why full frame

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 92875

Guest
With image quality getting closer all the time between crop sensor and full frame cameras, I am starting to wonder whether an amateur photographer would ever need to make the jump to full frame? After all, full frame cameras are much heavier to carry around and much more expensive, particularly if you add in the cost of full frame lenses. Opinions please.
 
Full frame cameras are not always better, right tool for the job is best.
 
Having changed to full-frame some time ago, I would never go back to a smaller sensor.

The only advantage IMO is the lower cost.
 
I'm not sure the systems can be separated on the basis of cost or size any more.

Image 'quality' may need defining, but there's a difference in rendering that for some makes FF desirable over crop. However given a choice I'd pick medium format.
 
This argument has been done to death tbh and you will never get an agreement. In terms of sharpness, and viewing at ‘normal’ sizes there isn’t much difference tbh. My reason for preferring larger sensors is the depth of field and rendering, but there compromises. I prefer medium format over FF, but I‘m not willing to put up with the size and weight, as well as cost. FF cameras have now reached a point where they don’t have to necessarily be heavier than APS-C counterparts. Also, apart from systems that only have one format size (Fuji and m4/3) the best lenses tend to be FF anyway, and so there’s little to no weight saving with the APS-C cameras when using FF glass
 
Are full frame lenses more expensive? You will pay less for a set of Nikon's excellent FF f/1.8 lenses than for a bunch of Fujifilm's (also excellent) crop-sensor primes of similar coverage.

The smaller sensor is the limiting factor in a DX camera. That's a fact, set in stone. But there are all sorts of ways in which a DX camera can be more useful - for telephoto work, for portability, for snap shotting, If you have one camera, it's a decision about the set of compromises appropriate to your circumstances and your aspirations. I'm sure that the Fujifilm GFX 100 would outperform my Nikon FF, were it placed on a tripod. Hand holding it for wildlife? I'm not so sure.
 
Well FF sensors are currently experiencing a huge jump in megapixels so if that’s your cup of tea crop sensors are behind. The more megapixels the better your lenses have to be to get that resolution. Again most camera brands do that in FF glass not so much in APS-C.
 
It's a debate that'll go on for a long time.
Would I like a FF camera? Yes
Do I need a FF camera? No
As an amateur, taking photos for my own enjoyment and sometimes for friends, my aps-c sensor is more than adequate.
If I was a semi professional or it was my full time job, then a FF camera is probably a necessity, just because of it picture quality and low light performance.
 
Crop sensors have improved but so has full frame.

The real interesting things for me now is :
in-body stabilization and lens stabilization improving
EVF and LCD improving
AF improving
 
From my experience, amateur photographers are far more obsessed with fine margins than the working professional. Happy clients is all that matters for those that earn their money from photography.
 
I started out with a Nikon D3100 crop and was entirely happy until I purchased a Sigma 150-600 + teleconverter for wildlife photography. At minimum of f9 I had to set ISO High to get the shots I wanted and started to see the impact at low light. I upgraded to a Nikon D600 FF for better shots in low light with a long lens combination, I think the quality of my pictures improved considerably. I still have the D3100 which I use for macro + snapshots when out with the family, its lighter and easier to use. IMHO its horses for courses and if not for COVID saving me money to afford FF, I would still be using my D3100 exclusively. PS All of my Kit was purchased Used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top