Full Frame Cameras vs. Not

[nitromac]

Don't be "that guy" that spends $6000 on a full frame camera kit and hasn't the first idea on how to use it outside of AUTO mode.

The key to a good photograph is the person behind the camera. Of course, people will argue that you need a good camera/lens to pair, but honestly as long as you have a DSLR and a decent lens (modern kit lenses will do) you can make very, very professional looking photographs if you know what you're doing.

Professional equipment will only provide you with "just that much more" detail and allow you to expand your creativity a little more. That is -- again -- if you know what you're doing.

By all means you don't have to settle for the cheapest of the lot as a beginner -- I wouldn't. Get something well within your budget but don't bother fretting over "full frame vs aps-c" because 80% of the argument is just nitpicking and snobbery.

 

[Macyourdayy]

It all depends on whether you're interested in taking more than just snapshots. Interesting photos can be taken with anything, but unless you're always in the right place at the right time, a camera with higher sensitivity and shallower depth of field will give you more options and chances. It's all compromises and depends on how and where you take photos. If you're mainly an opportunistic photographer like me (as in I couldn't set up a photo if my life depended on it), having a camera with you is the most important thing and that means you need to carry it and any lenses you might need. Size, speed, weight and battery performance (unless you shoot film) are all critical elements in getting the shot. Cartier-Bresson used small fixed lens 35mm cameras that were instantly ready to shoot when he saw or anticipated an opportunity.
Personally, my compromises are having a zoom lens with relatively small apertures (3.5 - 5.3 so that size and weight are kept down) and a wide zoom range (18-200) so that I have a good chance of having the right lens for the shot. For me, having to change lenses will pretty much ensure the opportunity is lost as light and subjects can change very quickly. Therefore you would need a camera that is instantly ready to shoot and has fast accurate focus as most screens on affordable cameras aren't great for fast and sharp focussing manually, especially considering sloppy elctronic focussing rings - not like good old manual focus film lenses. Most non SLR's just won't cut it in low light.
If I was a better photographer, a camera like the RX1 would be just about ideal, but I'm not and I've taken a liking to the 200mm end of my super zoom.
Most importantly, never ever use auto mode on anything. Auto will prevent you from securing any shot you're trying to get and give you the most amatuer looking shots. That applies to "face" mode or any of the other marketing crap. If you feel any of those "features" sound useful, give up now and stick to a phone.
___________________________________________
D7000, Nikkor 18-200, !7" late 2011, iPad4, 4, 5s, Lightroom

 

[Ish]

Maybe if dvoros came back and gave us some indication of what is wanted from the camera we can give more meaningful responses.

 

[whiteonline]

Maybe if dvoros came back and gave us some indication of what is wanted from the camera we can give more meaningful responses.

Bingo.

OP,
Full Frame will not make your pictures "better". Since you do not have an SLR, get once you can comfortably afford. When that camera limits your ability, upgrade the hardware.

 

[ChrisA]

Maybe if dvoros came back and gave us some indication of what is wanted from the camera we can give more meaningful responses.

I see that a lot here. Some guy posts and leaves. I wonder why. Likely they don't like the answers they get

----------

Bingo.

OP,
Full Frame will not make your pictures "better". Since you do not have an SLR, get once you can comfortably afford. When that camera limits your ability, upgrade the hardware.

I did exactly that with a guitar. I bought a cheaper one to learn how to play and told myself that when people start telling me "That guitar sucks. You need something better." then I'd rush out and buy a better instrument. But so far it ain't the guitar that sucks.

It is really the same with cameras. Wait until there are technical issues that can be addressed with equipment then buy what you need to fix that problem.

 

[alphaod]

Not sure of your budget, but perhaps if size and weight is of concern may I suggest rangefinder like a Leica? You get a full frame camera the size of a typical point and shoot, with a performance much better than most SLRs.

It's all manual (their auto mode kind of sucks), but you will appreciate the ins and outs of quality photography. Personally if I'm going on a trip, I would bring this over any SLR due to size, weight, the fact that most people won't be concerned when you point a small camera at them.

 

[windowpain]

There is a huge price difference between full frame large sensor cameras and the average digitial camera such as a Canon Rebel EOS. Are the full frame cameras worth the price or can the average camera take just as clear and sharp pictures?

If you have to ask..then you probably don't need one.

If you want a clear, sharp, camera with great colours..then pick up a Nikon J1.
Fantastic little camera, and you can pick one up second hand for next to nothing.

 

[Cheese&Apple]

Maybe if dvoros came back and gave us some indication of what is wanted from the camera we can give more meaningful responses.

Full frame vs crop is an interesting discussion but I was wondering the same.

I did exactly that with a guitar. I bought a cheaper one to learn how to play and told myself that when people start telling me "That guitar sucks. You need something better." then I'd rush out and buy a better instrument. But so far it ain't the guitar that sucks.

It is really the same with cameras. Wait until there are technical issues that can be addressed with equipment then buy what you need to fix that problem.

This is a great analogy that I'm sure many can relate to...myself included.

 

[Ish]

I see that a lot here. Some guy posts and leaves. I wonder why. Likely they don't like the answers they get.

Or get the answer but don't bother to reply. Let's hope the OP isn't one of those!

Full frame vs crop is an interesting discussion but I was wondering the same.

True, it is.

 

[snberk103]

I ... told myself that when people start telling me "That guitar sucks. You need something better." then I'd rush out and buy a better instrument. But so far it ain't the guitar that sucks.

....

That is a great analogy ... I'm going to be stealing, I mean, 'using' that line. Thanks.

 

[OreoCookie]

Maybe if dvoros came back and gave us some indication of what is wanted from the camera we can give more meaningful responses.

I think we know more than enough to make a recommendation to be honest, and we don't need more input from the OP: he or she doesn't need to buy a full frame camera, because he is just a beginner. But even if he were more advanced, it's still not clear whether you need a full frame sensor camera, especially given that there are so many excellent crop sensor cameras out there (e. g. most of Fuji's X-series cameras or a mid-range dslr from Canikon).

 

[Ish]

I think we know more than enough to make a recommendation to be honest, and we don't need more input from the OP: he or she doesn't need to buy a full frame camera, because he is just a beginner. But even if he were more advanced, it's still not clear whether you need a full frame sensor camera, especially given that there are so many excellent crop sensor cameras out there (e. g. most of Fuji's X-series cameras or a mid-range dslr from Canikon).

You're right OC. There are a lot of excellent cameras now. I'm with you on the Fuji X's; I'm just happy that technology is now at the stage where it's possible to have high IQ from more compact cameras and that I don't have to carry the weight around any more. It's good that there's something for everyone.

 

[OreoCookie]

You're right OC. There are a lot of excellent cameras now. I'm with you on the Fuji X's; I'm just happy that technology is now at the stage where it's possible to have high IQ from more compact cameras and that I don't have to carry the weight around any more. It's good that there's something for everyone.

In fact, a few people are jumping ship going from a full frame dslr to a Fuji X-mount camera. Personally, I don't think I'll buy another dslr but get a Fuji as well (I already own a Fuji X100s). While I'm not suggesting that a crop sensor is a substitute in any situation, I find that image quality is usually not one of them. You have to push very hard to see differences. Personally, the only reason why I'd want a full frame sensor in a world where I were affluent is depth of field. (Going from a dslr to mirrorless is yet another story.)

 

[nitromac]

Not sure of your budget, but perhaps if size and weight is of concern may I suggest rangefinder like a Leica? You get a full frame camera the size of a typical point and shoot, with a performance much better than most SLRs.

It's all manual (their auto mode kind of sucks), but you will appreciate the ins and outs of quality photography. Personally if I'm going on a trip, I would bring this over any SLR due to size, weight, the fact that most people won't be concerned when you point a small camera at them.

Pretty sure most people can't really afford a Leica, let alone get into a Leica system. Either way, unless someone is already a professional photographer I seriously do not recommend them getting a Leica. Considering this topic title, OP is not a professional.

 

[rGiskard]

A full frame sensor shines if you will be either cropping the images or enlarging the images. Based on image comparisons, I believe they also have better color and presence due to the pixel size, but that could be my imagination, or differences in glass that I'm seeing.

The real advantage IMO for a full frame sensore camera is in lens selection. Generally (Canon, Nikon), there are both more modern lenses available and more older compatible lenses. I suggest looking at lenses first and choosing a camera body based on the lens selection. Be sure to check out used prices on ebay as well.

Regarding lenses for APS-C sensor camera bodies, they cannot normally be used with a full frame body. If you buy a bunch of APS-C lenses and later upgrade to a full frame body, you'll have to start out on a lens collection from scratch.

 

[Ish]

In fact, a few people are jumping ship going from a full frame dslr to a Fuji X-mount camera. Personally, I don't think I'll buy another dslr but get a Fuji as well (I already own a Fuji X100s). While I'm not suggesting that a crop sensor is a substitute in any situation, I find that image quality is usually not one of them. You have to push very hard to see differences. Personally, the only reason why I'd want a full frame sensor in a world where I were affluent is depth of field. (Going from a dslr to mirrorless is yet another story.)

I went from a 5DII to a Fuji X-E1 and now an X100 as well this year. There are still some things about the 5DII I really like but they're no good to me while the camera is at home because it's too heavy. That's just my situation though and not for everyone. Glad you like the Fujis too!

 

[Ryan1524]

As much as I want an X100s, I don't think I can let go of full frame.

Maybe once the X-Pro2 or the X200 comes out with a bigger sensor.

 

[OreoCookie]

As much as I want an X100s, I don't think I can let go of full frame.

Why? Sounds more like you have a vague feeling that a smaller sensor may be inadequate without any particular objective reason behind it.

Maybe once the X-Pro2 or the X200 comes out with a bigger sensor.

Fuji does not have the financial ability to built a full frame version of its X-mount system, and it would water down its efforts. I'm fairly certain the X-Pro 2 will come with the same mount and the same sensor as the X-Pro 1.

 

[compuwar]

Regarding lenses for APS-C sensor camera bodies, they cannot normally be used with a full frame body. If you buy a bunch of APS-C lenses and later upgrade to a full frame body, you'll have to start out on a lens collection from scratch.

Nikon's APS-C (DX) lenses are fine on their full-frame (FX) bodies. You can have the camera automatically go into "crop mode" and produce a cropped image that's DX-sized or you can manually crop after shooting to account for the smaller image circle. The few times I've had a DX lens on my D3x it's performed just fine and I've been unable to tell the difference in prints at 8x10 between in and my D2x natively. My D3x has a 10.5MP DX crop mode- sufficient for anything I'd normally print.

Paul

 

[nateo200]

Nikon's APS-C (DX) lenses are fine on their full-frame (FX) bodies. You can have the camera automatically go into "crop mode" and produce a cropped image that's DX-sized or you can manually crop after shooting to account for the smaller image circle. The few times I've had a DX lens on my D3x it's performed just fine and I've been unable to tell the difference in prints at 8x10 between in and my D2x natively. My D3x has a 10.5MP DX crop mode- sufficient for anything I'd normally print.

Paul

THe one thing about Nikon that makes me jealous! I'm a Canon guy so to "future proof" my glass I stick with EF only glass, but there is allot of great EF-S only glass!

 

[rGiskard]

Nikon's APS-C (DX) lenses are fine on their full-frame (FX) bodies. You can have the camera automatically go into "crop mode" and produce a cropped image that's DX-sized or you can manually crop after shooting to account for the smaller image circle. The few times I've had a DX lens on my D3x it's performed just fine and I've been unable to tell the difference in prints at 8x10 between in and my D2x natively. My D3x has a 10.5MP DX crop mode- sufficient for anything I'd normally print.

Paul

True, but when using that option, you the results of a APS-C sensor. It's nice in that you don't have to replace every lens at once, but until they're replaced, you don't enjoy the benefits of a full frame sensor.

 

[themumu]

THe one thing about Nikon that makes me jealous! I'm a Canon guy so to "future proof" my glass I stick with EF only glass, but there is allot of great EF-S only glass!

I find that prices on used lenses are pretty stable and whenever possible, I just purchase used lenses and don't worry about wanting to sell later if my needs change. You can often sell a lens 3-4 years later for the same amount you purchased it, assuming you bought it for a good price to begin with. This is best done when you buy/sell locally within a large metropolitan area, because if you need to ship it, those are going to be sunk costs.

It's particularly easy with commonly used lenses, although something more niche can be hard to find second hand.

 

[nateo200]

I find that prices on used lenses are pretty stable and whenever possible, I just purchase used lenses and don't worry about wanting to sell later if my needs change. You can often sell a lens 3-4 years later for the same amount you purchased it, assuming you bought it for a good price to begin with. This is best done when you buy/sell locally within a large metropolitan area, because if you need to ship it, those are going to be sunk costs.

It's particularly easy with commonly used lenses, although something more niche can be hard to find second hand.

Yeah I know about resale value being good but I like holding onto glass unless that is I need to sell it (ie: better glass, new body, etc.). I have two lenses that I know will maintain resale value because when I tried to find used ones they were still pricey! I eventually bought them new (well I bought one got another as a gift).

 

[compuwar]

True, but when using that option, you the results of a APS-C sensor. It's nice in that you don't have to replace every lens at once, but until they're replaced, you don't enjoy the benefits of a full frame sensor.

I enjoy the benefits of my full-frame sensor just fine- I doubt I'll ever look for a full-frame replacement for the only DX lens I use with any regularity. I get the benefits of low-noise and higher ISO, I just don't get the full resolution of the sensor with that particular lens- that's fine, as long as it produces publishable results in my case, I get the entire benefit of full-frame with my most used lenses, but there's no need to replace every lens if you don't need the full resolution of the body for every shot- and with today's full-frame cameras' insane resolution, it's nice to not have to replace specialty or rarely-used lenses or those that are used for snapshots.

I'm shooting professional DX and FX bodies. So long as the FX body produces publishable results that are essentially equivalent to the DX body (10.5MP vs 12.4MP) then I don't need to replace anything- I'm still getting the sensor generation's benefits, even if I'm not getting full resolution- just think of it as shooting at less than full resolution, as say I might when shooting at an event.

For most people who have only 2 lenses, it's not really a big deal to keep 2 DX lenses and add FX lenses for their most used focal length(s.)

IMO, the biggest disadvantage is the inability to downsample when shooting a DX lens at high ISO or a very small aperture, not the resolution loss.

Paul

 

[Ryan1524]

Why? Sounds more like you have a vague feeling that a smaller sensor may be inadequate without any particular objective reason behind it.

Fuji does not have the financial ability to built a full frame version of its X-mount system, and it would water down its efforts. I'm fairly certain the X-Pro 2 will come with the same mount and the same sensor as the X-Pro 1.

There's a different feel to them, to me at least. This is further re-enforced when a friend of mine who used my D700 for the first time immediately commented how it feels very different to how his D7100 renders. In almost every aspect, the D7100 is a better body, except for sensor size.

Hard to believe they won't push for full frame, but you're right. The x-mount is pretty small but since Fuji has been around for a while, with a good pedigree in photography, I wouldn't put it pass them.