Why do all top togs use full frame?

I use 2 full frame bodies for weddings and portraits for several reasons. One was the tones I get out of the 5D, sublime. :) The other thing I love about them is that (especially with the 1DsII) is that the files are so blooming big that it means that I can blow them up REALLY big on my screen to do some detailed PP work. If I was using a crop sensor I would be a lot more limited in terms of being able to do that detailed work.

So that's one reason why shooting portraits on a FF body is an advantage.

Then there is DOF control and getting the best out of L lenses too.

And the weatherproofing this summer is also a + I have a pre wedding shoot on Friday and a wedding on Saturday and I expect to get wet.
 
there simply must be less noise for ff vs crop with the same sensor technology since the ff is using more light (opposite of a tc) (at same iso)
 
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...

That's why we use them...my 'output' images are still cropped to 12" along the long side at 150dpi whether they're shot on a D1x, D2x or the new D3x...

It's nice to know I have the ability to shoot a 150 person group without having to resort to 'stitching' images together, but it's not essential, whereas robust build-quality and good water/dust seals are...
 
cowasaki said:
The D200/D300/D700 are PRO bodies with waterproofing etc!

Nikon say so on their site :rules:
Click to expand...

Can you show me where this is stated.
Here is what I have found....
D300..Durable, magnesium alloy body : water and dust resistant.
D700..Durable Magnesium alloy body: moisture and dust resistant.
D3.. Durable Magnesium alloy body built to withstand the rigors of the harshest of environments.
 
Arkady said:
It's nice to know I have the ability to shoot a 150 person group without having to resort to 'stitching' images together, but it's not essential, whereas robust build-quality and good water/dust seals are...
Click to expand...

Seeing as we're paying for your kit, please consider changing to Pentax. (y)
 
Digitall said:
Can you show me where this is stated.
Here is what I have found....
D300..Durable, magnesium alloy body : water and dust resistant.
D700..Durable Magnesium alloy body: moisture and dust resistant.
D3.. Durable Magnesium alloy body built to withstand the rigors of the harshest of environments.
Click to expand...


There is no waterproof to 50 fathoms dslr....obviously.
I don't think the harshest of environments includes the ocean floor either.
They do have protective barriers that lesser models don't, that is all.
 
Water-resistant is correct, but I did accidentally drop two D2x bodies in a river recently - both were fine after they had been dried off...
No water got inside during the dunking, only after I took the lenses off (fully expecting a torrent of water to gush out of each) and got a few drops on the mirrors...

Obviously they were only under for about 5 seconds - longer and they'd have perished, I guess...

But in torrential rain, they've been fine; also in dust storms and sleet and hail.

I have seen lesser cameras fail in the same conditions - usually dust ingress in Afghanistan - it's particularly fine and powdery...

Now using D3 and D3x, which, according to the guys who've already deployed with them are equally good in the 'sandy place'...
 
It depends on the type of photography I guess - 1DIII might be better than 1DsIII for sport & wildlife.
 
Plenty of pros using the D700 - Brian Harris for one.

Interesting why you want a d700, AND a DX crop body Cowasaki....the D700 is a DX crop body, when you want it to be!

You'll come back with pixel count as a reason - but I will wager a section out of your D700 will beat the whole of your D200 or whichever one it was. Certainly cropped D3 images are superior to those from the D2x (same sensor as yours?).

Full frame gives greater image information, therefore higher image quality. Go a stage further and get the Hasselbald medium format with the same number of MP as the D3x - 24 on each, the Blad will blow the D3x into the weeds with detail rendition, purely because it is a bigger image area that is doing the capturing.
 
There are many criteria that end up shaping the kit of a working snapper.

Mine has been whittled down by the need to be able to tackle whatever comes up on a location shoot and wanting to keep the load that I need to carry as small as I can.

I still have a MF system a FF and a 1.3 crop. No one camera could do it all sadly....... but I'm looking forward to the day it can.
 
Lensflare said:
Interesting why you want a d700, AND a DX crop body Cowasaki....the D700 is a DX crop body, when you want it to be!
Click to expand...

I want two bodies and I already have the D200 so it makes sense. I also want to take a camera into situations where I wouldn't want that camera to be my new D700. I like the idea of having a 70-300 on the D200 and my 24-70 on the D700
 
This is a really interesting thread, I have a thread going about the 5D mk2 with big glass for bird photography, I think by the sound of things the FF sensor will give optimum results but it's right what purple cloud says in that the top guys will have access to some privelaged areas for their photography that most of us can only dream about, Bit like John Wilson in his Go Fishing series, Some of the places he fishes (and i know them) are impossible to get on or are filmed when the lakes are closed to the public and the nature reserve area is opened up (catch 22 ) ;)
 
Arkady said:
Water-resistant is correct, but I did accidentally drop two D2x bodies in a river recently - both were fine after they had been dried off...
No water got inside during the dunking, only after I took the lenses off (fully expecting a torrent of water to gush out of each) and got a few drops on the mirrors...

Obviously they were only under for about 5 seconds - longer and they'd have perished, I guess...

But in torrential rain, they've been fine; also in dust storms and sleet and hail.

I have seen lesser cameras fail in the same conditions - usually dust ingress in Afghanistan - it's particularly fine and powdery...

Now using D3 and D3x, which, according to the guys who've already deployed with them are equally good in the 'sandy place'...
Click to expand...

It's post like this that make my pancreas swell-up, fever sets in, and downward spiral of my health :bang::bang::bang:

This case, and another one posted by puddleduck (I think it was his D200 which fell into a pond, or a fountain), .. .. how on God's Earth does your camera survive? Seriously, do you sing nursery rhymes to it at night :baby:? What do you feed it? How do you protect it?

Wouldn't the electricity from the battery short-circuit the boards?

I say this, since my D200 (since fixed by Nikon, and then sold) died from a rainy day in South West Wales in August 2008! Seriously, Nikon found water in it :shrug:

Sorry to derail the thread .. but I am seriously getting a pancreas-attack from this.
 
Ouch...

That was because the lower-spec cameras aren't as well sealed - that's why the D3 and D3x cost so much - the electronics are more or less the same as the 'pro-sumer' models, it's the build-quality that's different.
 
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 know what you mean but a pixel is a pixel is a pixel. It's a defined size per se. No smaller or larger pixels, just pixels. What you mean is more or less pixels (the amount of in the same area) which equals to information.
 
Yeah, I agree with you on the sealing on the D3 (Dx family) .. but what about Andy's D200 ... and his wasn't the only one to survive a dip in a pond.

Hence, that sealing is good enough reason for me to want to upgrade to D3 / D3x .. not just water sealing, but for being a whole lot more robust ... help a lot in my part of the world.
 
bakedbeans said:
I know what you mean but a pixel is a pixel is a pixel. It's a defined size per se. No smaller or larger pixels, just pixels. What you mean is more or less pixels (the amount of in the same area) which equals to information.
Click to expand...

Pixels are not all one size. Full frame sensors tend to have larger light receptors (photo sites) than those on cropped sensors. This allows them to each collect more light and therefore more information about a scene. Also, having larger photo sites means less density and less noise caused by interference from neighbouring photo sites.

Excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR
another major advantage of full-frame cameras concerns pixel size. The larger sensor allows for larger pixels or photosites that provide wider dynamic range and lower noise at high ISO levels.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top