Full Frame, is it really worth it ?

TG.

TG.

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,905
Name
Tel
Edit My Images
No
I was wondering what are the real advantages full frame has over cropped, i mean is the step up from say a D300 to D700 really that great, and is the picture quality really worth the extra £900ish, for those who have taken the step i would appreciate your thoughts :)
 
For someone who went from D300 to D700 .. the main advantege to me, as I never use flash, is the high ISO abilities and quality.
 
Wail said:
For someone who went from D300 to D700 .. the main advantege to me, as I never use flash, is the high ISO abilities and quality.
Click to expand...

Yes i see your point, although the excellent ISO of the D700 is well documented, so apart from that what are the other advantages of full frame, i guess i should be more specific, not just with Nikon but any camera, i'm sure i read that full frame can sometimes be a disadvantage where noise is concerned.
 
You stop wondering if full frame would be better ;)
 
I appear to be getting more out of my full frame lenses (60mm and 80-200mm) from short time with my D700, by which - and I could well be seeing things - it appears to be sharper, the bokeh is much smoother and depth of field appears to be "different".. I can't exactly say how though. It could be the D700 but the colours appear to be more vibrant as well.
 
welly said:
and I could well be seeing things - it appears to be sharper
Click to expand...

I feel the same with my 5D compared to 400D when using the Siggy 24-70. I can't see why it would be sharper though, so put it down to it being a psychological thing.
 
Definitely. I have a D90 as a back-up and a D700 as my main camera and looking through the viewfinder is an experience and a half (excuse my slang).
 
Haven't we done this to death so many times? :shrug:
 
CT said:
I wouldn't say this to a newbie, but you arent one TG. ;)
Click to expand...

Ok guess i deserved that :D

Thanks for the link.
 
CT said:
So you going full frame then? And what's with the lurkin' ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe in a few months depends if it,s going to make much difference, although i think i would need a hell of a lot more than full frame to make my pics any better :lol: as regards the lurkin mmm long story ;)
 
I really don't understand this fascination with so called 24x36mm full frame.
I shot 35mm and medium format for years, thought about large format but couldn't be bothered to cart all that kit around so I never really got into it.

FF isn't the "Holy Grail" and it isn't magically going to make everything better or easier. Yes, you can crop more... big deal. Move a bit closer and you won't need to.
Ok, I'll accept that that is a vast over simplification, and if you've ever seen a good transparency from a 5x4 it's incredible. But I really do think it's being hyped up out of all proportion. It's just another format with advantages and disadvantages, no more, no less.
 
And one that transformed my photography.

I always found it more difficult to "see", to visualise images using crop sensor cameras. The minute I moved to FF (in my case a 5D) suddenly it all made a lot more sense. What I see in the viewfinder is much easier for me to work with. I guess it's just the way I see the world is so much better aligned with FF.

I've also got MF now too and I'm also loving that :)
 
Having only had my D700 a day (previously used D200 and Fuji S5), I'm not sure I'm fully qualified to comment but in the short period of time I have had one I've been shocked at the leap in what it can do compared with what I've used previously. I don't know if that is the Full Frame element or if this is just how far the technology has come.

The things that have hit me so far have been.
1) the quality at high ISOs (e.g 3200), I read about it but until I experience it I didn't realise how good it was.
2) the size of the viewfinder and how wide 24mm suddenly seems to be, I've not yet loaded the 70-200 on it yet but I'm expecting to be equally surprised at the 200 end and that it's not as close as I've been used to.
3) Suddenly everything seems much sharper (still shooting 12bit Lossless Compressed NEFs)

I am going to have a real struggle the next wedding I shoot, which camera do I put the 24-70 on and which one do I put the 70-200 VR - S5 Pro or D700 :thinking:
 
Depends on what you shoot IMO. I've just got a D300 as a backup to my D3 because I've missed the DX crop for getting shots of those trickier wildlife subjects. If you shoot mostly wide angle or low light then get a D700 because the image quality at high ISO is far superiror on FF and the D3 is still the camera I'd reach for first if the subject was close enough.
 
Frankly, had it not been for the high ISO capabilities of the D700, then I don't see the logic in me getting it! The money spent on "upgrading" could have paid for a few nice exotic primes.

But, as I said, it was purely the high ISO that lured me ... as such, once my lens kit is settled and sorted I do plan to get a DX again (possibly the replacement of the D300).
 
If you shoot interiors, FX has a big wide angle advantage. Compare how much wider you can go with 14mm on FX compared to 12mm on DX:

Nikkor 12-24 on a DX:
12-24DX%20DX%20mode.jpg



Nikkor 14-24 on FX:
14-24.jpg
 
Thats slightly mis-leading as the composition is clearly different...
 
puddleduck said:
Thats slightly mis-leading as the composition is clearly different...
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right of course, they were just snapshots (which I never expected to show anyone) when I briefly had both lenses at the same time and was curious as to what they would each get in... but, although not very scientific or well composed, hopefully they give some idea as to the differece.
 
My views (which have probably been covered above!)

Lower noise at high ISOs
Wider angles of view
I know what to expect from each focal length rather than having to calculate from the crop factor
With cropping kept in mind, the viewfinder is over 100% coverage.
 
:thinking:

I like the smoother rendering and depth of full frame digital images compared to crop sensors.
Its not about size or iso performance wide glass or anything else for me.
Film looks the same whatever format.
Digital specifically, looks nicer on FF than crop sensor.
 
Same for me, I couldn't give a monkies nuts about high ISO.

For me full frame appears to be richer, with smoother tonal transistions, and bokeh rendering seems to just melt away.

I don't see any advantage for landscape stuff though per se (which is what I tend to shoot), so its not clear cut.

I also like being able to use my AI-S primes as nature intended - my 28mm f/2.8 AI-S is a wonder on my D700, but its not really a useful focal length when cropped.
 
The only advantage/difference is crop factor. All the colour/noise issues are down to the sensor technology, not the size/shape of it.

Sensor technology changes continually, next years crop bodies 'may' use versions of this years FF sensor but......


The crop factor remains the same.
 
I have only used my full frame once, and I did not notice any difference in colour to the pice I took a few seconds earlier on the 1.3 crop :shrug: there was a slight difference in the focal length view though. I will try them both in better light when I get a chance and see if I notice any real differences between them - it could be that I have bad eyesight though :lol:
 
full frame would be better, image you bought a sigma 17-50 and on your d300 the crop factor was 1.5 so that would be a 25.5-75mm lens, so if you bought a d700 it would remain the same. i think its worth the money to gain those "mm's" especially if you bought a wide lens and then it weren't as wide as you need it to be because of crop factor.
 
mastertrinity said:
full frame would be better, image you bought a sigma 17-50 and on your d300 the crop factor was 1.5 so that would be a 25.5-75mm lens, so if you bought a d700 it would remain the same. i think its worth the money to gain those "mm's" especially if you bought a wide lens and then it weren't as wide as you need it to be because of crop factor.
Click to expand...

You can buy a Tokina 12-24 for about £300 with super optics.

To match that on full frame, you are looking at buying a Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 which is about £750 (or more)

They both offer the same FoV.
 
mastertrinity said:
that is the one advantage of having a DX format camera especially if you invested in a sigma 300mm and got a focal length of 450mm.
Click to expand...

No, it does'nt work like that.

The subject is still the same size, its just that the surrounding area is cropped out.
 
mastertrinity said:
that is the one advantage of having a DX format camera especially if you invested in a sigma 300mm and got a focal length of 450mm.
Click to expand...

Just to put this to bed:



DSC_3731-web.jpg


full frame

DSC_3731%20copy.jpg


DX crop: the colour area is what you are losing - subject size stays the same, your lens really doesn't become any longer!

​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top