Regarding full frame . . .
Mar 12, 2015 20:28:38 #
I read that Thom Hogan decided to scrap FX and go back to DX. Then Ken Rockwell said you can't really tell the difference any more between full frame and crop sensor. (a little inDOF, I guess)
The main reason I bought the FULL FRAME bodies was because I thought the larger sensor would make a considerable difference in larger prints. But they are not very comfortable for my short fingers. . . so was it a waste to go FX? Should I consider reconsidering?
It is what it is. . . but I was wondering if anybody here had anything to add to what Hogan and Rockwell said. (which was not really very much)
The main reason I bought the FULL FRAME bodies was because I thought the larger sensor would make a considerable difference in larger prints. But they are not very comfortable for my short fingers. . . so was it a waste to go FX? Should I consider reconsidering?
It is what it is. . . but I was wondering if anybody here had anything to add to what Hogan and Rockwell said. (which was not really very much)
Mar 12, 2015 20:39:44 #
I hope to go to full frame someday for what I perceive to be it's advantages in greater color depth, higher dynamic range, and better low light/higher low noise ISO.
I like to shoot at night and assume FX will give me a boost here.
Plus I always have a case of GAS! :-P
I like to shoot at night and assume FX will give me a boost here.
Plus I always have a case of GAS! :-P
Mar 12, 2015 20:50:13 #
Here is the short of it - If you shoot single image wide angle to short tele landscapes or portraits, - especially in lower light levels - and you do larger prints - or, you are in competition to SELL your prints, you want full frame - or, in better light levels, shoot medium or large format film.
For everything else, crop frame digital.....
For everything else, crop frame digital.....
Mar 12, 2015 20:50:56 #
wolfiebear wrote:
I read that Thom Hogan decided to scrap FX and go ... (show quote)
The print advantage is when you go very big from uncropped photos. At album sizes you need a magnafier to tell. FF images also hold up better on a monitor when someone goes "pixel peeping". You have more latitude for cropping if you didn't get in close enough in the original shot. Landscapes that are cropped top and bottom to give the panorama look are a good example. For wide angle in general FF is usually better. Plus, whatever the lens says, like 24-105, is it, no crop sensor factor to figure in.
My ideal gear would be a FF and a crop sensor as a working pair. I have the 6D FF, I am saving and thinking about a good crop sensor to compliment it. Like a 7DII. Unless something better comes along by the time I am ready to buy.
Mar 12, 2015 21:00:12 #
I have been shooting a D300s for about 8-9 years. I just went full frame with the D600. Do I see a big difference? No. But the pictures are a little better in every way. And with good glass in front of it I can say it is better than the 300s. The big thing is cropping the picture. They are very sharp because of the size of the sensor. That makes it look like I am back in the old film days.:):)
Mar 12, 2015 21:01:47 #
wolfiebear wrote:
I read that Thom Hogan decided to scrap FX and go back to DX. Then Ken Rockwell said you can't really tell the difference any more between full frame and crop sensor. (a little inDOF, I guess)...It is what it is. . . but I was wondering if anybody here had anything to add to what Hogan and Rockwell said. (which was not really very much)
there are a lot of good reasons to use a small sensor but high quality is not one of them.
Any improvements made to a small sensor can be applied to a large one and a few more.
A well designed large sensor will always yield a better large final image.
Mar 12, 2015 21:05:31 #
I bought my first DSLR just over a year ago and bought an FX model. The DX format actually has something for me like more DOF. I like more DOF and not paper thin DOF. The FX has larger photo site for the same number of pixel thus generally it offers lower noise but that only general and for the same generation of sensor. Newer DX sensor could even have lower noise than an older FX sensor.
The primary reason I bought an FX because I have a number of lenses for film camera and I want they to work the same on my DSLR.
The primary reason I bought an FX because I have a number of lenses for film camera and I want they to work the same on my DSLR.
Mar 12, 2015 21:15:37 #
Erv wrote:
I have been shooting a D300s for about 8-9 years. I just went full frame with the D600. Do I see a big difference? No. But the pictures are a little better in every way. And with good glass in front of it I can say it is better than the 300s. The big thing is cropping the picture. They are very sharp because of the size of the sensor. That makes it look like I am back in the old film days.:):)
If you went to a D7100 you would see a defferance too. - Dave
Mar 12, 2015 21:18:09 #
robertjerl wrote:
The print advantage is when you go very big from u... (show quote)
If you are a normal person and not one of the folks that get 10" friom the print to find noise you will not notice the differance viewing so that you can see the whole print. = Dave
Mar 12, 2015 21:42:40 #
wilsondl2 wrote:
If you are a normal person and not one of the folks that get 10" friom the print to find noise you will not notice the differance viewing so that you can see the whole print. = Dave
Please note i said "very big" as in bigger than posters. There are people who like to do baby billboards to hang on their wall.
For a minimum of 90-95% of all photographers APS-C will do just fine.
Mar 12, 2015 22:16:49 #
wolfiebear wrote:
I read that Thom Hogan decided to scrap FX and go ... (show quote)
Hang in there. you'll get used to it. Remember, "Rome wasn't built in a day!"
Mar 12, 2015 22:21:19 #
I have both, a D-7000 and a D-800. I would not want to have to make a decision on witch to get rid of. Love them both but will give the nod to the FX.
Mar 12, 2015 22:33:45 #
wolfiebear wrote:
. But they are not very comfortable for my short fingers. . . so was it a waste to go FX? Should I consider reconsidering?
)
)
Maybe you need to look closer at the Sony A7 ....
Mar 12, 2015 22:47:12 #
Nikon_DonB wrote:
Hang in there. you'll get used to it. Remember, "Rome wasn't built in a day!"
I"m getting used to it. I'm just always curious and full of questions . . . and everybody is so generous with their opinions here :P .. .so I ask. . .
imagemeister wrote:
Maybe you need to look closer at the Sony A7 ....
Maybe I should. . .
Mar 12, 2015 22:59:47 #
wolfiebear wrote:
I read that Thom Hogan decided to scrap FX and go ... (show quote)
WOW I am a member of that short finger club. LOL... But you can't change physics... the bigger the sensor the better the picture. That said not to many of us are printing 16x20's for a Salon entry and the ability to interpolate data can still give you a pretty good print. Maybe just buy a second body DX format only. My go to camera is my D5100. Fits my hands nicely and takes great pictures. However, When I really want to ensure quality and anticipate large printing I use my full frame D600. I can almost hear the natives getting ready to shoot at this post. When in doubt just spend more money for stuff :)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.