- Messages
- 2,780
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've been doing this photography thing long enough to know that it doesn't really matter,I thought this demonstrates that rather well. [/QUOTE][QUOTE="Pookeyhead, post: 6968692, member: 57603"
If you don't actually KNOW that you need full frame (which you obviously don't, or you wouldn't have started this thread) then you probably don't need it.
David, what does that prove exactly?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
Unless you print over A3, or have a real need to have the lowest noise at very high ISO full frame is a total waste of time and just a way for amateurs and camera club types to show off with their "professional" gear.
If all you do with your images is post them online, then any old piece of crap over around 8MP will be more than enough.
David, what does that prove exactly?
Unless you actually CAN'T do something with your gear at the moment, then upgrading to full frame will probably do nothing for you, except cost you money.
That at the resolutions most people post images online with, it makes no difference whatsoever what you shoot on. None at all. Both both images will print identical at A4. At the size I posted then they will print to A4 at 300ppi. Unless you print bigger then you will NEVER see a difference between full frame and APS-C.
You probably wouldn't be able to tell at A3 either.... let's see....
Nope... still can't tell them apart at A3. So for most people reading this, what exactly was the point in upgrading to full frame? Noise? How many actually shoot above ISO1600 regularly? All modern DSLRs, APS-C or otherwise would look pretty much identical up to A3 in terms of noise too. Shallow depth of field? No.. there's not much difference really.
My point is, the whole crop vs. full frame argument is pointless for the majority of people who waste their time arguing about it. Most people who upgrade to full frame don't need it, and will see no benefit in doing do. They may merely WANT to, sure, and I've no problem with that. What I have a problem with is those that extol the virtues of full frame being visibly superior. Unless you print really big, or scroll around your monitor because you're viewing it at 100% there's absolutely no bloody point in upgrading to full frame.
Cue the arguments about handling and professional build.. sure... if that floats your boat. However... there's not really any quality benefit for full frame for most people.
David, sometimes I feel you're shadow boxing. Where has anyone said the opposite .
I do shoot at high ISO's for a large proportion of my work
I do often print above A3
I wholeheartedly agree, I resisted for years, but Canon just seem unable to keep up in the IQ stakes on their crop cameras (for my needs).Then you MAY see a benefit to moving to full frame. That's all I'm saying. Most do NOT print bigger than A3, and in fact, don't print anything at all, yet still get damp at the thought of full frame for some reason. It's silly.
I wholeheartedly agree, I resisted for years, but Canon just seem unable to keep up in the IQ stakes on their crop cameras (for my needs).
And I have bought one, and I will buy more because the improvement is worth the investment (to me).
Unfortunately though - unlike most amateurs, it'll end up being at least 3 bodies and 5 (ish) lenses. I'm one body and 3 lenses in even at 2nd hand prices it's not a cheap transition.
YesCan you ACTUALLY see a difference in your work using the full frame camera? I don't mean if you pixel peep at 200% in PS.. I mean when printed. Was it actually worth the money?
I still remember film where everything was noisy (grain we called it then) above 400 ISO
Dave
I also noticed a huge gain in DR which has become something that i couldn't do without, shooting into the light and still being able to bring the detail out of the shadows is amazing.
For me full frame gave me better high ISO performance, lower DOF at a given aperture, and high MP, which are three things i wanted in an upgrade.
I would possibly consider replacing the D700 at some point (all my lenses would work, albeit at a different field of view) but I don't know if the feature set or performance of Nikon's DX camera's would be a step back for me?
That's not a product of being full frame though, it's a product of being a batter camera. For example, Nikon D7200 has a wider dynamic range than a 5D MkIII. (shrug).
High MP? There are APS-C cameras with higher resolution than some professional full frame cameras. You don't need to go full frame to get higher resolution, which isn't even the problem with this anyway: Do you NEED the resolution you have? Do you actually utilise it? Do you print really big? As for DOF.. that's only an advantage until you actually want MORE depth of field, or are you saying good images should have as shallow a depth of field as possible always?
I'm not saying anyone shouldn't "upgrade" to "full frame", but I have to laugh at the lengths some go to in order to justify buying what they don't need.
D750 = 14.5 evs
D7200 = 14.6
ISO performance is much worse though.
D750 = 2956 ISO
D7200 = 1333 ISO
Ok, I didn't know that. I'm guessing that even with the extended ISO range, the files from a D7200 still won't be anywhere near as good as those of a D750. I'll have to read some reviews (not sure what you mean by faster shutter....sorry) as I'm ignorant of the D7200. Used to use a D90 which was great but probably killed by the D7200 now in every technical aspect.