Upgrade to Full Frame Inevitable?

5

5thumbs

Messages
66
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry if that title sounds like something designed to start a flame war - its not.

I been taking pictures casually for years and have reasonable gear - Nikon D7100 and Nikkor 18-200mm and Sigma 10-20mm. Recently I've been getting more into landscape photography and have been prising myself out of bed at the crack of dawn to catch the golden hour etc. As I've become more into this I've found I've become more and more conscious of image quality and the contribution it has to the overall picture. I find that as a result my picture taking has got better and images which I used to think were great dont look as good now that I can see the technical faults. I think this is a positive as I'm learning more and getting better and I really enjoy that.

I'm pretty happy with my gear at present - it does a good job on the whole but I cant help but notice that most landscape photographers seem to shoot full frame and most of them Canon 5D's it seems. So assuming I stick on this path will the quest for better image quality inevitably mean I have to start saving for an upgrade? The problem is there doesn't seem to be any easy upgrade path if thats what is required . The lenses aren't really interchangeable so it looks like it would mean selling eveything and starting anew. I mst stress that I'm in no hurry as I'm still enjoying what I've got but as a way forward I'd be interested to hear from others who may have found themselves with a similar dilemma. Any recommendations welcome...

thanks
 
Its fantastic that you're learning more & more, but FF isn't a panacea to fix those (perceived) problems. If you're seeing things that you think can be improved in your work, FF won't fix those things. I genuinely believe that for the vast majority of uses you'll no longer be able to tell the difference between FF and crop sensors. I think an upgrade on the basis of 'it'll fix things' will disapoint.
 
Having recently upgrade from 60D to 5D3, the main advantages I have found are, low light (high ISO) performance, Slightly more dynamic range and improved colour and contrast sooc. You really having to push the limitations to notice any huge difference in IQ. As to the lenses although most of the lenses are interchangeable unfortunately due to the crop factor APS-C lenses need to be wider to gain the same FL as standard FF lenses, for example your 10-20 is roughly the same as the 16-35L
 
All things equal FF will record cleaner images with more accurate colour. But that is not the end - some of us are dreaming of MF for certain work... Do you NEED it?
 
Having used the 40D for 5+ years I found myself asking the same thing. A pretty much complete change of lenses would be required to move to the 6D/5Dii, which meant I looked wider at other systems as well - primarily the new Sony A7/r. Most of this was driven by a desire to mark a significant birthday with a new camera.

I hummed and hawed for several months, and then surprised myself by sticking with APS-C and switching to Fuji and the X-Pro1, with which I am very happy.

But if I do want the big sensor look, I do also have a 6x7 medium format film system as well.
 
FF isn't a panacea to fix those (perceived) problems .....I think an upgrade on the basis of 'it'll fix things' will disapoint.

I think this is missing the point slightly. I'm not really trying fix any thing. I suppose what I'm saying is as I get better at producing images will there come a point when the natural step is to move to full frame and if so, is there any easy way to do that other than sell up and start again (suspect there isn't).
 
This is an interesting article about how people seem to think full frame is the end goal.

In regard to brands- I shot landscapes on a 5d MkII using an adapter and a Nikon 14-24 so it's possible to mix and match. I didn't purposefully set out to do that but I did like it once I had tried it- the 5d was originally for video as Nikon were completely incompetent at it back then (not sure they are much better now:p)

All your lenses would need changed anyway- yes they will work on Nikon FX in DX mode but what's the point so you would have to buy everything from scratch anyway- body/ lenses giving you the opportunity to start again if you sell or keep spare kit in Nikon and move to Canon.

Having said all that, I would buy better lenses before you complained about your camera body not being up to it. The easy way to go full frame is to only buy full frame lenses- then at least it is just a body upgrade.
 
bear in mind that neither of your lenses will work on FF , so you'll need to budget a shed load of cash to upgrade all your equipment - to be honest that cash might be better spent on better lenses, or on wine women and song (or cigarettes whisky and wild wild men depending on your preference)
 
I prefer a FF camera for landscapes, but crop sensor does have its advantages especially for maximising longer lenses for subjects like wildlife

To those ends I use a 5D MkI with a 17-40 for landscape stuff and a 40D combined with a 70-200 plus 1.4 TC for wildlife, also have a 24-105 which is fine on both cameras (as are all the lenses being EF)

This next bit is just my opinion, but honestly prefer the results from lower mp cameras, detail such as foilage seems clearer. No scientific evidence whatsoever, but to me the lower mp also seems less prone to camera shake.

Budget set up that gives me the best of both worlds and compatibility, same memory card format, remotes and batteries which is a bonus too.

Point in this is you can have both at a reasonably decent cost, if a Nikon user I would use the D300 and D700 to similar ends.
 
Last edited:
Worth stressing my original point - I'm happy with my current gear . I think I've got plenty of areas I can improve before pointing the finger at my gear so this emphatically us not a case of throwing money at gear to fix a user error :) . The point is more a theoretical one - does there come a point when moving to full frame does give improvements.

HopefulM those are cracking pictures on that guys flickr stream - point well made!

Interesting point also on changing tobetter lenses - be interested in suggestions for what would be a good upgrade (at some point) from my Nikkor 18-200mm and Sigma 10-20mm.
 
It sounds like you've got the same setup as me! However I consciously chose the D7100 over a full frame alternative (I was looking closely at the D600 and D800, but I was keeping my D90, so there was some sense for me in staying with a cropped sensor that may not apply to you), as it would have meant having to start from scratch with body AND lenses, rather than upgrade the body, and then upgrade the lenses to FF in turn as I could afford it, then upgrade the body again to FF. So FF might be the next step for me too, but it'll be a managed transition.

In terms of lenses, the FF 28-300 might be the logical step from the 18-200 on FF. You'll obviously lose the wide end, but you'll get that from your 10-20 until you go to FF, and if you apply a reverse crop factor (I'm pretty sure I'm right here), the 28 will give the same effect as a 16mm on a crop camera... That might meet your needs? otherwise, pretty much any old FF lens will work on your D7100, so its the staged way to full frame. Assuming you want to stick with Nikon! Otherwise, it's a moot point as you'll probably have to trade it all in...
 
Last edited:
I think you need to clarify what you're not happy with regarding your previous images.. my guess is that it's more to do with composition/light which moving to FF won't have any affect on. A FF by design is likely to capture more detail compared to a crop sensor DSLR but in reality unless you print very large you'll not see the difference and if you mainly view images on a PC screen then you definitely won't, only if pixel-peeping at 100%.

Think you'll find that quite a lot of landscape photographers have gone with the Nikon D800 (me included) which is a logical progression for you if you decide it's necessary.

Spending money on lenses is a better idea but don't go for "ultrazooms", instead consider a more limited range zoom or prime lenses as both will produce better images


Simon
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
5thumbs said:
The point is more a theoretical one - does there come a point when moving to full frame does give improvements.
Click to expand...

When I went from 20D to 5D I noticed...
- The 5D is better at the highest ISO's.
- With the 5D I tended to use longer lenses at smaller apertures.
- The 5D + lens is mostly bigger and heavier.
- Pixel peeping at 100%+ may show some advantage to the 5D, mostly at higher ISO's.
I have only ever printed to a max of A3 so any abiity to print larger is wasted on me.

When I bought into MFT compared to the 5D I noticed...
- At low to medium ISO's I had to pixel peep and mostly had to guess what camera was used to take what image.
- The 5D is better at the highest ISO's.
- MFT kit is a lot smaller and lighter.

I've since bought a Sony A7 because I get to use old manual lenses at their intended angle of view and with focus aids too :D However, all this swapping and changing has lead me to conclude that unless I shoot at the highest ISO's, print MASSIVE or crop like crazy and print or pixel peep at 100%+ it really doesn't matter what format I use.

For handheld use I actually think that FF is at the limit of what I personally would want to use as sometimes with FF I find myself fighting for adequate DoF whilst trying to keep the shutter speed up and the ISO down. With the smaller systems for the same field of view you get deeper DoF and you can use this to keep your shutter speed up / ISO down. Maybe for me for handheld use MFT is at one end of what I find accetable (I don't think I'd be happy with a smaller format) and FF is at the other end and actually a bit closer to being too big than MFT is to being too small.

PS. Using the kit... I'm not really happy using a FF DSLR and lens. I'm much happier with a physically smaller camera and lens package as I find that I attract much less attention when using the smaller kit.
 
Last edited:
There was an interesting comment on a webinar recently from Matt Kloskowski (think I spelt that right) who shoots both canon and Nikon FF, but mostly uses the Nikon because there's no substitute for well controlled pixels if you want detail, and the Nikon has a 36MP sensor.

The only reasons I can see for wanting FF are a) that you need the highest possible resolution to obtain the smoothest, most detailed image possible* or b) that you want better control over depth of field than is possible with a crop sensor.

*Medium format is just around the corner. ;)
 
5thumbs said:
Worth stressing my original point - I'm happy with my current gear . I think I've got plenty of areas I can improve before pointing the finger at my gear so this emphatically us not a case of throwing money at gear to fix a user error :) . The point is more a theoretical one - does there come a point when moving to full frame does give improvements.

HopefulM those are cracking pictures on that guys flickr stream - point well made!

Interesting point also on changing tobetter lenses - be interested in suggestions for what would be a good upgrade (at some point) from my Nikkor 18-200mm and Sigma 10-20mm.
Click to expand...

Yes. Full frame is sharper, has greater dynamic range, less noise.* Facts. All these benefits are derived from the physically larger sensor area, rather than more pixels. Against that, FF kit is bigger/heavier and more expensive.

The real questions are, how much better is FF image quality, and is it worth it? Only you can answer that, and quite likely, only by trying it.

*Edit: FF also delivers less depth of field, for same subject framed the same. The difference is slightly more than one stop.
 
Last edited:
5thumbs said:
I'm pretty happy with my gear at present - it does a good job on the whole but I cant help but notice that most landscape photographers seem to shoot full frame
Click to expand...

Now, I'm not a big into landscapes and I'm happy to be corrected, but I was under the impression that many of those that were very serious about landscape photography were using medium format and large format type cameras, not 35mm DSLRs.
 
HoppyUK said:
Yes. Full frame is sharper, has greater dynamic range, less noise.* Facts. All these benefits are derived from the physically larger sensor area, rather than more pixels. Against that, FF kit is bigger/heavier and more expensive.
Click to expand...

A bit but not a lot these days, have you seen the cost of some CSC? They make your eyes water.

For example...
Canon 6D = £1379 at a well known seller.
Olympus OMD E-M1 = £1299.

Ok, the Canon is more :D but not a lot more and smaller system lens prices can be in FF lens ball park for price too.

I think that the dynamic range question is complicated too as if you believe what some test sites / bloggers say... at low ISO's a certain CSC or two has more DR than any Canon DSLR ever made.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
A bit but not a lot these days, have you seen the cost of some CSC? They make your eyes water.

For example...
Canon 6D = £1379 at a well known seller.
Olympus OMD E-M1 = £1299.

Ok, the Canon is more :D but not a lot more and smaller system lens prices can be in FF lens ball park for price too.

I think that the dynamic range question is complicated too as if you believe what some test sites / bloggers say... at low ISO's a certain CSC or two has more DR than any Canon DSLR ever made.
Click to expand...

The difficulty is getting true like for like comparisons. On image quality, FF is sharper because the greater sensor area requires less enlargement at output. So less lens resolution is needed, lens contrast rises, and the image appears sharper. There's more dynamic range because the larger sensor captures more light, so there's at least one stop more detail in the shadows. For the same reason, noise is lower at the same ISO.

On size/weight and cost, FF sensors are several times more expensive than APS-C, and they need longer lenses to achieve the same framing. Compare the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS on APS-C with the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS on FF. Very similar fields of view and aperture range, yet the 55-250 weighs 390g and costs £175, while the 100-400 weighs 1380g and costs £1300. Not exactly like for like I know, but it makes the point.
 
A move to full frame would mean new camera and lenses whether cannon, nikon, Fuji or whatever. If your current kit is doing want you want then there may be no need to change. You never know what the manufacturers are planning in a year or two, I'm guessing a d800 upgrade is on the cards in the next few months as it's two years old and the d4 has had a recent upgrade announcement.

Do you have a flickr page with your photos as I'm sure some on here would be able to help you.
 
HoppyUK said:
The difficulty is getting true like for like comparisons.
Click to expand...

I mostly use primes and I've compared 25mm on MFT to 50mm on FF etc... and IMVHO for most uses (if not shooting at mega ISO's or printing huge) cameras are so good these days that it probably doesn't matter what most people use.

For some time I've been using old Rokkor and Zuiko lenses on MFT (G1) and FF (A7) and although the ultimate quality of a Rokkor or Zuiko 50mm f1.4 or 28mm f2.8 may not match a Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 or Sigma 50mm f1.4 in most images the difference will not matter to most people / viewers, IMVHO.
 
5thumbs said:
Worth stressing my original point - I'm happy with my current gear . I think I've got plenty of areas I can improve before pointing the finger at my gear so this emphatically us not a case of throwing money at gear to fix a user error :) . The point is more a theoretical one - does there come a point when moving to full frame does give improvements.

HopefulM those are cracking pictures on that guys flickr stream - point well made!

Interesting point also on changing tobetter lenses - be interested in suggestions for what would be a good upgrade (at some point) from my Nikkor 18-200mm and Sigma 10-20mm.
Click to expand...

I would split the 18-200 into two lenses. Too much of a compromise- I certainly wouldn't buy a 28-300 lens- image quality just isn't there and we are talking about improving your lens collection- for £300 to do a job in variable situations maybe- except it isn't anywhere near £300

Obviously you know your focal lengths better than me but as a starter I would be looking at 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 (all f2.8) then fill around with primes/ macro and TC depending on what you actually shoot or are looking to do.

Nikon is a bit poor in the DX wide angle- there's nothing really stellar- if you have a good copy of the Sigma then I would leave it at that. I found the Tokina 11-16 is the best DX lens for Nikon- better than the two Nikons - 10-24 and 12-24 although I do like the colours from the 12-24. If you go with the 14-24 on DX your field of view is not as wide but the image quality is awesome. Filter options are pricey but at least you get them now. All well worth it though and at least it will work on FX- IMO it's up there with their best lenses- and no Canon equivalent after all this time either:naughty:

There is also the 70-300 which is FX and cheaper than the 70-200. The Nikon is a bit old but still pretty good and also the Tamron with the same range which has a much improved AF module compared to their older stuff.

I'd be inclined to go 70-200 f2.8 just now, keep the Sigma 10-20 and maybe fill the gap with an older 28-70 or 24-70 at a later date and use the 18-200 meantime. That's if you think FF. Otherwise I'd fill the gap with a 17-50 type f2.8 lens but clearly those are all DX. They do have good image quality and are more flexible with constant f2.8

Loads of options, impossible to really say unless most used lengths and situations are known. Worth trying a 14-24 though:)

As to your theoretical question- there is a difference between FF and APS-C but in a lot of situations these days I am not sure the difference would be as obvious as many think e.g. landscapes. If you were doing music gigs for example and always getting noisy images even with fast lenses on an APS-C camera then likely FF is going to give you more headroom.

Anyway, for landscapes, unless you are using MF/LF then it's just d*cking about:p:D
 
I went from the D7100 to D600 and never looked back. Been so impressed with its capabilities.
 
5thumbs said:
Sorry if that title sounds like something designed to start a flame war - its not.

I been taking pictures casually for years and have reasonable gear - Nikon D7100 and Nikkor 18-200mm and Sigma 10-20mm. Recently I've been getting more into landscape photography and have been prising myself out of bed at the crack of dawn to catch the golden hour etc. As I've become more into this I've found I've become more and more conscious of image quality and the contribution it has to the overall picture. I find that as a result my picture taking has got better and images which I used to think were great dont look as good now that I can see the technical faults. I think this is a positive as I'm learning more and getting better and I really enjoy that.

I'm pretty happy with my gear at present - it does a good job on the whole but I cant help but notice that most landscape photographers seem to shoot full frame and most of them Canon 5D's it seems. So assuming I stick on this path will the quest for better image quality inevitably mean I have to start saving for an upgrade? The problem is there doesn't seem to be any easy upgrade path if thats what is required . The lenses aren't really interchangeable so it looks like it would mean selling eveything and starting anew. I mst stress that I'm in no hurry as I'm still enjoying what I've got but as a way forward I'd be interested to hear from others who may have found themselves with a similar dilemma. Any recommendations welcome...

thanks
Click to expand...


Do you print big? If not, think about how your images are viewed by the public. Most people's monitors are 1920x1080.. that's 2 mega-pixels. Even my 30" Eizo screen here is only 4MP. So if your work is predominantly published online, there is little advantage to upgrading in terms of quality, as no one will ever see it.



If you print larger than A3, even occasionally, then upgrading to full frame would be beneficial... and this has nothing to do with resolution either, it's all to do with the sharpness of the image. Larger sensors produce sharper images. If lenses are equally good, then a 16MP full frame image will be sharper than a 16MP crop sensor image. This is an indisputable fact. Even a lower resolution full frame image will appear sharper unless printed big enough for the aliasing of the pixels to become an issue.

As for Canon 5D Mkxx... that's just a preference. There's nothing inherent that makes a 5D MkIII better than a D610... they're both roughly the same resolution, and both full frame. If you want the ultimate in Landscape quality for large prints, the smart money would be on the D800E or Sony A7R as these are about as good as you'll get for sharpness at the moment from 35mm sized sensors (assuming quality lenses).

If you print big, you'll see a benefit if you use quality lenses. If you don't print big, there's almost no point... unless you put your images online at full off camera resolution... and then you're just inviting people to download them and print them for free.

The only other advantage to a higher resolution, full frame camera is the ability to crop in more... that's about it though.
 
Last edited:
Hi.

Can't argue with the pros and cons. I thought the same about a year ago, should I invest in a full frame body, upgrading from a Canon 60d to a Canon 5d MKII/III? I decided to put some money into a Canon 24mm-105mm 'L' lens (purchased for a good price at 'Focus on Imaging' last year), keep the camera and save up. For pro or semi-pro work a ff camera is compulsory really (in my book at least) regardless of how good you are as a photographer; if you're not going down this route keep your D7100 and invest in better lenses. If I start to print larger than 20"x16" and want fine detail and extremely sharp photographs, or (and I think this more likely) my 60d goes kaput then I'll think about replacing it with a full frame camera sooner rather than later. Personally I couldn't afford to go from Canon to Nikon, I'd compromise with what I've got and still keep on learning regardless of the equipment. Also, a downside to me for a ff frame camera is the file sizes which means I would have to think about upgrading my computer too, this may not affect you but it's a consideration; the D800 files are huge by comparison.
 
5thumbs said:
The point is more a theoretical one - does there come a point when moving to full frame does give improvements.
Click to expand...

Yes, but only for some subjects. It is not an 'across the board' aspiration.
 
Jonny M said:
For pro or semi-pro work a ff camera is compulsory really (in my book at least) regardless of how good you are as a photographer;
Click to expand...


I'm sorry... but that's utter nonsense.
 
Jonny M said:
For pro or semi-pro work a ff camera is compulsory really (in my book at least) regardless of how good you are as a photographer;
Click to expand...

Utter b*ll*cks.

The only criteria for being a professional is to get paid for what you do.
 
Jonny M said:
Hi.

For pro or semi-pro work a ff camera is compulsory really (in my book at least) regardless of how good you are as a photographer; .
Click to expand...

I too fall into the "well i say old boy thats a load of old tommyrot , what " camp (as summarised by Alistair above) As Ive mentioed elsewhere Ive done a lot of pro work with a 40D (and back in the day with a 20D, - not to mention the wedding I shot with a Fuji S602 .

But it would be intersting to know why you think that?
 
Naturally , why didn't i think of that :D

of course no pros ever bought the 1.3 crop 1D series (despite it being built specifically for the pro market - silly canon )
 
Yeah.. only amateurs bought the D2X too.. being APS-C, it was clearly not built for professionals :)
 
Sorry for taking the thread off topic. It depends on your definition. Professionals use professional gear simple as; a 20d/40d/60d etc ain't (nor is a 5DMKIII strictly speaking).
 
Jonny M said:
Professionals use professional gear simple as;
Click to expand...


In your own little world perhaps.





You're talking b****x... you do know that don't you?

I've shot work on non professional gear commercially, and shot as much personal work on pro gear. I use what's appropriate. A camera is a camera.

You can't just start saying "for pro or semi-pro work a ff camera is compulsory really (in my book at least) regardless of how good you are as a photographer;" and expect to be taken seriously. All you're doing is making it blatantly obvious you are not a professional photographer, and also know very little about being one.


Why is it COMPULSORY? Prey tell. What happens if a professional tries to shoot on non-professional gear... does a bolt of lightning strike you down?

Sorry to sounds harsh, but it's nonsense like this that makes people think they've got to spend a fortune to be taken seriously, and needs to be challenged. You're judged by your work, not what camera you have.
 
Last edited:
To get back on topic...

I shifted to FF digital when I could afford a D700 because it gave me the convenience of digital with the wide angles I could already get with my lenses on 35mm film. Since I enjoy using my 12-24 and 8mm, and already had FF compatible lenses, the only (!) expense I incurred was the purchase price of the body. For those who are more recent entrants to the world of photography who have a bag full of Dx/EF-S lenses, the cost of "upgrading" to FF would be significantly more and I would suggest that if the point of the OP's upgrade is to get wider angles for landscapes, the ~£550 for a Sigma 8-16 would be a better investment (depending on the lens's performance of course - I know it exists but I don't know how much it distorts compared to the 12-24).

There is a downside to FF on top of the upgrade costs - the weight of the body(s) and lenses. Yes, the pro crop bodies aren't light but I bet the FF equivalents are heavier!
 
Nod said:
There is a downside to FF on top of the upgrade costs - the weight of the body(s) and lenses.
Click to expand...

D610 = 850g. Hardly heavy.

Sony A7R = 465g.

Full frame doesn't mean heavy necessarily.
 
HoppyUK said:
On image quality, FF is sharper because the greater sensor area requires less enlargement at output.
Click to expand...

Kind of, basically....
but we are no longer physically enlarging a "recorded area" to print size; we are printing PPI. So a 12MP APS and a 12MP FX require the same "enlargement." The COC remains constant for a given sensor size regardless of MP because smaller pixels suck more.... ;)

I agree with Hugh, for most people and most situations the benefits of FF are negligible in regards to IQ and the ability to create a given image. In fact, the costs of FF is one of decreasing benefits...like everything else in photography (and perhaps almost everything in life), you pay a lot more for minor gains.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Kind of, basically....
but we are no longer physically enlarging a "recorded area" to print size; we are printing PPI. So a 12MP APS and a 12MP FX require the same "enlargement."
Click to expand...

No difference. The reasons larger film yielded greater quality is still the same reason larger digital sensors do. You've just replaced silver halide crystals for pixels... nothing more. You're mistakenly thinking that a 12MP image from a DX sensor is the same size as a 12MP image from a FX sensor, and yes, both would print the same size as pixel for pixel, they would be. However... the similarity ends there.

Bigger sensor = sharper image.

Fact.

You are correct in as much as most people do not need FX.

Then again... I still think of FX as small format :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
sk66 said:
Kind of, basically....
but we are no longer physically enlarging a "recorded area" to print size; we are printing PPI. So a 12MP APS and a 12MP FX require the same "enlargement." The COC remains constant for a given sensor size regardless of MP because smaller pixels suck more.... ;)

I agree with Hugh, for most people and most situations the benefits of FF are negligible in regards to IQ and the ability to create a given image. In fact, the costs of FF is one of decreasing benefits...like everything else in photography (and perhaps almost everything in life), you pay a lot more for minor gains.
Click to expand...

No.

Pookeyhead said:
No difference. The reasons larger film yielded greater quality is still the same reason larger digital sensors do. You've just replaced silver halide crystals for pixels... nothing more. You're mistakenly thinking that a 12MP image from a DX sensor is the same size as a 12MP image from a FX sensor, and yes, both would print the same size as pixel for pixel, they would be. However... the similarity ends there.

Bigger sensor = sharper image.

Fact.

You are correct in as much as most people do not need FX.

Then again... I still think of FX as small format :)
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top