1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. MatBin

    MatBin

    Messages:
    2,637
    Name:
    matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    My son has a 7d2 and at high ISO the 5d3 is nicer, but, for normal viewing sizes there's not much difference. His is better for fast action though. :)
     
  2. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    4,151
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I like FF for mainly 2 reasons

    1 - When I refer to 35mm, it is 35mm. When I say 200, i mean 200mm. I don't mean FF equivalent, i don't know why but it this bugs the hell out of me. Like when I use the Fuji it's 23mm for a 35mm focal length. It's meaningless in a way as it's just a label but I hate it.

    2 - Just better bokeh.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
    ManVan and Ceejay like this.
  3. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    4,627
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    In your opinion. ;)

    I could have got a D750/D610 for less than the D500 was, but I didn't because I didn't want FF. If I wanted I could get a FF camera any time I wanted, but the D500 and the lenses I have I am happy with. As soon as I felt the size and weight of a Nikon D2X many years ago, I knew that style of body was not for me, and subsequent Nikon D* series cameras I have handled over the years have not changed my mind. :rolleyes:

    FF, and the large and heavy lenses that need to go with it, I don't want to carry. If I were going to the fictional air show or motorsport event I may hire a longer lens if I felt I needed something longer than 300mm, but I would be using the D500. :)

    FF is not the aim of everyone, not even all of those fiscally challenged. :rolleyes: ;)
     
  4. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    10,240
    Name:
    Stewart (duh)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    And, usually, a better spread of focus points.
     
    Phiggys likes this.
  5. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    530
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Matt Ganger did something similar and Zach Arias also had a video on the topic.
    Truth is most modern cameras outperform their users bigtime and what really matters is what's infront and especially behind it not what's in it.
     
    Phiggys, GeeJay57 and Phil V like this.
  6. Gaz J

    Gaz J

    Messages:
    2,900
    Name:
    Gary
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I really don't see what that link is trying to prove. So you can get great shots with a crop camera that are virtually indistinguishable from a FF. Big deal, thats not exactly news. Could have done the same with a M4/3 rds as well.

    I've got shots with a crop sensor that I can't tell apart from those from my FF unless I look at the EXIF. I've also got lots that I can tell apart from a FF when the conditions turned crappy and the crop sensor body had lost its detail and DR.

    And crops bodies are not always lighter than the FF. 7D2 is heavier than 5D4 and the 6D2. D500 is heavier than the D750
     
    BBR likes this.
  7. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    530
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The ansvar to the question of this thread, Is Full Frame worth it? You gave it, it's a no
     
  8. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    10,240
    Name:
    Stewart (duh)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You're being a bit inconsistent here though, Gaz.

    Yes, if you choose your comparisons carefully you can argue that crop sensor images are as good as full frame. And yes, if you choose your comparisons carefully you can find crop sensor cameras that are lighter than full frame.
     
    wave01 likes this.
  9. Brazo

    Brazo

    Messages:
    1,818
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Fair point some will appreciate a smaller size but that aside sensor size only started off small in digital terms during the film/digital transition for cost reasons. I paid £700 for a camera with a tiny 1.3mp sensor. God knows what a full frame sensor would of cost back then!
     
  10. Mr Perceptive

    Mr Perceptive

    Messages:
    3,060
    Name:
    David
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Not quite true, cost was an issue but so was manufacturing technique. In the early days it was difficult to make larger high resolution sensors without defects, in 1986 Kodak 'invented' the megapixel, which developed into a series of cameras. I used these within my work (industrial imaging) in the early 90's, and you cou could buy them at different grades depending on how many defects were present on the sensor, Grade A, B or C, Grade A high resolution cameras then were north of £25K !!!

    Nowadays silicon production is much much better, and the cost of perfect (or near) perfect sensors has plummeted and resolution increased.

    Back to the question, of course FF is worth it, if you need the benefits of full frame, as is MF worth it, if you need the features offered by MF. The correct sensor size is the one that meets your needs.
     
    antonroland likes this.
  11. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    10,240
    Name:
    Stewart (duh)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You're aware that makes no sense though?

    I mean, the number the manufacturers print on the lens is the actual focal length. A 35mm lens has a focal length of 35mm, regardless of what camera it's attached to.
    • On Micro 4/3rds, 35mm is a short telephoto.
    • On APS-C, 35mm is a "normal" lens.
    • On full frame, 35mm is a slightly wide angle.
    • On medium format, 35mm is a very wide angle.
    I bet medium format users don't mentally convert everything to "full frame equivalent", so why do you?
     
    Twigman likes this.
  12. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    530
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    And most people dont have a 24x36 as their first camera anyway. I should be confused shooting apsc, 24x36mm, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5" and 13x18cm :D
     
    john.margetts likes this.
  13. Gaz J

    Gaz J

    Messages:
    2,900
    Name:
    Gary
    Edit My Images:
    No
    No it's not, its a yes. I sold my 7D2 because it's wasn't good enough compared to my 1DX across the range of ISOs that I shoot consistently with.

    What I should have added Stewart was that at the range of ISOs that I shoot at, which tend to be from 800 upwards the crop camera, 7D2 in this case, didn't have the mage quality that my 1DX did. So I sold it, as did a couple of other friends of mine.

    I know that people will put up examples of high ISO 7D2 images that are good but it wasn't good enough for what I wanted so for me FF is very much worth it and with the improvement in the 1DX MkII and 5D MkIV even more so.

    With regards to weight then I was comparing a high performance crop with two out of the three FF bodies that Canon make. Accept that other crop cameras are lighter but it's not a given
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
    MatBin likes this.
  14. Orangecroc

    Orangecroc

    Messages:
    2,178
    Name:
    Ben
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Agreed. I don't call my 55-200mm an 80-300mm because I use it on a crop body. It is what it is, and it has the reach and viewing angle I require. If I required different I would purchase different irrespective of the focal length printed on it.
     
  15. tijuana taxi

    tijuana taxi

    Messages:
    8,305
    Name:
    Rich
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Is anything "worth it"

    If it's what you want and you can afford it, buy it, but worth is very subjective and function versus cost is hard to equate
     
  16. john.margetts

    john.margetts

    Messages:
    979
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I use all those formats plus my Panasonic with an even smaller sensor. Even if I had the mental energy I wouldn't bother calculating the positive and negative crop factors of my lenses. If I am using my Bronica, the 75 mm lens is Normal and the 250 mm lens is slightly telephoto (and used most of the time). With my OM1, the 50 mm is Normal and with my Icarette 105 mm is Normal.

    "Normal" I do think about as it is an important concept but I have no idea what the FF equivalence of my lenses are.
     
  17. john.margetts

    john.margetts

    Messages:
    979
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    " full frame" or "miniature" as us medium format photographers call it.
     
    kendo1 and StewartR like this.
  18. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    530
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Which is also miniature and to small for large format shooters:)
     
    john.margetts and StewartR like this.
  19. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    10,240
    Name:
    Stewart (duh)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I bet your "large" format camera is actually quite small compared to a *proper* large camera.

    The%20giant%20camera.jpg
     
  20. cambsno

    cambsno

    Messages:
    12,895
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Crazy, I thought I was the only one that felt like that (It also bugs me shooting at things like f6.3 or 7.1 rather than 5.6 or 8!!!

    I prefer FF due to the better ISO capability and just that look the D700 gave over the D300, although the 300 was quite capable. For me as well it was also about the body style, and at the time there was no new D300 so a 700 seemed logical. Plus, the quality of FF lenses is better, 24-70 would be 35mm at widest on DX and found that the 17-55 was never quite as good!
     
    antonroland likes this.
  21. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    530
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Now thats a real MF camera :ROFLMAO: not far from true fullframe.
    Whoops can we go back and do a retake? I messed up the development
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
    john.margetts likes this.
  22. Byker28i

    Byker28i

    Messages:
    17,951
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    https://petapixel.com/2017/10/03/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-shootout-can-tell-difference/

    Now I got them all right, but you've really carefully got to look at the quality in the out of focus areas in the background, the bokeh etc.
     
  23. Byker28i

    Byker28i

    Messages:
    17,951
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Strange as I actually found the 5D mk3 very good for sport, surprisingly so. The autofocus system is amazing.
     
    Phiggys likes this.
  24. Byker28i

    Byker28i

    Messages:
    17,951
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  25. MatBin

    MatBin

    Messages:
    2,637
    Name:
    matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Agreed but its "old hat af system" now :) and the 7dMk2 is slightly better (with more f8 points) and has a few more fps which can help.
    Overall I still think the 5D3 is the "better" camera.
     
    Phiggys likes this.
  26. Byker28i

    Byker28i

    Messages:
    17,951
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Agreed, you'd probably have to put the 7Dmk2 against the 5D mk4 to compare digic 6 bodies.
     
    MatBin likes this.
  27. Brazo

    Brazo

    Messages:
    1,818
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    So it was all down to cost? ;)

    Same as it is now be it wafers when companies make computer chips or image sensors. Its difficult to make larger ones, they have a higher defect rate so the good ones cost more.

    Full frame sensors still cost more than smaller sizes despite improvements in production.
     
  28. Mr Badger

    Mr Badger

    Messages:
    1,037
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Really? From a quick internet search:

    Weight: Canon 7D Mk 2: 910g (2.01Lbs) Canon 6D Mk1: 770g (1.7Lbs).

    Size: Canon 7D Mk 2: 149 x 112 x 78mm Canon 6D Mk1: Size 145 x 111 x 71mm.

    So it looks like that myth is busted! ;)
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
  29. Lemaildetom

    Lemaildetom

    Messages:
    1,829
    Name:
    thomas
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    That why i didn't like the 70D, because of the flip screen all the button in the back are shoved in the center which is hard to find without looking. And because the XXD don't have a joystick the focus point is done with the wheel which i find way too low to be accessible when not looking.

    Much happier with the nikon and it;s button on the left hand side. Only i find the top plate and top display was more intuitive with the canon but now i got used to thre nikon.
     
  30. antonroland

    antonroland Inspector Gadget

    Messages:
    4,047
    Name:
    Anton
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I broadly agree but I do feel, and yes IMHO, that there is a much greater "class divide" between MF and 35mm systems than there is in the APS-C vs FF scenario?

    I also feel that the whole FF vs APS-C debate was much more valid in favour of FF up to 3 or 5 years ago maybe?

    There are way too many other factors to declare a simple winner here. That being said I only shoot FF in D-SLR but I do feel that APS-C, whether D-SLR or mirrorless, generally does not have to stand back an inch for most FF cameras nowadays.
     
  31. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    4,151
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Of course I am aware, hence the last sentence but I'm still allow to hate it. Lol
     
  32. MatBin

    MatBin

    Messages:
    2,637
    Name:
    matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Bit selective, sure some crops are heavier than FF but the majority of crops are lighter, especially if you include crop factor lenses.
     
  33. photogwannabe

    photogwannabe

    Messages:
    736
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Let me put it this way... is switching to full frame worth it to you? My story... I had (still have) a Nikon D7000 (16 mp). It's a great little camera for outdoor and reasonably lit indoor occasions; but, as I was shooting more and more inside gymnasiums and wanted better results, i.e., less noise in low light, I purchased a used full frame Nikon D700 (12mp.) it was well worth it to me to make that switch. A big bonus was that now family photos at home had less noise as well. Of course, the quest for less noise never ceases as long as pocketbook allows and I've since added a D750 to the group.
     
  34. GeeJay57

    GeeJay57

    Messages:
    1,532
    Name:
    Glenn
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    6D is a polycarbonate body and IMHO more comparable with the 70D, 770 grams and 755 grams respectively.

    5DIII (maybe 5DIV now) and 7DII are nearest equivalent FF vs Crop, 860 grams and 910 grams...... Oops! :)
     
  35. redsnappa

    redsnappa

    Messages:
    977
    Name:
    Redsnappa
    Edit My Images:
    No
    When I used medium format film 50mm was a 50mm a 200mm was 200mm
    Now I use APC sensor a 35mm lens still is 35mm, a 50mm lens still has a 50mm focal length, and a 200mm lens still has a 200mm focal length.
     
  36. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    4,151
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I know what you are saying but I don't think you know what I am saying.
     
  37. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    4,151
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I've made my original post in a bigger font to save people some time :p
     
    kendo1 likes this.
  38. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    10,240
    Name:
    Stewart (duh)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Don't forget to speak loudly when you go away on holiday, because the locals will understand you better that way. ;)
     
  39. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    4,151
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    That's alright, I am tri-lingual and pretty good at languages i am not your typical "DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH?" english person. :p
     
  40. Sectionate

    Sectionate

    Messages:
    2,209
    Name:
    Nick
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Everything this, the DoF is so different.
     
    Mr Badger likes this.

Share This Page