full frame

[bobnottleJR]

i've been shooting for a long time but ...

whats the advantage of full frame?

 

[Billx08]

i've been shooting for a long time but ...

whats the advantage of full frame?

Compared with smaller sensor (APS-C and 4/3) cameras, usually better low light performance since the higher ISOs tend to be much cleaner and noise free. Also, the effective focal length of lenses on smaller sensor camera is multiplied by the "crop factor" which is about 1.5 for Nikon, 1.6 for Canon and 2.0 for 4/3 cameras. So landscape shooters that prefer using wide angle lenses will find that their wide angle 28mm and 24mm lenses are only wide on full frame cameras, and the effective focal lengths of these lenses can vary from 36mm to as much as 56mm on the smaller sensor cameras, not wide at all. On the other hand, birders that might need a long and very expensive 400mm or 500mm lens on their cameras tend to prefer non-full frame DSLRs because they can get to the equivalent of 450mm to 600mm focal lengths with less expensive 300mm lenses on the smaller sensor DSLRs.

 

[Guidenet]

You're going to open a can of worms. I think the advantage is the same as 4/3rd over point and shoot sized sensors or APS-C over 4/3rd size, or 8x10 or 5x7 over 4x5, or medium format over 35mm.

A bigger sensor also means a larger pentaprism viewfinder for a much bigger and brighter view. It can mean better performance, though crop sensors are starting to catch up. It can mean that your Wides are Wide again and your old glass acts like it is supposed to. That would hold true with Nikon more than the other two full frames. Old manual focus Canon glass doesn't work well on new full frame digitals as Canon changed the mount. Same with Minolta/Konica/Sony.

I know one lens I own really came alive on my Nikon D700. That was my wonderful Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI converted. It's now a superb portrait lens. It seemed to not be so much on my D300 crop camera and it wasn't field of view. I think I purchased it new in the early 1970s.

Full frame cameras tend to be a lot more expensive right now. Nikon's least expensive is the D700 at around $2600 and Canon's 5D MkII is around $3000. Sony has a couple as well. Nikon and Canon both have a couple or so of more expensive full frames coming in as high as $8000 for the Nikon D3x.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[Guidenet]

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

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[Graystar]

1. Total light collected.
2. Shallower DOF.
3. Better detail.

1. Total light - The rules of exposure are the same for the small cameras as they are for large cameras. At an ISO of 100 with an aperture of f/4, a given scene will require the same shutter speed in any camera that is framing said scene. That’s what I mean by the rules of exposure being the same for all cameras. However, the cameras with larger sensors will collect more light. This is important because the amount of noise in your image is directly related to the amount of light you collected. More light equals less noise. You can use this noise advantage over the small camera in two ways...you can keep the lower noise level to improve image quality, or you can trade the noise advantage for higher ISO. This will give you the same image quality as the smaller camera, but with faster shutter speeds.

2. Shallow DOF - Shallow DOF is a tool used by photographers to separate the subject from backgrounds and other objects...so it’s useful to have a good range of usable, shallow DOF. The larger the sensor, the more shallow the DOF. But why is this? Like exposure, there are rules that must be obeyed by cameras no matter what size they are. A compact camera such as the Canon G12 has an effective focal length of 28-140mm...”effective” being the key word. The G12 lens gives the framing of a 35mm camera with a 28-140mm lens. However, the actual focal length of the lens is 6.1-30.5mm. And there’s the problem...the DOF that the camera gives is based on the actual focal length...not the effective focal length. And as most people know, lenses with very short focal lengths do not have a shallow depth of field.

3. Better detail - Physics doesn’t allow a lens to focus light to a point. The “point” turns out to be a small circle called an Airy disk, and these Airy disks will blur your image if they are too big. Once again, the small cameras must abide by the laws of physics. The size of the Airy disk depends on aperture only. That is to say, f/4 on a tiny compact camera produces the same size Airy disks as f/4 on a full frame DLSR. On the compact camera, the Airy disk will cover several pixels because the pixels are so small. But on the DSLR, the Airy disk can sometimes fit inside one pixel. This increases detail and contrast in the image from the larger sensor.

Bottom line...bigga is betta!

.

 

[sheffielder]

I had the same query about full frame

I asked the same question and got similar responses as we've seen above - which are all factually correct and spot on

BUT

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 !

 

[stan_pustylnik]

Same happened to me. I tried FF Sony A850 and my jaw dropped open.

Decision wasn't easy, because FF camera cost more than APS-c, but since I had multiple old lenses compatible with FF camera made the choise easy.

Main advantages:
1. More content captured using old FF compatible lenses.
2. Very good detail (resolution, colors)
3. DOF advantage in portrature (due dedicated FF lenses)

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

 

[palincss]

Full frame cameras tend to be a lot more expensive right now. Nikon's least expensive is the D700 at around $2600 and Canon's 5D MkII is around $3000. Sony has a couple as well. Nikon and Canon both have a couple or so of more expensive full frames coming in as high as $8000 for the Nikon D3x.

You say that as though you expect the situation to change at some point. Is that likely, or even remotely possible?

 

[Robsphoto]

Same happened to me. I tried FF Sony A850 and my jaw dropped open.

Decision wasn't easy, because FF camera cost more than APS-c, but since I had multiple old lenses compatible with FF camera made the choise easy.

Main advantages:
1. More content captured using old FF compatible lenses.
2. Very good detail (resolution, colors)
3. DOF advantage in portrature (due dedicated FF lenses)

I agree with the above, I have a Sony A900 and the Carl Zeiss 24mm-70mm lens and also the Sony 70-300G lens. At times, I have been astonished by the amount of detail that is captured, as is demonstrated in these crops taken from A900 images:

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/Sony-A900.html

I think the ability to solidly crop an image and still get a good sized print from the crop, is an aspect of FF that I have used a lot. But, if you going to have a FF camera, you really need a top quality lens to take full advantage of it. And the A900 and CZ 24-70 are a heavy package to carry around, but worth the effort! Once you have owned FF, it's hard to leave it at home.

Regards
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/crop-factor-advantage.html
Detailed article about the crop factor and how FF relates to APS-C

 

[Guidenet]

Full frame cameras tend to be a lot more expensive right now. Nikon's least expensive is the D700 at around $2600 and Canon's 5D MkII is around $3000. Sony has a couple as well. Nikon and Canon both have a couple or so of more expensive full frames coming in as high as $8000 for the Nikon D3x.

You say that as though you expect the situation to change at some point. Is that likely, or even remotely possible?

I think so and can't see why not. At one time the failure rate during FAB made full frame sensors a lot more that crop sensors. Think about 4/3rd now. They really aren't cheaper than APS-C crop are they. Now the success rate is about the same all around, that cost is negligible. It's only economy of scale anymore and that depends on sales. What better way to sell more glass than to move folks to upgrade their crop cameras over time.

I'm guessing, and it's strictly a guess, that the D300s replacement will be an under $2000 Nikon Full Frame. Then Canon will have to do it. Then.. and the price keeps dropping. I see no reason why this shouldn't occur.

Look at Nikon's new D7000. How can Nikon come up with a crop D400 which would be that much better? Already the D7000 does so much one had to move up to the D300 to get. I think Nikon is repositioning their models as well as renaming them.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[Christakis]

On the other hand, birders that might need a long and very expensive 400mm or 500mm lens on their cameras tend to prefer non-full frame DSLRs because they can get to the equivalent of 450mm to 600mm focal lengths with less expensive 300mm lenses on the smaller sensor DSLRs.

You can just crop and get the same angle.

 

[pocketfulladoubles]

Look at Nikon's new D7000. How can Nikon come up with a crop D400 which would be that much better? Already the D7000 does so much one had to move up to the D300 to get. I think Nikon is repositioning their models as well as renaming them.
--
Cheers, Craig

I'm not so sure. Have you tried the AF systems on the D3 series? There's a lot that goes into a pro body besides the sensor. I think if we see a D400 or whatever you want to call it, it will borrow a lot from the D3 with perhaps even the same sensor as a D7000. While the D7000 is no question a very solid camera, I still wouldn't want to bank my profession on it. I want something that is field tested under rugged conditions, subjected constantly to humidity changes, extreme temperature, field abuse, and hundreds of thousands of shutter actuations. The D7000, while perhaps up to the task, wasn't engineered for it, whereas a camera like a D3s or a D300s is.

 

[Billx08]

On the other hand, birders that might need a long and very expensive 400mm or 500mm lens on their cameras tend to prefer non-full frame DSLRs because they can get to the equivalent of 450mm to 600mm focal lengths with less expensive 300mm lenses on the smaller sensor DSLRs.

You can just crop and get the same angle.

True, but the more you crop the more you lose. You could crop even more and get the same angle that a 2000mm lens would provide, but what do suppose would you'd get for IQ? I'm not talking theory. Most (not all) serious amateur and "pro" wildlife photographers and nature photographers that need "reach" use the APS-C DSLRs, not Full Frame. When they can't fill the frame with the subject, the crop sensor cameras "put more pixels" on the subject. As an example, if an image of a distant bird occupies a small part of the frame so that after cropping you're left with a D300 image that only has about 2 1/2 megapixels, the same cropped image taken with the same lens on a D700 would only have about 1 megapixels. The former could make very nice 5" x 7" prints, but at the same print/image quality, the 1mp image would only be able to make wallet size prints that are a bit smaller than 3 1/2" x 5".

 

[Guidenet]

I"m not at all suggesting the D7000 is as robust as a D3 or a D300. I'm suggesting it's close enough to the D300 in most ways.

The D300 already has the autofocus system from the D3. So just adding a D7000 sensor doesn't a D400 make, I think. It might make a D300x, but I'm not really serious.

Besides, I'm just guessing at all this. I'm not close to stating that I know anything. It's just fun.

But in thinking about it, let's look at a possible D400 or D8000. Doesn't matter what you call it but we're talking a D300 replacement. I've had a D100, D200 and D300. Each was an order of magnitude better than the previous, especially the D300. When released it was the best APS-C made. No Canon or Pentax could touch it in it's class. So, what is going to replace it? You tell me what features are going to be an order of magnitude better than the D300s and of course the D7000. It's going to really have to whip both by a lot. You tell me.

I'll start. We need awe and shock over a D300 like it was over a D200.

1. Really high megapixels, maybe 24mp on an APS-C sensor.
2. Really good ISO performance say to 6400 native.
3. 3 inch or better 920k dot or better articulating screen. Maybe removable.
4. True 24 video or 60i HD comparible with $700 camcorders
5. Fully WiFi capable without options.
6. CLS II with RF triggering.

These are order of magnitude increases and some I have no clue about. I know little to nothing about video. I'm just throwing some terms about. The point is that some of these features would be that much better than the D300s. It would have to be. Shoehorning a D7000 sensor in a D300 won't sell over a D7000 to most buyers.

Now, Nikon could create a D300s replacement like that or they could redo their lineup. That's what I'm suggesting. They don't have to replace each model up and up. Right now it's a bit of a mess with model naming schemes that make little sense. They seem to be switching to increments of D and four digits like D3000, D3100, D5000 and D7000.

Let's think it through. I suggest this makes sense.

• D2000 - Entry level body and kt like a D40 at $400 range 12-14 megapixels
• D3100 - Entry level featured model with kit lens $600 range
• D5100 - Top of the line Entry level like Canon's T2i and relaces the D5000 16mp
• D7000 - Full featured enthusiast camera, pentaprism and top LCD, magnesium / weather sealing. 16 megapixels
• D8000 - Entry enthusiast FX full frame. 18 megapixels or more, maybe 24 mp.
• D9000 - D700 replacement with pro-build no grip FX 24 megapixel sensor similar to D3x
• D4 - old naming scheme for the flagship or maybe D10,000 called the D10K. 30 plus megapixels with good ISO perfomance, Nikon designed sensor.

Notice, there really isn't a D300s replacement. The lineup is changed. Notice the addition of cheaper FX lenses lately. Notice the 28-300. That's not geared so much for the D700 crowd. Who was it made for? What about a new 70-200 f/4? Same thing.

Seriously, this is just a big guess and its a bit of fun for me. Am I right? Probably not. Does it make sense? It does to me. It beats having a mixed up mish mash of models and various model numbers that confuse beginners. Notice that all new Nikons over the past year or so are following that. Notice that the don't always replace something from before. What did the D5000 replace? What does the D7000 replace? You could say D90 but it's too far off. You could say D300 but it's not quite enough.

Make sense to anyone else?
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[Christakis]

It's all relevant. Professionals use professional cameras, which come with their equivalent lenses and extenders. If you need to crop a picture 9 times the size of your original frame then you are shooting using the wrong equipment. I agree with what you say, but it is not a fact for professional photographers.

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

Christakis

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

 

[Guidenet]

I think you're right. The reason wildlife and bird photographers use APS-C more is because it's less expensive and there are more of this type of camera.

When on the various birding trails, the professionals and passionate amateurs a I meet have professional gear in every way. I went to some rookery ponds behind Gatorland Zoo in central Florida last Sunday. They sell special memberships to bird photographers who don't want the touristy section and hang out in the back ponds run by the University of Florida. It's a favorite among bird photographers from around the world. It might be the largest most varied concentration of wading bird rookeries anywhere.

But to get to the point, there were around 8 serious bird photographers back there this Sunday. I mean serious in that they were there for the birds, not with families for the tourist part. Every single last one of them was shooting full frame from Nikon D700 (me) to Canon IDs. There were 300 f/2.8 to Canon 800 f/5.6 There were no crop cameras at all.

Now, that said, these are fairly large wading birds, but in talking to these guys, none owned crop cameras. I do, a D300 but don't use it enough.

Look you can put more pixels on the target with a crop camera, but you lose so much more. Birds and Wildlife tend to be out more in the dim light of early morning and late evening. Feather resolution is easier to get with a full frame, I think. Dynamic range for white birds against dark backgrounds can really be important. Weather sealed robust bodies help in the wild wetlands.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[Billx08]

. . .
I'll start. We need awe and shock over a D300 like it was over a D200.

1. Really high megapixels, maybe 24mp on an APS-C sensor.

That's really shock and awe. The D300's 12mp was only 20% more mp than the D200's 10mp. 20% more than the D300 would be 14.4mp, so I think that 16mp or 18mp would be a really nice upgrade, and 24mp would be too much, too soon. But then if I had lots of disposable income I'd go for a D3s over a D3x. Interestingly, in Ronnie Gaubert's "D100 Appreciation thread" he says that he preferred the 6mp D100 over the D200. Now that's a significant 100% megapixel increase, but the D100's images still look great.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=37330748

2. Really good ISO performance say to 6400 native.

At least.

3. 3 inch or better 920k dot or better articulating screen. Maybe removable.

Articulating would be nice, but the D300's display is already 3" x 920k dots. I'd prefer 3.5" or 4", so I agree that your "or better" would be better.

4. True 24 video or 60i HD comparible with $700 camcorders

Improved video would be nice, but I'm not a videographer, so I'm satisfied even with 720p. I'd be more interested in a new camera that was "video lens ready" and had much better audio, both quality and flexibility (agc & manual, with metering) and maybe even audio timecode.

5. Fully WiFi capable without options.

Yeah, an option like a WT-2A. If it's built-in, Nikon might do something stupid like limit it to working with MyPictureTown.

6. CLS II with RF triggering.

Lots of obstacles would make this impractical/unlikely, but it would be a big improvement over CLS/AWL which prevents Joe McNally from using as many Speedlights as he'd like to use.


I'd add a Marianne Mode, that would give the user control over Nikon's HPS (Hot Pixel Suppression). Nikon improved its HPS algorithm slightly for the D7000, but . . .

Now, Nikon could create a D300s replacement like that or they could redo their lineup. That's what I'm suggesting. They don't have to replace each model up and up. Right now it's a bit of a mess with model naming schemes that make little sense. They seem to be switching to increments of D and four digits like D3000, D3100, D5000 and D7000.

At least Nikon hasn't marketed a Digital Kiss.

Make sense to anyone else?

Not yet. I still haven't gotten over Death To Smoochy.

 

[Billx08]

. . .

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.

 

[Guidenet]

. . .
I'll start. We need awe and shock over a D300 like it was over a D200.

1. Really high megapixels, maybe 24mp on an APS-C sensor.

That's really shock and awe. The D300's 12mp was only 20% more mp than the D200's 10mp. 20% more than the D300 would be 14.4mp, so I think that 16mp or 18mp would be a really nice upgrade, and 24mp would be too much, too soon. But then if I had lots of disposable income I'd go for a D3s over a D3x. Interestingly, in Ronnie Gaubert's "D100 Appreciation thread" he says that he preferred the 6mp D100 over the D200. Now that's a significant 100% megapixel increase, but the D100's images still look great.

Well it's all just fun and guessing, but you know Sony has announced a 24 megapixel APS-C sensor with fantastic high ISO capability.

Moreover though I understand that the increment for the D200 to D300 was only 2mp, it was from a noisy CCD sensor to a fairly clean CMOS sensor. It was huge when it happened. What with the D7000 being 16mp and the 7D being 18pm, I think a prospective D400 will have to whip them all by a fair amount to be shock and awe. I don't think just matching Canon would do that unless it went crazy better in ISO performance. We're talking Wow effect here, not just incremental.

Some of us really want and need huge amount of megapixels. Being a bird and wildlife photograher I'm often in situations where I just can't get closer and can't get longer. I'm stuck and 12 megapixels doesn't cut it anymore. I'm seeing pixelation and jaggeties way too soon in my crop and that bird was a once in a lifetime.

Two weekends ago I paid a guide to take me to see a Great Blue Heon. They are a dime a dozen and I've go g'zillions of them. But the difference was that I wanted a solid White Morph Great Blue. There are a few spotty places n 10,000 Island Florida or the South West Everglade where they can be found. I found one, but it was just too spooky. We stalked and stalked by flats boat and I just couldn't get close enought for 12 megapixels. My crop was worse than 100% and looks that way from a bouncing boat hand held. Also my super long glass was deemed to big for the boat.

I might be kidding myself but I know if I'd had a 24 mp crop camera I'd have gotten him.



--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[Billx08]

. . .

Well it's all just fun and guessing, but you know Sony has announced a 24 megapixel APS-C sensor with fantastic high ISO capability.

Just think what kind of high ISO capability the same sensor technology would have delivered in a 16mp sensor! I can see the attraction, but 24mp in an APS-C sensor is getting to where even our better lens's flaws might be exposed by such sensors. I know that I wouldn't be able to produce better images than I'm able to get from my D300/D700 unless I used my good tripod with mirror up and a shutter release, so the extra card space, hard drive space, computer memory space and CPU power needed for (usually) no noticeable difference hardly seems worth pursuing. Better high ISO performance at reasonable ISOs would produce better results, especially when it keeps shutter speeds really fast at extreme focal lengths.

Some of us really want and need huge amount of megapixels. Being a bird and wildlife photograher I'm often in situations where I just can't get closer and can't get longer. I'm stuck and 12 megapixels doesn't cut it anymore. I'm seeing pixelation and jaggeties way too soon in my crop and that bird was a once in a lifetime.

Ironically, you're proving my point, I believe.

Two weekends ago I paid a guide to take me to see a Great Blue Heon. They are a dime a dozen and I've go g'zillions of them. But the difference was that I wanted a solid White Morph Great Blue. There are a few spotty places n 10,000 Island Florida or the South West Everglade where they can be found. I found one, but it was just too spooky. We stalked and stalked by flats boat and I just couldn't get close enought for 12 megapixels. My crop was worse than 100% and looks that way from a bouncing boat hand held. Also my super long glass was deemed to big for the boat.

I might be kidding myself but I know if I'd had a 24 mp crop camera I'd have gotten him.

http://www.guidenet.net/birds_11/greatblue_white_1-15-11.jpg

Yes, a 24mp crop camera would have helped, but the crop cameras that I noted were preferred by wildlife photographers when they can't get close enough also would have helped. I don't know if that D700 image is the entire crop, but if it is, it's only a 1.25mp image. Shot with a D3x it would have been 2.5mp. Shot with a D300 it would have been a 3mp image. So yes, a 24mp DX sensor would have been nice, but for today, you'd have been better off shooting with a D90/D300 than your D700, at least for distant shots such as this. I spared you the D3100/D7000 calculations. Also, as I noted above, while the 24mp APS-C sensor would have eliminated jaggies, PP would do that too. The inherently higher resolution potential wouldn't have really helped, though, unless you shot the heron from a tripod on land. Hand held on a boat at a long distance, I doubt that you'd really have done much better with a higher res. sensor than you got from your D700. On a good tripod though, no contest, the D700 wouldn't keep up with the 24mp Sony or with Nikon's forthcoming D400/D800.