Full frame or not?

sandychristiephotography

sandychristiephotography

Messages
40
Name
Sandy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys, what is the opinion of full frame dslr's? I have a 400D and asked the question on what would be my next step. What is the pro's and cons of full frame cameras?

Thanks for any info given
 
sandychristiephotography said:
Hi guys, what is the opinion of full frame dslr's? I have a 400D and asked the question on what would be my next step. What is the pro's and cons of full frame cameras?

Thanks for any info given
Click to expand...

More info is needed on what you want to do with it

in essence though

pro's - shallower DOF for a given F stop, generally higher MP (that can be a con as well), more pro features (though increasingly top end DX have pro features too), better for a wide angle of view through no crop factor

cons - more expensive , EFs lenses won't fit, arguably not as good for long end shots as no crop factor (though you can of course crop in PP)
 
  • Like
Reactions: KAS
If you want to do a "crocodile Dundee" and throw it at a robber ............. you cannot beat the D700 ........
 
as pete says.. without the vital information of what your going to do with it then its hard to advise what the pro and cons will be as they could be different depending on the type of photography


I have recently changed over... my reach is less but the quality is better.. cropping in software gets as good if not better results than the camera crop .. I find the noise handling better so for low light better..


If your shooting plant pots on a sunny day I would find it hard to see any differnce other than having to stand closer :)
 
BillN_33 said:
If you want to do a "crocodile Dundee" and throw it at a robber ............. you cannot beat the D700 ........
Click to expand...

I dunno a 645 would be my weapon of choice ( I brained a mugger with my mamiya 645 once - he said he wanted me to give him the f*****g camera - he didnt specify he didnt want it swung on its strap like a mace first ;) )
 
Your reach is exactly the same. A crop sensor doesn't actually magnify the image. The best way to think of it is that the canvas size is smaller on a crop sensor. A full frame sensor has a full size canvas, a crop sensor is smaller so you end up with a smaller canvas stretched out, making it appear to be bigger.
 
keety said:
Your reach is exactly the same. .
Click to expand...


not again :( keety is correct.... But for those who stand with a camera in the hand and not a book...

Lets say you want a perfectly framed picture staright out of the camera

Stand 50 ft from a plant pot to take a pefectly framed picture on a cropped body

Now try it with a full framed body and you will have to step closer for the same frame...
 
i agree dear god not again - and actually he isnt even quite correct , the crop sensor doesnt magnify the image , but it does effect the field of view - the equivalent field of view of a crop sensor and a 500mm lens is about that of a full frame with an 800 (or a full frame cropped to the same field of view)

we've had this discussion so many times its hard to believe there are still people who don't get it
 
mattyg said:
Unless you switch you FF into crop mode....:naughty::exit:
Click to expand...

not every FF can do that though - and even if you can why would you when you could crop selectively in post process

IMO the main 'benefit' of crop sensor cameras especially for beginners is price and price of lenses - plus size and weight for anyone who is old, weak, or disabled (though in actual fact if weight is your main issue you'd be best off with a 4/3s CSC )
 
keety said:
Your reach is exactly the same. A crop sensor doesn't actually magnify the image. The best way to think of it is that the canvas size is smaller on a crop sensor.
Click to expand...

I'm sick of this pedantry. Yes.. that's correct... however, the end result is... the actual photograph you get... has more reach. It may be caused by field of view, and not magnification.... but you get more reach.
 
Dave Semmens said:
Faster burst rate and more shots before buffer fills on some cameras.
Click to expand...

eeerm what? my old canon 1dmk4 crop camera had a better frame rate than any full frame canon camera on the market... more shots in the buffer blah blah isnt it either...
 
S
KIPAX said:
eeerm what? my old canon 1dmk4 crop camera had a better frame rate than any full frame canon camera on the market... more shots in the buffer blah blah isnt it either...
Click to expand...

The question asked was about why you would bother using a crop mode

My answer is valid - not sure what you are ranting on about?
 
Last edited:
Dave Semmens said:
S


The question asked was about why you would bother using a crop mode

My answer is valid in respect of Nikon cameras - not sure what you are ranting on about?
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. ;)

If you just remember that not all full frame cameras have the option, and that other manufacturers might have different ways of organising their range.
 
Dave Semmens said:
The question asked was about why you would bother using a crop mode
Click to expand...

Wrong again.. the question is "What is the pro's and cons of full frame cameras?"


Dave Semmens said:
My answer is valid
Click to expand...


Your answer is wrong. Faster frame rate and more buffer is neither a pro or a con for a full frame camera v crop


Dave Semmens said:
not sure what you are ranting on about?
Click to expand...

Why on earth do you think me correcting your reply is a rant? rather childish response for an adult :(
 
Last edited:
If you look at post #10 you will see that a comment is quoted about switching the FX camera into crop mode.

Bigsoftmoose asks why would you do that when you can crop in post.

I quoted his question and answered with valid reasons on why you may want to use the crop mode on a FX camera.

Can you let me know what I have done wrong here?

Thanks

Dave.
 
Dave Semmens said:
Can you let me know what I have done wrong here?
.
Click to expand...


far a start you replied by accusing me of ranting which I found to be very childish.. .

you only quoted PART of his answer...so it wasnt clear

and your still wrong..

I have had crop camera with more frame rate and better buffer than a full frame

i currently have a full frame that does 12 frames per sec and better buffer than most crop cameras


thus your reasons cannot possibly be correct when i can physical prove that its incorrect


just for clarity.. thats not a rant.

and I cant respond for most of day as leaving house now :)
 
I have a feeling that there is no winning this argument but just to clear this up:

My answer to the question about why you would switch a FX camera into crop mode is that on some cameras it will give you more frames per second and give more shots before the buffer fills. This may be useful in some situations.

The number of shots rises by 1 per second on my Nikon D810. I am not saying this makes it faster than all other DX cameras - it just makes it faster than it was in FX mode and is a valid reason to use the mode.

I can see that my original post may not have been totally clear as it relied on quotes from multiple posts.

Dave.
 
Last edited:
The switch on Nikon cameras to go from FX to DX is primarily for two reasons.

1. To allow a faster shooting rate. (the D3 goes from 9fps to 11 fps in DX crop mode)

2. To make the most of the 'sweet spot' on DX lenses utilised on a FF body.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm sick of this pedantry. Yes.. that's correct... however, the end result is... the actual photograph you get... has more reach. It may be caused by field of view, and not magnification.... but you get more reach.
Click to expand...

This
I use a 300mm lens a lot of the time on my 7D a crop camera
To get the same reach on a full frame camera I would need a longer more expensive lens
Assuming that both crop and full frame cameras are for example 18MP cropping the full frame image is not the same as using the crop camera to start with
this really only matters for reach limited subjects like birds and wildlife for example
 
  • Like
Reactions: KAS
sandychristiephotography said:
Hi guys, what is the opinion of full frame dslr's? I have a 400D and asked the question on what would be my next step. What is the pro's and cons of full frame cameras?

Thanks for any info given
Click to expand...

I used Canon APS-C for years (300D, 10D, 20D) and moved to a 5D.

I found little real difference in image quality at low to mid ISO settings for screen viewing and prints up to and including A3 but the 5D showed a clear lead at the higher ISO's. My cameras were old tech by todays standards but I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true of more recent APS-C v FF comparisons.

My main reasons for moving from APS-C to FF were to get better high ISO performance and also because I wanted to use some of my better lenses on a FF camera so moving over to FF worked for me but one thing (almost) in the negative column was that it took me quite a while to get used to FF shooting and using smaller apertures to get greater depth of field as this led me to using slower shutter speeds and/or higher ISO's.

I'd advise you to think carefully about what you want to achieve and if moving to FF will be of significant benefit. Another question could be would you get more benefit from putting spare money towards better lenses or a holiday to somewhere/something worth photographing :D
 
Last edited:
Dave Semmens said:
If you look at post #10 you will see that a comment is quoted about switching the FX camera into crop mode.

Bigsoftmoose asks why would you do that when you can crop in post.

I quoted his question and answered with valid reasons on why you may want to use the crop mode on a FX camera.

Can you let me know what I have done wrong here?

Thanks

Dave.
Click to expand...

Nothing at all Dave, your answer was a perfectly valid reason why you may chose to use crop mode. Some people seem to have a strange desire to point out perceived errors in posts even when there aren't any, you were perfectly clear in your original post.
 
Fundamentally, full-frame is sharper, has better ISO performance, greater dynamic range, and delivers shallower DoF at some framing and f/number. All because of the physically larger sensor. Lenses are bigger/heavier.

APS-C croppers have greater effective reach, handy with longer lenses.

All other differences are model-specific.
 
The preferred camera for most Pro's that use Canon is the 1D and its crop is 1.3. The 7D mkii etc has 1.6 crop and that is my preferred camera for wildlife. The Full Frame is excellent for landscape etc. Personnelly I'd go cropped if I were buying Canon for the bigger choice of lens's. Money doesn't factor having just bought the 7D mkii body for £1500. However, I use a 100-400mm lens that actually is equivalent to using 640mm lens giving me a bigger reach. Don't know what the 7D mkii is like for fending off muggers but I used my hands once which were very effective.
 
This should be archived as the 'archetypal' TP thread.

Someone asks a straightforward question. The first response is perfect (well done @big soft moose ), because there's no way to answer the OP without additional info.

There ensues a pub fight with various members offering 'advice' that turns into something rather embarrassing, with some also offering interesting asides.

Meanwhile the OP has never returned.

Could we have a 'promise to return to collect my advice and say thanks' declaration when starting a thread?

Another forum I use has a 'have you tried the search function' on the way to starting a thread?
 
Last edited:
moan moan moan :)
 
I got my one thousanth LIKE on this thread................. Just saying :)
 
I think a simple answer is:
FF can use a wide angle lens at wide angle and the noise at higher ISOs is usually better
Crop cameras are cheaper.
If you dont need wider than 24mm you probably dont need FF. I think a 17mm lens on a 1.6x crop is effectively 24mm.
 
Stowfords34 said:
I think a simple answer is:
FF can use a wide angle lens at wide angle and the noise at higher ISOs is usually better
Crop cameras are cheaper.
If you dont need wider than 24mm you probably dont need FF. I think a 17mm lens on a 1.6x crop is effectively 24mm.
Click to expand...


And the very popular Sigma 10-20 will give a 35mm EFL of 16mm on Canon crop bodies and 15mm on Dx Nikons (and other APS-C crop bodies). Other UWAs exist in both zoom and prime forms! ;)
 
Stowfords34 said:
I think a simple answer is:
FF can use a wide angle lens at wide angle and the noise at higher ISOs is usually better
Crop cameras are cheaper.
If you dont need wider than 24mm you probably dont need FF. I think a 17mm lens on a 1.6x crop is effectively 24mm.
Click to expand...
The noise issue is correct.

But why do people keep repeating the 'wide angles are wider on FF'? it's b****x. If you have a crop kit and you need a WA lens, you're as well catered for as a FF user, you're just buying different lenses. The widest UWA for FF is the Sigma 12-24, they also do an 8-16 for crop. The std zoom for a FF camera is 24-70, for a crop it's the 17-55 or thereabouts, the 'common' UWA for FF is 16-35, for crop it's 10-22, they're all readily available and they work perfectly.

People would say I was stupid if I said 'if you want your long lenses to be their proper length buy a crop'. They'd start saying stuff like 'the lens isn't any longer, you're just using some of it' etc etc.

Edit: cross posted with Nod.
 
KIPAX said:
not again :( keety is correct.... But for those who stand with a camera in the hand and not a book...

Lets say you want a perfectly framed picture staright out of the camera

Stand 50 ft from a plant pot to take a pefectly framed picture on a cropped body

Now try it with a full framed body and you will have to step closer for the same frame...
Click to expand...
Not with a 5ds ;) it will have same pixel density as a top of the line crop.
 
big soft moose said:
not every FF can do that though - and even if you can why would you when you could crop selectively in post process

IMO the main 'benefit' of crop sensor cameras especially for beginners is price and price of lenses - plus size and weight for anyone who is old, weak, or disabled (though in actual fact if weight is your main issue you'd be best off with a 4/3s CSC )
Click to expand...
Umm. Have u not seen the a7 cameras? Full frame and half the weight and size of various dslr ;)

Mirrorless is the future baby!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top