asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

I do too, but I enjoy available darkness so the higher ISO capabilities of the Df were very appealing to me. Honestly, I would rather have the D610 for everything else except the sensor. While I use old MF lenses, they are all AI'd and would work just fine on the D610 in aperture priority, but with my 24-120 zoom attached the D610 is a vastly better-handling camera. Df handles great with lightweight primes like I have, but anything heavy makes it very tiring.

Some more low-light stuff, with my primary camera the Leica M Monochrom and some ancient high-speed glass. The first shot was pre-dawn in downtown Los Angeles. Enough light inside to keep ISO down at base 320.

The second shot isn't low-light at all, but I had to drastically reduce the amount of light to get my f/1.5 aperture. I stacked an orange filter (2 stops) and a neutral density (3 stops) and still had my shutter speed at 1/1000th at base ISO.

Third shot was in a very dimly lit bar at ISO 5000. M Monochrom, like the Df, is highly regarded for its low-light capabilities.

All three shots have extremely minimal processing, mostly just slightly pulling the black slider in LR5.

Leica M Monochrom at ISO 320 with Carl Zeiss 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar (1937, uncoated)

(Download)

Leica M Monochrom at ISO 320 with Carl Zeiss 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar and orange filter (1937, uncoated)

(Download)

Leica M Monochrom at ISO 5000 with Zomz 5cm f/1.5 Jupiter 3 (1963, coated Russian Sonnar knock-off)

(Download)

DAMcCoy

I was lucky and got to hold a D750 at a store in Berkeley. I currently have a D7000 and it is similar in many ways and way better in others. It's has a much more quite shutter operation. It has a tilting LED screen. And the noise at higher ISO is much better. Pricing with a 24-120 f4 is under $3500.00. I'm looking to upgrade after the first of the year.

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

I have a d90 one evening sun is down I make out this deer sillowet across the
street in the neighbours yard .I get the d90 with a 70-300 VR . I had a heck of a time finding the deer . it never looked like anything you couldent really make out any thing . I kept pushing the shutter zipp zipp you could hear it trying to focus I kept pushing . and click it fired . I stood as still as I could
and about three or four seconds later it closed . I had auto iso set to 200
to the max, lens wide open . and the picture I got looks like it was shot at
mid day a lot like like this expourser with a deer standing there instead of a shed .

tradergeorge Loc: Newport, Kentucky

Using your logic, there is no need for full frame cameras to exist. The real question is OBJECTIVELY, what is the difference between a full frame sensor and an APS-C?.....The answer is (disregarding build, and a few other specs) is that it gathers more light per pixel, and confers all the benefits that come with that. One of the main benefits of more light per pixel is that it confers better low light performance, which would belie your statement to the contrary. I will stop with that, since I intended to offer NO opinion and stick completely with the objective and measurable...I am sure that there are many other benefits to FX cameras. As a long time HOG member, you should know better than to attack (for lack of a better word) an OP's choice and just do your best to answer the question.....I am weary of answers to questions that begin, "Well WHY would you want to do that", or some variation....[/soapbox]

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

No Rebel is as good in low light as the 5D M III and that's a "full frame" fact!!

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

I don't care what they say about APS-C vs FF I just fell instantly fell in love w/ FF. 14,000 actuations and no oil spots.

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

Went out and shot the basic same shot at 6,400, H1 & H2 (what is that 12,800 and 25,600) and the SD Card was screaming so loud I could hardly get it in the house.

6400


12,800

(Download)

25,600

(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thanks!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Best way to resolve this - answer the questions - those of you here who dismiss FF - have you ever used FF?

Any of you using smaller sensor cameras, have you formerly used FF and find the smaller sensors equivalent, or in the case of M4/3 found it to have better image quality?

Any of the above print your work? Any of you judge the comparative quality by viewing cropped, denoised, processed jpgs online or are you looking at full-sized raw files?

This ought to be interesting. . .

Lazy Old Coot Loc: Gainesville, Florida

Gene, I think if we follow your example stated here (viewing uncropped printed photos from a full frame camera and any of the cameras with a smaller than full frame sensor the full frame shot would have to be at least somewhat better than the smaller sensor. However I do think we have to consider the point of diminishing returns. How much improvement and at what cost? If you could get a five percent improvement for a five percent increase in cost I think we could all agree it was a good investment. However the water gets pretty muddy when you realize we're realistically talking about a five percent improvement that is going to cost two or three times more for the full frame than we would for the smaller sensor.

There are some folks on this forum who are quite well off financially and I would not hesitate to recommend going full frame to them, however I think it would be foolish to make that recommendation to someone like myself. ....... Coot

Meganephron Loc: Fort Worth, TX

FF not the only issue. CMOS vs CCD, processor (Xpeed 4 much better than Xpeed 3), lens (fixed, zoom, size) , WB (custom or preset) and the list goes on.

When someone compliments one of my photos by saying I must have a great camera, I compliment their cooking by saying they must have a great stove. Great pictures are more about the photographer. All this talk about gear ignores the fact that Ansel Adams would out do most of us with a Kodak Brownie

K_Duncan Loc: Whiteville, NC

LOL! I love that. I may use that one sometime if you don't mind.

:lol:

Meganephron Loc: Fort Worth, TX

It's all yours to use no copyright

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

The right gear can make it easier to capture the image in one's head into a file/negative/print or whatever form one wants it in.

If one is really into large prints, then the larger the format the better with everything else being equal. Of course everything is not equal. I would guess that today's best micro 4/3 sensor would likely yield a cleaner file than the best of 2004's APSC sensors while the best APSC of today would likely exceed the best full frame of 2006. Does that mean that the best full frame of 2006 can't still be used to create incredible images? Of course not, there will just be more limitations on what it can do.

The best example I know of this is in Leica land, where the M8 from 2006 with its 10.3 megapixel 1.33 crop sensor is still much loved, with many claiming it yields better color or other advantages over the latest M240 and its 24MP sensor. Absolutely both sensors have a different look, but in every measurable way the new one is better. Still, there is just something about an M8's rendering of color that is uniquely beautiful. Limits are lower, be them in terms of dynamic range, sensitivity, enlargement capability or even the IR flaw that turns black fabrics purple without special IR cut filters. Still, despite all of that, an 11X14 or even 16X20 print made from a perfectly exposed M8 file captured of a subject within the M8's dynamic range and sensitivity limits will be just as good, different, but as good as that same image captured on the M240, with the difference at that point coming down to post processing and viewer's preferences.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Do you currently use a full frame camera?