Is Full Frame worth it?

wave01 said:
I have a 7d2 it's just great. I use mainly for wildlife but I use it for portraits landscape and macro work. My thoughts are I should be able to take decent shot with any modern camera.
Click to expand...
My son has a 7d2 and at high ISO the 5d3 is nicer, but, for normal viewing sizes there's not much difference. His is better for fast action though. :-)
 
I like FF for mainly 2 reasons

1 - When I refer to 35mm, it is 35mm. When I say 200, i mean 200mm. I don't mean FF equivalent, i don't know why but it this bugs the hell out of me. Like when I use the Fuji it's 23mm for a 35mm focal length. It's meaningless in a way as it's just a label but I hate it.

2 - Just better bokeh.
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
Let's be honest it's purely down to budget.

If money wasn't an issue how many would be extolling the 'benefits' of a crop sensor when they could be using a D5 and 600/4 for the air shows and motorsport?

Crop sensor has no benefits other than it's significantly cheaper.
Click to expand...
In your opinion. ;)

I could have got a D750/D610 for less than the D500 was, but I didn't because I didn't want FF. If I wanted I could get a FF camera any time I wanted, but the D500 and the lenses I have I am happy with. As soon as I felt the size and weight of a Nikon D2X many years ago, I knew that style of body was not for me, and subsequent Nikon D* series cameras I have handled over the years have not changed my mind. :rolleyes:

FF, and the large and heavy lenses that need to go with it, I don't want to carry. If I were going to the fictional air show or motorsport event I may hire a longer lens if I felt I needed something longer than 300mm, but I would be using the D500. :)

FF is not the aim of everyone, not even all of those fiscally challenged. :rolleyes: ;)
 
redhed17 said:
Just seen this on another site comparing FF and Cropped images in the real world. Interesting. ;)
Click to expand...
Matt Ganger did something similar and Zach Arias also had a video on the topic.
Truth is most modern cameras outperform their users bigtime and what really matters is what's infront and especially behind it not what's in it.
 
I really don't see what that link is trying to prove. So you can get great shots with a crop camera that are virtually indistinguishable from a FF. Big deal, thats not exactly news. Could have done the same with a M4/3 rds as well.

I've got shots with a crop sensor that I can't tell apart from those from my FF unless I look at the EXIF. I've also got lots that I can tell apart from a FF when the conditions turned crappy and the crop sensor body had lost its detail and DR.

And crops bodies are not always lighter than the FF. 7D2 is heavier than 5D4 and the 6D2. D500 is heavier than the D750
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Gaz J said:
I really don't see what that link is trying to prove. So you can get great shots with a crop camera that are virtually indistinguishable from a FF. Big deal, thats not exactly news. Could have done the same with a M4/3 rds as well.

I've got shots with a crop sensor that I can't tell apart from those from my FF unless I look at the EXIF. I've also got lots that I can tell apart from a FF when the conditions turned crappy and the crop sensor body had lost its detail and DR.

And crops bodies are not always lighter than the FF. 7D2 is heavier than 5D4 and the 6D2. D500 is heavier than the D750
Click to expand...
The ansvar to the question of this thread, Is Full Frame worth it? You gave it, it's a no
 
Gaz J said:
I've got shots with a crop sensor that I can't tell apart from those from my FF unless I look at the EXIF. I've also got lots that I can tell apart from a FF when the conditions turned crappy and the crop sensor body had lost its detail and DR.

And crops bodies are not always lighter than the FF. 7D2 is heavier than 5D4 and the 6D2. D500 is heavier than the D750
Click to expand...
You're being a bit inconsistent here though, Gaz.

Yes, if you choose your comparisons carefully you can argue that crop sensor images are as good as full frame. And yes, if you choose your comparisons carefully you can find crop sensor cameras that are lighter than full frame.
 
redhed17 said:
In your opinion. ;)

I could have got a D750/D610 for less than the D500 was, but I didn't because I didn't want FF. If I wanted I could get a FF camera any time I wanted, but the D500 and the lenses I have I am happy with. As soon as I felt the size and weight of a Nikon D2X many years ago, I knew that style of body was not for me, and subsequent Nikon D* series cameras I have handled over the years have not changed my mind. :rolleyes:

FF, and the large and heavy lenses that need to go with it, I don't want to carry. If I were going to the fictional air show or motorsport event I may hire a longer lens if I felt I needed something longer than 300mm, but I would be using the D500. :)

FF is not the aim of everyone, not even all of those fiscally challenged. :rolleyes: ;)
Click to expand...
Fair point some will appreciate a smaller size but that aside sensor size only started off small in digital terms during the film/digital transition for cost reasons. I paid £700 for a camera with a tiny 1.3mp sensor. God knows what a full frame sensor would of cost back then!
 
Brazo said:
Fair point some will appreciate a smaller size but that aside sensor size only started off small in digital terms during the film/digital transition for cost reasons. I paid £700 for a camera with a tiny 1.3mp sensor. God knows what a full frame sensor would of cost back then!
Click to expand...

Not quite true, cost was an issue but so was manufacturing technique. In the early days it was difficult to make larger high resolution sensors without defects, in 1986 Kodak 'invented' the megapixel, which developed into a series of cameras. I used these within my work (industrial imaging) in the early 90's, and you cou could buy them at different grades depending on how many defects were present on the sensor, Grade A, B or C, Grade A high resolution cameras then were north of £25K !!!

Nowadays silicon production is much much better, and the cost of perfect (or near) perfect sensors has plummeted and resolution increased.

Back to the question, of course FF is worth it, if you need the benefits of full frame, as is MF worth it, if you need the features offered by MF. The correct sensor size is the one that meets your needs.
 
Raymond Lin said:
When I refer to 35mm, it is 35mm. When I say 200, i mean 200mm. I don't mean FF equivalent, i don't know why but it this bugs the hell out of me. Like when I use the Fuji it's 23mm for a 35mm focal length. It's meaningless in a way as it's just a label but I hate it.
Click to expand...
You're aware that makes no sense though?

I mean, the number the manufacturers print on the lens is the actual focal length. A 35mm lens has a focal length of 35mm, regardless of what camera it's attached to.
  • On Micro 4/3rds, 35mm is a short telephoto.
  • On APS-C, 35mm is a "normal" lens.
  • On full frame, 35mm is a slightly wide angle.
  • On medium format, 35mm is a very wide angle.
I bet medium format users don't mentally convert everything to "full frame equivalent", so why do you?
 
StewartR said:
You're aware that makes no sense though?

I mean, the number the manufacturers print on the lens is the actual focal length. A 35mm lens has a focal length of 35mm, regardless of what camera it's attached to.
  • On Micro 4/3rds, 35mm is a short telephoto.
  • On APS-C, 35mm is a "normal" lens.
  • On full frame, 35mm is a slightly wide angle.
  • On medium format, 35mm is a very wide angle.
I bet medium format users don't mentally convert everything to "full frame equivalent", so why do you?
Click to expand...
And most people dont have a 24x36 as their first camera anyway. I should be confused shooting apsc, 24x36mm, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5" and 13x18cm :D
 
soeren said:
The ansvar to the question of this thread, Is Full Frame worth it? You gave it, it's a no
Click to expand...

No it's not, its a yes. I sold my 7D2 because it's wasn't good enough compared to my 1DX across the range of ISOs that I shoot consistently with.

StewartR said:
You're being a bit inconsistent here though, Gaz.

Yes, if you choose your comparisons carefully you can argue that crop sensor images are as good as full frame. And yes, if you choose your comparisons carefully you can find crop sensor cameras that are lighter than full frame.
Click to expand...

What I should have added Stewart was that at the range of ISOs that I shoot at, which tend to be from 800 upwards the crop camera, 7D2 in this case, didn't have the mage quality that my 1DX did. So I sold it, as did a couple of other friends of mine.

I know that people will put up examples of high ISO 7D2 images that are good but it wasn't good enough for what I wanted so for me FF is very much worth it and with the improvement in the 1DX MkII and 5D MkIV even more so.

With regards to weight then I was comparing a high performance crop with two out of the three FF bodies that Canon make. Accept that other crop cameras are lighter but it's not a given
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
You're aware that makes no sense though?

I mean, the number the manufacturers print on the lens is the actual focal length. A 35mm lens has a focal length of 35mm, regardless of what camera it's attached to.
  • On Micro 4/3rds, 35mm is a short telephoto.
  • On APS-C, 35mm is a "normal" lens.
  • On full frame, 35mm is a slightly wide angle.
  • On medium format, 35mm is a very wide angle.
I bet medium format users don't mentally convert everything to "full frame equivalent", so why do you?
Click to expand...
Agreed. I don't call my 55-200mm an 80-300mm because I use it on a crop body. It is what it is, and it has the reach and viewing angle I require. If I required different I would purchase different irrespective of the focal length printed on it.
 
Is anything "worth it"

If it's what you want and you can afford it, buy it, but worth is very subjective and function versus cost is hard to equate
 
StewartR said:
You're aware that makes no sense though?

I mean, the number the manufacturers print on the lens is the actual focal length. A 35mm lens has a focal length of 35mm, regardless of what camera it's attached to.
  • On Micro 4/3rds, 35mm is a short telephoto.
  • On APS-C, 35mm is a "normal" lens.
  • On full frame, 35mm is a slightly wide angle.
  • On medium format, 35mm is a very wide angle.
I bet medium format users don't mentally convert everything to "full frame equivalent", so why do you?
Click to expand...

I use all those formats plus my Panasonic with an even smaller sensor. Even if I had the mental energy I wouldn't bother calculating the positive and negative crop factors of my lenses. If I am using my Bronica, the 75 mm lens is Normal and the 250 mm lens is slightly telephoto (and used most of the time). With my OM1, the 50 mm is Normal and with my Icarette 105 mm is Normal.

"Normal" I do think about as it is an important concept but I have no idea what the FF equivalence of my lenses are.
 
StewartR said:
I bet medium format users don't mentally convert everything to "full frame equivalent", so why do you?
Click to expand...
" full frame" or "miniature" as us medium format photographers call it.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I like FF for mainly 2 reasons

1 - When I refer to 35mm, it is 35mm. When I say 200, i mean 200mm. I don't mean FF equivalent, i don't know why but it this bugs the hell out of me. Like when I use the Fuji it's 23mm for a 35mm focal length. It's meaningless in a way as it's just a label but I hate it.

2 - Just better bokeh.
Click to expand...

Crazy, I thought I was the only one that felt like that (It also bugs me shooting at things like f6.3 or 7.1 rather than 5.6 or 8!!!

I prefer FF due to the better ISO capability and just that look the D700 gave over the D300, although the 300 was quite capable. For me as well it was also about the body style, and at the time there was no new D300 so a 700 seemed logical. Plus, the quality of FF lenses is better, 24-70 would be 35mm at widest on DX and found that the 17-55 was never quite as good!
 
MatBin said:
My son has a 7d2 and at high ISO the 5d3 is nicer, but, for normal viewing sizes there's not much difference. His is better for fast action though. :)
Click to expand...
Strange as I actually found the 5D mk3 very good for sport, surprisingly so. The autofocus system is amazing.
 
Byker28i said:
Strange as I actually found the 5D mk3 very good for sport, surprisingly so. The autofocus system is amazing.
Click to expand...
Agreed but its "old hat af system" now :-) and the 7dMk2 is slightly better (with more f8 points) and has a few more fps which can help.
Overall I still think the 5D3 is the "better" camera.
 
MatBin said:
Agreed but its "old hat af system" now :) and the 7dMk2 is slightly better (with more f8 points) and has a few more fps which can help.
Overall I still think the 5D3 is the "better" camera.
Click to expand...
Agreed, you'd probably have to put the 7Dmk2 against the 5D mk4 to compare digic 6 bodies.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Not quite true, cost was an issue but so was manufacturing technique. In the early days it was difficult to make larger high resolution sensors without defects, in 1986 Kodak 'invented' the megapixel, which developed into a series of cameras. I used these within my work (industrial imaging) in the early 90's, and you cou could buy them at different grades depending on how many defects were present on the sensor, Grade A, B or C, Grade A high resolution cameras then were north of £25K !!!

Nowadays silicon production is much much better, and the cost of perfect (or near) perfect sensors has plummeted and resolution increased.

Back to the question, of course FF is worth it, if you need the benefits of full frame, as is MF worth it, if you need the features offered by MF. The correct sensor size is the one that meets your needs.
Click to expand...
So it was all down to cost? ;)

Same as it is now be it wafers when companies make computer chips or image sensors. Its difficult to make larger ones, they have a higher defect rate so the good ones cost more.

Full frame sensors still cost more than smaller sizes despite improvements in production.
 
MatBin said:
And lighter.
Click to expand...
Really? From a quick internet search:

Weight: Canon 7D Mk 2: 910g (2.01Lbs) Canon 6D Mk1: 770g (1.7Lbs).

Size: Canon 7D Mk 2: 149 x 112 x 78mm Canon 6D Mk1: Size 145 x 111 x 71mm.

So it looks like that myth is busted! ;)
 
Last edited:
johnf3f said:
GTG makes a good point - the cameras are often different in their control layout depending on the model that you choose.
Click to expand...

That why i didn't like the 70D, because of the flip screen all the button in the back are shoved in the center which is hard to find without looking. And because the XXD don't have a joystick the focus point is done with the wheel which i find way too low to be accessible when not looking.

Much happier with the nikon and it;s button on the left hand side. Only i find the top plate and top display was more intuitive with the canon but now i got used to thre nikon.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Not quite true, cost was an issue but so was manufacturing technique. In the early days it was difficult to make larger high resolution sensors without defects, in 1986 Kodak 'invented' the megapixel, which developed into a series of cameras. I used these within my work (industrial imaging) in the early 90's, and you cou could buy them at different grades depending on how many defects were present on the sensor, Grade A, B or C, Grade A high resolution cameras then were north of £25K !!!

Nowadays silicon production is much much better, and the cost of perfect (or near) perfect sensors has plummeted and resolution increased.

Back to the question, of course FF is worth it, if you need the benefits of full frame, as is MF worth it, if you need the features offered by MF. The correct sensor size is the one that meets your needs.
Click to expand...

I broadly agree but I do feel, and yes IMHO, that there is a much greater "class divide" between MF and 35mm systems than there is in the APS-C vs FF scenario?

I also feel that the whole FF vs APS-C debate was much more valid in favour of FF up to 3 or 5 years ago maybe?

There are way too many other factors to declare a simple winner here. That being said I only shoot FF in D-SLR but I do feel that APS-C, whether D-SLR or mirrorless, generally does not have to stand back an inch for most FF cameras nowadays.
 
StewartR said:
You're aware that makes no sense though?

I mean, the number the manufacturers print on the lens is the actual focal length. A 35mm lens has a focal length of 35mm, regardless of what camera it's attached to.
  • On Micro 4/3rds, 35mm is a short telephoto.
  • On APS-C, 35mm is a "normal" lens.
  • On full frame, 35mm is a slightly wide angle.
  • On medium format, 35mm is a very wide angle.
I bet medium format users don't mentally convert everything to "full frame equivalent", so why do you?
Click to expand...

Of course I am aware, hence the last sentence but I'm still allow to hate it. Lol
 
Mr Badger said:
Really? From a quick internet search:

Weight: Canon 7D Mk 2: 910g (2.01Lbs) Canon 6D Mk1: 770g (1.7Lbs).

Size: Canon 7D Mk 2: 149 x 112 x 78mm Canon 6D Mk1: Size 145 x 111 x 71mm.

So it looks like that myth is busted! ;)
Click to expand...
Bit selective, sure some crops are heavier than FF but the majority of crops are lighter, especially if you include crop factor lenses.
 
Let me put it this way... is switching to full frame worth it to you? My story... I had (still have) a Nikon D7000 (16 mp). It's a great little camera for outdoor and reasonably lit indoor occasions; but, as I was shooting more and more inside gymnasiums and wanted better results, i.e., less noise in low light, I purchased a used full frame Nikon D700 (12mp.) it was well worth it to me to make that switch. A big bonus was that now family photos at home had less noise as well. Of course, the quest for less noise never ceases as long as pocketbook allows and I've since added a D750 to the group.
 
6D is a polycarbonate body and IMHO more comparable with the 70D, 770 grams and 755 grams respectively.

5DIII (maybe 5DIV now) and 7DII are nearest equivalent FF vs Crop, 860 grams and 910 grams...... Oops! :)
 
Raymond Lin said:
1 - When I refer to 35mm, it is 35mm. When I say 200, i mean 200mm. I don't mean FF equivalent,
Click to expand...
When I used medium format film 50mm was a 50mm a 200mm was 200mm
Now I use APC sensor a 35mm lens still is 35mm, a 50mm lens still has a 50mm focal length, and a 200mm lens still has a 200mm focal length.
 
redsnappa said:
When I used medium format film 50mm was a 50mm a 200mm was 200mm
Now I use APC sensor a 35mm lens still is 35mm, a 50mm lens still has a 50mm focal length, and a 200mm lens still has a 200mm focal length.
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying but I don't think you know what I am saying.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I've made my original post in a bigger font to save people some time :p
Click to expand...
Don't forget to speak loudly when you go away on holiday, because the locals will understand you better that way. ;)
 
StewartR said:
Don't forget to speak loudly when you go away on holiday, because the locals will understand you better that way. ;)
Click to expand...

That's alright, I am tri-lingual and pretty good at languages i am not your typical "DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH?" english person. :p
 
robp said:
One thing that stood out very clearly to me when I moved to full frame was how, when shooting a kids footy match, the players had much more separation from the background. This was using the same lens as on my crop frame camera.
Click to expand...

Everything this, the DoF is so different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top