Upgrade to Full Frame Inevitable?

My view if it's worth anything!

I went from the D7100 to D600 and although I found it a steep learning curve, I found it a great move.

Not looking in to pixel peeping or ISO test shots I found the ISO to be much better on the D600 and photos just looked cleaner, crisper and nicer.

I'm not saying this likely or being biast as I went back and forth between the cameras about 4 times!

You can look at these high ISO test shots etc but for me, its more looking at images as a whole.
 
ojo said:
His reviews are well known,
Click to expand...

this is true - unfortunately they are principally well known for being a steaming pile of dung - he even admits himself that his site is a work of fiction
 
big soft moose said:
this is true - unfortunately they are principally well known for being a steaming pile of dung - he even admits himself that his site is a work of fiction
Click to expand...

ojo was taking the P Pete... caught me out as well. He turned up about 8 lines, and added "cough" :)
 
Laudrup said:
If you can read between the lines Rockwell's site is a good resource.
Click to expand...
The problem is that some people, especially those new to photography, read something good and factual on his site, but then don't realise that he sometimes writes b****x (which he openly admits to) to drum up some site traffic, and they take said b****x as good information. :rolleyes:

He's a very successful chap, just get anything you read on his site verified from another, hopefully reputable source. ;) :LOL:

When I looked at his site once and he said that you should only use RAW for Landscapes :thinking: I decided not to visit again.
 
5thumbs said:
Jeez......

so just going back to my question 'upgrade to full frame inevitable?'
Click to expand...


If you read the thread, I think you'll find it has a wealth of information on the subject.

however... I'll summarise:

Do you print big and/or need to shoot at very high ISOs? Then it has benefits.

If not, no.

Is it INEVITABLE? Definitely not, no.
 
Last edited:
Not for me, no.

FF has advantages - they've been discussed on this thread - and the much larger viewfinder would be a major plus for me. The big sticking point is cost. I'm not in a position to spend this sort of money on a hobby at the moment, and I'm not sure I would really want to anyway. If anything, I'd probably be more inclined to move towards something like the Fuji X100 Pro.
 
I've found this thread one of the most useful things I've read on here.

The problem with facts is they cannot be argued with. Good factual reading is always good. I enjoyed the bits about sensor density and the finer points of detail there in.

I cannot see why there's so much animosity towards someone trying to help out
 
I think that as sensor designs improve the smaller formats like crop cameras can only get better making the need to move up to full frame for image quality reasons less necessary
 
Last edited:
LCPete said:
I think that as sensor designs improve the smaller formats like crop cameras can only get better making the need to move up to full frame for image quality reasons less necessary
Click to expand...


The same advances will be applied to larger formats though, thus negating any advantage. I don't think the inescapable fact that larger sensors will always be better is going to go away. All things being equal, larger sensors will always yield better results.
 
Jeez......
so just going back to my question 'upgrade to full frame inevitable?'

If you read the thread, I think you'll find it has a wealth of information on the subject.

however... I'll summarise:

Do you print big and/or need to shoot at very high ISOs? Then it has benefits.

If not, no.

Is it INEVITABLE? Definitely not, no.
T'was a joke. Having started the thread I have followed every post. There is indeed some very interesting info on here and it has helped to clarify a number of points. I hadn't quite anticipated the amount of debate this topic would generate!
 
5thumbs said:
Jeez......
so just going back to my question 'upgrade to full frame inevitable?'

If you read the thread, I think you'll find it has a wealth of information on the subject.

however... I'll summarise:

Do you print big and/or need to shoot at very high ISOs? Then it has benefits.

If not, no.

Is it INEVITABLE? Definitely not, no.
T'was a joke. Having started the thread I have followed every post. There is indeed some very interesting info on here and it has helped to clarify a number of points. I hadn't quite anticipated the amount of debate this topic would generate!
Click to expand...

Theses thread always do :D

Other subject you could try are.

Canon v Nikon
J-peg v Raw
or to PP or not ;)
 
Last edited:
LCPete said:
I think that as sensor designs improve the smaller formats like crop cameras can only get better making the need to move up to full frame for image quality reasons less necessary
Click to expand...

The point being made, is that smaller sensors can never be as good as larger ones, simply because of their size - that's what drives every aspect of better image quality.

As things improve though, with sensors of all sizes (and assuming lenses get sharper too) the question becomes just how good does image quality need to be? For most folks, APS-C has already reached that point and full-frame is now in the realms of diminishing returns for significant extra cost.

The other thing I'd like to emphasise (again) is that one man's 'night-and-day difference' is another man's 'erm, I think it's a bit better, maybe, but not much'. The only way is to shoot a side-by-side comparison and judge for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Yes good point David, Steve and Richard I guess full frame will also improve as well
Richard has worded better what I was trying to say that as technology gets better and better crop sensors will be so good that most people will only need crop sensor cameras:)
 
HoppyUK said:
The other thing I'd like to emphasise (again) is that one man's 'night-and-day difference' is another man's 'erm, I think it's a bit better, maybe, but not much'. The only way is to shoot a side-by-side comparison and judge for yourself.
Click to expand...

This is a good point, and probably the cause of many a disagreement over print quality. I'm particularly fussy about it, simply because not everyone looks at prints from "an acceptable viewing distance". Anyone who has exhibited work will know full well that people WILL walk up to your print and judge it from 6 inches away, even if it's 2 metres across!



Then of course you have idiots like Rockwell who publish, "I amaze my friends with knockout 12 x 18" prints made at Costco for $2.99 directly from the JPGs that came out of my camera. However... he's a moron, so we can just ignore him. Most people are probably somewhere in the middle.
 
Stick a smiley on it dude!!

:)

Sorry - fair point! In my defence it was late and I may have had a glass of wine...:)
 
IN fairness... missing your humour probably had something to do with sampling a fair bit of Quinta Ruban this weekend :)
 
Not having read through all 4 pages (just dipped in & out), I would say that if you have the FF hunger lust then why not?
I had the most enjoyable fun with my 5D2. I made me want to get up and drive long distance at really strange weekend hours (there used to be a great phone in on at 3am on Saturday mornings on my drives to Snowdonia). I felt happy with it and it tolerated my fumbling attempts with good humour. If you have the itch to try it then you might as well succumb. Resistance is futile.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You're wrong.. it has NOTHING to do with pixels. Sensor size, as it always has been, is the largest determining factor in sharpness.
Click to expand...
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...
You're insisting it is size with no explanation of why; even though you have admitted that two different size sensors with the same pixel count will print the same size (no enlargement difference).

Pookeyhead said:
BTW.. COC is a product of the lens... it can not change from camera to camera. The COC of a 50mm Nikkor lens will be the same no matter what camera it is on. It's an optical aberration... it would be the same if the lens was focused on a FX sensor, DX sensor, or a piece of paper.
Click to expand...
You're calling the airy disk the COC... it's not exactly. The airy disk is a fixed factor for a given aperture, it is not lens nor sensor size dependent. A 50mm lens doesn't have "a circle of confusion." The COC is a term that defines how blurry a detail has to be before it is considered out of focus... it varies with sensor/negative size, print size, and viewing distance. (And it is based upon a bunch of hypothetical/opinion/assumption). Check any DOF calculator...
 
Last edited:
PCPhil said:
Not having read through all 4 pages (just dipped in & out), I would say that if you have the FF hunger lust then why not?....
Click to expand...
I have a lot less issue with someone choosing FF over APS than I do with someone choosing a very high MP count. In either case there are tradeoffs. IMHO, for most users and most subjects/situations FF/high MP have very few benefits and greater costs. But that's an individual choice; I use both (D4/D800).

And BTW, at 1:1 (using the D800 to print larger or crop in) the D4 is typically sharper/easier to get better results.
 
Last edited:
Steven, I explained why sensor size, and not pixel count, is the fundamental driver of sharpness (and all aspects of image quality) in post #78, and illustrated it.

BTW, you and Pooks have been arguing at cross-purposes all along on the CoC/Airy disc thing.
 
I am fortunate to have both formats DX & FX I started out with DX Dslr.
After first dipping my toe into digital with a Nikon coolpix 990.
I was still shooting a lot of film back in those days and had built up a rather large collection of lenses.
These sat redundant for a good while as I got to grips with digital capture and computers to process the images.
One thing I always remembered from my mentor was to only purchase a lens when you find yourself unable to capture what you you want with your current lens.
And to always purchase the best glass possible for the purpose.
If you work rigidly with a solid tripod and your mirror locked up and a remote release and low iso you will be able to get the very best quality from your gear, even back in the old days of shooting film.
I still believe that your images be it taken on DX or FF camera will only be as good as the glass you have on the front of your camera and your shooting technique.
Choose and purchase your glass carefully and it will probably last you a lifetime.
And good glass will perform well on Crop or Full frame camera.
If you purchase good full frame glass you will be able to use it on both DX and later on Full Frame and in most cases Primes will still deliver the best image quality.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Steven, I explained why sensor size, and not pixel count, is the fundamental driver of sharpness (and all aspects of image quality) in post #78, and illustrated it.
Click to expand...
I saw your post Hoppy, and I agree with it. Nothing you said actually contradicts with anything I said. In essence if pixel size/density remains equal larger sensor wins (enlargement)... and as pixels get smaller the demands become too great. That's the reason the contrast goes down with smaller sensors/pixels...
I am quite certain that given a specific situation I could get a "sharper" image out of a D7100 than I can get from my D4... But "that situation" would be very rare/specific and I'm not certain any of the lenses I own are up to the task... The exact same reasons are why often I can get a "sharper" image from my D4 cropped/enlarge than I can get from my D800/downsized.

HoppyUK said:
BTW, you and Pooks have been arguing at cross-purposes all along on the CoC/Airy disc thing.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't bring it up, I didn't claim a COC equal for all formats, and I didn't claim a COC for a lens...

But I am more than willing to agree this is all technical and not applicable for most in most situations...I said that from the start.....
Personally I feel that, at least for now, "larger" wins 90+% of the time. It's why I seldom use my D800 over the D4. And by "larger" I mean larger pixels/larger sensor.
I can promise anyone reading/following that unless the D800 is used ideally the lower MP FX sensor of a D700/D3/D3s/D4 will generate a sharper image for any given print size... And I can also promise that a D7000 used absolutely optimally can equal a D4 (granted, it's a rare instance). I know a bunch will want to argue with me about that based upon whatever...but I've actually used them all for quite a while.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...
You're insisting it is size with no explanation of why;
Click to expand...

I, and others have explained why... several times :)

sk66 said:
And BTW, at 1:1 (using the D800 to print larger or crop in) the D4 is typically sharper/easier to get better results.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I've got this right. Are you suggesting that a.... let's say for argument's sake, a 2A0 print from a D4 is sharper than one from a D800E? IS that what you're saying? If so, I beg to differ... I have prints from both right here, and they seem to disagree with you.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
The COC is a term that defines how blurry a detail has to be before it is considered out of focus...
Click to expand...
No. What you are describing is the Circle of Confusion diameter limit. The Circle of Confusion itself is a property of the lens (focal length and aperture) and subject distance. Whether you see that CoC in a print is dependent on how much you enlarge that CoC when printing. It is this limit that is used in DoF calculations and is based on visual acuity and sensor size. The hint is in the words "diameter limit" - that is the size at which the CoC makes things out of focus. Smaller sensors have smaller CoC diameter limits....

Wikipedia explains it in far more detail than I can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion#Circle_of_confusion_diameter_limit_in_photography
 
Pookeyhead said:
Let me see if I've got this right. Are you suggesting that a.... let's say for argument's sake, a 2A0 print from a D4 is sharper than one from a D800E? IS that what you're saying? If so, I beg to differ... I have prints from both right here, and they seem to disagree with you.
Click to expand...
I said it can be...
The D800 requires a higher SS (or more stability) which in turn requires a wider aperture (which may be less sharp) or a higher ISO which introduces noise, reduces DR/contrast, and everything else. It also requires using a wider aperture (f/5.6 or you're "loosing MP's") and a lens with greater resolving capability. The D800 holds it's own when used optimally AND printed at the same size. I will choose the D800 when I can use it optimally, which isn't very often.
 
Last edited:
It does more than hold it's own.... it beats the D4 soundly. And just to prove that point, here are two raw files from DP Review, shot at f11... which by your reckoning, should be placing the D800 at a disadvantage.




Let's print at 2A0

D4 file prepped for print = 74dpi

D800 file prepped for print = 112dpi

D4 file 100% crop at 2A0
HR57aen.jpg



D800 file 100% crop at 2A0
jLIzbjb.jpg


Both at f11.

As you progressively reduce print size, the difference become less marked of course, and by the time you reach A3 there's not much in it, but at no point, at any size, is the D4 sharper... even at f11.
 
arad85 said:
The Circle of Confusion itself is a property of the lens (focal length and aperture) and subject distance.
Click to expand...
The "circle of confusion" for a lens *IS* the airy disk. The airy disk is solely a function of the aperture size (or "apparent size"). "Aperture" is a function of the opening size in relation to the focal length. Subject distance only has the effect as to if the lens is focused on it to start with.
You can only consider the airy disk as the COC for a lens *if* you consider the recording surface (negative/sensor) as the final display/evaluation size. COC/and it's limit is a term only for how a point "appears."
You won't find a COC rating for a lens. You will find MTF charts. MTF is "detail at a given contrast level." MTF varies with aperture due to airy disk size and errors in the optical path. MTF varies with sensor size due to COC. MTF varies with pixel size because smaller pixels are more demanding of resolving power. So when you compare two sensors of the same size but different sized pixels the increase in detail possible due to the higher MP's is offset by the higher resolution demand of those same/smaller pixels. The net result it the MTF for a sensor size remains constant.

IMO, there are many fallacies or "oversimplifications" in all of this... many are within the COC standard itself. But another is that it may be possible to have a lens that can out resolve the sensor...in that case the final MTF for the system is limited by the sensor. In that case a sensor of greater resolving capability can increase the MTF and the perceived sharpness which is why MTF charts/measurements (non-OEM) are camera sensor dependent. I.e. the final perceived sharpness may/will be higher with a D800 than with a D4 and the COC is not "the same" for them.

At this point, most of this is fairly irrelevant for most users... but not entirely. In fact, if you compare the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 lens on the D4 to it on the D7100 there is a slight increase in final perceived sharpness for the D7100 over the D4. The same is true for the Nikon 200mm f/2, there is a perceived sharpness increase for the D7100 over the D4.... But these are very expensive lenses and have much higher resolving capabilities than most lenses do.
AND, these are "lab measurements" and do not address/include any of the other issues that accompany actually using a higher MP (smaller pixel size) sensor in the field.
 
There's only one thing that matters at the end of the day. The images. That's the final arbiter of all things.

Bigger sensors give better images.

You really, really can not argue with results.

On paper... I'm sure everything you were saying about the D800 a few posts back has real technical grounding...in fact, for most of what you;'re saying, I know it has... however.. it all comes to nothing, when the images actually contradict what you're saying.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
It does more than hold it's own.... it beats the D4 soundly. And just to prove that point, here are two raw files from DP Review, shot at f11... which by your reckoning, should be placing the D800 at a disadvantage.
Click to expand...
I guess I should not have said "hold's its own" when I combined used optimally with same print size. :) There *is* a reason I own the D800 and times I will choose to use it over the D4... It's just not that often for the types of photography I do and the types of situations I'm usually in.

At f/11 they are both able to record ~ 16MP in the green/yellow spectrum, but the red spectrum is still around 30MP max. So the D800 still has an advantage there... (around f/16 they should equal out as an optimal lens will be projecting ~14/7/5 MP's in R/G/B)
 
sk66 said:
At f/11 they are both able to record ~ 16MP in the green/yellow spectrum, but the red spectrum is still around 30MP max. So the D800 still has an advantage there... (around f/16 they should equal out as an optimal lens will be projecting ~14/7/5 MP's in R/G/B)
Click to expand...

Green, red, yellow.... take your pick.... The D800 is clearly recording far more than the D4, even at f11. Look at the detail in the half-toning in the Beetle.. look at the detail in the bank note. Chalk and cheese. If both could only record the same resolution at F11 as you suggest, they'd both look the same. You really think this difference is down to red channel info only?

Stop reading lens tests and DxO results or whataver....

The proof.. as always, is in the images, and it simply can not be argued with.
 
Great.... numbers...

Now go shoot me a RAW with that lens on both camera, then we'll talk.

You;re also ignoring the fact that the higher resolution of the D7100's sensor.. this isn't a real photograph we're looking at here... in fact, we're not looking at an image at all. You're just putting all your faith into numbers. The same lens also delivers 28MP compared to the 15MP of the D4 and the 17MP of the D7100 when it's mounted on a D800... So where does that leave your argument?

If I want to judge a piece of equipment.. I take photographs with it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top