notaxonrotax From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 387 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4554 times:
Say that I'd dish out the $$$ and buy a Nikon D600 plus a matching full frame lens with decent zoom; what difference would this make?
Yes, I know a good photographer can do miracles with an average camera and a bad photographer could mess up any shot, with any equipment.....but say I'm an average photographer: would my results be significantly better from my present work with the D3100?
Are there specific situations where I would gain a result with full frame?
Low light, heat distortion etc?
No Tax On Rotax
Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9258 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4511 times:
Quoting notaxonrotax (Thread starter): but say I'm an average photographer: would my results be significantly better from my present work with the D3100?
Just my opinion here. I've debated purchasing full-frame for quite awhile now, mostly for the high-ISO / low-light benefit. But while that's been kicking around in my head, I've actually gotten a lot better at shooting those shots with my APS-C camera, to the point where I'd only buy full-frame if I found a great deal.
Good lenses also make a heck of a lot of difference.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
FYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 650 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4476 times:
I've moved to full frame about 3 years ago. I have to say that is another world of image quality. ISO is important matter, but the most important is the picture you have. And you'll not want get back.
However you have to answer yourself do you realy need thios quality. There is a level of price in photo equipment you should start count value. If you only need to look at the picture on computer and upload for publc website it might be not exactly you need. But if you plan to have sales - full frame is something you'll be unworried for result.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4720 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4420 times:
The big differences with full-frame are:
*A physically larger sensor that offers superior image quality, especially at higher ISOs.
*For photographers who love to play with depth of field, full-frame cameras offer shallower depth of field at a given aperture. The reason behind this is somewhat complicated and hard to explain, but simply put there is a noticeable difference with DoF. This also means you have to be more careful.
*Getting the most out of full-frame lenses. My 24-105 was kind of awkward on my 7D, but on my 5D2 it's a whole new lens and I consider the range perfect with the 5D. Same with my 70-200. The ranges just feel right on full frame.
It's hard to really appreciate the benefits of full-frame until you actually make the transition. For most people it's once you go full-frame, there is no going back. It's like putting on a new pair of prescription glasses for the first time.
With that said, for uploading low res photos on the internet, there is NO difference.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
seachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 220 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4410 times:
Initilly when crop and full frame sensors were the same effective pixels full frame had a clear edge in terms of physics with bigger photosites, now the D800 has killed that notion as it has similar size pixels to the crop sensors and still blows them away - point being cash is king - R&D goes to the full frame flagship cameras first then trickels down.
Example: D300 APS-C vs D3 full frame. Both 12 megapixels and D3 beats the D300 in all areas. So looks like fewer megapixels = less noise, etc but then toss the D800 into the mix which has 3x more pixels as the D3 and smaller pixels then even the D300 and has superior IQ specs in all categories. Granted D800 is a lot newer but going a step further D800 vs D600, D600 is 12mp smaller so has bigger pixels but only improves on low light performance marginally and is 9 months newer.
So assuming the best R&D went to crop sensors first, probably the one area the full frame would still have a clear edge is fast lenses on the wide angle end of things.
iamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4390 times:
There is generally about a 1 stop improvement in equivalent ISO performance for full frame cameras of the same generation as 1.5x/APS-C crop cameras. Thus, if you're considering an APS-C camera that has satisfactory image noise at ISO 3200, the equivalent full frame version will probably give you similar results at ISO 6400. The very top end like the D4 seem to be an exception. I guess they do something different in the basic design of the imaging chip that makes it more expensive (perhaps part of why the D3S chip never made it into the D700), but further improves the performance.
In theory, a little bit better resolution is also possible (because a given angular radius of blur equates to less of a fraction of the sensor dimensions), but it also depends on the lens.
On the down side, you pay more for the camera (larger sensor chips are disproportionately more expensive, and the manufacturer's charge a higher markup on higher end products), and you pay more for some of the lenses, because they also are larger, have more total glass, etc. And of course, the gear tends to be heavier to carry around and take up more space.
I very seriously considered buying Nikon's D600 when it came out as one of the first full frame SLR's in the $2000 price range. I had decided I was fine paying $2000 for the body compared to the $1000 I could get the crop sensor D7000 for, but once I started adding up the cost of lenses to get the range of focal lengths I wanted, I realized full frame wasn't really in my budget. Instead, I'm saving that money to upgrade my lenses.
Which has turned out to be no big deal in my case. The D7000 is still an excellent camera, almost never holding me back in a way the D600 could fix, and I'm not a pro who's income often depends on squeezing every last bit of quality out of a shot.
Which is not to say I wouldn't have jumped on the D600 if money was less of an object. Simply that the DX D7000 was the best balance of cost vs. performance for my budget and needs.
trvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1368 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4391 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 4): For photographers who love to play with depth of field, full-frame cameras offer shallower depth of field at a given aperture. The reason behind this is somewhat complicated and hard to explain, but simply put there is a noticeable difference with DoF.
The DOF depends on the sensor size also, you can see the difference between f2.8 photos on a P&S vs APC DSLR.
Basically smaller the sensor size, greater the DOF. It (Shallow dof) is not needed on A.net, but professional photographers would need/appreciate it.
clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9592 posts, RR: 70
Reply 8, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4379 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
I went full frame in 2008, and I love it, but I also enjoy shooting my crop sensor cameras, too. They weigh less and are easier to stash in my convertible. I love the view finder on my FF camera. There are also cheaper prime lens options on FF.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 689 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4371 times:
From the point of view of the sensor there is no reason that a full frame sensor should be any better than a crop sensor IF the pixel density is the same. But manufactures don't tend to put out equivalent density sensors with the same level of technology - so you never really get to compare like with like!
In theory, crop has an advantage in only using the sweet spot of a full size lens, but, because of the excessive pixel density that advantage is lost - I maintain that the 7D would have been outstanding if they'd kept the pixel density to 12mp.
But image quality ignores the real difference between full frame and crop - its a different experience altogether. Working with a big bright viewfinder with a shallower DOF makes all the difference when composing. Its like the difference between working with a crop DLSR compared to a bridge camera.
If you are primarily a photographer, you'll love the difference, and to hell with the expense, extra weight, slower fame rate and reduced ability to fill the frame. If you are primarily a spotter then I suspect you'll think you've lost more than you've gained.
len90 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4318 times:
I personally made the move to full frame in April and haven't regretted it at all. I tested out a 7D and there was way too much noise in it at ISO100. As for the downside, Colin is right that you get a slower frame rate. However, that has not affected me at all. I've been getting way more pictures accepted on here with my 6D than I did testing out a 7D.
In the end, the body is important, but the lens is the key. Get a great piece of glass and you will get awesome pictures. I am the first to admit that I am an amateur and have a ton to learn about photography. However, my 70-200 lens at times makes me look like a pro
clickhappy: I actually don't like the lightweight feeling of most crop sensors lately. To me they just feel cheaply made and not as durable where they will last as long. However, that is just my opinion from holding it at a Best Buy.
JohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1393 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3881 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting derekf (Reply 16): Fiat Punto is cheap, nasty and will apart in months.
BMW 740 is reliable, bullet proof and will last for years.
Possible, but we are what we are, and even though that 740 looks fine after 3 years there will be some fancy new extras on the newer model that we just must have. A Punto lasts 3 years too, at least
Just got myself the 5D3 a couple of days ago. Do I need it? No! But my craving for it was more powerful than my rational thoughts, and it was 450 Euro off in my local store, costing just about the same as at BH-Photo. Not bad for being in expensive Sweden. I do love the results I'm getting though, just need to take it out for a spotting session and see how it (read I) performs
5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
That really depends though. I have a friend who loves bird photography. He was tired of his D300s because he felt it lacked in image quality, noise handling and cropability. He really struggled with the decision to go FF because with birds you want all the reach you can get, but he recently got the D600 and he has never been happier.
The key with his situation is, the D300s is only 12mp. With the D600 at 24 megapixels, he can take a 1.5 crop of his original images and still come out with more resolution than a full-res image from his D300s. Of course the Nikons make this even easier by offering a DX (crop) setting, but even when shooting at full frame you can still crop and have plenty of pixels to work with.
For my friend, the superior image quality and noise handling outweighs the loss in reach. Like I said...it depends on each person and their situation.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Congrats on the 5D3. Hopefully it will perform well. Remember, we are perfect and our cameras are what make the mistakes
Think this thread really shows the 2 different groups of users. Unfortunately you can't get everything in one body. You have to really decide if you like the better quality or the extra reach. With that said, I am interested to try out the 70D and 7D2 one day.