Is Full Frame worth it?

Having a larger, brighter viewfinder is a 'nice to have' feature that comes with a so called 'full frame' camera.
 
GeeJay57 said:
Having a larger, brighter viewfinder is a 'nice to have' feature that comes with a so called 'full frame' camera.
Click to expand...

I have never really noticed this difference but then I am slow on the uptake most days of the week...
 
Ah its great to see such a serious debate using b******t references. The usual narrow minded debate over sensor sizes messed about by two companies and the subsequent hype by the two companies.

If you are actually after the ultimate image quality surely you need to go medium format or larger.

What are full frame systems well the Fuji X series is full frame as is m4/3 as they systems built around a sensor size with lenses to match assuming that is what full frame means.
 
Last edited:
alfbranch said:
Ah its great to see such a serious debate using b******t references. The usual narrow minded debate over sensor sizes messed about by two companies and the subsequent hype by the two companies.

If you are actually after the ultimate image quality surely you need to go medium format or larger.

What are full frame systems well the Fuji X series is full frame as is m4/3 as they systems built around a sensor size with lenses to match assuming that is what full frame means.
Click to expand...

For me portability, usability and price comes into the equation. MF may give better image quality but if I can't carry and use it easily I'm probably not going to bother with it. The latest cameras like the Hasselblad may well have the portability and usability of a FF camera but maybe a few people who class FF gear as being affordable or justifiably priced wouldn't pay MF prices. Whilst I think an A7 is a reasonably priced bit of kit I don't think I would buy a Hasselblad.
 
Lensflare said:
Doug,
I might be ignorant of all the different technologies, but I have first hand experience of both types and the one thing, as a professional photographer, that I find quite amusing is the 'arms race' amongst photographers to have the very latest kit. The reason people give is to 'improve image quality'. For Pete's sake, what are you doing with your pictures that you need more file information than you are currently getting? I have just had my 1014th front cover (this month's BSH, a HD sideways engined bike with solid girder forks if you have a look on the shelf) - it was shot with my D4s before I lost it, BUT and this is the thing, it looks NO DIFFERENT to any of the covers I shot with the D3 a year beforehand. WHY? Because the D3 gave me jpegs of around the 8MB mark, sometimes with a simple colour scheme in the frame it would be as low as 2MB for the same size picture (I don't understand fully why, but it was explained to me that jpegs are like painting with numbers and the camera lists a set of instructions, paint this tone 1, this tone 2 etc and if there is a lot of tone 1 it doesn't take much memory to store the instructions, which is why a simle tone range is a small file size and complicated one is much bigger....whether that is true or not I have no idea, but it gives me a mental picture I can understand!)

Now, when I send my pictures into the magazine, taken at full size on the D3....the finished printed page uses about 70% of the actual resolution I provided in the first place. That means they took my rubbish, low image quality jpeg (it wasn't RAW!) and downsized it, making the full resolution of the D3 more than enough.....when I swapped to the D4s what do you think happened? YEP, they took the now 50% bigger image file and simply threw even more of it away......so why do I need to shoot an image at 20MB for it to be downgraded to about 4MB....and here are people producing pictures that will only ever be seen on a screen at a resolution of about 900kb shooting them at 50MB and then throwing away the rest? This was partly why I went to the Fuji instead of getting another D4s (it turns out that would have been much easier). Only the Fuji is so in advance of the Nikon flagship at the time that even though it is so close to as good that you would have to be a scientist to tell the difference and as far as I know images generally capture the imagination through visual impact within the first 2 seconds of them being seen.....how many people browsing magazines, or their equivalent on a computer, stop to analyse the technical details of the image they are looking at? ONLY PHOTOGRAPHERS. Image buyers certainly don't, they are far more interested in the MESSAGE the picture provides, as long as it is 'good enough' it is good enough and as we have seen above, obsolete cameras (my D3) are still about 5x better than 'good enough' and a decent modern crop camera is about 10x better than 'good enough', if not more......even for high end advertising. The ONLY reason to get a full frame now is to say you have got one, the wide angle thing has been beaten by modern lenses, fisheye and super wides are available for crop cameras that are exquisite and way better resolution than actually required FOR ANY JOB.

An analogy would be the 70mph limit and traffic congestion - what the hell use is a Ferrari F50 or Maclaren F1? They are still stuck in the traffic jam or limited to the same speed, so all that engine is completely wasted, it is just burning more fuel, and barely using 50hp of its available 800hp to trundle along at walking pace in the queue....the number of opportunities (jobs that actually require) the full capability are so few and far between and so limited to the top 6 photographers in the world......

Just an observation from someone who is a bit more down-to-earth than the majority of the sheeple who have to chase the latest gadget just for the sake of it. Having a nice camera is nice, but there are now VERY NICE crop cameras that are as close to the equal of their full frame counterparts it isn't worth worrying about. Take into account the very considerable size and weight penalty of a full frame system too - my Fuji OUTFIT weighs the same as the D4s with 70-200 only. I have gone from lugging around about 18kgs of kit to each job, to about 5kgs.....that alone is worth its weight in gold!
Click to expand...


Simon

I have more or less decided to keep using my 70D and improve the lenses I have at present . I'm thinking about a UWA Sigma 10-20 F3.5 and a Canon 24-70 F4L as I only have the 18-135mm kit lens. I want to start taking more landscapes and the extra width would be useful. This way if I do decide to upgrade to FF then the cost of the UWA at around £320 won't hurt too much as i will only be able to use this with the 70D. I will then have a decent range if focal lengths (10mm - 400mm) and quality glass.

There has been some really great and informative points made here and it if nothing else have made me really think about what equipment I really need.

Doug
 
I have just bought a D700 and having seen the results I had with the D7000 and now some test shots with the D700 then yes, the D700 is a fabulous camera, and I am loving FF
 
woof woof said:
For me portability, usability and price comes into the equation. MF may give better image quality but if I can't carry and use it easily I'm probably not going to bother with it. The latest cameras like the Hasselblad may well have the portability and usability of a FF camera but maybe a few people who class FF gear as being affordable or justifiably priced wouldn't pay MF prices. Whilst I think an A7 is a reasonably priced bit of kit I don't think I would buy a Hasselblad.
Click to expand...
Good points.
All camera choice is a compromise.
 
Lensflare said:
Just an observation from someone who is a bit more down-to-earth than the majority of the sheeple who have to chase the latest gadget just for the sake of it.
Click to expand...

I agree completely - my newest camera is from 2013, and I'm quite happy using a compact from 2010 (let alone the film cameras from 30-50 years or so ago). I never really feel the cameras are a limitation, more the person behind it.

But.. Your comment comes over as a bit harsh. Some people just like to buy new shiny things for a hobby that makes them happy. We're all guilty of it to some extent.
 
Last edited:
Lensflare said:
Doug,
I might be ignorant of all the different technologies, but I have first hand experience of both types and the one thing, as a professional photographer, that I find quite amusing is the 'arms race' amongst photographers to have the very latest kit. The reason people give is to 'improve image quality'. For Pete's sake, what are you doing with your pictures that you need more file information than you are currently getting? I have just had my 1014th front cover (this month's BSH, a HD sideways engined bike with solid girder forks if you have a look on the shelf) - it was shot with my D4s before I lost it, BUT and this is the thing, it looks NO DIFFERENT to any of the covers I shot with the D3 a year beforehand. WHY? Because the D3 gave me jpegs of around the 8MB mark, sometimes with a simple colour scheme in the frame it would be as low as 2MB for the same size picture (I don't understand fully why, but it was explained to me that jpegs are like painting with numbers and the camera lists a set of instructions, paint this tone 1, this tone 2 etc and if there is a lot of tone 1 it doesn't take much memory to store the instructions, which is why a simle tone range is a small file size and complicated one is much bigger....whether that is true or not I have no idea, but it gives me a mental picture I can understand!)

Now, when I send my pictures into the magazine, taken at full size on the D3....the finished printed page uses about 70% of the actual resolution I provided in the first place. That means they took my rubbish, low image quality jpeg (it wasn't RAW!) and downsized it, making the full resolution of the D3 more than enough.....when I swapped to the D4s what do you think happened? YEP, they took the now 50% bigger image file and simply threw even more of it away......so why do I need to shoot an image at 20MB for it to be downgraded to about 4MB....and here are people producing pictures that will only ever be seen on a screen at a resolution of about 900kb shooting them at 50MB and then throwing away the rest? This was partly why I went to the Fuji instead of getting another D4s (it turns out that would have been much easier). Only the Fuji is so in advance of the Nikon flagship at the time that even though it is so close to as good that you would have to be a scientist to tell the difference and as far as I know images generally capture the imagination through visual impact within the first 2 seconds of them being seen.....how many people browsing magazines, or their equivalent on a computer, stop to analyse the technical details of the image they are looking at? ONLY PHOTOGRAPHERS. Image buyers certainly don't, they are far more interested in the MESSAGE the picture provides, as long as it is 'good enough' it is good enough and as we have seen above, obsolete cameras (my D3) are still about 5x better than 'good enough' and a decent modern crop camera is about 10x better than 'good enough', if not more......even for high end advertising. The ONLY reason to get a full frame now is to say you have got one, the wide angle thing has been beaten by modern lenses, fisheye and super wides are available for crop cameras that are exquisite and way better resolution than actually required FOR ANY JOB.

An analogy would be the 70mph limit and traffic congestion - what the hell use is a Ferrari F50 or Maclaren F1? They are still stuck in the traffic jam or limited to the same speed, so all that engine is completely wasted, it is just burning more fuel, and barely using 50hp of its available 800hp to trundle along at walking pace in the queue....the number of opportunities (jobs that actually require) the full capability are so few and far between and so limited to the top 6 photographers in the world......

Just an observation from someone who is a bit more down-to-earth than the majority of the sheeple who have to chase the latest gadget just for the sake of it. Having a nice camera is nice, but there are now VERY NICE crop cameras that are as close to the equal of their full frame counterparts it isn't worth worrying about. Take into account the very considerable size and weight penalty of a full frame system too - my Fuji OUTFIT weighs the same as the D4s with 70-200 only. I have gone from lugging around about 18kgs of kit to each job, to about 5kgs.....that alone is worth its weight in gold!
Click to expand...

If you feel that FF bodies are unnecessary why did you go from a D3 to a D4s. By your reasoning the only reason you did it is to say look what I've got. You already knew that you didn't need it.

Yes crop cameras are good, the best ones very good, but they are not as good as the best FF bodies and that is why people buy FF bodies. They may be overkill but it doesn't matter, the best FF are better than the best crop.
 
I have never understood why people get so hot and bothered about others desire for the latest and greatest of anything, it doesn't matter whether it's a camera or an iPhone or a new set of all singing all dancing kitchen pans, as long as there is food on the table and a roof over their heads. The only thing that matters is that it gives them pleasure surely?
 
happy haggis said:
I have never understood why people get so hot and bothered about others desire for the latest and greatest of anything, it doesn't matter whether it's a camera or an iPhone or a new set of all singing all dancing kitchen pans, as long as there is food on the table and a roof over their heads. The only thing that matters is that it gives them pleasure surely?
Click to expand...

Best answer so far, I wanted to try FF and couldn't afford a new all singing or dancing camera, and having been disappointed with the IQ of the D7000 thought the D700 was a good choice to see if I liked FF and I am pleased to say I love it and at only a few more quid than a D7000 but less than my other choice, a DX D7200..............best money I have spent on a camera body so far.
 
Gaz J said:
If you feel that FF bodies are unnecessary why did you go from a D3 to a D4s. By your reasoning the only reason you did it is to say look what I've got. You already knew that you didn't need it.

Yes crop cameras are good, the best ones very good, but they are not as good as the best FF bodies and that is why people buy FF bodies. They may be overkill but it doesn't matter, the best FF are better than the best crop.
Click to expand...

Actually, I fell for the marketing hype, just like everyone else...the D4s was because I wanted video as well as pictures all in one package. I didn't NEED the D4s for the reasons stated, but I only found that out afterwards, which is what I more or less say in my reply, if you read all of it.
 
Lensflare said:
Actually, I fell for the marketing hype, just like everyone else.... I didn't NEED the D4s for the reasons stated, but I only found that out afterwards....
Click to expand...
Great to see such candour.
 
My 10c is that FF *may* be worth it. If you can't afford MF (like most amateurs) or it's impractical, but you need very shallow depth of field, very good low light performance or are a landscaper who wants to print very large (as in well over 30"x20") and can't or won't stitch images. And no doubt a few other specialisms I haven't thought of, but you would probably know if you were one of those :).

Otherwise probably not.

As to those people who say that crop bodies aren't necessarily lighter, well no, not *necessarily*. But if lightness is what you need (e.g. in the mountains) I don't know of a FF body anywhere near as light as a Fuji X-T10.
 
dave.hallett said:
As to those people who say that crop bodies aren't necessarily lighter, well no, not *necessarily*. But if lightness is what you need (e.g. in the mountains) I don't know of a FF body anywhere near as light as a Fuji X-T10.
Click to expand...

The Sony A7 isn't exactly a behemoth. Put a 35mm f2.8 on an A7 and I bet it'll fit in the same bag as your XT10.
 
woof woof said:
The Sony A7 isn't exactly a behemoth. Put a 35mm f2.8 on an A7 and I bet it'll fit in the same bag as your XT10.
Click to expand...
Actually the A7 is lighter than I thought. Probably because it seems heavier by virtue of usually having FF glass on the front :).

It looks like the difference in the bodies is less than 100g, and I find the XT-10 handles better with an L-bracket, which would take care of that.

The difference in glass would likely be more substantial than the difference between bodies. There is no direct Fuji equivalent to the 35mm 2.8 to compare, but if I were going on a landscape hike, I'd want more focal length choices than that. YMMV, however.
 
Here's my thoughts...
Be clear about what it is you need form a system and what you want to do with it.
What are you prepared to carry?
Will have you access to the best lenses possible for that system?
Remember that software and modern PC's give you the ability to scrutinize your work at an almost limiting level of detail. By this I mean what is revealed can have you thinking your equipment isn't up to the job when in fact it is if you were viewing at 'fit on screen' levels of magnification on what is probably a 20"+ monitor or printing at typical sizes.


I went through all of this recently after a holiday where I realized I wasn't carrying a heavy and cumbersome bag for the simple reason that I couldn't be bothered if I'm honest. So I determined that lighter weight kit was required, and less of it. I went for an Olympus 4/3 system with three lenses - a 24-40 f/2.8 Pro, a 40-150 f/2.8 Pro with 1.4x converter and a 60mm macro. These will cover everything for me, some of these equivalents I couldn't afford in FF terms, especially the 80-300 f/2.8.

Now I'm not going get on my soap box about how brilliant 4/3 is and pointless FF is, that would be a ridiculous statement. In fact, I'd say my D750 was an utterly brilliant camera but it simply wasn't with me when it should have been. I now have a fully loaded bag with a carbon fibre Benro travel tripod attached which weighs in at 4.73kg and I hope this means that I'll be more productive and inclined to 'be there'.

I'm aware of the likely compromises I've made and accept them in the belief/hope that in practical terms they'll prove to be academic.

We'll see.....
 
dave.hallett said:
Actually the A7 is lighter than I thought. Probably because it seems heavier by virtue of usually having FF glass on the front :).

It looks like the difference in the bodies is less than 100g, and I find the XT-10 handles better with an L-bracket, which would take care of that.

The difference in glass would likely be more substantial than the difference between bodies. There is no direct Fuji equivalent to the 35mm 2.8 to compare, but if I were going on a landscape hike, I'd want more focal length choices than that. YMMV, however.
Click to expand...

The beauty of some of the smaller systems, MFT, Fuji/Sony APS-C and Sony FF, is that you can choose what you want. If you need a larger lens and whatever advantages it offers then they're there for you but if you want a very compact body and lens combination you have that choice too. My A7 with the 35mm f2.8 fits in the same small Lowepro bag that my Panasonic GX80+17mm f1.8 fits in. There are also small 28 and 55mm lenses for the A7 and even the 28-70mm kit zoom is quite compact, it's the same size as the old 14-42mm kit lens I had for my MFT Panasonic G1 when the latter is fully extended. To have a FF camera that's the same size as a mini SLR MFT body is quite a nice thing, IMO :D
 
IMO it's one of the major things that separates camera bodies. Nice shallow DOF is the winner for me. Don't forget you'll see more through the viewfinder too!
 
Hi Guys ,
My interests are mostly Landscape though I'm happy to photograph anything - I bought my first DSLR 5 years ago , a Nikon D7000 - I'd had to leave my job due to disability and desperately in need of a hobby I bought a Nikon F80 first to see if I actually liked photography - I fell in love with it and eventually bought the D7000 with some of the voluntary redundancy money I was given [ a pure coincidence ] - I'm interested in Full Frame cameras as they capture more of the scene in front of you due to their bigger sensors .
I've read quite a few FX vs DX debates and there are many who say that FX cameras ' aren't worth it ' usually the people with an FX camera in their possession already - I'll begin by buying a better quality lens and take it from there - I have a couple of 16-85mm lenses , a 50mm , 12-24mm , 55-200mm and a Tamron 90mm - my walkaround lens is the 16-85mm and the reason I have two is I dropped one and the filter stuck fast to it , the same thing happened to my second 16-85mm earlier this year while on holiday in Northumberland , time to take them to Ffordes to see if they can be fixed . If I buy a D750 [ or D810 ] I'll be keeping my D7000 as I've fallen in love with it .
 
GurskyGroupie79 said:
IMO it's one of the major things that separates camera bodies. Nice shallow DOF is the winner for me. Don't forget you'll see more through the viewfinder too!
Click to expand...


You won't see more through the viewfinder, unless crop bodies are called that because they crop out some of the view. A tree missing here, part of a fence gone there.

You'll see exactly the same as through another 100% viewfinder (like my EM5mk2 which isn't an FX body by a long chalk).

If you're going to state things ensure they are accurate as some beginners look through these threads for advice.
 
Skyehammer said:
- I'm interested in Full Frame cameras as they capture more of the scene in front of you due to their bigger sensors .
Click to expand...

The amount of the scene that you capture is a function of the lens, not the sensor. A 10x8 inch large format camera will capture the same amount of the scene as the minute sensor in a phone if you use both with a lens of the same angle of view.
 
Or , if I put an 18mm lens on a D750 and another on a D7000 won't I capture more of the scene on my D750 ?
 
Skyehammer said:
Or , if I put an 18mm lens on a D750 and another on a D7000 won't I capture more of the scene on my D750 ?
Click to expand...
Yes but that's not a like for like comparison.

Different lenses for different cameras is something we've known for years. My MF camera had a 75mm std lens, I didn't compare it unfavourably with my 35mm cameras, they were different cameras, had different lenses.
 
full-frame-7.jpg


This scene was captured at 24mm on a full frame Nikon D750. The white line shows how much of this image would be captured on a crop sensor from the same shooting location.


This is what I meant , John , perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly .
 
Phil V said:
Yes but that's not a like for like comparison.

Different lenses for different cameras is something we've known for years. My MF camera had a 75mm std lens, I didn't compare it unfavourably with my 35mm cameras, they were different cameras, had different lenses.
Click to expand...

Ah , I get it now - so if I take a photo with a D750 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR11 at say 150mm which lens would I need to put on my D7000 for the same size and quality photo ?
 
Skyehammer said:
Ah , I get it now - so if I take a photo with a D750 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR11 at say 150mm which lens would I need to put on my D7000 for the same size and quality photo ?
Click to expand...
IQ and image size take the discussion in a different direction, being due to technological differences and pixel density.
 
Skyehammer said:
full-frame-7.jpg


This scene was captured at 24mm on a full frame Nikon D750. The white line shows how much of this image would be captured on a crop sensor from the same shooting location.


This is what I meant , John , perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly .
Click to expand...
You'd have used a 16mm lens and got the same shot

Which is the point.

When I shot crop, my std zoom was 17-55 and my WA was 10-20, on FF I use a 24-70 and 17-35, they're not perfectly equivalent, but it's obvious that if the sensor is a different size, I need different FL lenses to do the same job.
 
Skyehammer said:
full-frame-7.jpg


This scene was captured at 24mm on a full frame Nikon D750. The white line shows how much of this image would be captured on a crop sensor from the same shooting location.


This is what I meant , John , perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly .
Click to expand...
It shows how much would be captured with the same focal length lens - but you wouldn't use the same focal length lens. You would choose a focal length that produced the image you wanted. Except right at the limits of affordable focal length, crop or full frame makes no difference to how much is covered. (There is a difference in other factors such as depth of field).
 
Last edited:
Skyehammer said:
full-frame-7.jpg


This scene was captured at 24mm on a full frame Nikon D750. The white line shows how much of this image would be captured on a crop sensor from the same shooting location.


This is what I meant , John , perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly .
Click to expand...
But look what happens if you put the same lens on an iPhone:
19234-1509610935-827ce36190cc2b6dac51343b1a5cfeeb.jpg


You can't see hardly anything at all!!! How does anyone ever manage to take photos with their phone???!
 
Now I'm even more confused han ever !:)
When the time comes [ when I have enough money ] I'll invest in better quality glass and take things from there .
 
john.margetts said:
It shows how much would be captured with the same focal length lens - but you wouldn't use the same focal length lens. You would choose a focal length that produced the image you wanted. Except right at the limits of affordable focal length, crop or full frame makes no difference to how much is covered. (There is a difference in other factors such as depth of field).
Click to expand...

Thanks , John - I understand now and you've given me plenty of food for thought - as I said I am more than happy with my camera but I should get better results with better lenses and most of the better glass are ' fx ' - My only ' fx ' lens is a Tamron 90mm DI VC USD which I admit I haven't used all that much but I took a photo with it the other day [ non macro ] and the results seemed sharper , the colours deeper - the Nikon 70-200mm f/2,8 VR11 could be next on the list then see where I go from there .
 
Photographers asked to cover events:

60's - 90's: "Sure, I have a nifty 50 and some rolls of 400"
2017: "Oh my, I don't know! My 4 high end cameras do show some light noise at ISO 6400 and one of my 10 lenses is max F4 :confused::eek:"

Here's a useful site if you have been using Flickr for a while, input your Flickr username and it'll scan all you images and give results of your most used settings. If you rarely go above ISO 1600, and tend to favour mid range focal lengths, and don't tend to crop images much, then Full frame might not be so necessary for you. http://stats.ghusse.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top