Full Frame Cameras vs. Not

[OreoCookie]

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.

It's not quite clear to me what you mean by that: if you are referring to colors, I find the differences between how colors are rendered on my D7000's RAWs and my X100s to be much more significant than between the different Nikon bodies I own.

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.

I think a full frame version of the X100s is in the cards, but I don't think Fuji can (or should) create a second mount which detracts from their X-mount. It would also negate a second big advantage: the X-mount system is quite affordable.

 

[themumu]

I think a full frame version of the X100s is in the cards, but I don't think Fuji can (or should) create a second mount which detracts from their X-mount. It would also negate a second big advantage: the X-mount system is quite affordable.

I'm not sure how a full frame version of the X100s would work. Judging by the price differential of existing crop and full frame cameras, a full frame X100s would have to be quite expensive, but with a fixed lens. Much smaller market for that, as X100/s already is very niche in many respects, often a camera for someone who already has a big and expensive DSLR. How many people would buy it if it was $2K instead of $1200-1300?

 

[OreoCookie]

I'm not sure how a full frame version of the X100s would work. Judging by the price differential of existing crop and full frame cameras, a full frame X100s would have to be quite expensive, but with a fixed lens. Much smaller market for that, as X100/s already is very niche in many respects, often a camera for someone who already has a big and expensive DSLR. How many people would buy it if it was $2K instead of $1200-1300?

No, any full frame sensor camera is expensive and addresses a niche market. Which is why I don't think Fuji needs to enter that market and I don't think there are many applications where it matters. I would expect that a full frame version of the X100s would be about twice as expensive, slightly heavier and larger, and sell at even lower quantities. When I wrote that a X200s (full frame) is in the cards, I meant that I could picture Fuji releasing one to compete with the RX-1, for instance, but clearly, that's more a showcase product which draws people in.

Canon and Nikon have been trying (and failing at) that strategy with their dslrs: many ambitious amateurs want full frame dslrs for the same reason you want the BMW M3 but drive the much more sensible 320d. They exacerbate the situation by not releasing certain crop sensor lenses even though they could (e. g. more reasonably priced wide-angle primes, ultrawide angle primes, etc.).

 

[themumu]

No, any full frame sensor camera is expensive and addresses a niche market. Which is why I don't think Fuji needs to enter that market and I don't think there are many applications where it matters. I would expect that a full frame version of the X100s would be about twice as expensive, slightly heavier and larger, and sell at even lower quantities. When I wrote that a X200s (full frame) is in the cards, I meant that I could picture Fuji releasing one to compete with the RX-1, for instance, but clearly, that's more a showcase product which draws people in.

True. If the X100 is already kind of niche, and full frame is niche, the combination would be a tiny niche within a niche and a market smaller than that of a BMW M3 It would be like a Leica: a good thing in concept, but so expensive, most people who get it, don't use it anywhere near its potential. Kind of like most Porsches I see around the city, driving granny style

 

[Attonine]

Didn't Fuji state this year that the X Mount cannot become full frame? I'm sure I read this somewhere. I'm sure Fuji stated the XF lenses cannot cover a 35mm frame.

Here's a link from 2012 with the quotes from Fuji:

http://photorumors.com/2012/09/21/f...nd-panasonic-full-frame-cameras-are-possible/

 

[compuwar]

I think a full frame version of the X100s is in the cards, but I don't think Fuji can (or should) create a second mount which detracts from their X-mount. It would also negate a second big advantage: the X-mount system is quite affordable.

The flange distance of the (new) X-mount is 17.7mm. The shortest 35mm flange distance seems to be the Leica M mount at 27.7mm, and it took Leica several generations to get acceptable corner performance out of such a close flange focal distance-- though they were dealing with legacy lens designs. Do you think it's possible to produce lenses that work well at such a close distance on a larger image circle?

Paul

 

[OreoCookie]

The flange distance of the (new) X-mount is 17.7mm. The shortest 35mm flange distance seems to be the Leica M mount at 27.7mm, and it took Leica several generations to get acceptable corner performance out of such a close flange focal distance-- though they were dealing with legacy lens designs. Do you think it's possible to produce lenses that work well at such a close distance on a larger image circle?

I'm not an optical engineer, but as I indicated in my post, if Fuji decides to make a set of full frame interchangeable lens cameras, I expect they make their own mount. If they made just a full frame version of the X100s, a fixed lens camera, they wouldn't have that problem. They could dip their toes into the water and mitigate the risk. But overall, I think the chances are slim, and I think that's actually a good thing (Because all these engineers are working full force on X-mount cameras and such.) The best feature about the X-series and why for me they are the new Leica is that they are affordable.

 

[tech4all]

If you're a professional photographer, you'll probably want a full-frame camera. If you're a very serious hobbyist, and money isn't an issue, and you don't might the extra size and weight of a full-frame system, then you might consider going full-frame. If so, check out the reviews of the about-to-be-released Sony A7, which is "only" $2,000 with kit lens – not cheap, but less expensive than any other full-frame camera on the market. Being mirrorless, it's also smaller and lighter. I ended up buying a Sony NEX 6, which currently is $800 with kit lens. So far, I love it. If at some point I feel the need for a full-frame camera, I figure they'll have come down in price.

"Amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light... I just take pictures... " - Vernon Trent

I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying you don't 'need' a full-frame sensor take good pics.

Which were pretty well cutting edge for the time!

Jus' sayin'

Yet their photos still likley are better than one's taken today by "pros" with "nice cameras." Just sayin'

Just imagine what Ansel Adams could do with current technology!

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

"Amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light... I just take pictures... " - Vernon Trent

I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying you don't 'need' a full-frame sensor take good pics.

------------

Yet their photos still likley are better than one's taken today by "pros" with "nice cameras." Just sayin'

Just imagine what Ansel Adams could do with current technology!

I totally agree with everything you are saying there and before! I was just winding you up, sorry.

For me personally, it has become a study of light and form, first and foremost. This occurs for me with a lot of detail and scrutiny being paid to what I'm trying to capture and a lot of time being spent doing that. It's my version of Doylems 'just sitting' I suppose!

I think this is the thing that the old Masters had in abundance over the myriad of expensive/latest generation gear wielders out there. The ability to see the light is what makes a photograph come to life, for me. If you can truly see it, you can easily capture it, even with an iPhone.

For me it's become a journey to capture the essence of a place or thing as I feel and observe it. I'm consciously trying to move past the need to always have "pretty" pictures and really am trying my best to capture the feel of the place or thing. This is where I have seen the biggest improvement in my photography, not in my moving to full-frame gear. The two occurred around the same time for me though.

It's also not about spraying off masses of shutter activations and hoping that you'll have something good to see when you import them later. Yesterday, I spent an hour at the local beach observing the high tide and some amazing wind. I came back with sixteen captures! Out of those, I have four different scenes and six really well composed and captured pictures that I could post SOOC if need be. Given some TLC in post production, which I'm about to commence now, they hopefully can shine even more.

This has been an interesting conversation/thread to observe here. Some are (and I feel may always be) caught up in the technical nitty gritty of the gear, there are others observing the capture process and there are others who have a good balance of the two. Me, I'm somewhere between the nerd and the artist!

 

[Ubele]

"Amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light... I just take pictures... " - Vernon Trent

I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying you don't 'need' a full-frame sensor take good pics.

Absolutely. I've taken many good (and even a few great) pictures with my iPhone camera — usually on days when the light, weather, and scenery conditions were stunning, and the only decision I had to make was how to frame the shots. But there are things I can't do with my iPhone camera, such as varying the depth of field or taking decent pictures in low light, which is why I decided to buy a Sony NEX 6. I'm sure there are a handful of things that a full-frame camera could do that my NEX 6 can't, but I may never deem them important enough to spend money on a full-frame camera. I'm one of Vernon Trent's aforementioned amateurs who historically has purchased higher-end equipment than I need for my hobbies (don't get me started on musical instruments and recording gear), and it's a habit I've been curbing in recent years. I'm very proud of myself for not justifiying the extra $1,000 it would have cost to buy an Olympus OMD EM-1 with lens, just for the weather-sealing.

 

[gnd]

Check this out:
http://guesstheformat.com/photo

Yeah, full frame is clearly miles ahead of anything else ...

 

[calderone]

Check this out:
http://guesstheformat.com/photo

Yeah, full frame is clearly miles ahead of anything else ...

Pretty pointless exercise. A technically strong image is just that, regardless of what it is taken with. This quiz simply puts forth a number of technically and aesthetically (some are crap and meant to trick the quiz taker) strong photos in a small format, you may as well guess as the task is impossible (as it should be).

Quite honestly, people fret too much over gear and that quiz is proof. FF has its strong points (printing, noise response), but as many of us know, the lenses matter. Spend your money on great lenses that render in the style you prefer.

Purchase items in this order:
Photos Books (assuming you want to be a good photographer) -> Lenses -> Camera Body

 

[steveash]

I'm one of Vernon Trent's aforementioned amateurs who historically has purchased higher-end equipment than I need for my hobbies (don't get me started on musical instruments and recording gear), and it's a habit I've been curbing in recent years. I'm very proud of myself for not justifiying the extra $1,000 it would have cost to buy an Olympus OMD EM-1 with lens, just for the weather-sealing.

I think the musical instrument analogy is a good one as while a beginner guitarist does not need a Gibson Les Paul to practice their scales it doesn't stop them desiring one or buying one if they have the means, even just to put on a shelf and look at. Some people mix up need and want, sometimes just to justify a purchase while others can't get past the idea of people less experienced having better gear. In reality the dreamers help sales of high end gear improving economies of scale and bringing down prices for all of us. I'm pretty sure Hasselblad, Phase One and Leica (possibly Gibson too) are kept in business by wealth retirees and the world is a better place for it. Even if the guy standing next to me with a better camera hasn't worked out that it needs a memory card yet...

 

[photographypro]

Advice from a pro

I am a professional photographer, and I actually shoot with both full frame and APS-C (crop sensor) cameras.

Ubele actually summed things up very accurately. Full frame is going to give you exactly one extra f-stop of shallow depth of field, less noise, and more resolution.

However, I have 15 Nikon lenses, And several of them are crop sensor or DX lenses. I used to own Nikon's best camera, the dD2X, which was a $5000 camera, and it was a crop sensor camera. At that time, Nikon pretty much said that it would probably not create a full- frame camera. I personally just got into full frame just over a year ago. Three quarters of the photographs on my website were taken with crop sensor bodies.

Today's crop sensor cameras are capable of delivering more resolution than you will probably ever need, plenty of shallow depth of field, and almost any camera made in the last four or five years will give you very little noise at higher ISOs.

If you have the money and want the best, and don't mind the weight, then I would invest in a full frame system. Fortunately Canon and Nikon have both introduced under $2000 full frame bodies. Of course you also need the lenses to go with it. Superwide in the lenses are going to cost a lot more on a full frame camera. Fortunately MOST telephoto lenses will work with both full frame and crop sensor bodies.

There are a small handful of professionals out there that are actually doing work with micro 4/3 cameras, but personally I feel that an APSC sensor is the smallest I would use for professional work.

Fuji for example makes excellent retro style cameras with APS-C sensors, and they don't need to be full frame.

You can see my work at http://www.nathansmithphotography.com to see what APS-C is capable of.

 

[duncanapple]

I don't think I can add much to what has been said above but one thing I dont think has been mentioned yet in the "pros" column of the the full frame; at least for me, the first time I looked through the view finder of my 5DII I was amazed at how large and bright the view actually was. Conversely going back to a crop body is noticeable and IMO harder to use. But as others have said above that is not taking away anything from crop bodies. And you can really only compare IQ of full frame vs crop within a couple years of bodies. I'd think some of the new crop frames coming out may be technically superior to my now "old" 5DII when you pixel peep. Just a guess.

A good photographer can make due with just about anything - the right tools just make it easier.

 

[snberk103]

Has anybody mentioned the effect of different sensor sizes on depth of Field yet? Not a direct effect of course, but that to get the same perspective you need to use a different focal length - which does change the DoF, or course.

 

[snerkler]

I haven't read all the replies, but in response to the original question it's difficult one as you've asked it Full Frame is worth the money over other cameras, and worth is a matter of opinion.

I've only got into photography relatively recently and struggled to tell a great deal of difference between a compact (a good example) and an APS-C DSLR. However, having gotten into photography more and started doing processing the difference between a compact is night and day.

Likewise, I couldn't see the difference between APS-C and Full Frame, but now there is a clear difference comparing images taken with the same lens. As pointed out already, the lens is arguably more important than the body, but there is a noticeable difference between APS-C and FF. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but the images pop more (not just talking about DOF). They seem to capture more detail (un-related to MP), and there seems to be more 'depth' to the images. I will definitely be making the upgrade to FF if I can ever afford it.

What the difference is between mid range FF's and high end FF's is though I'm less aware. For example the Canon 5D Mark III can be had for around £2500, yet the 1D is £4500 and to my eyes there's no discernible difference in image quality to my eyes so I guess you're paying for things such as autofocus and features? It just so happens then when I search through flickr etc most of the images I'm wowed by just so happen to be taken with the Canon 5D Mark III, produces amazing images IMO.

I'm actually a Sony user (waits for the laughs to disappear, I have my reasons though ) and have the A77 (APS-C). When I compare images with the A99 (Full Frame) taken with the same lens (such as the 70400G) again there is a noticeable difference in image quality IQ.

APS-C's have 2 advantages though (which may have already been pointed out), the weight, and that they give a better reach due to the crop, so a 300mm lens actually gives you the equivalent zoom of a 450mm lens (480mm for some Canons). So if IQ isn't as important as reach then APS-C is definitely the way forward. But if IQ is the most important thing, and you have plenty of cash then full frame with a top notch lens is the way forward.

I don't know if this answered your question or not? To me the difference in IQ between my APS-C, which can now be had for under £700, and a £2k FF is worth the extra cash. However some will barely be able to tell the difference and so will struggle to justify the extra £1300.

One more thing worth noting is that although it's been said that the lens is arguably the most important thing, this isn't quite true. The person behind the camera is the most important thing. Someone that knows what they're doing can get a better image with a £200 compact that someone that doesn't know what they're doing with £4k worth of camera and lens.

 

[nateo200]

One more thing worth noting is that although it's been said that the lens is arguably the most important thing, this isn't quite true. The person behind the camera is the most important thing. Someone that knows what they're doing can get a better image with a £200 compact that someone that doesn't know what they're doing with £4k worth of camera and lens.

I pray to God that in a photography section on any site of any level this is a given....I think after all the replies we can assume this and move on to the fact that a Zeiss Makro Planar will assist (yes assist not MAKE) in producing a good image much better than some non-L lenses zoom. I have taken great photos with crappy glass and crappy photos with great glass, but that does not mean I do not enjoy my Primes.

 

[snerkler]

I pray to God that in a photography section on any site of any level this is a given....I think after all the replies we can assume this and move on to the fact that a Zeiss Makro Planar will assist (yes assist not MAKE) in producing a good image much better than some non-L lenses zoom. I have taken great photos with crappy glass and crappy photos with great glass, but that does not mean I do not enjoy my Primes.

I belong to several photography forums and people on there range from long time pros, to complete amateurs and newbies. So no, it is not always a given IMO. A lot of people buy good cameras and expect their pictures to be instantly amazing, which of course they're not generally.

 

[fa8362]

I belong to several photography forums and people on there range from long time pros, to complete amateurs and newbies. So no, it is not always a given IMO. A lot of people buy good cameras and expect their pictures to be instantly amazing, which of course they're not generally.

I agree. The majority of photos posted here and on other photography forums are amateurish.

 

[snerkler]

I agree. The majority of photos posted here and on other photography forums are amateurish.

Well, not quite what I was saying/meaning lol I'm only an amateur myself, and a bad one at that so I can't really critique others

What I meant was that a number of people on these forums aren't necessarily aware/clued up about cameras, and just think that they can buy a top notch camera and instantly get pro looking pictures.

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

I agree. The majority of photos posted here and on other photography forums are amateurish.

Quite possibly because people like the experience of sharing their newfound enthusiasm for a hobby and to be able to have feedback and guidance to assist their growth with it. If that's OK with you of course.

I love how every thread like this, there are more and more experts and pro's who pop up with such opinionated views and they have never shared one of their pictures here or a link to see their majestic works elsewhere either.

 

[snberk103]

I pray to God that in a photography section on any site of any level this is a given...

.... So no, it is not always a given IMO. A lot of people buy good cameras and expect their pictures to be instantly amazing, which of course they're not generally.

Reminds of a saying I heard once. Give someone a camera and suddenly they are a photographer. Give someone a flute, and they own a flute.

I find most discussions about the technical aspects of cameras to be misguided for the most part. Quite bluntly; For the vast majority of photographs taken the limiting factor is how they are displayed. Web sites and small prints on consumer paper by consumer level printers impose far far more limits on the quality of an image than the camera. When someone is asking me about what camera to get, my absolute first question is what they are going to do with photos?

I agree. The majority of photos posted here and on other photography forums are amateurish.

By definition that is true. Amateurs have the time to post to forums, and most professionals - if they are posting at all - are posting to specialized industry specific forums. But for the most part pros aren't posting - they are working.

Well, not quite what I was saying/meaning lol I'm only an amateur myself, and a bad one at that so I can't really critique others

This is one of my pet peeves (in this industry). You are not "..only an amateur..." you are simply an "amateur" with no association to quality. And you are not the only one who falls into this trap. A professional is simply someone who makes their living (or at least most of it) at photography and an amateur does it for love (the root of the word, btw) and is wise enough to have an actual paying job. I've know 'professional photographers' who were really bad at shooting, but really good at selling themselves... and amateurs who could shoot circles around many professionals (including myself at times) but chose instead to work a higher paying job. Interestingly enough, many of them are dentists.

People are simply 'Amateurs' or 'Professionals' - and the quality of their images is dictated by experience and/or skill.

What I meant was that a number of people on these forums aren't necessarily aware/clued up about cameras, and just think that they can buy a top notch camera and instantly get pro looking pictures.

I agree - and it's frustrating... and this attitude infects amateurs and people who call themselves professionals.

Quite possibly because people like the experience of sharing their newfound enthusiasm for a hobby and to be able to have feedback and guidance to assist their growth with it. If that's OK with you of course.

I enjoy watching people sharing their enthusiasm... It helps me keep mine. And I learn things too.

I love how every thread like this, there are more and more experts and pro's who pop up with such opinionated views and they have never shared one of their pictures here or a link to see their majestic works elsewhere either.

I also post in the PRSI (on the rare occasion) and like to keep my anonymity. They're crazy in there! But I'm happy to PM you my website...

And Finally.... when looking at the complex relationship between camera and lenses... there is no point in paying for an expensive sensor, if you put cheap glass in front of it. The sensor is simply limited by the glass. It's better to invest in really good glass, and stick a less-capable sensor behind them. Most serious photographers I know invest in glass they keep, and buy cameras that fit those lenses, and will upgrade those cameras on a regular basis.

This is one of big differences between film and digital cameras. In the 'old' days everyone had access to the same quality of 'sensor' (i.e. film), and therefore the limiting factor was the lense. People bought Nikon (or Canon, or Minolta) camera bodies because they wanted to use a particular brand of lense. The camera body, if it was working to factory specifications, had very little to do with the quality of the image. Now, the sensor does matter - though it's often possible to buy the same sensor in a different camera since there are fewer sensor manufacturers than camera brands.
====

Sorry for the rant... please carry on....

 

[Wahlstrm]

It depends on your needs

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?

I would not be able to deliver acceptable photos to my clients (weddings and corporate events) with a crop sensor camera. I don't use flash and shoot in a lot of dark places like churches and hotells with just a few candles and the random spotlights.

The weight of my pro gear does take a lot of the fun out of photography,
so for my own, personal, photography I use a Canon point-n-shoot, a Ricoh GR (Crop sensor compact) and an iPhone. I make great photos on all of them.

A great photo is _NOT_ about pixel perfection.

 

[VirtualRain]

I feel compelled to add my 2-cents on this subject. Because I wish someone had told me this when I was buying my first DLSR so I didn't waste a ton of money buying stuff I quickly found limiting.

I think all the advice oriented around "Beginners should start with a crop sensor" is extremely poor. If you're committed to photography, you should buy the best camera you can afford, since (at least in Canon's case) the more money you spend the better camera you get. Sensor size is just one aspect. Focus system and metering are at least as important as sensor size. And High ISO performance too. These three things can benefit a noob just as much as a seasoned pro.

Consider, two budding photogs buy themselves a DSLR for a Christmas present... One buys a T3i with 18-55, the other a 5D3 with 24-105L. For their first shots at the Christmas dinner table, on auto, whose going to get shots that actually wows them, encouraging them to want to dive deeper vs think WTF? (Keeping in mind that one of these combos is going to fire a crappy built-in flash).

How can anyone who loves photography recommend the inferior tool? Perhaps it makes sense when the person seeking advice is not committed to photography, but even then, the surest way to get them into it is equip them with a tool that allows them to get amazing shots. Not something little better than their camera phone.

The guitar analogy is way off... A cheap entry level DSLR is more akin to a toy Ukulele or a guitar missing two stings.

Unlike someone who said something to the effect of... If you have to ask, you don't need full frame, I feel just the opposite... If you know enough to ask, you will regret not buying the best camera you can afford (e.g. full frame). And even if you don't know to ask, and your passionate, you will certainly take better pictures with a better camera... Absolutely no doubt about it.