Full frame cameras

S

samsnikon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
174
Edit My Images
Yes
What is the advantage of having a full frame camera like the D300s over say the D7000 (which is not full frame).

thanks
 
the d300s is still a crop camera.

The advantages of a full frame camera are generally better low iso performance

No crop factor

Shallower DOF if you want it
 
Bigger brighter viewfinder, cleaner high ISO usually, lenses are what they say they are so no confusing crop factor, you could argue better build quality as full frame cameras tend to be built more like the top end professional cameras with full weather and dust sealing.
 
In a word, full frame is about quality - all aspects of image quality.

But unless you print pretty big, like A4-plus, you will be hard pressed to see much benefit.

And it costs!
 
ShawWellPete said:
Not sure about that, the shallower depth of field and better ISO performance will be noticeable in a 6x4.
Click to expand...

The depth of field change is just over one stop. How shallow do you want it? With an f/1.4 lens it's the difference between extremely thin, and very extremely thin.

ISO benefit? Again, the same one and a bit stops factor applies and you're never going to notice that on a small print.
 
HoppyUK said:
The depth of field change is just over one stop. How shallow do you want it? With an f/1.4 lens it's the difference between extremely thin, and very extremely thin.

ISO benefit? Again, the same one and a bit stops factor applies and you're never going to notice that on a small print.
Click to expand...

its more then that difference on the DoF though......if I've shelled out on a f/1.4 lens its bacause I want to go there, not because I want to start at a rough equiv. of f/2 and a bit.
 
that would be me, not that it makes a difference.

Thanks for the help

sam
 
HoppyUK said:
ISO benefit? Again, the same one and a bit stops factor applies and you're never going to notice that on a small print.
Click to expand...

One and a bit stops can mean the difference between a shot that is useable and one that is in the bin.

I'll take it anyday!
:D
 
the field of view is very important also IMHO . not for birds etc, but for people, landscape .
usually bigger viewfinders etc, etc. it's much more easier to work with a camera that has a bigger sensor, viewfinder etc. and don't even get me started with the MF,LF FoV :love:
 
samsnikon said:
What is the advantage of having a full frame camera like the D300s over say the D7000 (which is not full frame).


...that would be me, ...
Click to expand...
:D
So are you saying you've already bought a D300s, thinking it had a bigger sensor than D7000?
Or are you still shopping?
 
Now that I own a crop and an FF camera, I can say that I notice a huge difference in the VF. Looking through the 1Ds viewfinder is almost as nice as looking through the VF of my OM-10, yet when I pick up the 30D,I feel like I am looking down a toilet roll tube. Not only that, but it's dimmer than the 1Ds, despite having a lens on that's over 2 stops faster!
 
grum said:
I know this is very subjective but for me there is just a certain something about full frame IQ
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I was astonished the first time I used my 5D and never touched the 40D for landscapes / portraits again! Everything just looks crisper, even in RAW...
 
boyfalldown said:
its more then that difference on the DoF though......if I've shelled out on a f/1.4 lens its bacause I want to go there, not because I want to start at a rough equiv. of f/2 and a bit.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the apature wasn't affected by crop though?

Or do you mean the DOF is affected do to the change in effective focal length, but if so it looks like a crop factor reduced the DOF on a crop vs a full frame.

Using http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html 50mm f1.4 10m to target a D3 gives 3.48m DOF and the Crops 2.28m. So the DOF on a FF is deeper, and you'd need a sub f1 to get the same?
 
Last edited:
maninsuitcase said:
I was under the impression that the apature wasn't affected by crop though?

Or do you mean the DOF is affected do to the change in effective focal length, but if so it looks like a crop factor reduced the DOF on a crop vs a full frame.

Using http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html 50mm f1.4 10m to target a D3 gives 3.48m DOF and the Crops 2.28m. So the DOF on a FF is deeper, and you'd need a sub f1 to get the same?
Click to expand...

A like-for-like comparison is a 50mm lens on full frame, and a 31mm lens on the cropper (Canon) to restore the same field of view. In which case, the DoF is increased on the crop camera, by the crop factor, ie 1.6x the f/number.

The difference on Canon 1.28 stops, a tad less on Nikon/Sony with their 1.5x crop factor.
 
Ah okay, so I was doing it the wrong way. Same effective focal length rather than same actual focal length. A 33mm 5.5m DOF on a crop which is ~1.5x the DOF of the D3 with a 50mm. Makes sense now, thanks.
 
I was a second shooter on a wedding and my legend of a mentor gave me a D3s to use as my camera for the day.

I normally shoot with a d300 (i.e a very capable piece of kit)

I went home wishing I had enough money for a d3s. there is just something about the image quality - it just looks better. I don't understand the mechanics / the science but it just looks better. At the end of the day thats what counts right?
 
samsnikon said:
What is the advantage of having a full frame camera like the D300s over say the D7000 (which is not full frame).

thanks
Click to expand...

The advantage is waaay more cost over negligible quality improvement imho.

If you're a landscaper maybe worth it but if you do wildlife or sports not.
 
Jackwow said:
The advantage is waaay more cost over negligible quality improvement imho.

If you're a landscaper maybe worth it but if you do wildlife or sports not.
Click to expand...


Words of sanity at last !!!!

(But they do look nice with the appropriate model number in big (red/yellow) characters on the strap :D:D)
 
Jackwow said:
The advantage is waaay more cost over negligible quality improvement imho.

If you're a landscaper maybe worth it but if you do wildlife or sports not.
Click to expand...

Clearly not for sports of wildlife where the crop will likely be necessary, but for other uses full frame provides better output. Have you tried a full frame model for a sustained period?
 
Just to update. The reason I started the thread was out of curiousity.

I have a d90 presently and for what I shoot macro (well close up) and portraits it will not make any difference.

I am loving the d90 though. Its a big step from a d50
 
samsnikon said:
Just to update. The reason I started the thread was out of curiousity.

I have a d90 presently and for what I shoot macro (well close up) and portraits it will not make any difference.

I am loving the d90 though. Its a big step from a d50
Click to expand...

Not sure about macro but I'd have thought that for portrait work the FX sensor will be better than DX. FX coupled with say a 85/1.4G must be difficult to beat for a portrait tog!
 
Jackwow said:
The advantage is waaay more cost over negligible quality improvement imho.

If you're a landscaper maybe worth it but if you do wildlife or sports not.
Click to expand...


words of insanity there then...............


boliston said:
Not sure about macro but I'd have thought that for portrait work the FX sensor will be better than DX. FX coupled with say a 85/1.4G must be difficult to beat for a portrait tog!
Click to expand...

oh yes :D
 
Its very nice except I have a 50mm 1.4, which on a crop sensor I guess is pretty close to 85mm.

I have started another thread to see if its worth getting the 35mm 1.8 (cannot afford another 1.4) or maybe even sell the 50mm
 
samsnikon said:
Its very nice except I have a 50mm 1.4, which on a crop sensor I guess is pretty close to 85mm.

I have started another thread to see if its worth getting the 35mm 1.8 (cannot afford another 1.4) or maybe even sell the 50mm
Click to expand...

A 35mm is an excellent lens for DX. I used to own the 35/2 as my only lens with the D70s for about 2 years and it was an amazing lens.

It won't autofocus on the entry level Nikon cams, but it will with the higher level consumer cams such as the D90, so it might be worth considering as I think it seems to have smoother bokeh compared with the 35/1.8 and it also will work well on FX if you upgrade cams in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top