[Closed] Full frame or cropped

Broadly speaking I would say yes but then I already have three full frame DSLR bodies.

That said, a FF body isn't going to magically improve your pictures overnight and there are lots of other shiny you [i]could[/i] spend your money on (lenses and tripods spring to mind first).

I'd instead look at what you want to learn/achieve, what tools you already have and then investigate courses and membership relevant to what you want(to do).

Of course if you do have a hole burning in your wallet and [i]need[/i] 😉 new toyz we'd need a better idea of what subjects interest you; - a wide angle lens for landscape work isn't going to be much cop if you're interested in portraits or wildlife!

I bit the bullet and went to full frame. I love it but the additional weight does get to me on a big day out if I have to take a lot of stuff.

Edit: and if you shoot movies be prepared to lose autofocus...

If it's to make money with... Will the cost generate a return?

If it's a hobby, then yes. Bigger is better.

I was talking to a professional photographer about this and although his cameras were full-frame, he was of the opinion that the additional cost wasn't worth it on it's own. He went for other features on the camera first. The fact they happened to be full-frame was largely irrelevant. In his opinion, of course.

A bit like 27.5 wheels 😉

he was of the opinion that the additional cost wasn't worth it on it's own.

If you are running a business then the cost differences are not that great (or at least they shouldn't be if you are making a living) and if you are looking through the viewfinder for a lot of the time* then full frame as the crop formats are like looking through a loo roll tube.

*i hardly ever have to look through a viewfinder as I use the live view and tether to a computer but I guess most photographers use the viewfinder.

That's about what I'd have said. ^^ Look at what you need in a body, and if the unit that meets your needs is FF or APS-C, so be it.

One thing to bear in mind, with a FF camera you're (mostly) limited to FF lenses; an APS-C can use either. That can have a big bearing on your wallet when buying glass.

mainly product based stuff

If you're talking about things like photos in magazines / brochures / websites, I'd have thought that they'll be shrunk to such an extent that sensor size won't make a fig of difference. If she's shooting A2 posters it may be more relevant.

It's worth thinking about lens' too. If you want a nice wide angle lens it will be much cheaper for the same quality on a full frame camera.

Nikon user here. I went from a DX camera to an FX body, and the difference was night and day, literally! The larger sensor is far more capable in low light, the dynamic range is greater, and the RAW images are of better quality. That was a move from an older camera though, so you'd expect an improvement anyway.

A lot of my work is done in places with crap lighting, so having a larger sensor is a godsend. I did a job recently alongside another photographer using a DX camera, and unsurprisingly, my images were technically better, and got used. The DX images were simply too noisy and muddy.

With lenses, the full frame sensor can take advantage of wide angle lenses; a 24mm becomes a 36mm lens on DX, although telephotos have a greater reach on DX. FX lenses are expensive though, so for hobbyist use, DX is probably better. An FX body can shoot at DX format, but not the other way round.

"So the question is, is something like a 6D worth the extra?"

Over a 700D? Yes.

Cheers for the comments. The money earned thus far won't outweigh the costs, but it's not just a business purchase, I love gadgets.

I have a mix of lenses, although none are the L series so nothing too fancy, but the 28mm, 50mm, 10-22 Sigma and the 17-85, obviously all adjusted for crop at this point.

Have a friend who runs a camera ship so will see if he can loan us a full frame for a while as a test run.

toby1

Have a friend who runs a camera [b]ship[/b] so will see if he can loan us a full frame for a while as a test run.

Does he work for the security services? 😉 😛

Please check beforehand as I suspect the 10-22 and 17-85 won't fit a FF body (cropped sensor lenses often have deeper rear lens element which could foul the mirror, which wouldn't be funny)

I've always been full frame and will always remain so. If getting the best is your thing regarding image quality then full frame is a no brainer and is why pro's use them, be it DSLR's or medium format jobbies.

The EFS lenses won't be usable on full frame.

eddiebaby - Member
The EFS lenses [u][b]ARE NOT[/b][/u] usable on full frame.

FTFY

Main downside with FF is weight, both the body and lenses are much larger and weight a lot more. I tend to take a DX in my camelback for mountain biking, as my FF and telephoto lens weigh over 2kg (Nikon D4s).

Main downside of FF is weight

Only if you're choosing to go with Nikon or Canon. A Leica M is extremely light and still FF (OK so they are crazy money) but the Sony A7 range is about a third the weight of a Nikon or Canon and as good overall and much better in terms of DR and ISO than either of those two brands.

While I think there is a danger that people fetishise full frame, and while you can certainly take very nice pictures with a decent APS-C based body and a decent lens, the step changes in performance from a FF sensor are substantial.

But there are two different questions here. One is whether a FF camera will provide a substantially better image output than an APS-C equivalent. The other is whether the camera you currently have is good enough for professional work.

I'm not a professional but I know a few pro photographers and they all have APS-C bodies in their bags, alongside their FF. They use the APS-C bodies in certain cirucmstances but they don't make their living from them.

That said there are plenty of FF cameras on the market, particularly from Sony, that the pro world still largely regard with the same reticence as APS-C, which is to say that they may have one in their bag or at home, but they would never rely on them to make a living. That is starting to change, but most pro's think that we are a few years away from being able to use the Sony A7rII as a resliable primary source for professional work.

That said, the image quality that you get from the A7rII is superlative and easily as good as anything else in the FF market.

Which answers the second part of the question. Most FF bodies will produce significantly better results than a contemproary APS-C equivalent. I think the only exception to this might be Fujifilm, where their X-Trans sensor is really excellent and when paired with a top quality Fujinon lens, can certainly rival FF in many instances.

+1 for the first response from M1kea.

...if you are going to make the jump to a full time gig though then you'll want the best / most robust / reliable/ highest quality kit & output.

Having said that done live the micro 4/3 jobs too don't they

I'm in contact with alot of people who supplement their income from photogrpahy. I think they all use full frame. But the all love cameras and photography so I suspect that it wasn't an impartial set of decisions. But they mainly do lanscape, travel and Weddings.

Weddings seem to particularly benefit from full frame. Better low light better depth of field control

But if product photography means objects under well controlled lighting then the benefits of full frame will be more marginal as dynamic range should be limited and you should be working at base iso

I'll offer the opinion that as you only own 2 low cost lenses that will work on a Canon full frame I'd start from scratch on what system to build

But if product photography means objects under well controlled lighting then the benefits of full frame will be more marginal as dynamic range should be limited

Why should it be limited?
I'll use the whole 16bits worth tonality levels to push around in post thanks.

(Let's gloss over the 14bit in 16bit word length/noise floor etc)

[img] [/img]

Cropped?!

Why should it be limited?
I'll use the whole 16bits worth tonality levels to push around in post thanks.

(Let's gloss over the 14bit in 16bit word length/noise floor etc)

Yes I'm sure that you can push further with a full frame file in post

But In my experience the files from cameras are so good that it would a pretty special application where where a base iso shot from a crop camera under controlled lighting wouldn't do

Oh and at base iso 6D has barely more tonal range range or colour sensitivity than a top APS sensor (and alot less dynamic range)

But I'm happy to be proved wrong with examples

Some idle musings for you and apols in advance for the TL;DRness

Having got a 5D3 back in 2012 it completely replaced my 1D2N and 7D for sports work, mainly down to excellent high ISO performance and AF (compared to the older bodies).

It's getting quite tired now so I got a 7D2 late last year and it's been excellent. Great high ISO performance, AF that works and the latest feature sets (Exp Comp in manual being one).

Popped another 10300 frames on it today at a running event, probably bringing this month's total up to 35 - 40,000 actuations. The 5D3 did remote shooting so only about 4000 today.

Despite my misgivings over the original 7D, I've been very pleased with the IQ and even use for arty farty pics!

I'm not sure why I got a 6D in 2013. I certainly didn't need to but it does get used a fair amount and is the body that goes on the pano pole for high level stuff. 🙂

[url= https://flic.kr/s/aHsk6oGJdn ]Having a hired a A7R mk1 last yea[/url]r, I would have had no hesitation ditching the 6D as surplus to requirements because the Sony IQ and DR plissed over the Canons (5D3 as well).

Yes mirrorless bodies are smaller but by the time you factored in lens adapters, it wasn't as clear cut, as can bee seen in the pics above.

I'm sure the A7R2 is a [b]massive[/b] step up, with usable AF and a quiet shutter but they're but not a cheap option.

If the question was 6D or A7R, I'd personally say go Sony. YMWV

If you're talking a DSLR then yes FF is in another league from cropped sensors. Had a D7100 and traded it for a D600 and will never go back to a DX/APS-C DSLR body.

But I also got a used Fujifilm X-Pro 1. Which, frankly, makes me wonder whether (apart from for fast action) I will ever need a DSLR again. You have been warned...

Go crop. Save on the cost of the lens as they can use crop and full FF.
Blooming pic quailty is just as good. Have a look at flickr. FF is not the be all and end all of things

Blooming pic quailty is just as good. Have a look at flickr. FF is not the be all and end all of things

Well it's close but it's patently not just as good. There are a couple of brands that get very close. Fuji has already been mentioned and their strategy of great processing that draws on their knowledge of film emulsion and developing lenses matched perfectly to their sensors. They really do have something eslse going on.

The other really interesting company that has sadly so far failed miserably to do anything with what is otherwise a clear competitive advantage is Sigma. Their Foveon sensor is brilliant and produces results that in some instances get closer to Medium Format than even just FF. Their sensors are technically 16MP on a crop sensor but effectively three times that resolution because each pixel is coded to respond to either red, green or blue and there are three layers to the sensor. Their big problem though are the ergonomics of their cameras and the proprietary file formats they produce. But they are releasing a mirrorless camera soon and that will be a hugely interesting prospect.

"FF is not the be all and end all of things"

No, but I think if you want to be able to take the best quality pictures you can, then FF/FX is always going to be a better choice. Of course it's more expensive, and the kit equipment is generally bigger and heavier, but that's the trade off for quality.

"If you're talking about things like photos in magazines / brochures / websites, I'd have thought that they'll be shrunk to such an extent that sensor size won't make a fig of difference."

Actually, due to the limitations involved in printing, higher image quality is always a bonus. I recently saw some pictures by someone I know (who uses a DX camera), in a magazine. There were several low-light images, which had needed a lot of post production work to correct underexposure and poor shadow detail. They didn't look great. The photographer was lucky because the magazine needed something, but in the professional world, that's enough to lose you a job and possibly future work. It's not so much about the sensor size, it's what it can do with the light it receives. A larger sensor is better at this than a smaller one. A lower pixel count full frame sensor can be much better than a higher pixel count crop sensor. In fact, less is more; the Nikon Df has a lower pixel count than other cameras, yet higher ISO sensitivity, and a greater dynamic range.

As for bulk and weight; this fantastic article was shot by someone carrying a FF kit, when you'd imagine a smaller, lighter outfit would have been preferable:

http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/behind-the-lens-nepal-steve-shannon/

"If the question was 6D or A7R, I'd personally say go Sony. YMWV"

Sony are definitely changing the game. A film-maker I know is selling a Canon outfit to move to Sony. And as a lifelong Nikon user, this is the first time another manufacturer's product has piqued my interest. I'm curious as to whether Sony will continue to try to establish itself in an already fiercely competitive professional market, or whether they'll concentrate more on the movie market and offer their sensors to other manufacturers, as they have been doing. Certainly currently, Sony cannot compete in terms of lenses and other equipment, with Nikon and Canon. Fuji and Sigma, as mentioned, have a lot to offer, but maybe in other areas (such as mirrorless systems). It's certainly an exciting time for photographic technology!

Oh, and one word of advice that I'm sure many others will agree with: Take anything that Ken Rockwell says with a massive pinch of salt. Ken Rockwell is all about promoting Ken Rockwell. Some of the 'advice' he gives is useful, but a lot is just opinionated (and often uninformed) bollocks. And if you really want to waste minutes or even hours of your life on a shouty opinionated knob, Google 'Froknowsphoto' or 'Jared Polin'. 😉

Blooming pic quailty is just as good. Have a look at flickr

i dont see how an sRGB jpeg viewed in a web browser on a crappy pc/tablet screen could be the arbiter of quality?

Am I right in thinking my old Minolta Rokkor 24mm would work on a Sony?

I've shot dozens of magazine features using a 5 year old Canon 7D. A highly rated camera when it came out but if you ask around now people will tell you how crap they are. No editor has ever asked what camera I have. I only just upgraded to a 7D mk2 because I shoot mostly sports and action. If I was into ultimate resolution and doing fine art prints and stuff I'd think about full frame but for magazines and websites I thought it was unnecessary. I'd rather have lightning fast autofocus in a weather sealed body.

I think what people don't realise is how good all new cameras are. I'd happily run any modern Canon DSLR. They're all a million times better than the 300D I started out with.

Personally I'd be more interested in glass first, body second.
As long as the body has the features you want / need.
I'd also consider the higher ISO performance of the sensor over the number of pixels, but thats me.

"If I was into ultimate resolution and doing fine art prints and stuff I'd think about full frame but for magazines and websites I thought it was unnecessary. "

True, but then you're limiting your potential output. Although I agree that many crop sensor cameras are fantastic. And I must ask: have you used a full frame camera yet?

"No editor has ever asked what camera I have."

True, but then they just expect you to provide them with the best quality pictures possible. And if an FX camera gives you that advantage, then it's worth stepping up.

"Am I right in thinking my old Minolta Rokkor 24mm would work on a Sony?"

Maybe:

http://alphatracks.com/archives/836

Personally I'd be more interested in glass first

‘glass’ i do wish ‘photographers’ would stop using this term, it’s like you watched too many youtube videos hosted by nasal americanians telling you ‘how to shoot like a pro’ and come out a winner in the lens dick swinging contest while sporting a multi pocketed beige action vest.

Oh im sorry, I didnt realise that using GLASS instead of LENS would cause you such offence. Im very sorry, it wont happen again.

Feel free to call lenses whatever you want, it’s a free country.
just seems odd when there is a perfectly good word that has been in use for decades. it’s up there with whip, steed etc when the word bike has sufficed for over a century.

Glass is a material made using silica. Lenses are often made from glass, but can also be made from other materials such as plastics. Lenses are designed and manufactured to focus or diffract light in a particular manner.

I'm with Mr Smith on this one.

Am I right in thinking my old Minolta Rokkor 24mm would work on a Sony?

Yes. You can use pretty much everything on the Sonys. It's very fast and easy too.

Perhaps I've missed something, but you do say what type of photography you want the FF for?
If its studio work then lugging a FF body and associated lenses is not an issue. If its for sports work then again an SLR is required due to speed and a FF may give you an advantage if its attached to a good lens.
However if you are hauling it up a hillside or using on the street, do you want a big Canon or Nikon?
As others have said Leica (big fan) and Fuji make awesome full frame cameras, and when a good Leica, Zeiss or Fuji lens then you will have a superb bit of kit, that weighs about as much as single big Canon L lens.
I did have all the Canon FF gear 5 mkII x2 and loads of lenses, but in an epiphany decided I was fed up with carrying it all around. I changed to Leica FF and never looked back.

and Fuji make awesome full frame cameras

Oh no they don't.

You're right, sorry had a brain fade, was thinking Sony, Fuji came into my mind and thats what I wrote.
My mistake.

"However if you are hauling it up a hillside or using on the street, do you want a big Canon or Nikon?"

I want a rugged, elementaly sealed, tough camera that can withstand a lot of abuse. My camera got a lot of mud splashed on it at the weekend, yet a quick wipe with a damp cloth and it's fine. Lighter, smaller cameras tend not to be so well protected. Adding in space for dust/water seals, and manufacturing chassis out of metal, means extra bulk and weight. Having seen cheaper cameras fall apart, I am happy to pay the weight and size penalty.

"I changed to Leica FF and never looked back."

And how much money have you spent? 😆

I always lusted over the old M-series cameras, but never found the rangefinder system to be as easy to use as a SLR viewfinder, plus the (limited) lens range is extremely expensive (yet undeniably exquisite!). I never knew anyone who used the film SLR system (professionals need an extensive range of kit which Leica didn't produce). I'd like one as a 'pocket' camera, but I can't justify the cost.

if it’s heavy just get an assistant to carry it. or MTFU.

And how much money have you spent?

surely the pertinent question to ask is are your images any better?

Quite. But I very much doubt that someone who's invested in a Leica system is going to come out and say 'you know what, I don't think there's much of a difference'. 😉

but you do say what type of photography you want the FF for?

Well yeah, mostly product in-situ at shops and restaurants so weight is not the biggest factor. But it is helpful that it doesn't way too much, my wife isn't all muscle!

Thanks for all the opinion, I know it;s one that can rage on for all the years. After reviewing which of my lenses were EF-S specific (pretty much all of them) I realise that it may be better to stick with APS-C for the time-being and maybe save pennies for a FF in years to come.

The images aren't being sold as 'professional' it's mostly for web and social media work so no print and higher resolution required at this point. I will keep it in consideration for future years though, in part just because I'd quite like a full frame as anything.

Cheers for the opinions all!

toby1
but you do say what type of photography you want the FF for?

Well yeah, [b]mostly product in-situ at shops and restaurants[/b] so weight is not the biggest factor. But it is helpful that it doesn't way too much, my wife isn't all muscle!

Right so based on that, a decent support and light enhancers should be first. A (decent) tripod is a total no brainer photographic item imo. If you haven't got any flash equipment then that's where you can buy some shiny. I'd personally start with some small reflectors.

[quote'you know what, I don't think there's much of a difference'.

You know what I don't think there's any difference.
But I don't have to lug about a DSLR, and I get far more enjoyment composing my image and setting the camera than i did on my fully auto SLR.
I know more people will knock the Leica system than praise it. Yes, it was expensive, but I didn't work shifts for 30 years without rewarding myself at the end. I like my camera, it gives me enormous satisfaction, as does my moderately expensive bike, which doesn't let me ride as fast as Chris Froome, nor does my camera allow me to take pictures like Cartier Bresson. Its a choice I made it, you don't have to like it.

But I also got a used Fujifilm X-Pro 1. Which, frankly, makes me wonder whether (apart from for fast action) I will ever need a DSLR again. You have been warned...

Can confirm, the x-pro 1 is great. The only downside is the focusing speed, it's only adequate with the firmware updates.

Takes great pics though, I want a Pro 2 now - but its a lot of money. For an APS-C cameria, the Pro 1s iso performance is superb.

I want a rugged, elementaly sealed, tough camera that can withstand a lot of abuse. My camera got a lot of mud splashed on it at the weekend, yet a quick wipe with a damp cloth and it's fine. Lighter, smaller cameras tend not to be so well protected. Adding in space for dust/water seals, and manufacturing chassis out of metal, means extra bulk and weight. Having seen cheaper cameras fall apart, I am happy to pay the weight and size penalty.

The Pro-2 is weather sealed.

"I like my camera, it gives me enormous satisfaction, as does my moderately expensive bike, which doesn't let me ride as fast as Chris Froome, nor does my camera allow me to take pictures like Cartier Bresson. Its a choice I made it, you don't have to like it."

Calm down dear! 😆 I wasn't making judgments about you or your choices.

The Leicas are undeniably lovely pieces of equipment. I'd love to try one out. I've used Leicas in the past, and there's no comparison in terms of how well made they are, and many of their lenses are truly excellent. And I'm sure it's a joy to own, just like many other nice things. But I suspect for most people, Leicas are simply too expensive for what they need. Believe me, I've looked into a Leica system, but I don't believe it will give me a significant return in terms of investment, over the equipment I already have. I think with film, you at least knew you were buying something that would probably long outlast other brands, but with digtal, I'm unwilling to invest so much money in something that will be technically inferior to something a lot cheaper, in just a short space of time. In that sense, I don't believe Leicas offer good value for money for my own needs. I really do get the point about size though; the M-series is truly pocketable.

The Pro-2 is weather sealed.

It's APS-C though.

Clodhopper...........ok chill pills taken.

I can justify the Leica system, because I look at it not as an investment nor a camera that will improve my photography, but as a piece of equipment that is for me a joy to own.

Yes, I know it will loose value, most things do, though I have to say I recently sold a lens that I'd owned for a couple of years and had been used a lot, for 1 penny more than I'd bought it for. I don't consider that a bad buy!

I don't know what size pockets you have, but there is no way my camera and lens would fit in any of my pockets!

On the Leica front, I think they are lovely looking devices and I'm sure they take excellent shots, I couldn't justify the cost, but it doesn't stop me being envious of those who have/can 🙂

I'm all for buying things you use, if those things are more or less expensive just enjoy them, which it sounds like you do.

I can justify the Leica system, because I look at it not as an investment nor a camera that will improve my photography, but as a piece of equipment that is for me a joy to own.

I think the point is that you really don't need to justify it to anyone. As with bikes, life is too short to own crappy (camera) products that aren't enjoyable to use.

The Leica SL is an interesting proposition though. At first the commentary was 'why so big, what's the point of a mirrorless camera that is as big as a DSLR?' but that opinion seems to have softened and now people see it as being a professional level body, capable of performing to the high levels that a Pro photographer would need but with the other advantages of mirrorless. Not sure what they are apart from the live view/EVF that is.

I've yet to use the SL properly, I've messed around with one but there's not yet enough around to borrow one.
What I do like is the ability via adapters to change lens systems. You can if you want fit M lenses and they don't look out of place, and obviously you have superb lenses, albeit they require manual focussing which isn't quite so easy with Live View.

I personally wouldn't want the SL, it goes back to being a big camera, a route I'd already gone down via the Canon system, I think I've moved on; I don't want to carry all that equipment. I now like the portability of the smaller FF systems.

which isn't quite so easy with Live View.

Interesting; I presume it has focus peaking and magnified view, both of which can be set to work automatically when an M lens is sttached? Still, while I've never really properly used and certainly not even closely mastered the art of manual focusing a range finder, I have been told by those that have that it is very quick and easy to do once you've built the muscle memory to the extent that it can be as quick in the real world as AF.

As for the size, that is the thing I don't quite get. Yes the SL will be much more manageable with M lenses (and aesthetically it works really well I think), but then I guess you do wonder what the advantage is of that set up over an M240.

Have you seen the images of the 90-200 that's coming? I honestly thought it was an early April fools it's so big. It's like a bazooka and that's even compared to the monster lens the SL was launched with.

Still, while I've never really properly used and certainly not even closely mastered the art of manual focusing a range finder, I have been told by those that have that it is very quick and easy to do once you've built the muscle memory to the extent that it can be as quick in the real world as AF.

"Clodhopper...........ok chill pills taken."

🙂

Re Leica etc: I used to be somewhat of a traditionalist; you don't need autofocus, manual exposure is best, motordrives are pointless, and digital? Work of Satan! But the reality for me is that many advances and innovations have in fact helped improve my photography, to the point where I now depend on them quite a lot. My eyesight isn't what it was, and manual focusing is becoming increasingly difficult, so autofocus is an absolute boon. Complex light metering systems take the guesswork out of exposure, and all sorts of technology enables me to think less about the machine, and more about the image. Gone are the days of processing rolls of film to discover I'd set the wrong ISO...

Would modern technology have made Henri Cartier-Bresson a 'better' photographer? Or would it simply have enabled him to take 'different' pictures? I think some of the images we see now are on another level, because people are able to exploit the technology to their advantage, to capture the image they want. It's all good though, and I'm happy to have an Ansel Adams or H C-B print up in my home.

"I think the point is that you really don't need to justify it to anyone."

Definitely. The justification comes in the pleasure in using it, and the images it produces. Absolutely nothing wrong with that!

Absolutely nothing wrong with that!

Life suddenly becomes so much more enjoyable when you realise this. It's not unlike finally sloughinh off the last vestiges of Catholic guilt about sex! I know, I'm talking from experience.

Yes the SL does have focus peaking and yes it does have a magnified view; its a personal thing, but i find the Live View takes away some of the clarity, and I'm not that confident in me being totally accurate with the focus when using the LV.
I too have older eyes and don't find the Leica at all difficult to focus via the rangefinder. No, its not easy at first, you have to get in a fair amount of practice before you feel confident, especially if the lens is fully open at 1.2 or the like. Having said that, you get the subject you want in focus. I sometimes found on my DSLR it made a decision for me, and sometimes it focussed on something I didn't want it to.
Using a Leica rangefinder is somewhat different to a DSLR, I feel you have to think a bit more about what and how you are taking that picture. I like that process, I don't just reel off a load of digital images, I stop ,look, think and compose before taking the photograph. The camera doesn't make me a better photographer, but slowing down the capture process I think does.

I too have older eyes and don't find the Leica at all difficult to focus via the rangefinder.

Having said that, you get the subject you want in focus. I sometimes found on my DSLR it made a decision for me, and sometimes it focussed on something I didn't want it to.

Yeah I've read that a few times in a few places but there is something I've never really understood. I always shoot with a specified focus point in the frame, usually on the right vertical line of thirds and the top third line intersect or in slap bang in the centre, where I use focus and recompose. I never get the focus point wrong (ok sometimes I do but it's usually marginal).

Do people with DSLRs really use rely on the camera making the decision on the focal point?

Do people with DSLRs really use rely on the camera making the decision on the focal point.

Probably those who know what they are doing don't rely on the camera other than by mistake, but many who buy DSLR's have no idea on the cameras capabilities or their abilities.

I do try and compose and focus in thirds, but like your idea of focus on the intersection. Its should give the picture some order.

I do try and compose and focus in thirds, but like your idea of focus on the intersection. Its should give the picture some order.

It works really well for portraits. I use that point to place the closest eye as the focal point.