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

Richard King said:
I find all these arguments amusing. DOF is no better or worse on any camera back. It is just that the "equivalent focal length" changes

You can get amazing DOF with a 400MM on a crop at the right distance

There is an article here that explains it, the comments are interesting too

http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/field_reports/full_frame_vs_crop_sensor_-.html
Click to expand...
Bzzt... nope.

If you look at the posted images, the crop sensor has a shallower DoF (by about 25-30%). The crop appears to be critically sharp from just after 19" to just before 21", the FF appears to be critically sharp from around 18.5" to 21" or just after.

This is exactly as theory tells us - same lens, same distance, same F number and the crop camera has shallower DoF for a given picture size. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_vs._format_size

What nearly everyone misses out is that DoF is only apparent when you render the image. The smaller the sensor, the more you have to enlarge it (the image captured on the sensor) for a given print size, the shallower the DoF. Change the distance, F number, lens etc... and the calculations change. But this final stage is where DoF is actually rendered - not in the image capture.....
 
arad85 said:
The smaller the sensor, the more you have to enlarge it (the image captured on the sensor) for a given print size, the shallower the DoF.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert on this but this doesn't sound right.

So is this saying the smaller the sensor, the shallower the depth of field for the same f number and distance?
 
FF or crop, who cares. It's all about the glass.

A good eye also helps ;)
 
Phall82 said:
I'm no expert on this but this doesn't sound right.

So is this saying the smaller the sensor, the shallower the depth of field for the same f number and distance?
Click to expand...
And focal length and image size, yes. Wiki sums it up:

Wikipedia said:
If pictures are taken from the same distance using the same lens and f-number, and the final images are the same size, the original image (that recorded on the film or electronic sensor) from the smaller format requires greater enlargement for the same size final image, and the smaller format has less DOF.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what you see on the page linked to by Richard.
 
Do full frame not generally have slightly higher colour depth and would this be of any importance with the quality in comparison?
 
arad85 said:
Bzzt... nope.

If you look at the posted images, the crop sensor has a shallower DoF (by about 25-30%). The crop appears to be critically sharp from just after 19" to just before 21", the FF appears to be critically sharp from around 18.5" to 21" or just after.

This is exactly as theory tells us - same lens, same distance, same F number and the crop camera has shallower DoF for a given picture size. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_vs._format_size

What nearly everyone misses out is that DoF is only apparent when you render the image. The smaller the sensor, the more you have to enlarge it (the image captured on the sensor) for a given print size, the shallower the DoF. Change the distance, F number, lens etc... and the calculations change. But this final stage is where DoF is actually rendered - not in the image capture.....
Click to expand...

If you pop both the images, next to eachother in photoshop, and scale them so the ruler is the same width, they look near as damit the same - apart from he clearly focused one of them slightly behind the other by a few mm
 
gman said:
Do full frame not generally have slightly higher colour depth and would this be of any importance with the quality in comparison?
Click to expand...

The argument, or my understanding is that FF sensors have larger pixels (lower pixel density) thus whatever they do in terms of the technology behind me, allows me greater latitude in terms of processing. Of course, with each generation the technology pushes forward and the cropped sensor variants gets closer but for me, may be it is even a placebo effect, 35mm feels right whereas 1.6x (or 1.3) feels like I'm missing something from it.
 
Richard King said:
If you pop both the images, next to eachother in photoshop, and scale them so the ruler is the same width, they look near as damit the same
Click to expand...
Yes, but then you are changing the magnification and the depth of field will change accordingly.

Again taken from wiki:

wiki said:
If the larger format is cropped to the captured area of the smaller format, the final images will have the same angle of view, have been given the same enlargement, and have the same DOF.
Click to expand...

In fact this just 15 words further on from the previous sentence I quoted and is equivalent to scaling the image up so the ruler is the same width (cropping and printing bigger).

Once you think of only a single distance being in focus and everything else being out of focus to a greater or lesser extent, it becomes obvious that the bigger you print an image (i.e. more magnification), the less DoF it will have as you zoom in more and can see the "out-of-focusness" more.

The key thing which most people miss is that DoF is ONLY relevant when you render the image - either on screen or in a print. DoF calculators make some assumptions about how big you are printing and how far away you are viewing, and if you break those assumptions, the perceived DoF will change.
 
arad85 said:
Yes, but then you are changing the magnification and the depth of field will change accordingly.

Again taken from wiki:



In fact this just 15 words further on from the previous sentence I quoted and is equivalent to scaling the image up so the ruler is the same width (cropping and printing bigger).

Once you think of only a single distance being in focus and everything else being out of focus to a greater or lesser extent, it becomes obvious that the bigger you print an image (i.e. more magnification), the less DoF it will have as you zoom in more and can see the "out-of-focusness" more.

The key thing which most people miss is that DoF is ONLY relevant when you render the image - either on screen or in a print. DoF calculators make some assumptions about how big you are printing and how far away you are viewing, and if you break those assumptions, the perceived DoF will change.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with this FF Vs CROP marketing fiasco. Somehow, because of the marketing hype & misdirection, people think that the camera body changes the optical qualities of a lens, or the optical qualities of a rendered image. In essence all the camera body does is provide a sensor that records the light that falls on it into an array of pixels in a finished image

- The only difference between FF and CROP is that the sensor is bigger
- Because the sensor is bigger, it is more demanding of the lens, as the lens has to perform well over a larger area. DX lenses (when the first came out) were not suddenly better than all of the previous lenses, they just didn't have the need to be optimised from corner to corner full frame
- Just because a sensor is full frame doesn't mean it has a lower pixel density. many of the arguments that full frame is best imply that the pixel sites are larger, this often isn't the case
 
That 'certain something' that full frame images have over croppers, and it's a subtle one, is down to the lens.

Because the image is bigger, it has to be enlarged less and lens is working less hard to deliver a given standard of resolution. It's a fact of science that as lens resolution demands are reduced, so image contrast goes up (call it more 'pop' if you like). That's what you're seeing.

This is different to the point made by Richard K above, about how larger formats make life harder for the lens - which they do in terms of edge sharpness and vignetting. The result there is usually that full frame lenses tend either to have higher f/numbers, or with similar f/numbers they are bigger/heavier and more expensive.

Listen to Andy on the subject of DoF. Bottom line, expressed in shorthand terms, is that if you have a crop format camera and stand side by side with a guy using full frame, and shoot the same image, framed the same (focal length adjusted for equivalence), at the same f/number, the full frame image will have less DoF to the tune of about 1.2 stops. The calculation is very easy - f/number x crop factor.
 
Last edited:
Have to say I went from 400d to 5dmkiii and I'm as happy as a pig in .... even makes my siggy 70 300 pop on macro
 
samems said:
What lenses do you use?
Click to expand...

I only have the Sigma 50mm f1.4 at the moment, I really like the images I get from it combined with the 5D. I think I will probably stick with it until I get frustrated about not having any other lenses.
 
TCR4x4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
this!

the viewfinder on a crop is terrible and cant manually focus on it! i have a canon a1 film and the viewfinder is miles better then my 400d one
 
jonneymendoza said:
....the viewfinder on a crop is terrible and cant manually focus on it!......
Click to expand...

That's a pretty sweeping statement - yes, full-frame viewfinders are bigger and generally clearer than on croppers but my D2x is truly fantastic for manual focus... 100 per cent coverage, very bright, great focussing screen, more info than you can shake a stick at.
 
specialman said:
That's a pretty sweeping statement - yes, full-frame viewfinders are bigger and generally clearer than on croppers but my D2x is truly fantastic for manual focus... 100 per cent coverage, very bright, great focussing screen, more info than you can shake a stick at.
Click to expand...

not on a canon rebel mate. maybe in nikon land but certainly not in canon land.

on the xxd/xd crops have decent viewfinders. the rest are crap
 
After decades shooting with 35mm film it took a while for me to get used to APS-C and then later it took a while for me to get used to a 5D.

For fans of the dreamy shallow DoF look the relatively longer focal length lenses you'll probably be using with "FF" may please but as with many things it's a dual edged sword and to get the same DoF at the same framing that you'd get from APS-C you may need to use smaller apertures and that could mean slower shutter speeds and / or higher ISO's. This came as a bit of a surprise to me when changing from APS-C to FF despite the years of 35mm shooting. I suppose I'd just got used to APS-C.

My views on DoF are not everyones but performing an act of origami and folding away the left, right, top and bottom of a sensor doesn't alter optical properties for me and neither does magnification or standing closer or further away. To me these things just make what's there, in or out of the DoF, either more or less apparent. But that's just my view. Of course what really matters is what works for you.

Whatever.

The 5D I currently have gives me the best digital images I've ever had but to me there isn't a night and day difference in image quality between it and my previous 20D or even my MFT. The 5D is better especially as the ISO rises and even with its higher levels of vignetting and the hassle of having to use smaller apertures with a 50mm than I'd use with a 30mm on APS-C or a 25mm on MFT, but how much better the 5D is I can't really say. I do find the lack of a built in flash annoying though.
 
Last edited:
Currently a Sony user with, at best, 'enthusiast' lenses.

I'm thinking of splashing out and going full frame with 2 or 3 quality lenses (70-200f2.8 50 1.4 and 24-70)

I've seen the comments regarding the lack of versatility of the Nikon lenses (DX v FX?) I had been considering the Nikon FFs due to faster fps capabilities but am wary if there's a smaller choice of lenses.

Is it the same with Canon or do all their lenses work on FF.

I had my heart set on the 5dMkII but then a friend suggested the D700 so am now properly confused!
 
Boynielaad said:
Is it the same with Canon or do all their lenses work on FF.
Click to expand...
Anything EF works on both full frame & crop. Anything EF-S only works on crop. The 3 lenses you mention are all EF so will work on both.
 
Boynielaad said:
I've seen the comments regarding the lack of versatility of the Nikon lenses (DX v FX?) I had been considering the Nikon FFs due to faster fps capabilities but am wary if there's a smaller choice of lenses.
Click to expand...

I don't want to come over all Nikon fanboy here but just replying to this in case you're operating under a misapprehension because to be honest I would have thought that the opposite was the case. Nikon's lens system is no different to any other as far as I can see, except you might argue that it is better as it offers particularly good cross compatibility.

Speaking purely in terms of Digital SLR's, Nikon FX (full frame lenses) will work on any Nikon body. Nikon DX (1.5x crop sensor) lenses will work on any Nikon body but on full frame bodies they will default to crop mode and only use a portion of the sensor equivalent to a dx size sensor.

Nikon haven't changed their mount design since the 50's so you can physically mount more or less any Nikon lens on any nikon body. It's quite nice having a 60 year back catalogue to dip into. You have to be a little careful as some of the lower end DSLR's will throw a fit if the lens is non CPU but all of the FX bodies and pro DX bodies can use any lens. I use a 1970's 105mm macro lens on the D700 that I picked up for £70 and it is utterly superb!

You may have heard about limited functionality in terms of auto focus and built in motors but this only affects the lower end bodies. Any Nikon body from 'prosumer' level upwards is unaffected.
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
I use a 1970's 105mm macro lens on the D700 that I picked up for £70 and it is utterly superb!
Click to expand...

I recently acquired a 30 year old 105/2.5 AiS for my D700, compared to today's drainpipes it is tiny, the images from it are superb.

There are plenty of old manual focus gems in the Ai and AiS range, with some still available brand new.
 
gad-westy said:
Nikon haven't changed their mount design since the 50's so you can physically mount more or less any Nikon lens on any nikon body. It's quite nice having a 60 year back catalogue to dip into. You have to be a little careful as some of the lower end DSLR's will throw a fit if the lens is non CPU but all of the FX bodies and pro DX bodies can use any lens. I use a 1970's 105mm macro lens on the D700 that I picked up for £70 and it is utterly superb!
Click to expand...

Be careful... if you're planning to be adventurous in trying out ancient lenses on your spiffy DSLR, you might want to take a look at this first :)

A.
 
Ive wanted ff for a couple of years and nearly caved in to the d700 so many times. Today i received My d800 so this tobic has been in my head for a while. Looking forward to giving my take on it soon.......
 
Last edited:
Just got the d700,
Not had chance to play

Dame you people showing fantastic pics

I need to step up now
 
I'm another FF convert. I went from a series of Panasonic G cameras to a 5d3. Disregarding the image quality, just the build quality, extra bulk and real viewfinder make it all worthwhile.
 
I went FF with a 5DII + 24-105 a couple of years ago. The images were nice but the extra bulk of the body and lenses got the better of me in the end and I sold it and moved back to a crop system.
 
I finally converted last night and bought full frame, so my new setup will be a canon 5D mkII and 24-105mm.

Looking forward to that parcel arriving: D
 
Well I'm taking my first step towards full frame... Borrowing a mates 5Dc tomorrow with a view of possible buying. So my setup of 500D, 18-55is 55-250is and Sigma 10-20 will be going to fund this.

I will be left with my 50 1.8, however what single lens should I go for? Has to be reasonable cheap, as my kit that I'm selling has to cover the cost of it, I would die for a 24-105L but i think that is well out of the question...
 
I would have liked FF but cameras are too heavy so will stick with 'normal' crop factor ones
 
Not had a chance to fully exploit the 5D mkII but what I have done with it has impressed me no end.
Would find it hard to go back to crop now.
 
Viewfinder

For me, perhaps my favorite full frame advantage is the quality of the camera’s viewfinder. If you have ever used an older film SLR, you might have been impressed by the size and clarity of the viewfinder. Indeed, one of the shortcomings of crop factor DSLR’s is the relatively small viewfinder. Full frame cameras overcome this greatly.

Now that I have a full frame camera, using a crop factor camera’s viewfinder can feel a bit like staring down a tunnel. If you’ve never had the pleasure of checking out a full frame viewfinder, try to get hands on one. It makes it much easier to manually focus a lens and make sure that your shot is in perfect focus compared to a crop factor counterpart.


Focal Length

The 24mm f/1.4 lens. On a crop factor camera, the effective focal length of this lens is around 36mm. To view the flipside, you would be required to find a 16mm lens for crop factor; a 16mm f/1.4 prime doesn’t even exist. In short, fast wide lenses are much easier to come by on full frame.


High ISO

If there’s one performance factor that I really appreciate from a full frame camera, it’s the advantage in high ISO shooting. The larger sensor benefits from a technical advantage. In the most basic technical terms, the larger sensor allows the manufacturers to not cram the photosites onto the sensor, and the camera benefits in high ISO performance because of this.
 
Mr G said:
Viewfinder

For me, perhaps my favorite full frame advantage is the quality of the camera’s viewfinder. If you have ever used an older film SLR, you might have been impressed by the size and clarity of the viewfinder. Indeed, one of the shortcomings of crop factor DSLR’s is the relatively small viewfinder. Full frame cameras overcome this greatly.

Now that I have a full frame camera, using a crop factor camera’s viewfinder can feel a bit like staring down a tunnel. If you’ve never had the pleasure of checking out a full frame viewfinder, try to get hands on one. It makes it much easier to manually focus a lens and make sure that your shot is in perfect focus compared to a crop factor counterpart.

Focal Length

The 24mm f/1.4 lens. On a crop factor camera, the effective focal length of this lens is around 36mm. To view the flipside, you would be required to find a 16mm lens for crop factor; a 16mm f/1.4 prime doesn’t even exist. In short, fast wide lenses are much easier to come by on full frame.

High ISO

If there’s one performance factor that I really appreciate from a full frame camera, it’s the advantage in high ISO shooting. The larger sensor benefits from a technical advantage. In the most basic technical terms, the larger sensor allows the manufacturers to not cram the photosites onto the sensor, and the camera benefits in high ISO performance because of this.
Click to expand...

I think that just about sums it up for me as well.

Of the three you mentioned, the lens choice availability is the one I've found to be the biggest advantage. I wouldn't have used my 85mm f1.8 on a crop due to its equivalent focal length but it's my favourite lens now. The 50mm equivalents just aren't as good to handle and use.
 
Mr G said:
Viewfinder

For me, perhaps my favorite full frame advantage is the quality of the camera’s viewfinder. If you have ever used an older film SLR, you might have been impressed by the size and clarity of the viewfinder. Indeed, one of the shortcomings of crop factor DSLR’s is the relatively small viewfinder. Full frame cameras overcome this greatly.

Now that I have a full frame camera, using a crop factor camera’s viewfinder can feel a bit like staring down a tunnel. If you’ve never had the pleasure of checking out a full frame viewfinder, try to get hands on one. It makes it much easier to manually focus a lens and make sure that your shot is in perfect focus compared to a crop factor counterpart.


Focal Length

The 24mm f/1.4 lens. On a crop factor camera, the effective focal length of this lens is around 36mm. To view the flipside, you would be required to find a 16mm lens for crop factor; a 16mm f/1.4 prime doesn’t even exist. In short, fast wide lenses are much easier to come by on full frame.


High ISO

If there’s one performance factor that I really appreciate from a full frame camera, it’s the advantage in high ISO shooting. The larger sensor benefits from a technical advantage. In the most basic technical terms, the larger sensor allows the manufacturers to not cram the photosites onto the sensor, and the camera benefits in high ISO performance because of this.
Click to expand...
well said
 
Had a good play with the 5Dc today and got it for the weekend however so far I have to say I'm slightly disappointed with it :( bit of a let down to say the least...

I have been using a Tamron 28-75 2.8 and my own 50 1.8, the sharpness just isn't as good as my 500D. I maybe pixel peeping as I'm zooming in on the shots but I am doing it on both cameras same setup and same lens.

I am however impressed with the viewfinder, the DoF is just lush and the bokeh is just so smooth, so maybe it is just this camera that may be slightly off. Doesn't. Look like my upgrade to full frame will be happening just yet!
 
mata.morrison said:
Had a good play with the 5Dc today and got it for the weekend however so far I have to say I'm slightly disappointed with it :( bit of a let down to say the least...

I have been using a Tamron 28-75 2.8 and my own 50 1.8, the sharpness just isn't as good as my 500D. I maybe pixel peeping as I'm zooming in on the shots but I am doing it on both cameras same setup and same lens.

I am however impressed with the viewfinder, the DoF is just lush and the bokeh is just so smooth, so maybe it is just this camera that may be slightly off. Doesn't. Look like my upgrade to full frame will be happening just yet!
Click to expand...

:thinking: Post the pics up comparing the 500D to the 5D where you feel the 500D is better. The IQ of the 5D will be better 9 times out of 10 unless the camera is defective or your technique is suspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top