Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
If you would be more than happy taking this picture, you don't need FF.
(Check out the rest of his site for more of that combination)
This was taken with the very early Canon 350D (released in 2005) - a full 8MP of APS-C sensor but with a whacking great big £10,000 worth of 60mm f4L lens on it. He clearly had his priorities right - glass first - and it was about 3 years before he upgraded to a Canon 1D body.
Decide why you want to upgrade and if it is not specifically for a function (AF system, high ISO capability for shooting in very low light) then the camera is not likely to be the limiting factor.
If you want to upgrade because you can afford it and you like pride of ownership then that is as valid a reason as any (it is one of my failings) but go glass first - a better lens will help your autofocus and image quality almost as much as a new body.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: And as far as I am concerned, full frame wil give better image quality,
Not necessarily. If you do not buy top notch lenses to go with the full-frame camera, you may find the image quality is worse.
The other thing that you may notice with a FF camera, especially coupled with good quality lens, is that to me it seems far less forgiving of errors in focussing and movement. So it could accentuate any problems with technique that you may have.
I changed from a 40D + 15-85mm to 5DMk2 + 24-105L as main walkabout lens last year and am still getting used to it. I have regretted the change on more than one occasion. For landscapes I now use the 17-40mm instead of the Sigma 10-20mm and sitting on a tripod discern some difference but nothing that can't be more or less overcome in PS.
I wanted the full operating range of the L lenses which is why I went full frame and I didn't believe that I could get ultra wide angle on a crop sensor with L glass. Having said that my previous lenses plus the 40D gave excellent results so I too would suggest that you give serious thought to improving your lenses.
Quote: My findings were that the full frame was sharper pretty much all the time but then this could well be the fact that the 5D MKIII has a better focusing system than the 7D, but more than this is the quality of image even at high ISO with the 5D I believe the IQ is a big part to do with it's sensor.
The trouble with comparing two DSLRs is that their focus accuracy may depend on the individual sample because it's dependent on build accuracy. However the accuracy of the FF camera needs to be greater than that of the APS-C because of the shallower DOF (for same AOV and aperture).
Thanls to all. The idea of shoting full frame is appealing, but I'm realising I risk to be disappointed (at least in the begining) mainly because of lack of experience. Definitely I got to get good glass for my APS-C (of course, FF lenses for a future upgrade of the body), improve my skill and trying to get great shots.
As I said, I'm very new in photography, but I love this thing!!!
Meanwhile I'm going to add more pictures to my portfolio here on epz. Hope you like it!...
The ff has bigger pixels on the 5Dmkiii and that means more information per pixel
This is not quite right. One pixel is one pixel. The information depends on the quality of the colour filters above each pixel, how efficiently the in camera software compares what is going on at approximately 40 surrounding pixels to calculate an accurate tone and colour relative to each individual pixel, the in camera software software in general, and the camera setting e.g. jpeg basic or RAW.
Larger pixels collect more light as a distinct from more details and as a result perform better at high ISO's.
My findings were that the full frame was sharper pretty much all the time but then this could well be the fact that the 5D MKIII has a better focusing system
It perhaps depends on what you mean by sharpness. Sharpness is not the same as resolution. There seems no technical reason why 24x36 should be sharper than cropped sensors. On focus accuracy any half decent DSLR should be able to focus accurately on a static subject. There are some cameras and some lenses which are best for fast moving subjects due to the lens aperture and speed of focusing but this has little to do with sensor size.
The other benefit to ff is the fact that when you add a lens you know your getting what the lens is, great for tight spaces and portraits where you are limited
Some of us know what we are getting when we look through the viewfinder Most of us acquire a range of lenses to cover the angles of view we most frequently shoot.
Quote: This is the quality you can expect if you pay the Money,
I am not saying that a very high MP camera cannot produce more detail in very large print, because my D800 can. On the other hand at the size and resolution possible on the web using good technique and half decent equipment there should be no difference between a crop sensor and 24 x 36, or even a decent compact.
Digressing into a different prices zone generally medium format digital has better colour reproduction because these cameras still use CCD sensors, though there is a trade off of no high ISO option.
Quote: In combination with fast lenses I think the full-frame 'look' can be pretty distinctive; whether it's desirable or not is obviously subjective.
For instance, these family snaps on Flickr are fairly well known.
Thanks for that Glenn. I've not seen those before and they are absolutely inspirational. It will be interesting to see how those kids turn out! (brilliantly I suspect)
I started with full frame, then went cropped back to full frame then back to crop.
Any difference on paper in the real world?
I`m sure Nikon and Canon are very happy with all this marketing hype
Quote: I started my pf with macro, but I love landscape photography.
In real macro photography there's no need for thinner DOF.
Also in landscapes you don't want shallowest DOF often.
Quote: Larger pixels collect more light as a distinct from more details and as a result perform better at high ISO's.
Sensor doesn't gather light unless you use it just for measuring some average ambient light level instead of capturing image.
Light is gathered and projected to form image by lens. And in lens factor which decides intensity of light per surface are unit in focal plane is focal ratio.
But more than selecting amount of light gathered focal ratio is used for controlling amount of DOF and unless you're wanting shallower DOF you stop lens down more lowering brightness of image projected by lens.
End result is that bigger format has absolute light gathering advantage only when allowing shallower DOF because at same DOF brightness of image projected by lens is equally much lower than sensor's surface area is bigger.
Quote: I`m sure Nikon and Canon are very happy with all this marketing hype
They would definitely prefer to keep selling legacy design based systems instead of needing to actually compete in digital age systems.
That's why they're also screwing consumers to butts in lack of high quality APS-C lenses for certain fields of view.
Quote: That's why they're also screwing consumers to butts in lack of high quality APS-C lenses for certain fields of view.
I don't think there is the size of market to warrant the time and development of ultra wide angle (APS-C version of the Canon 10-22) or long tele (APS-C version of 70-200, 100-400). I am pretty sure the price difference between lenses for APS-C and FF lenses will not be significant (Ignoring the difference in constant apertures, the 17-40 for FF and the 17-55 for APS-C are pretty close in size, with the latter being more expensive)
I would`nt worry too much, a year or two and full frame will be the norm for dslr`s.
CSC`s have take of and big companies like Nikon and Canon are running out of carrots to dangle for there enthusiast, full frame DSLR`s costing less than 1k will be on the way
Well I like my ff in my canon 5d mkiii and i firmly believe and have been told there is a distinct difference between my 7d image and 5d mk iii image and the 5d mkiii comes out on top all day long and on that note, anyone want to buy a 7D lol....
Quote: Well I like my ff in my canon 5d mkiii and i firmly believe and have been told there is a distinct difference between my 7d image and 5d mk iii image and the 5d mkiii comes out on top all day long and on that note, anyone want to buy a 7D lol....
I agree. there's a sharpness and a certain punch to the 5diii images that is lacking in the ones from the 7d...not that I was unhappy with the 7, mind you, but the difference was obvious immediately. And as for high iso performance...
You guys are just suckers for the marketing hype. I bought my 5DII because I like the badge. And the number II in Roman numerals [I concede the number III might be even nicer]. Can't think why anyone else would want one.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar