Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 63 total)
  • Full frame or cropped
  • toby1
    Full Member

    I like photography always have, recently my wife has adopted quite an interest (and an eye for it) too. As a result I went from a 400D, to a 700D cost free (pretty much anyway as it was all clubcard vouchers).

    My wife is also starting to attract some work from photos too, nothing substantial but bits here and there, mainly product based stuff. So the question is, is something like a 6D worth the extra?

    I know the internet is abound with opinion on this, but just wanted some personal experience from you horrible lot.

    m1kea
    Free Member

    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 could 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 need 😉 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!

    eddiebaby
    Free Member

    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…

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    5thElefant
    Free Member

    If it’s to make money with… Will the cost generate a return?

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

    mikey74
    Free Member

    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 😉

    MrSmith
    Free Member

    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.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    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.

    JPR
    Free Member

    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.

    clodhopper
    Free Member

    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.

    toby1
    Full Member

    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.

    m1kea
    Free Member

    toby1

    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.

    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)

    Hadge
    Free Member

    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.

    eddiebaby
    Free Member

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

    hammyuk
    Free Member

    eddiebaby – Member
    The EFS lenses ARE NOT usable on full frame.

    FTFY

    footflaps
    Full Member

    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).

    geetee1972
    Free Member

    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.

    ade9933
    Free Member

    +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

    ampthill
    Full Member

    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

    MrSmith
    Free Member

    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)

    gofasterstripes
    Free Member

    Cropped?!

    ampthill
    Full Member

    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

    m1kea
    Free Member

    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. 🙂

    Having a hired a A7R mk1 last year, 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 massive 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

    bumps
    Free Member

    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…

    mrsfry
    Free Member

    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

    geetee1972
    Free Member

    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.

    clodhopper
    Free Member

    “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:

    Behind the Lens – Nepal: Steve Shannon

    clodhopper
    Free Member

    “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’. 😉

    MrSmith
    Free Member

    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?

    nedrapier
    Full Member

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

    sharkattack
    Full Member

    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.

    bigyinn
    Free Member

    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.

    clodhopper
    Free Member

    “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:

    Using Minolta Lenses on the Sony Alpha

    MrSmith
    Free Member

    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.

    bigyinn
    Free Member

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

    MrSmith
    Free Member

    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.

    clodhopper
    Free Member

    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.

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    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.

    yosemitepaul
    Full Member

    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.

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    and Fuji make awesome full frame cameras

    Oh no they don’t 😉

    yosemitepaul
    Full Member

    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.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 63 total)

The topic ‘Full frame or cropped’ is closed to new replies.