Why do all top togs use full frame?

C

cloudhunter

Suspended / Banned
Messages
328
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

Ive been looking on the internet most of the top photographers and am confused as to why they ALL use full frame cameras?

I can imagine full frame being an asset for landscape and high iso performance but surely its of no benefit to portrait, aviation, motorsport photography?

Any ideas? :shrug:
 
Do you only want replies from top togs?

Having FF gives you more options, I have just bought a D700 to go with my D200 so that I have both options. The crop frame camera for longer shots and the D700 for wider and high ISO stuff. The combination, I hope, will suit me.
 
The top togs won't need the extra reach for motorsport/aviation/wildlife etc, because they will have access to special areas...hence why they're the top togs! It makes more sense, if this is the case, to go for the camera that will then give them best image quality, which is generally speaking from full frame sensors!
 
Its all about the sensor. Basically, they are better. I'm gonna get shot down for saying that :D
 
cowasaki said:
Do you only want replies from top togs?

Having FF gives you more options, I have just bought a D700 to go with my D200 so that I have both options. The crop frame camera for longer shots and the D700 for wider and high ISO stuff. The combination, I hope, will suit me.
Click to expand...

Hi ive reworded the title sorry that was a bit ambigious!
 
purpleclouds said:
The top togs won't need the extra reach for motorsport/aviation/wildlife etc, because they will have access to special areas...hence why they're the top togs! It makes more sense, if this is the case, to go for the camera that will then give them best image quality, which is generally speaking from full frame sensors!
Click to expand...


Hi i can understand that. So you think they would have been APS-C up until they get special access?

If not then surely they are at a disadvantage (especially aviaiton,sports) where they need the extra reach?
 
cloudhunter said:
Hi i can understand that. So you think they would have been APS-C up until they get special access?

If not then surely they are at a disadvantage (especially aviaiton,sports) where they need the extra reach?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it'll have been a thought through switch, rather than a natural progression for better image quality...

...but the top togs will have the glass they need, negating any use for the 'extra' reach on crop sensors.

Whilst a lot of 'normal' folk may use a 300 or 400mm on a 1.6x, they'll use a 500 or 600mm on a full frame. Or that's my logic anyway :D Combined with being track/pitch/runway side, it works nicely!
 
cloudhunter said:
If not then surely they are at a disadvantage (especially aviaiton,sports) where they need the extra reach?
Click to expand...

Have you SEEN the lenses the pros use?! :D

I don't think they're complaining about lack of reach when they have 400, 500, 600mm lenses at their disposal! :)

The majority of us need the extra crop factor, because anything over 300-400mm is about the most the majority of us can afford, but if you can get longer without need for the crop factor, you can get better results with a full-frame sensor.

Also, the majority of full-frame cameras are the ones that are weather-proof, guaranteed for a million shutter activations etc, just what a pro would need!

Chris
 
chris321 said:
Have you SEEN the lenses the pros use?! :D

I don't think they're complaining about lack of reach when they have 400, 500, 600mm lenses at their disposal! :)

The majority of us need the extra crop factor, because anything over 300-400mm is about the most the majority of us can afford, but if you can get longer without need for the crop factor, you can get better results with a full-frame sensor.

Also, the majority of full-frame cameras are the ones that are weather-proof, guaranteed for a million shutter activations etc, just what a pro would need!

Chris
Click to expand...


Yeah ive seen the lenses and they must cost thousands.

Im just wondering is it really necessary?

I mean would say a Canon 5d MKII with say a 600mm lens really give such utter better quality than say a Nikon d300 with a 400mm lens? Or an Olympus E3 with a 300mm lens?

Worth thinking about!
 
The EOS 5D FF is the favoured Canon for wedding togs because the image quality is so good compared to most crops.
It's not fast enough for most sports work but for portraits and weddings it is a top dog. I have both the 5D and a 40D and the 40D (which I had first) is now my backup for both weddings and portraits.
 
it's just that they have the latest camera's - a few years back they all had D1's and were happy with them - next year they will have the top Nikon or Canon - were the pictures you see printed in magazines/papers noticeably worse 3 years ago ?
 
tim_uk said:
it's just that they have the latest camera's - a few years back they all had D1's and were happy with them - next year they will have the top Nikon or Canon - were the pictures you see printed in magazines/papers noticeably worse 3 years ago ?
Click to expand...


No i dont believe they were any worse at all1

I think if someone got really attatched to say a Canon 40d, new it inside out and got good L glass i dont think you would see any difference in quality at all!
 
FF does have it's downside - I find often it's hard to get enough DoF, my shutter speed goes down slower than I can control.
 
I have never got my head around the claim that the cropped sensor makes a lens longer. I know the theory but whats the difference between shooting on a 1.6x smaller sensor and then taking the same scene of a full sized sensor and then just enlarging the cenral amount equivalent to the cropped sensor?
 
I have a D1x which is my second camera. It is a few years old but it is really good. I love the feel of it, a proper pro quality camera. It is 5Mp which does not sound much but SO WHAT !! 5Mp is plenty I have had some really good pictures from it. (in fact when my D700 arrives on Friday and the D1x becomes my 3rd camera I will be converting it to permanent IR and it will carry on for a few more years!)
 
alexisonfire said:
Its all about the sensor. Basically, they are better. I'm gonna get shot down for saying that :D
Click to expand...


No you're not, full frame just looks nicer that's all there is to it, whether its landscape, sports, portraits whatever, it doesn't matter.
It might b****r reach up but that's only because camera manufacturers have cheated us out of full frame for so long, we are too used to the extra length crop sensors give.
I'll take full frame every day of the week, stuff length, get closer and have nicer, smoother tonal graduation.
 
artona said:
I have never got my head around the claim that the cropped sensor makes a lens longer. I know the theory but whats the difference between shooting on a 1.6x smaller sensor and then taking the same scene of a full sized sensor and then just enlarging the cenral amount equivalent to the cropped sensor?
Click to expand...

Nothing really! The lens isn't longer, it's just blowing up the middle bit of the image circle created by the lens. It is however, significantly cheaper! I'd never be able to justify spending the best part of a grand on a 5D (mk 1, secondhand, about the cheapest full-frame you could get), but £400 for a 450D is do-able :)
 
artona said:
I have never got my head around the claim that the cropped sensor makes a lens longer. I know the theory but whats the difference between shooting on a 1.6x smaller sensor and then taking the same scene of a full sized sensor and then just enlarging the cenral amount equivalent to the cropped sensor?
Click to expand...

The number of pixels! If you had a D3x 24Mp full frame camera and take a picture then chop out the central part which equivalent to a crop sensor you get about 10Mp which is the same as a D200!! THAT is the difference, you have MUCH smaller pixels in the centre of the sensor. Yes the reality is that you could take a picture of a D700 and crop it then blow up the crop but you end up with 5mp!!
 
joxby said:
No you're not, full frame just looks nicer that's all there is to it, whether its landscape, sports, portraits whatever, it doesn't matter.
It might b****r reach up but that's only because camera manufacturers have cheated us out of full frame for so long, we are too used to the extra length crop sensors give.
I'll take full frame every day of the week, stuff length, get closer and have nicer, smoother tonal graduation.
Click to expand...

amen to that :clap:
 
cowasaki said:
The number of pixels! If you had a D3x 24Mp full frame camera and take a picture then chop out the central part which equivalent to a crop sensor you get about 10Mp which is the same as a D200!! THAT is the difference, you have MUCH smaller pixels in the centre of the sensor. Yes the reality is that you could take a picture of a D700 and crop it then blow up the crop but you end up with 5mp!!
Click to expand...

yes good answer
 
cowasaki said:
The number of pixels! If you had a D3x 24Mp full frame camera and take a picture then chop out the central part which equivalent to a crop sensor you get about 10Mp which is the same as a D200!! THAT is the difference, you have MUCH smaller pixels in the centre of the sensor. Yes the reality is that you could take a picture of a D700 and crop it then blow up the crop but you end up with 5mp!!
Click to expand...

It wouldnt work as good with a D700 or Canon 5d MKI though would it as they only have about 12mp iirc?
 
I like my 24mm lens to be 24mm and my 400 to be 400, it makes the maths easy then :D

If I need to get closer, I employ the MK1 reebok zoom
 
define top


cloudhunter said:
Hi,

Ive been looking on the internet most of the top photographers and am confused as to why they ALL use full frame cameras?

I can imagine full frame being an asset for landscape and high iso performance but surely its of no benefit to portrait, aviation, motorsport photography?

Any ideas? :shrug:
Click to expand...
 
Cowasaki,

Yes you did , my bad!:bang:

When i mention TOP tog , i mean the ones who get reviews in magazines , they almost all use d3x/1dsmkIII etc

I can now see the benefit (better cropping ability)

I guess im just trying to justify in my head that i dont need full frame and a 40d would be perfectly sufficient! :D
 
cowasaki said:
The number of pixels! If you had a D3x 24Mp full frame camera and take a picture then chop out the central part which equivalent to a crop sensor you get about 10Mp which is the same as a D200!! THAT is the difference, you have MUCH smaller pixels in the centre of the sensor. Yes the reality is that you could take a picture of a D700 and crop it then blow up the crop but you end up with 5mp!!
Click to expand...

I don't know the D3 but I was under the impression that the DX mode only gave you about 5MP, it's the 5X4 mode which gave you about 10?

If that's the case, and it's quite possibly wrong, it changes the calculation a bit doesn't it?
 
cloudhunter said:
Cowasaki,

Yes you did , my bad!:bang:

When i mention TOP tog , i mean the ones who get reviews in magazines , they almost all use d3x/1dsmkIII etc

I can now see the benefit (better cropping ability)

I guess im just trying to justify in my head that i dont need full frame and a 40d would be perfectly sufficient! :D
Click to expand...

It really does depend on what YOU want to shoot!

If you are a twitcher then the longer reach with more pixels in the centre of the sensor would be an advantage.

If you shoot mainly at gigs and nightclubs the FF ISO advantage would help.

If you shoot mainly indoors and want WIIIIIIIDE lenses the FF would be best.

If you don't have loads of dosh then crop is king.

etc etc
 
forget about MP - just concentrate on the picture - you won't notice the difference between 4.1Mp and 12.5MP in most pictures anyway!
 
dod said:
I don't know the D3 but I was under the impression that the DX mode only gave you about 5MP, it's the 5X4 mode which gave you about 10?

If that's the case, and it's quite possibly wrong, it changes the calculation a bit doesn't it?
Click to expand...

I was quoting the D3x at 24Mp.... the conversion is 2.3 so 24Mp is about 10

A D3 is 5Mp like you say.
 
cowasaki said:
I was quoting the D3x at 24Mp.... the conversion is 2.3 so 24Mp is about 10

A D3 is 5Mp like you say.
Click to expand...

Doh, thanks :D I'd forgotten there even was a D3X :$
 
awp said:
forget about MP - just concentrate on the picture - you won't notice the difference between 4.1Mp and 12.5MP in most pictures anyway!
Click to expand...

I agree about 4/5Mp being enough in most cases I lurve my D1x :)
 
Everyone has gone on about pixel count, picture quality etc, these are very good points. There are more aspects as to why pro togs use top notch gear, build quality and waterproofing being two main points. These cameras have to be rugged to endure the abuse some togs afford them. A fair amount of the cost is in the construction of the bodies and metals that go into it.
 
If you are an amateur enthusiast, you take pictures to please yourself.

If you are a professional, you take pictures to please your clients.

And if you want them to choose you over the competition, you throw everything you can at it. That will include full frame, and no-expense-spared lenses. Crop cameras too, as and when. It was the same with 35mm film and medium format and also large format; still is for some I guess.

Apart from having more pixels, full frame also has larger pixels, so high ISO is substantially better and always will be. A good big un will always beat a small un in this respect. If you really want shallow depth of field, full frame does that better than crop also.

FWIW, I believe crop cameras will get even better and relatively cheaper because that ultimately is where the profit is for manufacturers. I'm staying with crop format, and it's not just about cost. For what I do, my personal photography, crop is actually better overall (just wish I had the high ISO/low noise of full frame :'( but it will come. Eventually.).
 
Digitall said:
Everyone has gone on about pixel count, picture quality etc, these are very good points. There are more aspects as to why pro togs use top notch gear, build quality and waterproofing being two main points. These cameras have to be rugged to endure the abuse some togs afford them. A fair amount of the cost is in the construction of the bodies and metals that go into it.
Click to expand...

The D200/D300/D700 are PRO bodies with waterproofing etc!

Nikon say so on their site :rules:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top