FF - an advantage or disadvantage for street?

digitalphotographer · Oct 31, 2013

Hi all, today I have a dilemma that I'm trying to solve.

In short, I've been an MFT shooter for a year (EM5, now EM1) until this recent summer I got increasingly dissatisfied by the poor pixel quality of high ISO images from the EM5 when shooting streets at dusk and night, so I got myself the RX1R, thinking the larger sensor would address the noise issue during low light.

Unexpectedly, I found myself needing smaller apertures (eg. f8, f11) on the RX1R to produce the equivalent deep DOF that my EM5 was able to achieve by f4 or f5.6, especially for street scenes where I want background actions to not turn into a big blur.

On top of that, due to the lack of IBIS and denser pixels of the RX1R, I have to set minimum shutter speeds to 1/250 or more to eradicate motion blur. This translates to 2-3 stops higher ISO on the FF RX1R, whereas I was able to handhold at lower shutter speeds but still getting pixel-level sharp images from the EM5 at lower ISOs.

Looking back, I don't know how much I actually gained from shooting with RX1R due to higher than MFT minimum shutter speeds, plus slower f-stops to achieve the DOF look that I wanted.

In the end, the only benefits of my FF RX1R when compared to EM5 that I'd think of are:

maybe better DR at higher ISOs
higher pixel count for larger prints in future
ability to crop more aggressively
Zeiss 35mm magic compared to Olympus 17mm mediocrity
better bokeh on the Zeiss

Any thoughts on this? Do people like seeing street photography with shallow DOF or deeper DOF? Anyone shooting with FF who is also affected by the motion blur issue, forcing you to bump up either shutter speed or ISO?

1drey · Oct 31, 2013

How famous street photographers of past could produce stunning images in pre-digital era, when only FF was available? With ISO400 resulting in golf ball size grain?

Speaking about high shutter speed - it can be a bless in many situations which can occur is street photography

I would love to be able to use here 1/250 instead of 1/30

--
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/one_drey/

mrb375 · Oct 31, 2013

That lens alone is worth the price of admission.

Also- the higher ISO of the FF is invaluable.

ikwak01 · Oct 31, 2013

digitalphotographer said:
Hi all, today I have a dilemma that I'm trying to solve.

In short, I've been an MFT shooter for a year (EM5, now EM1) until this recent summer I got increasingly dissatisfied by the poor pixel quality of high ISO images from the EM5 when shooting streets at dusk and night, so I got myself the RX1R, thinking the larger sensor would address the noise issue during low light.

Unexpectedly, I found myself needing smaller apertures (eg. f8, f11) on the RX1R to produce the equivalent deep DOF that my EM5 was able to achieve by f4 or f5.6, especially for street scenes where I want background actions to not turn into a big blur.

On top of that, due to the lack of IBIS and denser pixels of the RX1R, I have to set minimum shutter speeds to 1/250 or more to eradicate motion blur. This translates to 2-3 stops higher ISO on the FF RX1R, whereas I was able to handhold at lower shutter speeds but still getting pixel-level sharp images from the EM5 at lower ISOs.

Looking back, I don't know how much I actually gained from shooting with RX1R due to higher than MFT minimum shutter speeds, plus slower f-stops to achieve the DOF look that I wanted.

In the end, the only benefits of my FF RX1R when compared to EM5 that I'd think of are:

maybe better DR at higher ISOs

higher pixel count for larger prints in future

ability to crop more aggressively

Zeiss 35mm magic compared to Olympus 17mm mediocrity

better bokeh on the Zeiss

Any thoughts on this? Do people like seeing street photography with shallow DOF or deeper DOF? Anyone shooting with FF who is also affected by the motion blur issue, forcing you to bump up either shutter speed or ISO?

This was an interesting post -- I have never owned a (digital) full frame camera before (although I did play around with a friend's Nikon d700 for a concert) so I cannot comment on my experiences with one, but I am surprised by what you said. If I had the means, I would switch to a FF camera in a heartbeat because of all the good things I've read about them (monster low light performance, amazing DR, etc.), but what you say makes me a little confused.

Is the image quality that much worse on the FF by upping the ISO 2-3 stops? Is the motion blur/bokeh that bad? I would have assumed that over a MFT, on a FF you could easily push the ISO 2-3 stops without a noticeable difference.

And like the previous poster mentioned, sometimes the creamy background or motion blur can add interest in the image.

I know a few people here shoot M9s and I don't hear any complaints from them so maybe they have more valuable input on your "dilemma" associated with having a FF sensor coupled with a Zeiss lens.

fad · Oct 31, 2013

Loading…

www.dslrbodies.com

1drey · Oct 31, 2013

Good article. Very close to my thoughts on FF/crop dilemma.

Thank you for sharing.

fad · Oct 31, 2013

Like a number of other people, I shoot FF dslr's (5D, 1Dsiii, D3s, D4, D800)

The size and weight are disadvantages for sure, but the benefits are also many.

I also have an X100, and find it not suited to my style.

I rejected the RX1 because slow focus is a game stopper for me. One thing's for sure, if you're shooting street with it, you're not shooting dynamic or fast moving situations. If that is so, you do not need high shutter speeds. Something is seriously wrong with your grip and holding techniques. You need to analyze where your instability comes from and practice holding the camera. With a fast camera like the D4, I set my shutter speed at night at 1/125, but I shoot action (during the day I use 1/250.) With an RX1, I might set 1/60 or 1/100, and feel comfortable at 1/30 if nothing was moving.

I am no expert. I am very sloppy and shoot on the fly, and I get my share of OOF shots. But you sound as if you are in dire straights. Shooting technique is more important than sensor quality for picture sharpness. You need to research techniques, analyze your own, and practice, practice, practice.

Also, be careful about judging sharpness at 1:1. Consider the size of your print or screen output. Anything looks blurrier if blown up larger and viewed from up close. With the D800, I zoom in at 1:2, not 1:1.

I recently tried the EM-1 at Photo Plus and decided that if I wanted to downsize that would be my choice of mirroless cam. But that's my needs. I need both fast AF and image quality and a choice of lenses.

FF is not a magic elixer. It allows one to shoot at higher iso, to get narrower DOF, to have more malleable image files, and to crop more. Pro DSLR's are also more capable cameras, but with geater bulk.

Your question has the usual problem. No one can tell you what you need until you learn about yourself as a photographer and tell us. It took me several years to learn how to benefit from FF cameras, and I'm still learning. They are not for everyone. You may not want to put in the time to get the most from them.

Personally, from what I've read, I wouldn't choose an RX1 for an AF night camera. At the moment, I use a D4 with the cheap 50/1.8G. It performs well in capture and rendering. Enough for my purposes. Occasionally, I can get a shot like this at iso 45,000:

But it's not just the equipment. It's the years spent making terrible night shots and learning from mistakes.

SP is very very difficult. Night SP is even tougher, and quite different.

I'm sure you can do it very well, given effort. But you might be expecting your equipment to be doing too much of the lifting. Be patient with yourself and keep hammering away.

This video might be helpful.

--
Frank
shot in downtown Manhattan.
http://sidewalkshadows.com/blog/ (street photos)
Always view all photos in Gallery or Original Size

Ed Gaillard · Oct 31, 2013

digitalphotographer said:
Unexpectedly, I found myself needing smaller apertures (eg. f8, f11) on the RX1R to produce the equivalent deep DOF that my EM5 was able to achieve by f4 or f5.6, especially for street scenes where I want background actions to not turn into a big blur.

That seems about right. For the same angle of view, you'll get about 2 stops more depth of field on micro-4/3 than on full-frame digital or 35mm film.

digitalphotographer said:
On top of that, due to the lack of IBIS and denser pixels of the RX1R, I have to set minimum shutter speeds to 1/250 or more to eradicate motion blur. This translates to 2-3 stops higher ISO on the FF RX1R, whereas I was able to handhold at lower shutter speeds but still getting pixel-level sharp images from the EM5 at lower ISOs.

This part seems strange. The RX1R has a 35mm lens, you should be able to get images free from camera shake at 1/40, and subject motion for people moving will be the same as on any other camera, maybe 1/60 or 1/125.

I wonder if there might be a problem with your hand-holding technique? Do you have a viewfinder mounted on the RX1R? It's easier to get a stable shot with an eye-level finder.

It's also possible that you're subject to an illusion caused by the greater resolution of the RX1R. Try downrezzing some of the photos to 16mp (or uprezzing some EM5 photos to 24mp) and see if the EM5 still seems sharper to you.

digitalphotographer · Oct 31, 2013

Ed Gaillard said:
Ed Gaillard said:

On top of that, due to the lack of IBIS and denser pixels of the RX1R, I have to set minimum shutter speeds to 1/250 or more to eradicate motion blur. This translates to 2-3 stops higher ISO on the FF RX1R, whereas I was able to handhold at lower shutter speeds but still getting pixel-level sharp images from the EM5 at lower ISOs.

Click to expand...

This part seems strange. The RX1R has a 35mm lens, you should be able to get images free from camera shake at 1/40, and subject motion for people moving will be the same as on any other camera, maybe 1/60 or 1/125. I wonder if there might be a problem with your hand-holding technique? Do you have a viewfinder mounted on the RX1R? It's easier to get a stable shot with an eye-level finder.

I've shot the RX1R for 4 months without an EVF, because it's out of stock everywhere here in Canada, maybe this is the problem. Without bracing the camera, everything above 1/200th is blurry. But I've finally received the back-order last week, so I'll do more testing to see if I could bring the shutter speed down.

Ed Gaillard said:
It's also possible that you're subject to an illusion caused by the greater resolution of the RX1R. Try downrezzing some of the photos to 16mp (or uprezzing some EM5 photos to 24mp) and see if the EM5 still seems sharper to you.

Yes it's not just the illusion, when not viewed at 100%, LR and PS do some kind of weird resampling on screen, so RX1R images always look softer than my EM5 ones. It's only when I resize or view at 100% that I can see the resolution there.

digitalphotographer · Oct 31, 2013

1drey said:
1drey wrote::
I would love to be able to use here 1/250 instead of 1/30

I wonder what you think the faster speed will add to the image. I kinda like the blur of the rain drops due to the lower shutter speed, and the people motion is not that blurry either.

digitalphotographer · Oct 31, 2013

mrb375 said:
That lens alone is worth the price of admission.

Also- the higher ISO of the FF is invaluable.

I have not seen images as beautiful as the ones out of RX1R, aside from D800(E), especially at low ISOs and also wide open at f2.

digitalphotographer · Oct 31, 2013

ikwak01 said:
This was an interesting post -- I have never owned a (digital) full frame camera before (although I did play around with a friend's Nikon d700 for a concert) so I cannot comment on my experiences with one, but I am surprised by what you said. If I had the means, I would switch to a FF camera in a heartbeat because of all the good things I've read about them (monster low light performance, amazing DR, etc.), but what you say makes me a little confused.

Thanks you but sorry to create confusion

ikwak01 said:
Is the image quality that much worse on the FF by upping the ISO 2-3 stops? Is the motion blur/bokeh that bad? I would have assumed that over a MFT, on a FF you could easily push the ISO 2-3 stops without a noticeable difference.

You're right, pushing the ISO 2-3 stops still retain the FF quality over my MFT, but when combined with the need for higher shutter speeds to prevent camera shake, then the benefits start to get eradicated.

ikwak01 said:
And like the previous poster mentioned, sometimes the creamy background or motion blur can add interest in the image.

Yes I'm trying to experience with wider apertures lately on my RX1R lately, because coming from the MFT world, I was used to deep DOF.

ikwak01 said:
I know a few people here shoot M9s and I don't hear any complaints from them so maybe they have more valuable input on your "dilemma" associated with having a FF sensor coupled with a Zeiss lens.

Me too, looking forward to hear more.

elfroggio · Oct 31, 2013

digitalphotographer said:
Hi all, today I have a dilemma that I'm trying to solve.

In short, I've been an MFT shooter for a year (EM5, now EM1) until this recent summer I got increasingly dissatisfied by the poor pixel quality of high ISO images from the EM5 when shooting streets at dusk and night, so I got myself the RX1R, thinking the larger sensor would address the noise issue during low light.

Unexpectedly, I found myself needing smaller apertures (eg. f8, f11) on the RX1R to produce the equivalent deep DOF that my EM5 was able to achieve by f4 or f5.6, especially for street scenes where I want background actions to not turn into a big blur.

On top of that, due to the lack of IBIS and denser pixels of the RX1R, I have to set minimum shutter speeds to 1/250 or more to eradicate motion blur. This translates to 2-3 stops higher ISO on the FF RX1R, whereas I was able to handhold at lower shutter speeds but still getting pixel-level sharp images from the EM5 at lower ISOs.

Looking back, I don't know how much I actually gained from shooting with RX1R due to higher than MFT minimum shutter speeds, plus slower f-stops to achieve the DOF look that I wanted.

In the end, the only benefits of my FF RX1R when compared to EM5 that I'd think of are:

maybe better DR at higher ISOs

higher pixel count for larger prints in future

ability to crop more aggressively

Zeiss 35mm magic compared to Olympus 17mm mediocrity

better bokeh on the Zeiss

Any thoughts on this? Do people like seeing street photography with shallow DOF or deeper DOF? Anyone shooting with FF who is also affected by the motion blur issue, forcing you to bump up either shutter speed or ISO?

After many years of trying this, trying that... this is the latest trend... I have come to the following conclusion.

Street photography (actually not just street photography) is not about the camera it's about you or more importantly in my case it's about me.

I need to feel confident, fearless and believe in myself.

Whatever camera/lens combination makes me feel that way is the right one. I can show you fantastic photos taken with full frame D700, Canon 5D series, Leicas, Ricochs, Fuji Xs... Even the lens is not important.

I use a Canon 7D with a 70-200. People would think that it's to hide. Not at all. I'm extremely obvious with my "big" camera and like somebody just said last week, this is a serious lens.

I kneel, on my right knee, use my left knee for my elbow to support the combo. On the days when it's rainy or muddy I even have a carpenter kneepad on my right knee. So people see me, I stick out as a sore thumb.

Here are some of my photos:

http://www.sritch.com/ and http://photos.foto-biz.com/

digitalphotographer · Oct 31, 2013

elfroggio said:
I kneel, on my right knee, use my left knee for my elbow to support the combo. On the days when it's rainy or muddy I even have a carpenter kneepad on my right knee. So people see me, I stick out as a sore thumb.

Unfortunately I wish I could kneel like you do

I have a bad knee that is destined for surgery soon

elfroggio said:
Here are some of my photos:

http://www.sritch.com/ and http://photos.foto-biz.com/

Very nice photos of animals! I may have seen shooting on the streets of Vancouver

1drey · Nov 1, 2013

digitalphotographer said:
digitalphotographer said:

1drey wrote::

Click to expand...

I wonder what you think the faster speed will add to the image. I kinda like the blur of the rain drops due to the lower shutter speed, and the people motion is not that blurry either.

Thank you for a compliment!

I knew that 1/30 is the only available shutter at my disposal and was forced to adapt to this restriction -the focal plane is shifted behind this duo under umbrella because it didn't make sense to focus on moving people - they would blur anyway and the absence of sharp objects withing the frame made this image pointless imo. Sharp silhouettes could look interesting + the background would be stronger blurred. It could or could not create interesting image - we will never know because I didn't have a faster shutter at my disposal

Martin.au · Nov 1, 2013

digitalphotographer said:
Hi all, today I have a dilemma that I'm trying to solve.

In short, I've been an MFT shooter for a year (EM5, now EM1) until this recent summer I got increasingly dissatisfied by the poor pixel quality of high ISO images from the EM5 when shooting streets at dusk and night, so I got myself the RX1R, thinking the larger sensor would address the noise issue during low light.

Unexpectedly, I found myself needing smaller apertures (eg. f8, f11) on the RX1R to produce the equivalent deep DOF that my EM5 was able to achieve by f4 or f5.6, especially for street scenes where I want background actions to not turn into a big blur.

On top of that, due to the lack of IBIS and denser pixels of the RX1R, I have to set minimum shutter speeds to 1/250 or more to eradicate motion blur. This translates to 2-3 stops higher ISO on the FF RX1R, whereas I was able to handhold at lower shutter speeds but still getting pixel-level sharp images from the EM5 at lower ISOs.

Looking back, I don't know how much I actually gained from shooting with RX1R due to higher than MFT minimum shutter speeds, plus slower f-stops to achieve the DOF look that I wanted.

In the end, the only benefits of my FF RX1R when compared to EM5 that I'd think of are:

maybe better DR at higher ISOs

higher pixel count for larger prints in future

ability to crop more aggressively

Zeiss 35mm magic compared to Olympus 17mm mediocrity

better bokeh on the Zeiss

Any thoughts on this? Do people like seeing street photography with shallow DOF or deeper DOF? Anyone shooting with FF who is also affected by the motion blur issue, forcing you to bump up either shutter speed or ISO?

Catch 22.

35mm gains IQ over m4/3s through at the expense of DOF. As soon as you are defining shots by achieving a DOF requirement that M4/3s can achieve, then 35mm won't get you much of an IQ improvement.

35mm is, for equivalent sensor tech, about 2 stops better than M4/3s, as the sensor is 4x larger.

However, to achieve the same field of view and depth of field, then you might set 25mm and f2.8 in M4/3s and 50mm and f5.6 in FF, as both the focal length and f/stop are doubled for equivalent images.

This means that to achieve the same shutter speed, the 35mm ISO will have to be bumped up two stops, so 1/100 at iso 200 on M4/3s, would need 1/100 at ISO 800 on 35mm.

Which means that noise, etc will be extremely similar.

The only way to really benefit from the 35mm IQ, and lower noise, is to decrease the depth of field.

Brad Evans · Nov 1, 2013

>>> Street photography (actually not just street photography) is not about the camera it's about you or more importantly in my case it's about me.

Bravo! That is so right-on!

I'd like to embellish that a bit and also say: Street shooting is about seeing. Your curiosity, your eye, how you view the rhythm/dynamics of the street, your imagination on how scenes before you can be creatively framed, your ability to inject mystery, ambiguity, and other elements, as well as your ability to post-process is what ultimately determines how well a street photograph works - or doesn't work.

Good sp has little to do with pedigree or type of gear. I've used a crop body cam, a cell phone, a point-n-shoot, and a full frame body and what I can say is they are all good.

Here's a pic from my sony point-n-shoot:

............
Brad
Urban photoblog: http://www.citysnaps.net
.

fad · Nov 1, 2013

Martin.au said:
Catch 22.

35mm gains IQ over m4/3s through at the expense of DOF. As soon as you are defining shots by achieving a DOF requirement that M4/3s can achieve, then 35mm won't get you much of an IQ improvement.

35mm is, for equivalent sensor tech, about 2 stops better than M4/3s, as the sensor is 4x larger.

However, to achieve the same field of view and depth of field, then you might set 25mm and f2.8 in M4/3s and 50mm and f5.6 in FF, as both the focal length and f/stop are doubled for equivalent images.

This means that to achieve the same shutter speed, the 35mm ISO will have to be bumped up two stops, so 1/100 at iso 200 on M4/3s, would need 1/100 at ISO 800 on 35mm.

Which means that noise, etc will be extremely similar.

The only way to really benefit from the 35mm IQ, and lower noise, is to decrease the depth of field.

Well, just off the top of my head,

most lenses have much better iQ stopped down 2 stops.
No m43 focuses as fast as my D4 or D800.
The D4 just focuses better in low light
I'm guessing my D800 allows more cropping
The FF camera follows motion better
What about DR

But maybe I'm behind the times, and m43 is all up and even

Martin.au · Nov 1, 2013

fad said:
Martin.au said:

Catch 22.

35mm gains IQ over m4/3s through at the expense of DOF. As soon as you are defining shots by achieving a DOF requirement that M4/3s can achieve, then 35mm won't get you much of an IQ improvement.

35mm is, for equivalent sensor tech, about 2 stops better than M4/3s, as the sensor is 4x larger.

However, to achieve the same field of view and depth of field, then you might set 25mm and f2.8 in M4/3s and 50mm and f5.6 in FF, as both the focal length and f/stop are doubled for equivalent images.

This means that to achieve the same shutter speed, the 35mm ISO will have to be bumped up two stops, so 1/100 at iso 200 on M4/3s, would need 1/100 at ISO 800 on 35mm.

Which means that noise, etc will be extremely similar.

The only way to really benefit from the 35mm IQ, and lower noise, is to decrease the depth of field.

Click to expand...

Well, just off the top of my head,

most lenses have much better iQ stopped down 2 stops.

Well, then you'd have to assess the lenses you want to use. A lot of M4/3s lenses are good, and don't improve much at all when stopped down. eg: I'd happily shoot all my lenses wide open, except the 12-50 kit lens. That is a good point though, and is a way for 35mm to improve on IQ over M4/3s. I suspect that a good 50mm at f2.8, would be better than the 25mm at f1.4.

fad said:
No m43 focuses as fast as my D4 or D800.

Want to test this? I'm happy to.

fad said:
The D4 just focuses better in low light

Evidence required. D4 is EV-2 rated. Panasonic GX7 is -4 rated.

fad said:
I'm guessing my D800 allows more cropping

Not if you're shooting equivalent photos. You start with similar noise to the M4/3s. You do have more pixels though, so if you don't mind more noise, then you could possibly crop further.

fad said:
The FF camera follows motion better

Possibly. Depends a lot on the camera. E-M1 vs 35mm for street photography - the difference would only be able to be determined with a serious amount of testing.

fad said:
What about DR

Typically for equivalent photos, where 35mm is shooting with 2 stops higher ISO, it will have worse DR.

fad said:
But maybe I'm behind the times, and m43 is all up and even

To gain the benefits of shooting with 35mm, then you have to use it outside the M4/3s envelope. If you're trying to take equivalent images (typically by having the same DoF from the same vantage point), then the differences become insignificant.

fad said:
--
Frank
shot in downtown Manhattan.
http://sidewalkshadows.com/blog/ (street photos)
Always view all photos in Gallery or Original Size

The Davinator · Nov 2, 2013

fad said:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-full-frame-debate.html

FF - an advantage or disadvantage for street?

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts