Full Frame

chrisvann

chrisvann

Suspended / Banned
Messages
68
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi can someone please explain the differnce of Full Frame and None Full Frame please ? Does it mean that Full frame is 1 pixel ?
 
It refers to the size of the image sensor in the camera.
Full frame cameras have a sensor about the same size as a 35mm film camera (36 x 24 mm). Most other cameras have APS-C sensors that are much smaller.
Basically the larger the sensor the better the image quality (just like in film, the larger the negative the better the image quality) , although other factors are involved.
 
Also when using a lens on a non full frame camera the focal length of the lens is increased by the crop factor of the sensor.

A 50mm lens on a full frame camera is 50mm, on something like a 450d or a 50d (not full frame) the crop factor is 1.6x so the lens is 50mm x 1.6 giving you a lens equivalent to an 80mm.

The crop factor's an advantage with photography that uses long lenses (sports and wildlife) but can be a disadvantage with photography that uses wide focal lengths like landscapes.
 
Last edited:
chrisvann said:
Hi can someone please explain the differnce of Full Frame and None Full Frame please ? Does it mean that Full frame is 1 pixel ?
Click to expand...

Many people will draw the conclusion that full frame (FF) represents the best in quality that you can get from a DSLR before you step up to larger images sensors.

One of the key attributes of FF is that it's possible to capture and image with paper-thin depth-of-field, whereas on crop cameras that kind of depth-of-field won't be comparable because the DOF will always appear thicker on a crop image.

There are some very, very good crop sensor cameras about these days that on face value, give FF a very good run for its money in image quality, detail and low noise at high ISOs. However, FF is still the benchmark many want to aspire to owning because generally, you see the latest and most impressive technology built into high-end, full frame bodies. The ability to produce relatively noise-free images at high ISOs like 3200/6400/12,500 has been one of the key selling points of recent FF launches. More megapixels and beautiful HD video seems to be the next step...

The main thing is that FF bodies do cost more, although Nikon is rumoured to be addressing this by producing a 'budget' full-frame DSLR sometime soon (only rumours at the moment). The cheapest full frame bodies you'll get at the moment new are the 5D mk2 and the D700.
 
Last edited:
sensors.png
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies. I have a 7D, im only an amature, so learning all the time and im more than happy with it as I still dont use its full potential yet. I was having a conversation with a mate and he tried telling me that FF was 1 pixel and that with this if you zoom into the image it would never get blurry. I was very confused so thought id ask, he's obviously wrong. thanks again
 
chrisvann said:
Thanks for the replies. I have a 7D, im only an amature, so learning all the time and im more than happy with it as I still dont use its full potential yet. I was having a conversation with a mate and he tried telling me that FF was 1 pixel and that with this if you zoom into the image it would never get blurry. I was very confused so thought id ask, he's obviously wrong. thanks again
Click to expand...

yes - your mate is talking out of his arse. If it was indeed one pixel the entire photo would be one colour. :bang: (the picture being made up of lots of pixels)

What he might be thinking of is that FF cameras are usually a higher resolution (ie more megapixels) than comparable crop sensored cameras of the same generation

thus you can zoom or crop in further before the image gets pixelated (i.e blury) however on modern cameras even crop sensors have a hell of a lot of pixels so that isnt really an issue - your 7D has 18MP for example, which is 5MP more than the first gen of full frame canon DSLR
 
No I think he's talking out of his arse. He used to have a 35mm Nikon Film Camera im assuming thats a FF Camera. He believes that doesnt have pixels, this is why he confused the hell out of me. Thanks for clearing it up. I think for the photography I do FF wont make much difference at this moment in time.

Cheers
 
Strictly speaking the focal length of a lens stays the same whatever sensor you put behind it. What changes is the field of view, as shown in Digifrog's diagram. DOF calculations, for example, use the focal length of the lens and not the focal length multiplied by the crop factor.
 
All 35MM film slrs are 'full frame' the definition of full frame on a dslr being that its the same size as a 35mm frame (ie 36x24)

A fim shot doesnt have pixels - until such a time as its scanned and put on a computer.
(basically pixels are the little blocks that make up your monitor screen and turn different colours to show you a picture)

However you can't continually zoom in (ie enlarge) on a film shot either as the more you enlarge the more the film grain (that is the little bits of silver halide or whatever) will show up and the blurrier the resulting image will be
 
jimmyb said:
Also when using a lens on a non full frame camera the focal length of the lens is increased by the crop factor of the sensor.

A 50mm lens on a full frame camera is 50mm, on something like a 450d or a 50d (not full frame) the crop factor is 1.6x so the lens is 50mm x 1.6 giving you a lens equivalent to an 80mm.

The crop factor's an advantage with photography that uses long lenses (sports and wildlife) but can be a disadvantage with photography that uses wide focal lengths like landscapes.
Click to expand...

Just no. :bang:

The focal length of a lens is a physical measurement that doesn't become something different.

The field of view can vary with sensor/film size, which makes what you said about telephotos and wide angles roughly accurate.

But please can we stop confusing this issue by comparing to ff as if it's the only criteria.

50mm is always 50mm, which makes it a telephoto on a bridge camera, a short tele on 1.6 crop, a std lens on FF or 35mm, a wide angle on a medium format body and an ultra wide on 5x4 or 10x8.
Still 50mm though, and if you only shoot APSc you don't need to start working crop factors, you just need to know its a short tele.
 
thanks for this. im aware of what pixles are but never used a FF or Film Camera. He was basically trying to say my Camera (7D) was crap because its not full frame. He Still uses his 35mm Film Camera and gets some great results. Whe he went off on one about FF And that its a single pixel I was baffled and thought Id got it all wrong.

Thanks again. I love my 7D and for me I have gained some great photo's concidering Im no pro.
 
Phil V said:
Just no. :bang:

The focal length of a lens is a physical measurement that doesn't become something different.

The field of view can vary with sensor/film size, which makes what you said about telephotos and wide angles roughly accurate.

But please can we stop confusing this issue by comparing to ff as if it's the only criteria.

50mm is always 50mm, which makes it a telephoto on a bridge camera, a short tele on 1.6 crop, a std lens on FF or 35mm, a wide angle on a medium format body and an ultra wide on 5x4 or 10x8.
Still 50mm though, and if you only shoot APSc you don't need to start working crop factors, you just need to know its a short tele.
Click to expand...

Thanks For this Phil. However I dont really understand it. I was just trying to find out if my camera was crap because its not FF. Its clearly beyond my needs. Thanks again though.
 
chrisvann said:
thanks for this. im aware of what pixles are but never used a FF or Film Camera. He was basically trying to say my Camera (7D) was crap because its not full frame. He Still uses his 35mm Film Camera and gets some great results. Whe he went off on one about FF And that its a single pixel I was baffled and thought Id got it all wrong.
.
Click to expand...

jealousy is an ugly thing :lol:
 
you could be right there Pete. Ive had it for 18 months now and he's done nothing but rip it and my pics to bits. He's a good mate but obviouslt doesnt know a great deal more than me.
 
Phil V said:
Just no. :bang:

The focal length of a lens is a physical measurement that doesn't become something different.

The field of view can vary with sensor/film size, which makes what you said about telephotos and wide angles roughly accurate.

But please can we stop confusing this issue by comparing to ff as if it's the only criteria.

50mm is always 50mm, which makes it a telephoto on a bridge camera, a short tele on 1.6 crop, a std lens on FF or 35mm, a wide angle on a medium format body and an ultra wide on 5x4 or 10x8.
Still 50mm though, and if you only shoot APSc you don't need to start working crop factors, you just need to know its a short tele.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware the physical focal length measurement of the lens doesn't change but what you see when looking through a 50mm lens on a FF camera compared to that of a crop sensor camera are different, it can be used to a disadvantage or an advantage and is something that needs to be considered when buying a lens depending on what size sensor you use. It isn't the be all or end all between FF and crop sensor cameras as most people can work out for themselves, the most helpful way I found and had it explained to me was the way i explained it, just trying to be helpful in return.
 
Next time he bangs on about full frame and 35mm, just sneer and say "Oh, not 6x6 then?" :)
 
chrisvann said:
I've had it for 18 months now and he's done nothing but rip it and my pics to bits. He's a good mate but obviously doesn't know a great deal more than me.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call that a good mate, but there you go. :shake: :thinking: My friends are either supportive of my hobbies, constructive with their criticism, or say nothing. They certainly don't rip my pics, and I would never think of doing that to someone else. :nono: :shrug:
 
chrisvann said:
you could be right there Pete. Ive had it for 18 months now and he's done nothing but rip it and my pics to bits. He's a good mate but obviouslt doesnt know a great deal more than me.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like he knows sweet FA!

Anyone who continually acts like that should be completely ignored and preferably cut off because he doesn't sound like a mate to me - just a total ars***le.

There's nothing wrong with the 7D - in fact for me it was a toss up whether I went for that or a FF camera.

My first digital camera was a 350D and I used that for about 5 years until I felt that I had finally reached the end of what I could do with it.

And that's the important thing, not the camera but YOU!

And here is a great place to learn all about the techniques you can use to improve your pics.

So forget that moron and just have a great time being here.

.
 
big soft moose said:
All 35MM film slrs are 'full frame' the definition of full frame on a dslr being that its the same size as a 35mm frame (ie 36x24)
Click to expand...

Not quite, there were several half frame cameras which took 18x24mm negatives in the 60's and 70's (giving you double the number of frames per roll), most notably the Olympus Pen series.
 
yeah but the PEN series weren't SLRs
 
the Pen F were half frame SLRs - therefore not 35 mm (although they took 135 cassette film because they were half frame they were not 35mm - that is 35mm were so called because of the width of the frame, a half frame camera would depending on orientation have a width of either 24mm or 17.5mm) , all the rest of the Pen series (except the more recent digitals) were fixed lens viewfinder cameras.

None of which changes my original point that all 35mm SLR camera were by definition 'full frame' cameras
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top