Is full frame worth it?

[vaizki]

I've gone the route of the 24-105/4L and faster primes, notably the 85/1.8 and 35/1.4L but I still lust after the 24-70/2.8. One of the not so obvious reasons is because the lens hood is ingenious, protecting the glass and shielding from flare much better than the useless one on the 24-105.

 

[tomqh]

I've gone the route of the 24-105/4L and faster primes, notably the 85/1.8 and 35/1.4L but I still lust after the 24-70/2.8. One of the not so obvious reasons is because the lens hood is ingenious, protecting the glass and shielding from flare much better than the useless one on the 24-105.

Sorry if I'm hijacking the OP's thread, but I'd be interested in your feedback on the combination. I'm going in the other direction (have 24-105, 24-70, 70-200 f4 IS and Sigma 50/1.4 and looking to switch to 85/1.8, 35/1.4, 17-40).

I don't find 24-70 or 24-105 has enough punch when compared to using my 50mm. I know it's an unfair comparison, considering their flexible focal range, but I'd rather have one amazing photo than a few good ones, if you know what I mean. My photo style is people with lots of bokeh.

 

[EdBray]

People wih bokeh?

35L f1.4, 50mm f1.4 or f1.2, 85L f1.2 & 135L f2

head & shoulders on FF is 135L all the way.

 

[tomqh]

People wih bokeh?

35L f1.4, 50mm f1.4 or f1.2, 85L f1.2 & 135L f2

head & shoulders on FF is 135L all the way.

I've tried them all briefly:
35L fantastic
50L not sure it's worth the cost above 50/1.4
85L too slow to focus for my candid style
85/1.8 nice
135L too long for my personal style

So I will likely end up like vaizki: 35L and 85/1.8. Just wondered how that combo worked (which becomes the standard lens, and is it awkward to have to keep switching?). I keep 50/1.4 on my camera most of the time at present.

 

[leftcurl]

it's a no brainer for me. If you've got the funds in place then get 5DII like now! What's the very worst thing that could happen? You want to sell it in 3 months time and you lose £50?

i'm on 5DMkI, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f/4 and 50mm f/1.8. Ok, so i don't do it for a living and i don't get lens envy... but i think i've covered all the bases for everything i like to shoot and i don't see me needing anything else for the foreseeable future..... everything i own i bought 2nd hand and i look after it. It's all very good kit for keen amateurs.

 

[Morph3ous]

If you looking for a change tomqh I'll buy your 24-70 and 70-200 at the end of the year!

 

[HSC]

I recently (June) upgraded from a 450d to a 5dmk2
I already had 2 L lenses (24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8IS) so it made a lot of sense to me

I have to say it was a spiffing upgrade - and now I can really see whan my glass can do
I had toyed with the 7d as the 5dmk2 is not the best specced camera around but that in the end was meaningless for me and the type of shooting I do.

I think i'll be a full framer for life now....

 

[zerodeluxe]

I think my only hold back is thinking maybe if I stick to crop is that I might be able to afford a bigger range of lenses - albeit a slightly 'poorer' quality setup.... but I might have more fun with it.... hmmmm.

 

[woof woof]

I was sat on my bed reading this last night and I took four test shots, two of a remote control and two of a model car each with a 5D+20mm and a GF1+20mm all shots at f2.

These are heavy crops, in the region of 80-100+%. Because one camera is a 35mm equivalent and the other is MFT the whole images will look different and the 35mm equiv shot is therefore cropped even more than the MFT shot to give more of less the same image. The DoF is the same, IMVHO, and the only differences in the shot are contrast, colour, sharpness and rendering etc. which are pretty much unavoidable when using two different cameras and lenses.

This really shouldn't surprise anyone as the GF1 shot is effectively just a piece cut from the centre of the 5D shot and once the images are more or less equalised and viewed in more or less the same way the images should and indeed do look essentially the same.

As I see it DoF is not affected by film or format size. The main thing that I see altering DoF is the aperture and after that it's camera to subject to background position and composition and of course magnification can help to created the illusion of less DoF by making the out of focus areas larger in the frame, smaller non sharp things naturally looking sharper than bigger non sharp things. Changing position and retaining composition can therefore get you the same DoF from a 20mm lens as a 200mm lens.

So as I see it just like format size in itself and by itself does not affect DoF neither does the zoom length of the lens. These things influence what hardware and composition you use and choose and that affects the final image but I don't believe that they affect the actual DoF.

Its interesting stuff and I think it helps to try and understand what's going on.

 

[POAH]

early bext year will see the release od the 5D3

Hi,

I'm lucky enough to be in the situation where I have a healthy budget to 'upgrade' my kit early next year, which will be in the region of £2500.
I currently use the Canon 400D with a Sigma 18-200 lens and Canon 50 1.8, which i've used for 4 years, but its now time to move forward.
Most of my photography is based around the usual 'family' stuff with two children under 5, but I also enjoy shooting landscapes and street photography. I've also ventured slightly into the world of interior photography, where I made use of a friends Sigma 10-20mm lens to take photos of a B&B for a friends website.

I have no need for the fast AF of the 7D, so I've always set my sights on getting the Canon 60D body, along with the Canon 17-55 IS 2.8, Canon 70-200 F4 IS and Canon 430 EX II flash. If the budget allowed, I was also looking to get my own Sigma 10-20. I figured this would set me up completely.

Trouble I have however, is the lure of the full frame 5D Mark II. I've only ever played with one briefly, and although it impressed me, I've read so much about how excellent it is at low light, how the DOF is so much better with FF (i'm a massive fan of shallow DOF images) and how its generally considered THE camera to have.

Issue is, realistically the budget would only allow for the purchase of the 5D2 second hand along with the 24-70, and I dont think this would suffice with what I like to shoot as its too short. A lot of my images are close up crops of the children, often shot at 150-200mm (and thats with my crop camera) I therefore feel I'd need to own the 70-200 too. I woudn't want it to 'replace' the 24-70 though, as i'd need the shorter focal lengths for landscapes etc.

So, I thought I'd ask fellow enthusiasts what they would do if they were in my shoes? Would you stick with Plan A, or go for the 5D2?

 

[Deron]

It's a want v need thing I think...

I want full frame, but don't necessarily need it. One day...I'll join the club.

 

[arad85]

Its interesting stuff and I think it helps to try and understand what's going on.

Tee hee. It explains nothing unless you know the original framing of the image.... As explained to you several times, DoF is dependent on how much you magnify the image, and that depends on sensor size given the same framing. All you have shown in your experiment is that different lenses have different bokeh characteristics...

 

[chrisgeary]

@woof woof: format size does affect DoF. You get virtually no DoF from a tiny sensor (eg mobile phone) and landscape photographers shooting on 6x17 will regularly use f/45 to get front to back sharpness.
See Depth of Field Requirements as an example.

To the OP: Really consider the Canon 5D Mk1. It still holds its own for image quality with the top FF bodies today. This is true unless you need to shoot at high ISOs or need the more advanced AF in the newer bodies (although the 5D Mk2 doesn't have the newer AF).

 

[HoppyUK]

Alan, if "DoF is not affected by film or format size" as you persistently claim, what is the purpose of the Circle of Confusion in the DoF formula, which varies according to sensor size?

The factors which affect DoF are these:

Sensor size
Focal length
Subject distance
f/number

Without all of them, you don't have an image to start with and cannot calculate the DoF. But of those four factors, the only one you cannot change is the size of the sensor, because it is fixed by the camera. Hence the perfectly logical shorthand version of that which says "sensor size affects DoF" and smaller sensors deliver more of it than larger ones.

What is wrong with that?

 

[odd jim]

Tee hee. It explains nothing unless you know the original framing of the image.... As explained to you several times, DoF is dependent on how much you magnify the image, and that depends on sensor size given the same framing. All you have shown in your experiment is that different lenses have different bokeh characteristics...

...and surely DOF/bokeh is relative to the image that is in focus? Hence cropping the subject out just to have to bokeh in shot is a fruitless exercise for the purposes of your point?

 

[woof woof]

@woof woof: format size does affect DoF. You get virtually no DoF from a tiny sensor (eg mobile phone) and landscape photographers shooting on 6x17 will regularly use f/45 to get front to back sharpness.

Yes but the problem is that you don't understand what's going on and why things happen, the confusion is why I brought this up.

The reason that a compact camera gives you a lot of DoF is not due to the format size as such it's due to the fact that you're using a 6mm lens.

Would you use a 6mm lens on a large format camera and expect to get shallow DoF? If you wouldn't, why would you expect to get shallow DoF from a 6mm lens on a compact camera?

 

[woof woof]

Alan, if "DoF is not affected by film or format size" as you persistently claim, what is the purpose of the Circle of Confusion in the DoF formula, which varies according to sensor size?

Hoppy, at least I've backed up my view with links to on line pieces by reputable people and fair and convincving tests and examples I've done myself.

You repeatedly state that format size affects DoF but as far as I know you haven't posted any examples yet. I have posted examples several times so here's a challenge for you...

Can you carry out a fair test as I've done and post examples that prove that format size does affect DoF?

All you need is two cameras with different sized sensors and a lens that'll fit them both or similar lenses just like in the little test I did

PS. As you love links lets see what Bob Atkins has to say... It all needs thinking about and the reasons need to be understood but read carefully it all makes sense...

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html

• For an equivalent field of view, a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera has at least 1.6x MORE depth of field that a 35mm full frame camera would have - when the focus distance is significantly less then the hyperfocal distance (but the 35mm format needs a lens with 1.6x the focal length to give the same view).

• 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)

• If you use the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body and crop the full frame 35mm image to give the same view as the APS-C crop image, the depth of field is IDENTICAL

• If you use the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, then shoot from different distances so that the view is the same, the Canon APS-C crop sensor camera image will have 1.6x MORE DOF then the full frame image.

• Close to the hyperfocal distance, the Canon APS-C crop sensor camera has a much more than 1.6x the DOF of a 35mm full frame camera. The hyperfocal distance of a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera is 1.6x less than that of a 35mm full frame camera when used with a lens giving the same field of view.

PS. You're wrong about focal length too.

Focal length makes OOF things big in the frame but if you were to take that shot with a shorter length lens and increase the image size until the OOF thing is the same size as it is in the long length shot... the DoF is the same! )

See here...
http://www.completedigitalphotograp...5cdContents/Chapter9/Focal Length and DOF.pdf
and here..
http://www.cybercollege.com/myths.htm
and here...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml
and 100 other places.


again, this is something that you can test and prove to yourself at home.

 

[HoppyUK]

LOL Alan

Can you carry out a fair test as I've done and post examples that prove that format size does affect DoF?

I decline your kind invitation.

And I don't understand your point with Bob Atkins. He knows what he's tallking about, and agrees with everything I've said. Point number one covers it.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html

• For an equivalent field of view, a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera has at least 1.6x MORE depth of field that a 35mm full frame camera would have - when the focus distance is significantly less then the hyperfocal distance (but the 35mm format needs a lens with 1.6x the focal length to give the same view).

That's all there is to it.

PS. You're wrong about focal length too.

I don't think so. What have you misunderstood this time?

 

[Lostgear]

What is wrong with your 400d, for the type of photos you are taking, wont the 400d give better results than the 60d. All those pixels crammed into a tiny sensor make for loads of noise.

 

[odd jim]

What is wrong with your 400d, for the type of photos you are taking, wont the 400d give better results than the 60d. All those pixels crammed into a tiny sensor make for loads of noise.

No they don't.

1600 iso on my 50d is far less noisy than my old 400d at even 800 iso, and the 60d is even better.

 

[woof woof]

LOL Alan



I decline your kind invitation.

And I don't understand your point with Bob Atkins. He knows what he's tallking about, and agrees with everything I've said. Point number one covers it.



That's all there is to it.



I don't think so. What have you misunderstood this time?

Point one covers it? What about what follows?
" If you use the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body and crop the full frame 35mm image to give the same view as the APS-C crop image, the depth of field is IDENTICAL"

I did say that you have to read it carefully.

Look, I'm only interested in this because I come from a technical background and have brought that with me into my little photography hobby. I like to understand so in the past I've posted thought out and fair test shots that I've taken myself that have proved to my own satisfaction that DoF does not depend upon format size or zoom length by themselves.

AFAIK you have never posted any fair examples that prove me wrong and you right and have declined my challenge to do so I therefore rest my case but urge anyone to carry out their own tests to prove this (or not) to themselves because it's easy to do, it's fun and it's good to try and understand what's going on.

Finally , here's something interesting from the highly dubious WWW that puts it better than I can on the subject of format size...

"Physics
I’ll explain what I call the physics by use of an example. Let’s say we take a picture of a point with a 4x5inch camera and crop out a 6x7cm, 6x4.5cm, and a 35mm frame sizes. (If you like, consider all these formats with the same focal length lens, at the same aperture, and the same distance to the point). According to the applets that take into account format size, the DOF changes for each crop. Does this make sense? Of course not! It is the same point on the same piece of film. As such, it can’t be magnified any more for each format and still look like a point and not a disk. Thus, we can conclude that COC is not a function of format. This leaves DOF as a property of the lens and focusing distance(review the above equations). Also note that the sharper the lens, the smaller the point is that can be produced on the film, the shallower the DOF (I’ll let you think about this), and the larger a print can be made and still have the point look like a point."

 

[arad85]

Point one covers it? What about what follows?
" If you use the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body and crop the full frame 35mm image to give the same view as the APS-C crop image, the depth of field is IDENTICAL"

Yes, that's 100% right. By cropping, you have effectively changed the sensor size and thus changed the DoF. Therefore DoF is dependent on sensor size, all other variables being equal QED.

 

[woof woof]

You don't really believe that, do you?

And just in case you do (and I know that you don't) please don't believe that cutting the middle out of an either on screen or on paper image changes the DoF.

 

[amtaylor]

You don't really believe that, do you?

And just in case you do (and I know that you don't) please don't believe that cutting the middle out of an either on screen or on paper image changes the DoF.

That was what I was going to say. Cutting a crop out of a print doesn't change the dof and the principle is exactly the same with a smaller sensor, you are getting the same image being transmitted to the sensor just less of it is used. Someone mentioned above when the fov is the same there is more dof on the crop, well of course there is because you have to be physically further away when all other things are equal but the sensor size and as you focus further away dof increases. The sensor size doesn't magically bring blurred parts of the image into focus.

 

[Marcus Geezer]

To answer your original post. Go FF with decent glass. I went from 400D to 40D to 5D MkI and slowly saving pennies for a 5DmkII. Going FF was the best move I have ever made, as there is just something about the images and the DOF, when used properly, which is amazing.

 

[amtaylor]

To answer your original post. Go FF with decent glass. I went from 400D to 40D to 5D MkI and slowly saving pennies for a 5DmkII. Going FF was the best move I have ever made, as there is just something about the images and the DOF, when used properly, which is amazing.

Oh yeah the OP lol. What you said +1

 

[woof woof]

I recently bought a FF camera because I wanted a Siggy 85mm f1.4 and thought that I wouldn't like it on APS-C plus my Siggy 12-24mm is an interesting lens on FF too.

 

[arad85]

You don't really believe that, do you?

And just in case you do (and I know that you don't) please don't believe that cutting the middle out of an either on screen or on paper image changes the DoF.

That was what I was going to say. Cutting a crop out of a print doesn't change the dof

The one step you're both missing is that you have to render the image to see it. If I print a FF image at 10x8 and take an APS-C crop from the same image and print it at 10x8, the DoF WILL be different in the two images. It is this factor the CoC is capturing in the DoF calculation. This is what everyone else is telling you, it is what the experts are telling you (if you'd bother to read what they are actually saying and not blindly quoting it) and what I said too - see the text all other things being equal (and that includes print size and viewing distance). Even the crops you posted Alan will appear in focus if they are viewed from the right distance....

You cannot talk about DoF without incorporating how you are rendering and viewing the image. The same image will have different perceived DoF depending on the distance you view it from. An absolute classic example of this is to look at something like a Monet painting. Depending on the distance you view it from, it will either appear as a brilliant picture or a collection of coloured blobs.

 

[woof woof]

If you read my posts I've made a point of trying to make the images look the same.

"The one step you're both missing is that you have to render the image to see it. If I print a FF image at 10x8 and take an APS-C crop from the same image and print it at 10x8, the DoF WILL be different in the two images."

No it wont. How could it possible be different? It's the same image.

It could look different because small OOF things look sharper than big OOF things but if you equalise the images as I did in my example you should see that the DoF is actually the same.

PS. Here's an interesting test for you...

Take a shot with shallow DoF and then produce a really really small print and a really really big print. You might notice that OOF areas are obvious in the big print and that things somehow look different in the small print, but the DoF is exactly the same.

 

[scottthehat]

if you want that wow factor from your pics buy a full frame, my d300 produces wow pics, but the d700 just produces something beyond that.

 

[HoppyUK]

Alan, and (the other) Andy.

Maybe the bit you are missing is that the concept of DoF requires a print of a given size to be viewed at a distance equal to the diagonal. So if you simply take a small section out of a larger image, you have to view it more closely. That's what changes, and the DoF with it.

Alan, you seem to think I have never done any of the tests you suggest. That was nearly 40 years ago at college, and a few times after. Since then, I have been writing technical articles professionally for magazines for decades, and continue to do so. All modesty aside, there is not much I don't know about DoF, both in theory and practise. And as it happens, I did post some example pictures on here a few years ago, in relation to macro and format. Same basic principles though - got an apology from the guy too as I recall

And BTW, that quote above from "the highly dubious www" as you put it, is more than highly dubious - it's wrong.

 

[Vertigo1]

You don't really believe that, do you?

And just in case you do (and I know that you don't) please don't believe that cutting the middle out of an either on screen or on paper image changes the DoF.

My understanding is that, the same lens at the same focal length will produce the same DoF on either a crop or FF camera. The FF shot will obviously encompass more of the original scene.

The key point is that, if you zoom in on the FF camera so that the captured image covers the same 'portion' of the original scene, so for example, 50mm on the crop but zoomed in to 80mm on the FF, the DoF on the FF shot will be shallower simply because the lens itself is set to 1.6x the focal length it was on the crop in order to capture the same image.

 

[HoppyUK]

My understanding is that, the same lens at the same focal length will produce the same DoF on either a crop or FF camera. The FF shot will obviously encompass more of the original scene.

Wrong.

The key point is that, if you zoom in on the FF camera so that the captured image covers the same 'portion' of the original scene, so for example, 50mm on the crop but zoomed in to 80mm on the FF, the DoF on the FF shot will be shallower simply because the lens itself is set to 1.6x the focal length it was on the crop in order to capture the same image.

Right. LOL

 

[Vertigo1]

Wrong.

Maybe but, if so, I really can't understand why.

In this case, the lens is projecting the exact same image into the body of the camera, just that the crop sensor will only capture a smaller, central section of that image. This is exactly the same as taking the FF image and cropping it yourself in Photoshop, so the DoF should be identical, surely?

 

[scottthehat]

if you have an (set at f2.8)
50mm on a 1.5x crop it will give you 75mm in 35mm temrs, so if you focus on something 10 foot away the dof will be = 42.195cm

and full frame
50mm on a full frame is 50mm, same again focus on something 10 foot away
the dof will be = 63.636cm so more dof then then the crop.

But to get the same field of view as the crop camera on the full frame use a 75mm lens and focus again at 10 foot away and the dof will be = 28.056cm which is 12cm less dof then the crop camera with the same field of view.

 

[squishy]

Wrong.

How? I agree with you about most points, but if you're shooting with the same focal length (not the same equivalent focal length), then sure the DoF must cover the same distance forward and backward if you take a frame focussed the same from the same spot. But if you move forward and focus closer so that the FF image matches the cropped image (so you have comparable framing), then the DoF will be shorter.

 

[squishy]

.

 

[Vertigo1]

if you have an (set at f2.8)
50mm on a 1.5x crop it will give you 75mm in 35mm temrs, so if you focus on something 10 foot away the dof will be = 42.195cm

and full frame
50mm on a full frame is 50mm, same again focus on something 10 foot away
the dof will be = 63.636cm so more dof then then the crop.

No, the DoF will be the same on both. 50mm is 50mm, the fact that the crop sensor is only capturing part of the projected image from the lens is irrelevant, the image itself, and its DoF, is identical.

 

[Morph3ous]

Bloody hell. What have I done. I just logged in to find lots of replies to my thread, "excellent" I thought. "lots of great advice". But no. Turns out its actually just a load of arguments over depth of field!! I love forums.

To those that have told me how great FF is - thanks. I'm seriously considering the 5D2 now, and will wait to see what the budget can provide come January. At the least I know I can get it with one piece of L glass, be it the 24-70 or possibly even the 24-105 and 70-200 F4 non IS.
The recent reduction in 5D2 price by Jessops is promising. 5Dc isn't really a consideration for me right now. 5D2 or 60d i'm afraid.

Another factor I have to take into consideration is that my brother has just bought a 5D2 to go with his 24-70. B*****d. 60D just wont do now...

 

[existent]

Bloody hell. What have I done. I just logged in to find lots of replies to my thread, "excellent" I thought. "lots of great advice". But no. Turns out its actually just a load of arguments over depth of field!! I love forums.

To those that have told me how great FF is - thanks. I'm seriously considering the 5D2 now, and will wait to see what the budget can provide come January. At the least I know I can get it with one piece of L glass, be it the 24-70 or possibly even the 24-105 and 70-200 F4 non IS.
The recent reduction in 5D2 price by Jessops is promising. 5Dc isn't really a consideration for me right now. 5D2 or 60d i'm afraid.

Another factor I have to take into consideration is that my brother has just bought a 5D2 to go with his 24-70. B*****d. 60D just wont do now...

I was beginning to get the similar upgrade urge about 12 months ago. I spent few months trying to decide between 5dmkII and 7D, and then 60d came out as a third option. For me, ff made much more sense because I mostly take landscape shots and my longest lens is 24-105mm at the moment. The advantage of the full frame for me is the ability to use wide angle primes such as ts-e 24mm...

IQ wise, while there is a difference between crop and ff, unless you are printing large, you won't notice it.

I think now that your brother has a 5d, you can always go and try it it's a tough decision but you can't really go wrong with either choice... worst case is you won't like it and decide to sell it in a few months and lose a bit....