Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)

Started Apr 6, 2012 | Discussions
Jogger
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,389Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to txabi, Apr 6, 2012

I shoot FF because the lenses available are so much better than the offerings from NEX, m43, etc. The APSc sensor size is pretty good though i think.

 Jogger's gear list:Jogger's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Nikon D700 Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
viking79
Forum ProPosts: 13,162Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to chaking, Apr 6, 2012

chaking wrote:

Also noise and sensor size have no direct correlation. That's why the d7000 performs about the same as the d800 as far as noise.

They do perform about the same, but you are looking at pixel level or pixel based measurement, when you look at entire image, the larger sensor will be better as it isn't enlarged as much. So if you have a d7000 and D800 which have the same SNR, when you blow it up to a 20x30 print (or any size) the D800 will show less noise as the image wasn't enlarged as much. In the 20x30 case the D800 would be enlarged by a factor of about 22 and the D7000 by a factor of about 32.

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Samsung NX30 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sonichedgehog
Junior MemberPosts: 46
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to cxsparc, Apr 6, 2012

Other things being equal, meaning same focal length, same aperture, same focusing distance, APS-C cameras will always have shallower DOF than FF because of the crop factor.

FL: 50mm
Aperture: f/2
Focusing distance 3m

Canon 7D DOF: 27cm
Canon 5DMk2 DOF: 43cm

The only advantage (for me at least) of FF is for landscape shooting - a 16mm on FF is 16mm, not 24mm like it is on APS-C. But even this is becoming less of a problem with lenses like 12mm

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
chaking
Forum MemberPosts: 77Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to viking79, Apr 6, 2012

viking79 wrote:

chaking wrote:

Also noise and sensor size have no direct correlation. That's why the d7000 performs about the same as the d800 as far as noise.

They do perform about the same, but you are looking at pixel level or pixel based measurement, when you look at entire image, the larger sensor will be better as it isn't enlarged as much. So if you have a d7000 and D800 which have the same SNR, when you blow it up to a 20x30 print (or any size) the D800 will show less noise as the image wasn't enlarged as much. In the 20x30 case the D800 would be enlarged by a factor of about 22 and the D7000 by a factor of about 32.

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

Sure, if you have 2 photos with the same SnR, then the one with the more pixels will always enlarge more graceful than the one with less. However, straight out of the camera should be about the same.

 chaking's gear list:chaking's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED MC +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wll
wll
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,820
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to Jogger, Apr 6, 2012

Jogger wrote:

I shoot FF because the lenses available are so much better than the offerings from NEX, m43, etc. The APSc sensor size is pretty good though i think.

That is pretty much true ... at the present time !

wll

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
chaking
Forum MemberPosts: 77Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to sonichedgehog, Apr 6, 2012

sonichedgehog wrote:

Other things being equal, meaning same focal length, same aperture, same focusing distance, APS-C cameras will always have shallower DOF than FF because of the crop factor.

FL: 50mm
Aperture: f/2
Focusing distance 3m

Canon 7D DOF: 27cm
Canon 5DMk2 DOF: 43cm

The only advantage (for me at least) of FF is for landscape shooting - a 16mm on FF is 16mm, not 24mm like it is on APS-C. But even this is becoming less of a problem with lenses like 12mm

I think this is confusing. The Sub Frame will have a shallower DOF because the focal length is actually 75mm (on sony and nikon) and not 50mm.

If you added the focal length multiplier for Canon lenses (1.6x) then you see they are pretty much identical: 27x1.6=43

 chaking's gear list:chaking's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED MC +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Arthur Winner
Junior MemberPosts: 33
Like?
Re: For my needs not really
In reply to Rich Gibson, Apr 6, 2012

I agree. I have a Nex5n that I use a lot more than my D700. As per photo
is used more by my son and grandson

Arthur

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Emacs23
Regular MemberPosts: 418Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to chaking, Apr 6, 2012

Wrong. With D7000 you have to deal with 2.25 larger (and thus more visible) noise patterns. Think about it. DXO guys know how to measure (they are developers of great DXO Optics), unlike bunch of amateurs at dpr.

Also noise and sensor size have no direct correlation. That's why the d7000 performs about the same as the d800 as far as noise.

 Emacs23's gear list:Emacs23's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Leica Super-Elmar-M 18mm f/3.8 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GingerBread
Regular MemberPosts: 372Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to headofdestiny, Apr 6, 2012

I have a D700 with, among others, the 85mm f/1.4 and 70-200 VR. Great camera and great lenses. I don't pull them out much anymore. For action, absolutely love the D700 with the 70-200 as well as the 28-70. For everything else, I'm quite comfortable with smaller sensored cameras like the NEX 7 and the Pany GX1. I get all the depth of field control I want with the NEX and fast Minolta Rokkors. I get even smaller size from the Pany, especially with the 20mm f/1.7 and Oly 45mm f/1.8.

I would much prefer to see advances in APS-C and M4/3 sensors and lenses than resources being used for Sony to come out with a full frame mirrorless. Bigger sensors require bigger lenses. I'd very much like for there to be a M4/3 camera with less pixels but the quality of the 5N or the 7's sensors, because I really like the small size of the lenses for M4/3 compared to those for the NEX line, although lenses for APS-C sensors are certainly smaller than those for full frame.
--
Ging

 GingerBread's gear list:GingerBread's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Nikon D700 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Emacs23
Regular MemberPosts: 418Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to GingerBread, Apr 6, 2012

I would much prefer to see advances in APS-C and M4/3 sensors and lenses than resources being used for Sony to come out with a full frame mirrorless. Bigger sensors require bigger lenses. I'd very much like for there to be a M4/3 camera with less pixels but the quality of the 5N or the 7's sensors, because I really like the small size of the lenses for M4/3 compared to those for the NEX line, although lenses for APS-C sensors are certainly smaller than those for full frame.
--
Ging

Hello Ging. I guess you have never seen VL for M, CZ ZM and Leica glasses.

 Emacs23's gear list:Emacs23's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Leica Super-Elmar-M 18mm f/3.8 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
chaking
Forum MemberPosts: 77Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to Emacs23, Apr 6, 2012

Emacs23 wrote:

Wrong. With D7000 you have to deal with 2.25 larger (and thus more visible) noise patterns. Think about it. DXO guys know how to measure (they are developers of great DXO Optics), unlike bunch of amateurs at dpr.

Also noise and sensor size have no direct correlation. That's why the d7000 performs about the same as the d800 as far as noise.

Can you go into more detail please? Or provide a link or something? It seems like maybe you're basing this on a dxo low light iso rating?

I still don't believe the larger sensor has a direct correlation to noise. The example I used might not be spot on, but I don't believe noise is directly relational to the size of the sensor.

 chaking's gear list:chaking's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED MC +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
probert500
Contributing MemberPosts: 976Gear list
Like?
Re: noise isn't the issue
In reply to txabi, Apr 6, 2012

My nex 3 has better noise characteristics than my 5dmk2. The issue for my is resolution. With an area that's 250% larger than the aps sensor the resolution that a given lens can give you is greater - the level of detail is greater.

I use FF professionally for that reason - but for my creative work the nex will do nicely if I don't want to carry all that weight. Plus, I find it a pleasure to use. If I'm traveling I'll bring both.

So, in terms of resolution the FF is still king (not including medium format), particularly if you're printing. That said - I've gotten very nice 20 x 24 prints from my nex. If you're shooting jpegs, or just posting online, aps or smaller is more than adequate.

 probert500's gear list:probert500's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wally626
Senior MemberPosts: 1,632
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to txabi, Apr 6, 2012

txabi wrote:

I propose this topic because many times I think about getting a D700 or 5dMarkII to have a full frame in my equipment. I in no way want to start some FF vs APS-C flame war. FF is obviously much better than APSC when it comes to depth of field and night-photography (low noise) capabilities. However, I keep thinking, at this point, not being a pro but just an amateur who does photography for fun as a hobby, is it even worth it to get a FF camera if you don't need the DOF or noise benefits?

...

Discuss!

Unless the full frame has features and capabilities you need there is no need to go full frame. Almost any modern APS-C (and most of the m4/3rds) DSLR is going to have image quality with good lenses that is better than 95% of the population will ever need. (Statistic made up) Also note that every advantage a full frame offers from a format standpoint a medium format camera would do better. In some cases an APS-C will beat a full frame. If you have a full frame body with a 400mm lens and a APS-C with the same 400mm lens, if both cameras have the same number of pixels like the A900 and NEX 7 and the lens is high enough quality the NEX 7 is going to give you a more detailed image. There are even cases, like needing extreme depth of field, where a small format sensor would be the right choice. Sometimes feature creep pushes you into full frame cameras just because the APS-C lines do not have a needed feature, but if that happens you will know you need to move up.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
aman74
Senior MemberPosts: 2,787
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to Taylor Sherman, Apr 6, 2012

Taylor Sherman wrote:

The higher pixel density of APS-C means the lenses have to have great resolution, so if you use FF-design lenses the must be extremely good.

Uggh.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GingerBread
Regular MemberPosts: 372Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to Emacs23, Apr 6, 2012

Emacs23 wrote:

Hello Ging. I guess you have never seen VL for M, CZ ZM and Leica glasses.

Never used rangefinder lenses. The great ones are too expensive, and I've seen too much about issues with old RF glass on the NEX 7; I'm hesitant to go that route. I use old Minolota Rokkors. I might try some of the Russian glass someday, but I need to read up more on it.

Bigger sensors do require bigger lenses, which makes you wonder why we can't see some new very small glass for APS-C mirrorless cameras without having to go buy Leica glass. My old $70 Rokkor 50mm f/1.4 gives excellent results at f/2, and I'd love to find similarly good glass that is more compact on my NEX 7 without breaking the bank.

-- hide signature --

Ging

 GingerBread's gear list:GingerBread's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Nikon D700 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
aman74
Senior MemberPosts: 2,787
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to txabi, Apr 6, 2012

txabi wrote:

This is what I'm trying to understand. If DOF and noise aren't a big part of your decision, then what is the benefit IQ wise for you to go FF? Maybe the benefit is elsewhere? (body, manual controls, speed... what?)

I ask because I'm very happy with my 5N, but I always have this feeling of FF will be better. Then I go look at comparison shots and I really don't see that much difference, the setup, lighting and personal technique seem to be far more important than a FF tool.

If you aren't seeing the differences than there's not much point. I do see a difference, so for me, there is. I grew up shooting 35mm film and always wanting to go bigger and get those awesome MF results. Digital brought on many advantages, but some disadvantages. The big one being it costing a fortune to get back to a format size that's already small, even compared to a TLR. The jump from FF to MF is indeed greater than from APS-C to FF, but even then the effect is there. DR, fine gradations, transitions in DOF (not just getting "thinner")...oh, and the 3D effect that I've not seen from many APS-C shots, is all there. Go check out some of the better D800 shots and if you honestly think you've seen comparable shots from APS-C, then don't worry about it anymore.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
headofdestiny
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,222Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to GingerBread, Apr 6, 2012

Leica lenses are designed for film or Leica sensors, which have various tricks to improve edge performance. For NEX, Sony has to deal with not only angled light rays at the edge of the sensor due to the short registration distance, but they also have to add AF mechanisms, auto aperture mechanisms, and sometimes OSS systems. No matter, e-mount lens systems on NEX are still quite a bit smaller than a-mount lenses on SLRs, if you measure the length of the lens and camera combined.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Franka T.L.
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,454Gear list
Like?
well the real question though, is
In reply to txabi, Apr 6, 2012

As you yourself already stated, there is no doubt FF can bring more to the table. so the Q can FF bring improvement IQ wise over APS-C. then of course the answer is YES.

BUT ...

the real question is, can you the photographer , actually able to benefit by exploiting the capability and possibility, and that is not an APS-C vs FF question. It had been there since the film era. Just as so many 35mm film photographer ponder whether they should take up Medium Format, or Medium Format photog taking up LF. Or simply just any who shoot JPEG taking up shooting and developing RAW.

It might be over stated so many times, but ultimately its the photographer who do made the capture and the image, not the camera. Go figure ...

  • Franka -

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Klipsen
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,067Gear list
Like?
I'll aggree when a truly superior EVF is available
In reply to txabi, Apr 6, 2012

I have both an A900 and a NEX-7, and therefore I feel entitled to say that no   current EVF can compare to the best OVFs, and since the viewfinder is where you "make" the picture, why settle for second best?

If (or rather: when) EVFs mature to the same level as the A900's OVF, they will have great advantages over OVFs. They can be made with high magnification, you can zoom into the details you want in focus, you can see the effects of different settings etc., etc. But until they can cope with backlit subjects and other high contrast motives, I'll stick with full frame cameras and optical viewfinders.

 Klipsen's gear list:Klipsen's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
D Cox
Senior MemberPosts: 7,043
Like?
Re: Is FF even worth at this point? (read details)
In reply to txabi, Apr 6, 2012

txabi wrote:

I propose this topic because many times I think about getting a D700 or 5dMarkII to have a full frame in my equipment. I in no way want to start some FF vs APS-C flame war. FF is obviously much better than APSC when it comes to depth of field and night-photography (low noise) capabilities. However, I keep thinking, at this point, not being a pro but just an amateur who does photography for fun as a hobby, is it even worth it to get a FF camera if you don't need the DOF or noise benefits?

It may be if you own a number of manual full frame lenses that work on E-mount with adaptors.

For instance, it would be nice to get the full field of view from my 20mm Nikon lens.

The other reason is for applied work such as digitising from film originals. The 5n is good enough for some of this, but not for the very best originals such as Kodachromes. To get the same quality at, say, 36 Mpixels as we get now at 16 Mpix, I think the sensor has to be bigger.

But if all your photos are straight photos of people and places, then the existing 5N and 7 are pretty good.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads