Upgrading to a full frame?

[garytao]

I have had the D5100 for over 6 years, and i think i am ready for an upgrade. Since I did not own a lot of lens with my d5100, I think that I am in a good spot to make the leap into a full frame. My current budgets allows me to purchase a brand new D850 (around 1500 usd in HK), along with a Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM｜Art (as i am not a big fan into getting second hand product). I mainly do landscape and travel photography. So my question is should i get a full frame, if so is d810 a good option and other possible lens option.

Appreciating all the support i will get,

Thanks.

 

[J A C S]

Indeed time to drop it.

Regarding the two images, I'd like to see either more subject isolation or everything in focus. For me this neither of both and not my taste.

What happened to the "nothing much in focus", a.k.a. the soar grapes? You moved the goalposts too far.

No... I said that most likely for concerts you often need large DoF.

The expression in the quotes is copied and pasted from your post I replied to.

The examples you have a but larger DoF in that the main subject is in focus, but I do not like the out of focus areas in these images.

Well, that was my point basically, refuting your "nothing much in focus" statement.

Way too much detail, impairing subject isolation.

You are wrong about that. The problem there is the poor background. No amount of blur could make it better. The best blur, to my taste at least, is to have a recognizable background but still pleasantly blurred. This is what my 35LII does easily, BTW. A completely obliterated background is hard to achieve and is seldom the goal.

My preferred look (totally subjective) is to either have everything in focus... or have a really good subject isolation with a very smooth background in your examples, way more then it is now.

Good luck with that. You can very well say that your taste is either Mona Lisa or nothing.

Here are a few shots where the partly blurred background was the goal.

85L at f/2

85L at f/1.6

50L at f/1.6, in a Nashville bar

If that was not clear from the start... my bad... should have explained it better then. Again... very subjective... not meant to diss the images you posted.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Full frames are going to be larger and heavier. Are you OK with that?

Especially a 24-70 /2.8

When I was just a kid, starting into photography, I used 35 mm ("full frame") because the medium format cameras—preferred by pros and enthusiasts—were big and heavy.

 

[tedolf]

Unless you are a pro, your photography is essentially a hobby, meant to be a source of personal enjoyment. So while a lesser system (M4/3, APS-C, etc.) might be all you *need*, you might want to go full frame anyway. That is a personal decision that doesn't really need justification.

It does need justification.

If the OP can't objectively justify it, he should stay within his existing system.

If you can afford it, go for it. It is rare that someone goes full frame and is disappointed

As primarily an amateur, I never liked the DOF profile of full frame even in the film days, and I sure don't like the size and cost in the digital era.

.

The D850 (or D810) are both great, but you might also consider the Z6 or Z7. They are excellent cameras and could hold some advantages for travel, being a little smaller package. You can use them with F-mount lenses, or go for the 24-70mm f/4 S (Z-mount). This might be a little more future proof if mirrorless interests you.

TEdolph

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

As primarily an amateur, I never liked the DOF profile of full frame even in the film days, and I sure don't like the size and cost in the digital era.

...

A general rule a full frame camera can match the depth of field of a crop body. The full frame should be able to match the depth of field, angle of view, subject distance, and overall image noise of the crop body (there are boundary cases where this isn't true, such as very long lenses on a crop body).

It is incorrect to say that full frame requires you to use shallower depth of field. The advantage of the full frame is that it generally offers the option of shallower depth of field.

One of the issues is that the same ISO and/or f/stop will yield different looking results with different sized sensors. if you shoot a crop body with the same ISO and f/stop as a full frame, you will likely get more depth of field, and more noise. On an APS-C body, you would need to open up a little more than a stop (and reduce ISO) in order to get results similar to a full frame.

 

[p0ppyman]

Unless you are a pro, your photography is essentially a hobby, meant to be a source of personal enjoyment. So while a lesser system (M4/3, APS-C, etc.) might be all you *need*, you might want to go full frame anyway. That is a personal decision that doesn't really need justification.

It does need justification.

If the OP can't objectively justify it, he should stay within his existing system.

If he is not using your money he does not need to justify a thing. You pay his way, you get your say, otherwise you don't have standing when it comes to his checkbook.

 

[John Sheehy]

Unless you are a pro, your photography is essentially a hobby, meant to be a source of personal enjoyment. So while a lesser system (M4/3, APS-C, etc.) might be all you *need*, you might want to go full frame anyway. That is a personal decision that doesn't really need justification.

It does need justification.

If the OP can't objectively justify it, he should stay within his existing system.

If you can afford it, go for it. It is rare that someone goes full frame and is disappointed

As primarily an amateur, I never liked the DOF profile of full frame even in the film days, and I sure don't like the size and cost in the digital era.

People need to realize that FF has less to offer if you don't like very wide rectilinear angles, fish-eye, or minimal DOF.

All the bravado about how much better FF sensors are with noise is hollow if you do not use shallower DOF on FF than you would with m43 or APS-C.

The best recent Olympus m43 camera has less noise at higher ISOs than the best Canon FF in equivalence and focal-length-limited.

The extra pixel resolution of 36MP to 50MP FF cameras is very real, though, in otherwise-equivalence. You can lose pixels by cropping FF, but you can't anti-crop a camera and get more pixels.

 

[NikonNature]

Unless you are a pro, your photography is essentially a hobby, meant to be a source of personal enjoyment. So while a lesser system (M4/3, APS-C, etc.) might be all you *need*, you might want to go full frame anyway. That is a personal decision that doesn't really need justification.

It does need justification.

If the OP can't objectively justify it, he should stay within his existing system.

I am not promoting FF. I am simply saying the choice is his. Hobbies are by definition done for personal pleasure. I doubt many fisherman could truly justify the cost of a boat. Or weekend golfers a set of new clubs. But it's their money and if they find enjoyment in their particular hobby, then it's worth it.

If you can afford it, go for it. It is rare that someone goes full frame and is disappointed

As primarily an amateur, I never liked the DOF profile of full frame even in the film days, and I sure don't like the size and cost in the digital era.

DoF is easy enough to control and there a multitude of lenses for different purposes. Plus we now have focus stacking. And again size and cost is up to the OP.

.

The D850 (or D810) are both great, but you might also consider the Z6 or Z7. They are excellent cameras and could hold some advantages for travel, being a little smaller package. You can use them with F-mount lenses, or go for the 24-70mm f/4 S (Z-mount). This might be a little more future proof if mirrorless interests you.

TEdolph

 

[BobSC]

Unless you are a pro, your photography is essentially a hobby, meant to be a source of personal enjoyment. So while a lesser system (M4/3, APS-C, etc.) might be all you *need*, you might want to go full frame anyway. That is a personal decision that doesn't really need justification.

It does need justification.

If the OP can't objectively justify it, he should stay within his existing system.

If you can afford it, go for it. It is rare that someone goes full frame and is disappointed

As primarily an amateur, I never liked the DOF profile of full frame even in the film days, and I sure don't like the size and cost in the digital era.

People need to realize that FF has less to offer if you don't like very wide rectilinear angles, fish-eye, or minimal DOF.

All the bravado about how much better FF sensors are with noise is hollow if you do not use shallower DOF on FF than you would with m43 or APS-C.

If you want to put that restriction on yourself rather than seeing paper thin DoF as a challenge to be overcome, then what you say is 100% true.

I've always been interested in pushing the limits of available light. For me, a 50/1.4 wide open on a FF body is just amazing. I rather like an 80-200/2.8 wide open too, even in daylight.

Obviously just personal preferences, not right or wrong answers.

 

[tedolf]

...

As primarily an amateur, I never liked the DOF profile of full frame even in the film days, and I sure don't like the size and cost in the digital era.

...

A general rule a full frame camera can match the depth of field of a crop body. The full frame should be able to match the depth of field, angle of view, subject distance, and overall image noise of the crop body (there are boundary cases where this isn't true, such as very long lenses on a crop body).

Absolutely it can, at a higher cost and weight.

It is incorrect to say that full frame requires you to use shallower depth of field.

No one said that. My point is that I don't want to use the shallower DOF so why should I pay the financial and weight penalty to use part of the shooting envelope that I don't like.

The advantage of the full frame is that it generally offers the option of shallower depth of field.

Here is the issue: if you generally like the way full frame looks at f/2 (or better yet at f/2.8 where a lot of full frame constant zooms are) there is no reason to pay for all that extra weight and cost.

F/1.7 m4/3 system images looks a lot like f/2.8 on full frame, yet costs maybe 1/3 of what full frame costs on a system level and is far more compact. Also, the smaller sensor lets m4/3 do things FF can't with respect to image stabilization, in camera processing, etc. all at affordable price points.

One of the issues is that the same ISO and/or f/stop will yield different looking results with different sized sensors. if you shoot a crop body with the same ISO and f/stop as a full frame, you will likely get more depth of field, and more noise. On an APS-C body, you would need to open up a little more than a stop (and reduce ISO) in order to get results similar to a full frame.

The real benefit of FF is wide angle shallow DOF (not achievable in crop sensors) and very high ISO/low light shooting.

If you are not in those envelopes, you are better off with a crop sensor camera.

TEdolph

 

[tedolf]

Unless you are a pro, your photography is essentially a hobby, meant to be a source of personal enjoyment. So while a lesser system (M4/3, APS-C, etc.) might be all you *need*, you might want to go full frame anyway. That is a personal decision that doesn't really need justification.

It does need justification.

If the OP can't objectively justify it, he should stay within his existing system.

If he is not using your money he does not need to justify a thing. You pay his way, you get your say, otherwise you don't have standing when it comes to his checkbook.

I have standing to have an opinion.

About anything.

TEdolph

 

[J A C S]

Unless you are a pro, your photography is essentially a hobby, meant to be a source of personal enjoyment. So while a lesser system (M4/3, APS-C, etc.) might be all you *need*, you might want to go full frame anyway. That is a personal decision that doesn't really need justification.

It does need justification.

If the OP can't objectively justify it, he should stay within his existing system.

If you can afford it, go for it. It is rare that someone goes full frame and is disappointed

As primarily an amateur, I never liked the DOF profile of full frame even in the film days, and I sure don't like the size and cost in the digital era.

People need to realize that FF has less to offer if you don't like very wide rectilinear angles, fish-eye, or minimal DOF.

All the bravado about how much better FF sensors are with noise is hollow if you do not use shallower DOF on FF than you would with m43 or APS-C.

If you want to put that restriction on yourself rather than seeing paper thin DoF as a challenge to be overcome, then what you say is 100% true.

I've always been interested in pushing the limits of available light. For me, a 50/1.4 wide open on a FF body is just amazing. I rather like an 80-200/2.8 wide open too, even in daylight.

Obviously just personal preferences, not right or wrong answers.

Also, "shallow DOF" is very relative. I can shoot at 35/1.4 with several meters of DOF.

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

As primarily an amateur, I never liked the DOF profile of full frame even in the film days, and I sure don't like the size and cost in the digital era.

...

A general rule a full frame camera can match the depth of field of a crop body. The full frame should be able to match the depth of field, angle of view, subject distance, and overall image noise of the crop body (there are boundary cases where this isn't true, such as very long lenses on a crop body).

Absolutely it can, at a higher cost and weight.

There's a difference between what's possible, and what's practical to do with items you can buy from a typical camera store.

This generates some practical differences between full frame and crop.

For instance, suppose I want a very narrow angle of view. The longest lens I can find at B&H is an for my full frame Canon DSLR is an EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Lens (about $13K).

If I put that on my Rebel SL2 1.6X crop body, I get an even narrower angle of view. Yes, I could crop the image from the full frame, however that results in fewer pixels than if I had used the SL2. (A full frame 50 megapixel image cropped to 1.6X is about 19 megapixels, the 1.6X Rebel SL2 body is 24 megapixels).

Therefore, if you want a very narrow angle of view, you get a bit more with a crop body than a full frame. (Yes, I could put a teleconverter on the full frame, but I could also put a teleconverter on the crop body).

This is an example of an situation where the crop body makes it easier to get the shot.

It is incorrect to say that full frame requires you to use shallower depth of field.

No one said that. My point is that I don't want to use the shallower DOF so why should I pay the financial and weight penalty to use part of the shooting envelope that I don't like.

Some people uses phrases like "full frame gives you shallower depth of field". I think such phrases imply that if you shoot full frame, you will get shallower depth of field.

I think we both agree that this isn't the case. Full frame only gives you an option for shallower depth of field. In many circumstance, very shallow Depth of Field is neither needed nor wanted.

The advantage of the full frame is that it generally offers the option of shallower depth of field.

Here is the issue: if you generally like the way full frame looks at f/2 (or better yet at f/2.8 where a lot of full frame constant zooms are) there is no reason to pay for all that extra weight and cost.

F/1.7 m4/3 system images looks a lot like f/2.8 on full frame, yet costs maybe 1/3 of what full frame costs on a system level and is far more compact. Also, the smaller sensor lets m4/3 do things FF can't with respect to image stabilization, in camera processing, etc. all at affordable price points.

Yes, there are certainly advantages to smaller formats.

As with many things, it's providing the right tradeoff. Lighter weight and lower cost, but you lose an option of shallow depth of field. If you don't need/want the depth of field option, it may be an easy choice to make.

I had a corporate shoot yesterday where I delivered 50 megapixel images to the client. They don't need 50 megapixels, but the PR people who are the decision makers loved the idea that they could zoom in and see lots of details. In terms of getting hired, the primary factor is making the client happy. If 50 megapixels helps accomplish that, I'm going to shoot 50 megapixels on a full frame. That's a situation where full frame is helpful.

I also shot some of their buildings lit up at night. I Used a tripod with a long exposure at base ISO. By shooting at base ISO, I got a little bit more dynamic range than if I had used a crop body. This made it a little easier to process the files.

Similarly, some of the shots were of room interiors, where we wanted to include the view out the window. Maximizing dynamic range made these images easier to get.

Clearly, these are unusual cases, but they are an example of a situation where a full frame body is a little it better than a crop body.

One of the issues is that the same ISO and/or f/stop will yield different looking results with different sized sensors. if you shoot a crop body with the same ISO and f/stop as a full frame, you will likely get more depth of field, and more noise. On an APS-C body, you would need to open up a little more than a stop (and reduce ISO) in order to get results similar to a full frame.

The real benefit of FF is wide angle shallow DOF (not achievable in crop sensors) and very high ISO/low light shooting.

If you are not in those envelopes, you are better off with a crop sensor camera.

Whether or not you are "better off" with a crop sensor camera will depend on how important the various differences are to you. If you are shooting in a studio with a large budget, then weight and cost may not be as significant as the ability to occasionally have shallow depth of field.

If you regularly spend hours hiking in the wilderness to get a shot, then lighter weight may be a tremendous benefit.

TEdolph

it certainly seems as if a crop sensor is the right choice for your needs. I don't think it is the right choice for everyone.

 

[J A C S]

F/1.7 m4/3 system images looks a lot like f/2.8 on full frame, yet costs maybe 1/3 of what full frame costs on a system level and is far more compact.

??? How many f/1.7 zooms do you own? An f/2.8 FF prime is small and cheap.

 

[p0ppyman]

Yes you are entitled to your opinion in my opinion.

 

[KEnrique]

I have had the D5100 for over 6 years, and i think i am ready for an upgrade. Since I did not own a lot of lens with my d5100, I think that I am in a good spot to make the leap into a full frame. My current budgets allows me to purchase a brand new D850 (around 1500 usd in HK), along with a Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM｜Art (as i am not a big fan into getting second hand product). I mainly do landscape and travel photography. So my question is should i get a full frame, if so is d810 a good option and other possible lens option.

Appreciating all the support i will get,

Thanks.

Get the D850 if you can afford it. Best FF camera there is.

 

[John Sheehy]

Get the D850 if you can afford it. Best FF camera there is.

It has a relatively high pixel count (~92% as many as the highest FF) and is very versatile and has good bandwidth, but it is not the best FF camera for high ISO noise, especially in incandescent light.

 

[John Sheehy]

The real benefit of FF is wide angle shallow DOF (not achievable in crop sensors) and very high ISO/low light shooting.

That's not even true if you have the same FOV and DOF. The best m43 sensors have less noise at 1/4 the high ISO than most all FF cameras, except the top high-ISO ones like D5 and A72S, which are not more than a tiny bit better, in equivalence.

It is a myth that comparing different size sensor full images at the same high ISOs has any direct meaning in photographic practice, unless you are a silly person who says, "I am going out to shoot at ISO 25,600 today; which camera should I bring, regardless of sensor size, to get the best results?".

Yet, most photographers still seem to maintain that there is some practical significance to such comparisons, especially people who have spent money on FF cameras. I have purchased 2 FF cameras in the last 10 years, but I have no attachment to these larger sensors except when I want shallowest DOF, or very wide angles. If I had a 50MP FF, then that resolution would have some value in DOF/FOV equivalence, but that is not a sensor size thing per se. My current FF and APS-C have the same pixel count, which really limits any advantage that the FF has in equivalence.

 

[tedolf]

...

As primarily an amateur, I never liked the DOF profile of full frame even in the film days, and I sure don't like the size and cost in the digital era.

...

A general rule a full frame camera can match the depth of field of a crop body. The full frame should be able to match the depth of field, angle of view, subject distance, and overall image noise of the crop body (there are boundary cases where this isn't true, such as very long lenses on a crop body).

Absolutely it can, at a higher cost and weight.

There's a difference between what's possible, and what's practical to do with items you can buy from a typical camera store.

This generates some practical differences between full frame and crop.

For instance, suppose I want a very narrow angle of view. The longest lens I can find at B&H is an for my full frame Canon DSLR is an EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Lens (about $13K).

If I put that on my Rebel SL2 1.6X crop body, I get an even narrower angle of view. Yes, I could crop the image from the full frame, however that results in fewer pixels than if I had used the SL2. (A full frame 50 megapixel image cropped to 1.6X is about 19 megapixels, the 1.6X Rebel SL2 body is 24 megapixels).

Therefore, if you want a very narrow angle of view, you get a bit more with a crop body than a full frame. (Yes, I could put a teleconverter on the full frame, but I could also put a teleconverter on the crop body).

This is an example of an situation where the crop body makes it easier to get the shot.

It is incorrect to say that full frame requires you to use shallower depth of field.

No one said that. My point is that I don't want to use the shallower DOF so why should I pay the financial and weight penalty to use part of the shooting envelope that I don't like.

Some people uses phrases like "full frame gives you shallower depth of field". I think such phrases imply that if you shoot full frame, you will get shallower depth of field.

I think we both agree that this isn't the case. Full frame only gives you an option for shallower depth of field. In many circumstance, very shallow Depth of Field is neither needed nor wanted.

The advantage of the full frame is that it generally offers the option of shallower depth of field.

Here is the issue: if you generally like the way full frame looks at f/2 (or better yet at f/2.8 where a lot of full frame constant zooms are) there is no reason to pay for all that extra weight and cost.

F/1.7 m4/3 system images looks a lot like f/2.8 on full frame, yet costs maybe 1/3 of what full frame costs on a system level and is far more compact. Also, the smaller sensor lets m4/3 do things FF can't with respect to image stabilization, in camera processing, etc. all at affordable price points.

Yes, there are certainly advantages to smaller formats.

As with many things, it's providing the right tradeoff. Lighter weight and lower cost, but you lose an option of shallow depth of field. If you don't need/want the depth of field option, it may be an easy choice to make.

I had a corporate shoot yesterday where I delivered 50 megapixel images to the client. They don't need 50 megapixels, but the PR people who are the decision makers loved the idea that they could zoom in and see lots of details. In terms of getting hired, the primary factor is making the client happy. If 50 megapixels helps accomplish that, I'm going to shoot 50 megapixels on a full frame. That's a situation where full frame is helpful.

I also shot some of their buildings lit up at night. I Used a tripod with a long exposure at base ISO. By shooting at base ISO, I got a little bit more dynamic range than if I had used a crop body. This made it a little easier to process the files.

Similarly, some of the shots were of room interiors, where we wanted to include the view out the window. Maximizing dynamic range made these images easier to get.

Clearly, these are unusual cases, but they are an example of a situation where a full frame body is a little it better than a crop body.

One of the issues is that the same ISO and/or f/stop will yield different looking results with different sized sensors. if you shoot a crop body with the same ISO and f/stop as a full frame, you will likely get more depth of field, and more noise. On an APS-C body, you would need to open up a little more than a stop (and reduce ISO) in order to get results similar to a full frame.

The real benefit of FF is wide angle shallow DOF (not achievable in crop sensors) and very high ISO/low light shooting.

If you are not in those envelopes, you are better off with a crop sensor camera.

Whether or not you are "better off" with a crop sensor camera will depend on how important the various differences are to you. If you are shooting in a studio with a large budget, then weight and cost may not be as significant as the ability to occasionally have shallow depth of field.

If you regularly spend hours hiking in the wilderness to get a shot, then lighter weight may be a tremendous benefit.

TEdolph

it certainly seems as if a crop sensor is the right choice for your needs. I don't think it is the right choice for everyone.

Yes, and that goes to my original point that a move to full frame needs to be justified by exactly the type of analysis you have done above.

For most amatuers, it isn't going to be justified.

Tedolph

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

Yes, and that goes to my original point that a move to full frame needs to be justified by exactly the type of analysis you have done above.

For most amatuers, it isn't going to be justified.

...

There are a number of practical differences between full frame a crop factor bodies. Perhaps surprisingly, image quality is not really one of them.

Yes, there are extreme cases where one format will have the edge over another, but for the vast majority of images, you are going to get visually the same looking image from either a crop body or a full frame.

 

[J A C S]

...

Yes, and that goes to my original point that a move to full frame needs to be justified by exactly the type of analysis you have done above.

For most amatuers, it isn't going to be justified.

...

There are a number of practical differences between full frame a crop factor bodies. Perhaps surprisingly, image quality is not really one of them.

It is the whole point, basically.

Yes, there are extreme cases where one format will have the edge over another, but for the vast majority of images, you are going to get visually the same looking image from either a crop body or a full frame.

This is what billions of phone users think as well.