APS-C or Full Frame?

Go Fuji XT1. I Love mine:banana:
 
Do you print? If no.... then it doesn't matter. If yes, how big? Do you print bigger than A3? If so, then consider full frame. If you often print REALLY big, then stop looking at APS-C and 35mm toys and consider medium format.

Arias was sponsored by Fuji to make that film above BTW, so he's clearly not being objective. He's right about one thing though.... 6x7 or 5x4 kicks the crap out of either teeny weeny toy DSLR formats, so stop obsessing over it. Sensor size has no correlation to penis size, so no one will think less of you.

It's simple. If all you're going to do with your images is put them online like the majority of people do, then pretty much anything will do. APS-C is MORE than enough for anything online or less than A3. APS-C cameras are cheaper, APS-C lenses are cheaper, and both cameras and lenses are usually lighter and smaller.

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.

Just remember "full frame" is actually a very small format - 35mm. It's not some kind of holy grail, that upon attainment will revolutionise your photography. Chances are it will do precisely nothing for your photography whatsoever.

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.
 
Last edited:
It's good enough to be worth watching again! :)

He doesn't go into all the minute details of technical difference, he simply puts them into perspective, an amusing as well as instructive perspective. I agree. I've always thought that the rough equivalent of only about a stop difference in performance, in IQ, noise, dynamic range, etc. was not quite enough to be worth the expense of upgrading to a new camera body or replacing a lens, and half a stop was in the negligible category. You will be able to see it easily in carefully chosen special cases at maximum print size, but in good light at lowest ISO and printed at A3 it's pretty difficult to see.

In ignoring the technical minutiae however he ignored one which although negligible to the professional photographer with more cameras than limbs is far from negligible to enthusiasts who have to save up for their gear purchases -- cost. I suspect that for any given amount of money from several hundred to a few thousand pounds, you'll get more IQ for your money in APS-C than full frame. APS-C was originally developed because it was a technological sweet spot in the trade offs between image quality and performance. I think it still is.
 
For me I always saw the main benefit of full frame being low light performance but technology is so good now cropped low light performance can also be excellent. I'm more interested in af speed as nothing else really matters if you can get it in focus lol
 
[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.

[/QUOTE]
I've been doing this photography thing long enough to know that it doesn't really matter,I thought this demonstrates that rather well. :)
 
I don't understand how it took him so long to say:

Bigger is better, but how good do you actually need?
:thinking:
Which is as old as the hills, and gets debated at the level of 'my phone is good enough' as much as '35mm is too small'. What the idiots who jump up and down about the detail of that don't understand is that its all relative. If its god enough for you - fine; if it's not - well that's fine too, but stop being an arse and trying to tell everyone else they're wrong.
 
Graham W said:
[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.
Click to expand...
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]
Really? I didn't see him demonstrate anything - he just banged on for 5 minutes about stuff we all knew before concluding that the Fuji he's paid to promote is good enough for a job he's booked for.

Not really a convincing argument - BTW I'm not saying the camera isn't up to the job, just that he didn't actually demonstrate or prove anything at all.
 
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.
 
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


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.
Click to expand...
David, what does that prove exactly?
I'm not sure there's anyone round here that doesn't understand that at small sizes you don't need big files. But that's not all that photography is about, though I gather that it is for some people.
 
Phil V said:
David, what does that prove exactly?
Click to expand...

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....

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

http://i.imgur.com/0aU1L0O.jpg

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.

If you print bigger than A3 however, then yes... full frame has marked quality advantages.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
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.
Click to expand...

David, sometimes I feel you're shadow boxing. Where has anyone said the opposite :thinking:.

I thought it was summed up in my opening post. But (big but) that video offered no evidence, just the ramblings of someone sponsored to give an opinion.
And whilst I agree largely with you here, there's no 'one size fits all' I still mostly shoot crop - because I can't afford to swap wholesale, however:
I do shoot at high ISO's for a large proportion of my work
I do often print above A3

And I shoot Canon - and unfortunately even the best of their crop sensors isn't really 'good enough' - for what I want.
 
Phil V said:
David, sometimes I feel you're shadow boxing. Where has anyone said the opposite :thinking:.
Click to expand...

Then what exactly is the point of this thread then? It's yet another APS-C vs. Full Frame thread. It's all bullsh*t... it doesn't matter, and I've just demonstrated why in a way that's pretty hard to refute.
 
Phil V said:
I do shoot at high ISO's for a large proportion of my work
I do often print above A3
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pookeyhead said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Phil V said:
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.
Click to expand...


Can 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?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Can 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?
Click to expand...
Yes
Have you ever looked at a 7d file over ISO3200 :eek:

Just look outside - this evening I'll be in a marquee :) I would suspect that the 4.00 ceremony will be at ISO 3200, the speeches at 6.00 the same, If I have to shoot the groups inside (there's a chance) I'll be lighting them with the Safari because even the FF sensor will need some help with definition.
 
I recently purchased a Nikon D750 essentially based on the outstanding reviews of its low light abilities. I'm not bothered about the extra 'reach' of an APS-C as I have legs to move with and not bothered about photography gnats from a mile off either. I was actually originally looking at the D5500, but for various reasons I knew it would frustrate me. For example in respects to the lack of flash commander and sync speed. I was then looking at the D7200 and was almost sold on that, until I started reading reviews of the D750. I have to say it even makes me look like I know what I'm doing, and finding the extra readies for it was definitely a good move in my opinion. I can understand why I see so many comments on the net from professionals who use it in preference to their more bulky bodies in certain low light situations. For me, the physics of being able to get more light onto the sensor in the same amount of shutter time, or less, compared to an APS-C was an important factor. HTH
 
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.
 
D7200 (crop) here - 24mp, high DR and perfectly acceptable noise at 2000 ISO (my highest this year so far needed) and all for about £650 :)

FF - no thanks - no point

MF - hmmm, love to for landscapes but otherwise no point

I still remember film where everything was noisy (grain we called it then) above 400 ISO

Dave
 
I Have been used APS-C camera for many years but are now looking to get a full frame for the benefits others have listed. Will most likely keep both formats for there benefits.
 
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.
 
I bought a full frame camera (Nikon D700) to replace my Nikon D70 at the beginning of 2009, primarily for it's low light capabilities, as I could rarely be bothered lugging a tripod round with me when exploring abandoned buildings. At the time, nothing crop format came close.
Fast forward to 2015. If I was in the same boat now, I wouldn't bother moving to full frame, as there is the obvious cost of changing over a bag full of DX lenses to FX, and crop sensors have moved on umpteen generations, and are as good if not better than the D700's last generation technology.
Would I go back to a crop format Nikon? Well I already use a Fuji XT-10 as a smaller, lighter alternative to the deadweight of the D700, and I'm delighted with it. 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?
 
I fell into the marketing hype over FF and bought a D600 partly due to Nikon's lack of wide DX primes. All it gave me was backache, a smaller bank balance, and some fun in the evenings seeing how slowly I could shoot with an unstabilised wide prime.

I'm in the process of moving to Fuji now.
 
robj20 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).

robj20 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
viewfromthenorth said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Pookeyhead said:
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.
Click to expand...

Calm down. High MP yes I use it all the time i crop heavily. No i dont brint big 8x10 is the biggest i can remember printing. DOF i like to shoot with a low DOF a fair amount of the time, its just the way I like my photos.

As for DR, I find it odd that all the leading cameras for DR are all full frame. (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.
 
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, buy what suits you best.
 
Last edited:
What's the D7200's dynamic range and high ISO performance compared with the D750? Anyone use both to compare?
 
D750 = 14.5 evs
D7200 = 14.6

ISO performance is much worse though.

D750 = 2956 ISO
D7200 = 1333 ISO
 
Thanks - so basically, both cameras have excellent DR for pulling back details and focusing in darker conditions, but the D750 will give noticeably better noise control at say, ISO 3200 than the D7200?



robj20 said:
D750 = 14.5 evs
D7200 = 14.6

ISO performance is much worse though.

D750 = 2956 ISO
D7200 = 1333 ISO
Click to expand...
 
Yes, but the D7200 has a higher ISO range if thats important, faster shutter as well. Not sure what else, the D7200 seems an excellent camera though.
 
I use two Nikon "Full Frame"* cameras and two Fuji APS-C cameras. Which I choose to use depends on what I'm doing.
I don't think the decision has ever been settled by sensor size.

* In days of yore wasn't 35mm (Full Frame) known as "Half Frame". Comparing it to 2 1/2 " square?

I do agree that the video went on for FAR to long and if I'm honest (which I am) I didn't watch 'till the end. I got the gist in the first two minutes.
The fact that he demonstrated using Fuji cameras, amongst others, failed to raise any suspicions with me, nor would it if he had been using Sony or anyone else's.
 
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.
 
Yawn......

Still if Fuji were paying me I would say that an Instamatic film camera was best, if thats what they wanted to hear.

(and obviously a failed headmaster with that irritating little cane)
 
Last edited:
southernjessie said:
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.
Click to expand...

D750 has a 1/4000 shutter the D7200 has a 1/8000 shutter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top