Full frame Really

Discussion in 'Modern Film Cameras' started by dave_wells|1, Nov 6, 2014.

  1. Okay, full frame full frame, it's all I hear. Is there really a marked difference between a full frame and say a D7000?
    On another note, what is the focal length at which point it switches from wide to fisheye. Trying to thread that needle.
     
  2. Whether or not you'll notice a difference between the DX and FX formats depends on what you shoot, under what circumstances, and how you use the output.

    I have bodies in both formats, and ... yes, for me, there is a very noticeable difference. Mostly, for me, it's in the dynamic range and that extra capability in lower light before the noise kicks in.

    As for when "wide" becomes "fisheye" ... presume you mean, how wide can you go on FX before you have to change to a "fisheye" lens to go wider. A lens like Nikon's expensive, glorious (if somewhat impractical, in the field) 14-24/2.8 is still quite rectilinear at 14mm. If you were using DX, you'd get the same with something like an 8-16mm (Sigma makes a nice one). I'm quite happy, on FX, with the wide end of a 16-35/4. It produces some distortion, which corrects pretty well in post. On DX, if I need it, I use a 10-20mm.

    But all of that is completely academic without an understanding of your subject matter and shooting style. The D7000, which is completely overkill for most people's photography, may handle your needs just fine. I haven't sold my DX gear yet.
     
  3. Hi Dave. There is a noticeable difference between full frame and the dx crop sensors in cameras such as the D7000. I just bought my first full frame Nikon and there is a big difference between it and my D80 and D200. With the D7000, there is a crop factor of 1.5. Essentially whatever your focal length is, you multiply by 1.5. I have a 70-200 f/2.8 which converts to an equivalent of 105-300mm on the D7000. This works out great if you want a telephoto lens, but not so much for wide angle. My 24 f/2.8 gives a very wide angle of view on my Df but is essentially a 36mm f/2.8 on the D7000. I am just getting used to having less reach with my 70-200, but like being able to get wide with the 24. Both types of sensors have their plusses. As for the point where a lens goes from being considered a wide angle to fisheye, I don't know. I am sure that there are many knowledgeable members here who can answer that for you.
     
  4. This isn't really a discussion about film cameras, but yeah, unless there's a really good set of lenses for the crop sensor
    camera there is a difference.

    Whether a lens is a fisheye isn't just a matter of being very wide. A fisheye lens has crazy, nonrectilinear circular
    distortion. It's also going to be a wide angle lens, but it's possible to get a regular lens with a shorter focal length than
    some fisheyes.
     
  5. If you look hard into your pixels: "probably yes".
    Does it make sense to own a FF & a crop body paired? - "absolutely!" - It took the industry quite a while to bring out some APSC WA primes. Carrying a Pentax with Sigma 24 f1.8 to replace a FF with 35 f2 sucks bulk (& probably even results) wise. The same about 300 f2.8 on FF vs 200 f2.8 on a APSC. <- Yes, I know I am not playing fair since I don't pick lenses with similar shallow DOF. - But: a) my 35mm f2.8 is even smaller than the 35 f2.0s, / b) I wanted to handhold desperate shots wide open so I got the Sigma for that reason.
    Some fisheyes are longer than other wides for the same format. Sigma FF: 14mm = wide , 15mm = Fisheye / Their diagonal APSC one would be 10mm.
    I'm not sure what to say about FF (which I just got) vs. D7000 which I don't know at all. Since you posted in the modern film camera forum I guess you have FF lenses from film days and there might be a camera able to use these?
    When I got my 1st APSC body I made the mistake to skip the kit lens during purchase.- Bad idea. - You need a really excelllent 20mm or shorter to be happy with digital and a couple of film lenses just don't cut that cake.
    If your system didn't step into the digital realm: draw a line get some APSC or maybe even MFT kit and be already pretty happy.
    APSC is currently maxed out at 24MP. - Getting a few MP less is probably conservative sanity since it takes good lenses to resolve enough for a really high pixel density. Since bigger pixels are usually better to have we end with a need or desire for bigger sensors if we want more pixels. - In doubt a FF camera can produce less noise at higher ISO but it is unknown if that advantage doesn't get eaten by a lack of DOF.
    If you asked: "I got a wet darkroom and want to print 8x10"s, do I need a Hasselblad?" - I'd recommend to get something MF at least since the absence of grain in prints from 1600ISO looks better.
    I am not sure how to argue that boldly for FF digital. - If a seasoned juggler of apples & oranges jumps in: please let me know how to do a shootout between 3 different systems without really comparable lenses to come up with an answer.
     
  6. Is there really a marked difference between a full frame and say a D7000?​
    Yes, no, maybe, sometimes certainly, sometimes not. It really depends on what you're doing with the camera, which lenses you use and your style of photography. In reality, I think most people are served perfectly fine with APS-C (DX) cameras, and full frame is more a niche than the marketing departments make you believe. The fact that you keep hearing "full frame full frame" everywhere shows however that many people do not agree with what I just wrote (or that marketing does its work well). And certainly I hear "full frame full frame" all the time too. Most of the time I advice against the "upgrade" (it is often people with 1-2 DX lenses, and max. one FX lens, so the upgrade will cost a whole lot more than just a body), but next of course get the obvious question "so why do you shoot a FX camera". Well, at the extremes, FX performs better. So, the question is: do those extremes play any role in your photography?
    With extremes, I mean for starters high ISO, and dynamic range (as already mentioned by Matt). The latest APS-C sensors are really, really close behind, to the point where it remains a question to which extend the extra cash for full frame is really worth it. It's a close call, but the edge goes to full frame sensors. Another thing may be: all full frame bodies on the market today are very versatile and complete cameras, heavy-duty built with pretty much all bells and whistles. You cannot go wrong with either one much, while in the APS-C market, the products are more differentiated, causing possibly more confusion on whether model A or B makes a good choice. Yet, something like a D7000 or Canon 7D make terrific allround capaibilities, so this argument isn't clear cut.
    Another point (and the main reason for me to use full frame): viewfinder. I have a D300, and it's a pretty great camera, still. But I use manual focus lenses a lot, and critical focussing on APS-C viewfinders isn't the easiest. The D700 makes it a whole lot easier. Not a common use case, but a real big plus to the large sensor cameras.
    At similar framing and similar aperture, full frame has less depth of field. And I'm among those that make the perpetual error of thinking you can never have too little depth of field. Again, an extreme use case, but the superfast primes (f/1.4 and faster) are just more fun on full frame.

    Personally, I find the argument of the crop factor never played a role for me. When I had DX, I had the lenses that served me on that format (and lamented the gap of a 16mm f/2 or f/2.8 prime). When I moved to FX, some lenses become more important, some less, some got sold and some more got bought. I never had an issue switching between APS-C and full frame. Just look through the viewfinder, and it all makes sense.
    This does mean a bit of planning when "mixing" between full frame and APS-C formats, and some lenses may make only sense on one of either formats. But, regardless of format, getting the right lenses for your needs on the camera you actually use is pretty important (and so, DX lenses may make more sense than "futureproof yourself" and get full frame lenses).
    Long story short: you know when you want/need a full frame camera. If you need to ask others whether you need one, you're most likely fine with APS-C.
    Fisheye isn't the "wider" version of a wide-angle; they're two distinct different things, aiming to do different things. The 10,5mm DX Nikon fisheye covers 180 degrees, a 10,5mm rectlinear wideangle "just" around 107 degrees. So you cannot compare just by focal length.
     
  7. I own both full-frame and crop-sensor, the Canon 5D MkIII and the 7D MkII, respectively. The 5D3 excels where dynamic range is important and the 7D2 excels when shooting focal length limited subjects, such as where I've got a 500mm lens and a 1.4x extender mounted and I still crop the image. A little crop on a crop-sensor can turn into a huge crop on a FF sensor. Of course, have the correct, high quality lenses for each sensor type, makes a huge impact on their effectiveness.
     
  8. [[Whether or not you'll notice a difference between the DX and FX formats depends on what you shoot, under what circumstances, and how you use the output.]]
    This and again this.
    There are very specific cases where the differences between FX and DX are noticeable. But if those cases do not generally apply to your photography, then there is no difference, to you.
     
  9. There was [warning: discussion actually relevant to THIS forum] a difference between APS or half-frame film camera results and those from 35mm (24x36mm) images if the same film were used in both.
    For digital, you have to control what generation of development the different formats are at.
    A 2004 "full frame" may well be grossly inferior to a 2014 APS-C format image. In these cases, it simply has to be "all other things being equal".
    In the same generation, the density of packing of the sensors can also affect the results, and so on and on.
    And, on the dark side, in the Canon world nearly every serious photographer I personally know uses both APS-C and 35mm-size sensor camera bodies. Each has its strengths and weakness, some of which are discussed above.
     
  10. Some of us recall viewing the image made from a 4x5 or 2 1/4 sized piece of film.
    The striking experience isn't just due to "the grain" or lack there of, but instead the the minimal depth of field that has added a simplification of the background (In essence, cleaning up the distractions), which helps achieve a "3D" feel to the images.
    To illustrate this, the normal focal length for these two larger formats, are considered sports/candid telephoto's in the APS-C/DX sized "cropped" digital sensors.
    Reality: The same focal length equates to the depth of field being equal for 4x5, 120, FX and DX images...
     
  11. Why is the post here? I know there are full frame and half frame 35mm camera but I don't think the OP is talking about a film camera.
    Any way, there are many differences between a full frame and a DX camera like the D7000. The differences can be either advantages or disadvantages depending on what you want to do with the camera.
    There is one disadvantage that has to do only with the DX format that is the lens mount. The lens mount on DX cameras were designed for the film camera which were full frame so that it's not optimized for the DX format. The lens mount for the M4/3 format doesn't have this problem as the lens mount was designed for the format.
     
  12. Had to check to make sure that I wasn't in the Nikon Forum. ;-)
    With Canon, the crop-sensor bodies accept full-frame lenses and so called EF-S lenses that only fit their crop-sensor bodies. Hence, with a Canon crop-sensor body, like the 7D MkII, you can use all of Canon's current DSLR lenses. Some older lenses can also be used with an adaptor.
     
  13. The disadvantage I mentioned in earlier post about the DX is the same for Canon and Pentax and Sony A mount. While all lenses can be used,(depending on which model we're talking about) the mounts are designed for the full frame size of film or sensor and not for the smaller size. If the mounts were designed for the APS-C sensor size then the flange distance can be shorter as the mirror is shorter and thus allowing for the normal lens to be of normal design and not the retrofocus design which requires extra elements as well as the front element to be much larger than the entrance pupil. This fact makes the normal lens for the DX format to be more expensive than that of the full frame format.
     
  14. There's no disadvantage to using a full-frame lens on a crop-sensor body. You just don't use the full image area, which could be considered an advantage, resulting in less vignetting and, generally, using the center area of the lens, which is typically sharper. The only disadvantage is the extra size and weight, not really needed for a crop-sensor body. Canon's L-series lenses, generally there best, are not made in EF-S (crop) versions.
    Wouldn't I love to have a L-series, EF-S, 500mm f/4, IS? The weight savings on a super-telephoto would be huge. Alas, the market might not justify it, but I'd certainly seriously consider one.
     
  15. FWIW, the 1.5x crop factor is a bit misleading. The APS-C sized sensors have about half the surface area of 'full frame' bodies: 24x16mm = 348sqmm; 36x24mm = 864sqmm. IOW, less than half-frame.
     
  16. However Karim, crop-sensors tend to have much higher pixel-density. The factor is not 2x, as you calculation would imply.
     
  17. It is the lower density of pixels per square millimeter that allows 'cooler' operation and theoretically less noise in the 35mm-sensor cameras. However, the number of megapissles in the APS-C cameras is very close to that of the so-called "full-frame."
    Camera size size MP pixels/mm^2
    50D
    4752​
    3268​
    15.5​
    46738​
    60D
    5184​
    3456​
    17.9​
    53920​
    7D (i)
    5184​
    3456​
    17.9​
    53920​
    5D
    4368​
    2912​
    12.7​
    14722​
    5Dii
    5616​
    3744​
    21.0​
    24336​
    5Diii
    5760​
    3840​
    22.1​
    25600​
     
  18. Thanks for the chart JDM. Seeing the pixels/mm^2 should be informative to many that don't realize the huge difference in pixel-density. Seeing that, they should realize that "all things being equal" is not the case here because the crop-sensor designers have huge problem trying to control noise vs. a full-frame sensor.
    JDM, do you have the calculations for the 1D X? Seeing the physics visually will help many understand why it has such comparatively amazing high-ISO performance vs. any listed on this chart. OTOH, the 7D2 is even denser than anything shown (I wish that they'd stuck with 17.9mp and gave us further reduction in noise and increase in DR. I don't see where we gained anything from a higher pixel-density).
    Remember, lenses designed for FF bodies have a larger viewing circle than needed for crop bodies, so the crop body only uses what it needs, basically reducing the angle of view. Lenses designed for crop bodies don't necessarily need to be inferior quality to FF lenses, but they can be smaller and lighter at a given focal length/aperture combination. Unfortunately, Canon hasn't chosen to make EF-S L-series lenses, but they do have some good EF-S lenses worth considering.
     
  19. No sooner asked than done, with some other "1" series as well, sorted by pixels/mm^2:
    (you will note that density of pixels is not the only variable in the noise equation, or else the 5D would have the best performance at ISO 3200).
    Camera size size MP pixels/mm^2
    5D
    4368​
    2912​
    12.7​
    14722​
    1D X
    5184​
    3456​
    17.9​
    20736​
    5Dii
    5616​
    3744​
    21.0​
    24336​
    1Ds iii
    5616​
    3744​
    21.0​
    24336​
    5Diii
    5760​
    3840​
    22.1​
    25600​
    1Div
    4896​
    3264​
    16.0​
    30795​
    50D
    4752​
    3268​
    15.5​
    46738​
    60D
    5184​
    3456​
    17.9​
    53920​
    7D (i)
    5184​
    3456​
    17.9​
    53920​
     
  20. Also, I have seen tests that indicate that the "sweet spot" that supposedly resulted from only the center of the circle of coverage being used, is a 'chancy' thing at best. Not all older lenses for 24x36mm coverage (or larger) were in fact all that great in the center of their field.
    For example, there is no real "sweet spot" on a 45mm MIR lens for the Pentacon 6 (6x6cm) when mounted on a digital smaller format camera. It's an OK lens for the larger format, but unlike some of its rivals in the 6cm film lenses, it doesn't do well for smaller formats.
     
  21. David, you are right, the crop factor is not a matter for debate. I stated my point the wrong way. If you didn't do the calculation, you'd think that the sensor is bigger than it actually is. That's all. But the good news is that APS-C cameras might be compatible with a some cinema lenses, most of which only cover 4-perf 35mm.
     
  22. This thread is "Modern Film Cameras," all modern SLR's are "full frame".
     
  23. The OP asked about the D7000, which is not a full-frame.
     
  24. It seems to me that this is in the wrong forum, as this one is not about differences between digital cameras.
     
  25. We could compare full frame and APS film SLRs.
    Anyone try the Canon IX?
     

Share This Page