Digital SLR's – Do I need a "Full frame" one?

Home Forum Chat Forum Digital SLR's – Do I need a "Full frame" one?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 106 total)
  • Digital SLR's – Do I need a "Full frame" one?
  • organic355
    Member

    Was playing round with my Dads Canon Eos 550 over xmas and it kind of gave me the urge to start looking into getting a digi SLR of my own. But what I didnt realise was there were so many options.

    1st one I came across is whether to get full frame or not. I guess if price is no issue then I should, but it seems the full frame models are well oer £1k just for the bodies? Are these really just for the professionals?

    seba560
    Member

    For professionals and wannabes.
    Buy whichever one feel good in the hand and is kind to the wallet.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    It’s like asking if you need a 10k specialized road bike to go to the shops. Of course not. Ff cameras are great for image quality but expensive, big and heavy and you need expensive lenses to get the same zoom ability. Just pointless for normal use. If you are just printing A4 images or keeping them digital then the extra quality will not show up anyway so it’s a waste of money.

    butcher
    Member

    You don’t need a full frame. I dare say there’s a fair few ‘pros’ out there who haven’t got them yet. The world won’t end or anything.

    If budget isn’t a concern, have a think about what lenses you want. You should become concerned in no time at all 😉

    grum
    Member

    You don’t need one no. They are nice though – but also expensive and heavy, and need expensive lenses to make the most of them.

    zokes
    Member

    Not really just for the pros and ‘wannabes’. Pretty much for any one who can justify the cash. Before digital, we all used to use full frame

    Personally, I find the greater control of depth of field, superior noise control and increased dynamic range all compelling reasons to having shelled out for my 5D2. The fact my only L-series lens is also the only one that’s failed is a less compelling reason for the pro lenses on reliability reasons…

    ianpinder
    Member

    canon 7d is my dream camera

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    If the cash means nothing to you then fine. You are a lucky person. Get one as long as you don’t mind the weight. Personally I like my cameras small and light.

    For anyone on a normal budget it is definitely not worth the expense. Photography is about art not equipment.

    grum
    Member

    For anyone on a normal budget it is definitely not worth the expense.

    That’s a bold statement. I prefer the images from my old full frame 5D mark I to those from a more modern and expensive cropped sensor 7D.

    ski
    Member

    I was tempted to upgrade my D90 recently to a D600/D800, the main reason was to get a 100% viewfinder, its the only thing that bugs me with the D90 and other mid ranged DSLR’s, that the viewfinder view does not match exactly to what you take, I konw its not important for most things, but for closeup work I do, its something I have to be aware of all the time.

    tlr
    Member

    Depends what you want to photograph; for wildlife the extra reach of a crop sensor is useful, as is the faster focussing of a 7d over a 5d mkII. For landscape or portrait then a full frame will generally be preferred.

    Obviously both types of camera can take amazing pictures of any genre.

    And if you are buying a full frame then you are kind of committed to buying expensive lenses to make the most of it.

    I have a 7d, but I think a 5d mkII would complement it nicely….

    you dont need it…
    if you can afford it then it will be, much better in low light conditions
    much better at showing the distortions in your glass

    result in a never ending spiral of more expensive glass, memory etc…

    for a first SLR, buy a decent entry level cannon or nikon (whichever your dad has so you can swap lenses)

    unless your totally minted, in that case, dont worry about it, send me 25k and and I will send you back a brilliant camera and lense selection

    zokes
    Member

    For anyone on a normal budget it is definitely not worth the expense. Photography is about art not equipment.

    For anyone on a “normal” budget, they already have a half decent camera in their phone. If you’re spending a lot more on an SLR, then you might as well explore all the options. For me the downsides of FF (weight, size) are far outweighed by the positives (image quality, better noise handling, better dynamic range, greater control over DoF, better build and handling, much better view finder… The list goes on)

    A second hand 5D MkII or D700 will greatly outperform a new crop sensor body of the same price

    And due to the greater pixel density of modern crop frame cameras, these can show up poor glass much more than FF

    The difference between a phone and a half decent crop sensor DSLR are huge. Not discounting the rest of your post zokes, but that bit is a bit daft.

    I can get far better control, image quality, dof, low light sensitivity, zoom, dynamic range etc on a £500 crop sensor dslr than I can on my £500 phone

    Hadge
    Member

    Big and heavy? Since when is something like a 5D big and heavy? Simple answer is no you don’t need one. It’s the same that applies to bikes, you don’t need a £5k mountain bike but its great having one and there will be a performance gain over a cheaper one, it’s just a question as whether you personally can justify it.
    Trust me, buying something secondhand like a Canon 1Ds Mk1 or Mk2 will show you just how good full frame cameras are and yes they’re heavy but they are bombproof and weather proof which for some people is worth it’s weight in gold.

    lodious
    Member

    I recently went from a 7D to a 5D3…I think the difference is small in comparison with the differences you can make with composition, lighting and technique. I’m glad I got it, mainly as it’s stopped me wasting time debating ‘should I go Full Frame…’ I’m now concentrating on learning, which is making a difference.

    You only have to look at how many amazing pictures are taken with crop sensor cameras to see how much you can achive without going FF.

    zokes
    Member

    The difference between a phone and a half decent crop sensor DSLR are huge. Not discounting the rest of your post zokes, but that bit is a bit daft.

    It is. But yet you can still take very good photos in good light, easily printable up to A4 and certainly ok for Internet use on any modern phone. This is probably more than what 99% of people who use any form of camera need, which was the OP’s question.

    Since getting an iPhone (other brands are available), I’ve found I cart my 5D II about much less. But, when I do carry it about, I tend to use it much better. However, for holiday snaps around a town etc, the camera on a decent phone is surprisingly good, and as ever, the best camera in the world is the one you have with you!

    jad
    Member

    In a moment of madness I changed from a 7d to a 5d mk iii. It didn’t make me an outstanding photographer. There, I said it! It is now a serious hobby just like biking so why not? I made a killing on the old body and ef-s lenses so the investment wasn’t too brutal.

    Don’t underestimate the extra reach a crop sensor gives. Very useful for sports and wildlife especially.

    I’m afraid composition and light far far outweigh what camera you use.

    speed12
    Member

    I’m afraid composition and light far far outweigh what camera you use

    This absolutely.

    BUT, if you are good at making the most of these, then a FF sensor will allow you to eek out even more. Greater depth of field control, cleaner images (especially low light), the ability to take ‘ambient light’ photos in near darkness.

    As to the OP, probably a big old jump if this is your first DSLR. I’d say a cropped sensor body would probably be better until you know you like the control of a DSLR and can make the most of it. Then you can move up to an FF sensor. One way would be to buy a cropped body but invest in FF compatible lenses so that if you decide to move up to an FF body the lenses (generally the expensive bit) are already there. Something like a Canon 650D/Nikon D3200/Sony A37 would be ideal for a first leg up.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    For anyone on a “normal” budget, they already have a half decent camera in their phone

    I don’t think that’s a sensible statement. A £300 SLR is clearly miles better than a phone.

    Since when is something like a 5D big and heavy?

    Ask an Olympus or Pentax user 🙂 The 5Ds I’ve handled in shops seem like a right chore to me. I would not want to carry the camera and three lenses around on a family outing like I do with my Oly. Ok so it’s not comparable with a 5D in terms of camera but my point about weight stands. It’s a heavy item imo.

    I make a point of not buying anything I can’t use to its full capability. That goes for bikes, musical instruments, cameras and anything. I can’t abide the idea of loading up on kit just because it’s there.

    My mid/entry level stuff will do me just fine until I turn semi pro 🙂

    lodious
    Member

    I’d have to disagree with you about the 5D size. I tried one a few years ago and thought it felt massive…it put me off and I bought a 550D. I ended up ditching the 550D for a 7D as the body is far to small to hold when you have anything but a kit lens on it.

    Having used a 7d/5d I can’t see how I ever felt the 550D was a sensible size for a camera.

    d45yth
    Member

    ianpinder – Member

    canon 7d is my dream camera
    I thought that too as I’d been lending one and really liked it. Bought a Nikon D7000 instead, mainly because it was cheaper and a mate highly recommended one. Since getting it I much prefer it over the 7D…more options/control plus more buttons so you can do more without going into the menus.

    dribbling
    Member

    Just don’t do what I did which was buy a 1D Mkii without realising the sheer size of it and cost of worthy lenses.

    It’s still sat in a box somewhere. 😳

    bencooper
    Member

    Don’t underestimate the extra reach a crop sensor gives.

    A crop sensor doesn’t give you any more reach than cropping an image from a full-frame camera 😉

    I like full-frame, but I like mine for perhaps antiquated reasons – I love the massive 100% pentaprism viewfinder, I like that it makes old lenses work the way they were designed to, and I like the shallower DoF.

    It’s like “what lens?” – there’s no right answer for every type of photography.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    I bought a battery grip for my Olympus E-600 with the 70-300 on it, to help a little with holding. Although because the entire Olympus system is aimed at light weight, it’s not that much of a chore. Any more zoom than that and I’m going to need a monopod anyway. I’m unlikely to be purchasing the f2.8 300mm prime any time soon 🙂

    organic355
    Member

    Seems the concencus is that I really don’t want or need one then?

    Weight/size of the camera would be important to me so I guess that rules out a full frame. I liked my dads canon 550d, but that is probably old technology now? What’s this/next years equivalent?

    toby1
    Member

    I don’t have a FF as I’m a hobbiest more than anything, I have a 400D, which is 5 years old and still takes great shots – the only weak point is my ability.

    Have a shop around, if your Dad has a good collection of lenses and is happy to lend them then Canon makes sense for you. Also, if you are happy with 2nd hand or last seasons model you can no doubt get a bargain for precious little technological difference.

    Lenses luckily rarely have upgrades and new models issues so 2nd hand ones can be great and the servicing with Canon I have found to be excellent value £52 for a lens that came back like new.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Seems the concencus is that I really don’t want or need one then?

    As a rule I’d say don’t get anything pro quality until you come up against the limitations of the hobbyist level kit.

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Subscriber

    I’ve got a D7000 (crop) and D4 (FF) and you can’t tell the difference between images from the two. I bought the D4 purely as it has the buffer size to run at 11fps for 30 seconds, which is great for sporting events, e.g. I have Jessica Ennis’ 200m Heptathlon in it’s entirety at 11fps. Other than that, there’s not a lot between the two, other than a 5x price difference.

    bencooper
    Member

    As a rule I’d say don’t get anything pro quality until you come up against the limitations of the hobbyist level kit.

    This. Buying better kit doesn’t make a better photographer – in fact often the opposite.

    Premier Icon ampthill
    Subscriber

    Take a trip to Dpreview its like here but different

    Here we have a community many of whome spend alot of money on multiple bikes. But they get out and ride them

    Dpreview is full of people spending a fortune on expensive multiple cameras. They then take a couple of pictures of their cat, post it online and tell you how great the out of focus areas are They then start planning the next purchase or give up and take up a new hobby. Its like a whole land of people riding round the car park and pumping the forks a bit. There are exceptions of course. It looks like there are more actual photographers here.

    Any way back to advice. By a basic DSLR probably Nikon or Canon. Canon if you can borrow lenses. Consider a wider range kit lens like the 18-105 for Nikon not sure which for Canon. See how you go. If you use it lots then you may want to by more stuff. If you don’t use it much then you haven’t wasted much money. If you do then buy again it might be full frame, it might not. Its a bit like hard tail vs FS everyone has their own opinion

    I’ve got nearly 6 years out a Nikon D70s and 18-70 zoom that cost £350. Its photo quality is so much better than a phone that I can’t believe that has been even sugested that as an option. My next move will probably be towards something more portable.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/

    almost all with a compact or a 6Mp DSLR

    Ewan
    Member

    If you’re taking pictures of bikes don’t bother. The extra reach you get and low weight is worth more than the bit better DOF.

    I’ve got a 7d, not remotely tempted to swap it for a 5d as I generally lug it about on the bike taking photos of bikes. If I took mainly landscapes I would get a FF tho.

    Btw, what do you need to go into menus for on the 7d? It’s got buttons for every thing…

    butcher
    Member

    Weight/size of the camera would be important to me so I guess that rules out a full frame. I liked my dads canon 550d, but that is probably old technology now? What’s this/next years equivalent?

    With the Canons the models move up like so: xxxxd, xxxd, xxd, and then you have the 7d 5d and the 1d, (and I think they’ve just recently introduced a 6d).

    Single digit models are higher up the tree, with the 1d being at the top (at least in monetary terms).

    The 550d is a consumer/entry level model. There are the 1000d and 1100d below, which were introduced later on, but the xxxd series is the common one. I think this years would be the 650d or something. Newer models will have better low light capability, video functions and so on, but you could go way back (350d say) and still get excellent pictures.

    xxd series are more prosumer market. Well built, robust, bigger and in my opinion have friendlier and more versatile controls. Not so much designed for simpletons.

    xd series is moving into serious and expensive kit category. Do remember that the body is a small part of the puzzle. More money will be spent.

    CountZero
    Member

    A Ff camera doesn’t need to be big and bulky, or need lots of lenses. Sony have just announced a Ff compact with fixed 35mm Zeiss f2.0 lens.
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/12/Sony-reveals-cyber-shot-dsc-rx1-24mp-full-frame-fixed-carl-zeiss-35mm-f2-lens-compact
    Of course, it won’t be cheap, but it will certainly allow the user to carry it around in a pocket and take more photos.
    Did I say how much? Oh, about £2600…
    Would I have one? Bloody right I would, but I’ll need the money first! 😀

    bencooper
    Member

    Yup, FF NEX cameras are on the way next year too…

    damo2576
    Member

    Best camera is the one you have on you…

    GaryLake
    Member

    Do you need one, no.

    Will you struggle to go back to a cropped sensor once you’ve used full frame, yes.

    The high ISO performance on something like a 5D means I can get shots where I wouldn’t even bother getting my 550D out.

    That said, I’ve been on the cheaper Canon’s ever since they brought out the 300D and still have shots that I consider keepers from that very first body. But the 5D I have at work is something else, but then it’s easy to justify one when it’s for commercial use.

    Size is a good point. I do a lot of DSLR video (more than stills in fact), and when I’m out riding and filming, I don’t even entertain taking the 5D due to its size.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    I must’ve spent £1500 on my camera kit. I paid £300 for the camera and I have 7 other lenses.

    I have far more creative options and I can have far more fun with that lot than £1500 of full frame camera and kit lens.

    Premier Icon ampthill
    Subscriber

    I think Molgrips makes a good point

    out of intrest what do you have?

    BrickMan
    Member

    Yes.

    Everyone wants a full frame, but only about 5% actually have the need for one. Your better off spending less on the body and more on.glass and the change in going places to use it.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 106 total)

The topic ‘Digital SLR's – Do I need a "Full frame" one?’ is closed to new replies.