# Do I need a Full Frame?



## runnah (Nov 27, 2013)

Short answer: No. 

Relevant article to many posts here as of late. Photography Tips: Do I Need a Full Frame Camera? | Photography Tips, Photography Tutorials, Articles and Videos

Article raised many good points. I've seen lots of posts here as of late with people saying they *need* a FF camera without fully understanding why. I feel like the obsession over the latest and greatest "it" tech clouds lots of people vision and stifles their work. Yes some people would benefit but the vast majority wouldn't.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 27, 2013)

Well I used to shoot film, so looks like it's okay that I bought a D600; since that's the _only _reason to get one.


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 27, 2013)

"Need" is such a dirty word.

Did I "need" it? No, I didn't. The reality is that I made a lot of money with crop bodies.

But I do see benefits of shooting with a full-frame, and I decided to go for it.

But "need"? Nah...


----------



## runnah (Nov 27, 2013)

Reminds me of the car forums i was on. Everyone was obsessed with HP and the latest parts, yet very few drove well enough to utilize what they had already let alone any upgrades.

Just bragging right I think.


----------



## rambler (Nov 27, 2013)

Ah...yes.  So often it comes down to the issue between "want" and "need".

Just a thought on the first image in the article that shows the "cropped camera " image inside the full frame image.  To get close to the view of the full frame image, just back up a few feet.  Sure, that is not always possible or safe, but in this example of a beach scene, how far back would one have to move to create the same look?  Not very far.


----------



## SnappingShark (Nov 27, 2013)

I would like a full frame camera to a) take advantage of lower light situations b) make the most of my lenses and c) enjoy it like HD. yipikaye mother.....


----------



## runnah (Nov 27, 2013)

BrightByNature said:


> I would like a full frame camera to a) *take advantage of lower light situations* b) *make the most of my lenses and* c) enjoy it like HD. yipikaye mother.....



How so?


----------



## table1349 (Nov 27, 2013)

One needs to keep in mind what the term "full frame" really means.  Full frame 120 years ago was in the area of 8" X 10".  While I have a "full frame" cherry wood view camera, it rarely gets used these days.  

Full frame has changed with times, just as in the digital age the quality of sensors has changed.  If one is considering a change in sensor size one needs to ask themselves what the  value of that change would be.


----------



## SnappingShark (Nov 27, 2013)

runnah said:


> BrightByNature said:
> 
> 
> > I would like a full frame camera to a) *take advantage of lower light situations* b) *make the most of my lenses and* c) enjoy it like HD. yipikaye mother.....
> ...



Well, most of the FX cameras I've looked at upgrading to  (D600, D800) are so much better than my D7100 in lower light.
I am now in the process of switching out my DX lenses for FX lenses, so I wish to take advantage of them when I upgrade.

I was talking for my own reasons for wanting full frame, not technical reasons why people buy them in the first place


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 27, 2013)




----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Nov 27, 2013)

Just like anything, eventually I hit the ceiling of what my gear was capable of and outgrew it. I couldn't have shot an indoor wedding with the 60d, given the files are iffy at ISO 1600 and garbage after that. 

Many of my lenses are much more useful now too, given the full frame field of view. 

 It would be hard to argue "need" for any type of modern high-end consumer electronic, but that doesn't stop us from buying the latest and greatest stuff to make things better.


----------



## table1349 (Nov 27, 2013)

astroNikon said:


>


:thumbup:


----------



## runnah (Nov 27, 2013)

Majeed Badizadegan said:


> Just like anything, eventually I hit the ceiling of what my gear was capable of and outgrew it. I couldn't have shot an indoor wedding with the 60d, given the files are iffy at ISO 1600 and garbage after that.
> 
> Many of my lenses are much more useful now too, given the full frame field of view.
> 
> It would be hard to argue "need" for any type of modern high-end consumer electronic, but that doesn't stop us from buying the latest and greatest stuff to make things better.



But did you let the fact that you didn't have the latest and greatest stop you from going out and shooting?


----------



## ronlane (Nov 27, 2013)

I would agree that I don't need anything else in photography, specially a camera body. But the fact is that I want a lot of stuff and because of that I make up all kinds of "excuses" as to why I need it.

I want a 5D mkIII and my excuse is the low light that most site. Also, I just feel that it produces a better photo than my T3i. Even if I could afford one, I don't really want a 1D.

runnah does bring up a good point and no, it doesn't keep me from going out and shooting. I am still learning and am producing better and better photos as I learn. (I was just noticing some higher ISO photos that I took this week that turned out pretty good.) I'm going to keep practicing and getting better so that when the day comes that I can move to a 5D, my main concern will be learning the camera and not having to worry about my skills getting in the way.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 27, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




hehehe - hehehe

I was going to say a couple things:

1 - I love my 85mm lens.  But doing portraits in my basement I need to take  few more steps back, but unfortunately there's a wall there.

2 - I love wide angle for architectural / nature shots.  But the $1,400 14mm Nikon lens costs more than just getting a $1,300 d600 and using my $100 Vivitar 17-28 lens.

3- I'm really curious taking pictures of an object 386,968,323 miles away and whether a crop sensor or a FF sensor does a better job.

4 - I bought my crop camera as my backup camera

5 - I used to shoot film.

6 - it would be another neat toy to learn

7 - what's better than having to clean one sensor every so often?  
     Having to clean TWO  

10 - It's our money


----------



## amolitor (Nov 27, 2013)

I pretty sure his discussion of DoF is actually wrong, there's more to it than simply using a longer lens.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 27, 2013)

Also, I hate his pictures. They're copies of all the other landscape photographer's pictures. Look, it's purple/blue and orange/yellow all over the place! This picture will go great with the new couch!


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 27, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I pretty sure his discussion of DoF is actually wrong, there's more to it than simply using a longer lens.



doesn't aperture affect DOF as well? or have I just been doing it wrong?


----------



## oldhippy (Nov 27, 2013)

Good friend- since departed once told me. " if you really want a certain thing, buy it. If you don't and you go with the lesser. Sure you be happy. But deep inside you will always wish you had your top choice. We're not here forever, live a little.   Ed


----------



## Derrel (Nov 27, 2013)

He glossed over the depth of field issue, possibly because he doesn't fully understand the subject, or possibly because he didn't think readers would be able to understand whatever it is that he might have written. Depth of field is a challenging topic to write about; maybe you recall the week-long series The Online Photographer did about DOF a couple years ago? It was a mess of conflicting ideas, concepts, half-truths, and old folktales.

Oddly, I happened to be by The Luminous Landscape yesterday, and I managed to find and read this essay among the mess that is their new site, filled with $10 interviews of photographers. Seriously? *$10* for a fricking interview? Talk about a blatant money grab. But then, I know Kevin and Michael NEED money to buy those new Phase 180 $80,000 medium format camera systems they use and run through like Altoids.

Full Frame Myth


----------



## limr (Nov 27, 2013)

I am the poster child for not upgrading equipment because I feel I've 'outgrown it.' I used the same camera and lens for 20 years because every time I took a crappy picture with it, I thought, "Man, I have to get better at using this camera!" These days when I use medium-format or a different 35mm, I do so not because they are 'upgrades' but because they are different and I can accomplish different things with them. I have an image in mind that I'd like to try, and I choose the camera that is best suited to capturing the image the way I envision it in my head.

Whenever I go over to a DSLR, it will most likely be a crop sensor because I plan on buying Pentax (to go with the seven lenses I already have for Pentax bodies) and they do not yet make a camera with a full frame sensor. I might, though, just wait for Pentax to come out with full frame. Sure, it might feel more intuitive to me to shoot "35mm" format in digital, but I also don't plan on ever buying more than one DSLR, so I might as well go for something that will last me a long time.

I did try to read that whole article, but dear lord, how the technical discussion made my eyes glaze over!


----------



## runnah (Nov 27, 2013)

Derrel said:


> He glossed over the depth of field issue, possibly because he doesn't fully understand the subject, or possibly because he didn't think readers would be able to understand whatever it is that he might have written. Depth of field is a challenging topic to write about; maybe you recall the week-long series The Online Photographer did about DOF a couple years ago? It was a mess of conflicting ideas, concepts, half-truths, and old folktales.



This is one of the best explanations I've heard. A little "mathy", but good.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 27, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > I pretty sure his discussion of DoF is actually wrong, there's more to it than simply using a longer lens.
> ...



Yes, but I've also read that not only is the DOF different between crop and full, you also technically lose a stop of aperture.

I'll have to say, as someone who just bought a d600, I didn't take the decision to buy it over a D7100 lightly.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 27, 2013)

The camera makers are pushing full-frame d-slrs as both halo products, and as profit makers for themselves. 

The new battle ground is the entry-level full-frame market, with Sony trying to get in there with the A7 at $1699, and Canon and Nikon striving for a $2,000 or so offering. Sony's A7r is a 36-megapixel camera trying to draw sales away from the D800 by undercutting it on price, but also delivering the mirrorless advantages, AND also offering some very tech-oriented imaging features that prosumer customers will read about on-line and fall in love with.

I think five years ago, full frame was really a huge benefit to image quality, and to higher ISO shooting. But sensors have become much,much better, and now the gap between APS-C and Full-Frame digital sensors in not as wide as it once was. The advantage is now not as clear as it used to be in terms of image quality--EXCEPT in lower light situations and/or at High ISO settings, where bigger really *is better*.

But if a person wants more depth of field for a given picture angle, then the smaller sensors deliver more depth of field. In fact, for some situations, the m4/3 cameras would be the best choice today. Look at Ysarex's new Fuji XE-2, and its KILLER-sharp, metal-barrel, new Fujinon lenses...a 2x FOV factor means deeper depth of field than a person can get at wide f/stops, a killer new X-Trans sensor technology, beautiful color, and a smallish, lightish camera that looks kind of cool, and which delivers hyperfocal depth of field pretty easily for when that's wanted.

Maybe some people should be asking themselves, "Do I need a m4/3 camera system?"


----------



## mmaria (Nov 28, 2013)

I'm one of the rare here that shoot an Olympus dslr.  It has 2x crop factor and my particular camera introduce noise even at iso 400, max is iso 1600, unusable. Imagine to shoot with just that? figure my limitations? And now, can you imagine what I was pushed to learn because those limitations? But I'm very grateful for it, had to say that.
I didn't want to upgrade until I felt I was ready to make a huge step forward. It's been a long time since I outgrew my camera, but it's ok, no rush. Sometimes when I get a gear lust I just wait until it passes...

I couldn't care less about latest, the "bestest" actually, don't care about those no matter in what terms and areas we talk about. I don't like what's modern, brands, what is in, what is expensive, what most people like...I don't like talking about equipment.
I don't like being judged and underestimated for what gear I use, but I do, all the time. 

I've just bought a 6d, not with me yet, but I bought it because I know why and what do I want a ff for. Do I need a ff, well there is just few things in my life that I really need. 

Cameras are just tools!

And this guy Nick...I read the article about "5 tips for beginners" and forgave him about some things that bugged me but after this one about ff, I pretty much don't need to read anything else written by him.

JMO


----------



## SCraig (Nov 28, 2013)

Derrel said:


> ...
> I think five years ago, full frame was really a huge benefit to image quality, and to higher ISO shooting. But sensors have become much,much better, and now the gap between APS-C and Full-Frame digital sensors in not as wide as it once was. The advantage is now not as clear as it used to be in terms of image quality--EXCEPT in lower light situations and/or at High ISO settings, where bigger really *is better*.


This is an important concept that many people fail to understand.  One of the drawbacks of simply searching for things on the internet is that dates are not always obvious, and in situations like this they are very important due to the advances in sensors over the past few years.

As recently as 3 or 4 years ago there was truly a significant gap between the performance of crop-sensor and full-frame cameras.  Camera makers have dramatically narrowed that gap over the past couple of years and now it is more of a sliver than a gap, and in reality the only time it comes into play is, as Derrel mentioned, during low-light / high-ISO situations.


----------



## EIngerson (Nov 28, 2013)

LOL, need? I buy things because I WANT them. Full frame? Hell yes I needed one. Why? because I can and nothing else.


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 28, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I pretty sure his discussion of DoF is actually wrong, there's more to it than simply using a longer lens.



There is, but I took his explanation to mean that, all else being equal, the difference would be evident with a longer lens...


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 28, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> Hell yes I needed one. Why? because I can and nothing else.



BAM!


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 28, 2013)

Braineack said:


> Well I used to shoot film, so looks like it's okay that I bought a D600; since that's the _only _reason to get one.



I used to shoot film too - but I don't want a full frame.  Dang.  Serious dilemma.  Lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 28, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > I pretty sure his discussion of DoF is actually wrong, there's more to it than simply using a longer lens.
> ...



Sure it does, on alternate tuesday's that occur after the correct solstice, assuming of course jupiter is aligned properly with mars at the time.  I'm pretty sure I've got a link to an online calculator for that.. hang on.. 

Lol


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 28, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Well I used to shoot film, so looks like it's okay that I bought a D600; since that's the _only _reason to get one.
> ...



I always thought you used one of these ?  Is it one of those fangled 110s?   Eitherway, no need for a FF.
http://media.officeworks.com.au/ims_docs/52/5284BECE2F985020E10080000AF11387.JPG




:thumbup:


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 28, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



Hey!  Have you been taking stuff out of my camera bag?  Lol


----------



## Solarflare (Nov 28, 2013)

Sorry, I keep my D600. You cant have it. No matter how many times you claim I wouldnt need it ! :greenpbl:

For Nikon specifically, the really good glas is FX. So why would I want to throw away more than 50% of the possible sensor size ? Also changing the meaning of focal lengths as well, making wide angles really hard to archieve with FX glas.

Also, 36x24mm is the largest size current sensors can be manufactured at in one piece. Thus 36x24mm sensors offer the best low light performance. Larger sensor sizes apparently need to use the CCD technology, which sadly runs with a higher noise background, unless cooled. I often photograph in low light, and the advantage from using full frame is very noticeable this way.


----------



## raventepes (Nov 28, 2013)

My desire for wanting to go full frame is simply in lenses. I grew up shooting on film, both point and shoots and on SLR's of just about every level. To me, 24mm is 24mm. I know that it's going to give me an 86* Angle of view. To get a near equivalent on a crop body, I'd need a 15mm lens, which gives an 86* angle of view. But I need to be realistic here. I love shooting wide angle for my own interests outside of my portrait studio. Though I don't have one, the widest (zoom) lens Nikon makes starts at 10mm, which on a DX gives 109*. Wide, yes, I'll give it that. But I don't like how slow that aperture is (f/4), hence I ended up with a Tokina f/2.8 11-16, which starts at 104*. But even if Nikon made a comparable lens to, say a 14-24, it would have to be somewhere in the neiborhood of 8 or 9mm - that 15mm I mentioned earlier. Now of course, I could sell my 11-16 and replace it with a Sigma 8-16, but again...there's that nasty aperture again, which is variable at f/4.5 at its widest to f/5.6 at the long end. It's not worth it to me, despite the fact that I rarely shoot faster than f/8 for landscapes. Though, I will admit, 2.8 does have a good deal of advantage when shooting hand held at dusk, which is why I mostly use fast zooms. Yes, for the most part, working that fast just isn't needed in most situations, but I live in Alaska where fighting available light, come winter, is what we do here. Even on a tripod, sometimes I struggle to get the shot I'm after, as I have to keep the shutter open longer. 

That's all wide angle though. When I think about the longer side of things and shooting, say birds or distant wildlife, You bet, even if I currently had a full frame, I'd be reaching for my D7100...but I always use FF long lenses. at 300mm on a crop sensor, I'm looking at roughly a 5* angle of view. To achieve that same angle on a full frame, I'd be looking at needing a 460mm lens, which, as we all know gets pretty expensive, and I don't use teleconverters unless I have no other choice. 

Realistically, there are pros and cons to every format. DX (or APS-C) is really good to make use of longer lenses for when you need that extra reach. But when you need to go wide, unless you're going to a mirrorless system, there really isn't a better alternative, especially when you take lenses into account. But I need to be honest here. M 4/3 puts us back to square 1, in terms of angle of view/mm. Its directly the same as its full frame counter part, when you divide its focal length in half. My problem with with M4/3 is purely in its focus tracking. Though it's gotten better in this last year, it's still not quite up to where I'd want it at, personally. They produce some outstanding images. I'll give them that, especially when you're looking at the EM-1 with the more expensive lenses. 

There's a tool for every job. Sometimes a full frame camera is the answer. Sometimes, it isn't. As Solarflare points out, the best glass is in the realm of full frame, though if you look hard enough, some crop sensor lenses can come close.  I know I want to eventually get a full frame camera for reasons I mentioned above, but would I use it in my portrait studio? Maybe, maybe not. And you just can't beat the reach of a DX body with full frame lenses in terms of going long. Realistically, the average person wouldn't be able to tell the difference in an identical images, shot with a crop sensor and a full frame. You really have to know what you're looking for. When it comes to taking a hike up a mountain, would I want to carry even my D7100 and a couple lenses? I can tell you now, I wouldn't...It may not seem like much when you're packing up a bag at first, but that body and a couple-few lenses gets heavy after a while. Which is where a nice mirrorless system comes in...


----------



## Braineack (Nov 28, 2013)

I have a digital torque wrench that buzzes and beeps when I reach my torque.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 28, 2013)

I really like the idea of having an extra 1.3 or 1.6 when using a long lens, and with a 1.4 extender as well, it works even better.  But for a wide angle, full frame is great.  It all depends on what you are shooting and with what lens.


----------



## timor (Nov 28, 2013)

Braineack said:


> Well I used to shoot film, so looks like it's okay that I bought a D600; since that's the _only _reason to get one.


  And what would be consider "full frame" in film photography ? 35mm, 6x6, 6x9, 4x5, 8x10, 12x16 or 20x24 ? Or maybe "life size" ? http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/08/17/t-magazine/17kase-sayej/17kase-sayej-tmagArticle.jpg
or this: http://aslanivo.files.wordpress.com/2005/12/Largeformat.jpg
(Just for fun !)


----------



## Derrel (Nov 28, 2013)

To me the biggest issue with 1.5x or 1.6x cameras is when doing traditional portrait-type shots, or social photos where the photographer wants to make the background disappear, or to be sublimated. Especially when working with seamless paper rolls, which have a fixed width. WJay happens a lot is that with the APS-C camera, the depth of field is so great that in normal, real-world locations, the crop-sensor forces the photographer to dip down into the 18,19,20mm length to do a full-length shot, or a group shot of six or more, and is often forced to work from FARTHER BACK, which compounds the DOF issue.

If you start looking for it, you'll start to see all sorts of background 'issues' that APS-C bodies bring to traditional studio shooting when you use 9-foot wide seamless rolls, or when you shoot on-location. You'll see that with your 85mm lens, you need to be 35 feet away with a crop body for a full-length shot, and at that distance even at f/4, the background's pretty recognizable. If you're shooting in sunlight, you'll end up at f/8 to f/16, and you'll have very little background control. But the 17,18,19,20mm group shots on APS-C camera tend to look crappy. NOBODY looks good when shot with a 17,18,19,20mm lens....even the 30-35mm length that you need so,so often with a crop-body indoors looks sub-par compared with a longer lens.

It's a matter of *perspective*, which is based only on DISTANCE, and then it's made even worse by short focal length and *apparent perspective distortion* (not the same thing as perspective, and then the two are made worse by the lack of ability to get foreground/background separation via shallow DOF, due to the smaller format of the APS-C capture format. The smaller the capture format, the worse the camera is for certain kinds of people work, especially in-studio, where in most locations,m you have only a 9-foot-wide background, and only about a 5- to 10 foot "apron" of seamless on which you can pose people.

The "Look" of lenses like 85mm and 105mm and 135mm teles has long been understood by higher-end shooters, and the "look" of 24x36mm shot with lenses that were designed for 24x36 is kind of the hallmark of many of today's best wedding and portrait and fashion shooters. The "look" is one reason the Canon 5D-II and 5D-III cameras have taken over the high-end wedding and portrait biz...the "look" is different. When you need to shoot something like a 50mm normal as your "short tele", the look is sub-standard compared against how it looks with a premium 85mm lens. When your group shots are shot with the bottom end of a 17-55 zoom, they look crappy.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 28, 2013)

That post was a mix of being a little silly and making some valid points.  It was basically a mess.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 28, 2013)

Braineack said:


> I have a digital torque wrench that buzzes and beeps when I reach my torque.



You are one serious party animal, you know that?  Lol


----------



## Braineack (Nov 29, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > I have a digital torque wrench that buzzes and beeps when I reach my torque.
> ...




I have my moments.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 29, 2013)

Anyway, my whole point on that post is that what he's saying is "You don't need full frame... you need a camera that meets your requirements."  Okay, sure.  That's about as exciting as saying "Don't buy a sports car if you need a pickup truck".  It's also about as revolutionary as saying "It's raining out. Wear a raincoat."  It's stated like it's some big amazing thing, though.

"DON'T LET PEOPLE TELL YOU THAT YOU NEED TO WEAR A RAINCOAT OUT WHEN IT'S NOT RAINING! THIS IS AMAZING INFORMATION PEOPLE. I WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE. READY? IF ITS NOT RAINING YOU DON'T NEED A RAINCOAT!"

Ok yeah, wow. Awesome man. Thanks. You really saved my ass there.

Now what he sort of glazes over is that ... for some people ... whatever full frame camera option is out there may be a better match for their requirements.  Full frame cameras TEND to have better low light handling, better color representation, etc. They also tend to be made from better stuff, so if you need a more rugged body with more weatherproofing, or light up buttons... odds are good the full frame option is going to be the one to have these features.

Will such a thing make you a better photographer? No, of course not. But it is possible that such a thing will be what you need to get the pictures you want... or at least get them as higher quality pictures. (lower noise and whatnot)

If he had posted it with the theme of "you don't NECESSARILY need a full frame camera", it would have been super great.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 29, 2013)

I think his point is actually that the differences between full frame and crop are so minor as to hardly matter. He's got a definite point. The differences in high ISO/noise/etc are still present, but sensor generation matters a LOT more than full frame versus crop.

Given that he's a landscape guy who usually wants more DoF rather than less, I am pretty sure he has a built-in bias against noticing the main substantive difference, which is the treatment of DoF.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 29, 2013)

Ok, but if you're in the market and looking at the same generation of sensors across full frame and crop sensor cameras...

And yes good point on the bias.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 29, 2013)

I was a little torn because I end up taking a lot of shots at 300mm around the area of nature/wildlife.

Having a D7100 and getting 24MP packed into an APC-S would be awesome for this and I could crop down even further without worry.

But the way I figured it is, I'm happy with the results I'm getting at 16MP with my D5100, my D600 cropped from 24MP down 1.5, will be 16MP, so I'll be where I started, but I should net better high ISO, color, IQ, etc with the bigger sensor and come out ahead.

Otherwise, I shoot a lot more indoor, low-light situations in tight scenarios where I the FF sensor would benefit from in both regards.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 29, 2013)

manaheim said:


> That post was a mix of being a little silly and making some valid points.  It was basically a mess.



Aren't all threads like this ?  :lmao:

FYI, as soon as I can afford a d600 I'll be getting one.  I sure wish it had the features of a d800 .. oh well.
I'll be keeping my d7000 too.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 29, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > That post was a mix of being a little silly and making some valid points. It was basically a mess.
> ...



 yup.

d600 would be sweet. Honestly I'd almost rather have one than my d800.  The d800 is a monster.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Nov 29, 2013)

Braineack said:


> I have a digital torque wrench that buzzes and beeps when I reach my torque.



Does it do newton-metres?


----------



## Braineack (Nov 29, 2013)

yes: 20.3 - 203 Nm


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 29, 2013)

manaheim said:


> d600 would be sweet. Honestly I'd almost rather have one than my d800.  The d800 is a monster.



Monster?
How so ?

I think it would be sweet if it was 24mp instead of 36.
I would love a 24mp d700 for the features and build  .. but oh well, not like I would have been able to afford a new one anyways.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 29, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I think his point is actually that the differences between full frame and crop are so minor as to hardly matter. He's got a definite point. The differences in high ISO/noise/etc are still present, but sensor generation matters a LOT more than full frame versus crop.
> 
> Given that he's a landscape guy who usually wants more DoF rather than less, I am pretty sure he has a built-in bias against noticing the main substantive difference, which is the treatment of DoF.



Except that...the FF cameras DO HAVE the "better stuff" like: deeper buffer in RAW mode; bigger batteries that can last up to a week in light use, or a FULL DAY in heavy use on one,single battery charge; more-sophisticated auto-bracketing options such as say 9 frames at up to + or - 5 EV in Nikon's better cameras versus say, 3-frame AEB in many entry- and APS-C models; bigger, brighter and simply BETTER viewfinders; more buttons that actually make a difference, like say AE-L and also AF-L as well as AF-ON in high-end Nikon bodies; viewfinders with better eye relief for eyeglass wearers (Nikon's pro bodies use the round eyepiece style which allows the corners of the frame to be seen by eyeglass wearers);better weather-sealing; integrated battery/grip that removes much of the weather sealing issue and gives dual controls + the vertical trigger; the BEST autofocus system and the most-sophisticated light metering. The pro cameras also have faster shot-to-shot times, but even more importantly, they have significantly less shutter lag time than the cheaper bodies.

If a D5200 is enough camera for EVERYBODY, then it follows that Nikon never should have made the D3s, D3x, or D4, right? And NOBODY ought to buy a D3s,D3x, or D4, because the Nikon D5200 is good enough for all situations, right?

If the Canon EOS 60D is enough camera for everybody, then NOBODY ought to shoot the Canon 5D Mark III or the Canon 1Dx. Right?


----------



## bentcountershaft (Nov 29, 2013)

Braineack said:


> yes: 20.3 - 203 Nm



Sweet.  You can dial in how hard you like to smack someone over the head and get audible confirmation.


----------



## timor (Nov 29, 2013)

Derrel said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > I think his point is actually that the differences between full frame and crop are so minor as to hardly matter. He's got a definite point. The differences in high ISO/noise/etc are still present, but sensor generation matters a LOT more than full frame versus crop.
> ...


Here we go, it is not the size of the sensor, it's everything else around the sensor what makes it. Plus not all high end cameras are even FF to be high end.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 29, 2013)

The big issues in camera buying are now, "Is it good enough *for me*?" and "Does it do what I need or want it to do, *for me*?" SOme people just want good, clear, colorful photos of casual weekend events, and plan on taking a few photos to print and display. Other people want a "serious" camera, capable of taking high-resolution. multi-frame HDR or focus-stacked landscapes that will be printed HUGE. One of those people might very well like a small mirrorless camera or an entry-level d-slr, while the other person might very well elect to go for the Nikon D800e.

As amolitor mentioned, the generation of sensor is now a big,big deal. In recent years, Sony and Toshiba have made major advances in sensors which have lower noise, and wider dynamic range, and richer color than other similar-sized sensors made by Canon. This is a real point of contention on the internet forums, and it has lead to a sort of head-in-the sand denial from a lot of long-time and new Canon fans, who scream and shout and dismiss the test results, but the fact is...Canon's still using OLD, and now-obsolescent sensor fabrication technology, and is slowly being left behind. However, on the horizon, some people are predicting in late 2014 that a NEW, and DIFFERENT type of sensor will begin popping up, and I think Canon has something in the works.

I think before long, the new maybe more Foveon-like, non-Bayer sensor cameras will be the next big thing. I've heard that Canon has a 75 megapixel, non-traditional camera in development. But for now, it seems like the camera makers have realized that 16 to 24 MP is a sort of "sweet spot". Plenty of pixels for good images, for most uses. Not so many that there are no lenses that can use that many pixels, but also enough MP that cropping a frame in half is no longer a guaranteed disaster. NOWADAYS, it's more about finding a camera that does what the user wants, is affordable, and has the right stuff available for a specific user. If you want small, you can go small--Olympus, FUJI,PANASONIC,SONY,SAMSUNG. Medium sized, like Rebel T5i or 70D or D7100?  Entry-level FF, D610 or Canon 6D. Flagship? D4 or 1Dx.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 29, 2013)

It is absolutely correct that the camera makers are declining to put every possible combination of features out there. It is entirely possible that you need a camera that happens to be full-frame, but that the full-frameness of it is not one of the features you need.

Everyone with a product line does this: pile together a collection of "premium" features into a "premium" model, or line of models. And then the customers, invariably, ***** that there isn't a medium range model that has only the premium features they want.

So it goes. Look forward to a future with reduced product lines, so the model you need will tend to have even more features that you do not need.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 29, 2013)

It all really comes down to the person with the camera, you work with what you have. If the first camera you buy isn't a full frame body, then you don't know any better and learn to use it. If you have always used a full frame body and then end up using one that gives you a 1.3 difference, then you learn to work with it. I've gone from all full frame film cameras to non-full frame digital and used them without any concerns. I am back to a full frame body and it all looks the same to me.

It's the ability to work with what you have, and the skill of the person holding the camera.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 29, 2013)

Derrel said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > I think his point is actually that the differences between full frame and crop are so minor as to hardly matter. He's got a definite point. The differences in high ISO/noise/etc are still present, but sensor generation matters a LOT more than full frame versus crop.
> ...



So to summarize, you get what you pay for?  Whacky.



> If a D5200 is enough camera for EVERYBODY, then it follows that Nikon never should have made the D3s, D3x, or D4, right? And NOBODY ought to buy a D3s,D3x, or D4, because the Nikon D5200 is good enough for all situations, right?



Exactly!  Now, lets all get together, grab some torches and pitchforks and.. oh crap, wait.. that was sarcasm wasn't it?



> If the Canon EOS 60D is enough camera for everybody, then NOBODY ought to shoot the Canon 5D Mark III or the Canon 1Dx. Right?



See!  I agree 100%.  Those damn Mark III owners need to be purged!  We'll all march right up there and.. oh crap.. you did it to me again didn't you?  Lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 29, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> It all really comes down to the person with the camera, you work with what you have. If the first camera you buy isn't a full frame body, then you don't know any better and learn to use it. If you have always used a full frame body and then end up using one that gives you a 1.3 difference, then you learn to work with it. I've gone from all full frame film cameras to non-full frame digital and used them without any concerns. I am back to a full frame body and it all looks the same to me.
> 
> It's the ability to work with what you have, and the skill of the person holding the camera.



Ok, well judging by the rest of your post I doubt your statement was meant this way but I have to point out that people buy non full frame for reasons other than "not knowing better".  

As for myself much as I'd love to have an unlimited budget to spend on camera gear, well that just isn't my life.  So I buy the equipment I can afford but I try to buy smart so I get the best bang for my buck and I have the best upgrade path available for my type of photography.  I do agree that skill is a big part of getting good images.  I think that perhaps what hasn't been pointed out, at least not in a clear and concise fashion, is that the higher end gear simply makes it easier for someone with the appropriate skills so it is less likely they will miss the shot they really want.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Nov 30, 2013)

To kinda bring this thread back a bit, I'll sum up my thoughts with the following statement, then give several sentences about what I think anyway because I want to: I use a 4/3 DSLR.... 

Now for those sentences: My 4/3 DSLR will NOT focus in anything but VERY bright light and not on anything remotely flat/uniform surfaces. I've also outgrown the 10 mp crop sensor, and the IQ I get from it isn't consistent-it's fantastic in some areas, but a complete letdown at others. It's INCREDIBLY noisy and the ISO range is...n't. The ONLY reason I want a Canon 6D is because it's something I won't outgrow. I don't want a full frame to make me a better photographer (this implies I'm not horrible to begin with-no such implication is true), I want a full frame to have an easier time taking more photos and less frustration. Having played with one, the focus is the biggest thing that caught my attention, and frankly, is worth it to me just for that alone.

Sorry for the interruption. Continue.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 30, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > It all really comes down to the person with the camera, you work with what you have. If the first camera you buy isn't a full frame body, then you don't know any better and learn to use it. If you have always used a full frame body and then end up using one that gives you a 1.3 difference, then you learn to work with it. I've gone from all full frame film cameras to non-full frame digital and used them without any concerns. I am back to a full frame body and it all looks the same to me.
> ...



I have always bought the gear that I needed to do the job and the type of photographs I take, unfortunately for me that also means having to buy at the high end for both bodies and glass.  I bought a Canon t2i as a play around camera but still use it when I would like a little 1.6 to some frames, it works just fine with good glass under good light.  I had to make the choice on a 5D mklll over trying to find $9000 on a 1Dx, although with the new year looking like a lot more work coming I will have to decide again on which new body.  As I noted in an earlier post the 1.3 factor on the 1D and 1Dmkll I used was great with my 300 2.8, I wasn't forced to carry the much heavier 400 2.8 around with me.  The 5D is great, but the images still look mushy over 1250iso under low light. 

My mention about someone buying a digital camera that is not full frame goes more to the entry level person that has never used a camera before. They don't know any different, so they simply learn with what they have. Either way, it's just a camera.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 30, 2013)

If you can afford it...buy it. If you can't afford it...don't. Will you love it? Yep.


----------



## TCampbell (Nov 30, 2013)

As soon as the guy starts comparing a 5D II to the 7D I started rolling my eyes.  Those cameras are not actually intended for the same type of use.  

I shot with a 5D II (and now a 5D III) for the ISO performance.  He sort of shirked that off with a "any camera can have good ISO ... " blah blah blah.  While that's a nice hypothesis... unfortunately it's not reality.   It turns out I don't have my own chip fabrication plant to build my own sensors processors -- so I'm stuck buying the stuff the vendors are selling.  And the vendors put the premium sensors in the expensive cameras (imagine that?)  He really skirted the ISO issue.  The vendors seem to be putting the most R&D into improving the high-end sensors... which eventually do seem to trickle down into the mid level and entry level bodies.  Could they make an APS-C sensor with the same ISO performance as their best full-frame sensors?  Sure... but they don't.  (BTW, they wouldn't be able to make it with the same total resolution.)

I skimmed over his linked blog on advice to beginner photographers -- the one where he thinks learning the exposure triangle is a "trick" and he doesn't believe it.  Understanding how to find the correct exposure and the trade-offs of using equivalent exposures is pretty basic to photography.  That's sort of like saying I don't believe you should learn music notation when learning to play an instrument.  That is ONE WAY to go about it, sure... but I don't think you'll get the results you're looking for as fast as your friends who DO take the time to learn the basics.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 30, 2013)

He's actually not the only person who happens to think that the "exposure triangle" is a horrible pedagogical device. It seems to work for some people, but I literally cannot understand _how_. There's no accounting for how people learn, but sometimes there's no understanding it either.

He's certainly not saying that there's no need to grasp exposure.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 30, 2013)

One of the observations that I have made for well over 20 years is this: When a writer tells his readers that they, "Do not need high-end gear," it's almost a sure thing that the writer himself DOES in fact, OWN and shoot the very same high-end gear that he tells his readers they ought not to be interested in. And the writer under discussion in this post is no exception. As he writes, "As a professional with tons of experience, let me tell you why I use a full-frame camera and why they get a reputation of being better."

So...once again, my observation proves accurate. It's yet another do as I say, not as I do piece. *Click-bait*, as amolitor so often calls it--something written to satisfy blog readers, by telling them exactly what they want to have rationalized or justified for their situations.

The same basic scenario has been around for decades. The older, established professional with a truckload of cameras, lenses, flash gear, props, and so on writes an article, in which he (we will call him Joe Pro) tells the readers, "All you need is one light. You can get great portraits with just a 50mm lens and one,single light." And so on,and so on, and so on. And yet when Joe Pro does a portrait session, he doesn't use a 50mm lens and just one light; instead, he brings out four or five lights, multiple modifiers, and an expensive, purpose-built lens that he reserves for his higher-end portraits, and uses a camera body that costs as much as a used car.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 30, 2013)

Derrel said:


> One of the observations that I have made for well over 20 years is this: When a writer tells his readers that they, "Do not need high-end gear," it's almost a sure thing that the writer himself DOES in fact, OWN and shoot the very same high-end gear that he tells his readers they ought not to be interested in. And the writer under discussion in this post is no exception. As he writes, "As a professional with tons of experience, let me tell you why I use a full-frame camera and why they get a reputation of being better."
> 
> So...once again, my observation proves accurate. It's yet another do as I say, not as I do piece. *Click-bait*, as amolitor so often calls it--something written to satisfy blog readers, by telling them exactly what they want to have rationalized or justified for their situations.
> 
> The same basic scenario has been around for decades. The older, established professional with a truckload of cameras, lenses, flash gear, props, and so on writes an article, in which he (we will call him Joe Pro) tells the readers, "All you need is one light. You can get great portraits with just a 50mm lens and one,single light." And so on,and so on, and so on. And yet when Joe Pro does a portrait session, he doesn't use a 50mm lens and just one light; instead, he brings out four or five lights, multiple modifiers, and an expensive, purpose-built lens that he reserves for his higher-end portraits, and uses a camera body that costs as much as a used car.



But does he use a tripod or handhold it ?  :lmao:


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 30, 2013)

amolitor said:


> He's actually not the only person who happens to think that the "exposure triangle" is a horrible pedagogical device. It seems to work for some people, but I literally cannot understand _how_. There's no accounting for how people learn, but sometimes there's no understanding it either.
> 
> He's certainly not saying that there's no need to grasp exposure.



Ok, guess I'm confused on this one - ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture all affect exposure.  How can one possibly "understand" exposure if they don't understand how these three interact?  Seems completely nonsensical to me to say I "understand" exposure if I'm completely ignorant of the fact that I need to increase my ISO or my Aperture to compensate for a higher shutter speed, or if I'm unaware of what Increasing my ISO or my Aperture will do in regards to the final image.  You either get it or you don't - just not seeing a third option here.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 30, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > He's actually not the only person who happens to think that the "exposure triangle" is a horrible pedagogical device. It seems to work for some people, but I literally cannot understand _how_. There's no accounting for how people learn, but sometimes there's no understanding it either.
> ...



who knows .. maybe AUTO ISO then you can ignore it.
Then you have 2 things.  

and only 1 if you only do S or A
let the camera do the rest of ignorance


----------



## amolitor (Nov 30, 2013)

The "exposure triangle" is a specific, terrible, picture which completely fails to reveal a single damn thing about the relationship between the three things. The picture is terrible and yet, somehow, weirdly effective. It gives the impression of carrying a lot of information while in fact containing almost none.

Exposure can be understood without reference to this terrible picture, as evidenced by something like the first 150 years of photography.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 30, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The "exposure triangle" is a specific, terrible, picture which completely fails to reveal a single damn thing about the relationship between the three things. The picture is terrible and yet, somehow, weirdly effective. It gives the impression of carrying a lot of information while in fact containing almost none.
> 
> Exposure can be understood without reference to this terrible picture, as evidenced by something like the first 150 years of photography.



I agree with amolitor on this; the "exposure triangle" is a very recent, digital-age concept. I had never heard of it until about five years ago. It's basically a newbie thing. I do not think it's a necessary concept in any way,shape, or form. I'm not quite sure how it came to be, or who first coined the term.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 30, 2013)

Derrel said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > The "exposure triangle" is a specific, terrible, picture which completely fails to reveal a single damn thing about the relationship between the three things. The picture is terrible and yet, somehow, weirdly effective. It gives the impression of carrying a lot of information while in fact containing almost none.
> ...



Ok, so were actually talking about some sort of food pyramid style graphic as opposed to an understanding of ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture then?  Well that makes a lot more sense.


----------



## EIngerson (Nov 30, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The "exposure triangle" is a specific, terrible, picture which completely fails to reveal a single damn thing about the relationship between the three things. The picture is terrible and yet, somehow, weirdly effective. It gives the impression of carrying a lot of information while in fact containing almost none.
> 
> Exposure can be understood without reference to this terrible picture, as evidenced by something like the first 150 years of photography.




Ummmmmm, what?


----------



## minicoop1985 (Dec 1, 2013)

Someone mentioned learning without the exposure triangle. The very first times I ever played with manual mode on a DSLR (probably 5 years+ ago), I had absolutely no idea what the hell I was doing, and therefore just took about 40 photos of the same thing until I got one that was what I thought good at the time (it hurts my eyes looking back on it). Just played with settings. Learned about... nothing doing it. Repeated the process until realizing hey, there's a pattern here. If I adjust this, things get brighter. If I adjust that, things get blurry here and sharp here. So there is a way to learn without the triangle: trial and error. Eventually, you get the idea for what settings work in what places, but basically, you learn that triangle in some way shape or form even if you claim you didn't.

Unless your D4 is in Auto mode.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 1, 2013)

Interesting. The phrase "exposure triangle" seems to mean two different things, depending on who you ask. One of them is a ridiculous little graphic, which exists in a bunch of different forms, which purports to illustrate the relationship between shutter speed, aperture, and ISO (but does not). The other one is simply the relationship between those three things in making an exposure.

I'm pretty sure that Nick Carver and I both mean "the useless little graphic", not the relationships between the three factors. Of course you need to grasp the relationship between the three factors that go into an exposure.


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 1, 2013)

Or, it's the standard diagram people relate to when discussing exposure. Your arguments really aren't going anywhere Amolitor.


----------



## Reciprocity (Dec 1, 2013)




----------



## amolitor (Dec 1, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> Your arguments really aren't going anywhere Amolitor.



If you prefer you can call me Andrew!

I don't actually see that I have made any arguments. I see some statements of facts, and a disagreement and clarification of terminology.


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 1, 2013)

amolitor said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > Your arguments really aren't going anywhere Amolitor.
> ...



lol, or argument. Mincing words doesn't change what it is. 

Fare enough Andrew, I'm Eric.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 1, 2013)

Neither does asserting that a cow is dog make it woof. You're the one making accusations, it's on you to make your case, which you cannot, so I'm done here.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 1, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > EIngerson said:
> ...




Well Eric, if Andrew says that he was referring to the diagram earlier, that's good enough for me - it's not always easy being clear and concise in written communication after all.  Now if you'll excuse me I need to get back to my research, we have a grant to study the possibility of genetically altering a cow into a dog.   It won't serve any practical use of course but who cares, it's a government grant after all - lol


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 1, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Neither does asserting that a cow is dog make it woof. You're the one making accusations, it's on you to make your case, which you cannot, so I'm done here.



Nothing to prove, I'm curing boredom just like you.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 1, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Neither does asserting that a cow is dog make it woof. You're the one making accusations, it's on you to make your case, which you cannot, so I'm done here.
> ...



Grab your camera and go take some pictures


----------



## kathyt (Dec 1, 2013)

Just buy the damn camera runnah! Yes, you _need _&#8203;it!


----------



## TCampbell (Dec 1, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The "exposure triangle" is a specific, terrible, picture which completely fails to reveal a single damn thing about the relationship between the three things. The picture is terrible and yet, somehow, weirdly effective. It gives the impression of carrying a lot of information while in fact containing almost none.
> 
> Exposure can be understood without reference to this terrible picture, as evidenced by something like the first 150 years of photography.



I find the name "triangle" only to be useful to describe that three elements are at play.  The term "triad" would have been better (especially since "triangle" is a geometric term whereas "triad" simply says there is a relationship between three connected things.)

But you are right... attempts to use the three sided geometric shape to somehow "explain" the relationship gets very awkward.   

It was easier with film because we emphasized the difference between shutter speed and aperture and didn't emphasize ISO/ASA/DIN because you couldn't easily change that element (not without changing the film loaded in the camera -- easy if you have a Hasselblad with multiple film-magazines, but hard for cameras with non-removable film magazines.)


----------



## Warhorse (Dec 23, 2013)

Found this to be an interesting look at full frame vs. "cropped" sensor.

Does "Full Frame" Really Mean Much Anymore? - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light


----------



## bc_steve (Dec 26, 2013)

I never heard of the exposure triangle when I was learning, and it doesn't make complete sense to me.  I see shutter speed and aperture slightly removed from ISO rather than three sides of the same object.  I'm a science nerd though, so to say aperture and shutter speed are inversely proportional says it all.  The reason I see ISO separate is it should be the last resort, left at its minimum value unless you want more light but do not want or cannot open the aperture wider or increase exposure time.

As far as FF goes it doesn't always make sense.  Quality glass above 200mm starts getting real expensive, so the 'crop factor' certainly can come in handy.  A smaller, lighter camera is pretty handy as well.  Good for travel and slightly less conspicuous.

Cheaper glass can be a benefit, _IF_ you don't have the idea in your head that one day you will get a FF camera and therefore should only buy FX lenses.

I think for me, upgrading from 16 to 24 MP would be a more significant upgrade than going to full frame, but is the cost worth it?  I feel like I am on the-latest-and-greatest treadmill when I think about it.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 26, 2013)

That's like saying you put subwoofers in your car, but don't worry about the size of the amp powering them.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 26, 2013)

The whole `smaller camera ` thing doesn't make a ton of sense. If you can't shove it in your pocket then it won't be any smaller in practice than any other camera that you can't shove in your pocket.


----------



## bc_steve (Dec 26, 2013)

Braineack said:


> That's like saying you put subwoofers in your car, but don't worry about the size of the amp powering them.



EDIT <<< I had a response but it made no sense because I thought you were talking about something else



manaheim said:


> The whole `smaller camera ` thing doesn't make a ton of sense. If you can't shove it in your pocket then it won't be any smaller in practice than any other camera that you can't shove in your pocket.



Ya you're probably right.  It's not really enough of a difference to be that significant, but I do hike with my stuff a lot.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 26, 2013)

Braineack said:


> That's like saying you put subwoofers in your car, but don't worry about the size of the amp powering them.



Sorry, but no, this is not a good analogy. The CLASSIC, TRADITIONAL way to graph expiosure has been known for well over a century by well-studied, educated photographers. What amolitor, and TCampbell,and myself have been trying to say on this board, for well over two years, is that the "Exposure Triangle" is a BRAND-NEW concept, and has until this time, the digital era, been simply unheard of. As in UN-heard of. AS in "did not exist, in any form." The fact that new, internet-age teaching devices, as in "short-cuts" or "short-hands" or "helper concepts" have been put forth by self-taught, unstudied, uneducated YouTubers and *noobs attempting to teach noobs*, is beside the point; a point which I must say, h*as ZERO relationship to subwoofers or amplifiers*... Sorry, but that's the facts Jack, Or braineack! As the case may be!

Molecular Expressions Microscopy Primer: Photomicrography - Fundamentals of Film Exposure

exposure of film boils down to a simple relationship between two important variables*:* the amount of time the film is exposed to light and the intensity of that light. Films are formulated by the manufacturer to respond according to the following formula, *E = l x t*, where *E* is the proper exposure, *l* is the intensity of illuminating light rays, and *t* is the film emulsion exposure time in seconds or fractions thereof.

The term "Exposure" has for well over a century, been the above. As in THE ABOVE EQUATION. That is the correct and proper way to define "Exposure" as a photographic term.  *E = l x t*, where *E* is the proper exposure, *l* is the intensity of illuminating light rays, and *t* is the film emulsion exposure time in seconds or fractions thereof is the correct use of the word. 

A related example, "automobile" defines an automobile, whereas "my ride" is slang, as is "my bucket", "my wheels", "my beater", "my Yota", and so on. The Exposure Triangle is a bastardization of a real, actual defined term.

Changing the ISO in use is a modern convention, made commonplace mostly within the digital era, when it became possible to shift exposures by simply turning a dial or pressing a button a few times; the manner in which EXPOSURE, as a photographic term, is used, has not varied. Bringing ISO setting into a proper term of "exposure" is a bastardization of the concept.

If you want to talk meteorology, you define clouds by their type--not as "puffy white sky-marshmallows". If one talks about "exposure", ALL that needs to be discussed is INTENSITY x TIME duration. That is ***it*. THAT in itself **is** the term "EXPOSURE" as it is properly,correctly,scientifically designed. Not with added B.S. from who knows who...

"Changing to a film of new ISO rating also changes the exposure time. A simple equation can be applied to calculate the new film exposure time when changing film speed*:*
*New Exposure Time = (Standard Time x Standard ISO) / New ISO*Where *Standard ISO* is the film speed (or ASA) of the film having known exposure parameters, and *New ISO* is the film speed (or ASA) of the new film. As an example, if the correct exposure time for a specimen using Fujichrome Velvia (ISO = 50) is 0.2 seconds, the adjusted exposure time when Fujichrome Provia (ISO = 100) is substituted can be calculated*:*
*New Exposure Time = (0.2 x 50) / 100*
*New Exposure Time = 0.1 seconds"


So, basically the whole concept of the "exposure Triangle" is a new-fangled teaching device, designed to help noobies understand how to work a camera.  *


----------



## runnah (Dec 26, 2013)

I now have a full frame camera and I can attest that all my photos are now much better. Each photo now has exciting subjects, dynamic lighting and tells an emotional story. I also lost 10 lbs while eating the things I love.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 26, 2013)

runnah said:


> I now have a full frame camera and I can attest that all my photos are now much better. Each photo now has exciting subjects, dynamic lighting and tells an emotional story. I also lost 10 lbs while eating the things I love.



Dude-you totally forgot to add the part where you tell us that you: "Make $1,134 a day from home, typing on the keyboard. Easy money-making opportunities, reply for details to sillyfakejobs_BS$makingopps.com"


----------



## runnah (Dec 26, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Dude-you totally forgot to add the part where you tell us that you: "Make $1,134 a day from home, typing on the keyboard. Easy money-making opportunities, reply for details to sillyfakejobs_BS$makingopps.com"



Well I can tell you but you need to buy my DVDs for 3 easy payments of $49.99 plus shipping and handling.


----------



## Rick58 (Dec 26, 2013)

Let me shovel away some of this testosterone and ask a simple question.
In my film days, you always shot the largest format possible for a given situation. You did this for one reason...image quality. 
This debate would never even have existed because this was a given fact. If not, everyone would have shot 110 film with the best glass affordable.
I never would have even considered buying a camera that used PART of a 35mm frame. Now comes the question. Is this still a factor? From what I've been reading here, it's not...so much.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 26, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> Let me shovel away some of this testosterone and ask a simple question.
> In my film days, you always shot the largest format possible for a given situation. You did this for one reason...image quality.
> This debate would never even have existed because this was a given fact. If not, everyone would have shot 110 film with the best glass affordable.
> I never would have even considered buying a camera that used PART of a 35mm frame. Now comes the question. Is this still a factor? From what I've been reading here, it's not...so much.



Well...the *technical image quality* of the newest APS-C sensors has really gone up over the last few model generations. An APS-C camera that's up at the top of the heap, like say the Nikon D7100, now has better dynamic range, deeper color depth, and better typical performance that older, 2003-2008 era full-frame cameras from Canon. Canon was the only significant maker of full-frame digital cameras in that era. So today, a Nikon D7100's average performance in decent light is easily,easily better than the performance of say, a $7,999 EOS 1Ds 11-MP or a newer EOS 1Ds 16.7 MP Mark III variant of the 1Ds model; higher resolution, better dynamic range by far, and better color depth. Today's best APS-C cameras have *technical image quality *that is as good, or better, than older, full-frame "pro" cameras had.

Buuuuuuut....the way the images "look" still differs somewhat between FF and APS-C. Foreground/background separation in wide-angle images for example...MUCH trickier to get with the smaller APS-C sensor cameras on wide-angle shots. And even with longer lenses, like 50mm and 85 and 105mm and 135, or with the 70-200 or 300mm f/4 or even 300/2.8, the smaller-format cameras render backgrounds more in-focus than the FX cameras do--which can be either a good thing, or a bad thing, or neither.

The other issue is what lenses the smaller format cameras FORCE the shooter to use in confined spaces; indoors, the FF camera have the edge, based on the lenses that exist, and the focal lengths that must be used, or can be used. In wide-open spaces and at longer distances, many people prefer the smaller field of view that high-grade, "crop-frame" cameras give with telephoto lenses. Shoot some studio groups in a small room with an APS-C camera an 19mm lens setting...the images look like cr@p. Photograph tiny birds on FX and 12MP (like a D700 or original 5D) with a 300mm and the birds look tiny: shoot with a 16- to 24 MP APS-C sensor with a 1.5x to 1.6x FOV factor, and the images have alllllll the pixels basically on "the subject".

With a new ultra-high MP camera like the Nikon D800, the user has a choice of a full-field 36 megapixel shooting mode OR what is it? A 16 megapixel crop-frame shooting mode. So, in that way, the D800 offers users both an FX and a DX format camera in one body.


----------



## bc_steve (Dec 26, 2013)

Is the difference in DOF simply because to frame the same shot from the same spot, you use a longer lens on the FF camera or is there something else going on?


----------



## Derrel (Dec 26, 2013)

bc_steve said:


> Is the difference in DOF simply because to frame the same shot from the same spot, you use a longer lens on the FF camera or is there something else going on?



I wish I could give a realllllly simple answer, but I cannot. I often use the following example. Full-frame camera, man and a woman, standing, full-length portrait using an 85mm prime lens for lens aperture, image quality, whatever. With the FF camera, you shoot from 20 feet away, and get an 8.5 foot tall field of coverage. With a 1.6x Canon, same 85mm lens, you must be 34 feet distant to get the same, 8.5 foot tall field of coverage. NET result? The greatly longer camera-to-subject distance with the 1.6x camera means that there is MORE depth of field, AND ALSO, the background will be significantly *more-recognizable* at normal f/stops.

The smaller the camera format, the MORE depth of field it gives at each picture angle of view. That is an unchanging optical "law". Depth of field is not linear in the way it works. At longer distances, the depth of field from a smaller sensor camera increases VERY rapidly.(see the LAST point in the bullet points below!) With smaller film or sensors, once the focused distance gets out there into the 20-30 foot range, the shorter lenses are all approaching, or at Hyperfocal Focus distance, or beyond. This means for eample, with small-sensor cameras, it is EASY to get almost in finite depth of field, from very close, to Infinity. Easily. Which can be a good thing, it truly can.

The subject has multiple issues, but this might be the very best single,ACCURATE and TRUE article I've seen on the web:

Depth of Field, Digital Photography and Crop Sensor Cameras - Bob Atkins Photography

Just a few of the highlights!!!

" For an *equivalent field of view*, a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera has at least 1.6x *MORE* depth of field that a 35mm full frame camera would have - when the focus distance is significantly less then the hyperfocal distance (but the 35mm format needs a lens with 1.6x the focal length to give the same view).

&#8226; Using the *same* lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, the a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera image has 1.6x *LESS* depth of field than the 35mm image would have (but they would be different images of course since the field of view would be different)

&#8226; If you use the *same* lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body and *crop* the full frame 35mm image to give the same view as the APS-C crop image, the depth of field is *IDENTICAL*

&#8226; If you use the *same* lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, then shoot from *different distances* so that the *view is the same*, the Canon APS-C crop sensor camera image will have 1.6x *MORE* DOF then the full frame image.

&#8226; Close to the *hyperfocal distance*, the Canon APS-C crop sensor camera has a *much more* than 1.6x the DOF of a 35mm full frame camera. The hyperfocal distance of a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera is 1.6x less than that of a 35mm full frame camera when used with a lens giving the same field of view."


----------



## Rick58 (Dec 26, 2013)

But Derrel, how is this different the film? A 90mm is a standard lens on medium format, but the same lens is a telephoto in 35mm or wide angle in large format. Film size = sensor size


----------



## Derrel (Dec 26, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> But Derrel, how is this different the film? A 90mm is a standard lens on medium format, but the same lens is a telephoto in 35mm or wide angle in large format. Film size = sensor size



It's STILL the same as with film. Digital medium format is still often used for catalog and fashion, swimwear, and lingerie photos, where shallow depth of field images, in BRIGHT light, are often desired by the client. For example, the Victoria's Secret lingerie and swimwear shoots, the Sports Illustrated-type of bikini + location shoots...on a lot of those types of shoots, the guys go with one-size-bigger-than-24x36, which is digital medium-format (which is itself NOT "full-frame" 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9, but is instead a cropped down version of full-format 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x7!). Let's call digital medium format, on average, similar to 645 rollfilm.

Here is the all-rights-released, *NON-copyrighted* Wikipedia comparison image file of digital sensor sizes illustration:







See the square millimeter SIZE of digital medium format??? It's huge, compared to the size of an APS-C frame from a Canon. This means that those fashionistas can get selective focus, in bright tropical sunshine, and have BIG files with tons of resolution, for easy detail retouching, and also--gain the benefits of cameras that can do high-speed, full-daylight flash fill synchronizing with leaf shutters. So, in many ways, we're still where we were: medium format still offers the advantage that made it so wonderful: leaf shutter lenses for flash synch AND reliability; in a camera that costs $29,000, if the shutter is dead, the camera is a paperweight; if all one needs is to slap on another $2,000 lens, then the camera has a brand new shutter...in EACH lens. The medium format camera is a film-holder and a lens receptacle.

If you want a digital 126 Instamatic...a $99 camera from Panasonic or Canon, or your iPhone 4 or 5 or Samsung Galaxy is that camera...only BETTER. Your new Nikon Df 16MP FX is the equivalent to your beloved older Nikon F2...only the Df has *better image quality*, at up to maybe 10 times the ISO level! Compare an F2's film image at 400 ASA with Kodacolor Gold 400 negative film with a Nikon Df shot made at ISO 4,000.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 26, 2013)

fashion images shot on medium-format digital - Google Search

CLick on a few links...

DSLR vrs a Medium Format Digital Back: Why I bought a Hasselblad | motivelife

Blog @ BorrowLenses

IJ Productions | Melbourne based Australian Photographer | Commercial Advertising Fashion Product Photography - Part 6


----------



## ShootRaw (Dec 26, 2013)

BrightByNature said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > BrightByNature said:
> ...


 I would disagree that the D600 is so much better in low light than the D7100..


----------

