Reading mode: Light Dark

Any Advantage to Full Frame?

Go to last post
5

5th street

Well-known member
Messages
108
Reaction score
8
I use a D90 and am considering a D7100 or D5300 or D610. If I understand things correctly, there is no advantage at all, for my use (noise in low light is not a concern to me), of a D610 over the two DX choices. The disadvantages of the D610 include a narrower depth of field (all things being equal), higher cost for camera, higher cost for lenses, more weight and larger size. Surely, I must be overlooking or wrong about something given the increasing popularity of full frame. Where am I wrong in my thinking?
 
5th street said:
mikemsphoto said:
You gain in wide angle ability but lose on the telephoto end. If you like to shoot birds, maybe you should stay with DX. If you like to shoot architecture, FX has a definite advantage in the wide angle options.

Also FX viewfinder image is much nicer.
Click to expand...
Good points; I had not thought about the viewfinder difference. This may depend on too many factors to give a definite answer, but in general, do you think that the FX telephoto end disadvantage can be overcome by a tighter crop in post processing?
Click to expand...
You can always crop any image tighter but you are tossing away sensor real estate that it would be better to have covered with the actual image you want. Obviously a D800/810 sensor gives you more pixels to start with so you'll have more pixels left over after your crop.

I think if you are going to make the move to full frame, you should also factor in the cost of acquiring the lenses that will do the body justice. There are lots of threads from guys who felt they just had to get a full frame body and then start threads asking can they still use their 12-24 DX zoom from 18mm on up. Etc. Etc. Yes you can but kinda lame.

If you have a bag full of Dx kit that you like and the setup works well for what you're shooting, I'd say ask yourself if you are prepared to have your camera bag get heavier and your wallet lighter. There are guys here who will split hairs over this but a camera bag with all 3 trinity lenses is heavy and something that you definitely want to have insurance coverage on.
 
5th street said:
I use a D90 and am considering a D7100 or D5300 or D610. If I understand things correctly, there is no advantage at all, for my use (noise in low light is not a concern to me), of a D610 over the two DX choices. The disadvantages of the D610 include a narrower depth of field (all things being equal), higher cost for camera, higher cost for lenses, more weight and larger size. Surely, I must be overlooking or wrong about something given the increasing popularity of full frame. Where am I wrong in my thinking?
Click to expand...
...the truth somewhere in between. DX is better for some application (long side is most noticeable) while FX better in others like wide side and high ISO. Many appreciate smaller weight/cost/size of DX. Yes I am aware of recent thread that claims of no advantage, but IMHO there was comparison of oranges and cucumbers, not even apples. Also DX has advantage of wider coverage of frame with AF sensors and using "sweet spot" of FX lenses. People who like to have both advantages have both system. For rest it depends what you value more. Nothing wrong not to have FX.

PS I would go for D7100 vs D610, crossing out D5300
 
There's an old saying from the film days: "There's no substitute for square inches of film." That's why sheet film -- 4x5 inches and larger -- provides the ultimate in film-based image quality. Would the same not hold true for sensors? The bigger the sensor, the better the image.
 
It really comes down to size and cost. Remember a FX sensor can do DX, but a DX sensor can not do FX. So...

Advantages FX
  • Better high ISO.
  • Can take advantage of old lenses at full size.
  • Can switch between FX/DX.
  • Better subject isolation - most list this as an advantage.
  • Better viewfinder - arguable.
  • Can print larger.
  • More crop options.
  • A heavier camera works well with big glass.
Advantages DX
  • Cheaper
  • Smaller and lighter.
  • DX offers plenty of print size and crop options. Unless you are printing 60"+ prints FF is overkill.
  • A DX camera shoots a crop sensor at full res, for example the DX 24mpix is 24mpix on a APS sensor, not 10mpix on a FF sensor.
When you plan on carrying a boat anchor I am not clear if it matters if that boat anchor is slightly larger and heavier. If you want a smaller footprint get a Sony A6000 or similar mirrorless with a tiny kit zoom or prime. Debating on FF vs. DX cameras is kinda pointless as they are both much larger than other options. If it is about money there is no question DX is less expensive and the advantages of FF are overstated.

OTOH I see these guys on the Sony E forum shooting Canon 500mm lenses, kinda absurd even if I admire the manual shooting skill. There is a place for big heavy equipment, and if you are shooting sports/birds/heavy glass than shooting a mirrorless is kinda pointless. If you want to really go smaller shooting a DSLR or big glass is kinda pointless.

I own a DSLR, a mirrorless, and even a PnS! They each have their advantages and pitfalls.

--
RonFrank
My Tutorial
http://ronfrankweb.weebly.com/index.html
Some of my Photos
http://ronfrankweb.weebly.com/photos.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76853294@N05/
 
Last edited:
vewcam said:
There's an old saying from the film days: "There's no substitute for square inches of film." That's why sheet film -- 4x5 inches and larger -- provides the ultimate in film-based image quality. Would the same not hold true for sensors? The bigger the sensor, the better the image.
Click to expand...
The major difference is that in 1990 a 4x5" negative produced a better 11x 14" print vs. a 35mm or even MF neg. In 2014 it is very hard to determine if an APS sized sensor produced a 11x14" image or even a 20x30" print vs. a FF 35mm sensor. Large format has become rather pointless for all but very specialized results.

We have entered the massive mpix zone where an 18mpix 1" sensor can produce prints that were Medium format territory just a couple decades ago. Post processing, printer technology, sensor technology and camera design has made huge prints from tiny sensors a big reality. For the everyday Joe with a passion for photography the FF desire may be there, but is it necessary? Mostly no....
 
RonFrank said:
...We have entered the massive mpix zone where an 18mpix 1" sensor can produce prints that were Medium format territory just a couple decades ago...
Click to expand...
It is great overstatement - MF (film) still can produce better results then FF (digital). Though I curious to see output from 60x90 CCD sensor of say 100MP or 4"x5" CCD of say 256MP. Sensors killed film quite a while ago when you talk per area, but area itself cannot be substituted with anything.
 
Take a look at your 25 favorite images (or 30 or 50, or whatever amount). Could you have done anything differently with the FX FOV that would have improved the image or your workflow? If the answer is "no" then that's one strike against FX.

Now think about near misses. Would a significant percentage have been saved with the FX FOV. If not, then strike 2.

Consider the field of view and not a given chip because those will change.
 
I was shooting the sony rx100 (20MP, 1" sensor) and saw a noticeable upgrade going to 16MP D5100 with kit lens. Throw on a 35, 50 or 85 f1.8 prime and I was blown away.

That said, snapshots in good light often show minimal differences, especially in large dof scenarios. But shallow dof portraits really shine with FX.
 
This has been debated so often. Why not just buy what your heart tells you and not what others say. You can't go wrong with any system. Also, nothing wrong with having both FX and DX.
 
Nexu1 said:
I find shallow depth of field an advantage for full frame, not a disadvantage (at least for my wants/needs with portraiture).
Click to expand...
I find shallow depth of field can be a disadvantage when shooting grammar school sports. I have Nikons full frame cameras but looking at the Panasonic GH4. Higher ISO advantage is negated for full frame when I can shoot two stops lower at f2.8 on micro 4/3 and still have dof on a ff at f5.6.
 
vewcam said:
There's an old saying from the film days: "There's no substitute for square inches of film." That's why sheet film -- 4x5 inches and larger -- provides the ultimate in film-based image quality. Would the same not hold true for sensors? The bigger the sensor, the better the image.
Click to expand...
For the general population it's what good enough that prevails. I had that drilled into my head last year while shooting a MS Thanksgiving 5K/10K fundraising event, and as the event photographer was the only one shooting full frame DSLR. Every one else were using their phones to take pictures of their kids with Santa.
 
5th street said:
I use a D90 and am considering a D7100 or D5300 or D610. If I understand things correctly, there is no advantage at all, for my use (noise in low light is not a concern to me), of a D610 over the two DX choices. The disadvantages of the D610 include a narrower depth of field (all things being equal), higher cost for camera, higher cost for lenses, more weight and larger size. Surely, I must be overlooking or wrong about something given the increasing popularity of full frame. Where am I wrong in my thinking?
Click to expand...
If you ever shot with a 35 mm film based camera you would understand better what full frame means.

It was not until digital began to improve and grow where we get all of these other types of formats.

In the film world 35 mm film was the 1" sensor of its day compared to medium and various other larger formats that used larger (physically) larger types of film.

The idea is all the same whether you shoot a p&s camera or Full Frame or larger (medium format) is how much detail can you get and when you begin to crop the image how much detail are you left with.

Just talking about the sensor size here.

Now with interchangeable lens cameras from Micro Four Thirds, Fuji X which is the same sensor size as Nikon D7100 for example you start looking at what the system as to offer from lenses to accessories based on what you expect the camera to do for you (specifically)

The lens itself is matched to the sensor of the camera to give you the whole area of the scene. Larger sensor larger lenses and more glass means more weight in that lens.

You can drive a Honda or BMW they do the same things, you can have a 4 or 6 cylinder engine and they do the same things. In each case one may do it better and faster. One type of car/engine costs more than the other, but again they do the same end function.

All you really need to make a photo quality 8x10 print is a Three (3) megapixel camera and that was reached a decade ago or so.
 
Glad to see balanced responses instead of the usual "FX IS WAAAAAYYY BETTER DUDE" fanboy

I have both systems (a D7100 and a D700) and I use them for different purposes. Paired with the 18-200 its a great travel camera with no discernible compromises on IQ. Also UWA lenses options are A LOT more affordable on DX (I've got a Sigma 10-20 that I got for 400$), so the little WA I do, I do with DX.

I use the D700 mostly for portraits, and I appreciate the shallow DOF.

In all honesty DX has reached a point where IQ is most likely "good enough" for pretty much everything, even pro work. Having said that, there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting even better if you can afford it. All becomes a matter of cost/benefit really.
 
5th street said:
I use a D90 and am considering a D7100 or D5300 or D610. If I understand things correctly, there is no advantage at all, for my use (noise in low light is not a concern to me), of a D610 over the two DX choices. The disadvantages of the D610 include a narrower depth of field (all things being equal), higher cost for camera, higher cost for lenses, more weight and larger size. Surely, I must be overlooking or wrong about something given the increasing popularity of full frame. Where am I wrong in my thinking?
Click to expand...
First - how much money do you want to spend? That might help you decide right there.

I have some decent bodies - D4, 810, 800e and only a couple of days ago I sold my D700. But I also have a D7100. Great camera with a few known limitations. I work around them. If you're not looking to spend a ton of money go with the D7100. Or better still wait a couple of weeks or so, and see if Nikon piggybacks a D9300 or whatever it might be called unto the D750 introduction.

I do like the shallow DOF of Fx but I'm not sure that you can't duplicate that somewhat with using some 1.4 or 1.8 glass. I've never tried as such, but typically I shoot 2.8 zooms on Fx. My 50 1.4 gives a nice slice of in focus the couple of times I've tried it on the D7100. But never really compared.
 
5th street said:
I use a D90 and am considering a D7100 or D5300 or D610. If I understand things correctly, there is no advantage at all, for my use (noise in low light is not a concern to me), of a D610 over the two DX choices. The disadvantages of the D610 include a narrower depth of field (all things being equal), higher cost for camera, higher cost for lenses, more weight and larger size. Surely, I must be overlooking or wrong about something given the increasing popularity of full frame. Where am I wrong in my thinking?
Click to expand...
If possible, i suggest borrow or hire one to try.

Sometimes we do not know what we are missing and no matter what other people says..sometimes we just not seeing it.

When i tried a d700 for the first time (coming from d90) i was blown away. I already have a 70-200 2.8 then. I didn't know image from a FF can be that good.

Happy shooting.
 
ryan2007 said:
All you really need to make a photo quality 8x10 print is a Three (3) megapixel camera and that was reached a decade ago or so.
Click to expand...
I can remember having my first 20x30 print made by an 8 MP camera (Canon 20D) and was totally stunned at how sharp and lack of "grain" as opposed having an 11x14 print made from 35 mm in the 1970ies, grain all over the place, and this was with 100 ASA film.
 
Full Frame has a better look to it. Greater clarity, apart from considerations about noise and all the rest. The effect is not always obvious, but once people go to full frame then they don't go back.

I shoot full frame (D800), APS-C (D7100) and 1-inch (RX100). All are good. If I could I would use full-frame all the time but it's just a question of what is practical.
 
The OP shoots in a way that makes FX unsuitable for his/her photography.

The suggestion 24 MP FX somehow has more resolution than 24 MP is largely a myth. Comparing medium format to 24x36 film there were more film grains on medium format which made greater reproductions often a reality. Sensor quality is now so good that there is no resolution difference at 100 ISO 24 MP DX and FX, and once the D7100 is upgraded to Expeed 4 there is unlikely to be a difference to 1600 ISO. Larger FX pixels can work better than smaller DX pixels at higher ISOs - but the OP does not shoot that way.

Putting pixel size into context the D800 and D7100 pixels are roughly similar size. The D800 has more resolution than the D7100 because it is 36 MP. Put another way MP generally plays a more important part in resolution than pixel size.

Because of different viewfinder magnification factors the decent DX viewfinders are 1 stop brighter than FX viewfinders which helps in low light or with f5.6 lenses. The FX viewfinder image detail is larger, but only by about 15%, again because of the different viewfinder factors. Which you prefer is up to you.

"1 stop ISO noise gain" for FX is sometimes misunderstood as the difference between 1 full ISO setting change at high ISO's is often no more than 0.75 stops dynamic range. If the debate is between 10.75 FX and 10 stops DR DX and the subject has 8 stops DR the debate is academic.

My belief is for about 15% of photography FX is better and for about 15% DX is better, and the other 70% of the time it makes little difference. If you shoot a lot of the 15% which is better with 1 format or the other than that format is best for you :)

If you shoot both 15% segments then owning both format bodies (as I do) makes a lot of sense.

If you cannot get a very good 24x20 inch print from 24 MP DX or FX to 1600 ISO; maybe you should concentrate more on improving your photographic skill rather than considering when DX is better than FX (as it can be) and when FX is better than DX (as it can be).
 
Leonard Shepherd said:
The OP shoots in a way that makes FX unsuitable for his/her photography.

The suggestion 24 MP FX somehow has more resolution than 24 MP is largely a myth. Comparing medium format to 24x36 film there were more film grains on medium format which made greater reproductions often a reality. Sensor quality is now so good that there is no resolution difference at 100 ISO 24 MP DX and FX, and once the D7100 is upgraded to Expeed 4 there is unlikely to be a difference to 1600 ISO. Larger FX pixels can work better than smaller DX pixels at higher ISOs - but the OP does not shoot that way.

Putting pixel size into context the D800 and D7100 pixels are roughly similar size. The D800 has more resolution than the D7100 because it is 36 MP. Put another way MP generally plays a more important part in resolution than pixel size.

Because of different viewfinder magnification factors the decent DX viewfinders are 1 stop brighter than FX viewfinders which helps in low light or with f5.6 lenses. The FX viewfinder image detail is larger, but only by about 15%, again because of the different viewfinder factors. Which you prefer is up to you.

"1 stop ISO noise gain" for FX is sometimes misunderstood as the difference between 1 full ISO setting change at high ISO's is often no more than 0.75 stops dynamic range. If the debate is between 10.75 FX and 10 stops DR DX and the subject has 8 stops DR the debate is academic.

My belief is for about 15% of photography FX is better and for about 15% DX is better, and the other 70% of the time it makes little difference. If you shoot a lot of the 15% which is better with 1 format or the other than that format is best for you :)

If you shoot both 15% segments then owning both format bodies (as I do) makes a lot of sense.

If you cannot get a very good 24x20 inch print from 24 MP DX or FX to 1600 ISO; maybe you should concentrate more on improving your photographic skill rather than considering when DX is better than FX (as it can be) and when FX is better than DX (as it can be).

--
Leonard Shepherd
Producing good quality photographs, or being good at sport or art, involves a little more than buying appropriate equipment. Practice, some learning and perhaps natural talent often play a bigger role than the equipment in your hands.
Click to expand...
Case Closed!
 
vewcam said:
There's an old saying from the film days: "There's no substitute for square inches of film." That's why sheet film -- 4x5 inches and larger -- provides the ultimate in film-based image quality. Would the same not hold true for sensors? The bigger the sensor, the better the image.
Click to expand...
The size of the film or sensor is 'a' factor in photography but not the only one. Sure, my D600 is much better in low light condition than my Nikon 1 camera but the format of FX makes my videoing job a lot more difficult in keeping the target in focus purely from the DOF element. I don't want to shoot at f16 and 24mm all the time to preserve the deep DOF I want/need; this is a function of the sensor size of FX. Nikon's CX 1" sensor gives me a good deal more DOF at the same viewing angles. It falls down quickly at the point where you have to bump up the ISO but photography is all about compromises..

I don't want to carry a field camera with me.. ever. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top