Full frame
Aug 15, 2017 22:20:02 #
Reinaldokool wrote:
For most people, you get to brag that you have a "full-frame" camera. (Which is true if you think 35mm was full-frame. Those who think a 4x5 view camera or some other large size was full-frame won't agree.) You can also brag that you have a larger bank account--or did until you bought the camera--also that you have developed better muscles needed to haul those bigger lenses around. For most photography it won't make any significant difference.
I don't have to brag, the pictures tell the story.
Aug 15, 2017 22:33:03 #
Aug 15, 2017 22:35:35 #
Gene51 wrote:
You certainly have repeatedly used a lot of words in this thread. Strangely, the phrase you never use is "Medium Format". Yes, size has advantages, but it also has disadvantages; over and over again you say the same things about the same comparisons using your same standards.I don't have to brag, the pictures tell the story.
Aug 16, 2017 14:22:53 #
rehess wrote:
You certainly have repeatedly used a lot of words in this thread. Strangely, the phrase you never use is "Medium Format". Yes, size has advantages, but it also has disadvantages; over and over again you say the same things about the same comparisons using your same standards.
Yes, I do. If you read the OP's question, it is clearly asking for a comparison between cropped sensor cameras and full frame cameras, making any mention of medium format irrelevant to the question at hand. If you want to start another thread about all three, don't let me stop you. But to discuss medium format, in a thread about FX/DX is - well - off topic - don't you agree?
Aug 16, 2017 14:31:28 #
Reinaldokool wrote:
For most people, you get to brag that you have a "full-frame" camera. (Which is true if you think 35mm was full-frame. Those who think a 4x5 view camera or some other large size was full-frame won't agree.) You can also brag that you have a larger bank account--or did until you bought the camera--also that you have developed better muscles needed to haul those bigger lenses around. For most photography it won't make any significant difference.
Today, Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - the commonly recognized term of "Full Frame" refers to a digital sensor that is typically 36mm x 24mm. Back in the days of film, 35mm cameras, which have the same dimensions as a full-frame digital camera, were considered minature or small format, 6x6, 6x7 an 6x9 were medium format, and 4x5 and larger were large format. I don't ever recall referring to 35mm film cameras as full-frame. Though there was a period of time when you could by a "half frame" camera which was 18x24mm, or 1/2 the size of a 36mmx24mm.
And there is a difference, unless you've never shot with a full frame camera and have no basis for comparison. Then of course, there won't be a difference.
Aug 16, 2017 14:33:05 #
I really dislike the term "full frame" but I only use the so called "full frame" camera only because the lenses that I already have were designed for that size. Larger sensor is better than smaller sensor but also has trade off. So if I don't consider the lenses I already have I may not have bought the "full frame" camera.
Aug 16, 2017 20:07:21 #
BebuLamar wrote:
I really dislike the term "full frame" but I only use the so called "full frame" camera only because the lenses that I already have were designed for that size. Larger sensor is better than smaller sensor but also has trade off. So if I don't consider the lenses I already have I may not have bought the "full frame" camera.
Nah, full frame not a large sensor, it's a medium" sensor. A "large sensor" is a Phase One IQ3 101 mp sensor, and it is 53.7mm x 40.4mm. Full frame is, well, smaller.
Or you can get an 8x10, 12 mp sensor with 75 micron pixel size - now THAT'S a big sensor.
http://www.largesense.com/products/8x10-large-format-digital-back-ls911/
They have a 4x5 version as well.
Don't get caught by the Sensor Size Police - if you do you are on your own.
Aug 16, 2017 21:52:40 #
Gene51 wrote:
Nah, full frame not a large sensor, it's a medium&... (show quote)
I say large as compared to small. I didn't say it's the largest.
Aug 17, 2017 02:01:39 #
I normally shoot indoor basketball with a crop sensor and a high speed IOS. I accidentally took my full frame with a slower sensor and ISO. When I processed the images I could not believe how much better the full frame handled the noise.
Aug 27, 2017 22:36:33 #
jim quist wrote:
I normally shoot indoor basketball with a crop sensor and a high speed IOS. I accidentally took my full frame with a slower sensor and ISO. When I processed the images I could not believe how much better the full frame handled the noise.
This is exactly why, for me, a full frame for sports is much better than using a crop. The games I shoot are at night with poor lighting. I don't see a $6000 professional camera in my future, but a good full frame is so much better than one of the crops built for speed. I much prefer a clear, sharp shot over twice as many noisy shots.
Aug 28, 2017 00:08:19 #
Japakomom wrote:
Part of the question is whether progress in sensor and processor design will give you a choice between a clear, sharp shot with no noise and a closer clear, sharp shot with little noise.This is exactly why, for me, a full frame for sports is much better than using a crop. The games I shoot are at night with poor lighting. I don't see a $6000 professional camera in my future, but a good full frame is so much better than one of the crops built for speed. I much prefer a clear, sharp shot over twice as many noisy shots.
Aug 28, 2017 00:18:26 #
Start another thread and ask about the advantages of crop sensor cameras. As the owner of both I could elucidate. Sure, if your are really, really, serious about photography, take a lot of photographs, etc., and are willing to put thousands of dollars into your hobby, by all means go full frame. However, I also know serious photographers that shoot nothing but crop sensor cameras. One is even now posting the best safari photos that I've seen from Kenya using Canon crop sensor cameras, a Sigma 50-500mm lens and some other sorted lenses. Another uses her Canon crop camera with a 100-400 L VRII shooting wildlife and birds. For one thing, you can get out to 600mm much easier and less expensive with a crop camera than a full frame camera. For instance, the 100-400 L on a crop camera gives a fov out to about 600mm (I've forgotten the Canon multiplier). Add on a 1.4x and it's much more.
Aug 28, 2017 01:02:59 #
As an example of the advantage of a crop sensor camera, I provide an example of the work of GregoryD45, using a Canon t2i. Please note the lens he's combined with this camera.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-472944-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-472944-1.html
Aug 28, 2017 08:59:47 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Right! Switching from a DSLR of any kind to mirrorless doesn't save much weight or space. Add a tele lens to a mirrorless, and you're back into DSLR territory - almost.
Not really true: You've added a qualifier which is the telephoto lens. Try comparing "apples with apples": a DSLR with a mirrorless with the same lens equivalent. I have--and it does make a weight and space difference. Especially when traveling light, or hiking long distances.
Aug 28, 2017 10:03:58 #
billnikon wrote:
Your D500 shot is actually just as sharp, it is just about one stop lighter than the D800, if the D500 is just as dark as the D800 shot they are a tie.
Did you download the images?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.