Should i get full frame as well

snerkler said:
I think when people refer to physics giving FF the edge they are talking about the fact that FF sensors gather more light than APS-C, and the fact that there's less enlargement of the image. These things are purely physics and not down to manufacturers, processors or anything else (y)
Click to expand...

The photo-sites are generally bigger, but that depends on the amount on the surface, based on that physics high MP sensors arent as good ;)
As said though it matters not how much the sensors catch light unless the processing engine and digital converter works well. Also depends on filters and glass to control the angle at which the sites are hit, some manufactures are better than others with this.

The issue is far more complex than one is 'better' than the other.
 
andyscott said:
Benefits? extra perceived reach? what benefits one does another.

FF body is different, different electronics, therefore different physics and engineering are at play.
Click to expand...
That's not a good example as you've just illustrated that yourself - "perceived" reach. There is no extra reach, its only cropped (hense, 'crop format'). Like for like you can't say a smaller format camera has any advantages over an FF / 35mm body per se, any advantages are going to be model specific and not because one has a smaller sensor. Even size cant be quoted as my FF 6d is smaller than my APSc xxd bodies.

There is no "different physics" at play (though I agree different engineering, hense my model specific comment), but each camera starts off with the same level of light trying to hit the sensor from outside the camera, thats the same physics. Then, its up to the lens and sensor how much light comes in. The FF sensor will receive more light over a less concentrated area all lenses being equal - advantage one at the very start. If the larger sensor is more restrained with the amount of light coming in (a slower lens for example) it has the ability to compensate far better than a smaller sensor because the area gathering light is larger. It also requires less signal amplification giving the electronics an easier job. Thats the physics I refer to and is a distinct advantage, no matter how far electronics advance - the advantage will always be towards the larger formats. But we should all know this?
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I assume you're talking about size and weight rather than IQ?
Click to expand...

Depth of field is another, for the type of photography I do having more DoF at low apertures is useful.

Other things, for example are that it is easier to make small lenses sharp, which means I can have sharp pictures from a small sensor, all different sides of the same coin.

In terms of outright image quality bigger sensor will always be better as you have to magnify everything less but that also comes with a payback, less magnification means bigger lenses. But in a world where small sensors and systems are now so good you can pick and choose what's right for you.

FF is not better for me which is why I sold all my FF gear. It might be better for you though.
 
Nawty said:
...snip

Other things, for example are that it is easier to make small lenses sharp, which means I can have sharp pictures from a small sensor, all different sides of the same coin.

...snip
Click to expand...

Not quite so, as the FF image will already be inherently sharper to start with. You just have to stop down more for the corners, in theory.
 
Nawty said:
Depth of field is another, for the type of photography I do having more DoF at low apertures is useful.
Click to expand...
Good point, macro's certainly one of these areas (y)

FF is not better for me which is why I sold all my FF gear. It might be better for you though.
Click to expand...
Definitely, it's a personal thing. I'm fortunate to have two systems so the best of both worlds :)
 
So you are all arguing for LF or MF cameras?

Anything less is crop, surely 35mm is crop?

Pixel density effects photo sites and Noise to signal ration more than sensor dimensions. So a lower MP aps-c maybe cleaner than high MP 35mm sensor, however the analogue to digital processor then comes into play.

My whole point is there are far more issues to digital cameras than sensor size.
I have a Kodak 14n, better than a d7200? Not a chance
 
odd jim said:
Not quite so, as the FF image will already be inherently sharper to start with. You just have to stop down more for the corners, in theory.
Click to expand...


No, the FF image will inherently have more contrast - there's a difference - and that makes them seem sharper, MTF theory. Boils down to less magnification but contrast can be added, resolution is what it it.

And that FF lenses are generally soft in the corner wide open shows you the limitations they are trying to work within.
 
Nawty said:
No, the FF image will inherently have more contrast - there's a difference - and that makes them seem sharper, MTF theory.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly how the eye defines, and see 'sharpness', it's not defined by resolution.

As for FF lenses being unsharp in the corners, this isn't a full frame issue. Plenty of crop only lenses are less sharp in the corners (I've had my share of those), it's a bit of a moot point.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
As for FF lenses being unsharp in the corners, this isn't a full frame issue. Plenty of crop only lenses are less sharp in the corners (I've had my share of those), it's a bit of a moot point.
Click to expand...


Yes it is, the way to absolve it is to make bigger lenses but with pieces of glass this big the tolerances are minute and they are designed so that the centre image is good and the edges soft when wide open. This is a compromise lens designers use to make lenses for FF cameras that aren't massive.

Of course, some lenses don't have this issue which shows it can be designed around but it seems as though it's pretty tricky without making the lenses MF sized.
 
Nawty said:
Yes it is, the way to absolve it is to make bigger lenses but with pieces of glass this big the tolerances are minute and they are designed so that the centre image is good and the edges soft when wide open. This is a compromise lens designers use to make lenses for FF cameras that aren't massive.

Of course, some lenses don't have this issue which shows it can be designed around but it seems as though it's pretty tricky without making the lenses MF sized.
Click to expand...
This is simply because of the circle of definition. Physics dictates that the outside of a projected image will be 'substandard', with the centre always holding the most definition. Shooting wide open, you're further scattering the projected image. You can mitigate with lens design but it can only go so far.

The only reason you see this less on cropped cameras (using FF compatible lenses) is that this area is cropped out. If you use APSc only lenses, the issue is still present.
 
Last edited:
andyscott said:
So you are all arguing for LF or MF cameras?

Anything less is crop, surely 35mm is crop?

Pixel density effects photo sites and Noise to signal ration more than sensor dimensions. So a lower MP aps-c maybe cleaner than high MP 35mm sensor, however the analogue to digital processor then comes into play.

My whole point is there are far more issues to digital cameras than sensor size.
I have a Kodak 14n, better than a d7200? Not a chance
Click to expand...

Very true. But you initially came in with the statement FF vs Crop is irrelevant, which clearly is not the case ;)
 
My pennorth here would be that I have a 7DMk1 and it is woeful in bad light. Even in decent light, I have to expose right to bring some control over the noise. If you can live with noise then that's cool but I prefer clean images. Banding with the 7d1 can also be an issue.

That said, I have no experience of the Mk2 and it is by all accounts, a much better sensor than I have in the Mk1. Even so, a quite well known wildlife friend of mine was telling me a few weeks ago that the Mk2 is "no low light camera". The Mk2 is certainly an improvement over the Mk1 but (here comes my point) it won't live with an FF camera in low light. The FF should also have better general image quality but that will only be noticeable at pixel peeping levels.

I have a similar dilemma to yours, do I upgrade my Mk1 to a Mk2 or do I go FF? The 5dMkIV is out of reach for me at the moment so it would have to be a 6D or a 5dMkIII. Of the 2, the MkIII is the better camera vs the 6d regarding how it does things but the image quality is no better than from a 6d.

With my dilemma, I've come to the conclusion that it's horses for courses. The 6d would make an awesome landscape camera and in the right hands, is quite adept at wildlife. The 6d won't live with the 7d (1or2) though for wildlife in the right light. The 5diii would do both landscapes and wildlife, as well as other genres very well. Being as I already have a 7D1, it would be an expensive upgrade to a mk2, so my next body will be FF and then I'll have both, albeit with a noisy 7d1.
 
Dale. said:
My pennorth here would be that I have a 7DMk1 and it is woeful in bad light. Even in decent light, I have to expose right to bring some control over the noise. If you can live with noise then that's cool but I prefer clean images. Banding with the 7d1 can also be an issue.

That said, I have no experience of the Mk2 and it is by all accounts, a much better sensor than I have in the Mk1. Even so, a quite well known wildlife friend of mine was telling me a few weeks ago that the Mk2 is "no low light camera". The Mk2 is certainly an improvement over the Mk1 but (here comes my point) it won't live with an FF camera in low light. The FF should also have better general image quality but that will only be noticeable at pixel peeping levels.

I have a similar dilemma to yours, do I upgrade my Mk1 to a Mk2 or do I go FF? The 5dMkIV is out of reach for me at the moment so it would have to be a 6D or a 5dMkIII. Of the 2, the MkIII is the better camera vs the 6d regarding how it does things but the image quality is no better than from a 6d.

With my dilemma, I've come to the conclusion that it's horses for courses. The 6d would make an awesome landscape camera and in the right hands, is quite adept at wildlife. The 6d won't live with the 7d (1or2) though for wildlife in the right light. The 5diii would do both landscapes and wildlife, as well as other genres very well. Being as I already have a 7D1, it would be an expensive upgrade to a mk2, so my next body will be FF and then I'll have both, albeit with a noisy 7d1.
Click to expand...

Dale, has your 7D had the firmware update as this apparently improved noise performance.
 
Last one I did was about a year ago. I will check the version tonight. (y)

Thanks for that. :)
 
The 7d firmware updates were just for minor issues (auto powering off, accurately reporting max burst 'shots left' and screen issues), none of them had any impact on IQ.

Also it doesn't appear they have issued a firmware update for the 7d since 2012.
 
Last edited:
Dale. said:
Last one I did was about a year ago. I will check the version tonight. (y)

Thanks for that. :)
Click to expand...

You are probably already up to date. My next thought is have you tried specialist noise reduction software or Nik dfine2?

As you say FF is the way to go for better low light performance.

There were some good deals on the Canon 6D today. I am still tempted to get one before prices increase even if it is likely to be replaced next year, but do I really need it, probably not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top