Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Full frame
Page <<first <prev 5 of 11 next> last>>
Aug 12, 2017 10:35:27   #
OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR
 
blackest wrote:
Less magnification is needed for a print which means the flaws in a lens are not magnified enough to detract from the image.


You've got to stop buying your lenses at the dollar store.

Reply
Aug 12, 2017 10:36:25   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
splitwindow wrote:
My experience- I was using a Nikon D-300 to shoot my daughters dance recitals and was not happy with the results so I picked up a full frame D-700 and the difference was dramatic. Same photographer, different camera. I love the D-700.

Understand, I have no dog in the fight, but what were the qualitative differences?

Reply
Aug 12, 2017 10:42:08   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
Yeah that 15 grams difference between the D750 and the D7100 will break you. FWIW, the FF D750 is the lighter one.


It ain't the difference in weight of the cameras that matters.... It's usually not all that significant. It's the difference in weight (and cost) of your lens kit! For full frame, you're gonna need bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses. Although it applies to some extent all across the range of focal lengths, you'll particularly notice the difference if you shoot sports or wildlife or other types of subjects that call for powerful telephotos. Would you rather lug around a 3 lb., 300mm f/4 lens... or an 8 lb. 500mm f/4? Would you rather pay $1500 for a lens... or $9000? You'll need a bigger backpack to hold the FF gear and will be more likely to want a pretty sturdy tripod for the FF gear, too. So plan for more weight and budget for the cost those, as well.

Using a crop camera is, in a sense, like having a "free teleconverter"... Think of it as giving you "more reach" without the penalty of light lost to an actual teleconverter. The effect is worth 1.5X on Nikon, Sony or Pentax... 1.6X on Canon APS-C.... 1.7X on some Sigma and Leica models... or even 2X on a Four/Thirds sensor camera such as Olympus.

Reply
 
 
Aug 12, 2017 10:46:07   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
amfoto1 wrote:
It ain't the difference in weight of the cameras that matters.... It's usually not all that significant. It's the difference in weight (and cost) of your lens kit! For full frame, you're gonna need bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses. Although it applies to some extent all across the range of focal lengths, you'll particularly notice the difference if you shoot sports or wildlife or other types of subjects that call for powerful telephotos. Would you rather lug around a 3 lb., 300mm f/4 lens... or an 8 lb. 500mm f/4? Would you rather pay $1500 for a lens... or $9000? You'll need a bigger backpack to hold the FF gear and will be more likely to want a pretty sturdy tripod for the FF gear, too. So plan for more weight and budget for the cost those, as well.

Using a crop camera is, in a sense, like having a "free teleconverter"... Think of it as giving you "more reach" without the penalty of light lost to an actual teleconverter. The effect is worth 1.5X on Nikon, Sony or Pentax... 1.6X on Canon APS-C.... 1.7X on some Sigma and Leica models... or even 2X on a Four/Thirds sensor camera such as Olympus.
It ain't the difference in weight of the cameras t... (show quote)


I understand all of that, I was asking for specific feedback on the dance photos taken with a D300 as compared to those taken with a D700.

Reply
Aug 12, 2017 10:55:26   #
moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment
 
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.


That's only true if you're going to FF or DX mirrorless. M4/3 will save you a LOT of size, weight, and money.

Reply
Aug 12, 2017 10:55:55   #
geedah Loc: New York City
 
Thanks for the info

Reply
Aug 12, 2017 11:50:26   #
splitwindow Loc: Grapevine TX
 
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
Understand, I have no dog in the fight, but what were the qualitative differences?


My experience- I was using a Nikon D-300 to shoot my daughters dancerecitals and was not happy with the results so I picked up a full frame D-700 and the difference was dramatic. Same photographer, different camera. I love the D-70

Nikon D300 = 12.3 megapixel DX format CMOS sensor
Nikon D700 = the D700 shares the acclaimed 12.1MP full frame ('FX') sensor as the D3

Go to https://www.dpreview.com/search/?query=Nikon%20D700&product=nikon_d700 for a review of the D700 vs the D300 and a few others.

I had to deal with changing lighting on stage, moving subjects, and a lot of very poor lighting, dark in places, very light in others.
I always shot in Raw and as I said the differences were dramatic. Reduced noise and sharper more detailed photos. Just a more pleasing photo all around to my eye.

Reply
 
 
Aug 12, 2017 12:16:17   #
ipstech
 
Remember all those great Nikon lenses you bought for your film cameras, they will work on digital as full frame. Incase you forgot how to focus them, you just rotate that ring on the lens and watch for the dot in the viewfinder or the beep.

Reply
Aug 12, 2017 12:19:46   #
TomV Loc: Annapolis, Maryland
 
splitwindow wrote:
My experience- I was using a Nikon D-300 to shoot my daughters dancerecitals and was not happy with the results so I picked up a full frame D-700 and the difference was dramatic. Same photographer, different camera. I love the D-70

Nikon D300 = 12.3 megapixel DX format CMOS sensor
Nikon D700 = the D700 shares the acclaimed 12.1MP full frame ('FX') sensor as the D3

Go to https://www.dpreview.com/search/?query=Nikon%20D700&product=nikon_d700 for a review of the D700 vs the D300 and a few others.

I had to deal with changing lighting on stage, moving subjects, and a lot of very poor lighting, dark in places, very light in others.
I always shot in Raw and as I said the differences were dramatic. Reduced noise and cleaner more detailed photos. Just a more pleasing photo all around to my eye.
My experience- I was using a Nikon D-300 to shoot ... (show quote)


I agree. The noise performance in a nutshell. I use a Sony a77ii (Crop) and the a99 (Full) and the improvement in FF is clear. It is not just a low light issue. Shooting an azure sky shows a smoother color with FF. I just purchased the a99ii (42 Mpix, FF) and now I question the need for the crop camera for the 'reach'. When 'reaching' in a darker scene with the crop it is certainly noisier. The crop camera is certainly a great value in most situations with decent light.

Reply
Aug 12, 2017 13:06:11   #
PH CIB
 
This is ridiculous there is no difference between full frame and crop frame,,,,You need to invest in Medium Format and shoot roll film like my old Pentax 6x7 or even better invest a small fortune in Large Format and shoot sheet film !!!

Reply
Aug 12, 2017 13:17:01   #
CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska
 
Focusing a manual focus lens on an auto focus camera is tough. The green light and beep only happen when you are right on so there is no sense of direction or getting close and the green dot is low and to the side of the viewfinder. I don't understand why Nikon can't put a split screen for fresnel pattern in the viewfinder of their digital cameras.

Reply
 
 
Aug 12, 2017 13:20:00   #
sirlensalot Loc: Arizona
 
Prefer FF for weddings, portraits, corporate events, and real estate. Like APS-C for outdoor events and sports. MILC and / or APS-C and for indoor sports. MILC for family, street, travel. Although smaller MILC bodies can be convenient, size and weight are not issues for me. I actually prefer the weight of a FF DSLR to a small MILC body for many uses, but I think it is mostly habit and what you are comfortable and / or learned with. Those are the advantages for me.

Reply
Aug 12, 2017 13:32:15   #
FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA
 
CamB wrote:
Focusing a manual focus lens on an auto focus camera is tough. The green light and beep only happen when you are right on so there is no sense of direction or getting close and the green dot is low and to the side of the viewfinder. I don't understand why Nikon can't put a split screen for fresnel pattern in the viewfinder of their digital cameras.

That would be much better. Similar to what I had on my old 1970 Nikon FTN

Reply
Aug 12, 2017 13:43:41   #
joshuafloeter Loc: Austin, Tx.
 
I own both. Canon T5i is my lightweight go to for Behind The Scene shots, video and if I'm worried about my gear (climbing, boats, etc). Excellent for everything, super long battery life. With this crop sensor, you have to remember the focal distance relative to the lens you are using. Math always gets in the way. Basically you get more reach. I just shoot. My 6D is considered to be my 'Big Boy' camera (yes, I'm 44). I baby this one because the images I get are far better than T5i, super reliable, and is still light weight. I shoot live stage concerts and the low light capability is superb. So, when you ask about the difference it comes down to what you can afford, what do you want to do with the images (size), what is your patience level, hobby or pro. Crop sensors are an excellent introduction to photography, still produce great DPI, and can work well with pro lenses. You can spend $10,000 on gear and still have no idea how to compose a photo. It's digital. Go shoot until you find your groove and the work you put in will help you decide. Oh yeah, the patience part. Slow down and think about it. Have fun.

Reply
Aug 12, 2017 13:47:58   #
drmike99 Loc: Fairfield Connecticut
 
Photowiz wrote:
What is the advantage of a full frame body vs. cropped frame?

Back about 20 years ago Kodak and Fuji and a few others introduced the APS camera. While it had some advantages, the image size was smaller than 35mm- in fact, it is the "C" format of APS that is the common crop sensor size on DSLRs (also called for obvious reasons, APS-C sensors). All the 35mm crowd made fun of the APS cameras. And yet with the two or three SLR APS systems (Minolta Vectis S1 and the Nikon Pronea) you could do damned near the same photography as you could with a 35mm SLR. And that's the issue: "damned near." But not quite the same. My DSLR is a crop sensor and it does pretty well, but I know the full frame would be better- just much more expensive, especially in the area of lenses. The weight difference is trivial as far as I'm concerned (my preferred film camera is a Pentax 6x7 and that is my benchmark for "heavy" cameras- a full frame DSLR doesn't qualify for "heavy" in my book), but the cost is definitely NOT trivial.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 11 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.