You've heard it all before. But...

Chanes

Chanes

Suspended / Banned
Messages
16
Edit My Images
Yes
...maybe someone here can quieten my urge to spend a lot of money. I have a Panasonic G1 and much as though I like it I find myself gazing at the results from full frame cameras with unreasonable desire. I don't take lots and lots of photographs and don't spend large amounts of time re-touching them. The outlay for a full frame would run into a few thousand. However, I can see the difference in the images it captures, there seems to be a density in the image of a full frame photograph that cannot be captured by anything else and it's like I'm settling for 'also ran' in the photographs I take.

Here's the question: Is the difference between the sensors and the image they produce worth the extra costs or am I being too 'foot stamping' childish? Or is it a marginal improvement that can be 'aped' by using software?

I use a Mac and PSE 8 (though I think PSP is a better program using it means booting up a PC because they don't make a Mac version, and sometimes I can't summon the enthusiasm for dealing with Microsoft programs)

P.S. Some of the images you people have captured are incredible!
 
Chanes said:
Here's the question: Is the difference between the sensors and the image they produce worth the extra costs or am I being too 'foot stamping' childish? Or is it a marginal improvement that can be 'aped' by using software?
Click to expand...

Well full frame sensors have better image quality than a crop sensors, and you cant put a price on quality, right? Full frames have great ISO which helps so many pros that have to work in low light. The cons with full frame is its a lot harder to zoom in because of the wide angle, but really only affects you if you need the zoom.

Its only worth the money if you really need it and you have the money.
 
There's the question: Do I really need it. Well, no, not need, but then, yes, I covet it. Why should I gaze at the photographs from my G1 and wish they were as good as they could be? I can see the difference in image between them.

I suspect it is pretty much as I feared, if I want the quality of the image I'm going to have tp pony up for it.

Thanks for the reply!
 
If you really want full frame, I would buy a second hand crop sensor camera, and buy lens that would work on both cropped and full frame. Then if you feel limited and want more that you cant get on a cropped sensor then you can sell, get your money back and put it towards a full frame. If you get me. :)
 
I'll go straight into buying one when I can summon the nerve to part with the cash. I really like the look of the Canon 5DMkII. I've worked out that I can get the camera and a lens and spare battery and some bits for 3k. Then I saw the Sony A850 which would be just over 2k and stopped the press.

I'll still have the G1 and will be gutted if I couldn't make good use of a full frame, especially for portrait shots which is where the difference seems to leap out.

I have lots to learn about photography.Lots.
 
Well i'm sorry but I have to dissagree somewhat here.
I have just sold my 5D and all it's associated L glass, it was a move I didn't do lightly, but several people who have seen the results from my G1 have commented on how good the quality is compared to my 5D.
I decided I was sick of lugging huge volumes of kit around, and the first time I went for a walk with the family was great with just a tiny bag but with everything I needed in it, at the end of the day had the quality not been pretty much the same I would never have even considered it, but put simply it is.
I have sen some outstanding shots from the G1, of coarse you will see more wow shots from 5D's and the like, but that probably has something to do with the volume of user's.
I certainly don't regret buying th G1 and if anything it's given me some of my enthusiasm back.
 
Scraggs, I get the idea of toting a 5D around being an onerous task but I mostly take photographs indoors or at certain occasions.

I'm not saying the G1 is a bad camera but I can tell the difference in the images captured and I know which I think is better. I also suspect that a full frame image is a more robust image when faced with amatuerish software use which I am guilty of.

I'm totally open to being persuaded that I'm wrong and that there isn't a Rizla paper's worth of difference; as the line goes...show me.

Thanks for the thoughts!
 
Chanes said:
I can tell the difference in the images captured and I know which I think is better.
Click to expand...

Which picture did you think the 5D is? :D

http://SPAM/yeegzkm

http://SPAM/yll46z2
 
if you are shooting in low light then you are going to struggle to beat FF
Regarding the raw being more robust, I mess quite badly with some of the stuff I shoot, so it was something I checked before I got shot of the 5D, I have to say that raws from the G1 can be pushed pretty hard and virtually as hard as my 5D raws.
Sounds to me like you have already made your mind up anyway :)
 
G1 is the 5D yeah? :lol:

Ok, you've heard all this before to but.... it's the photographer, not the camera. I recently upgraded from a D60 to a D300. I struggled a little with noise at times on the D60. I'm still making the same mistakes on the D300. Yes, it's me, not the camera! Why did I upgrade? I outgrew the D60. I already had acquired 1 lens that wouldn't focus on it, I found it a bit delicate and small in my hands, and the ergonomics of the D300 was just far superior. The image quality happens to be better too. The photos I'm taking on it are arguably not :lol:
 
There's no doubting that full frame image quality is better, but you have to print pretty big to see it. If you only ever print up to about ten inches, or only view on screen, then you'll be hard pressed to see anything even if you look hard. That is comparing the best crop cameras, such as the Canon 7D against something like a 5D2, which arguably has the best IQ of any full frame camera.

Your camera is 4/3rds format, which has the smallest of the DSLR sensors. Nikon/Canon crop format cameras are a third larger and more; full frame is four times larger. It's less the absolute number of pixels, more the size of them, but there are drawbacks to full frame: the cameras or rather the lenses are bigger, more expensive, you get less depth of field (either and advanatge or disadvantage) and for really long lens photography, eg birding, full frame really can't compete. 5D2 is a poor action camera too - too slow AF and frame rate.

You can get a Canon 5D2 with 24-105L lens, which is a sublime combination, for about £2,250 from kerso. It will be an American import, but comes with a UK warranty. I'm getting one from him just as soon as I've sold my current outfit. Kerso is a well respected and trustworthy independent trader on here. Send him a PM for a confirmed price :)
 
Andy, I would like to mention I was courteous enough not to point out the slight give-away in your test.

Hoppy, I have an understanding of sensor sizes and at the time the G1 was a nice camera to just drop into a bag and go. It's easy carrying, if not the best capture. I envy you for your new camera. :)

Thanks for all the views, I appreciate them.
 
Whenever I feel the urge to spend money to buy better lenses or body etc, I can usually stop myself by going to flickr and browsing the groups for the existing lenses & camera that I own. I am always completely amazing by at least a few of the pictures and stunned at what they can achieve with the same kit as me.

This method has saved me a fortune over the years:lol:
 
N1kcy, that had not occurred to me! Flickr! Thanks for the tip. I spend too much time on social networks and not enough on Flickr.
 
Scraggs, you're right there is some really good G1 stuff...and there's lots of 5DMK2 stuff and there's a difference though I know it isn't huge.

Cheers for the link! :)
 
Chanes said:
Scraggs, you're right there is some really good G1 stuff...and there's lots of 5DMK2 stuff and there's a difference though I know it isn't huge.

Cheers for the link! :)
Click to expand...

Chanes, you can tell absolutely nothing looking at small images on screen, in isolation.

The only way you will be able to really see the difference between full frame and smaller formats, is by shooting an identical subject side by side with the two cameras, processing them in exactly the same way, and looking at either 100% sections on screen or big prints 15in plus.

Preferably prints - you will see the smoother tonality that way and more detailed shadows. Any other comparison is, honestly, meaningless. Just slightly different post processing can swing it either way; the difference you are looking for, with the exception of very shallow depth of field effects, is relatively subtle.
 
Hoppy, I haven't the experience to argue my position on full frame v crop strongly enough.

We can settle knowing what I desire though. :)
 
Chanes said:
Hoppy, I haven't the experience to argue my position on full frame v crop strongly enough.

We can settle knowing what I desire though. :)
Click to expand...

There's no argument bud and you don't need any experience or special knowledge to see the difference. It's there, but you need something much more revealing than a small screen image to get a measure of it.

I know exactly what you are referring to. In terms of image quality at least, full frame is better than crop format. Always has been, and always will be. Bigger, more light, more photons :thumbs:

To try and quantify the answer, I did exactly the comparison I refered to out of the doorway in Jessops and made some 15in prints on the spot. And I have ordered a 5D2 as a result :D You need that kind of enlargement to see the difference because it's subtle, but it's there. You'll see it right enough if you do the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top