full frame? disadvantages

I think I knew the answer anyway. :D
 
CT said:
I think I knew the answer anyway. :D
Click to expand...

Ah, a rhetorical question then......:)

Need to up my game with the mink now, wood where the hide is, is pretty clear of the verminous greys . No doubt some more will arrive........:thumbs:
 
fracster said:
and crop the FF to the same view as DX. Which will be best? No doubt about it the crop would be I would say.
Click to expand...

Nope! What you need to do is take a shot that needs cropping well on the cropper body as that's a realistic regular situation with birds. When you've cropped the cropper shot down to it's finished size, crop the FF shot to the same FOV and compare the two images. :thumbs:
 
fracster said:
Ah, a rhetorical question then......:)

Need to up my game with the mink now, wood where the hide is, is pretty clear of the verminous greys . No doubt some more will arrive........:thumbs:
Click to expand...

They're asking for all sightings of Mink to be reported at Upton Warren now. Murderous little buggers!
 
CT said:
No Richard it isn't true at all. I'm not driven by financial constraints in the choice of my kit - it's carefully chosen to give me the best results based on years of experience of shooting mainly birds. I know many birders, quite well heeled enough to afford full frame cameras but they spend the money where it counts - on the lenses.

Take the best full frame sensor and the best crop sensor cameras at any given time, equip them both with the longest telephoto lens available, shooting from the same position and when it come to an extreme range shot, the cropper gets a usable image where the full frame camera doesn't. That's it - couldn't be much simpler. Birds simply don't come at obligingly close ranges to give the advantage to the full frame.
Click to expand...

I thought I was agreeing with you Cedders ;) when I said "The birders' choice of crop formats over FF is driven mainly by practicality and affordability of super telephotos, ie best compromise."

There is no doubt that when it comes to extremes of reach, croppers allow you to put more pixels over a smaller target. End of story really. It also happens to be more manageable, and cheaper.
 
HoppyUK said:
I thought I was agreeing with you Cedders ;) when I said "The birders' choice of crop formats over FF is driven mainly by practicality and affordability of super telephotos, ie best compromise."

There is no doubt that when it comes to extremes of reach, croppers allow you to put more pixels over a smaller target. End of story really. It also happens to be more manageable, and cheaper.
Click to expand...

LOL Cool Richard. I'm glad we've sorted that out then. :D
 
If Canon had gone with a 1DSMK4 with 30mp then I think we might have been pretty close to an all round FF camera which might have tempted me to raid the piggy bank, but as it is Canon have thrown us a curve with the 1DX. They jury is out on that till we see some pics.

The fact is though according to Chuck Westfall Canon aren't abandoning the APS-H (1.3X) crop format and I think they'd be pretty daft to considering the enormous following for that format if the 1DX doesn't deliver for those users.

The camera I'm interested in at the moment is the successor to the 7D if and when that comes - it's difficult to know which way Canon are going at the moment.
 
CT said:
Anyway - didn't you buy a full frame body for weddings? :thinking:
Click to expand...

Sorry boss, missed your edit.

Primarily yes, I did, since sold one D700, but kept the other,why?

Because I like having both options. My wedding days are over, so I can use both as they were intended..............:eek:
 
CT said:
I'm sorry,but I'm just not seeing any logic in this at all, and even on a cursory glance - that's clearly not a 100% crop from an original image of that size.
Click to expand...

No it's not a 100% crop from an image that size. The first image, as mentioned, has been resized to meet forum posting rules, and shows how much was captured in the full image. The image below that is indeed a 100% crop of the un-resized original. If you check the exif data, you will see that the date and time of the two images match exactly.

If you are still not convinced, here's a link to the full res image; do your own 100% crop. Just be aware that it's a 12mb image, so could take a while to download.

Full size image
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow said:
No it's not a 100% crop from an image that size. The first image, as mentioned, has been resized to meet forum posting rules, and shows how much was captured in the full image. The image below that is indeed a 100% crop of the un-resized original. If you check the exif data, you will see that the date and time of the two images match exactly.

If you are still not convinced, here's a link to the full res image; do your own 100% crop. Just be aware that it's a 12mb image, so could take a while to download.

Full size image
Click to expand...

OK I downloaded it. Firstly it's actually 5459 X 3639 - not 5616 X 3744 as you stated so it's obviously cropped to a degree to start with and wasn't a full 1:1 image. Cropping the image you sent me I get the same sized image as you.

My original image was interpolated to the size you stated - i.e. full frame hence the difference in the sizes.
 
Chris Primadona said:
Disadvantages are cost of making the larger sensor and the speed you can shoot with a FF sensor (till the 1dx arrives). If you can live without speed, reach and are willing to pay a bit extra then FF makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

The gap between the current fastest full frame and the fastest crop camera is only 1fps, there are very few real-world scenarios where that's going to make any difference.
 
fracster said:
If any DX Nikon body handled noise like the FX Nikons, I would swap tomorrow mate.
Click to expand...

The d7000 us closer now, but the af is lacking and its tiny.
 
Another disadvantage of FF (in part of the Canon range anyway) is the degree of weatherproofing you get with a 5D (FF) as opposed to a 1D (1.3 crop). Rough conditions? Then I'll use my 1D.

Matt
 
The big disadvantage of Full Frame for me is the sensor's diminutive size. ;)
 
MatBin said:
Another disadvantage of FF (in part of the Canon range anyway) is the degree of weatherproofing you get with a 5D (FF) as opposed to a 1D (1.3 crop). Rough conditions? Then I'll use my 1D.

Matt
Click to expand...

Get a 1Ds (or a 1D x) then. You can't say weatherproofing is a disadvantage of Canon FF cameras! The design of cameras is different but that is not down to the size of the sensor.

If you need weatherproofing and a FF sensor the option has been there for a number of years ion the 1Ds range.
 
Last edited:
Chris Primadona said:
Not if you use Canon. Think the FF 1ds mkIII is 5fps. I'm not sure what the Nikon cameras can do.
Click to expand...

I wasn't limiting my comparison to one brand, the fastest current crop camera is (please correct me if I'm wrong) the 1DIV at 10 fps, the fastest full frame the D3s at 9 fps....
 
scottthehat said:
wrong:lol: the fastest crop is 12fps the new sony a77:D
Click to expand...

But that is with some limitations such as having the lens open to f3.5 or its maximum and Jpeg only.

Seriously I can't believe that its taken so long for the 10 fps barrier to be broken with digital, a film Canon EOS 1V is able to do 10fps (with power booster) with AF and that also includes moving the film along. The Canon EOS 1N RS was able to do 10fps as well, but that was with a pellicle mirror.
 
s162216 said:
But that is with some limitations such as having the lens open to f3.5 or its maximum and Jpeg only.

Seriously I can't believe that its taken so long for the 10 fps barrier to be broken with digital, a film Canon EOS 1V is able to do 10fps (with power booster) with AF and that also includes moving the film along. The Canon EOS 1N RS was able to do 10fps as well, but that was with a pellicle mirror.
Click to expand...

so with say a 500mm lens at 6.3 like a 150-500mm os or a 50-500mm os it wont do 12 fps.
and what were fils shutter rated to bet they were never 300,000 were they or even 150,000, think you got to draw the line somewhere.
 
EOS_JD said:
Get a 1Ds (or a 1D x) then. You can't say weatherproofing is a disadvantage of Canon FF cameras! The design of cameras is different but that is not down to the size of the sensor.

If you need weatherproofing and a FF sensor the option has been there for a number of years ion the 1Ds range.
Click to expand...

I wasnt sure if the 1Ds was weatherproof as its always been seen as a studio camera, thanks for pointing it out though, maybe I'll swap out my 1D and 5D for a 1Ds :)

Matt
 
EdBray said:
The big disadvantage of Full Frame for me is the sensor's diminutive size. ;)
Click to expand...

Yup, I'm finding the discussion above very funny.

If I win the lottery you'll know, because I'll turn up to hides all around the country with one of these:

and one of these:
853_1317760674_63446170708542485589268676x452_large_645d_se_3qrightview_large.jpg

just to see everyone's head explode :wave:
 
fracster said:
What about when you are shooting in poor light and need ISO 6400 to get any shutter speed?

Full frame pee`s all over crop in that scenario.

Horses for courses, use both, best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

Exactly.. I only really shoot sports and have two crop cameras.. its a bit of a myth that all sports need a long lens.. half my wok is done indoors in poor light.. life will be perfect when i get the FF 1dx for my short lens work keeping a mkIV for long lens work

up until now i have always had 2 of each mk2, mk3 and mk4 but it would be a backward step sticking a 1dx and 400mm together so a combination of FF and crop cameras as fracster says... best of both worlds :)
 
It is not a camera if it is not FF!

Crop sensor bodies should be gobbed in!:naughty::naughty::p
 
OK, but seriously, the right body and lens combo for the specific job. As has been said on here already, the perfect all-rounder does not exist...yet.
 
I think some people should go take some photographs instead of pontificating.... might help ;)
 
JSER said:
What a silly comment :nono:
Click to expand...

You possibly do not know the history to this...it involves a distinguished member on here and Nikons...:naughty:
 
WRT IQ: The advantage of full frame is there as long as you don't crop the image. the moment you crop to 1.6 or below, it's the same (or worse, depending on the sensor). It's not magic, there's nothing about the 36x24 frame that gives the sensor some ephemeral quality. It's simply the fact that it gathers 2.5x the light. If you're having to crop, that advantage disappears. Crop a 5d2 image to 1.6 and compare that crop to a 7d, the 7d will win. Crop a D3 to 1.5 and compare that crop to a D7000, the D7000 wins.

What you should care about is how much better or worse it makes your images, and how much more or less you enjoy using the equipment. The difference between 24x16 and 36x24 is swamped by so many other things in producing an image, I'd get the rest sorted first.
 
ausemmao said:
WRT IQ: The advantage of full frame is there as long as you don't crop the image. the moment you crop to 1.6 or below, it's the same (or worse, depending on the sensor). It's not magic, there's nothing about the 36x24 frame that gives the sensor some ephemeral quality. It's simply the fact that it gathers 2.5x the light. If you're having to crop, that advantage disappears. Crop a 5d2 image to 1.6 and compare that crop to a 7d, the 7d will win. Crop a D3 to 1.5 and compare that crop to a D7000, the D7000 wins.

What you should care about is how much better or worse it makes your images, and how much more or less you enjoy using the equipment. The difference between 24x16 and 36x24 is swamped by so many other things in producing an image, I'd get the rest sorted first.
Click to expand...

That's true - as far as it goes. But it's only half the story.

If it's just about the amount of light, then you can lower the ISO on a crop sensor by 2.5x and restore equality that way - at least in theory, and at least partially in practise. That should get noise etc back on a par.

What you can't do with a crop sensor is make it physically as big as full frame, which is where the sharpness benefit comes from. Because the image doesn't have to be magnified so much, the lens doesn't have to work so hard to deliver the necessary resolution. Therefore contrast is higher (basic MTF theory) and it's actually image contrast that gives the greatest impression of sharpness rather than sheer detail.

That's why if you compare images from a cropper and full frame, even when they both have a similar number of pixels (eg Canon 7D vs 5D2, or Nikon D300 vs D700) the full frame always wins - easily. And it's the lens doing that, simply by virtue of the higher MTF values at lower magnification.
 
HoppyUK said:
That's true - as far as it goes. But it's only half the story.

If it's just about the amount of light, then you can lower the ISO on a crop sensor by 2.5x and restore equality that way - at least in theory, and at least partially in practise. That should get noise etc back on a par.

What you can't do with a crop sensor is make it physically as big as full frame, which is where the sharpness benefit comes from. Because the image doesn't have to be magnified so much, the lens doesn't have to work so hard to deliver the necessary resolution. Therefore contrast is higher (basic MTF theory) and it's actually image contrast that gives the greatest impression of sharpness rather than sheer detail.

That's why if you compare images from a cropper and full frame, even when they both have a similar number of pixels (eg Canon 7D vs 5D2, or Nikon D300 vs D700) the full frame always wins - easily. And it's the lens doing that, simply by virtue of the higher MTF values at lower magnification.
Click to expand...

Yes.

But that's for the same reason. (I should have been clearer and said it gains the light because of the area). Because the same thing happens to sharpness as to noise performance if a 1.6x frame is cropped from the full frame and compared. I should also be clear and state that I'm slightly biased towards detail in what I care about when talking about sharpness. Most people are biased towards microcontrast, and the two are inversely correlated. That said, any loss in microcontrast due to increased resolution can be downsampled out. Detail can't be upsampled in.

Also be aware I was talking about comparing area between crop and FF cameras in that post. So you'd be comparing the central 5MP of a D700 against a D300, and the central 8MP of a 5D2 against a 7D.

I could get all "selectively choosing completely ridiculous comparisons" and compare a first generation 5D to a D7000 where even the uncropped image loses. Of course, that ignores the DoF and framing (with wides) options that FF offers, and ignores that comparing a 2010 crop to a 2005 full frame is ridiculous as the reasonable comparison is 2010 to 2010 :).

It's the 'magic of FF' ridiculousness I dislike (both ways - saying there's no difference is just as bad as exaggerating it). FF offers real benefits, and there are reasons for them. There are also drawbacks in the cost of that increase in size, and unless a photographer is at the edge of one of those envelopes, their efforts are best spent elsewhere (unless it's simply an "I want FF" thing, and given this is a hobby for many, that's probably one of the best justifications :lol:).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top