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)
Not sure why you think having a FF camera means we are going to NEED those bigger, heavier, exorbitantly more expensive lenses. Even with a crop sensor camera, we can desire them. But when it's out of my price range, I try not to think about them!
The only way to get that "more reach" effect with a crop camera is to use a FF lens. And the image will not be any more magnified than using that lens on a FF camera. The primary benefit is that it takes up more of the sensor [having been effectively "cropped" in the camera], which ought to help with getting a fairly sharp image. I am sure someone has compared the way an image would turn out, whether the pixels on the DX camera and the pixels on the FX camera will provide more resolution once the image in the FX camera has been cropped down to the same size as the DX image.
The topic of lenses brings up the fact that there are a lot fewer choices among DX lenses, and the available options for FX lenses are in general better lenses no matter which type of camera you put them on. When I started wanting better glass for my DX camera, I started switching out to FX lenses. It made a difference. Then when I decided to buy a FF camera, I already had appropriate lenses! Of course I do not have a big stable of lenses like yours, and I would not mind having some additional lenses. But not being a pro, I do not need too much specialized gear to cover many different situations. I work with what I have, put the others on a "wish list", and wait until a good sale for when I am ready to make the next purchase!
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 sharper 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've done all the side-by-side comparisons via dpreview, etc. I was looking for a "real world" experience-based comparison based on the comment that the results were dramatically different, but thanks for the response.
OddJobber wrote:
Full frame body makes you look and feel like a pro.
Why is looking cool so important? Personally. I would rather maybe a better photographer. And not look so cool."
if full frame is so great. Why not medium format. Every thing is better with it.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
billgrolz wrote:
if full frame is so great. Why not medium format. Every thing is better with it.
Why not? If you spend some time looking at the differences, you'll answer your own question.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
Understand, I have no dog in the fight, but what were the qualitative differences?
Less noise and finer detail, for the same print size. Both cameras are 12 mp.
boblaine wrote:
Why is looking cool so important? Personally. I would rather maybe a better photographer. And not look so cool."
If you have to ask, you're too old or too ugly or you just don't have
it.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
Photowiz wrote:
What is the advantage of a full frame body vs. cropped frame?
First image - D800, ISO 800, cropped from 7360x4910 to 1747x2236, or 32% of original uncropped image.
Second image - D500, ISO 800, cropped from 4684x3122 to 1008x1232 or 28% of original uncropped image
Any questions?
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Gene51 wrote:
First image - D800, ISO 800, cropped from 7360x4910 to 1747x2236, or 32% of original uncropped image.
Second image - D500, ISO 800, cropped from 4684x3122 to 1008x1232 or 28% of original uncropped image
Any questions?
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.
Gene51 wrote:
First image - D800, ISO 800, cropped from 7360x4910 to 1747x2236, or 32% of original uncropped image.
Second image - D500, ISO 800, cropped from 4684x3122 to 1008x1232 or 28% of original uncropped image
Any questions?
Excellent illustration and beautiful photos!
Regards,
Toni
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
SusanFromVermont wrote:
The only way to get that "more reach" effect with a crop camera is to use a FF lens. And the image will not be any more magnified than using that lens on a FF camera. The primary benefit is that it takes up more of the sensor [having been effectively "cropped" in the camera], which ought to help with getting a fairly sharp image. I am sure someone has compared the way an image would turn out, whether the pixels on the DX camera and the pixels on the FX camera will provide more resolution once the image in the FX camera has been cropped down to the same size as the DX image.
The only way to get that "more reach" ef... (
show quote)
I'm not sure you said here quite what you meant to say. Let's compare a 36MP Pentax K-1 {FF} to a 24MP Pentax KP {APS-C}, for example. If I take a picture of a bird with a 300mm lens mounted on the KP, giving me a 24MP image, I have two choices for getting the same image with the K-1:
(1) use 450mm lens on the K-1, which will give me a 36MP image.
(2) use 300mm lens on the K-1, then crop down to the same view as given by the KP. In this case the KP image is 24MP, while the K-1 image is now 15MP
The 300mm lens used on the APS-C KP can be either a "FF" lens or an "APS-C" lens.
Focal length is a characteristic of the lens only; the difference between "FF" and "APS-C" lens is diameter of light column only. How that light is used depends on sensor in the body
Gene51 wrote:
First image - D800, ISO 800, cropped from 7360x4910 to 1747x2236, or 32% of original uncropped image.
Second image - D500, ISO 800, cropped from 4684x3122 to 1008x1232 or 28% of original uncropped image
Any questions?
Looks like a real 600mm at f8 beats a field of view of 450mm from a 28-300mm at f5.6 I think dof would be about the same.
Medium format digital is even better than full frame digital but the cost is so much more, it's a rather exclusive club.
Gene51 wrote:
First image - D800, ISO 800, cropped from 7360x4910 to 1747x2236, or 32% of original uncropped image.
Second image - D500, ISO 800, cropped from 4684x3122 to 1008x1232 or 28% of original uncropped image
Any questions?
Wow !!! Gene, I see quite a difference between FF and crop sensor considering they are basically cropped to about 30% of orig. image. Unless I am missing something. ~FiddleMaker
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.
billnikon, the D500 looks to have a lot more "snow" (noise??) than the D800 shot. Am I wrong?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.