full frame versus smaller format

[tk shots]

hello there....i wonder is the quality of a photograph better from a full frame

camera like say the nikon d3 compared to the nikon d300,in the same way that

medium format would be superior quality to 35mm?

[colin carron]

Here is a useful and thankfully dispassionate review of the subject by Bob Atkins. The cameras compared are different to those you mention but the principles are the same.

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/fullframe/

[engelgrafik]

It's a subjective statement although there are some known facts which will affect your opinion.

 

1st, if you're using a 35mm lens, and you're using a crop sensor, you are not getting the full characteristics of the lens. You're only getting what's in the center of the lens and not the edges because that data is falling away from the sensor.

 

This may be an issue for you. Let's say you used to shoot 35mm and you LOVE your 50mm lens. Maybe you even love the way it falls off and vignettes a tad when you open up the aperture.

 

Well, on your "DX" type Nikon camera, you won't get all that stuff on the edges anymore. Your camera will now telefoto out due to the conversion. It's no longer 50mm... it's 75mm.

 

Now, put that wonderful lens on the new D3 coming out and you will get all the characteristics of that lens. You will get the same bokeh, the same X and Y and Z as you did on the 35mm camera.

 

In THAT sense, yes, a Full Frame camera will give you "better" images. If you're coming at it from that viewpoint.

 

However, if all you've ever known were you DX cameras like the D70, D80, D200, etc. then you'll have to do your own tests to really determine that.

 

You may not like the "new" characteristics of the lens on your full frame camera.

 

Personally, I can't wait for full frame. I think there's a depth to the images that the DX doesn't allow for. It may be the drop in resolution around the edges of various lenses that the DX cropped cameras don't capture. All of this contributes to the overall "feel" of a photo. And in that way, it's subjective. My opinion is full frame is better.

[marshall]

All else being equal, the answer is "probably". All else is never equal.

[JDMvW]

I don't think that the small-size sensors are going to go away for a long time, but I do predict Nikon users will find full-frame cameras more attractive now that Nikon has one.

 

In theory, noise may be better on sensors with larger 'pixel' sizes with less problems with the sensor generating heat.

 

As Bob clearly shows in his article pointed to above, vignetting is definitely greater with full-frame on many lenses--there's just more field to cover. That 'drop in resolution around the edges' may give also give an illusion of depth, but both that and vignetting are more usually considered "bugs," not "features," that is to say flaws not pluses. Anyhow, if those are things you want, it's possible to find lenses that will do those things on smaller formats.

[frank uhlig]

In photography, the mind and eye behind the camera is much more important than the gear in front of the film/sensor. As far as artful quality of picture, vision capture is concerned.

 

And if instead you rather want to compare camera gear by the amount of information captured, then the larger sensor/film area is always better. And going along that route, a Hasselblad/Sinar MF back is much better technically than any 35 mm film/sensor or APC size gear can be. And MF is again bested tremendously by large format gear.

 

But, for us mortals who do not want to resolve the tiniest bits and pieces as a scientist might have to, but rather desire to depict meaningful artistic images of our word and what is in it, what matters most is what is between our ears. APC or fullframe sensors cannot improve our own creative and visionary limitations.

 

End of debate. Result: technically speaking more information will give a better reproduction, always. But will it give a better picture?

 

I always ask the following question: If Hemingway down at Key West had an IBM Selectric typewriter rather than his old manual Remington, would he have received 2 or 3 more Noble Prizes? Would he have been able to write 5 more superb masterpieces?

 

And I think that one's gear resolution does not really matter, except for heightened manliness, ego prowess etc, in the sense that my camera is bigger, more powerful, blah blah, blah .. .

For what purpose and result, artistically, is the main question here.

 

Good luck with ungearing your brain a bit, dear poster!

[matt_needham]

"...in the same way that medium format would be superior quality to 35mm?"

 

A better comparison might be from APS film to 35mm film. :)

[tk shots]

frank,when it comes to photography,both art and science are important....take that shot in today`s gallery from luis henriques....that quality depends on the camera and lens used....your hemingway comparison is wrong,do you think ansel adams could have produced that beauty from any camera?