Upgrade to Full Frame Inevitable?

steveclem said:
Some people love demonstrating how clever they think they are, they just can't help themselves. Pop goes another potentially interesting thread,forgive us Father,we are not worthy.
Click to expand...
Why is it ruined? The question has been answered - summarised as it's not really worth it unless you print big or want an extra stop of ISO noise performance or an extra stop or so of depth of field. The next question then becomes why is that the answer - and the posts describe why that is. What's wrong with that (and remember that some people do find understanding these things interesting)?
 
It's been an interesting thread, but I like tech info.

At the end of the day they are just a bunch of cameras with different features and characteristics, and photographers use them to take pictures. Some are expensive, some less so. Some offer very detailed images and others less so. Some carry labels like 'professional' and others don't. It doesn't really matter which you use as long as it works for the situation and requirements.
 
steveclem said:
Some people love demonstrating how clever they think they are, they just can't help themselves. Pop goes another potentially interesting thread,forgive us Father,we are not worthy.
Click to expand...


The thread is entitled "Upgrade to full frame inevitable" and we're discussing the comparative merits of upgrading to full frame.



HoppyUK said:
5D2, 21mp full-frame etc.
Click to expand...

Never seems to pan out like that with real life images though. If only the word was made from resolution charts :) The differences are always more pronounced when shooting subtle details and tones, and not hard edged resolution charts. I'm not on about the 2 images I posted last in this page BTW... they were to show how a 10MP image printed to A02 compared to a higher res FF image printed A02 in response to Pete and his 40D/A02 scenario.

In essence I agree with what you're saying. I've only ever maintained that unless you have a need to print big, there's not really any point in upgrading to full frame. I'm a fussy sod, and I hate crop sensor images once printed big.. they have something about them that just looks more processed and digital... it's all in the fine details and tones in the aliased areas. Your opinions may differ. Same outcome though. Don't print big.... don't need FX. Simple.

The odd thing is about this thread is that while some of us are arguing over points most people don't care about, or don't matter that much to most people, it has had a single outcome: That upgrading to full frame has no benefit unless you have a need to produce really big images.

If you're buying a camera and your primary concern is how good the images look at A1 or whatever, then there's a real reason to go full frame. If you don't print often, and only print at A3 when you do, then there's not really a great deal of point. If you already have the lenses for full frame, then why the hell not, yes... Some FF cameras are not much more than crop cameras, but to sell your whole kit, and sink thousands into this when you don't even print big, or print at all even, is pointless.

I don't think that has ruined the thread at all. I think that's a pretty good outcome seeing as the title of the thread is "Upgrade to full frame inevitable?"

No... it's not inevitable. In fact, for most people, it would be pointless.


[edit]

Still one elephant in the room though.

Noise

D7100. 24MP DX ISO6400
JiCspid.jpg


D600. 24MP FX ISO6400
bZh4Zhm.jpg


Even a higher density FF sensor fares better

D800 36MP FX ISO6400
tSrxaTT.jpg


Shoot astro stuff? Event photography? Sports? This could be a deal breaker if you regularly head into the upper ISO ranges.

IMO, this is where manufactures should be researching and developing. Forget Pixels... we've got more than we need now. Solve this issue please.

I think the issue some have with this thread is it's utterly destroying any rationale they had for spending loads of cash... and that has annoyed them, as to go ahead and sell up everything and invest in full frame after reading this thread when you've no real need to, is causing a wee bit of cognitive dissonance I think :) "Oh.... no need then.... Damn... so that means I'll have to admit to myself that I only want one because it's "professional" and what really appeals is strutting around with the "D800" on my strap displayed prominently :)... but that would make me a bit of an idiot... Grrr... I'm angry now.... Don't like that.... must externalise my anger..... Must... find... reason.... MUST.....

NOISE!.... Thank God!... yes.... NOISE! I need it because of lower noise levels. Phew!... close call.


LOL.. sorry... couldn't resist. I know for a FACT that such people exist though... and they're more common that you realise. Only you'll know if that's you or not. :) If it is... don't shoot the messenger... just ask yourself. Do I need this, or do I just want it. If the latter.... fine... fill your boots... but you don't need to rationalise it. It's your money after all... you earned it... spend it on whatever you want. Buying stuff is cool :)
 
Last edited:
Shooting someone down for being misguided in their statements doesn't educate, it demeans. If you need to assert your sense of superiority this way I'd suggest you may be lacking something fundamental. I do however,know how to deal with internet lecturers.
 
Sorry... forget you can't have a laugh in here... this photography lark.. deadly serious and all that.
 
I've just read this thread from start to finish and then re-read it all again just to make sure that I hadn't missed anything or read/taken something the wrong way or in a way other than it was intended to be.

I didn't see anyone being shot down or demeaned and I didn't see anyone being superior, in fact I'd have to say I for one have been educated, thanks David, I appreciate and enjoyed your explanations, I also enjoy wit and a smattering of sarcasm now and then.

Steve, you really do need to remove that stick "I do however,know how to deal with internet lecturers." and lighten up, for most of us photography is a hobby and as a consequence it's FUN or we wouldn't be doing it.

Good thread with lots of interesting points and not ruined for me at all.
 
steveclem said:
Shooting someone down for being misguided in their statements doesn't educate, it demeans. If you need to assert your sense of superiority this way I'd suggest you may be lacking something fundamental. I do however,know how to deal with internet lecturers.
Click to expand...
No one has been shot down for being misguided, someone got a hard time because after he was told he was misguided, his response was still 'excuse me for knowing more about professional photography than all the professionals' :banghead:
 
Anyone can do this test and see what's what for themselves. V easy. Just go to your friendly local camera store and shoot a few pictures.

Some years ago, I went to Jessops to try a Canon 7D, as an upgrade to my 40D. They also had a 5D2, so I tried that as well, shooting out of the doorway - side by side comparisons but nothing tricky, and got them printed 15in wide on the in-store service.

Difference between 40D and 7D was negligible, 7D was better but really very little in it. But the 5D2 prints were immediately and obviously better. Sharper, less noise, cleaner colours, more shadow detail. And that was that.
 
HoppyUK said:
Anyone can do this test and see what's what for themselves. V easy. Just go to your friendly local camera store and shoot a few pictures.
Click to expand...


That can end badly too.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/nikon-d800-canon-70d-liveview-sample-test.527049/

You still have to kind of know what you're looking for and how to make truly comparative tests. Besides... reading this thread does kind of make it obvious that you only need full frame if you really need to print or display your images in very large formats.
 
For me its inevitable. Possibly because I WANT a new toy. Or because I have in interest in Milky way photography and my D7000 does quiet cut it. Maybe I want to go a bit wider than my 12-24 will go on my crop so a 14-24 would be wider.

I may be wrong. But I doubt I'll be disappointed.
 
I've just read this whole thread and found it very interesting. I think I've learnt a bit, which is always a bonus. ;-)

Technically many that upgrade from a APS\DX system may not see a huge benefit unless they print large, but there may be other benefits. Better high ISO performance may be one, but then that would be comparing cameras from similar generations. Go too far back with FF and the noise performance may not be there compared to a modern crop sensor.

And while again technically some users may not see huge differences some will because they are going from a crop sensor system, with lenses designed for crop sensors to better lenses designed to work with the FF/35mm imaging area. A 600D with a 18-55mm lens may not produce as good images as a 5DII with a 24-70mm, partly because of the sensor, but also because of the lens. Would the average person be able to see the difference? Depends on the scene and if the average saw each pic side by side. If the person taking the pics can see a difference, and they are happy to go to the expense and a possible increase in the size and amount of gear they are willing to carry then good luck to them. One would hope that the better lenses would make a difference. Would the difference be so noticeable if the person already has the better lenses? Probably not from reading through this thread.

Dynamic Range is generally larger for FF sensors, (depending on the generation) and for some subjects this could be important too. For most people though most cameras have enough DR for most scene taken by most people.

The actual ergonomics and size of the camera can influence the choice of camera too. Some people are sacrificing userability for size, while others choose the larger camera with direct tactile access to the camera functions. A generalisation for some cameras, but the cameras with lots of buttons and direct access to lots of settings are normally aimed at Pros who need to change settings quickly. Most users don't need this, but some may want this. I know I like direct access toa lot of the settings on my camera.

For some, especially as they get older, ;-) it is what is the smallest system which can give them the image quality, and that is all down to the individual. As time goes on there are more and more choices to find the best camera/lens/system combination for you. :) For most people that will probably not be FF, so FF is not inevitable.
 
Last edited:
Ken Rockwell reckons FF 'smoke' smaller sensors, so I'm going with that.

I am just waiting on a 6D and will have the ability to compare it with the 7D I know and love. The only thing I may dislike about the 6D is the slight change in button placement and the 'lightness' of it. It does seem a little flimsier and, being what I am, prefer the brick like build of the 7D.
 
I'm sure its already been said, but I cant be bothered to read all the post for this tread, Upgrade to Full Frame Inevitable? That I entirely up to the individual. Obviously the more you spend on a camera, lenses and equipment the better the quality of the end product should be if used right, But that will not make you a better photographer. Only you can decide how serious you want to take but FF isn't the holy grail in landscape photography but it is a decent improvement.
 
ojo said:
Ken Rockwell reckons FF 'smoke' smaller sensors, so I'm going with that.
Click to expand...

So despite everything you've read and seen in this thread.... including hard, irrefutable photographic evidence, you'd still rather trust Ken Cockwell? Fair enough. They are better, yes, but SMOKE smaller sensors? I hope you're just being sarcastic... otherwise I'm losing faith in humanity.

They're better, yes... that's a fact, But SMOKE smaller sensors? Bit extreme I'd say. If you print big there's a definite advantage, yes.. Do you print big? If not.. you'll probably not really notice much of a difference with the latest crop cameras like the D7100... 24MP with no AA filter. The gap isn't massive, and certainly not noticeable at A3 sizes of print unless you know what you're looking for, or have the same image printed frm a FF camera for comparison. If all you do it publish online, then it really is an utter waste of money going full frame.

Remember, we're talking about someone who reckons you don't need more than 8MP no matter how big you print. We've put that one to bed in this thread as well.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
So despite everything you've read and seen in this thread.... including hard, irrefutable photographic evidence, you'd still rather trust Ken Cockwell? Fair enough. They are better, yes, but SMOKE smaller sensors? I hope you're just being sarcastic... otherwise I'm losing faith in humanity.

They're better, yes... that's a fact, But SMOKE smaller sensors? Bit extreme I'd say. If you print big there's a definite advantage, yes.. Do you print big? If not.. you'll probably not really notice much of a difference with the latest crop cameras like the D7100... 24MP with no AA filter. The gap isn't massive, and certainly not noticeable at A3 sizes of print unless you know what you're looking for, or have the same image printed frm a FF camera for comparison. If all you do it publish online, then it really is an utter waste of money going full frame.

Remember, we're talking about someone who reckons you don't need more than 8MP no matter how big you print. We've put that one to bed in this thread as well.
Click to expand...

Here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

And a select quote:

"If you worry about unimportant minutiae like sharpness, resolution and noise, please don't waste any more time with small format DSLRs. Step up to at least a full frame or FX DSLR. There will be no more whining accepted about performance of piddly-format cameras anymore. "

So there.

He also has workshops and lots of lenses and many camera bodies, some of them MF, so he really does know his stuff. His reviews are well known, even in Mongolia, and he uses a rangefinder so does not need any of that AF.



*cough*
 
Last edited:
ojo said:
Here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

And a select quote:

"If you worry about unimportant minutiae like sharpness, resolution and noise, please don't waste any more time with small format DSLRs. Step up to at least a full frame or FX DSLR. There will be no more whining accepted about performance of piddly-format cameras anymore. "

So there.

He also has workshops and lots of lenses and many camera bodies, some of them MF, so he really does know his stuff. His reviews are well known, even in Mongolia, and he uses a rangefinder so does not need any of that AF.



*cough*
Click to expand...

When you first posted I thought you were taking the P!ss but I wasn't sure, thanks for clarifying :D :D
 
ojo said:
Here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

And a select quote:

"If you worry about unimportant minutiae like sharpness, resolution and noise, please don't waste any more time with small format DSLRs. Step up to at least a full frame or FX DSLR. There will be no more whining accepted about performance of piddly-format cameras anymore. "

So there.

He also has workshops and lots of lenses and many camera bodies, some of them MF, so he really does know his stuff. His reviews are well known, even in Mongolia, and he uses a rangefinder so does not need any of that AF.



*cough*
Click to expand...
oooh.. he has lots of cameras and lenses... LOL So do I. And?

All he's doing is making himself look like an arse. All the information you'll ever need is right here in this thread.
Cockwell just says what B&H tell him to. As for running courses... well.. so do I. A BA(Hons) course.

He says what B&H tell him to, because they provide all his gear.
 
Because he talks crap and people like ojo obviously hang on to his every word. He's got no interest in helping beginners at all. He contradicts himself constantly and delivers factually incorrect information... and he's not impartial.. he's B&H's bitch. You need more reasons?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Because he talks crap and people like ojo obviously hang on to his every word. He contradicts himself constantly and delivers factually incorrect information... and he's not impartial.. he's B&H's bitch. You need more reasons?
Click to expand...

I am bored of this now, so can somebody please enlighten this person on not taking things too seriously?

As for 'Pookeyhead', please let us know where you deliver your BA(Hons) course so I can tell my students to avoid it at all costs.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Because he talks crap and people like ojo obviously hang on to his every word. He's got no interest in helping beginners at all. He contradicts himself constantly and delivers factually incorrect information... and he's not impartial.. he's B&H's bitch. You need more reasons?
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't follow this Rockwell guy, but your behaviour on this matter is disgraceful.
 
ojo said:
I am bored of this now, so can somebody please enlighten this person on not taking things too seriously?

As for 'Pookeyhead', please let us know where you deliver your BA(Hons) course so I can tell my students to avoid it at all costs.
Click to expand...

based on what? Enlightening you that Ken Rockwell is well known for talking [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]? I've just done you a favour.. you just don't realise it yet.

There are some very knowledgeable people in this thread giving you all the information you will ever need about upgrading to full frame.
 
kev2010 said:
Like I said, I don't follow this Rockwell guy, but your behaviour on this matter is disgraceful.
Click to expand...

Are you just a Saturday night troll or do you do this on a regular basis ? :rolleyes:
 
Pookeyhead said:
based on what? Enlightening you that Ken Rockwell is well known for talking [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]? I've just done you a favour.. you just don't realise it yet.

There are some very knowledgeable people in this thread giving you all the information you will ever need about upgrading to full frame.
Click to expand...

Do I have to spell it out? I was obviously being tongue in cheek. If you highlight the blank space under post #97, it makes it even clearer.

However, your dogmatic attitude and unwillingness to detect heavy handed sarcasm implies that you really don't want to listen to others.

Ken is okay, he is entertaining and does make me smile. I find his attitude better than some in the photography word...
 
ojo said:
Do I have to spell it out? I was obviously being tongue in cheek. If you highlight the blank space under post #97, it makes it even clearer.
Click to expand...

You utter ****! :)

Didn't see the "cough"


ojo said:
However, your dogmatic attitude and unwillingness to detect heavy handed sarcasm implies that you really don't want to listen to others.
Click to expand...

If only you knew how many people type stuff just like you did, and are deadly serious... you'd understand.

I apologise unreservedly... to you... not Cockwell. :)
 
Cheers :)

Anyway, I'll compare the 6D to the 7D when I get it. Really, I probably won't really notice too much difference day-to-day but in low-light I am sure it's going to be obvious.
 
It won't be an earth shattering difference sharpness wise, no.. never is until you go big. The 7D's noise was never a selling point for it though. DP's testing methodology for ISO is really robust though..

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d/23

Download the high ISO RAW files for the 7D and 6D.... there's a VERY pronounced difference, and I;d say if noise is important to you, it would be a VERY worthwhile upgrade.

Don;t compare JPEGs... they'll be using the camera's NR.... look at the RAWs. The 6D is a huge improvement... as you'd expect.

[edit]

Having a second look now... I'd say it gives the D4 a run for it's money up to ISO6400. It's very good...

[edit again[ scratch that... just seen the 25600 RAWs.. it IS as good as the D4.


Quite jealous of it's noise handling actually.
 
Last edited:
Cheers.

In all honesty, I don't think I am a skilled enough user to benefit massively from a FF but I have a few projects in the future where low light is inevitable. After a difficult attempt at getting something workable from a badly lit music gig, I realised the 7D's noise is... noisey. Turning all your images to a 'grainy b&w' feels like cheating.

That link is excellent. Many thanks!
 
ojo said:
Cheers.

In all honesty, I don't think I am a skilled enough user to benefit massively from a FF but I have a few projects in the future where low light is inevitable.
Click to expand...

Then if you were considering it anyway.... would make sense.

Having had a proper good old look in Photoshop, the D4 is better.... but only just.

6D @ 25,600
I9cq8XZ.jpg


D4 @ 25,600
jAKoEGg.jpg


Not much in it at all.

[edit] Just in case anyone doesn't use DP... these are heavy crops.

rlsN585.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well I've learned something reading this thread so thanks for the technical info folks, very interesting :)

(D700, D3200 and V1 owner, I use the correct tool for the (usually unpaid) job :D)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top