is a full format DSLR rellay worth it?

maxdance said:

From David Kilpatrick...

“Depth of field

So, to regain the benefits which have been conferred by the small digital sensor, any full frame digital sensor really needs to offer equal quality at three times the ISO sensitivity figure (or 1.5 stops), just to enable the user to get back to the same actual depth of field and motion-stopping shutter speeds. This means a full frame DSLR must be as good at ISO 400 as an APS-C model is at ISO 125.”

Click to expand...

But you're missing the obvious point that the FF sensor collects MORE LIGHT (about double). BTW, I think DK's figure of ISO125 (relative to the APS-C ISO of 400) is wrong - it's 400/1.5 squared, which is about 1.8. So basically the cameras are therefore the same from this point of view. The FF camera needs a more sensitive sensor because it's using a smaller aperture, but it's got a more sensitive sensor because it has a much greater area to catch light.

Smoke and mirrors.

Theoretically what you say is true, of course. But the question is can anyone actually tell the difference between a well-taken shot with an FF and one taken with an APS-C camera - maybe when printed very large, but even then I think it would be a struggle.

Ben Karim said:

I'm travelling to Dallas (Las Colinas) in few days for a business training and I've put some money apart, I'm a bit confused about either buying the new Alpha 860 with full HD video, or going to the upper level and invest into a full format Alpha 850.

Click to expand...

Alpha 860?? Did I miss something?

--
joel*

http://photography.CREATiVENESS.com
http://www.CREATiVENESS.com

Graham Best said:

Robsphoto said:

ThinCat said:

Gary Friedman said in a recent blog email that he preferred the A700 to the A900 for most purposes. It's easier to get good output from the APS-C camera because of its greater DOF. FF gives you a bigger view finder but unless you want to print huge landscapes it's overkill.

Click to expand...

I think the sheer "cropping power" of the A900 is often overlooked. Even if you don't often want 40-inch wide prints, you will really appreciate being able to make A3 sized prints from a crop of just a small area of an image. There are lots of examples of this principle here:

Click to expand...

Rob,

You apparently have less exacting standards regarding printing than I. A 40" wide print from an a850/a900 is 151.2 ppi. At the native resolution (of Epson pro printers) of 360 dpi, a Sony full frame provides a 16.8" x 11.2" print.

Click to expand...

Why limit yourself to an arbitrary number of 360? I've made 200 ppi prints with my Epson printer and they look absolutely great close up. When I make enlargements, the print lab I use suggests no higher ppi than 256 for their system.

Graham Best said:

I'm not saying you can't print larger than A3, but you're depending on the printer driver to interpolate your image to the native 360 dpi., and inevitably losing something in the translation. The success of the interpolation is proportional to the complexity of the scene.

Click to expand...

I have heard the 360 ppi number thrown around for Epson before, but that is probably the dpi it makes at Photo Best RPM setting which is regardless to how many pixels are in the image.
--
http://roberthoy.zenfolio.com/
http://www.photographybyhoy.com

Robsphoto said:

ThinCat said:

Gary Friedman said in a recent blog email that he preferred the A700 to the A900 for most purposes. It's easier to get good output from the APS-C camera because of its greater DOF. FF gives you a bigger view finder but unless you want to print huge landscapes it's overkill.

Click to expand...

I think the sheer "cropping power" of the A900 is often overlooked.

Click to expand...

The other side to that story is that when using a crop dSLR you will be recording a longer field of view and thus be needing to crop less! It's all relative.
--
http://roberthoy.zenfolio.com/
http://www.photographybyhoy.com

Robert Hoy said:

Graham Best said:

Robsphoto said:

ThinCat said:

Gary Friedman said in a recent blog email that he preferred the A700 to the A900 for most purposes. It's easier to get good output from the APS-C camera because of its greater DOF. FF gives you a bigger view finder but unless you want to print huge landscapes it's overkill.

Click to expand...

I think the sheer "cropping power" of the A900 is often overlooked. Even if you don't often want 40-inch wide prints, you will really appreciate being able to make A3 sized prints from a crop of just a small area of an image. There are lots of examples of this principle here:

Click to expand...

Rob,

You apparently have less exacting standards regarding printing than I. A 40" wide print from an a850/a900 is 151.2 ppi. At the native resolution (of Epson pro printers) of 360 dpi, a Sony full frame provides a 16.8" x 11.2" print.

Click to expand...

Why limit yourself to an arbitrary number of 360? I've made 200 ppi prints with my Epson printer and they look absolutely great close up. When I make enlargements, the print lab I use suggests no higher ppi than 256 for their system.

Click to expand...

200 ppi prints compared to what? Are you stating you compared both native (non interpolated) 360 ppi. images with the same image printed at 200 ppi. and couldn't discern a difference? As far as limiting one's self to 360 ppi, I answered that in the following paragraph. Native 360 ppi with an a850/a900 prints at 11.2" x 16.8". I regularly print my a850 images on my Epson Pro 3800 at 16" x 24" at 252 ppi., although I use Alien Skin's Blowup to interpolate the image to 360 ppi before printing. Anything larger than 16" x 24" I try to use multiple stitched images.

Robert Hoy said:

Robert Hoy said:

I'm not saying you can't print larger than A3, but you're depending on the printer driver to interpolate your image to the native 360 dpi., and inevitably losing something in the translation. The success of the interpolation is proportional to the complexity of the scene.

Click to expand...

I have heard the 360 ppi number thrown around for Epson before, but that is probably the dpi it makes at Photo Best RPM setting which is regardless to how many pixels are in the image.

Click to expand...

Educate yourself on native resolution and you won't have to rely on supposition and hearsay. Google "Epson pro printer native resolution".

--
Regards,
Graham

'I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.' -Garry Winogrand

Yes, simply because FF camera is most inexpensive IQ upgrade option when you have several lenses already. This is equally right for expensive lenses and bargain oldies.

New APSc have live view and video. Next Sony FF will have these features too, to capture canikon in FF market.

--
Make photos that will be interesting to check after many years.
http://stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com

ThinCat said:

maxdance said:

From David Kilpatrick...

“Depth of field

So, to regain the benefits which have been conferred by the small digital sensor, any full frame digital sensor really needs to offer equal quality at three times the ISO sensitivity figure (or 1.5 stops), just to enable the user to get back to the same actual depth of field and motion-stopping shutter speeds. This means a full frame DSLR must be as good at ISO 400 as an APS-C model is at ISO 125.”

Click to expand...

But you're missing the obvious point that the FF sensor collects MORE LIGHT (about double). BTW, I think DK's figure of ISO125 (relative to the APS-C ISO of 400) is wrong - it's 400/1.5 squared, which is about 1.8. So basically the cameras are therefore the same from this point of view. The FF camera needs a more sensitive sensor because it's using a smaller aperture, but it's got a more sensitive sensor because it has a much greater area to catch light.

Smoke and mirrors.

Click to expand...

The total light doesn't matter. It's the light per unit squared that determines the exposure. - TF

maxdance said:

From David Kilpatrick...

“Depth of field

Throughout the domain of the APS-C DSLR, the small sensor format has transformed things. For the same angle of view, a full frame film camera needs 1.5 f-stops more stopping down to get the same depth of field (sharpness in depth). So, a shot which would be sharp enough from foreground to background at f/8 on an Alpha 700 must be shot at f/13 on full 24 x 36mm.

Is that a problem? Not on its own, but it also means a shot taken at 1/125 (which freezes most facial expressions and slight body movements, if not action) would need to be taken at 1/40 instead. There is a big difference. Wind moving foliage, people walking, many slow movements in the real world are sharp at 1/125 but blurred at 1/40.

So, to regain the benefits which have been conferred by the small digital sensor, any full frame digital sensor really needs to offer equal quality at three times the ISO sensitivity figure (or 1.5 stops), just to enable the user to get back to the same actual depth of field and motion-stopping shutter speeds. This means a full frame DSLR must be as good at ISO 400 as an APS-C model is at ISO 125.”

--
http://maxdance.smugmug.com/

Click to expand...

"If you use the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body and crop the full frame 35mm image to give the same view as the Canon crop image, the depth of field is IDENTICAL." is true. So unless you are just quoting what you don't understand, reconcile what Kilpatrick said. - TF

It really depends... if you want the latest bells and whistles the 900/850 won't deliver...

If you want video, live view and other features the 900/850 won't deliver

Heck the 900/850 are now pretty decidedly inferior to the newest aps when it comes to high iso and such...

And there is the lens issue aka bigger/heavier and costlier...

But you can't deny the advantages as well...

incredible OVF

incredible resolution

incredibly sturdy

no nonsense controls and layout

and finally if you act like a pro even if you aren't having a big camera and tripod really gets people assuming and allows you to take shots and muscle in events and places others can't... Many relatives including my brother have been graduating from various educational institutions... In every one I've gotten great shots and been ignored by usually pushy parents and event staffers alike because of the A900 w/tripod

A further quote from DK:

“You will keep using the Alpha 900, and you will probably travel with it even if at first you put your lighter and more versatile kit aside for vacations and trips. Commonsense tells you that the extra depth of field from the APS-C format makes it much better for sports, family, pets, theatre, concerts and all those 90 per cent of your images where a little more in sharp focus can only help. But you’ll use the Alpha 900 instead. You may even end up with worse pictures sometimes, and be aware of it, but still unrepentant!

To conclude – you will have moved on to a different system. It may still be Alpha, and the changeover may be smoothed by Sony’s attention to keeping memory card types, battery, remote controller, cable connections, file type, lens compatibility and the user interface consistent.

No skilled photographer who takes the step up to the Alpha 900 and full frame digital will regret it – but you need to take that step in full awareness of everything involved.”

He then summarises with 28 “Unique features and key points for the Alpha 900”

One needs to read the whole article, for which a link has previously been posted, but here it is again:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/16/do-you-really-need-an-alpha-900/

Having used both the a700 and a900 extensively from shortly after they were released I tend to concur with DK’s appraisal of them in real time usage.
Both formats have specific advantages.

Cheers,
Max.

--
http://maxdance.smugmug.com/

For Landscape, full frame is the way to go, since it has no crop factor, image will be much wider, great for landscape but bad for telephoto, since you would longer zoom (heavier lens)Full Frame do still has the best low light, but gap is closer than before, full frame doesn't get updated as often.

Sorry, I was referring o the new 680.

ThinCat said:

Gary Friedman said in a recent blog email that he preferred the A700 to the A900 for most purposes. It's easier to get good output from the APS-C camera because of its greater DOF. FF gives you a bigger view finder but unless you want to print huge landscapes it's overkill.

Click to expand...

You have to decide if "greater DOF" is a Plus or a Minus.

If you want 'Citizen Kane deep focus', greater DOF is a Plus.

If you want the subject to pop out against a softer background, too much DOF is a Minus.

For portraits I like that pop, so FF is a BIG Plus.

http://briansmith.com/#/PORTFOLIOS/PORTRAITS/10

Just different tools for different jobs.

--
Brian Smith
Sony Artisan of Imagery
http://www.briansmith.com
http://www.briansmith.com/blog

Ben Karim said:

Sorry, I was referring o the new 680.

Click to expand...

a560?

--
Brian Smith
Sony Artisan of Imagery
http://www.briansmith.com
http://www.briansmith.com/blog

Ben Karim said:

So, is it really worth that money to get a full format or should I carry the APC-S censor?

Click to expand...

Censor, censer, sensor, whatever. ;-)

If you just have money burning a hole in your pocket, and buying full-frame isn't going to take bread out of the mouths of your kids or anything, then by all means, spend away. Your sacrifice, however pointless it might be (or might not be), will bring down prices for the rest of us. And for that, we will all be grateful.

But the basic correct answer is: If you have to ask, "Is full-frame worth it?," then it almost surely isn't.

Full-frame or 36x24 is JUST ANOTHER FORMAT on the FORMAT CONTINUUM:

1. compact cameras with micro sensors
2. micro four-thirds cameras
3. APS-C
4. 36x24
5. medium format

If you really believe in image quality über alles, don't waste your money on 36x24—go medium format! You can get a Pentax 645D for the low price of $10K (body only). But if you can't take a prize-winning photo with your APS-C camera, you won't be able to take one with a 36x24 camera, either.

You can take a picture with a compact camera like my Panasonic LX3 that can't be distinguished, on the computer screen or even in print, from a photo taken with a Sony A900 or a Nikon D3s. Circumstances have to be pretty close to ideal, and you can't be demanding a lot from the photo, but it can be done. If you have a micro four-thirds camera, you can compete with the 36x24 under circumstances that are slightly LESS ideal. Go with a top of the line APS-C and you can tolerate a few more problems in your exposure or whatever.

For what I do as a portrait and wedding photographer, it's nearly a wash, that is, the pros and cons balance one another out. The slight advantage in depth of field or noise or other things is, in my judgment, balanced out by the fact that full-frame is bigger and heavier. This matters when you carry around two cameras all day long. But when I factor in the price, I lose my appetite for 36x24 altogether.

Will

Robert Hoy said:

Robsphoto said:

ThinCat said:

Gary Friedman said in a recent blog email that he preferred the A700 to the A900 for most purposes. It's easier to get good output from the APS-C camera because of its greater DOF. FF gives you a bigger view finder but unless you want to print huge landscapes it's overkill.

Click to expand...

I think the sheer "cropping power" of the A900 is often overlooked.

Click to expand...

The other side to that story is that when using a crop dSLR you will be recording a longer field of view and thus be needing to crop less! It's all relative.

Click to expand...

When you take an image with, say, a 300mm lens on the full frame Sony A900, it has a maximum size of 6048 pixels x 4032 pixels, and gives the full 300mm field of view (FOV).

This FOV is considerably wider than you get when you put this same 300mm lens on, for example, the Sony A700. Because of its (approx.) 1.5x crop factor, the A700 provides an image with a FOV of about 450mm and with an image size of 4272 pixels x 2848 pixels.

Now, with the A900, you have the option of:

1. Cropping the A900 image to the same FOV as was captured by the A700, in which case the CROPPED A900 image size is nearly as large as the FULL-SIZED A700 image. In fact, the cropped A900 image size is 3960 pixels x 2640 pixels (see the note below re pixel density).

2. Cropping the A900 image to a different FOV than is recorded by the A700. Because the A900 image is 41% wider than the A700 image, you can leave in some things that were never recorded by the A700 at all.

3. Not cropping the image at all, in which case you have a lot more in your image than an A700 image taken with the same focal length lens. And, you then have an image width of 6048 pixels, compared with just 4272 pixels on the A700.

Incidentally, the only reason that the A700 image is about 8% larger than an A900 image that is cropped to the same FOV as the A700 image, is that the pixel density of the A700 is about 8% greater than that of the A700, as fully explained here:

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/crop-factor-advantage-s700-s900.html

But this so-called 8% “telephoto advantage” of the A700 over the A900 is only one side of the story. If you like taking wide-angle shots, the picture is not cropped at all by the A900. But, put the same 24mm lens on the A700, and it annoyingly crops the image to a FOV of about 36mm. So, the A700 owner has to use a 16mm lens to get the same FOV as you get from a 24mm lens on the Sony A900.

Regards
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/crop-factor-advantage.html
Analysis of the so-called “telephoto advantage” of an APS-C camera

ThinCat said:

Collie Camp said:

It is great - resolution on par with the best slide film scans

Click to expand...

I think it's better than that - but so is the A700. Digital left 35mm film behind a few years ago.

Click to expand...

Yes? Using Digital since 2001, I think not - p.e. the Canon 5d wasn't able to beat my 18+MP Slide Scans...less grain, but not in resolution terms - but the Contax G2 with its Zeiss lenses was really sharp of course.

You're right though - the a850 might be at least as sharp.

Or perhaps a580?
--
http://maxdance.smugmug.com/

From Bob Atkins: (on DOF)

“1...For an equivalent field of view, a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera has at least 1.6x MORE depth of field that a 35mm full frame camera would have - when the focus distance is significantly less then the hyperfocal distance (but the 35mm format needs a lens with 1.6x the focal length to give the same view).

2...Using the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, the a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera image has 1.6x LESS depth of field than the 35mm image would have (but they would be different images of course since the field of view would be different)

3...If you use the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body and crop the full frame 35mm image to give the same view as the APS-C crop image, the depth of field is IDENTICAL

4...If you use the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, then shoot from different distances so that the view is the same, the Canon APS-C crop sensor camera image will have 1.6x MORE DOF then the full frame image.

5...Close to the hyperfocal distance, the Canon APS-C crop sensor camera has a much more than 1.6x the DOF of a 35mm full frame camera. The hyperfocal distance of a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera is 1.6x less than that of a 35mm full frame camera when used with a lens giving the same field of view.”

Some people have quoted item 3 above apparently to deny the fact that that FF sensors supply a narrower DOF than APS-C sensors. The same DOF can only be achieved by serious cropping which then reduces the resolution back to that of an 11MP camera, and thus negating the other benefits of a larger file. There are also compositional problems associated with trying to achieve more DOF by simply cropping a much wider field of view than what is ultimately the target. This is not a practical solution.

Bob Atkins and David Kilpatrick are in complete agreement with the fact that when composing a shot with the SAME field of view the FF camera needs to be stopped down to achieve the same DOF as the APS-C camera. This is entirely practical.

--
http://maxdance.smugmug.com/