Full Frame----You glad you made the move?

S

samems

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,005
Edit My Images
No
Full frame.

You glad you made the move?

Has it improved your photography?

Has it given you better shots?

Overall impression?
 
Yes, I've yearned for full frame for a while and it's exactly what i need.
The lower pixel density of my 5D mk2 compared to my 50D meant that my lenses didn't need to be as sharp to give excellent results
High ISO capability is always a bonus too :)
 
samems said:
Full frame.

You glad you made the move?

Has it improved your photography?

Has it given you better shots?

Overall impression?
Click to expand...

I am glad I made the move but it's not as earth shattering as I was expecting. I was really expecting better dynamic range but it's not as pronounced as I'd hoped.

I do find myself taking a little more time over my shots, focus and composition with my FF as all those mega pixels are pretty unforgiving if you get it slightly 'off'.

That said I still pick up my 5D over my 30D or 1D MK11n (unless I'm doing sports work specifically)
 
Have enjoyed my 7D for the past few years. Just upgraded to a 5D III but was indulgent enough to keep the 7D to go with the longer lens permanently for sports (extra reach and faster fps).

Absolutely loving the full frame. My standard lens is now wider and everything seems sharper too for some reason! I always wanted a 5D and when the Mk III came out it was an easy decision.

Neil
 
Is the 5D a worthy Full frame to buy?
 
Last edited:
35mm for me has always been FF (that's the idea), I swore I wouldn't get a cropped camera and wait until FF is £1k before I take he plunge into DSLR.

Well, I broke that promise and bought a 30D, but my intention was always to get a FF as soon as I can and with the next body if possible.

To put it in a bit of perspective, I was a film shooter, I still have my EOS30 and had a few lenses already, lenses that works on my 30D, the beauty of EOS. So the drop in viewfinder size I didn't like, nor do I like the cropped factor, which bugs me the most. Since now 50mm is not 50mm anymore, although technically it is, you just lose the outside of the frame.

During this time, around 2006, Nikon was still all DX, and they had no FX bodies and I recall to this day how I had a small debate with one quite famous wedding photographer who is a member on this very forum how he said on he lines of "Nikon will never go into Full Frame bodies, they invested too much in their DX lenses" LOL I laughed at that then and even today.

To his credit, he shot Canon back then :p although he now shoots Nikon, full frame :p

So, yes, I am glad I moved into full frame (I now have 3 FF bodies), however I see it differently, my heart never left, I didn't move into full frame, more like I gone BACK into it. All these canon lenses are 35mm lenses, designed to be 35mm lenses, to put it on a cropped body seems like a waste to me when you are missing and not using a big chunk of glass that you paid for.
 
Last edited:
Being a long time 35mm film shooter, it seemed natural to get a ff digital camera as soon as I could, and I just view the 40D I had in the interim as a stepping stone.
 
Scarecrow said:
Being a long time 35mm film shooter, it seemed natural to get a ff digital camera as soon as I could, and I just view the 40D I had in the interim as a stepping stone.
Click to expand...

Exactly how I see it. I find it odd that people keep banging on hiis "reach" thing.

Just shoot FF and crop? Lol it's the same effect, only now you are doing is in post rather than in camera,
 
samems said:
Full frame.

You glad you made the move? yes, definitely

Has it improved your photography? Nope

Has it given you better shots? Sometimes yes, particularly in low light.

Overall impression? It's not going to change your world but it's pretty nice!
Click to expand...
 
The viewfinder alone is worth it for me. Switching between a crop and FX regulary, the difference is night and day. I really struggle to see though a cropper viewfinder.
 
I changed from a 7D to a 5DII & never regretted it.

I love the full frame images I can take of my little boy. And yes the AF isn't as anywhere as good as the 7D but I don't feel like I'm missing out at all.
 
The sheer detail packed in by FF on landscapes is worth every penny to me. The extra dynamic range is also welcome for seascapes in particular.
 
I made the change from a 40d to a 5d (well I also kept the 40D). I pretty much only use the 5D now paired with an 85mm 1.8 - I find I like the images much better than my 40D and 50mm 1.8 even though it is relatively the same field of view.

DOF is great and I prefer the images, but that could also be linked to using the 85mm over the 50mm as I made both changes at the same time.
 
I would go to FF but ive kind of fallen inlove wth the Af on the 7d....
 
i think once you go full frame, you'll find it very hard to go back to a crop. As Matt said, there is something about wide aperture lenses on a FF sensor, you get this pop you don't get with crop sensor. My 135 f2 felt like a completely new lens on a full frame body.
 
Last edited:
I often wonder myself it I should be getting the 5D Mk3 sooner rather than later!
 
I wasn't doing too badly with the 20D; here's my LRPS panel which 9 of the 10 were taken on the 20D.
In the search for better image quality I upgraded to a 5DII.
Surprisingly, there wasn't a huge improvement and it was initially a bit disappointing.

Turned out I was the biggest problem, not the kit.
It took a lot of learning, understanding and putting into practice to get my camera technique sorted out before the 5DII really started to deliver the images I always wanted.

Also, and importantly... I eventually got around to doing what everyone recommends BEFORE upgrading the body - and invested in some decent glass.
I've still not learned; I've only just invested in a 135mm f2 and wish I'd done it years ago as it's made a HUGE difference to the quality of my recent images!
As often quoted on TP - always invest in glass before upgrading the body :D

If I had to go back to my 20D with my current glass and improve technique, I could produce WAY higher quality images than I ever did when it was my main camera.
Probably good enough to carry on taking the landscape images I love.
But I would badly miss the low light performance - I'd be using the tripod a LOT more and there's no way I'd be doing all the festival / concert coverage I enjoy so much.
 
Last edited:
I have a terrible itch for a FF for most of the reasons people are posting here.

I currently have a 40d, and only one lens which would fit if I went FF and that would be my 50mm.

My real concern is am I buying into older technology than I already have...
 
wibbly said:
I have a terrible itch for a FF for most of the reasons people are posting here.

I currently have a 40d, and only one lens which would fit if I went FF and that would be my 50mm.

My real concern is am I buying into older technology than I already have...
Click to expand...

Snap, exactly same thoughts here. However, I do think a 5Dc and a 50mm for me would be a lot of fun, light-painting with this could produce awesome results, and the 50 is perfect I'm sure for most other cases. I'm sure a canon 24/28mm would complement nicely even though it's no 'L', I have a lot to read though first though.
 
Last edited:
I've had my D700 now for three and a half years, and I got it primarily for it's high ISO capabilities, which I still find amazing, even though it's now been surpassed by some of Nikons more recent FX models. But if there had been a DX format camera with similar abilities, I'd have happily bought one and saved myself a ton of cash upgrading my DX lenses.

Other than the low noise, and viewfinder, I'm somewhat ambivalent about the other benefits of FX. If I ever get round to replacing the D700 with something smaller and lighter, I'd happily get a DX camera again.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Exactly how I see it. I find it odd that people keep banging on hiis "reach" thing.

Just shoot FF and crop? Lol it's the same effect, only now you are doing is in post rather than in camera,
Click to expand...

Providing the resolution of the full frame camera can cope with the amount of cropping.

If you were cropping a 7D shot to about half the dimension of the original then you would still have a fairly versatile image.

Cropping to get the same end shot from a 5D mark 1 would be pushing it.
 
Last edited:
I love full frame but probably depends on what you are going to photograph. I wasn't sure so I went for the cheapest possible full-frame solution: Canon 5D MkI which got me back into photography massively.

Alas, I'm about to sell mine this week along with what's left of my Canon gear and even though I don't need it anymore and I'm in not great need for the money, it's still got sentimental value and I've got some priceless photographs out of it. It will be a shame to let it go but then I'd also like someone else to have the opportunity to go full frame and have their passion for photography ignited! :)
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
I wasn't doing too badly with the 20D; here's my LRPS panel which 9 of the 10 were taken on the 20D.
In the search for better image quality I upgraded to a 5DII.
Surprisingly, there wasn't a huge improvement and it was initially a bit disappointing.

Turned out I was the biggest problem, not the kit.
It took a lot of learning, understanding and putting into practice to get my camera technique sorted out before the 5DII really started to deliver the images I always wanted.

Also, and importantly... I eventually got around to doing what everyone recommends BEFORE upgrading the body - and invested in some decent glass.
I've still not learned; I've only just invested in a 135mm f2 and wish I'd done it years ago as it's made a HUGE difference to the quality of my recent images!
As often quoted on TP - always invest in glass before upgrading the body :D

If I had to go back to my 20D with my current glass and improve technique, I could produce WAY higher quality images than I ever did when it was my main camera.
Probably good enough to carry on taking the landscape images I love.
But I would badly miss the low light performance - I'd be using the tripod a LOT more and there's no way I'd be doing all the festival / concert coverage I enjoy so much.
Click to expand...

I hear you on this. I've shot images I'm happy with on my old D80, and the D800 is a whole new learning curve.

I also feel that putting my 24-70 back on the D80 I get better images but like you, it's my inability not the kit.

I'm still getting to grips with the D800, in particular apertures. I want substantial DoF (being a landscape photographer) but I also don't want to creep past the point of diffraction (f/10-11 in the D800's case).

That said I love the new camera, even though sometimes it scares me using it in fear of dropping it. I hope I can settle into it sooner rather than later
 
mata.morrison said:
Snap, exactly same thoughts here. However, I do think a 5Dc and a 50mm for me would be a lot of fun, light-painting with this could produce awesome results, and the 50 is perfect I'm sure for most other cases. I'm sure a canon 24/28mm would complement nicely even though it's no 'L', I have a lot to read though first though.
Click to expand...

I think you could be right. I've been looking at 28mm primes which would be an ideal length on a FF 5D along with a 50mm, perhaps with an 85mm to get started ;)
 
I would love to go FF and get a 5DIII but its just so expensive right now :(
 
Digifrog said:
I'm still getting to grips with the D800, in particular apertures. I want substantial DoF (being a landscape photographer) but I also don't want to creep past the point of diffraction (f/10-11 in the D800's case).
Click to expand...

I must admit to wondering where the Nikon Aperture values have been quoted from.
The often quoted rule of thumb for a diffraction limited print size of only 10"x8" is f20 full frame and f16 crop. Using a smaller apertures will visibly degrade the quality of a 10"x8" print.
To produce a critically sharp A3 print you need considerably bigger apertures (couldn't find the exact values with a quick Google). My personal rule of thumb is that unless I have a creative reason for doing otherwise (like needing more DoF in a landscape or less DoF in a portrait) I'll use f5.6 to f8.

Here's an interesting chart.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-50D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx
This shows the aperture needed to get sharpness at the pixel level. The kind of biting sharpness that you get when you think the zoom button has broken because it won't take you in far enough.
I believe your D800 has similar pixel density to the 60D - hence to get an image that looks sharp at the pixel level you need to be using f6.9, anything smaller will be blurring the pixels. :|

Cue people pointing out that aiming to get images sharp right down to the pixel level is a pointless exercise; they have a point. But hey, it's a D800 and its purpose in life is huge pixel count.
However, taking critically sharp images is hard to beat as a benchmark for improving camera technique. EVERYTHING affects sharpness, not just aperture. You need perfect technique including decent glass, cable release (or self timer), tripod, mirror lock up (or live view), base ISO and perfect exposure. The slightest mistake will show.
Once you are confident you CAN take critically sharp images, you know the compromises you are making when taking 'normal' shots and how significant those compromises are.
If you are only taking to print at A3, you can get away with murder - even though you are wasting all those lush pixels.

As for solving the depth of field problem in landscapes....
I invested in a Tilt Shift lens - From experience I know that half a degree of down tilt allows me to take a standing hand held image, portrait format with the horizon on the top third and everything will be critically sharp from my feet to the horizon, even at f3.5. Aperture is only used to give depth to the plane of focus! It probably made a bigger difference to image quality in my landscape images than upgrading to the 5DII.

Do I get a prize for the most rambling response of the day :D:D:D
 
Last edited:
I just got my 5DC a couple of weeks ago, and already i know my crop bodies wont see the light of day for a while. Image quality and depth of field are in another league. The iso performance is a small improvement over my 40d and 50d, maybe a stop but i have found that the files clean up so much nicer than the 40d/50d files it seems more of an improvement.

If you are considering full frame then go for it, 5DC reasonably priced and the image it creates is awesome.
 
I made the move from 35mm film straight to full-frame digital a few years ago, and I've been very happy with it :)

I knew right from the outset that I didn't want a crop DSLR. I like the large viewfinder of a 35mm/full-frame camera, and I'd got used to the focal length of lenses - I want a 50mm to behave like a 50mm, not a 80mm. I also wanted to preserve the depth of field characteristic to the 35mm format. For me, full-frame digital behaves just like film, right down to pleasing film-like grain at higher ISO's. Shooting on a crop sensor would have been a step backwards :(

It's interesting to compare film with today's digital technology. Only 10 years ago, digital just wasn't capable of the sort of quality you could achieve from, say, a very fine-grained film like Kodachrome 25. Now we can achieve sharpness better than the finest-grained films at ridiculously high ISO's. Amazing... where will it all end? :nuts:

A.
 
Last edited:
DuncanDisorderly said:
I must admit to wondering where the Nikon Aperture values have been quoted from.
The often quoted rule of thumb for a diffraction limited print size of only 10"x8" is f20 full frame and f16 crop. Using a smaller apertures will visibly degrade the quality of a 10"x8" print.
To produce a critically sharp A3 print you need considerably bigger apertures (couldn't find the exact values with a quick Google). My personal rule of thumb is that unless I have a creative reason for doing otherwise (like needing more DoF in a landscape or less DoF in a portrait) I'll use f5.6 to f8.

Here's an interesting chart.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-50D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx
This shows the aperture needed to get sharpness at the pixel level. The kind of biting sharpness that you get when you think the zoom button has broken because it won't take you in far enough.
I believe your D800 has similar pixel density to the 60D - hence to get an image that looks sharp at the pixel level you need to be using f6.9, anything smaller will be blurring the pixels. :|

Cue people pointing out that aiming to get images sharp right down to the pixel level is a pointless exercise; they have a point. But hey, it's a D800 and its purpose in life is huge pixel count.
However, taking critically sharp images is hard to beat as a benchmark for improving camera technique. EVERYTHING affects sharpness, not just aperture. You need perfect technique including decent glass, cable release (or self timer), tripod, mirror lock up (or live view), base ISO and perfect exposure. The slightest mistake will show.
Once you are confident you CAN take critically sharp images, you know the compromises you are making when taking 'normal' shots and how significant those compromises are.
If you are only taking to print at A3, you can get away with murder - even though you are wasting all those lush pixels.

As for solving the depth of field problem in landscapes....
I invested in a Tilt Shift lens - From experience I know that half a degree of down tilt allows me to take a standing hand held image, portrait format with the horizon on the top third and everything will be critically sharp from my feet to the horizon, even at f3.5. Aperture is only used to give depth to the plane of focus! It probably made a bigger difference to image quality in my landscape images than upgrading to the 5DII.

Do I get a prize for the most rambling response of the day :D:D:D
Click to expand...

you get diffraction at the lens apeture blades, thats an optical quality of the lens. put the same lens on 10 different cameras, , and at F10, you will get the same amount of diffraction coming out of the lens

The reason different cameras appear to record this differently is down to geometry, and the size of the pixel sites.

a 20MP full frame sensor might be more tightly packed (smaller pixel sites) than a 6 meg Crop camera. so when comparing full frame and crops (or any cameras TBH) when viewing the "100% pixel view" you will get variations in "percieved" image quality, depending on the sensor layout and density. This is partially why people find the D7000 apparently so hard to get sharp images with... it is because, it has a sensor that has an extreemly high resolving power, that usually outperforms the lenses in front of it

It is wrong to assume that full frame means "larger pixel sites" It might just mean "more of the same"


Here is an article that discusses this and more

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/
 
Timely question, OP; it's what I've got in my head right now. I think I need more than what my 450D can offer in times of low light performance, but I'm not sure whether the 5D2 is a better move than a 7D. 7D may not perform so well, but is a newer/better camera overall. But FF magic is just that. Can't replicated it on a cropped sensor.

£500 difference is a new lens, flash, etc, tho'.
 
M4FFU said:
Timely question, OP; it's what I've got in my head right now. I think I need more than what my 450D can offer in times of low light performance, but I'm not sure whether the 5D2 is a better move than a 7D. 7D may not perform so well, but is a newer/better camera overall. But FF magic is just that. Can't replicated it on a cropped sensor.

£500 difference is a new lens, flash, etc, tho'.
Click to expand...

Lots of people have the same dilemma, including me, and I'm coming from an old 350D...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top