APS-C or Full Frame?

hobodan said:
Zack is sponsored by Fuji - that should be all the info you need on this subject :D

The differences between FF and crop are well documented, by what suits you best.
Click to expand...

Yep thats what its about at the end of the day,the camera that suits your needs not anybody else s :)
 
I don't know what kind of coal-holes some of you guys want to shoot in, but the D7200 at 6400 ISO is fine by me - but that's only in tests I've done as even in the darkest of churches I've never had to go that high :)

Last week's Wedding has been the highest ISO requirement for a long time at just 2000 ISO

The tilting re screen of the D750 attracts me to FF so I wouldn't have to lay on the floor as much :D In all other respects changing to it would be a waste of money both for the camera costs and swapping 5 lenses too, for no noticeable gain in anything

Dave
 
I've just been to The Sea Life Centre and thought I'd give auto iso a go... So i set it to maximum 6400... Surely that will be fine with the 35mm f1.8 fx lens i thought. Set the minimum shutter speed to 1/100... Definately be fine, looks light enough to me... o_O first shot was at 1/20 and a blirry mess. :D

Maybe you have very well lit churches Dave. :p
 
robj20 said:
Calm down.
Click to expand...

I am calm.

robj20 said:
High MP yes I use it all the time i crop heavily.
Click to expand...

Oh dear.....


robj20 said:
No i dont brint big 8x10 is the biggest i can remember printing.
Click to expand...

So "MP" is almost irrelevant to you then, as you print so small.




robj20 said:
As for DR, I find it odd that all the leading cameras for DR are all full frame.
Click to expand...

They're not. As I said... many APS-C cameras comfortably outperform full frame cameras with dynamic range.

robj20 said:
(full frame vs crop) I have the A7R amongst the very best the others like the D810, D750, D610, RX1 and so on. Yes some crops get close, but they will never be better as crops get better so to do full frame. But like i said it wasnt something i got full frame for. High MP, DOF and high ISO performance were.
Click to expand...

Stop cropping and learn how to shoot properly and it would all be academic.
 
Pookeyhead said:
A D7200 will comfortably outperform a D700 so far as quality of images is concerned (sharpness, dynamic range and while not quite as good with noise at high ISO, you'd be surprised how good it is). While being full frame, the really crap resolution of the D700 would be severely size limiting for you, as you do quite a bit of printing for exhibition don't you?
Click to expand...

Currently I'm printing 15x10, from which the D700 files look fine. I've resized one to A2 and had that printed commercially and it looks ok. Limiting factor for me is frames - I'd love to print bigger (and my A3 printer!) but investing in a new set of frames would be expensive as well as take up a lot of room.

A D810 would be fun but, although I can afford it, there's no way I can justify buying one! I'm actually enjoying the Fuji a lot at the moment anyway.
 
Doesn't the size of print and the quality perception to the viewer automatically self adjust to a certain degree anyway as the bigger the print the further away the viewer normally is ?
 
Not one person has mentioned the annoying pointy stick that Zack kept slapping everywhere!

Essentially I think the only thing he said which was key, was at the ending where he said that all of the cameras don't have vision - it's down to the person behind it.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
Currently I'm printing 15x10, from which the D700 files look fine. I've resized one to A2 and had that printed commercially and it looks ok.
Click to expand...


Print big, and hang it on a gallery wall, people will walk right up to it, and examine it. They just do. You'll hear all manner of armchair photographers in here telling you about "correct" viewing distances for viewing prints and why it doesn't matter if you print A1 from a 10MP camera etc so long as you view it from far enough away. Ignore them: They're idiots. These are people who've never exhibited work, or stood in a gallery while people walk RIGHT UP to your prints to peer into them.

I wouldn't be comfortable printing A2 from a 12MP camera, especially for an exhibition. A great deal of what I exhibit will be looked at by other photographers and artists... and they WILL go right up until their damned noses are almost touching, looking for something to bitch about. The general public are not quite that bad, but they will not obey some arbitrary rule you've read about on the net. They'll go right up to it, and look closely. We all do. You may take the whole thing in to begin with, but once you have... in you go for a good nosey. :)

gman said:
Doesn't the size of print and the quality perception to the viewer automatically self adjust to a certain degree anyway as the bigger the print the further away the viewer normally is ?
Click to expand...

It's a nice theory isn't it?

initially..... yes, they'll do that, but everyone then moves in to have a good look. "Oh what does that say on that sign?"..... "Is that a pigeon?".... whatever the reason, even if it's "I wonder how sharp it is"... they WILL go close. I've spend enough time in galleries watching people look at my work to know exactly how they behave and why these viewing distance theories are a bunch of crap. They apply to billboards etc where people can't get to them, nor want to (It's just an ad... no one cares), but this does not apply to photographic work displayed in a gallery.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I am calm.



Oh dear.....




So "MP" is almost irrelevant to you then, as you print so small.






They're not. As I said... many APS-C cameras comfortably outperform full frame cameras with dynamic range.



Stop cropping and learn how to shoot properly and it would all be academic.
Click to expand...

I do shoot properly thank you i'm not some dinosaur that's stuck in the "good ol days" i understand the camera is just a tool and i would be a fool not to use it to its advantages to get me the images i want. Here is a shocker as well, 99% of the time i don't even print.
 
robj20 said:
I do shoot properly thank you i'm not some dinosaur that's stuck in the "good ol days" i understand the camera is just a tool and i would be a fool not to use it to its advantages to get me the images i want. Here is a shocker as well, 99% of the time i don't even print.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that more resolution gives you carte blanche to crop, despite the sensor size remaining the same. You seem to have little understanding of the actual physics involved. More resolution does not allow more cropping if the sensor size, and lenses remain the same. You'll get less aliasing when you do from a higher resolution sensor, but the actual sharpness is a product of the lens and sensor size, and those are the limiting factors. A 36MP, 35mm camera does not allow any more cropping than a 24MP, 35mm camera. You can crop from a 24MP camera, and then resize the image up to the same as it would be with a 36MP camera and they'll look pretty much the same.

robj20 said:
Here is a shocker as well, 99% of the time i don't even print.
Click to expand...


Then all of this is irrelevant to you, so why you arguing? You could shoot with a 12MP camera, AND crop and no one will notice as most of your work is probably being viewed at 1000 pixels across most likely.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Print big, and hang it on a gallery wall, people will walk right up to it, and examine it. They just do. You'll hear all manner of armchair photographers in here telling you about "correct" viewing distances for viewing prints and why it doesn't matter if you print A1 from a 10MP camera etc so long as you view it from far enough away. Ignore them: They're idiots. These are people who've never exhibited work, or stood in a gallery while people walk RIGHT UP to your prints to peer into them.

I wouldn't be comfortable printing A2 from a 12MP camera, especially for an exhibition. A great deal of what I exhibit will be looked at by other photographers and artists... and they WILL go right up until their damned noses are almost touching, looking for something to bitch about. The general public are not quite that bad, but they will not obey some arbitrary rule you've read about on the net. They'll go right up to it, and look closely. We all do. You may take the whole thing in to begin with, but once you have... in you go for a good nosey. :)



It's a nice theory isn't it?

initially..... yes, they'll do that, but everyone then moves in to have a good look. "Oh what does that say on that sign?"..... "Is that a pigeon?".... whatever the reason, even if it's "I wonder how sharp it is"... they WILL go close. I've spend enough time in galleries watching people look at my work to know exactly how they behave and why these viewing distance theories are a bunch of crap. They apply to billboards etc where people can't get to them, nor want to (It's just an ad... no one cares), but this does not apply to photographic work displayed in a gallery.
Click to expand...


Viewing distances are fine for hanging stuff in your house where it's just decoration, or if the picture is hanging above your settee, but for public display to a discening audience, I would agree with your assessment.

I'm fortunate that my work is more likely to be viewed by the general public rather than someone who wants to rub their eyelashes against the glass - indeed the ones I have on display in Burnley currently have had to be put on the wall unusually high so you pretty much have to stand back to see them. And even if you did want to get up close and sniff them, there is stuff in the way anyway.

Only time I've been frustrated from a resolution perspective was when trying to crop from a 6MP D70 image. It just looked awful printed A3, even when upscaling with dedicated software that worked a treat upscaling a D700 image to A2.
 
FF and Cropped matters a bit, the techical bits in the camera matters a lot. The glass we put on the camera matters the most and the person behind the camera. To me its all about the Lens and a good camera 1.6 Crop or FF. But then I'm not a pro or in any camera clubs, I just like photography.
 
I bought the best camera I could for the money I had which meant a used D800E for 1200 quid. This camera will almost certainly cater for everything I need even if I don't need some if its benefits now.
And love Pookeyheads comment about cropping and shooting properly. Cropping is part of the game and always will be. Bit of nonsense that comment.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Allow me to demonstrate:

One of these images of Blackpool was taken with a full frame camera. The other a APS-C camera. I've stripped all metadata. I have resized them to 2500 pixels on the longest side, which is still regarded as very large for online use.


Can you tell which is which?

http://i.imgur.com/3NP2bSE.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/1uzIjCR.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't think the images are close enough in content, which allows a fair comparison to answer that question. However, no-one has given it ago yet and I'd quite like know the answer.

First = FF
Second = APS-C
 
minnnt said:
D750 can run iso 50 if you need 1/8000 equivalent and also the extended iso on the D7200 is black and white only. :LOL:
Click to expand...
Its only the equivalent of 1/8000 in terms of light gathering, the actual shutter speed of 1/8000 is crucial if you need it for high speed photography as its much, much faster (obviously).
 
NeilA1975 said:
And love Pookeyheads comment about cropping and shooting properly. Cropping is part of the game and always will be. Bit of nonsense that comment.
Click to expand...
Hmm.. not so sure. I only really tend to crop if I've done some form a post processing that means I have to, or if I'm compensating for not having the focal length for the shot I want. As I progress I'm cropping much less for composition, to remove distractions in the background, or because my alignment was a bit wonky etc. These are all mistakes that could have been avoided with better technique, so I think he has a valid point. I obviously still do crop to cover such mistakes but, as I said, I crop far less now than I used to. I can't think of any other reasons for cropping atm...

Edit: Ok as soon as i hit post I thought of one (typical) - different frame sizes! Ok, that's perfectly acceptable but even my camera offers a choice of dimensions to shoot with (not that I've ever used anything other than default)
 
Last edited:
Surrey Sam said:
I don't think the images are close enough in content, which allows a fair comparison to answer that question.
Click to expand...

How do you work that out? Both are just urban scenes. Quite similar.
 
Pookeyhead said:
How do you work that out? Both are just urban scenes. Quite similar.
Click to expand...

Agreed they're both urban. However the first one doesn't have a great deal of structure/contrast going through the field of view, thus making it harder to compare the two in order to answer your question.

Would that be fair to say?
 
Surrey Sam said:
Agreed they're both urban. However the first one doesn't have a great deal of structure/contrast going through the field of view, thus making it harder to compare the two in order to answer your question.

Would that be fair to say?
Click to expand...


If you need such an exacting test, then I suggest the differences between the two formats are, as I suggested at these resolutions, immaterial :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
If you need such an exacting test, then I suggest the differences between the two formats are, as I suggested at these resolutions, immaterial :)
Click to expand...

Wasn't 'that' exacting, just apples with apples. Rather than asking for Braeburn vs Braeburn.

At least put me out of my misery though and provide the metadata of each picture :ty:
 
That video is a year old...biased and full of misleading information...
The only good thing about it IMO is that it points out how good things have gotten in the last 5-10yrs, and the fact that for a vast majority there is little need/benefit to FF or the very high MP sensors.
 
Pookeyhead said:
If you need such an exacting test, then I suggest the differences between the two formats are, as I suggested at these resolutions, immaterial :)

Surrey Sam said:
Wasn't 'that' exacting, just apples with apples. Rather than asking for Braeburn vs Braeburn.

At least put me out of my misery though and provide the metadata of each picture :ty:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Bump... :whistle:
 
Last edited:
Sorry dude.... was busy yesterday... You're 50/50 guess was correct. :)


Seeing as you said they weren't identical images, which is true... lens differences may come into play.. let's even the playing field.

Same lens, same subject... even the same camera. one in FX mode, one in DX mode. Magnified live view manual focusing to rule out AF margins. Tripod, mirror lock up, cable release etc etc...

As I did the first time around last time, resized to A4.

http://i.imgur.com/RcJo3Th.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/kAZwvp9.jpg


Go!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top