Jump to content

Full frame 35mm size dSLR - hypothetical question.


Recommended Posts

<p>Just a general question, not thinking of buying. </p>

<p>Just wondering about the full frame 35mm sized dSLRs. I can understand the benefits if they are used in low light a lot but for a person who shoots photographs in a mixture of settings or maybe they are into landscapes or portraiture are the benefits of full frame somewhat not that huge? As I understand over the years, cropped sensor dSLRs have improved a lot in terms of high ISO. They can also have quite high pixel ratings. Is the benefit of full frame sensor dSLRs mainly that they can access fast aperture wide angle lenses which seems unavailable with cropped sensor cousins?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biggest advantages (in my subjective opinion) of full-frame DSLRs over crop DSLRs: Bigger viewfinder and more choice in wide-angle lenses.

 

Advantages of crop DSLRs over FF DSLRs: Potentially smaller body and lenses, cheaper telephoto lenses (my 135mm/f2 is a lot cheaper than a 200mm/f2 would be, for example).

 

I prefer to shoot around f5.6, so the whole less DOF `advantage' is a discussion I'm not getting into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ray, you are fully correct, in my view. Too often, people seem to want to go to full frame just because it is full frame - but APS-C carries it advantages, as does full frame. Fast wide angles is one area where FF does better, in terms of primes, anyway. For zooms, it's not that clear cut, I think. There are better full frame super wide zooms (for both Canon and Nikon anyway, not too familiar with Sony), but they have pretty impressive price tags too. And the APS-C superwides are really quite good too - and a whole lot cheaper too.<br>

Modern APS-C DSLRs can be about as good as first generation FF DSLRs, but there is a continued advantage in high ISO work. Frankly, having completely usable ISO6400 is already great enough, so for me this advantage is getting academic, but I fully understand there are scenarios where it is a sure advantage.</p>

<p>My personal reasons to prefer a FF camera is the better viewfinder and the DoF - I like shooting at wide apertures, and my D700 is a whole lot nicer at it than my D300. I'm keeping the D300 because its "all round" zoom is a lot smaller than its FF equivalent, and for use with long lenses. Full frame is not a natural upgrade to APS-C, but an alternative system with other advantages and disadvantages.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In photography, the age old "bigger is better" still holds (as it always did). That's why FF is better than APS-C. Why MF digital is better than FF 35 mm digital. And why full frame LF digital would be better still.<br>But people don't care much about good-better-best anymore.<br><br>The other advantage of FF was that most people already had a full set of 35 mm format lenses, and were robbed of their wide angles by APS-C format cameras.<br>But that advantage has gone, with wides being available even wider than the ones you could get for FF 35 mm format.<br><br>So it is indeed a hypothetical question. ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In general I agree <em>'bigger is better</em>' but it is difficult to say how much better. And is that degree of<em> better</em> worth the extra weight and size? I don't know as although I use a Canon 5D2 I have only had entry level APS-C size cameras. These are clearly not as good as the full frame but I would like to be able to compare to the top of the range APS-C to see what difference really is. Wouter has given a useful comparison. Can anyone else say from personal experience?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I use a 5D and a 40D. There isn't much difference between them in size or weight. The 5D scores when I use old prime wide angles (as mentioned by QG). The 40D scores for long lens work, letting me carry a smaller and lighter tele lens for the same reach.</p>

<p>The 10-20mm Sigma I use as a standard lens on the 40D is noticeably smaller and lighter than the 17-35mm Sigma I previously used on the 5D and is slightly wider, so there's a gain there as well.</p>

<p>For quality critical shots, the 5D is sufficiently better, to my eyes, that it is my default for things like that.</p>

<p>So, as usual, swings and roundabouts with no clear winner.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well, I think the "better" issue is tied directly back to the same issue with film cameras. Regardless of the MP, the magnification of what the optics generate is smaller with the larger sensor. We know if we have only ever shot just one format that a smaller print always will look a bit sharper than a larger one. By definition, resolution breaks down with magnification and a bigger original footprint for the same subject is going to look better than one recorded smaller. (all other factors being somewhat similar)</p>

<p>But for most people, what camera size they use is probably not a big issue unless there is some specific advantage of a different camera that fits the way they shoot and show their images. If you are a casual shooter and only post images on-line or make small-say 4x6 to 8x10-- prints, a camera phone would probably get 80-90% of what you are interested in. You just move up from there depending on your needs and desires.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I suspect the main benefit is you can still your lenses w/o a crop factor. A 50mm lens will still be a 50mm. Might save you considerable dollars not having to invest in new glass. However, the inverse is also a good reason to shoot a less that full size sensored camera. If you're using lenses designed for 35mm, yes there will be the crop factor, but your shots may be sharper, as you're using mostly the central portion of your lenses. Image quality tends to be degraded as you leave the center.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hardware form factor does not necessarily follow the sensor's form factor. We've seen that back in the days of film (A Nikon F5, for instance, was as big and heavy as many MF cameras that record images that are a lot bigger). We do see that still after the switch to digital. Which is why, i guess, those other threads on PNet occur, about people no longer using those large DSLRs because the small thingy inside a cell phone also makes 14 MP pics.<br>So extend your hypothetical: what are the benefits of APS-C DSLRs over an iPhone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bigger is obviously better but the question remains "Do you really need that better?" I am very happy with M4/3 apart from the infurnally complicated tool I am using which would be worse if I choose APS-C or larger I gather from what I have read.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Full frame: More light, therefore potentially less noise and/or higher sensitivity. The availability of more than a stop greater usable aperture range, enabling more than a stop shallower depth of field and equivalently deep depth of field when stopped down to the diffraction limit. Access to the full image circle on EF lenses; therefore, wider perspectives.</p>

<p>Crop: Potentially lighter, lighter/smaller EF lenses, less expensive, just as good if you're not pushing the envelope with regard to any of the above. Arguably better for use with telephoto lenses.</p>

<p>The benefit of having BOTH formats: Much greater versatility with your lens collection.</p>

<p>http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For "bigger is better" to be true, you really have to compare within the same generation/technology.<br>

This is a rapidly evolving technology, and a brand-new APS-C may well be "better" in some senses than a four- or five-year old 35mm sensor. Similarly, where there are differences (rapidly disappearing) in sensor technology, one large-sensor camera may be inferior to some other form of "crop" sensor. It all depends.</p>

<p>For "non-hypothetical" -- that is, practical -- purposes, I suggest that any modern dSLR is adequate for the applications the vast majority of people will put it to.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have a D300 (DX) and a D700 (FX). Under normal lighting conditions there's virtually no difference in image quality - especially as they are both ~12Mp.<br>

I can see a difference in low light shooting, but not not until ISO 1600 or so.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Just wondering about the full frame 35mm sized dSLRs. I can understand the benefits if they are used in low light a lot but for a person who shoots photographs in a mixture of settings or maybe they are into landscapes or <strong>portraiture</strong> are the benefits of full frame somewhat not that huge?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are shooting portraiture you will get better bokeh from a bigger sensor. Well it's not really the sensor it's the fact you will use longer lenses than on a cropped sensor. Also with portraiture you will require a faster shutter speed depending on your lighting. If you are using controlled lighting in a studio then I guess the point is moot. But if you are using natural light on an over cast day or as the sun is going down you will want to use a higher ISO to freeze motion. It beats asking your model to sit still like one of those people in those olde tyme photographs. Full frame wins in the higher ISO contest.</p>

<p>Another thing you have to consider is future proofing. I shoot APSC but I only buy full frame glass. I see myself adding a full frame rig some day down the road and I don't want to have to divest myself of a bunch of lenses. In the future I'm sure megapixel counts will continue to rise and physics dictates that we are going to start running into some limits. Pixel density is going to start testing our glass and noise is going to become intolerable. At some point the cheapest easiest solution will be to go to a bigger sensor. I am not a physicist or an engineer so someone with a background in those matters can correct anything I just said.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The larger the image capturing surface (film, digital sensor, etc.) the less enlargement is required for a given print size.

8x10 film has to be doubled only one time to make a 16x20 inch print. A 24x36 mm full frame image has to be doubled

four times to same size print. Every successive enlargement show more flaws all things being equal.

 

An APS-C sensor has less than half the surface area of a full frame sensor. That means another doubling or more of

enlargement is required to reach the same print size.

 

I used a 7D and a 5D2 side by side for a while. The difference wasn't huge, but it was noticeable. About a stop

difference in high ISO noise. A bit less detail and sharpness in the 7D. The 7D is a great camera, and I like the images

that I took with it. But if you're trying to maximize print size and sharpness, full frame definitely has an edge. Again it's

not a huge difference, but you'll notice the difference in a side by side comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...