Will going full frame have better transitions between shadows and highlights?

[Bitingimpression]

I currently own a D7100, and I recently used my friend's D700. It was amazing. There is more bokeh in the shots, and there is just a different feel in terms of using it, and the look of the photos.

I feel that the transitions between the highlights and shadows are more smooth on the D700 than the D7100, but I wanna know if that is just my mind upplaying full frame cameras, or if it is actually true. If so, I wanna transition into full frame such as the d750.

Brandon

 

[fmian]

I feel that the transitions between the highlights and shadows are more smooth

You should try shooting on black and white film.

In regards to other differences you are noticing I think things like sensor type/age, lens and editing also make a difference along with the size of the sensor.

So yeah.. full frame is usually nicer compared to smaller sizes. As has always been the case.

 

[tom1234567]

No

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

I currently own a D7100, and I recently used my friend's D700. It was amazing. There is more bokeh in the shots, and there is just a different feel in terms of using it, and the look of the photos.

"Bokeh" as generally used in the photographic community means the quality of the out-of-focus blur, not the amount of it. The amount of blur depends on several factors but if all other things are kept equal you get more from a FF camera than from a crop-sensor camera. The quality of blur depends mostly on the lens, not the camera.

This compares depth of field (amount of blur) from three different cameras equalised except for aperture, which is adjusted according to format.

I feel that the transitions between the highlights and shadows are more smooth on the D700 than the D7100,

They ought not to. Raw images from both cameras give 4096 steps in tonality at 12-bits, 16.384 steps at 14-bit. The human eye can discern about 200 discrete steps of tonality. Any differences in what you see must be a function of the way the raw files have been rendered to JPG images (whether in-camera if you shoot JPG or in PP). Any differences you perceive are almost certainly caused by processing, not the cameras.

but I wanna know if that is just my mind upplaying full frame cameras, or if it is actually true.

It's quite possible that the differences you see are there; but it's unlikely that most of them are caused by the differences in cameras. Settings or processing are much more likely causes.

If so, I wanna transition into full frame such as the d750.

Despite all that there can be subtle differences in the "look" of photos from sensors of different sizes. although for me it becomes apparent mainly when looking at shots from MF cameras and larger. I'm not saying by any means that bigger sensors aren't superior - at given generations of technology they always are - just that I'm not convinced that you are identifying the differences.

--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006

Galleries by Gerry Winterbourne

www.pbase.com

[email protected]

 

[The Soul Hunter]

I currently own a D7100, and I recently used my friend's D700. It was amazing. There is more bokeh in the shots, and there is just a different feel in terms of using it, and the look of the photos.

I feel that the transitions between the highlights and shadows are more smooth on the D700 than the D7100, but I wanna know if that is just my mind upplaying full frame cameras, or if it is actually true. If so, I wanna transition into full frame such as the d750.

You might just be seeing the difference between a cheap kit lens on your D7100 and a better lens on the D700.

For all that people like to build mountans out of ant hills, the difference between the output on an APS-C camera and a full frame camera really isn't all that great.

 

[PK24X36NOW]

I currently own a D7100, and I recently used my friend's D700. It was amazing. There is more bokeh in the shots, and there is just a different feel in terms of using it, and the look of the photos.

I feel that the transitions between the highlights and shadows are more smooth on the D700 than the D7100, but I wanna know if that is just my mind upplaying full frame cameras, or if it is actually true. If so, I wanna transition into full frame such as the d750.

Maybe just trust your own eyes and feelings about it rather than ask for the usual gamut of internet opinions. Go ahead and "go" full frame - I'm sure you won't regret it.

 

[tbcass]

I currently own a D7100, and I recently used my friend's D700. It was amazing. There is more bokeh in the shots, and there is just a different feel in terms of using it, and the look of the photos.

I feel that the transitions between the highlights and shadows are more smooth on the D700 than the D7100, but I wanna know if that is just my mind upplaying full frame cameras, or if it is actually true. If so, I wanna transition into full frame such as the d750.

Maybe just trust your own eyes and feelings about it rather than ask for the usual gamut of internet opinions. Go ahead and "go" full frame - I'm sure you won't regret it.

But your wallet might.

 

[Chris Malcolm]

I currently own a D7100, and I recently used my friend's D700. It was amazing. There is more bokeh in the shots, and there is just a different feel in terms of using it, and the look of the photos.

I feel that the transitions between the highlights and shadows are more smooth on the D700 than the D7100, but I wanna know if that is just my mind upplaying full frame cameras, or if it is actually true. If so, I wanna transition into full frame such as the d750.

Brandon

Did you use the same lens? I've noticed the same thing every time I've got a better lens for my APS-C camera.

 

[buybuybuy]

A question only a neophyte--a good and proper one at that--would ask.

Transitions between shadows and highlights are a function of:

• The lens used: some lenses can compress highlights slightly (e.g., the 14-24)
• The camera used
• The post-processing: highlight/shadow recovery can smooth transitions. Conversely, blocky transitions (e.g., posterization) can be induced by selective alterations to hue/saturation

So, you need to step back and consider what exactly you are asking? It's a question riddled with so many confounds that I can't imagine that jumping to conclusions (e.g., FF is an elixir) would be productive.

 

[Chikubi]

I currently own a D7100, and I recently used my friend's D700. It was amazing. There is more bokeh in the shots, and there is just a different feel in terms of using it, and the look of the photos.

I feel that the transitions between the highlights and shadows are more smooth on the D700 than the D7100, but I wanna know if that is just my mind upplaying full frame cameras, or if it is actually true. If so, I wanna transition into full frame such as the d750.

Brandon

 

[Billy Ray Valentine]

A question only a neophyte--a good and proper one at that--would ask.

Transitions between shadows and highlights are a function of:

• The lens used: some lenses can compress highlights slightly (e.g., the 14-24)
• The camera used
• The post-processing: highlight/shadow recovery can smooth transitions. Conversely, blocky transitions (e.g., posterization) can be induced by selective alterations to hue/saturation

So, you need to step back and consider what exactly you are asking? It's a question riddled with so many confounds that I can't imagine that jumping to conclusions (e.g., FF is an elixir) would be productive.

 

[buybuybuy]

Pay attention to the message, not the individual words. The gospel according to buybuybuy is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[Billy Ray Valentine]

Pay attention to the message, not the individual words. The gospel according to buybuybuy is greater than the sum of its parts.

LOL!

 

[Camley]

I currently own a D7100, and I recently used my friend's D700. It was amazing. There is more bokeh in the shots, and there is just a different feel in terms of using it, and the look of the photos.

I feel that the transitions between the highlights and shadows are more smooth on the D700 than the D7100, but I wanna know if that is just my mind upplaying full frame cameras, or if it is actually true. If so, I wanna transition into full frame such as the d750.

Brandon

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

I currently own a D7100, and I recently used my friend's D700. It was amazing. There is more bokeh in the shots, and there is just a different feel in terms of using it, and the look of the photos.

I feel that the transitions between the highlights and shadows are more smooth on the D700 than the D7100, but I wanna know if that is just my mind upplaying full frame cameras, or if it is actually true. If so, I wanna transition into full frame such as the d750.

Brandon

--
Best Work
http://www.flickr.com/photos/khoazy/

All Work
https://www.flickr.com/photos/khoazyschs/

If you are winning awards with D7100, unlikely you will win any more awards with FF. However, if FF is what you want, then you should get it. In my film days, even though I did not win any awards, prints from MF always looked better. But it's not because a larger film performed any better, it just that I needed to enlarge less.

Good luck!

 

[Bitingimpression]

I used a 24-70, 70-200, and a 85mm 1.4, so I doubt that the glass is the case

 

[CreeDo]

I currently own a D7100, and I recently used my friend's D700. It was amazing. There is more bokeh in the shots, and there is just a different feel in terms of using it, and the look of the photos.

I feel that the transitions between the highlights and shadows are more smooth on the D700 than the D7100, but I wanna know if that is just my mind upplaying full frame cameras, or if it is actually true. If so, I wanna transition into full frame such as the d750.

More blur in front and back is normal for full-frame, and if you like that then you may want to switch.

I dunno how much homework you've done on the whole equivalence thing, but basically if you stand in the the same place and shoot the same thing, using the same lens on both your APS-C camera (the D7100) and your buddy's full-frame...

Your camera will give you 1.5x the focal length (so it's like being able to zoom 50% closer than his) but also 1.5x more depth of field, which you may not like. It means less of the background will be blurred, or the blurring won't be as heavy.

Dynamic range (which helps determine how the transition from highlights to shadows looks) is mostly about the sensor design. Nikon and Sony cameras are especially good at offering tons of dynamic range. And that applies to both FF and APS-C cameras.

In fact, in DXOmark tests, the latest versions of your camera and his camera (the d7200 and d750) are practically identical in the dynamic range department.

So you don't need to go full-frame to get those smooth transitions. What you're seeing on his D700 might be one of the other side effects of full-frame goodness. These include:

• More total light gathered on the sensor = a little less noise and a little more exposure

• Lower ISO needed to achieve the same exposure... dynamic range drops as you add ISO, so it's nice when you can keep it lower.

• Smaller depth of field might make the highlight-to-shadow transitions blurrier, and therefore they look smoother.

If you can afford the bigger sensor, and the difference in size and weight isn't a dealbreaker... and if you mostly own full-frame lenses that will be compatible... then I think you'll be happy if you switch.

The only exception might be if you like having 1.5x the focal length... basically more zoom. That's nice if you're shooting stuff like birds, which require a lot of zoom.

If birds aren't your thing, get a D750 or some other FF and you'll probably be very happy. I've certainly read many glowing reviews of the D750, it's the 2nd-highest-rated camera on this site, and DXOmark loves it also. It's a monster in terms of dynamic range and has lots of other pro features, which you'd expect if you are willing to drop $1000 more on your next camera than you probably paid for this one.

 

[brownie314]

No, I don't think you will see a big difference. I would suggest (if you still have access to your friends camera) to do a double blind test and see if you can see the difference in similar images taken with the two cameras. If you can - and you consistently like one more than the other - then take the leap.

 

[briantii]

I currently own a D7100, and I recently used my friend's D700. It was amazing. There is more bokeh in the shots, and there is just a different feel in terms of using it, and the look of the photos.

I feel that the transitions between the highlights and shadows are more smooth on the D700 than the D7100, but I wanna know if that is just my mind upplaying full frame cameras, or if it is actually true. If so, I wanna transition into full frame such as the d750.

Brandon

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Your camera will give you 1.5x the focal length (so it's like being able to zoom 50% closer than his) but also 1.5x more depth of field, which you may not like. It means less of the background will be blurred, or the blurring won't be as heavy.

The only exception might be if you like having 1.5x the focal length... basically more zoom. That's nice if you're shooting stuff like birds, which require a lot of zoom.

Most of your post (which I've deleted) is good advice; but this is very misleading.

The whole point about focal length is that it is the same whatever camera the lens is mounted on. What "crop sensor" cameras do is capture a smaller proportion of the image projected by the lens, in the ratio of the crop factor.

A 1.5 crop sensor does not give 1.5x the focal length - it gives a field of view that is (1/1.5x) the width of FOV of the same FL lens on a FF sensor. Its FOV is therefore the equivalent of the FOV from a lens of 1.5x longer FL when used on FF, but that's not the same as actually having a longer FL.