full frame

[Christakis]

. . .

I'm no bird photographer and never saw the interest in that type of photography so I shall end this conversation here.

Sooner would have been better.

There's no need to be mean just because you disagree with what is being said. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you're an APS-C only man, then good for you. I own an 18mp APS-C camera and an 18mp FF camera and I know for a fact that crops from the FF are much better. Period.

--
Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

 

[José S]

Many of us still prefer full frame for birding, though I use both. Being in Florida, I mostly shoot fairly large widing birds, but things are different everywhere. Many bird and wildlife prefer full frame over crop. In fact everyone in the rookeries this afternoon was shooting Nikon and Canon full frame cameras. There were five of us; two with 300s, one with 500 and two with huge Canon 800mm. Wow.

Just this afternoon close to home. 300 f/2.8 on a D700. The last one was with a Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro, my really short range birder.







--
Cheers, Craig

I was just curious Greg, why do many wildlife photographers prefer full frame over cropped? On paper your 300mm lens would become 400mm.

I don't know how this simple question so quickly degenerated into another tired more versus alot more megapixel discussion.

jose

 

[Guidenet]

A 300mm lens will always be a 300mm lens. It doesn't magically get longer with a smaller sensor. People know this but still want to make that calculation. A smaller sensor does not change any optical properties of the lens. It just crops a smaller piece of the same image.

The advantage of a smaller sensor is taht it can put more pixels on the target, all else being equal, but it does not provide additional magnification. The advantages of more pixel density is countered by the better pixels of the full frame most of the time. Also, birds and wildlife tend to be out more in the early morning and late evening hours where the better dim light capability of a larger sensor might come into play.

As technology advances, this might not be true in the future. We'll have to see.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[Guidenet]

LIke I said, who knows, my friend. Part is confidence. If you are confident in your gear, you can often get the shot. I had my D300 in my kit, but it was after 7 PM. Look at the noise there. Its not too good even with the D700. I tried lots of things. I had to pump the shutter speed way up to stop the heavy vibration of the boat and wind. I had to use a fairly tight aperture to maybe help manage sharpness. The resulting ISO was too high. Believe me, I shot various combinations over a 20 minute period. All were shot RAW and 14 bit.

The point is that I needed to be closer and where I could use a tripod, as you properly point out. The problem was a lot of saltwater, wind, waves and no dry land to speak of. This was ocean, not really an inland water way. Well, maybe if you can call the Gulf of Mexico an inland waterway.

I'm going to wait a few months or a year. If Nikon doesn't go with a higher pixel density with either a crop or FF camera, I might buy a D7000 as a backup longer range shooter.

I love this guy. Now that's a D700 and one of my better lenses.



--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[Billx08]

. . .

I'm going to wait a few months or a year. If Nikon doesn't go with a higher pixel density with either a crop or FF camera, I might buy a D7000 as a backup longer range shooter.

I'm pretty sure that Nikon won't let you down, but the D7000 as a fallback position is (as they say in some parts of Fla) not chopped liver.

I love this guy. Now that's a D700 and one of my better lenses.

http://www.guidenet.net/birds_11/greategret_g-land_1-23-11.jpg

Nice photo and I really like photos that show that semi-translucent feather structure. At the moment I'm also partial to seeing anything that isn't buried under snow.

 

[bobnottleJR]

what have i started!?

 

[Billx08]

what have i started!?

. . . don't blame me. I was Framed.

 

[Chato]

Personally I think the expression is meaningless and confusing.

Every camera is a "full frame" camera. The advantages or disadvantages of a larger sensor may very well be important....

A 300mm lens will always be a 300mm lens. It doesn't magically get longer with a smaller sensor. People know this but still want to make that calculation. A smaller sensor does not change any optical properties of the lens. It just crops a smaller piece of the same image.

The advantage of a smaller sensor is taht it can put more pixels on the target, all else being equal, but it does not provide additional magnification. The advantages of more pixel density is countered by the better pixels of the full frame most of the time. Also, birds and wildlife tend to be out more in the early morning and late evening hours where the better dim light capability of a larger sensor might come into play.

A marvelous explanation of the question.

As technology advances, this might not be true in the future. We'll have to see.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile\

I just don't think it matters enough to switch from APS to 35mm

I believe the quality of the lens is more important than the size of the sensor.

Even in low light, an APS sized sensor works just fine...





Dave

 

[Christakis]

I believe the quality of the lens is more important than the size of the sensor.

Even in low light, an APS sized sensor works just fine...

Dave

The new generation of APS-C sensors are indeed very capable of shooting at night even at very high ISOs.

For me a full frame camera has an advantage on low light handheld photography as the shutter speed can be lower than on APS-C cameras. Also, fast 50mm lenses are cheaper than their 35mm equivalents.

At the end, it's which you like best for what you do. I definitely prefer my FF than my APS-C, even if it doesn't have all the fancy-pancy features.
--
Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

 

[Chato]

I believe the quality of the lens is more important than the size of the sensor.

Even in low light, an APS sized sensor works just fine...

Dave

The new generation of APS-C sensors are indeed very capable of shooting at night even at very high ISOs.

For me a full frame camera has an advantage on low light handheld photography as the shutter speed can be lower than on APS-C cameras. Also, fast 50mm lenses are cheaper than their 35mm equivalents.

I'm not sure if I understand this. With my camera I can keep the shutter open for an hour, if I so desire...

At the end, it's which you like best for what you do. I definitely prefer my FF than my APS-C, even if it doesn't have all the fancy-pancy features.

Absolutely! I agree. It's not a question of better or worse, but the individuals needs and preference. I shoot wildlife, and like most of those I've met, I prefer APS sized sensor.

But if you handed me a D3x, I wouldn't sell it.

Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

Dave

 

[Chato]

The only way you can ever really truly understand is to go to a store and ask to try a 5d Mark ii (for example) and hold it up to your eye and look through the lens

THEN you will truly understand

I've got an original 5d (bought there and then as a result of playing with it) and would never go back to crop sensors for portraits, landscapes, street shots etc

I have a 7d that I use for sports that's not full frame which is fine and practical - but it's not got the same satisfaction that a full frame camera gives me

Try one - go pick one up and play with it - then get your wallet ready !

There is no bigger, or brighter viewfinder than that of the APS D2x. Period.

Dave

 

[Christakis]

I believe the quality of the lens is more important than the size of the sensor.

Even in low light, an APS sized sensor works just fine...

Dave

The new generation of APS-C sensors are indeed very capable of shooting at night even at very high ISOs.

For me a full frame camera has an advantage on low light handheld photography as the shutter speed can be lower than on APS-C cameras. Also, fast 50mm lenses are cheaper than their 35mm equivalents.

I'm not sure if I understand this. With my camera I can keep the shutter open for an hour, if I so desire...

What I meant was: On FF cameras you can usually get away with using slower shutter speed than you could on APS-C. So say 50mm on an APS-C you need 1/75s to avoid camera shake, on a FF you need 1/50s. These calculations are rough estimates and don't take into account image stabilisation systems.

At the end, it's which you like best for what you do. I definitely prefer my FF than my APS-C, even if it doesn't have all the fancy-pancy features.

Absolutely! I agree. It's not a question of better or worse, but the individuals needs and preference. I shoot wildlife, and like most of those I've met, I prefer APS sized sensor.

But if you handed me a D3x, I wouldn't sell it.

I shoot street photography so shutter speed is important to me. FF as I said before has an edge in this. Also, the look of a 50mm lens on a FF camera is different than that of a 35mm on a crop camera.

Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

Dave

--
Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

 

[Christakis]

The only way you can ever really truly understand is to go to a store and ask to try a 5d Mark ii (for example) and hold it up to your eye and look through the lens

THEN you will truly understand

I've got an original 5d (bought there and then as a result of playing with it) and would never go back to crop sensors for portraits, landscapes, street shots etc

I have a 7d that I use for sports that's not full frame which is fine and practical - but it's not got the same satisfaction that a full frame camera gives me

Try one - go pick one up and play with it - then get your wallet ready !

There is no bigger, or brighter viewfinder than that of the APS D2x. Period.

Dave

That might hold true for SLR cameras but rangefinder cameras viewfinder are always bigger and brighter

--
Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

 

[Jaahn]

Having shot 35 mm film for a number of years, using mainly 35, 85 and 105 lenses, I can see that my DX camera has a different "look", most likely due to the deeper depth of field at equivalent focal lengths with the zoom. And of course the lower resolution compared to slide film.

Really, I would want a FF digital camera just to get back those fast primes, even if I had to focus myself. Or maybe I should just get a 50 mm 1.4 af-s and stop complaining.

 

[Christakis]

Having shot 35 mm film for a number of years, using mainly 35, 85 and 105 lenses, I can see that my DX camera has a different "look", most likely due to the deeper depth of field at equivalent focal lengths with the zoom. And of course the lower resolution compared to slide film.

This is exactly what I mentioned in one of my replies above. The crop sensors have a different look. I don't think it's the dof to blame alone, perspective is also slightly different because you use wider focal lengths to get the same field of view.

Really, I would want a FF digital camera just to get back those fast primes, even if I had to focus myself. Or maybe I should just get a 50 mm 1.4 af-s and stop complaining.

The fast primes are to die for. I gave up auto focus and automatic metering to get the speed of the fast primes and I'm not regretting it one minute. Viva la primes

The 50mm 1.4 af-s, should make you very very happy although I don't know which lens you are talking about exactly; how does it perform wide open?

If you like primes wide open you will love my blog But, before you check it out, be warned, give your wallet to your wife to hide it ;-)

Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

 

[Guidenet]

Personally I think the expression is meaningless and confusing.

Every camera is a "full frame" camera. The advantages or disadvantages of a larger sensor may very well be important....

But it's not meaningless or confusing in the context it is used. If you wish to know the field of view of a lens, you just need to remember for one format in portable cameras. That's become 35mm. From there you apply crop factors to make it easy.

For example, Olympus made a line of "Half Frame" cameras in the 1960s. Everyone knew what that meant. It was half the frame of 35mm film. Today 4/3rd is about the sam, but a different name. You might could claim APS-C to be 3/4 frame cameras. It doesn't matter what you call it but it does have a meaning. Nikon says FX and DX. Again, what's the difference as long as you know how that size crops a larger format.

I just don't think it matters enough to switch from APS to 35mm
I believe the quality of the lens is more important than the size of the sensor.
Even in low light, an APS sized sensor works just fine...

Sure APS works fine. I have a D300 and use it often. Nothing wrong with it. For some, moving to FX is too expensive to consider. To others it might not be. And, of course the lens makes a big difference. But let me tell you. Go get you a D700 for a week or so and come back and tell me what you think. Most are peasantly surprised.

Open up that RAW file in your favorite converter and editor and you'll find headroom, bottom room, living room and maybe a hotel room when your wife finds out what you just spent. Don't do it unless you're willing to make the journey.

As far as bird and wildlife photographers go, I've personally found that most of the seriously passionate ones, the ones that buy the big glass and travel far and wide, use full frame (FX, 35mm) cameras. When I hear through the grapevine that a fairly rare bird can be found on some trail in the Everglades, and I get back in there, I see very few crop cameras. I see Canon 1DS types, 5D types, D700 models with grips and D3s. Now around Anhinga Trail where all the birders mix it up with the tourists and average joes who like to shoot birds, you see everything. But, it's really no big deal. It's just my personal experience in one part of the country. Elsewhere might be different.

I think the myth about bird and wildlife photographers preferring APS-C for the supposed reach is more of an Internet Forum tale.

--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[Chato]

Having shot 35 mm film for a number of years, using mainly 35, 85 and 105 lenses, I can see that my DX camera has a different "look", most likely due to the deeper depth of field at equivalent focal lengths with the zoom. And of course the lower resolution compared to slide film.

This is exactly what I mentioned in one of my replies above. The crop sensors have a different look. I don't think it's the dof to blame alone, perspective is also slightly different because you use wider focal lengths to get the same field of view.

Really, I would want a FF digital camera just to get back those fast primes, even if I had to focus myself. Or maybe I should just get a 50 mm 1.4 af-s and stop complaining.

The fast primes are to die for. I gave up auto focus and automatic metering to get the speed of the fast primes and I'm not regretting it one minute. Viva la primes

The 50mm 1.4 af-s, should make you very very happy although I don't know which lens you are talking about exactly; how does it perform wide open?

If you like primes wide open you will love my blog But, before you check it out, be warned, give your wallet to your wife to hide it ;-)

Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

No offense guys, but the way the scene looks from a viewfinder is a reflection of what the manufacturerer wants to peddle and/or provide.

I've handled just about every camera on the market, and as I said in a previous post, nothing beats the viewfinder on the APS sized Nikon D2x. Of course I paid 5K for that camera...

The "tunnel effect" which so many complain about is simply absent with this camera.

Dave

 

[Christakis]

Having shot 35 mm film for a number of years, using mainly 35, 85 and 105 lenses, I can see that my DX camera has a different "look", most likely due to the deeper depth of field at equivalent focal lengths with the zoom. And of course the lower resolution compared to slide film.

This is exactly what I mentioned in one of my replies above. The crop sensors have a different look. I don't think it's the dof to blame alone, perspective is also slightly different because you use wider focal lengths to get the same field of view.

Really, I would want a FF digital camera just to get back those fast primes, even if I had to focus myself. Or maybe I should just get a 50 mm 1.4 af-s and stop complaining.

The fast primes are to die for. I gave up auto focus and automatic metering to get the speed of the fast primes and I'm not regretting it one minute. Viva la primes

The 50mm 1.4 af-s, should make you very very happy although I don't know which lens you are talking about exactly; how does it perform wide open?

If you like primes wide open you will love my blog But, before you check it out, be warned, give your wallet to your wife to hide it ;-)

Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

No offense guys, but the way the scene looks from a viewfinder is a reflection of what the manufacturerer wants to peddle and/or provide.

None taken. The different "look" we were talking about, isn't when you view from the viewfinder, it's on the actual picture captured.

I've handled just about every camera on the market, and as I said in a previous post, nothing beats the viewfinder on the APS sized Nikon D2x. Of course I paid 5K for that camera...

Have you handled a range finder? or just SLRs?

The "tunnel effect" which so many complain about is simply absent with this camera.

No "tunnel effect" with a range finder ;-)

Dave

Christakis
--
http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

 

[Guidenet]

I used to have a D2x and it was an excellent camera and the viewfinder was very pretty. It had better be for the cost. I don't remember it to be the BEST there ever was. I no longer have it but I think the D700 or D3 view is pretty much impossible to beat and a bit better than the D2x as far as I can remember.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[Jaahn]

The 50mm 1.4 af-s, should make you very very happy although I don't know which > lens you are talking about exactly; how does it perform wide open?

The 50 mm af-s is the most recent version of Nikon's 1.4 normal lens, I think ... it will auto focus with the d40 ... it's more expensive than the af-d version.

I haven't tried it but I'm assuming it would be pretty sharp wide open, especially since the d40 would only be using the middle of the image circle.