Whats the benifit of full frame?

Sorry, been too busy at work to read every post, my time here has been a little limited.

Can't honestly say I had noticed much difference at all.

For Luke. Fair enough asking the question, heck, I've asked more than a fair few myself but please don't demand that I (or anyone else) school you. A polite how about it guys should elicit a much better response.

Enjoy your becks :)
 
I shoot property interiors for my business. Full frame gets a massive thumbs up for that!
 
AliB said:
Sorry, been too busy at work to read every post, my time here has been a little limited.

Can't honestly say I had noticed much difference at all.

For Luke. Fair enough asking the question, heck, I've asked more than a fair few myself but please don't demand that I (or anyone else) school you. A polite how about it guys should elicit a much better response.

Enjoy your becks :)
Click to expand...

I enjoyed that one, im on my 5th now. In future ill put something other than "school me". It genuinly wasnt meant to come across as demanding.
 
Some of the replies to the original post are simply a joke and maybe some on here need to get off their high horse.

The guy asked a perfectly good question, one which I was interested in reading the answer to however all I read was sarcasm.

Yes he said "school me" BUT he did add a smiley after it which suggests it was in good taste and not demanding /childish !
 
Flashman said:
I shoot property interiors for my business. Full frame gets a massive thumbs up for that!
Click to expand...

Its interesting you should say that because ive been asked to do some but its for a friend whos getting into the letting side so he's not going to be paying highly enough to fund a D3. After reading all the posts I definatly think full frame has some benefits and maybe handy for my portraits but is in no way worth a purchase for a couple years-unless I start doing a wedding once a week! I think a good idea would to have a play with a full frame at some point so I can see the differences first hand.
 
lukewoodford said:
Its interesting you should say that because ive been asked to do some but its for a friend whos getting into the letting side so he's not going to be paying highly enough to fund a D3. After reading all the posts I definatly think full frame has some benefits and maybe handy for my portraits but is in no way worth a purchase for a couple years-unless I start doing a wedding once a week! I think a good idea would to have a play with a full frame at some point so I can see the differences first hand.
Click to expand...

If you want to have a cheap play, buy a second hand film slr of the bay, they can be picked up for peanuts and you'll suddenly appricate all the talk without coughing up a couple of grand!
 
For those that do not know, all 35mm SLR film cameras are full frame.

Just thought I would throw that one into the mix:)

Edit a1ex2001, you beat me to it during the 4 minutes I was playing about:)
 
Whats the benifit of full frame?
School me
Click to expand...

school you ? - no

offer my opinion? - no problem

IF and it really is a big IF everthing is equal the a full frame sensor/ camera should create better results

BUT will you see them?

a bigger sensor means bigger lenses and camera's, and only if you can afford the more expensive kit will you reap the results (of the bigger sensor)- with one possible exception and that is you really need very wide angle- in which case you may find full frame more cost effective....
 
Hard to get a straight answer here it seems. FF is good for low light, due to the larger sensor. It also offers a higher picture quality - the 5D is renowned for that. Landscapes, portraits and wedding togs are suited to FF.

Sport and wildlife togs usually prefer a crop sensor body due to the increased reach.

Note the use of the word 'usually', since any camera can be used for any application.
 
lukewoodford said:
Its interesting you should say that because ive been asked to do some but its for a friend whos getting into the letting side so he's not going to be paying highly enough to fund a D3.
Click to expand...

Just to elaborate a little...

I used to shoot with a D200 and either the 12-24 DX zoom or a 10.5 fisheye (subsequently put through Nikon's rectilinear conversion software to correct the distortion). I now use the D3 with the 14-24 2.8 zoom and get a significantly wider field of view than I could previously get with the 12-24 on the cropped sensor. It's not quite as wide as the corrected 10.5 was... but it's not far off and the IQ is dramatically better and the proportions a lot more natural (the corrected 10.5 stretches the edges... a chair on the edge of frame can look like a sofa!). In my humble, this wide angle improvement is the biggest advantage of full frame by a mile.
 
rdh said:
Slightly off topic - whats you're fave lens for indoor photography?
Click to expand...

Heh... I typed my last reply before reading your post! :) Think I just answered it but yes, it's the 14-24 2.8. Normally at 14mm but often pulled in a little.

I've never tried the 14mm 2.8 prime but understand that the zoom is a little sharper anyway. It's a hulking beast but the size and weight really don't matter a jot to me so there's not a lot of point restricting myself with the prime.

Flashy
 
rdh said:
Sport and wildlife togs usually prefer a crop sensor body due to the increased reach.
Click to expand...

Whilst that is the case, there are also a lot of wildlife photographers who shoot full frame with cameras like a 1Ds (MkII or III). People like Peter Cairns, Andy Rouse (before he moved to the full frame D3), Danny Green, etc.

It depends what you need. If reach is everything, then a cropped sensor will get you more pixels on a small subject like a bird for a given lens size.

I'm a fan of full frame largely because my lenses work in the same way (same field of view) as they have for the last 25 years.

At the end of the day, you will always be able to get a higher resolution sensor on a bigger bit of silicon but changes in technology mean that doesn't always map through to image quality. My 1Ds Mk II has bigger pixels than a 40D but worse performance in poor light.
 
Flashman said:
Heh... I typed my last reply before reading your post! :) Think I just answered it but yes, it's the 14-24 2.8. Normally at 14mm but often pulled in a little.

I've never tried the 14mm 2.8 prime but understand that the zoom is a little sharper anyway. It's a hulking beast but the size and weight really don't matter a jot to me so there's not a lot of point restricting myself with the prime.

Flashy
Click to expand...

Nice lens indeed. Got any shots online?
 
I've used crop factor cameras (Canon (1.6) since I started out in photography and last one I bought was the 30D (8.2 MP)

Although I do a lot of commercial photography my passion is wildlife so I bought the 100 - 400mm L to go along with the camera.

Now this is only a personal thing so dont all jump on me. I liked to take shots with the subject filling the frame. I like to see really sharp detail in prints, the problems began when I got bored with static shots and wanted to do action shots and still get the same clarity. Trying to capture a flying bird and getting it to fill the frame is no easy task, how many of you have inadvertantly cropped off wingtips, heads feet or tails?

This is why I moved over to the 1Ds MkIII full frame. I can keep the subject at maximum size and still get in some of the habitat too.

Quality wise !!! Same amount of pixels per mm square in the 30D as the 1Ds
Auto focus on the 1Ds is far more controlable and lightningly quick.
Wide angle really is wide angle now
More custom functions to confuse....... err tailor the camera to your own needs
Great for commercial work, higher resolutions and bigger prints for customers.
There is lots more but its all down to personal preference and needs.

Downside: £4,700.00 and an empty bank account

Trev
 
rdh said:
Nice lens indeed. Got any shots online?
Click to expand...

I'll not link you to our business website if that's OK as many of the images are taken by other property owners and are not my own. Also some of my older ones are pants and you'd never be able to tell which is which! :D

These two snaps are a good comparison of the range of the two lenses though. I snapped them just to comapre the angle of view when I first got the 14-24 and before I sold the 12-24DX. Please don't shoot me down for the quality, I never expected to show these to anybody so didn't take any care! :) As you can see I didn't even bother tidying my sweater from the chair or picking up the lens I wasn't using from the table!

Both images are shot zoomed right out. The 12-24 is shot in DX cropped mode so gives the same image as it would on any small sensor Nikon. Note that the left edge on each photo is pretty much lined up so the right hand edge of the images shows just how much more I now get with the 14-24 on the full sensor.

12-24 in DX crop mode:
12-24DX%20DX%20mode.jpg


14-24 on full frame:
14-24.jpg



Flashy
 
as-i-said said:
err, your lens' will be what they are, there's one
Click to expand...


well thats a load of crap lol


FF compared to a crop will give you less distortion for the same FOV

FF compared to a crop will give you less noise for the same amount of pixels

FF costs more than crop but less than MF digital systems

FF will give you less DOF for any given aperture and FOV compared to a crop

Crop gives you more reach and more DOF for any given aperture compared to FF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top