Full Frame or not

eyetrip · 25 Jul 2013 at 07:53

Well, when I went to the Sony a65 not long ago, and started looking at glass, I too was wondering whether I should look at getting FF lenses.

In the end I decided no.

Cost was a part of that decision, both for cameras and lenses, but the main thing for me was the extra reach provided by aps-c "natural" crop. Sure, I could get plenty of reach on FF, but the lenses would start getting very big (and heavy) indeed.

As it stands, I do actually have a couple of FF compatible lenses in my Tamron 70-300mm USD and Sigma 150mm Macro, but the Tammy wasn't that costly, and the Sigma, well, I like my macro so it's the lens I plugged the most into.

There is one more FF compatible lens I will get, and that is a 70-200mm f2.8. Yeah, expensive and heavy sadly, but it's mainly for keeping shutter up and ISO down as much as possible, trying to photograph things in heavy shade.

Though hopefully Son'y next bunch of cams will be far bettter in ISO department, perhaps negating need for that.

The only people who I personally think FF makes hige sense for is those that earn a living from their photography.

For the rest, it's probably just people with plenty of cash to burn

An Exception · 25 Jul 2013 at 08:24

D.P. said:
And what are you going to put it on that is so light to get a reasonable aperture , e.g. F/4.0 or f/5.6 at a push?
The Nikon 200-400 f/3.0 is still around 3.2Kg. F/8 on the 80-400 just wont be sufficient.

The fact is bigger sensors require more glass to provide sufficient coverage. Longer lenses require more glass to maintain sufficient apertures. The end result is larger sensors lead to very large, very expensive lenses.
A TC doesn't mitigate that, you loose the stop of light gathering and get softer images with worse AF. At best you end up more or less where you would have been using a crop camera, except in a bigger more expensive package.

No free lunch.

The TC I linked to will lose around 5% sharpness. Less than the sharpness lost through using a crop sensor over a full frame sensor.
For the casual reader about to jump on that statement: I'm not saying the sensor itself is sharper, but that it utilises more area of the lenses image circle and in doing so squeezes out the maximum resolution of a lens

F8 focuses fine on my FF's. FF is like F5.6 on a crop anyway, so 560mm F5.6 doesn't sound so bad to me.

Of course if this telephoto stuff was really a concern, you would just get a FF with high pixel density, or just get a dedicated APSC to use for birding and the like, and the FF for everything else.

Ksanti · 25 Jul 2013 at 11:14

D.P. said:
Over done HDR or selective colouring has nothing to do with my photography either and I am quite comfortable trashing those as well.
There is a time and place for razor thin DoF - not every shot needs or best suited to it, even in portraiture. There is far more to taking flattering portraits than getting 0.01mm DoF highlighting a single eyelash.
Now don't get me wrong, the ability to minimise DoF or maximise light gathering van be invaluable in some circumstances, none of which the OP has mentioned as a critical requirement.

Of course it's not the be all end all of every shot, but that doesn't change the fact that it makes a full frame camera a lot more versatile than a cropped one as the lack of shallow depth of field/light capturing/sharpness ability is a lot more limiting for most people's usage than the need to stop down that little bit further for large depth of field

CGrieves · 25 Jul 2013 at 11:59

Ksanti said:
Of course it's not the be all end all of every shot, but that doesn't change the fact that it makes a full frame camera a lot more versatile than a cropped one as the lack of shallow depth of field/light capturing/sharpness ability is a lot more limiting for most people's usage than the need to stop down that little bit further for large depth of field

Crop cameras have a lack of shallow depth of field? I've not noticed....

Full frame has a narrower depth of field for the same lens and framing compared to crop, but I've never found the matter a few millimetres difference in field depth to be anywhere near attractive enough to make the switch.

Noise, definitely. Just not enough of a draw for me considering the disadvantages.

mrk · 25 Jul 2013 at 12:48

Noise was the key factor for my upgrade from the 40D instead of going 7D/60D etc. I used to shoot up to ISO1600 without needing noise reduction. Now I can shoot ISO4000 without noise reduction. That alone is a massive advantage when hand holding in low light. Even with 1.4 lenses...

D.P. said:
not every shot needs or best suited to it, even in portraiture.

While some people use shallow dof just for the sake of it, many do not. I don't think you are in a position to dictate what aperture any established photographer should have used because you don't like it as too many people use shallow dof and anyway, they will have wanted to present a shot a certain way only.

Some people use the widest aperture 24/7 and manage to get everything important perfectly in focus (and sometimes lack of focus is the best focus). Some people don't. It just so happens the rubbish ones tend to stand out more in the same way customer complaints for company xyz are more heard than customer praise.

ChrisD. · 25 Jul 2013 at 12:54

mrk raises a good point, something like a 5D MkII will be a lot better at high ISO when compared to a 7D/60D etc.

mrk · 25 Jul 2013 at 12:55

Obviously if the extra cost wasn't an issue. A 6D class body would be the same too but less costly.

ChrisD. · 25 Jul 2013 at 12:59

Yeah I always forget about the 6D.

Janesy B · 25 Jul 2013 at 13:00

One thing I found utterly daft on the 6D is the fact the max shutter speed is 1/4000.

mrk · 25 Jul 2013 at 13:15

Yeah that is a bit of a silly thing to have on a full frame camera but I guess they did it because even the Nikon D600 is also 1/4000 so didn't feel the need to make it faster?

King Damager · 25 Jul 2013 at 13:17

Janesy B said:
One thing I found utterly daft on the 6D is the fact the max shutter speed is 1/4000.

Yeah, f1.4 in sunshine, ISO 100 I frequently find myself bouncing off of 1/4000

kd

Janesy B · 25 Jul 2013 at 13:22

King Damager said:
Yeah, f1.4 in sunshine, ISO 100 I frequently find myself bouncing off of 1/4000

kd

Get a CPL, that'll knock you down one stop.

Genoma · 25 Jul 2013 at 13:23

The 6D makes my future choices even more confusing..

For £1900 I can get a 6D with EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS from HK, and I'm about to invest almost half of that in EFS lenses now...

I need to think this through..

ChrisD. · 25 Jul 2013 at 13:25

Why would you not want UK warranty?

But as you say, if you really want/need to go full frame, do it now. I won't be for a number of years, my 60D will suit me well, but the only EF-S lens I will buy will be the 18-55 IS f2.8, but I know that I can get most of that money back coming to sell.

Don't forget lenses hold they value much better than camera bodies.

King Damager · 25 Jul 2013 at 13:30

Janesy B said:
Get a CPL, that'll knock you down one stop.

Yeah, I've got one of those... I don't use it that much mind...

Genoma said:
The 6D makes my future choices even more confusing.. For £1900 I can get a 6D with EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS from HK, and I'm about to invest almost half of that in EFS lenses now...

I need to think this through..

They're surprisingly nice

I really need to do a six month review at some point

I could do with trying out that 24-70 mind... My 24-105 is lovely, but my understanding is the 24-70 is better xD

kd

Janesy B · 25 Jul 2013 at 13:32

King Damager said:
Yeah, I've got one of those... I don't use it that much mind...

Use it!

An Exception · 25 Jul 2013 at 13:39

King Damager said:
Yeah, f1.4 in sunshine, ISO 100 I frequently find myself bouncing off of 1/4000

kd

That's why I ruled out the D600. Sure people said just use a filter, but then who wants to keep screwing and unscrewing filters, especially if you're shooting a mix of indoor (low light) and outdoors with too much light, at least for F1.4 1/4000.

I had the same problem with my D700, however it's strong ability to recover highlight detail made it bearable.

Edit:
Also filters are a bugger to keep clean and once dirty seem much harder to clean than the lens element.

An Exception · 25 Jul 2013 at 13:47

CGrieves said:
Full frame has a narrower depth of field for the same lens and framing compared to crop, but I've never found the matter a few millimetres difference in field depth to be anywhere near attractive enough to make the switch.

DOF is relative, sometimes it's a few millimetres, other times it's a few meters.
An easier way to think of it, is that FF will give you between a 50-60% shallower DOF or 50-60% more bokeh goodness. 50-60 being the different crop factors of different manufacturers.

mrk · 25 Jul 2013 at 13:49

Another pointer for full frame is viewfinder. It's so much nicer having a big bright viewfinder.

An Exception · 25 Jul 2013 at 13:57

^^^
That's actually one of the biggest factors for me personally. When I left APSC to 35mm, I thought this is nice, but nothing revolutionary. A year or two later when I look down a crop viewfinder now, it's really not a pleasant experience.