Full Frame ?? is it Worth the Cost

mercmanuk

mercmanuk

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,822
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi after chatting with my friend on the phone who owns a photography shop/second hand gear. He remarked on what grounds i was i interested in a 5D F/F. By the end of the conversation which covered topics, like Mega pixels, DPI, Resolution, Image size, to which 12"x10" will probably the biggest i decide to print, i came to the conclusion i did not need one, you can get a image A3 from a 3MP camera, aside from the advanced settings, LCD live view, sensor,and uprated/graded soft-wear and image size above A3. What other reasons are there to invest in say £3-£4 k in a camera. When a £500 one with good glass infront of it will do the same job, for instance advanced armature / semi professional is it a necessary evil to have, is it a image thing, or do people truly believe they have progressed.

Regards Mark.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Pulling Powwwar!!!!! :D

The lady's love a big lens.

Seriously though, I dunno. I got the D3 for ISO performance, and because its as cool as a really cold thing.

Gary.
Click to expand...

Yes size matters :) performance yes i agree this could be a overriding factor, but is it worth the extra $$$$$, I guess more people have entry level DSLR's than F/F so apart from cost how come we don't go for F/F? in the first place.


Regards Mark.

just being inquisitive.
 
Is it worth the extra $$$$? Only if you need it :D

Even if you don't need it, the huge viewfinder, low noise at high iso, different perspective and something else make it good. I don't know what that something else is, I think it's the vignetting that makes it look special :P
 
mercmanuk said:
Yes size matters :) performance yes i agree this could be a overriding factor, but is it worth the extra $$$$$, I guess more people have entry level DSLR's than F/F so apart from cost how come we don't go for F/F? in the first place.


Regards Mark.

just being inquisitive.
Click to expand...

Well I think with Nikon DSLR's, people didn't because they weren't able to until recently. And then obviosly, the biggest factor is cost. Presuming two identical cameras, other than the sensor (full frame versus cropped), at the same price, why would you buy crop? Longer Focal length for nature and sports togs?

Afraid I really don't know much about the pro's and cons, but cool question :D

Gary.
 
The biggest thing I notice with FF images is the richness and depth of colours that my 40D, with all it's latest electronics, just can't produce.

And that's why I want to go full frame, that and the perceived ISO performance that the "5D Mk II" should have, given the latest technology.

Steve
 
You'll get a better quality print at 12"x10" from a full frame with more pixels than a 3mp camera, wether it's enough of a difference to warrant the cost to you only you can decide.
 
Jelster said:
The biggest thing I notice with FF images is the richness and depth of colours that my 40D, with all it's latest electronics, just can't produce.

And that's why I want to go full frame, that and the perceived ISO performance that the "5D Mk II" should have, given the latest technology.

Steve
Click to expand...

As Steve says the bigger sensor in a FF camera is able to render the detail and colour more accurately than a cropped sensor.
 
The biggest advantage I can see in a FF DSLR (apart from increased pixel count at the same pixel density) is for wide angle photography. Yes, lenses like the Sigma 10-20 can get the equivalent to 15mm lenses on (1.5x crop) DSLRs but imagine 12mm on FF as is available from the 12-24 Sigma! If anyone's after a relatively cheap way into FF, take a step back into the world of 35mm film (but don't expect lenses designed for an APS-C sized sensor to give unvignetted images!)
 
Mark,
Out of the way first...a new 5D comes in at about £1200 +/- a bit.

There's something about a full frame body that captivates and isn't possible to reproduce with any of the later crop bodies despite all the latest bells and whistles. FF isn't the answer to everything but it certainly excels within its design criteria. Many will disagree, I'm sure, but people coming from a long history of regular 35mm film setups will find FF to be a simple progression and the resultant images are what they expect to see rather than what the camera is giving them.
Megapixels are not the be all and end all and pixel quality counts for a lot. Consumer lenses have come a long way in the last few years but many folk are still using lenses with resolving power less than the resolution of their sensors and the megapixel count is quite often only providing a feel good factor.

I await the firing squad with intrepidation :(

Bob
 
cropped size vs. full-frame (35mm) sensors. Full-frame would be a big benefit to users of wide angle lenses, the cropped sensor with a 1.5 multiplier factor seems to me to be a large benefit to those who use telephoto lenses. I use mostly telephotos, so I don't want a full-frame sensor. It is cheaper for me to buy a specific wide angle. I am just curious about the majority of users. How many feel the 1.5 multiplier factor is a benefit to them as opposed to the detriment of losing some field of view with wide angle lenses.


Found the above for wide angle lens, and against for telephoto, as too "richness" of the photo, My friend said to tell the difference between cropped and full frame would be very hard, if there is a difference then there is a case for F/F but you can create any look with PS/Gimp. i do believe the glass you put in front is very important, but as for image capture ??? the lens area is where i would spend money, (apart from the nifty fifty:)) so i am in the cropped corner and proud.

still tyring to find where the £2.3-£3.3 k is going with the full frame.. this is a cost comparison on new entry level kit,



Cropped and Proud. or full frame and loving it large .

Regards Mark.

¬¬¬¬****Please note there is a market for F/F cameras and many people have them i am not having a go at there personal choice just how people make up there mind to use one.¬¬¬¬¬****
 
Have a look at this link and a rather good looking monkey:) read all the link it's interesting to say the least, then again i have all day.


there are some answers here, and begs the question is the extra $$$$ worth it.

Regards Mark.
 
I think there's something magical about the 5D images :) something special I can't point to.

I've been spoilt by 100% viewfinder coverage though, as one of the things detering me from getting a 5d :D

Jayst84 said:
I'm starting to find the 1.6 crop of my digi really annoying now (and I'm spending more on film as a result).
Click to expand...

Me too :D:D:D:D HEEE HAWW...
 
i have both, and i like them both equally, and they get used for different types of work. however, for a long time i only had a cropped sensor and you make do with what you have and i never felt it held me back to be honest.
 
Jayst84 said:
Aren't you the one thinking of starting up the portrait studio? If so, I'd go full frame all the way.. its just... nicer :D

I'm starting to find the 1.6 crop of my digi really annoying now (and I'm spending more on film as a result).
Click to expand...

Hi yes i am opening a studio and i am thinking of a F/F for my Tog, who would be there most of the time, (i had a bad do the other day and collapsed, still 10mg of morphine and a bottle of enternox i was happy for a while) i would buy all the equipment, to be honest, if they have used full frame then all the better, but cropped will do, i only know 2 rich students who could afford full frame and they both had HRH :naughty: after there name. so if it's what we need then i will get it, but between a good tog, top glass, CS3/lightroom,and the right kind of software to run it upgraded graphic etc,(i leave that to the IT Guy) we could come up with the goods on a cropped, and together with my printer/framer be able to go all the way to A1 no probs,and spend the other 3.5 k on the wife :suspect:she is behind me,.

Regards Mark.
 
I'm a huge fan of FF I'm afraid. I went to a 5D when I went on a studio seminar and the pro was shooting on a 5D while I had a 20D. We were shooting from the same spot, same model and same lighting. The pics should have been the same right?

Holy colour renditon Batman! The 5D was just streets ahead for image quality. The depth of the colour and the skin tones were just awesome.

The only way to judge if it is for you is to try it.
 
AliB said:
I'm a huge fan of FF I'm afraid. I went to a 5D when I went on a studio seminar and the pro was shooting on a 5D while I had a 20D. We were shooting from the same spot, same model and same lighting. The pics should have been the same right?

Holy colour renditon Batman! The 5D was just streets ahead for image quality. The depth of the colour and the skin tones were just awesome.
The only way to judge if it is for you is to try it.
Click to expand...



Try changing the colour space from default S-RGB to Adobe RGB, you can do it in the canon range, miles better more colours,

Regards Mark.
 
I am in preperations of marrying my full frame beast.
i absolutely adore it.
love it.
want babies with it

:D
Do it!
 
Interesting thread this. I've only just posted a similar question on here elsewhere. I'm now beginning to understand it a bit more now I've found this thread. Thanks guys.


Kev.
 
mercmanuk said:
Try changing the colour space from default S-RGB to Adobe RGB, you can do it in the canon range, miles better more colours,

Regards Mark.
Click to expand...

I've also shot with a 20D and 5D (using the same lens) in a studio and the 5D does indeed show a better tonal range.

I always have my camera set to Adobe RGB but I don't believe it makes any difference if you shoot in RAW. You choose the profile when you convert it from a RAW to a TIFF/JPG.
 
I checked and we were both shooting the same profiles!

Gary, if you are going to print your images, shooting in Adobe RGB is the way to go. Then in the printer dialogue box you can ask photoshop to manage the colours. Makes printer profiling a lot easier but as Mark says, the colours are much better.

If you are going to use CS3 then the manual by Scott Kelby is a good book to use, that's where I picked this tip up.
 
AliB said:
I checked and we were both shooting the same profiles!

Gary, if you are going to print your images, shooting in Adobe RGB is the way to go. Then in the printer dialogue box you can ask photoshop to manage the colours. Makes printer profiling a lot easier but as Mark says, the colours are much better.

If you are going to use CS3 then the manual by Scott Kelby is a good book to use, that's where I picked this tip up.
Click to expand...

Lets presume you print everything, I guess you shoot in Adobe RGB, and then convert to SRGB before web upload?
 
Chris L said:
I've also shot with a 20D and 5D (using the same lens) in a studio and the 5D does indeed show a better tonal range.
Click to expand...


hold on a second this is a bit unfair - the thread is about comparing sensor size - a much fairer comparison would be the 40d and the 5d

like for like - both current models

i currently own a 1ds (soon to be sold here) and a 1d - the full frame has pros and cons on the plus side the 1ds has higher resolution, but it also shows all of the faults with lenses, the smaller sensor is more forgiving.
 
I think the only real difference has been already highlighted. Shallower DoF for the same shooting position at the same aperture. If that matters, FF all the way, otherwise, probably go crop.
 
sportysnaps said:
hold on a second this is a bit unfair - the thread is about comparing sensor size - a much fairer comparison would be the 40d and the 5d

like for like - both current models
Click to expand...

Both current models, but the 40D announced 2 years after the 5D.

Between a 40D and 5D, which would you go for? I'd still choose a 5D over a 40D, though the 40D also does well at high ISO, but the 5D still has something special :)
 
sportysnaps said:
hold on a second this is a bit unfair - the thread is about comparing sensor size - a much fairer comparison would be the 40d and the 5d

like for like - both current models.

i currently own a 1ds (soon to be sold here) and a 1d - the full frame has pros and cons on the plus side the 1ds has higher resolution, but it also shows all of the faults with lenses, the smaller sensor is more forgiving.
Click to expand...

But the 20D has the same sized sensor as the 40D? Why not compare a 40D to a 1Ds MKIII? The build quality of the body and menu system have no impact on picture quality after all. :D

As you say, at the end of the day it's like comparing apples to oranges and yet people persist in doing it. Both have their 'pros' and 'cons' :shrug:

I tried a 5D and decided to sell my 40D to purchase a 5D because I feel that for my needs the 5D was a better choice. I get a shallower DOF, better high ISO performance and better colours and detail on A3 prints.

Other people that maybe have a keen interest in sports or wildlife for example would almost certainly choose a 40D/D300 if the likes of a 1DMkIII or D3 are more than they'd like to spend on camera.

One other thing for those that believe that a full frame camera is more demanding on lenses, this is not necessarily true and brings us back around to some of the pros and cons of each format.

Lenses being used on a crop camera need to be able resolve at a greater number of lines/mm than when used on a full frame meaning which means a cheaper lens mounted on a 5D may well give better results (eg.Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX)

The flipside is that as the full frame sensor makes use of all of the rear element on the full frame compatible lens it will show up any softness in the corners though this tends to show much more when shooting at wider apertures when it's arguable that edge/corner sharpness is of little interest to the shot.

So it's arguable that the ~£600 saved by buying a 40D over a 5D could theoretically be swallowed up in having to buy more expensive lenses to obtain the required lines/mm resolution :naughty:
 
Isn't it true that full frame sensors are less diffraction limited than cropped ones? Crop sensors start being limited at about f16, full frame sensors can go to f22.
 
Eau Rouge said:
Isn't it true that full frame sensors are less diffraction limited than cropped ones? Crop sensors start being limited at about f16, full frame sensors can go to f22.
Click to expand...

Whilst it's true that diffraction will show sooner on an APS-C camera than a full frame it isn't necessarily a con...simply a difference as it could be argued that you don't need to use as small an aperture on the crop camera to obtain the same depth of field as a crop camera will show 1 1/3 f/ stops more DOF at a given aperture. eg. 55mm f/2.8 on a crop is equivalent to 88mm f/4.5 on a full frame :)
 
EdinburghGary said:
The 14 to 24 is sharp as hell on full framre at F22, tried it and its true. Most of the reviews say it too.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't really be seeing much if any improvement in absolute sharpness once you've got to around f/8 on most lenses. The difference you're seeing is more likely to be a greater depth of field which will result in more of the image being in focus.
 
Chris L said:
You shouldn't really be seeing much if any improvement in absolute sharpness once you've got to around f/8 on most lenses. The difference you're seeing is more likely to be a greater depth of field which will result in more of the image being in focus.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly, but it also allows for a much slower shutter speed to allow motion blur and movement.

Gary.
 
I sold my 1D mkIIn after trying a 5D, it wasn't an easy choice (for all of about ten minutes)mind you but I felt it better suited the style of photography I prefer. Now don't get me wrong the 1D was a stunning tool but the 5D is definitely a portrait camera. It captures colours beautifully and handles noise extremely well.

So you have to decide what style of photography you prefer to shoot and if you can afford it, in my case the 1D and the 5D and grip worked out about the same so it was an easy decision, in fact a no brainer really :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top