Why Full-Frame?

[Max Iso]

Bokeh is qualified not quantified.

How dare you, it's 2020 Paul, you old stick in the mud. Bokeh can identify as whatever it wants, quantity included...

 

[AwesomeIan]

Dynamic range and more Bokeh.

Bokeh is the quality of the blur and is lens, not format dependent. You cannot have “more bokeh.”

With full frame you have to get closer to the subject to get the same shot you would with a APS-C (or any other smaller sensor). This reduces the DOF and makes the background more blurry. So yes you can have more bokeh with full frame.

Nope. You have shallower DOF...not “more bokeh.”

The background gets more blurry as you reduce the dof. I don't know why this is so difficult for some of you guys on this site. That is exactly what "bokeh" is. The quality of the out of focus area of a picture. Go try this and please tell me with a straight face I am wrong:

1. Take a 50mm lens

2. Take a picture of something that is relatively close to the camera with the 50mm on a APS-C camera

3. Frame the EXACT same picture with the 50mm on a full frame

When you view each picture you can see the bokeh is better on the full frame. But hey, feel free to completely disregard one of the benefits of shooting full frame.

It's not about FF vs crop.

It IS about two related concepts that are used inconsistently across the internet: BOKEH, and BLUR.

Here's an image with equal blur, but very different bokeh:

Which came from this very helpful article:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh.html

I understand that that two different lenses with the same aperture can have different quality bokeh (i.e. two different brands of a 50mm 1.8 lens). Other things also affect this. Such as aperture and distance to subject. Here is another thought experiment:

1. Take some xmas lights and bundle them up

2. Put some distance between you and the lights

3. Open the aperture of the lens to f2.8 (or whatever is wide open) and turn the focus ring until they turn into big circles of light and take a picture

4. Take the same shot again but only change the aperture to f5.6

You will see the f2.8 has much more please bokeh. This very similar to what you get when shooting full frame vs crop. Call it what you want. Bokeh, blur or whatever. The bottom line is the background of the picture looks better with full frame. Cheers.

--
Follow me on flickr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123942854@N06/

 

[jvc1]

I understand that that two different lenses with the same aperture can have different quality bokeh (i.e. two different brands of a 50mm 1.8 lens). Other things also affect this. Such as aperture and distance to subject. Here is another thought experiment:

1. Take some xmas lights and bundle them up

2. Put some distance between you and the lights

3. Open the aperture of the lens to f2.8 (or whatever is wide open) and turn the focus ring until they turn into big circles of light and take a picture

4. Take the same shot again but only change the aperture to f5.6

You will see the f2.8 has much more please bokeh. This very similar to what you get when shooting full frame vs crop. Call it what you want. Bokeh, blur or whatever. The bottom line is the background of the picture looks better with full frame. Cheers.

The camera has nothing to do with the how the blur looks, that's all in the lens. The blur produced by some lenses looks much different than that produced by others. Yes, if you put the 50mm f/1.8 lens on a FF camera, shot wide open, the back ground will have more blur than on an ASP-C lens. If you compare the 50mm f/1.8 ens on FF to an 85mm f/1.8 lens on ASP-C (roughly the same field of view), shoot both wide open, the FF image will only have a little more blurr than the APS-C image, but no all that much. Again though, "bokeh" isn't the blur itself, it's the quality of the blur as demonstrated in the images in the earlier post. As has already been said, you can't have more bokeh, you can only have nicer, smoother, harsher, etc. bokeh.

--
I keep some of my favorite pictures here,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129958940@N03/

 

[Erik Kaffehr]

But, there might be other nice compromises.

I simply don't care. A great image is a great image, regardless of format.

Mediocre images are mediocre images, regardless of format.

Best regards

Erik

 

[Mackiesback]

Wow...a single thread where people can simultaneously argue about equivalence and the meaning of the word bokeh. Doesn't get any better than that.

Impressive, but probably not a record.

Would it be cheating if I now brought up raw vs JPEG? or ETTR?

We should have thread bingo, with prizes for those that can guess when certain themes will arise in each thread, handicapped for the forum (it's harder to get to equivalence in Accessories, but probably possible).

LOL.....throw in ML vs. DSLR and cell phone vs. "real" camera and we might have the event of the century. :-D

 

[Trevor Carpenter]

Dynamic range and more Bokeh.

Bokeh is the quality of the blur and is lens, not format dependent. You cannot have “more bokeh.”

I would say you can't have enough DOF. one of us must be wrong

 

[Smaug01]

There are decades' worth of lenses designed for a 35mm frame. They're out there in thrift stores for under $20 ea.

Since the FF bodies are relatively expensive, adapting older lenses, which we either have on hand or can get inexpensively, is a nice option. (albeit with less absolute performance; sometimes this is desirable )

One example (though not from FF): While I was saving for the Olympus µ4/3 45/1.8 native lens, (and buying other lenses) I used my old OM 50/1.8. It wound up being a PERFECT portrait lens. Extreme sharpness wasn't needed for that application, but the speed was appreciated.

Would love to see FF vs crop volume over time.

As for why full frame for me? Lenses.

Strange, that's the reason I go for a smaller format. And it's also an often quoted reason for going with a larger format.

I guess it warrants qualification. Lens selection. No other format has the lens selection or value of a system like Canon EF. I'm not bothered by a couple of oz here or there because I rarely carry my camera long enough for it to be an issue.

 

[AwesomeIan]

I understand that that two different lenses with the same aperture can have different quality bokeh (i.e. two different brands of a 50mm 1.8 lens). Other things also affect this. Such as aperture and distance to subject. Here is another thought experiment:

1. Take some xmas lights and bundle them up

2. Put some distance between you and the lights

3. Open the aperture of the lens to f2.8 (or whatever is wide open) and turn the focus ring until they turn into big circles of light and take a picture

4. Take the same shot again but only change the aperture to f5.6

You will see the f2.8 has much more please bokeh. This very similar to what you get when shooting full frame vs crop. Call it what you want. Bokeh, blur or whatever. The bottom line is the background of the picture looks better with full frame. Cheers.

The camera has nothing to do with the how the blur looks, that's all in the lens. The blur produced by some lenses looks much different than that produced by others. Yes, if you put the 50mm f/1.8 lens on a FF camera, shot wide open, the back ground will have more blur than on an ASP-C lens. If you compare the 50mm f/1.8 ens on FF to an 85mm f/1.8 lens on ASP-C (roughly the same field of view), shoot both wide open, the FF image will only have a little more blurr than the APS-C image, but no all that much. Again though, "bokeh" isn't the blur itself, it's the quality of the blur as demonstrated in the images in the earlier post. As has already been said, you can't have more bokeh, you can only have nicer, smoother, harsher, etc. bokeh.

No, the DOF has a profound impact on the quality of the out of focus part of the frame. I am not saying that is the ONLY thing. I am aware that the number of aperture blades and other things can also affect the quality of the bokeh. Here is some food for though: take a 50mm lens and take a picture with the aperture wide open and get close to the subject with some background separation. Now take another picture of the same thing but close the aperture to f11. Come back here and make a poll asking which has the better bokeh.

 

[aerondight]

Would love to see FF vs crop volume over time.

As for why full frame for me? Lenses.

It's FF/MF/LF, not just FF.

You can see this here:

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr500.pdf

All the reports are here:

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/report_e.html

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/lens_e.html

 

[jvc1]

The camera has nothing to do with the how the blur looks, that's all in the lens. The blur produced by some lenses looks much different than that produced by others. Yes, if you put the 50mm f/1.8 lens on a FF camera, shot wide open, the back ground will have more blur than on an ASP-C lens. If you compare the 50mm f/1.8 ens on FF to an 85mm f/1.8 lens on ASP-C (roughly the same field of view), shoot both wide open, the FF image will only have a little more blurr than the APS-C image, but no all that much. Again though, "bokeh" isn't the blur itself, it's the quality of the blur as demonstrated in the images in the earlier post. As has already been said, you can't have more bokeh, you can only have nicer, smoother, harsher, etc. bokeh.

No, the DOF has a profound impact on the quality of the out of focus part of the frame. I am not saying that is the ONLY thing. I am aware that the number of aperture blades and other things can also affect the quality of the bokeh. Here is some food for though: take a 50mm lens and take a picture with the aperture wide open and get close to the subject with some background separation. Now take another picture of the same thing but close the aperture to f11. Come back here and make a poll asking which has the better bokeh.

You're not making sense, you say "DOF has a profound impact on the quality of the out of focus part of the frame" DOF determines what part of the frame is in or out of focus. It has nothing to do with the quality of anything. Yes, f/1.8 will give you a shallower depth of field (more blur) than f/11, no one is disputing that, but It's more blur not more bokeh. Blur is not bokeh! The quality of the blur is bokeh and that's a property of the lens, it has nothing to do with the camera.

 

[AwesomeIan]

The camera has nothing to do with the how the blur looks, that's all in the lens. The blur produced by some lenses looks much different than that produced by others. Yes, if you put the 50mm f/1.8 lens on a FF camera, shot wide open, the back ground will have more blur than on an ASP-C lens. If you compare the 50mm f/1.8 ens on FF to an 85mm f/1.8 lens on ASP-C (roughly the same field of view), shoot both wide open, the FF image will only have a little more blurr than the APS-C image, but no all that much. Again though, "bokeh" isn't the blur itself, it's the quality of the blur as demonstrated in the images in the earlier post. As has already been said, you can't have more bokeh, you can only have nicer, smoother, harsher, etc. bokeh.

No, the DOF has a profound impact on the quality of the out of focus part of the frame. I am not saying that is the ONLY thing. I am aware that the number of aperture blades and other things can also affect the quality of the bokeh. Here is some food for though: take a 50mm lens and take a picture with the aperture wide open and get close to the subject with some background separation. Now take another picture of the same thing but close the aperture to f11. Come back here and make a poll asking which has the better bokeh.

You're not making sense, you say "DOF has a profound impact on the quality of the out of focus part of the frame" DOF determines what part of the frame is in or out of focus. It has nothing to do with the quality of anything. Yes, f/1.8 will give you a shallower depth of field (more blur) than f/11, no one is disputing that, but It's more blur not more bokeh. Blur is not bokeh! The quality of the blur is bokeh and that's a property of the lens, it has nothing to do with the camera.

You are blind if you think the quality of the out of focus area looks as pleasing at f1.8 vs f11 with the same lens

 

[The Davinator]

The camera has nothing to do with the how the blur looks, that's all in the lens. The blur produced by some lenses looks much different than that produced by others. Yes, if you put the 50mm f/1.8 lens on a FF camera, shot wide open, the back ground will have more blur than on an ASP-C lens. If you compare the 50mm f/1.8 ens on FF to an 85mm f/1.8 lens on ASP-C (roughly the same field of view), shoot both wide open, the FF image will only have a little more blurr than the APS-C image, but no all that much. Again though, "bokeh" isn't the blur itself, it's the quality of the blur as demonstrated in the images in the earlier post. As has already been said, you can't have more bokeh, you can only have nicer, smoother, harsher, etc. bokeh.

No, the DOF has a profound impact on the quality of the out of focus part of the frame. I am not saying that is the ONLY thing. I am aware that the number of aperture blades and other things can also affect the quality of the bokeh. Here is some food for though: take a 50mm lens and take a picture with the aperture wide open and get close to the subject with some background separation. Now take another picture of the same thing but close the aperture to f11. Come back here and make a poll asking which has the better bokeh.

You're not making sense, you say "DOF has a profound impact on the quality of the out of focus part of the frame" DOF determines what part of the frame is in or out of focus. It has nothing to do with the quality of anything. Yes, f/1.8 will give you a shallower depth of field (more blur) than f/11, no one is disputing that, but It's more blur not more bokeh. Blur is not bokeh! The quality of the blur is bokeh and that's a property of the lens, it has nothing to do with the camera.

You are blind if you think the quality of the out of focus area looks as pleasing at f1.8 vs f11 with the same lens

You obviously do t understand the topic nor lens rendering.

 

[Pealut Nutter]

Dynamic range and more Bokeh.

Bokeh is the quality of the blur and is lens, not format dependent. You cannot have “more bokeh.”

With full frame you have to get closer to the subject to get the same shot you would with a APS-C (or any other smaller sensor). This reduces the DOF and makes the background more blurry. So yes you can have more bokeh with full frame.

Nope. You have shallower DOF...not “more bokeh.”

The background gets more blurry as you reduce the dof. I don't know why this is so difficult for some of you guys on this site. That is exactly what "bokeh" is. The quality of the out of focus area of a picture. Go try this and please tell me with a straight face I am wrong:

1. Take a 50mm lens

2. Take a picture of something that is relatively close to the camera with the 50mm on a APS-C camera

3. Frame the EXACT same picture with the 50mm on a full frame

When you view each picture you can see the bokeh is better on the full frame. But hey, feel free to completely disregard one of the benefits of shooting full frame.

It's not about FF vs crop.

It IS about two related concepts that are used inconsistently across the internet: BOKEH, and BLUR.

Here's an image with equal blur, but very different bokeh:

Which came from this very helpful article:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh.html

I understand that that two different lenses with the same aperture can have different quality bokeh (i.e. two different brands of a 50mm 1.8 lens). Other things also affect this. Such as aperture and distance to subject. Here is another thought experiment:

1. Take some xmas lights and bundle them up

2. Put some distance between you and the lights

3. Open the aperture of the lens to f2.8 (or whatever is wide open) and turn the focus ring until they turn into big circles of light and take a picture

4. Take the same shot again but only change the aperture to f5.6

You will see the f2.8 has much more please bokeh. This very similar to what you get when shooting full frame vs crop. Call it what you want. Bokeh, blur or whatever. The bottom line is the background of the picture looks better with full frame. Cheers.

Exactly.

Another example is cats-eye bokeh. Clears up when stopping down, generally speaking.

 

[Paul Pasco]

No, the DOF has a profound impact on the quality of the out of focus part of the frame. I am not saying that is the ONLY thing. I am aware that the number of aperture blades and other things can also affect the quality of the bokeh. Here is some food for though: take a 50mm lens and take a picture with the aperture wide open and get close to the subject with some background separation. Now take another picture of the same thing but close the aperture to f11. Come back here and make a poll asking which has the better bokeh.

Follow me on flickr
https://www.flickr.com/photos/123942854@N06/

Ok, now do the same thing with, let’s say, 6 different 50mm or so lenses. At f/11 they will all pretty much have the same quantity of blur but will they all have the same quality of blur? Also, if you show results of wider apertures, the respective amounts of blur will be similar but the quality may be very different. Now in this poll we are taking, someone may look at one lens and say that at every aperture they like the bokeh better than the others, regardless of aperture. In other words quality, not quantity.

--
Regards, Paul
Lili's Dad
WSSA Member #450

 

[jvc1]

The camera has nothing to do with the how the blur looks, that's all in the lens. The blur produced by some lenses looks much different than that produced by others. Yes, if you put the 50mm f/1.8 lens on a FF camera, shot wide open, the back ground will have more blur than on an ASP-C lens. If you compare the 50mm f/1.8 ens on FF to an 85mm f/1.8 lens on ASP-C (roughly the same field of view), shoot both wide open, the FF image will only have a little more blurr than the APS-C image, but no all that much. Again though, "bokeh" isn't the blur itself, it's the quality of the blur as demonstrated in the images in the earlier post. As has already been said, you can't have more bokeh, you can only have nicer, smoother, harsher, etc. bokeh.

No, the DOF has a profound impact on the quality of the out of focus part of the frame. I am not saying that is the ONLY thing. I am aware that the number of aperture blades and other things can also affect the quality of the bokeh. Here is some food for though: take a 50mm lens and take a picture with the aperture wide open and get close to the subject with some background separation. Now take another picture of the same thing but close the aperture to f11. Come back here and make a poll asking which has the better bokeh.

You're not making sense, you say "DOF has a profound impact on the quality of the out of focus part of the frame" DOF determines what part of the frame is in or out of focus. It has nothing to do with the quality of anything. Yes, f/1.8 will give you a shallower depth of field (more blur) than f/11, no one is disputing that, but It's more blur not more bokeh. Blur is not bokeh! The quality of the blur is bokeh and that's a property of the lens, it has nothing to do with the camera.

You are blind if you think the quality of the out of focus area looks as pleasing at f1.8 vs f11 with the same lens

 

[Paul Pasco]

Bokeh is qualified not quantified.

How dare you, it's 2020 Paul, you old stick in the mud. Bokeh can identify as whatever it wants, quantity included...

 

[AwesomeIan]

The camera has nothing to do with the how the blur looks, that's all in the lens. The blur produced by some lenses looks much different than that produced by others. Yes, if you put the 50mm f/1.8 lens on a FF camera, shot wide open, the back ground will have more blur than on an ASP-C lens. If you compare the 50mm f/1.8 ens on FF to an 85mm f/1.8 lens on ASP-C (roughly the same field of view), shoot both wide open, the FF image will only have a little more blurr than the APS-C image, but no all that much. Again though, "bokeh" isn't the blur itself, it's the quality of the blur as demonstrated in the images in the earlier post. As has already been said, you can't have more bokeh, you can only have nicer, smoother, harsher, etc. bokeh.

No, the DOF has a profound impact on the quality of the out of focus part of the frame. I am not saying that is the ONLY thing. I am aware that the number of aperture blades and other things can also affect the quality of the bokeh. Here is some food for though: take a 50mm lens and take a picture with the aperture wide open and get close to the subject with some background separation. Now take another picture of the same thing but close the aperture to f11. Come back here and make a poll asking which has the better bokeh.

You're not making sense, you say "DOF has a profound impact on the quality of the out of focus part of the frame" DOF determines what part of the frame is in or out of focus. It has nothing to do with the quality of anything. Yes, f/1.8 will give you a shallower depth of field (more blur) than f/11, no one is disputing that, but It's more blur not more bokeh. Blur is not bokeh! The quality of the blur is bokeh and that's a property of the lens, it has nothing to do with the camera.

You are blind if you think the quality of the out of focus area looks as pleasing at f1.8 vs f11 with the same lens

You completely missing the point and I’m not going to waste any more time trying to help you see it.

No I get the point but you want to split straws. At the end of the day I am demonstratively correct. Instead of addressing my points you simply want to ignore it. No problem here. I will set you to ignore and we can both go our happy way.

 

[fferreres]

Bokeh is qualified not quantified.

 

[fferreres]

It's not exactly shocking news , but this graphic nicely shows why camera companies are concentrating on pushing full-frame cameras.

Graphic created by CIPA

Honestly, this only shows the trend, but doesn't really explain the WHY.

Anyway, much of the shift to FF has to do with profit and competition. FF cameras demand a higher price, even though their costs over their APS-C counter parts are probably margin, say 30-50% more in cost, but they can sell at higher premiums like 2x the price of an APS-C body (assuming similar specs: resolution, video specs, etc).

People like Full Frame more because of mobile-camera “allergy”. The rush to own or sell f1.2 or even f1 lenses is in part a reaction to make sure nobody confuses the photo for a phone snap.

 

[aerondight]

It's not exactly shocking news , but this graphic nicely shows why camera companies are concentrating on pushing full-frame cameras.

Graphic created by CIPA

I believe the label is incorrect, it is 35mm and up ie FF/ML/LL, supported by the other documents on that site.

Average unit price of Total Shipments in this link:

Loading…

www.cipa.jp

for 35mm/for 35mm and larger format Cameras