Full frame - not used one but I don't get it

[dinners]

I suppose the question for me is could you get rid of the 7D altogether and use the 5D for everything, wildlife, macro, portrait etc etc, relying on improved quality and heavier cropping. That of course pretends that AF speed is equal (I know the 7D is very good, but I've a 60D which is still pretty good)

It's the age old dilema I guess and why I've never gone and bought either the 5D2 or 7D.

I love my landscapes but the only way I could have afforded the 5D2 (or chose to fund one) was to sell my 40D and 1D Mark 2. If I only did landscapes it would have been a no brainer but as I also do wildlife I felt (after a test) I'd have missed the AF on my 1D Mark 2.

So then I almost bought a 7D - as I wanted the crop of my 40D but with the AF capability of my 1D Mark 2 but thought that as I was doing a lot of landscapes that didn't require the AF capability of the 7D - I'd be as well sticking with the 40D for that and making use of the 1D Mark 2 for subjects when AF became testing.

:bonk::bonk:

 

[ausemmao]

Those shots make a very good point. How much image quality do you actually need?

If you shoot at medium ISOs and only output smallish (say A4 max) or only on screen, as many people do, then you're unlikely to see much benefit from full frame.

It's only when you start making big canvases, or shooting high ISO in poor light, or need to crop hard that FF starts to really shine, which is why wedding photographers favour it.



Yes! Which supports my other point - it's much more about the size of the pixels rather than the sheer number of them.

The reason I ended up with a 5D2 is I went to buy a 7D and tested it against my 40D. And the 7D was better, but not by much at all. Then I tried a 5D2 simply because Jessops had one sitting there, and was amazed at how much better it was. That turned out to be quite an expensive little test, but the difference is that while the two cameras have roughly the same number of pixels (7D 18mp vs 5D2 21mp) the 5D2's pixels are twice the size. So it's capturing twice as many photons and the lens is working at half the resolution so contrast is correspondingly higher (inherant lens contrast is not the same stuff as raising the contrast in post processing, which is artificial). The result is sharper pictures, with less noise and cleaner colours

It's the size of the sensor more than the size of the pixels. For a given image, a full frame sensor gathers more than twice as much light at the same exposure. SNR is twice as high at a given tech level which gives you a stop of image DR, colour fidelity is correspondingly higher, and as the light is being sampled at a lower spatial rate contrast (and therefore sharpness is higher. larger will always be better in that respect.

As a child of digital (first camera was a compact digicam, only tried FF after APS-C, there's no 'magic' to full frame for me. Excessively shallow DoF for its own sake feels hackneyed, the photographic equivalent of showing your fancy car off. in most cases the only draw for me is the better low light performance because at low ISO noise in digital sensors is essentially a solved problem. The exception to this is with PC-E lenses. They're the only thing that have made me really consider one.

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

The exception to this is with PC-E lenses. They're the only thing that have made me really consider one.

I've found the Canon Tilt Shift lenses work very well on both crop and full frame sensors.
I totally agree with you about their desirability.

 

[specialman]

......there's no 'magic' to full frame for me. Excessively shallow DoF for its own sake feels hackneyed, the photographic equivalent of showing your fancy car off. in most cases the only draw for me is the better low light performance because at low ISO noise in digital sensors is essentially a solved problem.......

Same here - high ISO performance (and the actual ability to go higher than 3200) is the single draw for me. Image quality and all that isn't a priority, it's a bonus. My DX body produces absolutely brilliant IQ but it's only let down by poor high ISO, but that's something attached to the fact that it's six-year-old technology but Nikon hasn't seen it fit to produce a DX pro(gripped) body since.

All this DoF mallarkey relating to FF sensors is all fair and well but paper-thin DoF just isn't a priority for me and to be honest, I do see it as a bit of a get-out clause for some photographers, injecting the only bit of drama or mood into a shot because they happen to have f/1.4 (or whatever at their disposal).

Don't do tilt/shift so it's not relevant in my case....

 

[woof woof]

It's the size of the sensor more than the size of the pixels. For a given image, a full frame sensor gathers more than twice as much light at the same exposure. SNR is twice as high at a given tech level which gives you a stop of image DR, colour fidelity is correspondingly higher, and as the light is being sampled at a lower spatial rate contrast (and therefore sharpness is higher. larger will always be better in that respect.

I will never understand this bizarre logic

A full frame sensor is physically larger than an APS-C sensor but the light that falls on the APS-C sized portion of the full frame sensor is exactly the same as the light that will fall on an APS-C sensor. Obviously more light will fall on the whole of the full frame sensor.... because it's bigger!!!!! but area for area, point for point, pixel for pixel the light absolutely must be the same!!!!! (given identical aperture sizes, identical sized pixels etc.)

Given identical aperture sizes and if all technological aspects are identical all an APS-C image would be is a crop cut from the centre of a full frame image so how on Earth can APS-C automatically gather less light than the centre portion of a full frame image when the same light will fall on both APS-C and FF pixels? Madness!!!! :bonk:

Unfortunately we'll probably never see sensors of different sizes with identical technologies so that everything is the same apart from the physical size of the chip so we'll never be able to do a 100% comparison but I just do not believe that if all else is equal apart from sensor size the centre portion of a FF image will always and automatically be "better" than an identical spec APS-C image :nono:

 

[HoppyUK]

It's the size of the sensor more than the size of the pixels. For a given image, a full frame sensor gathers more than twice as much light at the same exposure. SNR is twice as high at a given tech level which gives you a stop of image DR, colour fidelity is correspondingly higher, and as the light is being sampled at a lower spatial rate contrast (and therefore sharpness is higher. larger will always be better in that respect.

Yes.

As a child of digital (first camera was a compact digicam, only tried FF after APS-C, there's no 'magic' to full frame for me. Excessively shallow DoF for its own sake feels hackneyed, the photographic equivalent of showing your fancy car off. in most cases the only draw for me is the better low light performance because at low ISO noise in digital sensors is essentially a solved problem. The exception to this is with PC-E lenses. They're the only thing that have made me really consider one.

Yes again, but that's a subjective point. The DoF change is marginal when comparing full frame to 1.5-1.6x crop - it's only fractionally over one stop. 4/3rds is two stops, which is rather more limiting if you want very shallow DoF effects.

Your comment on PC lenses is interesting. I would like one too, but I would use it not to increase DoF, but to use reverse-Scheimpflug and reduce it selectively in different planes. Very popular with food photography these days and I think a perfectly valid creative technique. Everything becomes hackneyed if it's over used

 

[HoppyUK]

I will never understand this bizarre logic

A full frame sensor is physically larger than an APS-C sensor but the light that falls on the APS-C sized portion of the full frame sensor is exactly the same as the light that will fall on an APS-C sensor. Obviously more light will fall on the whole of the full frame sensor.... because it's bigger!!!!! but area for area, point for point, pixel for pixel the light absolutely must be the same!!!!! (given identical aperture sizes, identical sized pixels etc.)

Given identical aperture sizes and if all technological aspects are identical all an APS-C image would be is a crop cut from the centre of a full frame image so how on Earth can APS-C automatically gather less light than the centre portion of a full frame image when the same light will fall on both APS-C and FF pixels? Madness!!!! :bonk:

Unfortunately we'll probably never see sensors of different sizes with identical technologies so that everything is the same apart from the physical size of the chip so we'll never be able to do a 100% comparison but I just do not believe that if all else is equal apart from sensor size the centre portion of a FF image will always and automatically be "better" than an identical spec APS-C image :nono:

I think you've missed the point Alan.

 

[woof woof]

All this DoF mallarkey relating to FF sensors is all fair and well but paper-thin DoF just isn't a priority for me and to be honest, I do see it as a bit of a get-out clause for some photographers, injecting the only bit of drama or mood into a shot because they happen to have f/1.4 (or whatever at their disposal).

And there's always the situations in which a smaller sensor gives less DoF than a larger one, and as people never believe either me or the evidence of their own eyes I'll quote Bob Atkins...

"Using the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, the a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera image has 1.6x LESS depth of field than the 35mm image would have (but they would be different images of course since the field of view would be different)"

DoF is not decided by sensor size. Sensor size leads to other decisions such as focal length, aperture and camera to subject distance and these things are what changes how the DoF looks, not the sensor size as such.

Anyway, that's the last time I'll say that this week, honest

 

[woof woof]

I think you've missed the point Alan.

Not at all. I'm simply being accurate. Each pixel will be exposed to exactly the same amount of light.

Unless you use Voodoo or magic or something?

 

[arad85]

"Using the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, the a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera image has 1.6x LESS depth of field than the 35mm image would have (but they would be different images of course since the field of view would be different)"

Yes, that's because when you render the image to a given sized print, you are magnifying it more with the APS-C sensor, so the out of focus distances become more obvious.

You still seem to see the DoF thing as an image capture related phenomena when it is, in fact, a output print one

 

[arad85]

It's the size of the sensor more than the size of the pixels. For a given image, a full frame sensor gathers more than twice as much light at the same exposure.

Not at all. I'm simply being accurate. Each pixel will be exposed to exactly the same amount of light.

Unless you use Voodoo or magic or something?

I've highlighted the bit you've missed....

 

[HoppyUK]

Not at all. I'm simply being accurate. Each pixel will be exposed to exactly the same amount of light.

Unless you use Voodoo or magic or something?

Alan, you've jumped on your hobby-horse and shot off in the wrong direction. Again. That is not the point being made above, or questioned.

 

[woof woof]

Yes, that's because when you render the image to a given sized print, you are magnifying it more with the APS-C sensor, so the out of focus distances become more obvious.

You still seem to see the DoF thing as an image capture related phenomena when it is, in fact, a output print one

No, wrong.

DoF is a property of light and then secondary things like how it is captured by the technology, CofC etc. The CoC, pixel size and output size can make it more or less obvious to us viewers but that's just us and the DoF itself is what it is, it's always there.

From Cambridge colour...

"Depth of field refers to the range of distance that appears acceptably sharp. It varies depending on camera type, aperture and focusing distance, although print size and viewing distance can also influence our perception of depth of field."

 

[woof woof]

Alan, you've jumped on your hobby-horse and shot off in the wrong direction. Again. That is not the point being made above, or questioned.

Accept the truth... I'm right and you're... what's the word? Wong

Imagine taking a mask to your 5D and turning it into an APS-C. The centre portion IQ doesn't suddenly degrade, it remains the same.

All in jest guys but also for clarity, I hope.

 

[HoppyUK]

Accept the truth... I'm right and you're... what's the word? Wong

Imagine taking a mask to your 5D and turning it into an APS-C. The centre portion IQ doesn't suddenly degrade, it remains the same.

All in jest guys but also for clarity, I hope.

But nobody said it did!

 

[arad85]

No, wrong.

DoF is a property of light

No, wrong. DoF is not a property of light, it's about how humans see pictures. What is a property of the lens/sensor combination is whether something is in focus. A lens is only in focus at the focal plane. All other distances, the picture is out of focus. You can only see how much out of focus it is when you print it and this is dependent on how big the print is. The distances you percieve as being in focus on the print is known as the depth of field.

From Cambridge colour...

"Depth of field refers to the range of distance that appears acceptably sharp. It varies depending on camera type, aperture and focusing distance, although print size and viewing distance can also influence our perception of depth of field."

I (almost ) give up with you.

To quote your own quote, "it varies on camera type". Now, unless that refers to different makes or body colours, the only other thing it can refer to is sensor size (I really, REALLY could do with a rolleyes smiley here).

 

[arad85]

Accept the truth... I'm right and you're... what's the word? Wong

Always remember: don't **** with the Wongs

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Accept the truth... I'm right and you're... what's the word? Wong

Imagine taking a mask to your 5D and turning it into an APS-C. The centre portion IQ doesn't suddenly degrade, it remains the same.

All in jest guys but also for clarity, I hope.

But that remaining bit of the 5DII sensor only has as many pixels as a 20D.
Modern APS-C sensors cram far more pixels into the same space.

 

[AJQS]

Cram enough pixels in and what once looked sharp will soon look all fuzzy again...

 

[arad85]

Cram enough pixels in and what once looked sharp will soon look all fuzzy again...

Only if you crop in and print large....

 

[ausemmao]

I will never understand this bizarre logic

A full frame sensor is physically larger than an APS-C sensor but the light that falls on the APS-C sized portion of the full frame sensor is exactly the same as the light that will fall on an APS-C sensor. Obviously more light will fall on the whole of the full frame sensor.... because it's bigger!!!!! but area for area, point for point, pixel for pixel the light absolutely must be the same!!!!! (given identical aperture sizes, identical sized pixels etc.)

Given identical aperture sizes and if all technological aspects are identical all an APS-C image would be is a crop cut from the centre of a full frame image so how on Earth can APS-C automatically gather less light than the centre portion of a full frame image when the same light will fall on both APS-C and FF pixels? Madness!!!! :bonk:

Unfortunately we'll probably never see sensors of different sizes with identical technologies so that everything is the same apart from the physical size of the chip so we'll never be able to do a 100% comparison but I just do not believe that if all else is equal apart from sensor size the centre portion of a FF image will always and automatically be "better" than an identical spec APS-C image :nono:

If you insist on being a pedant, it pays to read what is written and nothing more.
The constant in photography is the image - that is what is being produced. So when comparing, I do so with respect to the image by holding the framing constant, as I explicitly stated. I never said 'APS-C [will]automatically gather less light than the centre portion of a full frame image', or even hinted at it.

Yes.



Yes again, but that's a subjective point. The DoF change is marginal when comparing full frame to 1.5-1.6x crop - it's only fractionally over one stop. 4/3rds is two stops, which is rather more limiting if you want very shallow DoF effects.

Your comment on PC lenses is interesting. I would like one too, but I would use it not to increase DoF, but to use reverse-Scheimpflug and reduce it selectively in different planes. Very popular with food photography these days and I think a perfectly valid creative technique. Everything becomes hackneyed if it's over used

People pay a lot for one stop (see the 85 1.8 vs 1.2 ) but I mentioned it more to say that it wasn't a factor in my preferences.

On the PC lenses thing, it's a framing issue. There have been a lot of times where if I could have had wider framing from the same position, the image would have been exactly how I wanted it to be, even after stitching shifted images which a 17mm PC-E could fix if Nikon release one (and don't get me started on the fixed relative tilt/shift orientation).

The adjustable DoF is fantastic - it's what makes me consider it as important as my 70-200. Tilt neevr really increases DoF - it's more that it can be used to select a front to back plane and then frame such that nothing of interest is above or below that plane.

On limiting DoF:

And selecting a plane I preferred (the flowers are at different distances):

The plane adjusting is really handy for near macro as well.

 

[HoppyUK]

Cram enough pixels in and what once looked sharp will soon look all fuzzy again...

Kind of I think compacts with 14mp crammed onto a sensor the size of your little fingernail are an example of that.

The concept of DoF is based on the fact that the human eye cannot detect anything smaller than 0.2mm on a print 10in wide when viewed from a distance equal to the diagonal, ie 12in. That is the fundamental basis of it and is the accepted international reference standard. In other words, it starts with the print/output and the calculations are worked back from that; it does not start with the sensor!

To put it another way, you need only 1.1mp to achieve that standard. It's less about the sheer level of detail (resolution) but how clearly those details are shown (contrast).

 

[HoppyUK]

<snip>
On the PC lenses thing, it's a framing issue. There have been a lot of times where if I could have had wider framing from the same position, the image would have been exactly how I wanted it to be, even after stitching shifted images which a 17mm PC-E could fix if Nikon release one (and don't get me started on the fixed relative tilt/shift orientation).

The adjustable DoF is fantastic - it's what makes me consider it as important as my 70-200. Tilt neevr really increases DoF - it's more that it can be used to select a front to back plane and then frame such that nothing of interest is above or below that plane.

On limiting DoF:

<snip>

The plane adjusting is really handy for near macro as well.

For someone that thinks shallow DoF effects are hackneyed, that's a wonderful example Great shot, love the way the tunnel of DoF runs down the actual tunnel Cool effect.

 

[JohnN]

Ah, I was trying to figure out why that looked odd

 

[grum]

Oh yay this old DOF/sensor size debate again!

And I like shallow DOF, so there.

You could argue that pretty much any look or style in photography is hackneyed, it's just a question of personal taste. It's also one of the few things you literally can't do (not properly anyway) with a camera phone.

 

[odd jim]

GROUNDHOG DAY ON TP!

 

[arad85]

GROUNDHOG DAY ON TP!

They're getting shorter.... One day, they might actually stop

 

[scottthehat]

They're getting shorter.... One day, they might actually stop

 

[JohnN]

Sorry, next time I'l just google it and not bother asking

 

[odd jim]

Sorry, next time I'l just google it and not bother asking

Before you throw your teddies out the pram, we're not talking about your original question but the DOF debate between crop and FF which always seems to rear it's ugly head...

 

[JohnN]

lol, I'll go gather them back up

 

[odd jim]

lol, I'll go gather them back up

It's a very valid thread, it would be a shame for it to be hijacked by the DOF debate as it always kills whatever thread it appears in!

 

[HoppyUK]

Before you throw your teddies out the pram, we're not talking about your original question but the DOF debate between crop and FF which always seems to rear it's ugly head...

Indeed!

It's a very valid thread, it would be a shame for it to be hijacked by the DOF debate as it always kills whatever thread it appears in!

Yes. It's a very valid aspect of the pros and cons of different sensors, but it gets killed because one particular poster always insists on looking through the telescope from the wrong end. Again and again and again...

 

[ausemmao]

Yes.



Yes again, but that's a subjective point. The DoF change is marginal when comparing full frame to 1.5-1.6x crop - it's only fractionally over one stop. 4/3rds is two stops, which is rather more limiting if you want very shallow DoF effects.

Your comment on PC lenses is interesting. I would like one too, but I would use it not to increase DoF, but to use reverse-Scheimpflug and reduce it selectively in different planes. Very popular with food photography these days and I think a perfectly valid creative technique. Everything becomes hackneyed if it's over used

For someone that thinks shallow DoF effects are hackneyed, that's a wonderful example Great shot, love the way the tunnel of DoF runs down the actual tunnel Cool effect.

[Buzz lightyear] that's not shallow DoF, that's selective DoF[/buzz lightyear]

I don't think shallow DoF is hackneyed, I think the use of it for its own sake rather than for a 'legit' purpose is hackneyed, but as you say, that's true of all the tools at our disposal, and the definition of legit is hairy at best. Good thing I'm not the arbiter of taste in art!

By the way, that photo is titled 'tunnel vision' for the reason you state as well as because of the pseudoisolation those people are in by not interacting with those so close to them. That counts as a purpose to me, but I would say that, wouldn't I?

 

[specialman]

And there's always the situations in which a smaller sensor gives less DoF than a larger one, and as people never believe either me or the evidence of their own eyes I'll quote Bob Atkins...

"Using the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, the a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera image has 1.6x LESS depth of field than the 35mm image would have (but they would be different images of course since the field of view would be different)"

DoF is not decided by sensor size. Sensor size leads to other decisions such as focal length, aperture and camera to subject distance and these things are what changes how the DoF looks, not the sensor size as such.

Anyway, that's the last time I'll say that this week, honest

My point is that, not content with being able achieve shallow DoF with crop sensors and fast lenses anyway, its almost as if buying a FF body is only justified if you go paper-thin on the DOF, such is the effect you can achieve.

Anyway, that's the last time I bang on about this

 

[Anorakus]

To go back to the OP's question, I think FF is about achieving the best possible image quality and high ISO performance.

The additional control over DoF is a bonus

A.

 

[woof woof]

My point is that, not content with being able achieve shallow DoF with crop sensors and fast lenses anyway, its almost as if buying a FF body is only justified if you go paper-thin on the DOF, such is the effect you can achieve.

Anyway, that's the last time I bang on about this

Well, if we can be civil I see no harm in banging on

 

[woof woof]

If you insist on being a pedant, it pays to read what is written and nothing more.
The constant in photography is the image - that is what is being produced. So when comparing, I do so with respect to the image by holding the framing constant, as I explicitly stated. I never said 'APS-C [will]automatically gather less light than the centre portion of a full frame image', or even hinted at it.

Ok Maybe I read you wrong, but what you said was...

It's the size of the sensor more than the size of the pixels. For a given image, a full frame sensor gathers more than twice as much light at the same exposure.

But what you didn't mention was that although more light is gathered it is gathered by a larger sensor and distributed over the larger sensor area and the light at any point in a crop sized area of a full frame sensor is the same as that of a crop camera exposed to the same light. You don't get more light at any given point simply by making the format bigger. Obvious. As is the framing. If you use a 50mm lens at f4 on FF and a 30mm lens at f4 on a crop the exposure is the same. Apertures are different sizes but you don't have to do the sums as f numbers do it all for you, or rather they get near enough to make no odds to you and me. If you back up and use different zoom lengths to get your framing the exposure is the same. Different sized holes and distances all sorted by f numbers. Framing, format size or zoom length don't alter exposure if the light / f numbers are the same.

If by saying that "It's the size of the sensor more than the size of the pixels. For a given image, a full frame sensor gathers more than twice as much light at the same exposure" you didn't mean to imply that more light is gathered at each pixel than I am indeed being too pedantic

Actually, there is an exposure advantage to smaller sensors in some situations if you aren't going for paper thin DoF. You could for example take pretty much the same shot with a faster aperture / shutter speed combo, as the bigger the format the more chance you'll be using f.extreme, if you want some DoF, but with APS-C / MFT you could get essentially the same FoV / DoF faster, this is one reason why some vid shooters actually prefer MFT/Red to the 5D as with the smaller format they can get what they want and cut down on lighting to overcome big format f. extreme, and save lighting dosh.

Nice chatting, don't take me personally or too seriously.

 

[ausemmao]

Ok Maybe I read you wrong, but what you said was...



But what you didn't mention was that although more light is gathered it is gathered by a larger sensor and distributed over the larger sensor area and the light at any point in a crop sized area of a full frame sensor is the same as that of a crop camera exposed to the same light. You don't get more light at any given point simply by making the format bigger. Obvious. As is the framing. If you use a 50mm lens at f4 on FF and a 30mm lens at f4 on a crop the exposure is the same. Apertures are different sizes but you don't have to do the sums as f numbers do it all for you, or rather they get near enough to make no odds to you and me. If you back up and use different zoom lengths to get your framing the exposure is the same. Different sized holes and distances all sorted by f numbers. Framing, format size or zoom length don't alter exposure if the light / f numbers are the same.

If by saying that "It's the size of the sensor more than the size of the pixels. For a given image, a full frame sensor gathers more than twice as much light at the same exposure" you didn't mean to imply that more light is gathered at each pixel than I am indeed being too pedantic

Actually, there is an exposure advantage to smaller sensors in some situations if you aren't going for paper thin DoF. You could for example take pretty much the same shot with a faster aperture / shutter speed combo, as the bigger the format the more chance you'll be using f.extreme, if you want some DoF, but with APS-C / MFT you could get essentially the same FoV / DoF faster, this is one reason why some vid shooters actually prefer MFT/Red to the 5D as with the smaller format they can get what they want and cut down on lighting to overcome big format f. extreme, and save lighting dosh.

Nice chatting, don't take me personally or too seriously.

Read what I actually wrote. I couldn't have implied more light is gathered at each pixel because I didn't even mention pixels in that sentence - with regard to the quantity of noise in a printed image or reasonably sized display from a DSLR sensor, pixel size is simply not a significant factor. There, you're trying to be pedantic, you're ending up wrong unless you wish to insert words into what I wrote.

Not only that, I made my statement for a fixed image - in other words no cropping involved, because I was talking about the effect of sensor area.

That's what I meant by reading what was written.

 

[JohnN]

Well, you guys almost had me - I was looking to get a 5D, until I spotted that my beloved Sigma 17-50 was fitted with a somewhat silly EFS style fitting.... grrr!