work well on crop sensors
 
Last edited:
Funny - I just read this a few mins ago.........

The other change that a reduced field of view crop factor lens brings is a shorter DOF (Depth of Field) for similarly framed subjects using the same lens and settings. The closer you get to your subject, the shorter the DOF (all other setting remaining the same). Since you will need to get closer to your subject to get the same framing with a 1.3x field of view crop factor camera, the resulting DOF will be shorter. Of course, if you stay the same distance from your subject, the DOF will stay the same. Your image framing will be different though - your subject will be smaller. A shorter depth of field can be good or bad - it just depends on what effect you are trying to get.
 
dinners said:
Funny - I just read this a few mins ago.........

The other change that a reduced field of view crop factor lens brings is a shorter DOF (Depth of Field) for similarly framed subjects using the same lens and settings. The closer you get to your subject, the shorter the DOF (all other setting remaining the same). Since you will need to get closer to your subject to get the same framing with a 1.3x field of view crop factor camera, the resulting DOF will be shorter. Of course, if you stay the same distance from your subject, the DOF will stay the same. Your image framing will be different though - your subject will be smaller. A shorter depth of field can be good or bad - it just depends on what effect you are trying to get.
Click to expand...

Total :puke: the above passage is just incorrect...see Richard's post
 
Richard King said:
Per mm2, it collects exactly the same amount of light. If the crop sensor is 12MP, and the full frame sensor is 12MP, then each photosite collects more light, because it is bigger. If the full frame sensor has the same sized photsites, i.e. comparing a crop 6mp camera with a FF 15mp camera, then any noise / ISO advantages are not gained by the change in sensor size, but in cleaner amplification / better sensor design (because the pixelsites will be the same size)

Sensor size has nothing to DOF. DOF is to do with aperture focal length and working distance. Where the sensor comes into play is where the COC size is compared to pixel size. large sensor sizes dont necessarily have large photosites

You are confusing the "effect" of placing the same lens on a crop and full frame sensor. If you map the crop sensor onto the full frame sensor, the image will be exactly the same, the difference is the full frame sensor is recording a wider angle of view (exactly the same view). Here is a good analogy - Its a bit like sitting in your living room, and looking at your TV - if you masked of the edges of the TV, the central unmasked part would be displaying exactly the same image. If you were hooking a video camera up to your TV, you would need a different focal length to fill in the central unmasked part of your TV screen with the equivalent image. the sensor isn't magnifying, it is just to get the same image (in terms of angle of view) imaged on the sensor, a different focal length lens needs to be put on the camera

You make this point here:
Click to expand...

I must admit I've not really much knowledge of this side of things so may be missing what you're getting at here but are you saying that if I were to take a 50D and a 5D and put a 70-200 lens on them both and then set the focal length to 85mm and the aperture to f/8 on the 50D and 136mm and f/8 on the 5D and stood the same distance from my subject for both shots you would expect to see the same DOF in both shots? :)
 
Tony, Don't get bogged down in the technicalities of it.

Large format will *always* beat medium format which will always beat full frame which will always beat cropped APS-C format.

I've found APS-H (Canon 1D III) perfectly adequate for anything I want to do. NOT as good as the 6x6cm Hasselblad kit I used to used a few years back but I'd need a magnifying glass to tell the difference in real life.

It's the shot that matters not the format of the kit it was taken on.
Sorry if that sounds a bit arrogant, it's not meant to. Honestly I've seen pics taken on a 110 film format that have been superb, bloody awful IQ, but brilliant content. And that's what matters most.

cheers
 
dinners said:
Funny - I just read this a few mins ago.........

The other change that a reduced field of view crop factor lens brings is a shorter DOF (Depth of Field) for similarly framed subjects using the same lens and settings. The closer you get to your subject, the shorter the DOF (all other setting remaining the same). Since you will need to get closer to your subject to get the same framing with a 1.3x field of view crop factor camera, the resulting DOF will be shorter. Of course, if you stay the same distance from your subject, the DOF will stay the same. Your image framing will be different though - your subject will be smaller. A shorter depth of field can be good or bad - it just depends on what effect you are trying to get.
Click to expand...

Blue Eagle said:
Total :puke: the above passage is just incorrect...see Richard's post
Click to expand...

It says 'for similarly framed subjects'.

I think the person who wrote this (digital picture.com) means that if you move closer to your subject with a FF camera to match what is seen further back with a crop camera - the depth of field will change.

Same applies if you move further from your subject with a crop camera to match what the FF camera sees.
 
Richard King said:
the focal length of a lens is a measurable thing, and has NOTHING to do with sensor size. you can have a 1mm2 or a 1000mm2 sensor, a sheet of large format film or a APS film or a 35mm film in the back of the camera. In all instances a focal length of 100mm will be the same - 100mm, and in all instances, if we compared the same 1mm2 patch of film /sensor, the image formed would be exactly the same

fullframe.jpg


The bit that throws everyone is the images viewed full screen on a PC. When full screen the object looks more magnified on the crop sensor. In fact, if you looked at the image in 1:1 pixel view and if if both sensors had the same pixel density, the image of the object would be the same size on the screen. However if we are comparing a 12MP full frame to a 12MP crop, the crop would be showing the object using less pixels, so the object would be smaller on the screen. In the real world, you then zoom the crop lens a bit to fill the screen, at which point you really did change the focal length

In the imaginary camera above, the crop sensor is really just the middle bit of the full frame sensor. If we think about it like that, then its easy to imagine that if we cropped the middle bit out of a full frame image, the resulting photograph would have a narrower angle of view than the full framed sensor photograph. Whats really important to know here is that a lens with a focal length of 50mm in front of either sensor behaves exactly like a 50mm lens, its just with the crop sensor, we throw away the edges of the image. The resultant image may looks AS IF it were shot with a 85mm lens, but it was shot with a 50mm lens, so all the normal 50mm lens qualities apply

When the crop sensors came out, the manufacturers seized on this, and realised that if they released lenses that only performed well for the area of the crop sensor, they could use cheaper elements and produce a better result - but this came at a cost - the lenses only work well on crop sensors
Click to expand...

I'm assuming this is directed at me, in which case I would respectfully say that it doesn't tell me anything I don't know and is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. It is also incorrect in the second paragraph when it says "the crop would be showing the object using less pixels". Should read more pixels.

Anyway, what I am trying to say is this - the size of the sensor drives everything. With a crop format camera, we use a shorter focal length lens to get a certain framing, because the sensor is smaller. Depth of field is changed because the circle of confusion is adjusted by the change in magnification, because the sensor is smaller.

The reality of picture taking is that we start with a camera that has a certain size of sensor and we alter the focal length of the lens to give us the framing we want. We don't do it the other way around and start with a fixed focal length lens and adjust the size of the sensor to fit that. Therefore, the size of the sensor drives everything else.

dinners said:
Funny - I just read this a few mins ago.........

The other change that a reduced field of view crop factor lens brings is a shorter DOF (Depth of Field) for similarly framed subjects using the same lens and settings. The closer you get to your subject, the shorter the DOF (all other setting remaining the same). Since you will need to get closer to your subject to get the same framing with a 1.3x field of view crop factor camera, the resulting DOF will be shorter. Of course, if you stay the same distance from your subject, the DOF will stay the same. Your image framing will be different though - your subject will be smaller. A shorter depth of field can be good or bad - it just depends on what effect you are trying to get.
Click to expand...

Blue Eagle said:
Total :puke: the above passage is just incorrect...see Richard's post
Click to expand...

dinners said:
It says 'for similarly framed subjects'.

I think the person who wrote this (digital picture.com) means that if you move closer to your subject with a FF camera to match what is seen further back with a crop camera - the depth of field will change.

Same applies if you move further from your subject with a crop camera to match what the FF camera sees.
Click to expand...

Certainly that quote when taken out of context appears to read wrongly, but what Dinners says is right.

Chris L said:
I must admit I've not really much knowledge of this side of things so may be missing what you're getting at here but are you saying that if I were to take a 50D and a 5D and put a 70-200 lens on them both and then set the focal length to 85mm and the aperture to f/8 on the 50D and 136mm and f/8 on the 5D and stood the same distance from my subject for both shots you would expect to see the same DOF in both shots? :)
Click to expand...

No, the depth of field in both shots would be different. There would be more DoF in the crop format shot, equal to about one and a quarter stops. The actual difference is f/number x crop factor, so f/8 on the crop camera would need f/12.8 on full frame to deliver the same DoF.

Try it here www.dofmaster.com
 
HoppyUK said:
No, the depth of field in both shots would be different. There would be more DoF in the crop format shot, equal to about one and a quarter stops. The actual difference is f/number x crop factor, so f/8 on the crop camera would need f/12.8 on full frame to deliver the same DoF.

Try it here www.dofmaster.com
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I thought. I wasn't aware of the f/number x crop factor but I'd previously understood that f/2.8 on a 50D would equate to ~f/4.5 on a 5D and have seen sample images clearly showing this difference at the same field of view e.g. 50mm on the crop and 80mm on the full frame.

The only reason I asked was that Richard's reply to you seemed to be saying there would be no difference in the DOF :)
 
Chris L said:
That's pretty much what I thought. I wasn't aware of the f/number x crop factor but I'd previously understood that f/2.8 on a 50D would equate to ~f/4.5 on a 5D and have seen sample images clearly showing this difference at the same field of view e.g. 50mm on the crop and 80mm on the full frame.

The only reason I asked was that Richard's reply to you seemed to be saying there would be no difference in the DOF :)
Click to expand...

:thumbs: For someone who doesn't claim to know everything, it's good to see that you've not been foxed by all the smoke and mirrors :)

Richard's post above is mostly correct, but is misleading and isn't the answer to the OP's question. He keeps going on about lens focal length being fixed, which of course it is, but that ignores what is actually happening when we change format - we change the focal length to suit that. And even if we did not, when he says a 50mm lens always behaves like a 50mm lens - and implying that DoF stays the same, your point I think - that's not true either and when you think of how we use lenses of a certain focal length, everything about them changes massively.

A 50mm lens might be 'standard' on a full frame camera, but on a large format film camera it is a super-wide and on a compact it's a very long telephoto. And no single 50mm lens could possibly be used over all those formats, they need to be optimised to fit the size of the sensor.
 
HoppyUK said:
Richard's post above is mostly correct, but is misleading and isn't the answer to the OP's question. He keeps going on about lens focal length being fixed, which of course it is, but that ignores what is actually happening when we change format - we change the focal length to suit that. And even if we did not, when he says a 50mm lens always behaves like a 50mm lens - and implying that DoF stays the same, your point I think - that's not true either and when you think of how we use lenses of a certain focal length, everything about them changes massively.
Click to expand...

Richard King said:
Whats really important to know here is that a lens with a focal length of 50mm in front of either sensor behaves exactly like a 50mm lens, its just with the crop sensor, we throw away the edges of the image. The resultant image may looks AS IF it were shot with a 85mm lens, but it was shot with a 50mm lens, so all the normal 50mm lens qualities apply
Click to expand...

That would imply, if you were looking through the viewfinder that you would frame to the edges etc! Meaning the 50mm lens looks like it is zoomed to 85mm
 
HoppyUK said:
The fundamental difference is that full frame is just bigger. A lot bigger, like roughly 2.5x bigger. It always collects more light (better ISO, lower noise) and requires less magnification so the lenses don't have to deliver so much resolution and therefore contrast is higher. Overall better image quality.

The format magnification also drives slight differences in depth of field, ie you get less DoF with full frame, to the tune of just over one stop.

Crop format cameras need a shorter focal length lens to deliver the same field of view, but the smaller sensor size makes this easier optically when they don't have to be made to cover the larger full frame sensor size. The drawback of that of course is that if you fit a DX lens (Canon EF-S) on a full frame camera, the edges and corners are much darker, or even black, and with very poor sharpness.
Click to expand...

When it is said that fitting a DX lens (EF-S) on a full frame camera. You cannot fit an EF-S lens on a full frame camera. If you could you would be in serious trouble. Posters trying to out smart each other, I give up. :wave:
 
classcams said:
When it is said that fitting a DX lens (EF-S) on a full frame camera. You cannot fit an EF-S lens on a full frame camera. If you could you would be in serious trouble. Posters trying to out smart each other, I give up. :wave:
Click to expand...

well given up. You can fit a DX lens on a full frame camera though. The EF-S/EF limitations a purely a brand thing (I guess to make engineering reverse telephoto designs easier), there is nothing in theory stooping you using DX lenses on FX :wave:
 
boyfalldown said:
The EF-S/EF limitations a purely a brand thing
Click to expand...

It's not really, it's a different construction. The back of the lens is closer to the image sensor - if you did manage to put one on a FF camera you'd be ramming the end of the lens much too deeply inside the camera body.

It makes wide-angle lenses cheaper to make, which are a much bigger requirement on a crop sensor as you need them to start so much wider (say, 18mm against 28mm) to cover the standard 35mm camera range.

It's a better system than EF as well, really.
 
Last edited:
RevOnline said:
It's not really, it's a different construction. The back of the lens is closer to the image sensor - if you did manage to put one on a FF camera you'd be ramming the end of the lens much too deeply inside the camera body.
Click to expand...

my point was thats only true for EF-S lenses. DX lenses mount without issue (other than varying degrees of vignetteing) on an F mount. So you can mount a DX lens on an FX canera with no issues, and the previous post did say you can't mount DX lenses - just not true

RevOnline said:
It makes wide-angle lenses cheaper to make, which are a much bigger requirement on a crop sensor as you need them to be so much wider to cover the standard 35mm camera range.
Click to expand...




which is pretty much exactly what I said (making reseverse telephoto designs easier), but there is no theorectical reason you have to do this, Cannon choose to with the EF-S range, Nikon don't with the DX range

edit - and if you're going to quote me, please atleast have the deceny to do so in whole sentences, and not change it safter I reply ;)
 
Last edited:
If I edited it at 1518, and you posted at 1521, how did I read your post before changing it? Are you an idiot?
 
RevOnline said:
If I edited it at 1518, and you posted at 1521, how did I read your post before changing it? Are you an idiot?
Click to expand...

are you always that rude ? or did you get up and practice? and idiot comments you wont admit to being wrong then?? or to arrogant too?you certainly editted whilst I was typing
 
There is no way without a time machine I can make an edit after reading your post when it was made 3 minutes later, is there? If you can't understand that, I feel calling you an idiot is entirely factual.
 
RevOnline said:
There is no way without a time machine I can make an edit after reading your post when it was made 3 minutes later, is there? If you can't understand that, I feel calling you an idiot is entirely factual.
Click to expand...

bored of being insulted now. You edited your post after I started to reply, and changed your quote to something entirely out of context. That says much more about you then me , and you'd rather continue to insult that have an adult conversation, again saying more about you then me
 
give over you too, stop the insults. its arguing like that, that makes people want to go elsewhere. if you cant play nice, dont play at all
 
Besides, it makes you both sound like children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top