Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 30, 2013, 11:42 AM   #1
Puckman
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Advice: The benefits of Full Frame?

This is a request for advice

(and yes, I know everyone has different opinions, and I have to find my own way in the end, but some input helps...)

There are multiple factors and components to my question.

First off, I'm a relative newbie. Started photography about a year ago, with a Canon T3i, which I enjoy just fine.
I have a small collection of entry-level and decent lenses (50/1.4 prime, 18-55 kit lens, Sigma 18-200 telephoto).
I take pictures of landscapes, sunsets, random stuff in my backyard (birds, flowers, etc.) for the most part.

I've been considering an "upgrade" to a FF (more specifically the 6D, which I have read great things about). I know some (but not all) of my lenses will work just fine on the 6D, and am willing to sell and replace the ones who don't.

I am wondering:

1- Is there really a huge benefit for a beginner, in going FF? Will this open up a new world of possibilities for me?

2- Is FF going to make things more complex for me? Is it a step in the right direction? Or not really? Is it more a case of "each frame size has its uses".

3- What would I lose by going FF? What would I gain?

I realize it's an open ended question...feel free to expound. I enjoy reading other people's opinions.
Puckman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 12:01 PM   #2
blueroom
macrumors 603
 
blueroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
The short answer
No focal multiplier so wide angle is wide angle.
Better DOF control
__________________
My iOS devices are not jailbroken.
Bill
My Blog
blueroom is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 12:12 PM   #3
acearchie
macrumors 68040
 
acearchie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
I think you need to rephrase your question.

Photography means many different things to many different people and a better way to rationalise an upgrade is to explain how your current kit is holding you back. For me it was the appeal of the FF shallow depth of field and high iso as well as the ergonomics of having more buttons in the right place when I needed them.

Quote:
I take pictures of landscapes, sunsets, random stuff in my backyard (birds, flowers, etc.) for the most part.
Will FF make a huge difference for DOF... Not really. Landscapes and sunsets traditionally have a deep depth of field. They also are not that dependent on High ISO as you can compensate with a tripod and long shutter speed.

FF in general are better made cameras. Your camera will be more resilient to the outside conditions (6D is completely weatherproof but a huge step up from my 600d).

Quote:
50/1.4 prime, 18-55 kit lens, Sigma 18-200 telephoto
The kit lens won't work on FF and you would have to check the Sigma.

Quote:
Is there really a huge benefit for a beginner, in going FF? Will this open up a new world of possibilities for me?
Re-assess what's wrong with your current kit and come back to us.

Quote:
Is FF going to make things more complex for me? Is it a step in the right direction? Or not really? Is it more a case of "each frame size has its uses".
It's no more complicated. Focus is harder to nail with shallow depth of field but it's something you get used to fairly quickly. There is no right direction. Maybe a smaller sensor and a more compact camera is better for you?

Quote:
What would I lose by going FF? What would I gain?
Size, bar the Leicas and Sony RX1, FF cameras are bigger than there crop sensor counterparts. This also means they are heavier. It wasn't an issue for me but I have had some friends lift up my camera and instantly notice how heavy it is!
acearchie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 12:20 PM   #4
jabbott
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Interestingly, the biggest difference I've found is that the viewfinder is much larger and nicer to use on a full frame camera. The photos often look similar to an APS-C (1.6X crop factor) camera, until you get into situations where there is a wide dynamic range or in low light. Affordable 40mm and 50mm prime lenses are fantastic on a full frame camera, but are a bit too telephoto for general purpose use (in my opinion) on APS-C. Also, the same EF lens on a full frame camera is generally going to be a lot sharper than when it's mounted to a crop sensor camera. In terms of what you would lose by going to FF, any EF-s lens isn't going to work with it, and the focal length of your EF lenses will be 1.6X less magnified. For example, a telephoto lens at 200mm is actually equivalent to 320mm on a crop sensor, so your reach will be significantly less on FF. Given that the 6D is 20.2 megapixels (which is 12% more pixels than your T3i), you will regain about 20% of that lost reach from having a higher pixel count. You may want to rent or borrow a 6D just to see first hand if it would be beneficial or a drawback to you.

Last edited by jabbott; Aug 30, 2013 at 12:34 PM.
jabbott is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 12:31 PM   #5
Puckman
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Good comments/questions.

The short answer to "How is the T3i holding me back"? It isn't. That's really the reason I'm asking this question. Being a beginner, I am nowhere near being in the situation where my "tools" are limiting what I can do, simply for the reason that I don't know what I am doing for the most part

The appeal of FF, to me, seems to be motivated by:

1. A desire to "upgrade" (subjective, I know..When not backed up with a real need).

2. The idea that I can gain a "better image" (sharper, better DOF, etc.) and gain width of field on the shorter end (landscape, specifically).

Does that make sense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by acearchie View Post
I think you need to rephrase your question.

Photography means many different things to many different people and a better way to rationalise an upgrade is to explain how your current kit is holding you back. For me it was the appeal of the FF shallow depth of field and high iso as well as the ergonomics of having more buttons in the right place when I needed them.



Will FF make a huge difference for DOF... Not really. Landscapes and sunsets traditionally have a deep depth of field. They also are not that dependent on High ISO as you can compensate with a tripod and long shutter speed.

FF in general are better made cameras. Your camera will be more resilient to the outside conditions (6D is completely weatherproof but a huge step up from my 600d).



The kit lens won't work on FF and you would have to check the Sigma.



Re-assess what's wrong with your current kit and come back to us.



It's no more complicated. Focus is harder to nail with shallow depth of field but it's something you get used to fairly quickly. There is no right direction. Maybe a smaller sensor and a more compact camera is better for you?



Size, bar the Leicas and Sony RX1, FF cameras are bigger than there crop sensor counterparts. This also means they are heavier. It wasn't an issue for me but I have had some friends lift up my camera and instantly notice how heavy it is!
Puckman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 12:40 PM   #6
Apple fanboy
macrumors 603
 
Apple fanboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckman View Post
Good comments/questions.

The short answer to "How is the T3i holding me back"? It isn't. That's really the reason I'm asking this question. Being a beginner, I am nowhere near being in the situation where my "tools" are limiting what I can do, simply for the reason that I don't know what I am doing for the most part

The appeal of FF, to me, seems to be motivated by:

1. A desire to "upgrade" (subjective, I know..When not backed up with a real need).

2. The idea that I can gain a "better image" (sharper, better DOF, etc.) and gain width of field on the shorter end (landscape, specifically).

Does that make sense?
I kind of understand what you mean. So you feel your pictures would be better if you has better equipment? Would a FF body benefit you more than an additional lens? Or are there other bits of equipment that are missing from your arsnal?

What exactly is wrong with your photos now?
__________________
iMac 21.5 2013, iPhone 6 Plus, iPad 2/4/Air Nikon D7100/D300 70-200 2.8/24-70 2.8/14-24 2.8/60 Macro 2.8/10.5 Fish eye 2.8
Apple fanboy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 12:45 PM   #7
acearchie
macrumors 68040
 
acearchie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by jabbott View Post
...until you get into situations where there is a wide dynamic range or in low light.
Low light I can agree with but DR not so much. For instance, as rated by DxO, the 5Diii only has 0.2EV advantage over the 600D in DR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckman View Post
Good comments/questions.

The short answer to "How is the T3i holding me back"? It isn't. That's really the reason I'm asking this question. Being a beginner, I am nowhere near being in the situation where my "tools" are limiting what I can do, simply for the reason that I don't know what I am doing for the most part

The appeal of FF, to me, seems to be motivated by:

1. A desire to "upgrade" (subjective, I know..When not backed up with a real need).

2. The idea that I can gain a "better image" (sharper, better DOF, etc.) and gain width of field on the shorter end (landscape, specifically).

Does that make sense?
It makes sense of course! However, one word of advice, do not think that the 6D will make you a better photographer. Unfortunately it wont.

Go onto Flickr and search for groups from your camera/lens combo or on google. You will see plenty of great shots taken with your current setup.

As consumers at the moment we are spoilt for choice where even the entry level cameras are miles ahead of the cameras that we had access to ten years ago.

For landscapes you will have wider shots with less distortion but bare in mind that you will have to buy a new lens as your 18-55 won't work on FF.
acearchie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 12:57 PM   #8
jabbott
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by acearchie View Post
Low light I can agree with but DR not so much. For instance, as rated by DxO, the 5Diii only has 0.2EV advantage over the 600D in DR.
DxO reviews notwithstanding, I am able to pull highlights and shadows much more with a 5D3 than with a T2i/550D (the T3i/600D uses the same sensor as the T2i). Then again, I switched from Aperture to Lightroom when I switched to a 5D3, so that likely makes a difference as well.

I think the metering on the 5D3 is better as well, such that clouds don't blow out as easily. My T2i would always blow out clouds to capture darker detail, unless I set the exposure manually. Not sure where the 6D stacks up in that regard.
jabbott is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 01:04 PM   #9
Puckman
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Again, keep it coming.

I will state right off the bat that NO. I do not expect to get better photos from having better equipment alone.

Being both an amateur photographer, and an amateur musician (they have the same arguments when it comes to guitars, etc), I am well aware of the myth that better equipment (more expensive) will automatically make you better.
In the guitar world, the saying is "It's 90% in the fingers"...Not sure what the photography equivalent would be. "In the eyes" i guess.

Anyway, I digress. But that is not what i meant by "better photos". I meant merely in terms of sharpness, color depth, DOF, etc...Would the FF give me more than I currently get with my entry-level T3i/660D (all operator variables being equal). And is "worth" the upgrade if I intend to continue growing into this hobby, etc.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jabbott View Post
I think the metering on the 5D3 is better as well, such that clouds don't blow out as easily. My T2i would always blow out clouds to capture darker detail, unless I set the exposure manually. Not sure where the 6D stacks up in that regard.
This is precisely the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

Although, the counter argument here would probably be that 6D is simply a better camera, and that the comparison should probably be made to a higher end crop-sensor (as opposed to the entry level T2i). In other words, this probably has very little to do with the sensor size.
Puckman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 01:05 PM   #10
steveash
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Full-frame isn't a magic bullet but it does have some technical advantages. Looking at your gear, your money would be better spent on a good lens or two. People won't look at your pictures and say "you must be using full-frame" but they might look at them and say "you must have a long/big-aperture/ultra-wide/fish-eye/macro lens".
steveash is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 01:07 PM   #11
Cheese&Apple
macrumors Demi-God
 
Cheese&Apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Toronto
Very sound advice from Archie.

A good read here from Photography Life that is getting just a bit dated but the fundamentals are still true: DX vs FX

...Peter
Cheese&Apple is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 01:10 PM   #12
Apple fanboy
macrumors 603
 
Apple fanboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckman View Post
Again, keep it coming.

I will state right off the bat that NO. I do not expect to get better photos from having better equipment alone.


Anyway, I digress. But that is not what i meant by "better photos". I meant merely in terms of sharpness, color depth, DOF, etc...Would the FF give me more than I currently get with my entry-level T3i/660D (all operator variables being equal). And is "worth" the upgrade if I intend to continue growing into this hobby, etc.[COLOR="#808080"]
When I look at my photo's with entry level kit, I get the odd one that really stands out (as in is sharper, has a better DOF etc). This is what tells me the equipment is better than me. Having said that having access to more features without going through menus etc would be advantages. At the end of the day it is a question of money. If you have the money to upgrade and want to invest more in this hobby then go for it.
However I have a number of friends who use D3S etc that quite like the look of my smaller D3200 as it weighs a lot less. I guess it's horses for courses as they say.
__________________
iMac 21.5 2013, iPhone 6 Plus, iPad 2/4/Air Nikon D7100/D300 70-200 2.8/24-70 2.8/14-24 2.8/60 Macro 2.8/10.5 Fish eye 2.8
Apple fanboy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 01:41 PM   #13
tekmoe
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Went from a D5000 (APS-C) to a D800 (Full Frame) about a year ago and have never looked back. I immediately noticed the narrower DoF with delicious creamy bokeh, reduced noise in low light images, and much more dynamic range in all of my RAW files.
tekmoe is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 02:40 PM   #14
phrehdd
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
There is no absolute answer for your question. Many have given you some really good info to think about and more so - act upon as in trying out variations with respect to your camera and lens and perhaps renting out a full frame camera to see if you really do have a difference (at this place and point in time).

In film camera days, the two most important tech facets to good photos was the lens and the film. If you had the right lens and film, knew what you were doing, you got some great images. Today in the digital world there is so much more to deal with with respect to getting maximum yield per an image. What has not changed is the advantage of getting the best lenses you can afford that suits your style of photography.

Just my peanuts from the gallery - keep your camera and decide if you want to stay "married" to the Canon line of cameras. If the answer is yes, then start learning about how to get the most out of your camera which translates on how to use it properly and know its weak areas to work around. Next, look at the lenses that are available. Research them and if you believe you will eventually go to full frame, you might start investing in lenses that work on both your present camera and a future full frame.

Post processing - This is a part of the game that people often find challenging and don't really take advantage of with respect to taking an image and turning it into a great image. Learn about the various software available to you and what fits your lifestyle and needs. Whether you go with Aperture, Lightroom, Pixelmator, Adobe Elements, Corel's offerings, or perhaps Photoshop and GIMP. Lots of great add on "filters" from makers such as NIK, Alienskin, etc. for some superb adjustments and additions can be used with some of the above.


Years back, I retired out of the photo and graphics venue due to some sight challenges. Recently I have returned and found for my needs that a simple but high quality rangefinder "style" camera was just fine (actually it is a mirrorless camera). I get excellent results and still finding out more and more what can be done to improve my technique and how to exploit some of the better 'control permutations' on the camera itself. (Using a Fuji X-E1.)

In short -

Invest in good glass that may work for both cropped and full frame
Learn how to use your camera properly
Learn the weakness of your camera and how to work around them
Learn about post processing
As technology moves forward, know when to move up to a "better" camera.
phrehdd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 03:24 PM   #15
OreoCookie
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
The benefits are in most situations very small. I'd rather take the money you have and invest it in glass and lenses.

(1) Difference in IQ

Take noise, for instance: Nowadays you really have to push to extreme ISO values (upwards of ISO 3200) to discern practical differences between an APS-C-sized sensor (which is what you have) and full frame sensors. I find the sensor's vintage more important. For instance, I have a Nikon D7000 and a Fuji X100s. I can use the Fuji easily up to ISO 4000 while I try not to push my D7000 past ISO 3200. And yes, modern full frame cameras allow for even more extreme ISO values, but this is really just something that lets you win arguments in the school yard. In practical terms, a modern APS-C-sized sensor is way more than good enough.

In most situations, you should shoot at around ISO 100~800, and there I don't think anyone will really see the difference.

(2) Built quality & features

Full frame cameras are built better, because they are much more expensive. But there are solidly built cameras with small sensors, too, e. g. Canon's 7D or Nikon's D7100. These cameras also have AF systems that one or two generations ago were built into the top-of-the-line bodies. They're also more than fast enough.

(3) Missing lenses on the wide end?

I don't think this is true if you are content with zoom lenses. You have everything from fisheye zooms to 10-24 mm zooms. What is missing are wide angle prime lenses. Do you need one? If not, get a Tokina 11-16 mm or so and be merry.

(4) Narrower depth of field on equivalent lenses

This is the single sore point which makes me wish I had a full frame sensor. You can't beat the laws of physics. But honestly, you own one fast prime, a cheap kit lens and a cheap superzoom. No offense, but it doesn't look as if that has been a priority for you.
__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
OreoCookie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 03:32 PM   #16
Puckman
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The benefits are in most situations very small. I'd rather take the money you have and invest it in glass and lenses.

(1) Difference in IQ

Take noise, for instance: Nowadays you really have to push to extreme ISO values (upwards of ISO 3200) to discern practical differences between an APS-C-sized sensor (which is what you have) and full frame sensors. I find the sensor's vintage more important. For instance, I have a Nikon D7000 and a Fuji X100s. I can use the Fuji easily up to ISO 4000 while I try not to push my D7000 past ISO 3200. And yes, modern full frame cameras allow for even more extreme ISO values, but this is really just something that lets you win arguments in the school yard. In practical terms, a modern APS-C-sized sensor is way more than good enough.

In most situations, you should shoot at around ISO 100~800, and there I don't think anyone will really see the difference.

(2) Built quality & features

Full frame cameras are built better, because they are much more expensive. But there are solidly built cameras with small sensors, too, e. g. Canon's 7D or Nikon's D7100. These cameras also have AF systems that one or two generations ago were built into the top-of-the-line bodies. They're also more than fast enough.

(3) Missing lenses on the wide end?

I don't think this is true if you are content with zoom lenses. You have everything from fisheye zooms to 10-24 mm zooms. What is missing are wide angle prime lenses. Do you need one? If not, get a Tokina 11-16 mm or so and be merry.

(4) Narrower depth of field on equivalent lenses

This is the single sore point which makes me wish I had a full frame sensor. You can't beat the laws of physics. But honestly, you own one fast prime, a cheap kit lens and a cheap superzoom. No offense, but it doesn't look as if that has been a priority for you.
I also own the 28mm/f1.8 prime. But mostly, I have "stumbled"onto these lenses and have not really started adding to them. So your point stands. I certainly could spend my money on more/better lenses before upgrading to a FF (and making sure my lenses will still carry over to the FF when the time comes).

You guys have given me a lot to think about. Thanks for the all the input.
Puckman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 03:53 PM   #17
AT06
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Winwick, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by jabbott View Post
Interestingly, the biggest difference I've found is that the viewfinder is much larger and nicer to use on a full frame camera. The photos often look similar to an APS-C (1.6X crop factor) camera, until you get into situations where there is a wide dynamic range or in low light. Affordable 40mm and 50mm prime lenses are fantastic on a full frame camera, but are a bit too telephoto for general purpose use (in my opinion) on APS-C. Also, the same EF lens on a full frame camera is generally going to be a lot sharper than when it's mounted to a crop sensor camera. In terms of what you would lose by going to FF, any EF-s lens isn't going to work with it, and the focal length of your EF lenses will be 1.6X less magnified. For example, a telephoto lens at 200mm is actually equivalent to 320mm on a crop sensor, so your reach will be significantly less on FF. Given that the 6D is 20.2 megapixels (which is 12% more pixels than your T3i), you will regain about 20% of that lost reach from having a higher pixel count. You may want to rent or borrow a 6D just to see first hand if it would be beneficial or a drawback to you.
I've just bought the 6D and the viewfinder size is a huge plus. I've yet to take that many photos with it - is full frame really sharper than crop?
__________________
"Twenty seconds of insane courage"
iMac 27"| iPad 32GB | iPhone 5 | Canon 6D, 24-105mm f/4L & 50mm f/1.8
AT06 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 05:43 PM   #18
Phrasikleia
macrumors 68040
 
Phrasikleia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Over there------->
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckman View Post
I take pictures of landscapes, sunsets, random stuff in my backyard (birds, flowers, etc.) for the most part.
If nature photos are what interest you the most, then your money will probably be best spent on some travel. Otherwise, as the adage goes, if you don't know what great benefit an upgrade would provide you, then you don't need that upgrade. A better sensor will make a difference in more demanding scenarios, but if you're not finding yourself in those scenarios and meeting with frustration because of them, then carry on with what you have.
Phrasikleia is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 06:59 PM   #19
fa8362
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Is this a joke??? Are you seriously considering FF to take photos of random things in your backyard????
fa8362 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2013, 07:15 PM   #20
fa8362
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by AT06 View Post
I've just bought the 6D and the viewfinder size is a huge plus. I've yet to take that many photos with it - is full frame really sharper than crop?
No, not necessarily. Significantly more megapixels can seem sharper. But 18 vs 20 is not significant.

Full frame sensors typically mean less depth of field, less noise, and more dynamic range...unless it's Canon. For example, the Canon 5D Mk III has less dynamic range than some APS C cameras.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pub...II/Comparisons

Last edited by fa8362; Aug 30, 2013 at 07:25 PM.
fa8362 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2013, 12:23 AM   #21
gnd
macrumors 6502a
 
gnd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: At my cat's house
FF gives you narrower DoF. Which is good for portraits but not so much for landscapes. When shooting landscapes you want everything in your shot in focus. If for example on APS-C an aperture of f/9.5 is enough to get you sharpness across the frame, you will have to stop down even further on FF. Which means your shutter speed goes down (slower shutter speed, longer exposure times). And this can make a difference between being able to hand-hold a shot or having to use a tripod. If you're not the kind of person who uses a tripod when shooting landscapes then this is something to think about.
And this is not just about low light landscapes, if you're using a CPL then even in good light your shutter speed can go down to around 1/30s or lower. Now add two stops to compensate for narrower DoF on FF and if you're not stabilized you're out of hand-holding zone.
__________________
A Pentaxian, also have a wife with a Mac
gnd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2013, 10:45 AM   #22
jabbott
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by AT06 View Post
I've just bought the 6D and the viewfinder size is a huge plus. I've yet to take that many photos with it - is full frame really sharper than crop?
It depends... here is a comparison tool which shows how the sharpness of a given lens varies between crop sensor and full frame cameras. Most of the difference in sharpness can be explained by the difference in megapixel count. That said, subject to camera distance makes a difference as well. To match a crop sensor's field of view using a full frame camera with the same lens focal length, you would have to get closer to the subject. That also affects sharpness, as you can resolve more detail the closer you are to a subject. Sometimes crop sensors can be sharper because they are capturing a smaller area around the center of the lens, which tends to be the sharpest area. Another variable to consider is the diffraction limited aperture (or DLA) which refers to the aperture at which diffraction starts to reduce sharpness. Because full frame sensors have physically larger pixels, they are able to take photos at smaller apertures without having sharpness reduced by diffraction. For example, a 6D can take images at f/10.5 before diffraction becomes an issue. A crop sensor camera such as the T3i can only shoot at f/6.8 before losing sharpness due to diffraction. This site explains DLA in more detail.
jabbott is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2013, 10:54 AM   #23
AT06
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Winwick, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by jabbott View Post
It depends... here is a comparison tool which shows how the sharpness of a given lens varies between crop sensor and full frame cameras. Most of the difference in sharpness can be explained by the difference in megapixel count. That said, subject to camera distance makes a difference as well. To match a crop sensor's field of view using a full frame camera with the same lens focal length, you would have to get closer to the subject. That also affects sharpness, as you can resolve more detail the closer you are to a subject. Sometimes crop sensors can be sharper because they are capturing a smaller area around the center of the lens, which tends to be the sharpest area. Another variable to consider is the diffraction limited aperture (or DLA) which refers to the aperture at which diffraction starts to reduce sharpness. Because full frame sensors have physically larger pixels, they are able to take photos at smaller apertures without having sharpness reduced by diffraction. For example, a 6D can take images at f/10.5 before diffraction becomes an issue. A crop sensor camera such as the T3i can only shoot at f/6.8 before losing sharpness due to diffraction. This site explains DLA in more detail.
Thanks. Just taken a few pics today of some flowers and I can definitely tell the difference in quality, including sharpness, from my crop sensor 400D - although the 7 year age gap may play a factor also!
__________________
"Twenty seconds of insane courage"
iMac 27"| iPad 32GB | iPhone 5 | Canon 6D, 24-105mm f/4L & 50mm f/1.8

Last edited by AT06; Aug 31, 2013 at 05:00 PM.
AT06 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2013, 11:55 AM   #24
Policar
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
It makes a significant difference if you want microcontrast and shallow focus for fashion or portraiture or are chasing that last little bit of resolution for very large prints.

If you're doing real estate the TS-E lenses are more optimized for FF. 50mm, an unpleasant focal length on APS-C, looks great on FF and you have a lot of sharp lenses cheap so that's one good use. The 70-200mm zooms really shine. If you want "punchy" shallow focus, you have tons of lenses (50mm f1.2; 85mm f1.2; 135mm f2; 200mm f2) that will give an amazing look, and cheaper options (50mm f1.4; 85mm f1.8) that will get really close. APS-C will not compare.

Low light is much better. A stop and a half better at a given aperture!

Yes, you'll notice the difference, but the lenses are where you really spend. The lenses that shine on FF are generally more expensive than the body (looking at the 24-70mm II; the 24-70mm I is worse than the 17-55mm f2.8), whereas there are lots of great inexpensive zooms for APS-C...

Other than low light and punchier shallow focus shots, you can't really tell the difference most of the time. Stopped down to near-diffraction limits, 20MP with a great lens is 20MP with a great lens, but for big landscape prints and aerial photography... yes, you can notice the difference on a big enough print! You might need to squint, though.

The better question is, what are you lacking now that you want? If it's that high gloss shallow focus fashion look, get the 6D, some flashes, and the 135mm f2.

Last edited by Policar; Aug 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM.
Policar is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2013, 12:35 PM   #25
Puckman
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by fa8362 View Post
Is this a joke??? Are you seriously considering FF to take photos of random things in your backyard????
Why does that need to be a joke? I said I was a newbie hobbyist. Not everyone needs to be a pro to own a nice camera, do they?

I take more than pics in my backyard. I simply stated - knowing that folks here were going to ask what kind of photos I took, before they answered my question - that I did landscapes, nature (flowers, plants, occasionally birds) and "random pics in my backyard". As opposed to, for example, saying "I take sports photos for a living" which may have resulted in a completely different set of recommendations.

Thanks for being so condescending.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnd View Post
FF gives you narrower DoF. Which is good for portraits but not so much for landscapes. When shooting landscapes you want everything in your shot in focus. If for example on APS-C an aperture of f/9.5 is enough to get you sharpness across the frame, you will have to stop down even further on FF. Which means your shutter speed goes down (slower shutter speed, longer exposure times). And this can make a difference between being able to hand-hold a shot or having to use a tripod. If you're not the kind of person who uses a tripod when shooting landscapes then this is something to think about.
And this is not just about low light landscapes, if you're using a CPL then even in good light your shutter speed can go down to around 1/30s or lower. Now add two stops to compensate for narrower DoF on FF and if you're not stabilized you're out of hand-holding zone.
This is interesting. Again, I'm new to all this, but I did not know that crop sensors would allow me more depth of field for a given aperture. And since I am indeed interested in landscapes, that is something to consider. The flipside being that crop sensor also gives me less width of field (given the same lens), which can be important in landscape photography. Although that can be remedied by simply getting a wider lens for the APS-C camera, i assume.
Puckman is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full Frame Cameras vs. Not dvoros Digital Photography 79 Dec 8, 2013 02:23 PM
Firefighter's family fights for full death benefits Huntn Politics, Religion, Social Issues 27 Aug 16, 2013 12:05 PM
MKV 16:9 defaults to Full Frame in HB JMEANS Apple TV and Home Theater 4 Jan 9, 2013 09:17 AM
Sony's New a99 Full Frame DSLR guzhogi Digital Photography 14 Sep 14, 2012 10:30 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC