To full frame or not to full frame....

G

grum

Messages
3,234
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
Or even to DSLR or not to DSLR :)

Basically I bought my first 'proper' camera a few months ago - a GF1. I am really pleased with it and will definitely be keeping it but reading this forum all the time keeps making me think I should get a DSLR too. :bonk:

I mostly shoot landscapes and music stuff I suppose, but I would also like to try shooting some more extreme sports stuff like mountain biking and snowboarding. My flickr is here for some examples - http://www.flickr.com/photos/18244158@N00/

I am coming into a reasonable chunk of money soon, and I am getting seriously tempted - don't know whether to just get something like a D90 (or D300), or maybe a second hand 40d - or splurge a load on say, a D700 and 24-70 2.8 (or 5D Mk II).

Having better high ISO performance and less shutter lag/faster burst rates would be nice for the gig stuff, and would full frame give better IQ for landscapes etc?

Or should I just stick with what I've got. :bang:

I now do some photography as part of my job as I work in creative arts anyway, and I also do some design work so it fits in quite well. Don't think I want to become a full time pro - I gather there is not much work in landscapes and gig photography etc - can't see myself wanting to get into weddings, portraits and baby photos etc. But I would like to do some more photography work.

I know it's mostly only me who can answer the question of 'is it worth it', but just wondering if anyone has any advice or thoughts?
 
The GF1 is pretty much on a par with all the entry level DSLR's so you're not going to gain a whole heap by getting in at the bottom. Except a real viewfinder of course but that can actually be as much of burden as a blessing.

If it was my money, I'd put into something used but top quality. Super fast AF, good low light performance and general ruggedness are what you're missing now and that's what would make the DSLR experience worthwhile in my eyes.

And if it's used kit you buy, you can bail out with minimal loss if it's just not for you after all.
 
Thanks Darren - what you say makes a lot of sense. Do you have any specific recommendations for what would be a good s/h thing to look out for?

Was tempted by a Nikon because they are meant to have good high ISO and fast AF, which as you say, would seem the main point of a DSLR compared to the GF1

Sounds a bit daft, but I would really like to try and shoot some more gigs etc professionally - and I kind of think I won't get taken seriously if I just have a GF1. :)
 
It really is your attitude and results that dictate how seriously people take you. I'd have no problem taking on an assignment with the little Geff as long as I felt it could get the goods. In terms of response speed and low light for gigs, it probably isn't quite going to though is it.

I'd go Nikon but that's not a scientific decision, just as a Canon bod I'd really like to try some of that good Nikon stuff. They do seem to have a bigger swell of satisfied users behind them right now than Canon do. That will swing back again of course but right now if I was starting out on a new kit, it'd be Nikon.

For full frame and it should be to compliment the panny, the D700 looks good to me.
 
Grum, if used is an option, original Mk1 5Ds are going for a song - £600 will get you a good used one, which would leave a better option in terms of lenses. Okay, you're buying old tech but that FF sensor would probably seem ace. However, they are slow in terms of FPS and not good for action.

The D700 deffo sounds a good option and you've mentioned it first, so it's obviously one that's on your mind. Great high ISO capabilities, fast FPS (well, fast enough for most situations) and amazing build quality - personally, IMO all the pro-spec Nikons of the ungripped variety (D200/D300/D300s/D700) are streets ahead of the ungripped (40D/50D7D/5D) Canons. handling is very much a case of which ever catches you when you have a play, although I do think Nikons allow users with bigger hands to hold them comfortably.

Is it worth going FF? Only you can justify it to yourself....
 
original Mk1 5Ds are going for a song - £600 will get you a good used one, which would leave a better option in terms of lenses. Okay, you're buying old tech but that FF sensor would probably seem ace. However, they are slow in terms of FPS and not good for action.
Click to expand...

I still use a 5D Mk1 as it does a job where I want full frame but with a more manageable file size. The sensor is still fab and the quality is great as you say. When it comes to the auto side of stuff with focusing and metering, the GF1 is actually quite a way ahead. The AF on the 5D is totally woeful.
 
Thanks for the input you two - much appreciated.

The D700 is very tempting, and S/H def seems sensible so I wouldn't lose much if I ended up selling. The only thing is though, I would possibly feel a bit uncomfortable spending that much on a camera with no warranty etc. I assume these cameras are pretty reliable?

£400 on a 40D with no warranty wouldn't trouble me too much, but £1300 or so I dunno. :thinking:
 
I would want a camera costing that much to be either from a known source or a dealer offering a warranty of some sort. Even 30 days would be enough to be sure it wasn't carrying an old injury. Most offer at least 90 days though, so you'd most likely be fine.
 
Full frame is pretty much about image quality. All the other advantages are pretty marginal TBH. And there are downsides, but the major one is cost.

Nikon D700 seems perfect for what you want :thumbs: Maybe a Canon 5D2 depending on priorities

Your point about being taken seriously with a GF-1 is a valid one. Justified or not (probably not) you will get looks ;)
 
grum said:
Thanks for the input you two - much appreciated.

The D700 is very tempting, and S/H def seems sensible so I wouldn't lose much if I ended up selling. The only thing is though, I would possibly feel a bit uncomfortable spending that much on a camera with no warranty etc. I assume these cameras are pretty reliable?

£400 on a 40D with no warranty wouldn't trouble me too much, but £1300 or so I dunno. :thinking:
Click to expand...

I'd go for the 40D. It's still a good camera, and it isn't right to suggest that it isn't a step up from the GF1; a DSLR like the 40D opens the door to a more flexible system that you can build up over time, and really decide which areas of photgraphy you want to explore fully. Simply buying into full-frame isn't going to make you a better photographer, and with the right lenses you can (with practice) get professional results with an APS-C DSLR, and don't let anybody tell you different!

The resolving power of crop-sensor cameras has been so good for the last three years or so it's surpassed 35mm film cameras in a lot of respects, and nobody suggested you couldn't get pro results with them. There are plenty of places where you could get a used 40D wth a 6-month warranty, that'll last you a good couple of years, until you know exactly how you want to progress with SLR photography :thumbs:
 
grum said:
Thanks Darren - what you say makes a lot of sense. Do you have any specific recommendations for what would be a good s/h thing to look out for?

Was tempted by a Nikon because they are meant to have good high ISO and fast AF, which as you say, would seem the main point of a DSLR compared to the GF1

Sounds a bit daft, but I would really like to try and shoot some more gigs etc professionally - and I kind of think I won't get taken seriously if I just have a GF1. :)
Click to expand...

Just looked at your gig pictures on Flickr - some great shots there:clap:
 
Thanks again folks - anyone know how good the AF on the 40D is compared to, say a D700 (or a D90)?

Simply buying into full-frame isn't gooing to make you a better photographer
Click to expand...

Yeah I do know that - I have got some results with my GF1 that quite a few people have said look 'professional' (and a few of those people might even have known what they were talking about :) ). I know I still have a lot to learn about photography and that this will make the biggest difference to picture quality.

hillwalkinggirl said:
Just looked at your gig pictures on Flickr - some great shots there:clap:
Click to expand...

Thanks - quite a few were taken with an old M42 manual focus lens, so I know that gear isn't the be all and end all :)
 
grum said:
Thanks again folks - anyone know how good the AF on the 40D is compared to, say a D700 (or a D90)?



Yeah I do know that - I have got some results with my GF1 that quite a few people have said look 'professional' (and a few of those people might even have known what they were talking about :) ). I know I still have a lot to learn about photography and that this will make the biggest difference to picture quality.
Click to expand...

I beg your pardon there, grum; I'm sure you're very good, and I wasn't making a comment on your ability or understanding.. more a case of stating an oft-quoted truism that's applicable in this instance. I just think if you're starting out with a DSLR, regardless how good an 'eye' you've got, I would rather splash the cash on quality lenses than on the body; needless to say, if you start with an APS-C body and buy the right lenses there's nowt to stop you carrying those lenses over if you do eventually move to FF. Anyway, if you're into extreme sports I'd be more inclined to go down the APS-C, or even the 1D (APS-H) route anyway, due to the respective crop-factors adding a bit of reach to your telephotos and shutter speeds (EDIT: sorry, I meant frame-rates) being generally higher.
 
Nifkin said:
I'd go for the 40D. It's still a good camera, and it isn't right to suggest that it isn't a step up from the GF1; a DSLR like the 40D opens the door to a more flexible system that you can build up over time, and really decide which areas of photgraphy you want to explore fully. Simply buying into full-frame isn't going to make you a better photographer, and with the right lenses you can (with practice) get professional results with an APS-C DSLR, and don't let anybody tell you different!

The resolving power of crop-sensor cameras has been so good for the last three years or so it's surpassed 35mm film cameras in a lot of respects, and nobody suggested you couldn't get pro results with them. There are plenty of places where you could get a used 40D wth a 6-month warranty, that'll last you a good couple of years, until you know exactly how you want to progress with SLR photography :thumbs:
Click to expand...

GF-1 is not a compact. It's effectively an APS-C DSLR with interchangeable lenses, but without the mirror. It has an electronic viewfinder.

grum said:
Thanks again folks - anyone know how good the AF on the 40D is compared to, say a D700 (or a D90)?

Yeah I do know that - I have got some results with my GF1 that quite a few people have said look 'professional' (and a few of those people might even have known what they were talking about :) ). I know I still have a lot to learn about photography and that this will make the biggest difference to picture quality.

Thanks - quite a few were taken with an old M42 manual focus lens, so I know that gear isn't the be all and end all :)
Click to expand...

Very few cameras can live with the AF or frame rate of a D700. That's it's ace card, plus high ISO.

Canon 5D2 has a better sensor, in some respects, but can't live with the Nikon's speed. You cannot mention a D90 and D700 in the same breath :eek:
 
HoppyUK said:
GF-1 is not a compact. It's effectively an APS-C DSLR with interchangeable lenses, but without the mirror. It has an electronic viewfinder.
:
Click to expand...

Sorry Hoppy, but where did I say the GF-1 is a compact?
 
Nifkin said:
I beg your pardon there, grum; I'm sure you're very good, and I wasn't making a comment on your ability or understanding.. more a case of stating an oft-quoted truism that's applicable in this instance. I just think if you're starting out with a DSLR, regardless how good an 'eye' you've got, I would rather splash the cash on quality lenses than on the body; needless to say, if you start with an APS-C body and buy the right lenses there's nowt to stop you carrying those lenses over if you do eventually move to FF.
Click to expand...

No worries, this is the kind of stuff I need to hear. :)

I was under the impression though that lenses that would be good for FF would be kind of wasted on a crop sensor, or is that wrong? The lens ranges for Canon/Nikon is something I am reading up on at the moment as I don't know much about them.

HoppyUK said:
Very few cameras can live with the AF or frame rate of a D700. That's it's ace card, plus high ISO.

Canon 5D2 has a better sensor, in some respects, but can't live with the Nikon's speed. You cannot mention a D90 and D700 in the same breath :eek:
Click to expand...

How about a D300(s)? :)

Oh, and I would like to try out using multiple off camera flashes etc for extreme sports stuff - am I right in thinking Nikon has the edge here?
 
You have certainly managed to squeeze the best out of the GF1 in various scenarios, but there are still several areas that the DSLR is king...

High ISO,
Optical Viewfinder,
FPS,
Choice of lenses,
& Presence

I've said before, that I was going to sell all my gear, but I just cant get away from the GF1 & DSLR combo covering all bases.

I'd go with a Canon 40D - had one before the 7D I have now - for the money it is really capable and isn't going to stand you in too much if you decide it's not for you. In actual fact, I was more impressed with the 40D than I have been with the 7D.

Know anyone closer than me who would be prepared to lend you their camera for the weekend? Or maybe rent one?
 
dazzajl said:
I would want a camera costing that much to be either from a known source or a dealer offering a warranty of some sort. Even 30 days would be enough to be sure it wasn't carrying an old injury. Most offer at least 90 days though, so you'd most likely be fine.
Click to expand...

I have no issues buying my D3 bodies (or Pro-spec lenses) 2nd hand - just take a look at the frame-count...they're rated to 300,000+, so anything around 10K is practically brand-new.
If it's had Pro-use, it may be cosmetically scarred, but still in good nick - Pro's tend to 'upgrade' rather than 'discard because defective'.
My 'work' D3 bodies which are less than 18 months old, both look like they've been to hell and back but both have sub-35K actuations and are in perfect working order. Both would be unlikely to fetch more than £500 because of the way they look.

Any camera or lens that's had 'hobbyist' use for less than 2 years is unlikely to be other than mint unless the previous owner is particularly clumsy - and those are easy enough to spot if you know what to look for.
 
Thanks Alan, there is a 40D at one of the places I do some work - doesn't get a lot of use. I could probably borrow it for a day or two.

Saw one go for £360 on ebay just before with less than 2000 clicks, 2 spare batterys and an 8GB CF card - very nearly pulled the trigger. I could probably have just about got away with that without being murdered by the GF too. :)

Hmmm.....

Any camera or lens that's had 'hobbyist' use for less than 2 years is unlikely to be other than mint unless the previous owner is particularly clumsy - and those are easy enough to spot if you know what to look for.
Click to expand...

And thanks Rob - I'm sure you would say to go with Nikon eh? :)
 
Nifkin said:
Sorry Hoppy, but where did I say the GF-1 is a compact?
Click to expand...

You didn't, it's just the way you made a distinction between the GF-1 and a 40D that made me think you were talking about it as if it was a compact, ie "you can (with practice) get professional results with an APS-C DSLR, and don't let anybody tell you different!". The GF-1 actually has a fractionally bigger sensor than the 40D and is every bit as capable of professional results.

grum said:
No worries, this is the kind of stuff I need to hear. :)

I was under the impression though that lenses that would be good for FF would be kind of wasted on a crop sensor, or is that wrong? The lens ranges for Canon/Nikon is something I am reading up on at the moment as I don't know much about them.
Click to expand...

While you can use full frame lenses on a crop sensor DSLR, they are indeed wasted, or at least you're not making full use of them. And when you later upgrade and put them on a full frame camera, they behave compeltely differently.

How about a D300(s)? :)
Click to expand...

Great camera, but there are loads of great cameras about. You need to decide between crop format and full frame first.

Oh, and I would like to try out using multiple off camera flashes etc for extreme sports stuff - am I right in thinking Nikon has the edge here?
Click to expand...

It's a myth. Canon's E-TTL system is essentially the same as Nikon's (and most others come to that). They're all excellent.
 
grum said:
...And thanks Rob - I'm sure you would say to go with Nikon eh? :)
Click to expand...

I would, but only if they're right for you...

They may be my preference, but I know guys who can't get on with Nikons and they're better photographers than I could ever hope to be...

Handle them all...see which feels right...
 
HoppyUK said:
The GF-1 actually has a fractionally bigger sensor than the 40D and is every bit as capable of professional results.
Click to expand...

Thanks Hoppy - this isn't right though is it? Pretty sure the 40D has a bigger sensor than the GF1?

I have very briefly used a 40D and it seemed pretty nice but that was before I got into photography and had my GF1 to compare it to.
 
grum said:
Thanks Hoppy - this isn't right though is it? Pretty sure the 40D has a bigger sensor than the GF1?

I have very briefly used a 40D and it seemed pretty nice but that was before I got into photography and had my GF1 to compare it to.
Click to expand...

Panasonic Lumix GF1 is based around a Panasonic Live MOS image sensor with dimensions of 17.3 x 13.0mm, the standard size for a Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds-format camera.

Canon 40D sensor size - 22.2 x 14.8 mm (3.28 cm²)


One thing you will notice is trying to match the IQ on the GF1+20mm combo with the DSLR+Kit Lens (if that's the route you go). I'd look at the Canon 17-55 f2.8 coupled to the 40D - undoubtedly the best walkabout Canon lens for a crop body - very, very, very sharp but probably still not quite up to the 20mm f1.7 on the panny.
 
grum said:
Thanks Hoppy - this isn't right though is it? Pretty sure the 40D has a bigger sensor than the GF1?

I have very briefly used a 40D and it seemed pretty nice but that was before I got into photography and had my GF1 to compare it to.
Click to expand...

bl0at3r said:
Panasonic Lumix GF1 is based around a Panasonic Live MOS image sensor with dimensions of 17.3 x 13.0mm, the standard size for a Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds-format camera.

Canon 40D sensor size - 22.2 x 14.8 mm (3.28 cm²)

One thing you will notice is trying to match the IQ on the GF1+20mm combo with the DSLR+Kit Lens (if that's the route you go). I'd look at the Canon 17-55 f2.8 coupled to the 40D - undoubtedly the best walkabout Canon lens for a crop body - very, very, very sharp but probably still not quite up to the 20mm f1.7 on the panny.
Click to expand...

You're quite right! My silly mistake, I'm so sorry :bonk:

For some reason I was distracted by the new Samsung and Sonys, similar design to GF-1, which do indeed have fractionally larger sensors than the 40D.

As bl0at3r says, GF-1 is 4/3rds. Roughly 30% smaller than the 40D. When push comes to shove, 40D will have slightly better image quality.

Apologies.

Edit: just to say, my comment about deciding on full frame or not is what you should do first - when considering image quality. There is a difference between 4/3rds and APS-C, but it's not huge. However, full frame is around 2.5x the area of APS-C.
 
The one thing about full frame that beats APS-C, 4/3rds or whatever else small sensor is the dynamic range. Even on my old tank of a camera it has way more DR than my 450 did which was a smaller sensor but much more modern. I can practically shoot into the sun and still not blow the highlights or black out the shadows. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong folks, but the evidence is there. I'm full frame now for less than a month and I'll be damned if I'm ever going back .
 
So, where does all this leave you now, Graham? What are your priorities?

Over the past couple of weeks, I've heard a couple of people complain about the 5DMK2's ability to autofocus in low light (one was Zack Arias) which might have a bearing on gig photography. Full frame ought to give you the edge in high ISOs, but I know pro's who are supporting a family by shooting low light stuff with a 40D.

For landscapes, I suspect the 5DMKII would have the edge with it's higher resolution sensor, but then the D700 isn't exactly a slouch either.

By the way, the D700 also has built-in wireless flash control system like the 7D.

For me, the D700 was the better-specified all-rounder when I was looking for an upgrade from my 5DMK1.
 
A lot of truth in that last statement. The colour rendition and quality is definitely better on FF than APS-C, and high ISO performance tends to be better as well (if you're in to gig photography).

APS-C offers a lot of things, but as you're working close in, the wide angle lenses are actually "wide" on a FF, something else for you to consider.

Steve
 
The main reasons for buying full frame are,

The ISO performance is better, D300 – D700 = 2 stop improvement in high ISO performance.
The lenses give you a much wider field of view for the same lens length.

The down side is that the lenses are a lot bigger and heavier which can be an issue if you are carrying a few.

Cost.

All the other stuff like shutter lag, frame rates etc. etc. are all comparable.
 
DigitalRelish said:
So, where does all this leave you now, Graham? What are your priorities?

Over the past couple of weeks, I've heard a couple of people complain about the 5DMK2's ability to autofocus in low light (one was Zack Arias) which might have a bearing on gig photography. Full frame ought to give you the edge in high ISOs, but I know pro's who are supporting a family by shooting low light stuff with a 40D.

For landscapes, I suspect the 5DMKII would have the edge with it's higher resolution sensor, but then the D700 isn't exactly a slouch either.

By the way, the D700 also has built-in wireless flash control system like the 7D.

For me, the D700 was the better-specified all-rounder when I was looking for an upgrade from my 5DMK1.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know what people are comparing a 5D2 against when they say the AF is poor. Compared to top-end pro-spec fast-action cameras like the D700/D3 yes, ditto a 1D/1Ds, but compared to a 40D? No way.

I just swapped a 40D for a 5D2 and the AF is at least as good on the 5D2, no question. I would even say it's better than the 40D but I don't have the two to compare any more. It has the same basic system as the 40D/50D, but is looking through a full frame lens which is a fundamental advantage to phase-detect AF.
 
ah5168 said:
The main reasons for buying full frame are,

The ISO performance is better, D300 – D700 = 2 stop improvement in high ISO performance.
The lenses give you a much wider field of view for the same lens length.

The down side is that the lenses are a lot bigger and heavier which can be an issue if you are carrying a few.

Cost.

All the other stuff like shutter lag, frame rates etc. etc. are all comparable.
Click to expand...

Plus depth of field. Full frame delivers shallower depth of field equivalent to about 1.25 stops compared to crop format. The exact difference is f/number x crop factor.
 
HoppyUK said:
I'd like to know what people are comparing a 5D2 against when they say the AF is poor. Compared to top-end pro-spec fast-action cameras like the D700/D3 yes, ditto a 1D/1Ds, but compared to a 40D? No way.

I just swapped a 40D for a 5D2 and the AF is at least as good on the 5D2, no question. I would even say it's better than the 40D but I don't have the two to compare any more. It has the same basic system as the 40D/50D, but is looking through a full frame lens which is a fundamental advantage to phase-detect AF.
Click to expand...

Yup, I think the 5DMK2 AF was being compared to D700/D3 AF in a low light situation.

I shot with a 40D before the 5DMK1 and considered the AF on the 40D to be superior.

Then there are the lenses used in these conditions to be considered as well as everything else...
 
DigitalRelish said:
Yup, I think the 5DMK2 AF was being compared to D700/D3 AF in a low light situation.

I shot with a 40D before the 5DMK1 and considered the AF on the 40D to be superior.

Then there are the lenses used in these conditions to be considered as well as everything else...
Click to expand...

Yes, very good point :thumbs:
 
One big disadvantage for me would be the lack of a built in flash. There's only one FF DSLR with a built in flash at the moment (as far as I know) and that's the D700 and that's a problem for me as I have 9 Canon fit lenses. I've never had an SLR without a flash.

I sometimes think that we worry too much about noise. I printed some ISO 400 shots at A4 yesterday and there was no visible noise. At 800 noise is perfectly acceptable and even 1600 and 3200 are usable with care. I think that sometimes we forget what film was like.

I used to think that I'd go FF but now, having got used to APS-C, I don't think I will any time soon as my APS-C seems to give good prints at A3 and anything smaller.
 
Coming from a background of film SLRs, where built-in flashes were a relatively recent development in the late 80's, I have to say I don't like them - the 5D2's lack of flash was a plus point for me!

I think they are flimsy and by far the weakest point on the camera, and as a flash they're a bit feeble and not particularly effective - good for snapshots or fill-in, but not much else. If you're spending £k's on a full-frame DSLR, I think you should be using a decent separate flashgun to do it justice.

There's a reason for pro SLRs not having built-in flashes! ;)

A.
 
Snap shots and fill in is exactly what I use it for. And of course, a more serious photographer could use it to trigger others :o)

I'm always confused by the view that a lack of a flash is a plus. If you have one and don't want to use it you simply don't have to but if you haven't got one but want it you can't use it.
 
No neither do I as I like natural light, but if I want it it's there.

If it's not there the only option is an add on that has to be carried and fitted and removed. Too much faff on.
 
HoppyUK said:
You didn't, it's just the way you made a distinction between the GF-1 and a 40D that made me think you were talking about it as if it was a compact, ie "you can (with practice) get professional results with an APS-C DSLR, and don't let anybody tell you different!". The GF-1 actually has a fractionally bigger sensor than the 40D and is every bit as capable of professional results.
Click to expand...

Excuse my late retort, but that's an interesting take on my point. Can't quite see how "you can (with practice) get professional results with an APS-C DSLR, and don't let anybody tell you different!" equals "the GF-1 is a compact camera." I was primarily considering APS-C versus full frame with that comment. Anyway, glad we established that a micro four-thirds sensor is in fact smaller than an APS-C sensor.

HoppyUK said:
While you can use full frame lenses on a crop sensor DSLR, they are indeed wasted, or at least you're not making full use of them. And when you later upgrade and put them on a full frame camera, they behave compeltely differently.
Click to expand...

That's always the poorest reason not to use an APS-C body. Of course full frame lenses are not wasted on crop sensor cameras. They take advantage of the sweet spot, for starters; there are a lot of lenses, even hallowed Canon Ls, that suffer vignetting and other issues wide open on FF that, of course, you won't get on an APS-C camera. And yes, the focal lengths do behave differently when going from crop to full frame, but they're still very usable, unlike DX/EF-S lenses!

Lenses first, bodies second, grum; the 40D (or D90 for that matter) represents amazing value at the moment, and would get your foot in the door with regards to a well supported SLR system. :thumbs:
 
Another thing in favour of APS-C is that many of the lenses are the most up to date designs. At least some FF lenses use designs that date back many years and could be done better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top