What genre most warrants full frame

Which genre most warrants full frame cameras?

  • Landscape

    Votes: 15 36.6%

  • Architecture

    Votes: 8 19.5%

  • Documentary

    Votes: 3 7.3%

  • Fashion

    Votes: 5 12.2%

  • Sports

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • Wildlife

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Night

    Votes: 5 12.2%

  • Portrait

    Votes: 5 12.2%

  • Street

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Stop asking silly questions

    Votes: 22 53.7%
  • Total voters
    41
Tom Pinchenzo

Tom Pinchenzo

Messages
1,024
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone,

This might be a silly question but I thought I’d ask it to see what people say.

Is there a genre that most requires larger formats?

I thought maybe landscape, as many top landscape photographers use medium or large format (and there often more ‘stuff’ to get in). Part of me thinks street photography doesn’t really warrant full frame (probably because it’s not my style and I’m naive).

Any thoughts?

Tom
 
None actually require a larger format I managed for many years with a crop from sensor
 
This will be fun. I shoot landscapes and find the full frame brilliant compared to the old crop cameras. The "dynamic range" and colours are better and there is certainly more leeway in the RAWs to recover shadows etc. In terms of depth of field though to get that front to back sharpness I would say the crop cameras can have an advantage in this regard as they have a smaller image circle.

Portrait/fashion shooters will like them due to the shallower depth of field available with the full frame.
 
The larger the imaging format the greater the detail captured.

So anyone who likes to capture technically accurate photographs benefits from a larger format.

Bigger formats = bigger cameras, bigger lenses and more expense.

We all choose our compromises based on the above. But as Bazza posted, no one ‘needs’ the larger format though plenty might choose it.
 
From my point of view I'd say the biggest advantage of full frame sensors is their low light performance, so anyone who takes photographs in low light situations where artificial light can't be added or a tripod used.
 
IMO, the best reason to use FF is that *for you* it represents the best compromise of concerns (cost, weight, sensor characteristics, print size needed, lens availability, etc.) between M43/APS-C on one hand and MF/LF on the other.

And that's more about the photographer than the genre.

For example, some landscape photos will benefit from a larger sensor, *if* you want to print them very large and don't want to/can't stitch frames.

But take Bruce Percy. He shoots MF film, but is it because he needs tiny details? No, quite the opposite. He just likes the way of working.

Horses for courses...
 
If by 'night', you mean starry landscapes, I'd say that would be my pick from that bunch. Scooping in as much of what little light there is as fast as possible is the order of the day. It's not a must but along with fast wide lenses, it all helps.
 
It's got nothing to do with photographic genre. It's got to do with how large you're going to print your biggest images, and at what distance people are going to view them. An elderly male portrait head printed 5 feet square with every pore in macro detail displayed in a close packed exhibition where there's not even enough space to get as much as 5 feet away from it needs at least MF. Whereas landscapes that are never printed bigger than A4 won't look any better on FF compared to 4/3rds.
 
Last edited:
I think there's more to it than how large you are going to print; DOF, lens availability, size and weight of kit etc. I wanted narrower DOF for some things (people photography) and a better choice of wide angle lenses including primes, for landscape. I think it's easier to manufacture ultrawides for FF, especially fast ones.
 
Last edited:
chris malcolm said:
It's got nothing to do with photographic genre. It's got to do with how large you're going to print your biggest images, and at what distance people are going to view them. An elderly male portrait head printed 5 feet square with every pore in macro detail displayed in a close packed exhibition where there's not even enough space to get as much as 5 feet away from it needs at least MF. Whereas landscapes that are never printed bigger than A4 won't look any better on FF compared to 4/3rds.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that number of pixels rather than format?

A 24 meg crop camera will print to the same size as a 24 meg ff. Where the ff could benefit is more dr, better iso.
 
Brazo said:
Isn’t that number of pixels rather than format?

A 24 meg crop camera will print to the same size as a 24 meg ff. Where the ff could benefit is more dr, better iso.
Click to expand...


They key thing FF gives you, irrespective of tech maturity (i.e. ISO, dynamic range, noise floor) is more contrast, which improves apparent sharpness. So a 24mp FF will look sharper when printed to the same size as a 24mp crop - it's ALL about magnification.

Of course this disappears as soon as you crop and enlarge.
 
Nawty said:
All that does is magnify through cropping, which is exactly the same thing as a crop sensor, which rather negates the point of having FF...
Click to expand...


All I can do is relate my own experience. My bird photography improved no end when I moved from a 7d to a 5d3. The 7d images were virtually uncroppable. But then the IQ of the 7d at more than about 400 ISO was so bad that they were virtually uncroppable anyway.
 
IMO FF is best suited if you're an obsessive pixel peeper who loves those lovely files or you like using old film era lenses at their intended FoV. Being honest those things are what FF gives me.
 
My vote went to “stop asking silly questions” but the answer is really it’s not specific to genres. Personally I like low light or high dynamic range situations, often shallow depth of field and for that reason choose full frame most of the time.
 
My current preference is to use a shallow DoF to tell the viewer what element(s) of the image I most want them to be looking at, its a way of focusing direction and informing the viewer

I couldn't do that in DX in the same way I can in FX, so for me the DoF shallowness is my reason for moving to FX and I use that across genres, hence I didn't tick one of the boxes above

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