Full Frame or not
- Thread starter Genoma
- Start date
Yeah, it helps you spot people hanging about on the left of your photos
Oooooh I see what you did there haha!
I've got straight up gear envy. I'm not even going to lie about it.
Plus a lot of the stuff I'd like from, say, a D800 has little to do with the size of the sensor. Focus points, ISO capabilities, even number of nobs and buttons and grip sizes are all just.. better on the FF cameras. It's a bonus they are FF in my eyes, rather than FF necessarily being a reason to upgrade.
Plus a lot of the stuff I'd like from, say, a D800 has little to do with the size of the sensor. Focus points, ISO capabilities, even number of nobs and buttons and grip sizes are all just.. better on the FF cameras. It's a bonus they are FF in my eyes, rather than FF necessarily being a reason to upgrade.
Sure, but really if we're talking the about the "limitation" of a crop sensor, then aren't we talking about the DOF at max aperture? I would have thought equally framing a scene at f5.6 on FF and F4 on a crop is going to give pretty much identical results assuming half decent glass- you just choose the aperture for the required field depth.
For creative purposes the biggest difference case is going to be relatively foreground subject and blurred background. And even in this case, the DOF advantage is going to be fairly slim- i.e. 150% of "razor thin" is still "razor thin"?
Note, I'm not trying to fan the FF vs crop flames, just discussing! To be honest I "want" a full frame body just because. Except when I look at it analytically (boring)... at my budget there's nothing that gives me the features of my cheap crop bodies, particularly frame rate. I think I'd get more benefit from a £500 lens than a 5Dmk1 at the moment, but that's just me. If you have the disposable to buy a new FF body, there's really no reason not to- the 5D3 does everything the best crop bodies do, and more.
Last edited:
That is definitely a big one, and would be one of the main reasons for me to switch.
Although if An Exception wants his small and light FF camera then the optical viewfinder is the first to go an then sensor size differences will make no difference to the electronic viewfinder.
I don't know where you get that 5% from. I use the exact same TC a lot,the difference it makes to image quality on my 70-200mm f2.8 and 300mm f4.0 are highly visible, and that is at a much lower pixel density than the D800 for example.
And yeah, you mind find an equivalence of f/8 using a TC nor the same lens as f5.6 on crop but what have you really gained. Or much.
My particular situation, I have. 1.5x crop body and use a 300mm f4 with and without a 1.4xTC. How can I move to a FF body while making full use of the sensor, maintaining the same reach or preferably increasing reach while not increase the cost or weight of my lens selection significantly.
And this really, I have found no problem getting wafer thin DoF from a crop camera and standard primes. Heck most of the time I shoot these stopped down a little in order to make sure people's heads etc. are fully focused.
Far more often I am struggling with the opposite problem, how to get significant DoF without stopping down to f22. Funnily enough the solution is to get a FF camera and use PC/TS lenses, which is one more reason why I probably move to FF.
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..
Case in point, what do you think you will gin getting a FF camera with an F/4 lens compared to a crop with the 17-55mm IS., let alone the sigma 18-35mm f1.8? The latter choice on crop will give you better low light, less noise, shallower DoF in a smaller, lighter, cheaper package!
I know what you mean, if you want a high end camera it might have to end up with a FF sensor but this isn't really true.
The D7100 has the same focus system but cover far more of a frame so to me that is preferably. When a D400 comes out that will have faster speeds as well as better focus. You don't need a FF sensor to get these capabilities, and indeed a low end Ff will be worse. E.g. The D600 has a much worse AF system compared to the D7100.
D400 will be a big game changer again.
They you are making a classic mistake of thinking shallow DoF == good Bokeh.
Bokeh doesn't have anything to do with the actual depth of focus. Bokeh describes the quality of the out of focus rendering. You can get great Bokeh with 10s of meters of DoF and terrible Bokeh with 1mm DoF. I get great Bokeh shot at f5.6 on my 300mm + 1.4. I get poor Bokeh on my old 50mm f1.8D. But even on that lens I can do things to improve the quality.
Bokeh is dependent on lens design, background, subject distance, backgound separation. It doesn't spend on DoF. Of course if you have used hyper focal focusing and everything is focused then you have no Bokeh, but as soon as you have our of focus layers and in focus layers then you have Bokeh, regardless of the DoF.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
Pah, not all FF cameras have huge numbers of focus points
Also, D.P. you know there's a multi quote button right?
kd
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
How many full length (adult sized) portraits have you taken with razor thin DOF's?
If the DOF is shallow enough, it can disguise what would otherwise be ugly bokeh. However that's not what I was talking about anyway. My statement "bokeh goodness" was referring to how shallower DOF's or more precisely larger airy discs can make pictures look 'sexy', it can add a certain wow factor that F16 can't do, at least for most people as it is of course subjective.
Sometimes when in the field, clients (with a basic understanding of photography) will even declare my 85 1.4 "one sexy lens" when they see my camera's LCD.
http://photographylife.com/image-degradation-with-nikon-teleconverters
Although on further research it looks like it doesn't play well with the 80-400 like it does on the 70-200vrii.
Outside of the tele arena, you gain.. how much differs from person to person.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Pah, not all FF cameras have huge numbers of focus points
Also, D.P. you know there's a multi quote button right?
kd
Imo it's more about the placement or position of them that matters most. Well placed AF points allow for good composition without having to crop in post.
Too many points can be a hinderance imo as it take too long to scroll through them.
I have 51 points but only use 11 99.99999999% of the time.
Pah, not all FF cameras have huge numbers of focus points
No, but most cameras that have large numbers of focus points (and plenty of nobs, good ISO, etc.) are FF.
Last edited:
I hope it's not just me, but even with these current cameras and their many focus points, it always seems to feel like they're all bunched up in the middle where I don't want them, and takes an age to scroll across them all. I suppose the value is in finer-grained focus tracking (assuming you want to track something in the middle of the frame )
)You don't have to scroll though all points manually. The idea of have a large area coverage with many points is to to track moving subjects under continuous focus mode- e.g. track a bird in flight/motor car/soccer player.
I hope it's not just me, but even with these current cameras and their many focus points, it always seems to feel like they're all bunched up in the middle where I don't want them, and takes an age to scroll across them all. I suppose the value is in finer-grained focus tracking (assuming you want to track something in the middle of the frame
This is especially a problem on FF cameras, the focus points all cluster around the center. The D7100 crop camera has the same AF system as the D800 so the focus points go well to the edge, furthermore it has a 1.2x crop mode which is great for sports and wildlife where the focus points go right to the edge of the frame.
I 100% agree that an ugly background can be removed by shooting with a very thin DoF. However, there are other ways around this problem under certain situations- often you can just move positions, change compositions/zoom/framing/subject distance. Sometimes you can't and shooting at f1.4 is a necessity.
However, shooting wide open doesn't gain you the best Bokeh on most lenses, often stopping down to f/2.8 will give a more pleasing image and the Bokeh becomes smoother and more consistent with less aberrations (highlights become more regular with less onion peel and less Chromatic aberrations etc.)
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
I hope it's not just me, but even with these current cameras and their many focus points, it always seems to feel like they're all bunched up in the middle where I don't want them, and takes an age to scroll across them all. I suppose the value is in finer-grained focus tracking (assuming you want to track something in the middle of the frame
With the 6D and D600 that is particularly the case.