Why go full frame?

[Don Fischer]

Why would you upgrade from an aps-c to to a full frame. What advantage or benefit do you get with say a Canon R5 vs Canon R7. The latter seems to be just as capable of a camera.
In todays mirrorless camera market are the differences much less between full frame and aps-c than in the past? Seems to be even less difference in say an R6 mark ii and the R7.

I have a huge advantage over you. I don't have a clue what an APS-C is. What I do know is I get photo's I like with the camera's I have. I believe my camera's will take better photo's than I can!

 

[Scott Whaley]

This has always been somewhat confusing to wrap my brain around. I finally settled on staying in full frame mode. My understanding of crop mode on a full frame with a full frame lens is that nothing changes, except FOV, the DOF, Exposure, focal length remain the same, as you're simply cropping away part of your sensor. There's no difference between an image shot in crop mode vs cropping post. Staying in FF mode gives me the wiggle room around the sides to crop later to fit the aspect ratio of the final print.

I have been playing around with full frame and 1.6 crop and I understand what you are saying. One thing I have noticed is that the 1.6 crop does not allow for me to crop the image as much in post processing. I think I am going to go back to full frame shooting which will allow me to crop more.

 

[Rickbb]

I have been playing around with full frame and 1.6 crop and I understand what you are saying. One thing I have noticed is that the 1.6 crop does not allow for me to crop the image as much in post processing. I think I am going to go back to full frame shooting which will allow me to crop more.

Exactly, the bigger the film/sensor the more you can enlarge/crop before you start to see grain/pixels.

 

[Stic2]

I moved from film to (at the time) high tech 2.1MP digital, then a 6MP Fugifilm DSLR, then to a Canon 40D, Canon 7D, and then on to the current Crop sensor, my 7DII (gripped). About 18 months ago, I managed to find a gripped 5DII for a reasonable price, so, I now have the best of both worlds...

A crop body (and converter and long L lens) for moon shots and motorsport, and a FF for the 50mm and walking around town shots....

 

[Stic2]

Just to clarify; the 7D2 (as with all my previous digital SL/R's) is a crop body (APS-C), these will give the effect of multiplying the reach of any given Full Frame lens. - where as the 5D2 is a Full Frame body. 7D2 is approx 20MP, 5D2 is 21MP.

The 7D2 was chosen, amongst other things, for it's 10fps as I used to shoot a lot of motorsport.

Both are capable cameras, and, given the 20MP of the 7D2, it renders a similar image to the FF 5D2. I do get better depth of field out of the FF, just; but they are different tools for different jobs.

The 7D2 allows me to autofocus with a 2x converter and the 100-400L, giving me autofocus at an effective 1280mm to shoot the moon (which I enjoy), and even allowing me to get a faint image of Jupiter and 4 of it's moons (nothing to write home about, image wise, but impressive none the less).

I use the FF for portraits, and any image where I want significant depth of field...it's the camera I use most for street photography for instance, usually with the 50mm on.

 

[Don Fischer]

Why go full frame? Have been wondering that myself lately. I have two 20mm cameras, a D7000 Nikon and Z/S Panosonlc. Have printed up to 12 x 24 from both and not one problem I can see. I don't see myself getting a 17" and especially not larger printer. If I had a FF camera, I'd have to make payments on it and it would out proform the ability of my 13" printer. Now if I could find a reason to justify a larger printer, maybe I would but afraid the cheep skate in me would win out in the end. If I went 17", suddenly I could print 16X20 but tell ya what look at a good 13x19 before you MTY your wallet. Were I a pro I still suspect a 13" printer would get me by 90% of the time, maybe more!

 

[greybeard]

I own and use both. The difference comes down to 1 stop in many circumstances. FF is 1 stop better than APS-C in low light and shadow recovery. When using equivalent field of view lenses like a 50mm FF and 35mm APS-C, the 50mm on the FF will give you 1 stop shallower DOF (depth of field (focus)) than the 35mm on the APS-C. Also because the FF is working with a larger projected image, it will resolve more lines than the APS-C with a comparable lens. This isn't as big of a deal now as it once was. Where the APS-C has it over the FF is with telephoto reach. A 300mm lens on APS-C will have the same reach as a 450mm or more on FF. I like to use my Z50 (APS-C) with my Macro lens as it brings things even closer for sneaking up on unsuspecting critters. They are both useful photographic tools and there are a lot of pros using either. Use the one that serves your needs the most.

 

[AlanKlein]

I shoot with 1" sensor because I only use the pictures for the web and don't print other than small no more than 8x10. Also, I make slide shows digitally for my 75" 4K TV and 1" is excellent. The main negative is DOF is large with smaller sensors so isolating portraits doesn't work so well with 1" sensors and better with APS and best with FF. Of course, APS and FF are heavier beasts. I also shoot MF and LF film which takes up any slack in my choices.

 

[wilt]

The advantage of larger format (assuming same total pixel count) will be lower signal/noise ratio, which becomes evident with high ISO value shooting in low light environments...one pixel is bigger in area, so more photon strike one pixel and generate more signal (assuming same noise floor for all formats)
If you do not shoot really low ambient light situations, the 'benefit' becomes not very apparent.

The other 'benefit' is that larger formats have shallower DOF than the smaller format, simply because a lens with equivalent FOV will have shorter FL on the smaller format. That benefits the shooter who wants to take a portrait that blurs out a very busy background, but works against the landscape shoot who wants as much of the background to be in focus as possible.

Finally, the larger format sees more area for any FL, than the smaller format...24mm FL is 'very wide angle' for FF, but is scarcely wider than 'normal' for APS-C. What 10mm sees on APS-C is the same as using 16mm on FF. Conversely, the 'reach' of a certain FL lens is better with the smaller format than on the FF camera. Pros and cons.

Being very accustomed to switching between formats as small as smartphone to as large as 4x5, the differences to me are inconsequential, they are simply the attributes of shooting in a particular format at a particular point in time and place.

 

[Soocom1]

I am going back to my old hill that I stand on.
Format size as it gets larger is closer to real life in the actual photo until you reach an un aided 1 to 1 ration or larger.
(Macro).

The 1:1 ration especially the larger the size means closer to actual detail information and distortion.
again, after I shoot the eclipse tomorrow, I will post photos of a tree, rock or other item with a iPhone, Canon RP Full Frame and a 36x48mm Med. format image off of a Phase One.
Ill let yall decide the overall image quality yourselves.

But keep in mind the RP Is the newest of the bunch at 24Mp, the iphone second oldest at 12.5-14Mp (if I remember properly) and the Phase one a mere 24Mp for a sensor more than twice the size of the FF.

 

[Ysarex]

The advantage of larger format (assuming same total pixel count) will be lower signal/noise ratio, which becomes evident with high ISO value shooting in low light environments...one pixel is bigger in area, so more photon strike one pixel and generate more signal (assuming same noise floor for all formats)
If you do not shoot really low ambient light situations, the 'benefit' becomes not very apparent.

The other 'benefit' is that larger formats have shallower DOF than the smaller format, simply because a lens with equivalent FOV will have shorter FL on the smaller format.

This is a common misconception; that the reason for the DOF difference is just the focal length change required to match the FOV from the same perspective position. If that were the case then we'd get the same DOF increase that occurs with the smaller format + shorter lens if we just placed the shorter lens on the larger format -- doesn't happen. The film/sensor format size is a DOF determinant factor as well. We get more DOF from a smaller format film/sensor because it's smaller, not simply because of the required focal length change.

That benefits the shooter who wants to take a portrait that blurs out a very busy background, but works against the landscape shoot who wants as much of the background to be in focus as possible.

Finally, the larger format sees more area for any FL, than the smaller format...24mm FL is 'very wide angle' for FF, but is scarcely wider than 'normal' for APS-C. What 10mm sees on APS-C is the same as using 16mm on FF. Conversely, the 'reach' of a certain FL lens is better with the smaller format than on the FF camera. Pros and cons.

Being very accustomed to switching between formats as small as smartphone to as large as 4x5, the differences to me are inconsequential, they are simply the attributes of shooting in a particular format at a particular point in time and place.

 

[DCollins]

My thoughts on the subject, and you can take them for what they're worth. In any given time frame, full frame cameras are the more expensive end of the product line. They have better electronics, better features, and better components than an aps-c of the same era. However, given that, the 90D (for example) is easily the equal, photo-wise, of say a 5D classic, of 5D Mk 2. My 80D backup camera takes photos that are every bit as good as what my old 1D Mk2 took. However, my older eyes can definitely tell the difference between the photos my 80D takes, and the same subject/lighting/etc. shot with my 5D Mk4. The 5D Mk4 is a higher priced, higher quality camera. According to Canon, the 1D, 5D, and 6D (the full frames) are considered "advanced cameras", and the other lines are not. The 90D is considered an "intermediate" camera, and the other cameras are labeled as "beginner" cameras.

I have not used mirrorless, but I imagine the same holds true for that line. It comes under the heading of you get what you pay for, and full frames cost more and have to have better quality and capabilities in order to command that sort of money.

 

[Don Fischer]

Sitting here thinking about this and I think camera companys are taking advantage of the human idea that theyu must have the best. In doing that they make a huge number of different cameras than I'd suspect at minimun 90% of the protographer's haven't a clue how to use. Near as I can tell other than higher pixel count my D 7000 doesn't do one thing for me my D 70 didn't do! That is allow me to make bigger photo's with the D 7000. all the other thing's the d 7000 does are absolutely useless to me. To much B.S. explaining all the D 7000 functions and I could care less other than I can get a photo I really like. Have done that with my D 70, myt D 5000, my D 7000, my P&S canon something or other 740, my Nikon P&S and several other P&S cameras. All these upgrades are for nothing else than to make more sales with no reguard to weather the user will appreciate or even understand them.

At one time I had a Nikon, don't remember which one, maybe the FG, that you ponted the focus center at and could move the camer and the focus stayed the same. I don't think my present camera will do that or if it does it's burried in B.S. explaining it. This photo business is about like explaining necular science to the average guy that has no use for it!

I up graded my old FG, I think that was the one to an F5. never did figure out that camera and cost me a lot more than I could afford! Still have it but never use it. The only reason I went from my old D 5000 to the d 7000 was I gave my D 5000 to the grand daughter. Nothing I can think of I can do with the D 7000 I could not do with the D 5000! Well yest there is. I did spend more money on the D 7000 to get nothing I could figure out how to do. I am not a pro and have no need to sell photo's to customer's that I'd need to explain the advantage of my equipment to! Most people could care less about perfect photo unless it was explained to them. What they want are nice clear photo's to enjoy! Well there ya go. Different style letter's poped up and I haven't a clue how it happened or how to get back to what it was. And now hear this, doesn't make a bit of difference to me! I doubt I'll ever get a full frame camera, I couldn't afford the printer to make it worth while!

 

[smoke665]

think camera companys are taking advantage of the human idea that theyu must have the best.

So are you still driving a Model T? Are you enjoying the comfort of central heat/air, or do you heat with a wood stove, and open the windows to cool off. Is there one of those old wringer washers in the house or a modern washer?

Like every other product out there manufacturers couldn't stay in business if they produced the same product year after year. It's called progress.

 

[Rickbb]

I used to get photos I really liked from a Kodak Instamatic; I no longer do.