Is Full Frame worth it?

Sectionate said:
Everything this, the DoF is so different.
Click to expand...

Larger sensors generally yield better (shallower) DOF

That could also be a trap...have you ever shot Canon's super yummilicious 85/1.2 at f/1.2?:eek:
 
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...

Of course that would happen if you used the same lens in the same way. The interesting question is whether that would have happened if you'd used an appropriately different lens, e.g. shorter focal length and wider aperture.
 
chris malcolm said:
Of course that would happen if you used the same lens in the same way. The interesting question is whether that would have happened if you'd used an appropriately different lens, e.g. shorter focal length and wider aperture.
Click to expand...
But wider apertures cost a lot in weight and ££s
A 200mm f2 on crop is comparable to a 300mm 2.8 on FF but the weight / size / cost gaps close.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
 
Other than "because we can", please tell me again why an f/2 or f/2,8 lens is so much better than an f/4 lens in this day and age where ISO settings look like telephone numbers?

Film days, fair enough, I can understand that it made the difference between getting the shot or not at times...
 
Shallower DoF at maximum aperture. Possibly marginally sharper at the slower lens's maximum aperture. Bragging rights!
 
antonroland said:
Other than "because we can", please tell me again why an f/2 or f/2,8 lens is so much better than an f/4 lens in this day and age where ISO settings look like telephone numbers?

.
Click to expand...

Because people will scoff at you if you take photos that don't have the shallowest depth of field possible.
 
Nod said:
Shallower DoF at maximum aperture. Possibly marginally sharper at the slower lens's maximum aperture. Bragging rights!
Click to expand...

How much really, possibly and EXACTLY!!:D
 
antonroland said:
Other than "because we can", please tell me again why an f/2 or f/2,8 lens is so much better than an f/4 lens in this day and age where ISO settings look like telephone numbers?

Film days, fair enough, I can understand that it made the difference between getting the shot or not at times...
Click to expand...
Pros:
Brighter viewfinder,
Can always stop down to f/4 from f/2 or f/2.8.
One extra stop of shutter speed at a given ISO
Shallower DOF.
In some cases the wider aperture lens is aimed at the 'professional' user so may also benefit from better glass and overall construction
Constant aperture over the zoom range, though not always true of course.
Less likely to have rotating front element

Cons:
More expensive
Heavier
Need bigger filters
Less portable
 
antonroland said:
Other than "because we can", please tell me again why an f/2 or f/2,8 lens is so much better than an f/4 lens in this day and age where ISO settings look like telephone numbers?

Film days, fair enough, I can understand that it made the difference between getting the shot or not at times...
Click to expand...
I thought the whole point of photography was to 'create an image' not just record a scene.
Using a 35mm 1.4 at 1.4 and ISO 1600 will produce a completely different image than using an f4 zoom at f4 and 12800. It doesn't matter how 'good' the high ISO image is, it's a different picture.

I could also use 400 ISO and add some light, again the IQ would be fine but the picture will be different.
 
Phil V said:
I thought the whole point of photography was to 'create an image' not just record a scene.
Using a 35mm 1.4 at 1.4 and ISO 1600 will produce a completely different image than using an f4 zoom at f4 and 12800. It doesn't matter how 'good' the high ISO image is, it's a different picture.

I could also use 400 ISO and add some light, again the IQ would be fine but the picture will be different.
Click to expand...

If there is a point to this I do not get it, sorry...:thinking:
 
antonroland said:
Other than "because we can", please tell me again why an f/2 or f/2,8 lens is so much better than an f/4 lens in this day and age where ISO settings look like telephone numbers?
..
Click to expand...
Better?
That depends what you're trying to do with it.

If you're looking for an image with a shallow depth of field and a nice bokeh then use the wide aperture lens. The f/4 at a higher ISO is NOT going to give you the same image.
 
The point is you can get shallower depth of field with full frame cameras without having to resort to wider aperture lenses and the cost or focal length constraints that might bring. The first thing I noticed when I moved to a FF camera was the noticeably shallower DoF it produced, it was like going back to a 35mm SLR film camera again. I wouldn't want to go back to a crop sensor camera again now, as for the type of photography I do FF suits me better. Other people may be happy with a crop sensor for the type of photography they do, or want to do, and that's absolutely fine. FF or crop, they are just tools in the box, they can do pretty much the same job, or slightly different individual jobs, and there are a range of accessories for them to enable the function overlap between them to be less, so choose the one you think will suit you best. So is FF worth it? I depends on what the 'it' you want, like or need is, and how much money you're happy to spend.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I thought the whole point of photography was to 'create an image' not just record a scene.
Using a 35mm 1.4 at 1.4 and ISO 1600 will produce a completely different image than using an f4 zoom at f4 and 12800. It doesn't matter how 'good' the high ISO image is, it's a different picture.

I could also use 400 ISO and add some light, again the IQ would be fine but the picture will be different.
Click to expand...
The real difference is what type of photography you do. When I buy a lens, I take no notice at all of the max aperture as I am unlikely to ever drop below f/5.6 and even that wide is an adventure for me. F/8 was invented for a reason.

It took me a long time to realise that, as wide aperture lenses get marketed as 'better' without 'better' ever being defined. While Phil is right that the aperture changes the resulting picture, not all those other possible pictures are desirable for all if us - they are not for me and not, I suspect, for Anton.
 
Last edited:
john.margetts said:
The real difference is what type of photography you do. When I buy a lens, I take no notice at all of the max aperture as I am unlikely to ever drop below f/5.6 and even that wide is an adventure for me. F/8 was invented for a reason.

It took me a long time to realise that as wide aperture lenses get marketed as 'better' without 'better' ever being defined. While Phil is right that the aperture changes the resulting picture, not all those other possible pictures are desirable for all if us - they are not for me and not, I suspect, for Anton.
Click to expand...

I only use lenses wide open when the dim light conditions force it on me. I do like subject isolation, blurred backgrounds, good quality bokeh, when I'm doing portraits of flowers or faces or head and shoulders. However, I do like to get all of the flower in focus, and the head in focus from nose to ears. For these kinds of portraits I'll mostly use lenses with focal lengths of at least 85mm. Even though I have a crop sensor camera, that means I can't use anything below f2.8, and even f2.8 is rarely used. For flower portraits it's usually f8-f22. For people it's usually f4-f8.

I wonder if female portraits are an influence here? I sometimes give female friends candid-style portraits that I've shot during a party or outing, and I'm often criticised for having shown their wrinkles in the photograph. By shooting with a wider aperture focused a little bit in front or behind them, and being careful to include enough frontal fill light to fill in the wrinkle shadows, I could reduce the appearance of the wrinkles, and reduce it even more by applying strong enough "noise" reduction. That's what they prefer. But it's not what they actually look like. I'm not into narcissistic fantasy photography :-)
 
antonroland said:
If there is a point to this I do not get it, sorry...:thinking:
Click to expand...
I was answering your post.
I'm sorry if you don't understand the point you raised. ;)
How could I be clearer?
Faster lenses produce a different image, if you don't want that image, or understand it's value, that's fine.
But some of us do.

As someone above rarely shoots wider than 5.6, but I rarely shoot smaller than that. And when I do it's usually to get a slower ss. I rarely want that much DoF.
For me, my photography is usually about making a picture that gives prominence to a subject, whether with composition, dof, or lighting. And my subjects rarely need a large DoF.

YMMV
 
Last edited:
john.margetts said:
The real difference is what type of photography you do. When I buy a lens, I take no notice at all of the max aperture as I am unlikely to ever drop below f/5.6 and even that wide is an adventure for me. F/8 was invented for a reason.
.
Click to expand...
Given your talking about depth of field and not light gathering ability F8 dof is only F8 dof depending on what camera system your discussing. F8 on 35mm isn't F8 on crop (for dof) It's F5 on a crop camera and F4.5* on a canon crop camera.

*ish.
 
Brazo said:
Given your talking about depth of field and not light gathering ability F8 dof is only F8 dof depending on what camera system your discussing. F8 on 35mm isn't F8 on crop (for dof) It's F5 on a crop camera and F4.5* on a canon crop camera.

*ish.
Click to expand...
Depth of field is not the only concern. Each lens has a 'sweet spot' and, together with depth of field, I want that sweet spot. That does not depend on sensor at all. I also did not say I always shot at f/8, just that I rarely shot wider - lenses go a lot narrower!
 
john.margetts said:
Depth of field is not the only concern. Each lens has a 'sweet spot' and, together with depth of field, I want that sweet spot. That does not depend on sensor at all. I also did not say I always shot at f/8, just that I rarely shot wider - lenses go a lot narrower!
Click to expand...
You'll be well into diffraction by F8 on a crop sensor though so if you rarely shoot wider you'll be missing out on that sweet spot.
 
Brazo said:
You'll be well into diffraction by F8 on a crop sensor though so if you rarely shoot wider you'll be missing out on that sweet spot.
Click to expand...
Nope
1. That's at f5,6
2 if not pixelpeeping at x100% youve got plenty of leeway before it's obvious and on print youll need to go bigger than most......or at least I need to
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brazo said:
You'll be well into diffraction by F8 on a crop sensor though so if you rarely shoot wider you'll be missing out on that sweet spot.
Click to expand...

That's not my experience. I've been shooting a variety of crop sensor camera bodies since 2006, with an increasingly large collection of lenses. I'm an experienced pixel-peeping detail resolution hound. I've tested most of my lenses through their range of apertures to find out where diffraction softening starts. It varies quite a bit from lens to lens. My best lenses are sharpest at around f4, in other words diffraction softening starts just past f4, whereas my poorest lenses are sharpest at f11.

To expand on and explain that a bit of diffraction softening theory is appropriate.

Diffraction image softening is something that happens at all apertures. My semi-educated understanding (to which I welcome corrections) is that diffraction image softening is caused by the diffraction (bending) of the light rays as they pass close to the edges of the aperture. Those bent rays are thus unable to participate in the sharp focusing of image detail, and instead scatter elsewhere to soften the image and lower contrast. Real lenses however have some imperfections which are reduced by stopping the lens down, reducing the aperture.

Since the image is formed by the total amount of light entering the lens, i.e. the diameter of the effective aperture, which is a circle, the amount of light producing the sharply focused image is proportional to the square of the diameter of the effective aperture. The size of the diffractive edge of the aperture, however, is simply proportional to the diameter. So the larger the aperture the less is the proportion of diffractive edge to image forming area, the smaller the aperture the more diffraction. It's a more subtle and complex example of a square law effect than in local artificial lighting power calculations.

So if lenses were optically totally perfect image forming devices, the larger the aperture the less diffraction image softening. They'd be sharpest with maximum contrast wide open. Perfect lenses are however a practical impossibility. The closer lens makers get to perfection the much more expensive the lens becomes to make. For economic reasons most lenses suffer from a number of optical image-forming imperfections, such as spherical aberration, which get smaller as the lens is stopped down. Diffraction image softening increases as the lens is stopped down, but so long as the stopped down increase of diffractive softening is less than the decrease of image softening due to optical imperfections then the lens will sharpen up as it's stopped down. So each lens will have its own individual optimum aperture where the sum of the softening due to optical imperfections and to diffraction will be at a minimum.

In fact since most lenses have better central sharpness than edge sharpness, and the effects of aperture-related optical imperfections often hit the image edges worst, the best aperture for central sharpness is often wider than the best aperture for edge sharpness. The best aperture for overall edge to edge sharpness will therefore be a compromise between the two.

Going back to my own lenses on my crop sensor camera I do not find, as you suggest should be the case, that I'm well into diffraction softening by f8. That's only true of my very best lenses. Most of my lenses are sharpest around f5.6 to f8, and what the sharpest aperture is depends on whether I'm going purely for central subject sharpness, or edge to edge overall sharpness.

Most of my photographs aren't taken with any of my optically good lenses, however. I usually take a camera with me whenever I go out, just in case. Often I never take it out of the bag, but I get so annoyed if I leave it at home and a good photo opportunity turns up. Not knowing in advance what kind of photo opportunities might turn up I usually just take the camera out with only one lens, a general purpose Swiss Army Knife of a lens whose primary virtue is a very large zoom range. In pursuit of the large zoom range some other aspects of lens image quality have been sacrificed. With that lens if I'm going for best edge to edge sharpness with that lens I'll often stop it down to f11.
 
@chris malcolm
@soeren

I can't help but think we are saying the same thing. You've both said diffraction starts earlier than f8 and I said your well into diffraction by f8.

Yes it is lens variable and yes whether your eyes can see it or whether it's test chart only. Fact remains f8 on a crop camera isn't the sweet spot and that was my point.
 
to answer the op original question simply

yes f/f is well worth it .
 
Brazo said:
@chris malcolm
@soeren

I can't help but think we are saying the same thing. You've both said diffraction starts earlier than f8 and I said your well into diffraction by f8.

Yes it is lens variable and yes whether your eyes can see it or whether it's test chart only. Fact remains f8 on a crop camera isn't the sweet spot and that was my point.
Click to expand...
No I didn't. I said the sweet point of my lenses was f5,6. I didn't mean to say sharpness deterioated significantly at smaller f-stops. I have a print from my 12/2 samyang taken at around f16. It's a little soft when inspected but not screamingly so and not noticeable when just looking at the pic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
john.margetts said:
Depth of field is not the only concern. Each lens has a 'sweet spot' and, together with depth of field, I want that sweet spot. That does not depend on sensor at all. I also did not say I always shot at f/8, just that I rarely shot wider - lenses go a lot narrower!
Click to expand...
I personally think aiming for a lens' sweet spot is a bizarre way of making a picture.
In fact other than in forensic imagery I can't think of an actual use for knowing the sweet spot of a lens.
 
Phil V said:
I personally think aiming for a lens' sweet spot is a bizarre way of making a picture.
In fact other than in forensic imagery I can't think of an actual use for knowing the sweet spot of a lens.
Click to expand...


Absolutely, if you got crap lenses then there's a reason to head for f8 or so. Otherwise use what you need to produce the image you require.
 
And another OP answer..............I hope so, just bought one.
 
Phil V said:
I personally think aiming for a lens' sweet spot is a bizarre way of making a picture.
In fact other than in forensic imagery I can't think of an actual use for knowing the sweet spot of a lens.
Click to expand...
Hmm studio portraits? Landscape detail kind of shots where sharpness and detail is of important but dof is not? Architecture?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Diffraction is always present, and increases with higher f/numbers. All lenses are affected equally, regardless of optical quality. Most other lens aberrations that affect sharpness are reduced at higher f/numbers, so peak sharpness is the cross-over point where the reduction in sharpness from diffraction meets the improved sharpness as other aberrations are reduced.

Better lenses deliver peak sharpness at lower f/numbers like f/4, but at that aperture they'll be sharper than a less good lens that peaks at say f/8. Both lenses will be the same at f/8, ie diffraction limited.

It's very common to find sharpness around the edges peaking at a higher f/number than the centre, eg wide zooms, as some aberrations are are more prominent off-axis.

Smaller formats like APS-C vs full-frame are hit by diffraction sooner, because they demand higher resolution from the lens for a given standard of sharpness. Diffraction hits higher resolution first, the finest details.
 
There are definitely advantages in image quality in going full frame assuming you are not focal length limited. However, I'm not sure if that would be an issue for most users as very few seem to print these days. I regularly print images at iso 3200 or 6400 at A3. They have noise when viewed on the screen but are usually noise free when printed.

I have had both a full frame and crop in my bag for at least a decade, both Canon and Nikon. I nearly always use full frame except when I have got enough focal length. The only exceptions are when I want greater depth of field such as a landscape with a close foreground and in Macro. Both of those scenarios can be overcome with focus stacking though. Best of both worlds and two bodies is a good place to be if funds allow.
 
hamster100 said:
Wow, thanks guys, some really good useful information and advise you've all given me. Some of which I hadn't given that much thought too like the handling and ergonomics of the body. I know they are larger and heavier but hadn't thought about the handling. I will try before I buy.

I just want to make sure that I make the correct choice before parting with my hard earned. It's not so much a desire to have the best gear, but after 40 odd years of taking pictures I still want to continue improving my photography and don't want to make the wrong choice. The money is not so much an issue as I will have to save up anyway, but just want to ensure I spend it wisely.

I'm in no rush, so I will do my homework first, and no doubt I will let you all know what I decide and of course post some of my efforts on TP

Thanks to you all

Doug

PS Keep the advice coming.
Click to expand...


Doug,
I might be ignorant of all the different technologies, but I have first hand experience of both types and the one thing, as a professional photographer, that I find quite amusing is the 'arms race' amongst photographers to have the very latest kit. The reason people give is to 'improve image quality'. For Pete's sake, what are you doing with your pictures that you need more file information than you are currently getting? I have just had my 1014th front cover (this month's BSH, a HD sideways engined bike with solid girder forks if you have a look on the shelf) - it was shot with my D4s before I lost it, BUT and this is the thing, it looks NO DIFFERENT to any of the covers I shot with the D3 a year beforehand. WHY? Because the D3 gave me jpegs of around the 8MB mark, sometimes with a simple colour scheme in the frame it would be as low as 2MB for the same size picture (I don't understand fully why, but it was explained to me that jpegs are like painting with numbers and the camera lists a set of instructions, paint this tone 1, this tone 2 etc and if there is a lot of tone 1 it doesn't take much memory to store the instructions, which is why a simle tone range is a small file size and complicated one is much bigger....whether that is true or not I have no idea, but it gives me a mental picture I can understand!)

Now, when I send my pictures into the magazine, taken at full size on the D3....the finished printed page uses about 70% of the actual resolution I provided in the first place. That means they took my rubbish, low image quality jpeg (it wasn't RAW!) and downsized it, making the full resolution of the D3 more than enough.....when I swapped to the D4s what do you think happened? YEP, they took the now 50% bigger image file and simply threw even more of it away......so why do I need to shoot an image at 20MB for it to be downgraded to about 4MB....and here are people producing pictures that will only ever be seen on a screen at a resolution of about 900kb shooting them at 50MB and then throwing away the rest? This was partly why I went to the Fuji instead of getting another D4s (it turns out that would have been much easier). Only the Fuji is so in advance of the Nikon flagship at the time that even though it is so close to as good that you would have to be a scientist to tell the difference and as far as I know images generally capture the imagination through visual impact within the first 2 seconds of them being seen.....how many people browsing magazines, or their equivalent on a computer, stop to analyse the technical details of the image they are looking at? ONLY PHOTOGRAPHERS. Image buyers certainly don't, they are far more interested in the MESSAGE the picture provides, as long as it is 'good enough' it is good enough and as we have seen above, obsolete cameras (my D3) are still about 5x better than 'good enough' and a decent modern crop camera is about 10x better than 'good enough', if not more......even for high end advertising. The ONLY reason to get a full frame now is to say you have got one, the wide angle thing has been beaten by modern lenses, fisheye and super wides are available for crop cameras that are exquisite and way better resolution than actually required FOR ANY JOB.

An analogy would be the 70mph limit and traffic congestion - what the hell use is a Ferrari F50 or Maclaren F1? They are still stuck in the traffic jam or limited to the same speed, so all that engine is completely wasted, it is just burning more fuel, and barely using 50hp of its available 800hp to trundle along at walking pace in the queue....the number of opportunities (jobs that actually require) the full capability are so few and far between and so limited to the top 6 photographers in the world......

Just an observation from someone who is a bit more down-to-earth than the majority of the sheeple who have to chase the latest gadget just for the sake of it. Having a nice camera is nice, but there are now VERY NICE crop cameras that are as close to the equal of their full frame counterparts it isn't worth worrying about. Take into account the very considerable size and weight penalty of a full frame system too - my Fuji OUTFIT weighs the same as the D4s with 70-200 only. I have gone from lugging around about 18kgs of kit to each job, to about 5kgs.....that alone is worth its weight in gold!
 
Last edited:
An A4 magazine cover (rounded down to 8x11 inches) needs about 8MP to give the oft quoted 300?/" pixel density required for arm's length perusal.

Shame about the forks on that sideways Harley - they look quite agricultural compared to the rest of the engineering on the bike!
 
In fact I'm seriously thinking of going M43 due to the weight of my bag, my back won't stand it any longer.

So may go from my Canon 6D kit to Olympus.

I'll try one first to see if it gives me all I need though.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I've always said a D700 with 12MP is more than enough resolution.

I stand by that comment today.

In fact I know pros who are using them.
Click to expand...

D700's are amazing cameras! I used one for a while but the Canon is too deep in my blood...which is why I am buying another 5D 1...and hoping to collect a few more over time.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
In fact I'm seriously thinking of going M43 due to the weight of my bag, my back won't stand it any longer.

So may go from my Canon 6D kit to Olympus.

I'll try one first to see if it gives me all I need though.
Click to expand...

Why not consider Fuji?
 
Lensflare said:
The ONLY reason to get a full frame now is to say you have got one, the wide angle thing has been beaten by modern lenses, fisheye and super wides are available for crop cameras that are exquisite and way better resolution than actually required FOR ANY JOB.

An analogy would be the 70mph limit and traffic congestion - what the hell use is a Ferrari F50 or Maclaren F1? They are still stuck in the traffic jam or limited to the same speed, so all that engine is completely wasted, it is just burning more fuel, and barely using 50hp of its available 800hp to trundle along at walking pace in the queue....the number of opportunities (jobs that actually require) the full capability are so few and far between and so limited to the top 6 photographers in the world......

Just an observation from someone who is a bit more down-to-earth than the majority of the sheeple who have to chase the latest gadget just for the sake of it. Having a nice camera is nice, but there are now VERY NICE crop cameras that are as close to the equal of their full frame counterparts it isn't worth worrying about. Take into account the very considerable size and weight penalty of a full frame system too - my Fuji OUTFIT weighs the same as the D4s with 70-200 only. I have gone from lugging around about 18kgs of kit to each job, to about 5kgs.....that alone is worth its weight in gold!
Click to expand...

All that may be true for someone wanting an end product to sell, an end product that does the job and is perfectly good enough but what about the luxury and joy of it all? These are things that professionals can doubtless value too but maybe their business mind sometimes takes over and stops them buying kit that's overkill.

I suppose it's the same in many areas of interest. Why buy a nice watch when you can get one for £10? Why buy a nice pen when you can get a pack of 10 from The Pound Shop? Why buy a nice suit when you can get jeans and a T shirt for under £20? The boom box is good enough so why spend several £k on a HiFi? A Nissan Micra is perfectly adequate so who would but a Lotus Elise? To me this is missing the point. It isn't always true that a Linn Sondek or a Lotus Elise or a nice watch or pen are irrelevant pointless overkill because sometimes people just need the love, the feel, the magic or whatever you want to call it.

I have Panasonic MFT and a FF Sony A7. The A7 gives the best image quality and I don't care if no one else knows it because I can see the difference and I enjoy it.

Actually I bought the A7 for another reason too, it allows me to use old lenses at their intended FoV :D The quality of it matters too and I wouldn't be as happy with it if it allowed me to use old lenses at their intended FoV but was no better than MFT. To each their own, YMMV.
 
Due to the artifacts in foliage I have witnessed (even in the RAW) and waxy skin which are demonstrated even in the Fuji thread here.

Had an XT2 kit. Love the handling but for whatever reason I couldn't process the files without very occasionally getting the afore mentioned problems.
 
antonroland said:
D700's are amazing cameras! I used one for a while but the Canon is too deep in my blood...which is why I am buying another 5D 1...and hoping to collect a few more over time.
Click to expand...


Keep an eye on the classifieds if you fancy a mint 6D soon.

I've a feeling I'll be chopping it in the MFT stuff if all goes well.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Keep an eye on the classifieds if you fancy a mint 6D soon.

I've a feeling I'll be chopping it in the MFT stuff if all goes well.
Click to expand...

The 6D does not really appeal to me and for no objective reason...I would not mind amassing MANY 5D1 bodies over time though, having owned 2 in the past and now buying one again.

There is just that something about a 5D1 image...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top