Do you really need Full Format

[Geoff]

I have been reading a lot of articles on full format vs crop sensor camera's and there's most
definitely an argument there to which does the best job, it seems to me with  technology
were it is today you can do well using a cropped camera, I recently had a long chat with
with a pro photographer whom came from a pratica 35mm camera to a canon crop camera
and says he will not buy a FF sensor because of the high price, and to him it just would not
pay,  there was no mention of a big difference quality.
It seems to be that it is all about how much you can afford to pay,  if you are good at what
you do does it really matter if or not you are using a FF or a cropped camera, is it a case if you
take bad picture's you need to buy a FF camera to do a good job, is this not a case of a bad
photographer blaming the tools they are using.

I would really like to know if there is a real difference that can't be sorted in editing software
with the price of FF camera's being so pricey, also how many pro photographer use just cropped
camera's.

Geoff  (no shouting at me)
 
 

[jinky]

It`s about the look you are going for and th lenses you have to go with it at the end of the day. I know that my full frame D700 gives much nicer bokeh than my cropped D7000 with the same lenses and certainly better low light performance but at the end of the day get what you are happy with in the budget available and try it out in a shop to test how it feels

[Geoff]

Hi thanks for your feed back,  you read so many different opinions its good to here
what real people using them think.

Geoff

[Tripod]

I once had a Canon 20D, and looking back at images that it gave me I wish I still had it.

I also own a 5D and a 7D and switch often between them and have come to the conclusion as with all cameras and as many photographers have said......it's not so much the camera but always the quality of the lens that in the end gives those extra super images. So small cropped sensors can give really high quality images if fitted with good high end lenses. Unfortunately those lenses are way to expensive for most of us. Over these last few years many of the L series lenses in development have doubled in price.

There are reasons and situations where full 35mm frame cameras are of better use and one of them is portrait work and landscape maybe, and will do better with those expensive lenses. A married couple I know who run a wedding shoot business together. She uses a 5D Mk3 and mainly takes all the portrait stuff and he uses a 7D taking all the longer shots. Both using L lenses which give really super narrow depth of field shots.

That's my take on sensors.

[Geoff]

Thanks for your time and comments you have made I have to agree wjth all you have said
it's a real shame that the lenses are priced way out of most hobbyists range,  I would love
to have a 500 or 600mm lens but that happening in the lifetime I think not, I am in a wheelchair
most of the time when I go out so having the extra vocal length for me would be great the only
other problem I would have to get over if I could afford a bigger lens is weight as I only have
a right hand it could be an issue unless using a tripod

Geoff

[Jediboy]

This may help Geoff.

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/11/21/full-frame-sensor-size-explained-how-to-exploit-its-advantages-and-cool-effects/

[Hinfrance]

I wonder Geoff if rather than a super expensive lens maybe one of the superzoom bridge cameras might be a good addition to your photographic armoury. I sold my Fuji HS20 EXR a while back (because I wanted a better amplifier, another story), but there are still many times when I miss the versatility, lightness and long zoom on that camera. Yes, low light performance was poor compared to a DSLR, but horses for course and all that. I am now saving up to get the later version of that the HS30EXR. The whole thing costs less than one mid range lens.

[Beaux Reflets]

I wonder Geoff if rather than a super expensive lens maybe one of the superzoom bridge cameras might be a good addition to your photographic armoury. I sold my Fuji HS20 EXR a while back (because I wanted a better amplifier, another story), but there are still many times when I miss the versatility, lightness and long zoom on that camera. Yes, low light performance was poor compared to a DSLR, but horses for course and all that. I am now saving up to get the later version of that the HS30EXR. The whole thing costs less than one mid range lens.

Interesting mention Howard, for as you know I am a great fan of the Fujifilm bridge cameras and fancy the HS50EXR as it seems to have very good reviews especially upon speed of focus and reduced shutter lag. 

[Geoff]

Thanks Guys for coming in to this chat, as I am like many of us are, still learning and want to know what people think
and all the whys one camera is better or worse, not just camera's but there accessories as well.
It's always a big deal when I am buying things for the hobby as money is tight.
I am thinking of getting some extenders, doubler's for my 300mm as I know I will never to be afford a bigger lens.
As some of you know I am a wheelchair user when I go anywhere, I also lost my left hand about six years ago in an accident so weight of camera's and lenses is a real biggy to me,  I am very restricted to were I can get to and it is always the way the subject I want to capture is just out of reach so I would really benefit from getting some extenders if that is an option for the lens I have, I know there are some disadvantages to using extenders so I would love to get some advice on these.
I use a canon 1100d because only having a right hand all the controls on it are on the right.
Like the idea of getting a little bridge camera, thanks for that idea Howard, gives me more to think about, I do have a little
samsung E555 10.2mp but this is only a 3 x zoom 6.3 - 18.9mm great little camera had it a long time now.
I have just bought a Canon Legria FS 307 of ebay only been used a couple of times and still boxed I got it of ebay for £45
so just weighting for it to be delivered, can't wait as I know these have a super zoom.

Sorry if I have gone on a little  Geoff     
     

[StephenBatey]

I don't use digital cameras - not for anything that's serious, anyway - so you can ignore this if you like.

All other things being equal, for a given print size a larger sensor will need less enlargement.

That's the main point for me - and as I said "all other things being equal" I'm assuming low light performance etc. are equal. If larger sensors do perform better as well (and DXO tests suggest that for a higher dynamic range you need a larger sensor) then their advantage becomes clearer.

But - if you're only producing photos for a web site, or at most small prints, it doesn't matter.

I use film to get the small degree of enlargement I need for the quality I want at the print sizes I make; in addition, my own experience is that digital blows highlights in situations where film never does. With a different camera, it might be a different story; but the inherent small size won't go away. This matters because not even a perfect lens is capable of infinite resolution; the nature of light limits it. But if you don't need to enlarge as much, you don't hit the end of the road quite so soon.

You can also add in that smaller sensors mean that for a given angle of view, you need to use a shorter focal length lens. This greatly increases depth of field, and for good or ill makes differential focus harder to achieve.

[Geoff]

Hi, no I won't ignore the idea, I want to know
both pros and cons and how one sensor works different to another this is the sort of jnformation
I want,  I am sure there are others reading and what you have said will be  interesting to them also as
we are all forever learning.

Thanks for your comments  Geoff

[Oldboy]

Hi noI won't ignore the idea is to get to know why FF is useful,  and why and yoj coming in and
explaining both pros znd cons anc how one sensor works different tk another ghis is t sorg of jnformation
I want and K am surd ghrd is others reading and what you have sakd sojld be knteresting to ghem also as
we are all forever learning.

Thanks for your comments  Geoff

I think something has been lost in translation. 

[Geoff]

Hi m8 don' t know what happend in that last post but have sorted it now lol

[Oldboy]

Advantage of full frame is, higher dynamic range, lower noise levels, better weather protection, more control of settings which are easier to access, bigger size so easier to use with heavy lenses and pro build quality, if you drop it should still be OK.

Disadvantage, price, weight, larger file sizes and knowledge of SLR's to get the best from it.

If you can't decide then your best choice could be a semi-pro model like the Nikon D300s, D600, D610 or the D7000. Other makers have a similar line-up. I still have my Nikon D200 which is a cracking camera except for low light. 

[StephenBatey]

Some of those advantages are more to do with how the manufacturer designed and built the camera, than format size per se. When Olympus introduced the E3, they made a splash - literally - by throwing a bucket of water over the camera to show that it was weatherproof. And the E3 has a smaller than APS-C sensor.

If I may, I'd like to throw in another film analogy. I have a box camera that produces perfect 5x7" prints. You won't get better from any camera, and I've never done better. But: enlarge beyond that point and the results deteriorate to the point that by 10x8" it's not usuable. And being a box camera, you have to have bright light to get a result. But within its limitations, the results are as good as it gets.

There's no difference in the digital world. Use any camera within its limitations, and the results are fine. It's when you expand your horizons (and print sizes) that technical matters begin to matter.

I don't know what field your professional with the APS-C sensor works; for some, it wouldn't do. On the other hand, Damien McGillicuddy is a pro who uses a 4/3 sensor camera (half of full frame).

On another forum, one photographer gave as his reason for moving from APS-C to full frame the fact that he couldn't compete technically in his club world because at A3 the prints from his APS-C camera were noticeably inferior to those from full frame cameras.

We are very tolerant of imperfections, and they often pass unnoticed until we can compare with something which is better. It's the concept of a "just noticeable difference". You can show someone a print that looks perfect - and then produce an even better one. It's only at that point that the deficiencies of the first can be actually appreciated.