This thread .....

Status
Not open for further replies.
-Rob- said:
There really are some stupid people in this thread that have no idea what 'better' actually means.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the vast majority of people in this forum, it doesn't really make much difference whether you use full frame or not, as I've already demonstrated. This obsession with full frame is utterly stupid. People upgrading just because it's "better" when it offers no tangible advantage is just stupid. Unless you print really big there's just no point.

-Rob- said:
Based on that I stand by my opinion that full frame is better than crop sensor cameras.
Click to expand...

Based on that then, you'd have no trouble whatsoever telling those two A3 files apart :) Put your money where your mouth is.
 
-Rob- said:
Allow me to use a different analogy to show my opinion of the meaning of better.

If I was to say that Christiano Ronaldo was a better footballer than Wayne Rooney would you assume I was implying that Wayne Rooney can't play football or that every goal Ronaldo scores is better than Rooney's? No, I'd hope you wouldn't. You'd probably assume that although they are both very good and can both do a job one is in fact marginally better than the other when you take everything in to account.

You could apply the same logic to the Canon 5D, 5D MkII & 5D MkIII. All are very capable cameras. The 5D didn't become any less capable when the MkII came out but the MkII is better. Ditto with the mark MkIII.

Better DOES NOT mean that all other things are crap and useless, just that on the balance of all things it can and can't do it is overall a more superior performer. Based on that I stand by my opinion that full frame is better than crop sensor cameras.
Click to expand...

It isn't a question of how capable the camera is though, it's more how appropriate what you're using is for a given task. If I'm shooting generally then I'll use my 5D2 rather than my 7D for exactly the reasons you're saying - there's no doubt the 5D2 gives cleaner, sharper images than the 7D. No-one here is doubting that, not one little bit.

But if I'm shooting sports or something else fast-paced then the 5D2 isn't going to be as appropriate as my 7D as I need speed rather than all out quality. Also the crop of APS-C can work for you in certain situations.

This is why there's no such thing as a "better" camera. This is why it's utter nonsense saying outright that every full frame camera is better than every crop camera. Full frame may well be better for what you do than APS-H, APS-C, DX, 4/3 or any other crop format DSLR, but that doesn't mean it's better for every single application.

This is such a simple concept, it's first year schoolboy elementary stuff. I have no idea why you're having such difficulty in grasping it.
 
PMN said:
It isn't a question of how capable the camera is though, it's more how appropriate what you're using is for a given task.
Click to expand...

Damned right... put it this way, if I was going in for a colonoscopy, given the choice, I'd far rather have the appropriate medical camera used than someone stuffing a Canon 1Dx up there...
 
Or to stick with the Ronaldo analogy.
'Best footballer?' So he'd be great in goal? Or as a quarterback?

Nope. There's a very specific thing he's 'best' at, and whilst your simplistic view makes him the 'best footballer' that doesn't mean that either
A. Everyone would agree (it's a subjective decision)
B. We're all seeing 'best footballer' as the same thing (a seriously stupid assumption)
C. Specific criteria against which you're measuring. (He's not the best goalie or defender)

So it's not about 'the very best' or anything else being rubbish, but an utterly simplistic view if what 'better' is.
If you want the very best IQ what you call FF is a joke. It wasn't on the requirement list. Smallest? Lightest? Easiest to use?

All cameras are a compromise, if FF is the best compromise for you, that's great. But you'd be an idiot to think that view was universal. And you're not an idiot are you?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Based on that then, you'd have no trouble whatsoever telling those two A3 files apart :) Put your money where your mouth is.
Click to expand...


Looks like he's having trouble deciding which is which.
 
-Rob- said:
Try standing on a chair because my point seems to be going over your head? (y)
Click to expand...
Maybe you could answer some of the questions that we've posed to you so that we can better understand your reasoning. Or you could carry on putting your fingers in your ears like a 6 year old asserting that you're right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
You're wasting your breath, Phil.

Never try to argue with an idiot. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
 
-Rob- said:
Try standing on a chair because my point seems to be going over your head? (y)
Click to expand...

As does ours. That better is not solely decided upon by resolution, sharpness or any of that crap that doesn't actually make your images any better, but on how appropriate the tools are for the job. As a full frame, DSLR is NOT the ideal tool for every job, it's neither better, or worse.

Besides... even IF we are deciding which is better on YOUR terms... it seems you're are unable to actually discern between 2 A3 images, one taken with a 16MP crop sensor, and one taken with a 36MP full frame camera. This pretty much nullifies your own argument.

Real life is not made up of lens charts and technical reviews. Your photography may improve if you realise this.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
The image is all that counts.

The end.

If anyone wants to know what lens I used, they can always ask me.
Click to expand...

"The image is all that counts." It's one of those statements that hard to argue with - assuming you mean pictorial merit - but that isn't why most people buy or use certain cameras, or aspire to own them cost permitting.

There are lots of reasons why enthusiasts buy particular cameras, bearing in mind the great majority are men, and of a certain age ;) Some of those reasons are based on fact, others based on more subjective perceptions, but as far as the quality of the image is concerned, that is simply defined by one thing - sharpness. Photographers have always been obsessed with sharpness and on that score, full-frame is better than APS-C. And it's very easy to see - just click on the 100% button and there it is, fact, proof.

If you want to say that's wrong, or it makes no difference in practise, or there are more important considerations, then fine, go ahead - and I'd probably agree in theory. But you'll be pushing water uphill. I have several cameras of different formats (1-inch sensor, APS-C, and full-frame) but it has to be said that it's the full-framer that gets used for almost everything, even though the little Nikon-1 would probably do most of it adequately, with a sensor 1/7th the size.
 
HoppyUK said:
"The image is all that counts." It's one of those statements that hard to argue with - assuming you mean pictorial merit - but that isn't why most people buy or use certain cameras
Click to expand...

Or use other processes.

"The image is all that matters" is a comment often mentioned in film/digital discussions too. I use film because I like it and don't like post processing on a computer - not because I think it will make my photographs better.


Steve.
 
HoppyUK said:
"The image is all that counts." It's one of those statements that hard to argue with - assuming you mean pictorial merit - but that isn't why most people buy or use certain cameras, or aspire to own them cost permitting.

There are lots of reasons why enthusiasts buy particular cameras, bearing in mind the great majority are men, and of a certain age ;)
Click to expand...

The vast majority of my students are female, and NOT of a certain age, and have been for quite a few years now.




HoppyUK said:
Some of those reasons are based on fact, others based on more subjective perceptions, but as far as the quality of the image is concerned, that is simply defined by one thing - sharpness. Photographers have always been obsessed with sharpness and on that score, full-frame is better than APS-C. And it's very easy to see - just click on the 100% button and there it is, fact, proof.
Click to expand...

Then maybe YOU can decide which of the two images I posted is APS-C and which is 35mm seeing as Rob can't :)

All that matters is the image, and the best way to get the best image, is to use the most appropriate tools. No point in picking a D810, grip, and Nikkor 70-200 2.8G to go and do street photography. Sure.. they'll be sharp, but they'll be **** as street phtography images. Surely a small range finder type compact would be MUCH better. Want the maximum reach possible?.. then a crop sensor camera will be what you're after. Want to print at over A2, or crop the hell out of your images, then maybe full frame is what you need. Need to shoot architectural images, then maybe large format is the ideal tool for the job. Want to shoot casual images on the beach on holiday? Then you're probably better off with your phone.

There is no BETTER.. just what's appropriate. If all that mattered was sharpness, how come you're all obsessed with little toy 35mm cameras anyway? Where's all your medium and large format gear then?


DO me a favour.

Sure.. sharpness is nice, but even those who never print, or never print beyond A3 seem obsessed with full frame. There's n point unless you're going to present your images in a format that can make use of the extra sharpness... and as I've irrefutably demonstrated above, at A3, you just can not tell, so what exactly is the big deal about?



HoppyUK said:
If you want to say that's wrong, or it makes no difference in practise, or there are more important considerations, then fine, go ahead
Click to expand...
That's EXACTLY what I'm saying, yes. There are FAR more important things to consider. Having the right tools for the job being the MOST important, surely?


If full frame is all you think it is, then how come NO ONE seems willing, or able to tell those two A3 images apart?
 
Pookeyhead said:
If full frame is all you think it is, then how come NO ONE seems willing, or able to tell those two A3 images apart?
Click to expand...
Maybe because neither picture is particularly good and could have been taken on any half decent camera. I can't work out what your point is from the 2 photos you've posted. ANY camera can take a half decent photo in the right conditions. Taking a photo in nice natural daylight and asking someone to guess the camera isn't a criteria for which is better.
 
-Rob- said:
Maybe because neither picture is particularly good and could have been taken on any half decent camera. I can't work out what your point is from the 2 photos you've posted. ANY camera can take a half decent photo in the right conditions. Taking a photo in nice natural daylight and asking someone to guess the camera isn't a criteria for which is better.
Click to expand...

And what do you suggest is "wrong" with the images Rob? I'd be more than happy to post up 2 more examples if you give me specific requirements. :) You'll still not be able to tell the ****ers apart at A3 though.

My point is... that if you can't tell the two images apart at A3, why do you need full frame if you don't print any larger than that?



Then what is the advantage you feel a full frame camera offers if you can't see a difference in an average shot taken in daylight? It's starting to sound like full frame is a pretty niche requirement by the way you describe it :) ...you know.. like the kind of thing you use when you have a specific requirement for it... err.. like we've been suggesting all along.. LOL

The fact is... nothing you take Rob requires full frame. You just like to think it does.
 
Last edited:
David, you seem to be looking for an argument, but you'll not get one from me. I said I'd probably agree with you, and come to think of it, I do. I'm just trying to explain why so many people buy and use full-frame, or aspire to it - and those reasons are often a long way from rational or objective, or even what they think they are, or will admit to. If it was 'all about the image' as you say, things would be different. But it's not all about the image - it's much more complicated than that. TBH, I'm surprised you seem to see have overlooked that, the psychology of it all.

And anyway, have you forgotten all your previous posts on this topic, and your 'bigger is better' mantra? A year or so ago, you were predicting the demise of APS-C and M4/3 formats, and I seem to recall you bet a tenner that full-frame would take over those formats, while medium-format digital was going to make a come-back as the affordable champion of image quality.* And more recently, weren't you contemplating selling a load of Nikon stuff to buy a Leica? What was all that about then?

*Edit: Found that thread, here http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/full-frame.463538/ There's another of your challenges in there too, in direct contradiction to the one issued on this thread, where you said"I'll take up any print challenge too... whoever mentioned that. I'll pick out a small sensor shot a A3.. easy." (post #34)
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
David, you seem to be looking for an argument,
Click to expand...

Debate... the word is debate, and I'm just responding to Rob's rediculous comments that APS-C is "great for snap shots and posting online".

HoppyUK said:
I'm just trying to explain why so many people buy and use full-frame, or aspire to it - and those reasons are often a long way from rational or objective, or even what they think they are, or will admit to. If it was 'all about the image' as you say, things would be different. But it's not all about the image - it's much more complicated than that. TBH, I'm surprised you seem to see have overlooked that, the psychology of it all.
Click to expand...


Oh.. I've not overlooked the psychology of it all. That's why this whole debate is so interesting.


HoppyUK said:
And anyway, have you forgotten all your previous posts on this topic, and your 'bigger is better' mantra? A year or so ago, you were predicting the demise of APS-C and M4/3 formats, and I seem to recall you bet a tenner that full-frame would take over those formats, while medium-format digital was going to make a come-back as the affordable champion of image quality.*

*Edit: Found that thread, here http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/full-frame.463538/ There's another of your challenges in there too, in direct contradiction to the one issued on this thread, where you said"I'll take up any print challenge too... whoever mentioned that. I'll pick out a small sensor shot a A3.. easy." (post #34)
Click to expand...


In that thread I'm discussing why images from full frame cameras are sharper, as many were saying crop sensor and even 4/3rd sensor cameras were every bit as sharp.. which is impossible. I'm not saying in THIS thread they are not good cameras. No one is. I'm saying they're not BETTER in response to ROB saying that crop sensor cameras are "great for snap shots and posting online".. which is clearly a load of crap. I think almost everyone in here is saying that full frame is sharper, more detailed, and capable of bigger prints. It's useful for other reasons too. What some can't seem to get though, is that doesn't make it "better" by any other measure, or even a "better" camera.

I still believe that medium format will get cheaper, and I firmly do believe it will change how we think about quality. Currently the difference between crop and full frame are only really an advantage when printing really big. That will still be the case if MF was as popular as FF is now... but what it will drive is people wanting big prints, so people will appreciate quality more.

I CAN tell those two images apart though Richard... can YOU? To me the difference are readily identifiable, but seeing as the quality of most images I see from full frame cameras is so poor, it's obvious that most people can not. Most people only want a full frame camera because they just want to own one, They don't have a need for it. They use inappropriate lenses, and use it inappropriately. There's only an advantage to full frame if you know how to get the most from it, otherwise the differences are pretty limited... which is why I chose 2 hand held images for this test.. to make a point. "full frame" is a small format.. in fact.. it's 35mm. 20 years ago, 35mm was what every amateur photographer wanted to avoid, as it was the toy format... the low quality format. People aspired to 120. Oh the irony. Many loved 35mm though. They loved the challenge of getting the most quality from it, and that wasn't easy. It's no easier today either. Pity no one seems to realise that.

Bigger IS better, if what you're debating is something measurable, such as sharpness and detail in big prints (which that thread is).. that's just rudimentary. Rob was saying it's a better camera though, meaning it's better for everyone, all the time. This is just obviously not the case though. Because full frame takes some changes on working practice to squeeze the most from it, it's just not the most appropriate tool for every job.

HoppyUK said:
And more recently, weren't you contemplating selling a load of Nikon stuff to buy a Leica? What was all that about then?
Click to expand...

Yeah... I wanted a smaller camera as a big SLR isn't always appropriate... as we've been saying. I wanted full frame because I often DO print very big.


What's annoying about this thread is the way some think that full frame is justified for everyone, because it's just "better". Some people's images will actually get worse if they moved to full frame.


Right tools for the job is all I'm saying.
 
Pookeyhead said:
<snip>

Right tools for the job is all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like back-pedalling through moving goal posts to me ;)

I've not even looked at your two comparison pictures. It's pointless. Just as pointless as if I was to post a few images where the differences between formats was obvious. All that would prove is how easy it is to hoodwink with highly selective examples.

On this comment though: "Most people only want a full frame camera because they just want to own one, They don't have a need for it. They use inappropriate lenses, and use it inappropriately. There's only an advantage to full frame if you know how to get the most from it, otherwise the differences are pretty limited..."

What's wrong with just wanting something? Choosing it, owning it, and enjoying using it is all perfectly valid IMHO. So what if they don't get the most from it, and who are you to judge anyway? You often say the difference between full-frame and APS-C is only visible in large prints (which ignores changes on DoF, dynamic range and noise) but this overlooks the modern way of on-screen working. We don't make so many prints these days (which is a damn shame, though a different topic) but what we all do is hit that 100% button, and then the sharpness and other benefits of full-frame are easy to see. And that's that - it's set in stone.

Back to my original point, and your statement: "The image is all that counts." Not true, even if we wanted it to be. It's no more true than saying owning a car is purely about transport and getting from A-to-B - especially if it happens to be an American muscle car. (Big :thumbs: from me on that score though :D)
 
""ROB saying that crop sensor cameras are "great for snap shots and posting online".. which is clearly a load of crap."

Full frame cameras are also great for snap shots and posting online. If you genuinely believe that crop cameras aren't good for that then maybe you are ready to conceed that full frame is better!!
 
HoppyUK said:
Sounds more like back-pedalling through moving goal posts to me ;)
Click to expand...

Not at all. You can't just say that full frame is "better" merely because it's a larger format. By that argument, a Phase One MF system is "better" still. I have access to one of those, with a IQ180 back pretty much any time I like. I rarely use that opportunity though. It's sharper than a 35mm camera, so surely it's "better" right? :) Surely I'm an idiot for not shooting everything on a £20,000 camera... it must be "better". LOL


HoppyUK said:
I've not even looked at your two comparison pictures. It's pointless. Just as pointless as if I was to post a few images where the differences between formats was obvious. All that would prove is how easy it is to hoodwink with highly selective examples.
Click to expand...

Up to a certain size, yes it is.. which is my point. If yo regularly print big, you really do need a full frame camera (assuming you know what you're doing with it). Unless you hadn't realised, I'm advocating that the best camera is the one best suited to the job you are doing.


HoppyUK said:
On this comment though: "Most people only want a full frame camera because they just want to own one, They don't have a need for it. They use inappropriate lenses, and use it inappropriately. There's only an advantage to full frame if you know how to get the most from it, otherwise the differences are pretty limited..."

What's wrong with just wanting something? Choosing it, owning it, and enjoying using it is all perfectly valid IMHO. So what if they don't get the most from it, and who are you to judge anyway?
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with that. However... just don't start expecting miracles from the gear is all. Having a full frame camera won't make your images any better. Use a tripod, or keep the speeds up... and use sympathetic apertures, and yes they'll be sharper. Usually though, you'd probably not notice much difference. In fact, how many times in here have we read about people not being happy after upgrading? A more exacting tool requires more skill to wield it.

HoppyUK said:
You often say the difference between full-frame and APS-C is only visible in large prints (which ignores changes on DoF, dynamic range and noise)
Click to expand...

It doesn't ignore that at all. Noise for example is only relative. You can't look at a print and judge what it was shot with by how noisy it is. You could be looking at a shot from a full frame camera at ISO6400 or a shot from a crop sensor camera at ISO3200. You'd never know unless you compared side by side. Same with DOF. It could be a shot from a full frame camera with a 50mm lens at f2.8, or a shot from a crop sensor camera with a 35mm lens at f1.8. You'd never know. As for dynamic range.... it's a total red herring. A Nikon D7100 has a wider dynamic range than a Canon 5D MkIII.. by almost 2 stops, so can we stop talking crap about DR please?


HoppyUK said:
but this overlooks the modern way of on-screen working. We don't make so many prints these days (which is a damn shame, though a different topic) but what we all do is hit that 100% button, and then the sharpness and other benefits of full-frame are easy to see. And that's that - it's set in stone.
Click to expand...

But no one else sees that. If you want to show the images to anyone else... you'll be doing so at best on a 8MP screen, and usually on a 2MP screen... and usually a very small one, by showing the entire image, not a small section at 100%. If all you do is sit by yourself at a screen scrolling around your images at 100% then fine, but seriously, how pathetic an individual must you be in order to do that? You'd do it once to check sharpness, or you'd be that zoomed in to retouch. You don't "look" at your images at 100% though unless you print them big.

HoppyUK said:
Back to my original point, and your statement: "The image is all that counts." Not true, even if we wanted it to be. It's no more true than saying owning a car is purely about transport and getting from A-to-B - especially if it happens to be an American muscle car. (Big (y) from me on that score though :D)
Click to expand...


Of course that's all that matters ultimately. Ultimately... that's what people see as the result of your efforts. An image. Everything else is BS. All anyone else is ever going to see, and therefore judge you by is the image. The end. No one will give a hot steaming turd about this thread in a few weeks time, but everyone, always will be judging your images, and they'll not give a stuff what it was shot on. If you don't realise that, then you're not a photographer... you're just a gear nerd playing with his toys.


-Rob- said:
""ROB saying that crop sensor cameras are "great for snap shots and posting online".. which is clearly a load of crap."

Full frame cameras are also great for snap shots and posting online. If you genuinely believe that crop cameras aren't good for that then maybe you are ready to conceed that full frame is better!!
Click to expand...

That didn't even make sense.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Oh.. I've not overlooked the psychology of it all. That's why this whole debate is so interesting.
Click to expand...

There is a certain mindset with photography, that the more expensive the better and the more you spend the better your photos. You've only got to look at the reviews on FredMiranda.

I went full frame as I've shot over 120K images on my 50D and it was a little long in the tooth. The 5D mk3 was a significant step forward and not shooting sport anymore was a sensible decision as a replacement - for me.
 
-Rob- said:
What doesn't make sense is you thinking that a crop camera is no good for taking a snap shot. That's just a bizarre thing to say.
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't. Care to quote me saying that?

You were the one implying that they're better suited to snap shots and casual stuff, and then went on to explain that full frame are ...

"FF = Better low light handing,"

...in some cases, yes... which is nice if you need that, which not everyone does.


"better dynamic range"

...simply a myth. Many crop sensor cameras have wider dynamic range than full frame cameras, unless you're also suggesting that canon full frame cameras are somehow inferior are you? Because even the best Canon can throw into the fray are around 2 stops shy of what Nikon are producing in some of their APS-C bodies at present. What the hell do you need 13 stops of DR for? Compress such a range into one image and your work looks like crap any way... unless you like the cheesy camera club HDR look of course... then knock yourself out.


"wider field of view"

Which is a distinct DISADVANTAGE to some people unless you hadn't realised.



"full frame sensors are typically housed in more 'professional' bodies."

...which is important to most people because?



The "best" camera is the ones best suited to the work you do, and as all anyone ever judges you on, is your work, then it's clearly important to have the camera best able to give you the results you need for that work. Despite what you think, that's not always a full size, full frame DSLR. Sometimes, little toy 35mm cameras can't cut it either.

I love the way you all get protective and proud of your little 35mm cameras. It's cute :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
ROB saying that crop sensor cameras are "great for snap shots and posting online".. which is clearly a load of crap.
Click to expand...
You wanted the quote, here's the quote.

Are you going to back peddle and say that actually crop cameras can be great for snap shots because I'm pretty sure any manufacturer of any crop camera would like to think they are great for snap shots.

Or are you going to mis-quote me and add the word "only" in to what I originally said? In that case you need to learn to read what people actually say rather than making assumptions.
 
Crop* sensor cameras and full frame cameras are great for snapshots, online posts and serious work. There really isn't much difference between them.

There is a much greater range of sizes in film cameras.

* Assuming crop refers to 24mm x 18mm sensors and not the smaller sensors in point and shoot cameras.


Steve.
 
-Rob- said:
You wanted the quote, here's the quote.

Are you going to back peddle and say that actually crop cameras can be great for snap shots because I'm pretty sure any manufacturer of any crop camera would like to think they are great for snap shots.

Or are you going to mis-quote me and add the word "only" in to what I originally said? In that case you need to learn to read what people actually say rather than making assumptions.
Click to expand...

Congratulations for winning this week's award for taking a comment spectacularly out of context.

Seriously, just stop. You're bordering on pathetic now and it's getting boring.
 
PMN said:
Congratulations for winning this week's award for taking a comment spectacularly out of context.
Click to expand...
I get p***ed off when my comments are taken totally out of context which is exactly what Pookeyhead did.

This whole thread is boring and pathetic. There is no argument to be had, it's merely opinion and like a55holes, we all have one.
 
-Rob- said:
I get p***ed off when my comments are taken totally out of context which is exactly what Pookeyhead did.

This whole thread is boring and pathetic. There is no argument to be had, it's merely opinion and like a55holes, we all have one.
Click to expand...
You heavily implied that APSC was ONLY good for "snapshots and posting online". Pookeyhead was disputing THAT; he wasn't arguing, as you seem to think, that APSC was no good for snapshots and online.
 
I've taken snapshots with a medium format camera before simply because it was the only camera (back up body accepted) that I had with me at the time !

Sheet film from a 10 x 8 Sinar monorail makes full frame look like 110 but why get hung up on size very few people print above 20 x 16 anyway which is absolutely fine on a crop sensor !
 
ghoti said:
You heavily implied that APSC was ONLY good for "snapshots and posting online". Pookeyhead was disputing THAT; he wasn't arguing, as you seem to think, that APSC was no good for snapshots and online.
Click to expand...
Actually what I implied was that the 2 sample photos Pookeyhead posted were just snap shots. At no point did I ever say, imply or suggest that crop cameras are ONLY good for that.
 
-Rob- said:
Actually what I implied was that the 2 sample photos Pookeyhead posted were just snap shots. At no point did I ever say, imply or suggest that crop cameras are ONLY good for that.
Click to expand...
This was before those images. Post #35.
If your implication in that post was not that APSC are only good for snapshots and online then your post was entirely pointless. So, either you meant APSC only good for snapshots and online or you, bizarrely, wrote a completely meaningless sentence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top