Full Frame, far from critical to great landscape shots imo

pwynn-mackenzie

pwynn-mackenzie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
814
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there, now firstly im probably going to get ripped to shreds by full frame owners and others for saying any of this but this just my opinion.

So I have been browsing around at different images on the internet (all landscape and mainly on flickr) and while many of my favorite photos have been taken on full frame cameras (mostly on a Canon 5D Mark ii) there is a considerable number that have been taken on cropped sensors (some of them semi-pro cameras like D300s). And I was just wondering how critical is a full frame to getting great shots?

I have no doubt that a full frame will probably increase your chance of great shots and have better iso performance of course but i never shoot above 1600 during landscape photography, tbh anything above 400 for me is very rare so the far greater ISO performance of FF is irrelevant to me and to landscape photography normally.

As for the end photo quality? I'm sure to a photographers eye at 100% zoom in on an image (at ISO100) you could possibly tell the difference between APS and FF but in the real world you don't look at an image at 100% zoomed in.

Of course the glass makes a huge difference, but whack a carl zeiss lens on a 7D at ISO100 you will get no real noticeable better quality photo from a 5D.

I invite you to take a look at possibly my favorite photographer on flickr (or the world haha): http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuacripps/ . All his images are taken on crop sensors (D300s and D7000) and to be honest in my opinion they are probably some of my fav landscape shots i have ever seen.

At the end of the day FF advantage over a semi-pro APS camera at low ISO with good glass is so tiny is it really worth the extra cost? Oh as for the wide angle end I see many great results with Ultra wide angle lenses for APS cameras which for me negates (to an extent) another key FF advantage.

Now shoot me down!! :p
 
Last edited:
Just imagine a medium format digital system with Zeiss glass!!! 16-bit RAW files yummm!

35mm 'full frame' is not the end of the road, but it obviously offers a few nice improvements over APS-C format. Like you have proved with that link, the top of the range gear isn't everything.
 
Being in the right place at the right time is far more important than having full frame or crop, seen lots of great landscape pics from the humble D40 - good light on a good subject is the main thing.
 
I think better technology helps, but that argument never ends as you could go full frame and think you're on top of the world...until you discover medium format, etc, etc.
Ultimately, the best shots will become great because of the artist and the creative mind controlling the technology to the maximum.
 
You are perfectly correct. I have shot landscapes on my 550D with superb results, but if the same scene was shot in identical conditions with an equally good lens, then the two shots side by side would show the benefits of FF.
 
Post-Processing
----------------------
In Raw Converter (Nikon Capture NX2)
- Processed two raw files once each
- Levels adjustment
- Global "s-curve" curves adjustment
In Photoshop:
This has got to be one of the most photoshop-heavy images I've ever produced and it's taken me 5 months of fiddling to process it in a way that I like. Since May when I took this I've been experimenting with some new techniques, many of which are incorporated into this image. Here's the full run-down, starting with the lowest layers.
- Background layer from 1/6 sec exposure as baseline image
- Selective sharpening layer for rocks, trees, and canyon walls
- Empty layer set to "color" blend mode, some greens painted in over the top of a few dead branches
- Minor saturation bump to everything except the canyon walls
- Color balance to add a teensy magenta hue
- Dodge and Burn layer set to "soft light" blend mode, rocks and canyon walls burned, tree leaves and water channels dodged in patches to create mottling
- S-curves adjustment applied only to dodge/burn layer in order to enhance it
- Tiff file from long exposure layered on here, masked to show only the waterfalls and stream channel
- Dodge/burn layer, soft light blend mode. Waterfalls and water channels dodged, stream bed heavily burned
- Curves adjustment to only this dodge/burn layer to enhance it
- Major saturation reduction of the stream bed
- Empty layer set to color blend mode, orange tones painted in over the lower section of the splash in the lower left because there was too much white too close to the edge of the frame
- This same area burned via a soft light layer in order to match the dark tonality of the stream bed
- Curves adjustment to tree leaves only to get the highlights to pop a little more
- "Fairy dust" layer: high-radius gaussian blur, high contrast layer set to low opacity for dreamy look. A Marc Adamus technique, Ryan Dyar lingo.
- Whew, that's it!



After all that crap, the format of the sensor seems inconsequential..
 
joxby said:
Post-Processing...

After all that crap, the format of the sensor seems inconsequential..
Click to expand...

Yup.

I have FF, APS-C, MFT, an LX5 and a couple of smaller compacts and I'd say that after processing the differences in actual IQ between FF, APS-C and MFT are minimal. At higher ISO's the larger sensors begin to show some improvements but they're small IMVHO. Even my LX5 can produce very good images that at their best are lost amongst the larger sensor shots and when printed it's almost impossible to tell what camera was used without thinking about what lens was used and DoF characteristics. It's only the smallest compact (and my phone) shots that aren't as good.
 
Talented photographer, great subject, wonderful light... He could have taken some pretty good shots on a camera phone.

But TBH, I think it's bordering on criminal not to have used full-frame for those pictures. Even on screen you can see that some of them are not quite as good as they could be technically.

And that's important with landscape (and many other subjects). My idea of a good shot, and it doesn't happen often, is when it looks good printed at least to A3, preferably larger. Then you can get close, and luxuriate in the detail, the rich textures, and fine nuances of light. Just enjoy more.

Given how much time and money he spends shooting stuff, and with such great results, I'm at a loss as to why he doesn't shoot full-frame. At least.
 
One thing to consider is I'd say that all FF bodies on the market at the moment are several years old. When the D800E and potentially a high megapixel 5D sucessor come around the advanatge of FF for low ISO landscale will likely become much more obvious provided the lenses can cope.
 
I'm with Hoppy on this one. Perhaps it's just me, but whilst some of those are wonderful shots, they are taken at 12mm and some still aren't as wide as I'd like to see them.

Having travelled that area last year, I know how photogenic that part of the world is. I also found that some of the shots I took there benefited from using the 12-24 on full frame - at 12mm. I used the 12-24 for around 5% of my shots, but of the landscapes printed, half were from the 12-24...
 
joxby said:
Post-Processing
----------------------
In Raw Converter (Nikon Capture NX2)
- Processed two raw files once each
- Levels adjustment
- Global "s-curve" curves adjustment
In Photoshop:
This has got to be one of the most photoshop-heavy images I've ever produced and it's taken me 5 months of fiddling to process it in a way that I like. Since May when I took this I've been experimenting with some new techniques, many of which are incorporated into this image. Here's the full run-down, starting with the lowest layers.
- Background layer from 1/6 sec exposure as baseline image
- Selective sharpening layer for rocks, trees, and canyon walls
- Empty layer set to "color" blend mode, some greens painted in over the top of a few dead branches
- Minor saturation bump to everything except the canyon walls
- Color balance to add a teensy magenta hue
- Dodge and Burn layer set to "soft light" blend mode, rocks and canyon walls burned, tree leaves and water channels dodged in patches to create mottling
- S-curves adjustment applied only to dodge/burn layer in order to enhance it
- Tiff file from long exposure layered on here, masked to show only the waterfalls and stream channel
- Dodge/burn layer, soft light blend mode. Waterfalls and water channels dodged, stream bed heavily burned
- Curves adjustment to only this dodge/burn layer to enhance it
- Major saturation reduction of the stream bed
- Empty layer set to color blend mode, orange tones painted in over the lower section of the splash in the lower left because there was too much white too close to the edge of the frame
- This same area burned via a soft light layer in order to match the dark tonality of the stream bed
- Curves adjustment to tree leaves only to get the highlights to pop a little more
- "Fairy dust" layer: high-radius gaussian blur, high contrast layer set to low opacity for dreamy look. A Marc Adamus technique, Ryan Dyar lingo.
- Whew, that's it!



After all that crap, the format of the sensor seems inconsequential..
Click to expand...

Maybe if he had used full frame he could have got it right 'in camera' and avoided all that PP'ing.
 
For me a full frame camera is partly about the viewfinder, i don't like using crop cameras because of the viewfinder. I think with modern lenses and sensors, below iso400, the image quality is so good up to 24" x 16" that sensor size is fairly irrelevent...
 
Light and composition are far more important than the camera, once you know what you're doing you can get much the same result with anything! The best landscapes I have produced came from my GH1. Had the same shots been taken with FF I'd have been able to eek some extra detail and sharpness out of it and got some smoother tones, but nothing that anyone's really going to take notice of.
 
arad85 said:
Having travelled that area last year, I know how photogenic that part of the world is. I also found that some of the shots I took there benefited from using the 12-24 on full frame - at 12mm. I used the 12-24 for around 5% of my shots, but of the landscapes printed, half were from the 12-24...
Click to expand...

If you want the widest shot possible I think I'm right in saying that the widest you can go at the mo is with APS-C. Or at least it was a few months ago :D There wasn't much in it, 1mm I think, but last time I looked APS-C had the mass market crown for width.
 
woof woof said:
If you want the widest shot possible I think I'm right in saying that the widest you can go at the mo is with APS-C. Or at least it was a few months ago :D There wasn't much in it, 1mm I think, but last time I looked APS-C had the mass market crown for width.
Click to expand...
I thought it was 8mm.. which is 12.8mmm in FF money...

The point I was making was that I think some of the photos could have benefited with a wider view ;)
 
Martyn... said:
Maybe if he had used full frame he could have got it right 'in camera' and avoided all that PP'ing.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I looked at a lot his photos, and almost everyone has a list of PP longer than my final year pharmacology dissertation. I am not expert but somehow I don't think FF would have made any difference if you look at what he was doing in PP
 
arad85 said:
I thought it was 8mm.. which is 12.8mmm in FF money...

The point I was making was that I think some of the photos could have benefited with a wider view ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. I was just making the point that these days there's nothing in it :D
 
Soulman said:
For me a full frame camera is partly about the viewfinder, i don't like using crop cameras because of the viewfinder. I think with modern lenses and sensors, below iso400, the image quality is so good up to 24" x 16" that sensor size is fairly irrelevent...
Click to expand...

This might be a noob question, but what is the difference between the viewfinder on a crop body opposed to a full frame body?
 
clogs said:
This might be a noob question, but what is the difference between the viewfinder on a crop body opposed to a full frame body?
Click to expand...

They tend to be bigger, brighter and with higher frame coverage - with most DSLRs the picture that the camera takes actually has a bit more in it that you saw through the viewfinder. Not a major deal unless you really need to get framing right first time.
 
joxby said:
Post-Processing
----------------------
HUGE SNIP


After all that crap, the format of the sensor seems inconsequential..
Click to expand...

Agree, I also ask myself "Is it really a photograph of a natural thing anymore,or is it a computer made image?"

Fully agree that some PP needs doing, but for goodness sake, is all that really necessary?
 
wildman said:
I doubt it. I looked at a lot his photos, and almost everyone has a list of PP longer than my final year pharmacology dissertation. I am not expert but somehow I don't think FF would have made any difference if you look at what he was doing in PP
Click to expand...

I was being flippant :D

I think that 5 months PP would mean that it had ceased to be a photograph and was now veering into the realms of becoming a work of art.

If any of mine need more than 2 minutes PP they hit the bin, but there again I aim to be a photographer and get the result that I want in the camera.

Not having a dig at the guy as there is no doubting the effort put into producing the images, but is he a photographer, or is he an artist, personally I think the latter.
 
Martyn... said:
I was being flippant :D

I think that 5 months PP would mean that it had ceased to be a photograph and was now veering into the realms of becoming a work of art.

If any of mine need more than 2 minutes PP they hit the bin, but there again I aim to be a photographer and get the result that I want in the camera.

Not having a dig at the guy as there is no doubting the effort put into producing the images, but is he a photographer, or is he an artist, personally I think the latter.
Click to expand...

:plusone:
A bit harsh at two minutes though my longest is about five,I am not good with P&P though.:bonk:

My favourite is the clone tool ,got rid of all sorts of dumped rubbish with it that people dump without thought.:nono:

And no, it cannot be picked up and moved sometimes.( shot over a canal that had a carrier bag floating in the water.)
 
Wow lots of responses! Seems to me there is 50/50 split of people saying FF does make real world difference and the rest who like me say the far bigger factor is the conditions, subject/location and of course the skill of the photographer.

Perhaps I have been a bit unfair on FF, perhaps not. To be honest i haven't even held one let alone used one. It was interesting the people talking about the brighter viewfinder, this doesn't affect my camera :P, although i would like at least an OLED viewfinder and best of all an OVF with the benefits of an OLED (will this ever happen?), but the EVF as it is is so useful.

Anyway yes i agree PP, which is only going to get more powerful, does immensely balance the difference between FF and APS. Personally to an extent i think PP is absolutely fine, I have only had a picture come out the camera the way I liked about once, although perhaps a higher quality and FF camera could change that, I dunno (and of course me getting better)

Oh and this will seem highly hypocritical of myself but in the future i would like to upgrade to a FF camera in the future. Partly because it does allow greater flexibility if i ever need it (higher ISO, despite what i said) and if i start wanting to print things bigger then a bigger sensor and higher resolution would be needed that an FF would offer and finally as i said earlier i might (might!) increase my hit rate of good enough shots. Basically its not that i don't think FF is better than APS its just that I don't think the difference is as massive as everyone makes out. But we shall all see about that in the future.
 
When I think 'Full Frame Advantages' landscapes doesn't even come into it, except maybe if you want 20+ Megapixels, though that'll soon be in reach of ASP-C (and already there with Sony?)

FF advantages for me are getting the actual focal length of FF lenses and being able to use my f/1.2-f/1.8's properly. And the much bigger viewfinder of course, and low noise at high ISO. None of that equates to the world of landscapes for me. Especially with the invention of Live View and cheap batteries.

If I were to do landscapes and I weren't making money or at least a ton of money from it, I'd definitely go crop and I'd get the Sigma 10-20mm and be done with it. Though I do like what happens when you put a 5D together with a 17-40mm... you can emulate that with a slight curve on the red channel.

Or if I were -very- serious about it and had the cash to go down this route, I'd go over to medium format and skip full frame 35mm all together. The 16 bit files are definitely worth it, I work medium format (aerial photography/surveying) and I'm constantly amazed by the files that come out of it. And up to 1 hour exposures as standard? now that's 'the real deal' as David Dickinson puts it.
 
I think full frame sensors display a fuller, richer, smoother rendering of tones, and that's about it, everything else is an advantage or a disadvantage depending on a specific application particular to the shoot.
Lens width or length is not an issue in every shoot, neither is iso performance, neither is pixel count/file size, dof or viewfinder crops.
Non of these are as singularly important as the look imo.
I don't actually like the look of digital images generally, but that is the difference I see between full and crop sensor pictures.
 
Nawty said:
They tend to be bigger, brighter and with higher frame coverage - with most DSLRs the picture that the camera takes actually has a bit more in it that you saw through the viewfinder. Not a major deal unless you really need to get framing right first time.
Click to expand...

The viewfinder on my crop frame 7d covers 100%. So that's got nothing to do with the sensor size as far as I can see.
 
A 5DII with a 98% coverage viewfinder will be bigger than a 100% viewfinder on a 1.6x crop.

Unless I'm missing your point?
 
yes the actual image exposed on the sensor will be bigger as it's full frame. Relative to that the image in the viewfinder will be a specific amount, determend by the construction and size of the viewfinder itself, not the frame sensor size. So in the viewfinder of my 7d, I can see 100% of the image exposed on the 1.6x sensor. On the 5d mkii you'll see 98% of the full frame image. You'll miss 2 % of the actual composition in the 5d's viewfinder, which to me would suggest the viewfinder on the crop body 7d is actually better to compose your images with as you actually see what you'll get.
 
clogs said:
yes the actual image exposed on the sensor will be bigger as it's full frame. Relative to that the image in the viewfinder will be a specific amount, determend by the construction and size of the viewfinder itself, not the frame sensor size. So in the viewfinder of my 7d, I can see 100% of the image exposed on the 1.6x sensor. On the 5d mkii you'll see 98% of the full frame image. You'll miss 2 % of the actual composition in the 5d's viewfinder, which to me would suggest the viewfinder on the crop body 7d is actually better to compose your images with as you actually see what you'll get.
Click to expand...

That's camera specific though, and not a question of "FF v Crop".
 
redddraggon said:
That's camera specific though, and not a question of "FF v Crop".
Click to expand...

Indeed, that was my original point. Someone mentioned earlier they prefered full frame because the viewfinder on them are bigger and better. Just wanted to clarify, that to my knowledge that's got nothing to do with the sensor size.
 
A DSLR's optical viewfinder has limitations on what can be done, and to a large extent, what you see is dictated by the lens. That is to say, since crop format cameras use shorter lenses for a given framing, the viewfinder image will be smaller.

Bottom line, crop format cameras present a smaller, and darker image to the eye.

Percentage image coverage is something different, related to the size of the pentaprism or pentamirror. Lower-end models tend to be a bit smaller, to save size and weight, but there are a few crop format DSLRs with 100% coverage like the Canon 7D already mentioned and the Nikon D300.
 
clogs said:
Just wanted to clarify, that to my knowledge that's got nothing to do with the sensor size.
Click to expand...

It does to a degree. It wouldn't be possible to have a viewfinder made for a full frame sensor on a crop body, for example. And it's true that they are bigger and brighter than any crop sensor. The viewfinder on my Dad's 30 year old Canon AL-1 is brighter and larger than the one on my 40D.
 
I see what you mean. The image on my 7d's viewfinder is bigger and brighter than on my previous 600d camera. It definitely helps when setting up a shot, so I can see the benefit of having an even bigger and brighter viewfinder.
It's a two way thing though, for me personally it's perhaps even more important to be able to see 100% of your composition when arranging a shot to prevent having to crop in pp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top