| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Full Frame - Is It So Much Better?
Jody Gomez, Photographer
 |
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 4:26 PM on 05.23.10 |
->> Hi Everyone,
I apologize if this has been covered before. I tried a search but had no luck finding what I was looking for.
My (dumb) question is this - is it better to have a full frame camera, and if so, why? I shoot the Mark III with the 1.3 crop and I can't seem to figure out what the big deal is about full frame vs 1.3.
Someone please explain this to me.
Thanks!
Jody |
|
Preston Mack, Photographer
|
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 4:39 PM on 05.23.10 |
->> Some people want the same "look" and feel they had from their film camera.
Even though a 18 mm lens from a full frame camera is about the same as a 12mm DX lens (on a Nikon 1.5 factor) it isn't the same since the DX image is essentially a crop from the middle of the image circle from a 12mm lens. The wide angle distortion is different from those two different lenses. Just by "cropping in", you do not eliminate that. |
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 5:14 PM on 05.23.10 |
| ->> Jody, speaking from a prep and youth sports perspective, it has taken away some of my "reach." I love using FX bodies 95 percent of the time, but occasionally I find myself wishing I could multiply my 200mm or 300mm lenses in order to get closer to the action. ... However, I'm listening if someone here can tell me why that's a dumb thing to wish for. |
|
Jeff Lewis, Photographer
|
Long Beach | CA | USA | Posted: 5:20 PM on 05.23.10 |
->> I shoot with a Mark III and a 5D Mark II. One full frame and one with a 1.3 crop.
For everything I shoot that is not sports related and actually some things that are sports related, I find myself going to the full frame 5D Mark II all the time.
The Canon 15mm fisheye was made for a film camera and there is a huge difference in that lens between the 1.3 crop Mark III and the full frame 5D Mark II. I also notice a big difference in the 16-35 as well. You can get more into the camera with a full frame and once you see that, it justifies the reason you wanted to use a wide angle in the first place. Its just a whole lot wider.
I also find that when shooting groups with my 24-70, its easier to fit in all of my subjects into the frame.
On the other hand, I never put my 5D Mark II on my 400. Thats reserved for my Mark III. Half of that is because the Mark III was in most ways made for sports but its the crop factor that makes it seem like you are closer to the action.
The thing about me using the full frame more often is that when I use the 1.3 cropped camera, I know there is something wider in my bag when I'm shooting in tight spaces. I tend to want my frame to capture as much information as possible and if I want a cropped image, I can just do it in photoshop.
Jeff |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 5:23 PM on 05.23.10 |
->> Wider angles. And more megapixels.
17mm on 1.3x is almost the same as 24mm on FF.
It does change how depth-of-field-y lenses look just a bit (usually people say there's shallower DOF on crop bodies but that's up interpretive)... Images shot with a similar resolution lens are sharper on FF for similar total resolutions but you don't see it much with L glass; FF has more problems with aberrations in the corners.
Sometimes I think it's the whole 20d vs 5d thing going on in peoples' heads - because of the great low-light performance of the 5d, people initially flocked to it and associated good low light performance with full frame sensors. That analogy doesn't quite apply with the pro gear. |
|
Colin Hackley, Photographer
|
Tallahassee | FL | USA | Posted: 5:32 PM on 05.23.10 |
->> In addition to the optical issues mentioned a full frame camera is all about image quality.
A full frame chip allows manufacturers to still have a high megapixel count and have larger sensors on the chip.
Larger sensors on the chip means less noise. When you start jamming more sensors into a smaller chip the image coming out of the camera can get noisy very quickly.
That's why it is so hard for a 1.6 crop camera to have low noise at high ISO. |
|
Luke Sharrett, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | United States | Posted: 5:43 PM on 05.23.10 |
| ->> Full frame cameras attract better light and more moments. I wish I was kidding... |
|
Ronnie Montgomery, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 6:17 PM on 05.23.10 |
| ->> It's all about the bokeh. There is just no substitution for the gorgeous background you get when using long glass on a full frame body. |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 10:05 PM on 05.23.10 |
| ->> I dont know how to explain it other than after using my d700 for 2 years, i cant ever buy anything else. Its just exactly how i want my lenses to behave. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 11:12 PM on 05.23.10 |
->> Having switched back to Nikon from Canon, one of the reasons was the loss of being able to shoot with wide angles that are W-I-D-E. That's one of the most important reasons, Jody. You regain the ability to shoot wide. Play with a Nikon 14-24mm and you'll see what I am talking about.
I have a D300 as well, and while there are times I like the extra magnification, it's not that often. If there's ever any real availability of D3s bodies, I'll add that to the mix because the full frame format is more natural for me. The D300 will either be sold or go the remote route. Like David, you know how the lenses will react, and there's no need to recalculate the field of view based on a magnification factor with a full frame format.
In my opinion, to answer your question, YES full frame is better. The proof is I shoot with the D3 95% of the time. |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
|
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 11:16 PM on 05.23.10 |
->> There have been places where I appreciated the additional "reach" of the cropped sensor bodies, artificial as it is.
However for most of my work it is an encumbrance. When using that 24 on a 24-70, I need that 24, not 1.3x or 1.6x 24. And when I use a 135 f2 I need 135 not a multiplier of 135.
And finally I greatly prefer the viewfinder view in a full frame camera.
So it comes down to use and preference and sometimes having both is best. |
|
Joshua Brown, Photographer
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 12:39 AM on 05.24.10 |
| ->> Yes. |
|
Jim Comeau, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 12:42 AM on 05.24.10 |
->> Larger format = narrower depth of field at the same f-stop
Narrower depth of field = more pop
That's one reason to use FF for sports. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 12:48 AM on 05.24.10 |
| ->> As far as the "reach" goes, non-full-frame cameras don't actually extend the focal length of a lens. Rather, it's better to think of them as "cropped" images. Those who want more "reach" from full-frame cameras can simply crop their images. |
|
Trevor Brown, Photographer, Assistant
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 12:50 AM on 05.24.10 |
->> Go find a full frame camera with a 50 1.2 on it and shoot it wide open for a day.
You'll see the difference. |
|
Dave Lintott, Photographer
|
Wellington | Well | NZL | Posted: 4:16 AM on 05.24.10 |
->> what trevor brown said.
exactly what i've said for the last year. and whenever you manually focus (or need to be sure by sight as you shoot) then you'll understand the difference as well. |
|
Joshua Brown, Photographer
|
Waynesville | NC | USA | Posted: 8:51 AM on 05.24.10 |
->> "As far as the "reach" goes, non-full-frame cameras don't actually extend the focal length of a lens. Rather, it's better to think of them as "cropped" images. Those who want more "reach" from full-frame cameras can simply crop their images."
But if I take my D700 and crop the image, the final resolution is less than if I had taken the image with a D300. Given the option, it's best to shoot it that way originally. |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
|
Augusta | GA | USA | Posted: 9:37 AM on 05.24.10 |
->> Short answer: Pixel pitch. The width of the pixel on a cropped sensor is smaller, reproduces less sharp and is more noisy in low light.
Long answer: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm (Roll your mouse over the images in the article)
Advantages to cropped sensor: In camera teleconverter.
Disadvantages: The aforementioned greater noise at high ISOs, wide-angle lenses just aren't so wide angle, and cheap lenses look even cheaper due to quality of the pixel.
In the end, a full frame sensor is a more quality sensor. You receive about 1-2 stops more light, depending on how cropped the sensor is. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 4:05 PM on 05.24.10 |
->> "...is it better to have a full frame camera, and if so, why?"
IMO yes.
You can always take the full frame image and crop it to 1.3x or 1.6x and get the same angle of view as you would have gotten from a camera with a built in crop factor. You cannot do it the other way around... |
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
 |
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 7:10 PM on 05.24.10 |
->> You also are using more of the optics of the lens to its best ability. The pictures are sharper for that reason alone. And I'll echo the sentiments about wide actually being wide. Shooting with the D3 has made me want to go back to prime lenses again.
-Ron- |
|
Robert Boag, Student/Intern
|
Harrisonburg | VA | US | Posted: 8:46 PM on 05.24.10 |
| ->> Recently i was out on assignment shooting football practices. I was switching back and forth from a 5d and a mark IIn both had the the same lens, aperture, iso, etc. When I brought back the images the editors went straight for the 5d images, the full frame really does make the images pop and bring a level of quality to the images that is unmatched. |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 9:44 PM on 05.24.10 |
->> Jim, I think that was a great explanation. I'm glad someone re-visited this topic. I shoot almost all sports and often wondered whether FF was the way to go.
The last explanation I rec'd was that it was a similar "ah-ha" moment to that when I went from shooting zooms to prime. The prime lenses (Canon) are so much more impactful. Granted the 70-200 f/2.8 is a great lens, but the 300mm adds a level of "crispness" IMO.
For a sports shooter, any recommendations on a FF body? I am sampling a Mark IV in a few weeks and would like to hear if that is the way to go. It's my understanding that the IV is not a FF sensor. Is that correct?
That being said, is the high ISO performance all that they say it is? Think high school football, soccer, basketball. In the pro-type arenas, lighting is obviously not an issue but I see how having the ability to shoot at a lower ISO with the same results would be a benefit.
Thanks for any guidance you might have. And, let me guess, Nikon's top sports bodies are FF, right? |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 10:11 PM on 05.24.10 |
->> The only reason that the smaller sensors exist is that when digital SLRs were first developed, it was not possible to make a 24x36 sensor at a marketable price.
Now it is. If you like wide angle, the option of shallow depth of field and a higher quality image, then the larger sensor is the way to go.
--Mark |
|
Dominick Reuter, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boston | MA | USA | Posted: 11:39 AM on 05.25.10 |
->> In a good majority of cases, the sensor size is irrelevant. But, there is a significant number of situations where you may really want the option of getting that look that folks are talking about.
If you primarily shoot with zoom lenses and use f/2.8 and slower, you probably won't see significant changes in the look of your pictures.
But, if you regularly use prime lenses and also like to shoot brighter than 2.8, then it would be a good idea to take the plunge.
There are a lot of old 5D bodies on the market for reasonable prices, and they are still fabulous cameras, so try one out and see for yourself how it fits with your style.
- DR
http://reuterphoto.com |
|
Jamey Price, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 2:53 PM on 05.25.10 |
| ->> Yes. FX is that much better. I hate using my D300s now that I have the D700. |
|
Jay Janner, Photographer
|
Austin | TX | USA | Posted: 4:31 PM on 05.26.10 |
| ->> Why is there no mention of the speed of the cameras in this discussion? Am I missing something here? I love full-frame cameras, but they are half as fast (twice as slow?) as the other cameras. I am trying right now to decide if I should get a full frame Canon 5D that shoots 4 frames per second or a 1.6 crop Canon 7D that shoots 8 frames per second. For news and sports I think I need the speed. In photojournalism - capturing candid moments - that speed can be the difference between an okay picture and a great picture. What I really want is a full frame camera that shoots 8 frames per second for about $1,500. Is that so hard? :-) |
|
Jamey Price, Photographer, Assistant
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 4:48 PM on 05.26.10 |
| ->> hahaha youre not gonna get that 1500 full frame camera. But the D700 shoots 8fps with the ELN4 battery. |
|
Jay Janner, Photographer
|
Austin | TX | USA | Posted: 4:55 PM on 05.26.10 |
->> Jamey,
Really? The full frame D700 shoots 8 fps? That's great. But the specifications say it's 5 fps. Regardless, I have to choose between the Canon 5D and 7D. |
|
Joshua Brown, Photographer
|
Waynesville | NC | USA | Posted: 5:54 PM on 05.26.10 |
| ->> If you have the EN-EL4 battery with grip/battery pack, it shoots faster. |
|
Neil Turner, Photographer
|
Bournemouth | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 7:00 PM on 05.26.10 |
->> I own two 5D MkII bodies and a 7D and I love all of them for different reasons. In all honesty though, none of the reasons why I love the 7D have anything to do with it having a cropped sensor whilst almost all of the reasons I love the 5D MkII are because it is full frame.
The 7D is fast, has accurate AF and some great gadgets such as the artificial horizon. It is also reasonably priced. Don't care about the built in flash as such but it is a useful remote flash controller that negates the need to have an ST-E2 with you. Over 1000 ISO the files get really noisy. The 7D has 1/250th flash synch.
The 5D MkII produces beautiful files - even at 3200 ISO. I love it despite it's average AF system and the shutter delay (which isn't meant to be worse than the 7D but it feels as if it is).
They share one failing - the MODE DIAL. It moves when it rubs against your clothing and you often find the camera set to B or C3 mode when you had left it on manual. This could be fixed in the firmware but Canon ignore such suggestions saying that "nobody else complains about the mode dial".
They both do great video. They are equally OK with flash metering. I would like a hybrid of the two and maybe Canon will deliver that at some point. Of course the Nikon D700 has almost all of the features that I'd like - except video, a 21 Mp sensor and the ability to mount Canon lenses!
Which to buy? The 5D MkII has the quality edge. |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 1:07 PM on 05.27.10 |
| ->> With the D700, I bounce back & worth from Fx to Dx all of the time. I can switch it in less then 4 seconds. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 1:13 PM on 05.27.10 |
->> Jay:
I think I understand your question -- you mean motor drive speed and not AF speed, right?
I was worried about the former, too, when I picked up a 5D late last year. I'd been shooting with Mk III's and IIn's since arriving in Dallas, and before that mostly shot with faster Nikons too.
It's taken some getting used to, but the FPS on the 5D has not been a problem. I don't use it for sports action, though; it's basically my "oh sh*t" lens with a wide on it.
Other than that though, I've been extremely happy. The full frame, the file size and quality, etc. It's just all really come together, and I wish I'd have gotten this camera sooner.
Oh, and I was also worried about the smaller size, too, since I've basically shot with larger bodies for like ever. With the battery grip, it fits in my hand *perfectly* ... nice and light, too.
Hope that helps, amigo. I definitely encourage you to get one. I'd forgotten about how nice it was to look through that full frame viewfinder. And the high ISO on this thing is way better than I remember film being.
Technology is pretty amazing. I just wish they'd make me a toaster than doesn't burn bread as easily, though. Is that too much to ask!? |
|
Jay Janner, Photographer
|
Austin | TX | USA | Posted: 2:41 PM on 05.27.10 |
->> Gerry,
Thanks for the info. Like I said, I love full frame cameras. But I would need this camera for all of my assignments, including sports action. That's why I need to carefully consider the fps speed. Do you know much about the 7D? |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 5:22 PM on 05.27.10 |
| ->> Jay, when you use the optional MB-10 battery grip with the en-e4 (D2/D3 series) batteries the D700 reaches 8 FPS, otherwise it is 5 normally. |
|
Rob Shook, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 5:23 PM on 05.27.10 |
->> People keep mentioning depth of field and bokeh. In the movement to full-frame, all that changes is the sensor size. The physics of the lens remain the same.
"It's all about the bokeh. There is just no substitution for the gorgeous background you get when using long glass on a full frame body."
Bokeh remains the same. If you take a picture of a person in the center of the frame while standing in the same place with a 400 2.8 on a 7d and 5d, the bokeh (/separation/out of focus area) will be EXACTLY the same. The difference is, on the 5d there will be more of it (think of it as simply "uncropping" a picture).
"Comparing the 7D to the 5D, the 5D has around 1.5 more stops of DOF."
Very misleading. If you stand in the same place and shoot, the images will look exactly the same except one looks cropped. If you frame them the same (i.e. different distances), that is when there will be a separation difference in the background.
"Larger format = narrower depth of field at the same f-stop
Narrower depth of field = more pop"
Misleading for the same reasons as above. The sensor doesn't create shallower depth of field. |
|
Joshua Brown, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 6:21 PM on 05.27.10 |
->> "Comparing the 7D to the 5D, the 5D has around 1.5 more stops of DOF.
Very misleading. If you stand in the same place and shoot, the images will look exactly the same except one looks cropped. If you frame them the same (i.e. different distances), that is when there will be a separation difference in the background."
Sorry Rob, but I still absolutely stand behind that and have to totally disagree with you. I own both of those cameras and have shot in the same place with them. The 5D has shallower depth of field.
Do you feel like any of this is inaccurate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_vs._format_size
"If you stand in the same place and shoot, the images will look exactly the same except one looks cropped. If you frame them the same (i.e. different distances), that is when there will be a separation difference in the background."
Here is an example of that scenario
http://silverbased.org/dof-vs-format/
Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of circle of confusion.
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Circle_of_Confusion_01.htm
http://www.dofmaster.com/digital_coc.html
For example. I have a Canon S90 that has a tiny little 2.0 lens in it and a tiny little sensor. Even if I am super close to the subject and wide open at 2.0, every single thing is pretty much in focus.
I am open to more discussion on it, and I could be totally wrong, but from both the article mentioned and experience with owning full frame and cropped cameras, there is absolutely shallower depth of field in full frame cameras. |
|
Jim Comeau, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 7:25 PM on 05.27.10 |
->> Rob, I'm sorry, but larger formats do indeed have narrower depths of field.
I'll let you borrow my AE-1, Rolleiflex, and Linhof, each with a normal lens, and let you see the difference. |
|
Marc F. Henning, Photographer
|
Bentonville | AR | USA | Posted: 7:37 PM on 05.27.10 |
->> I shoot with D300's at work and own a Canon 5D for personal freelance and wedding work. I don't mind the D300's for sports (which makes up over half of my workload), but despise them for daily PJ work. Most of the time I'm shooting for daily news I'm wishing I had my 5D to do the job. I completely agree with all of the pro full frame posts here regarding Bokeh and image quality, especially in low-light conditions.
So my answer is a big YES to Jody's question.
marc |
|
Travis Haughton, Photographer
|
Crystal Lake | IL | USA | Posted: 8:29 PM on 05.27.10 |
->> Rob,
The difference in bokeh results from the fact that you use a longer lens to include the same field of view, which absolutely results in a shallower depth of field.
For example, you could shoot a 300 f/2.8 on a D3 and a 200 f/2.8 on a D300. Both cameras will include exactly the same subject. But the D3 will yield a significantly shallower depth of field. |
|
Ronnie Montgomery, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 12:35 AM on 05.28.10 |
->> Rob, while your claim about bokeh being the same on a full frame vs non full frame may be technically accurate, it misses the point of how these sensors perform in real-world shooting situations. You're assuming I will stand in the same place to take a picture regardless of how big my sensor is.
Whether I'm shooting full frame or not, I'm often trying to fill the frame with my subject. With a full frame sensor I will either get closer to the subject or, in the case of many sports where my position is restricted, I will wait for the action to get closer to me so that I can fill the frame.
Joshua already provided a link to an example but I'll add my own.
Take this image for example. http://www.sportsshooter.com/rmontgomery/bokeh/pages/1.html
If I had tried to take this picture using a non full frame sensor while standing in the same spot I then would have lost some of the image. I would have cut off some feet or a head. If I had moved further away from the action so that I could get the same image using a non full frame sensor then the background would have had less bokeh. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 1:10 AM on 05.28.10 |
->> Ronnie, you finally nailed it. Cropped-sensor cameras don't actually increase one's DOF. Rather, it's the photographer's distance from the subject that does. In order to get the SAME image on a cropped sensor that one could get on a full-frame sensor, the photographer has to move AWAY from the subject, and therfore the DOF will increase even though the apertures are the same. The further away from your subject you are the more DOF there will be.
The "Depth of field differences" of this article explains it well:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page12.asp
Comparing a full-frame camera DSLR to a cropped-sensor DSLR isn't the same as comparing different film formats (i.e., 35mm vs. medium format). Even though the sensors are different sizes, the lens projects the same image onto the film (sensor) plane. They're both 35mm format, only one is a cropped version of the other. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 1:24 AM on 05.28.10 |
->> "For example. I have a Canon S90 that has a tiny little 2.0 lens in it and a tiny little sensor. Even if I am super close to the subject and wide open at 2.0, every single thing is pretty much in focus."
That's because the Canon S90 isn't a 35mm format. I would expect it to have a larger DOF at the same distance than a 35mm DSLR.
"Here is an example of that scenario
http://silverbased.org/dof-vs-format/"
Again, that's because he's comparing different formats (i.e., PowerShot S200 vs. 645 film). You'd have to to take that 645 film and crop it 1.6x to have a linear comparison to full-frame vs. cropped-sensor 35mm DSLRs. |
|
Rob Shook, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 10:32 AM on 05.28.10 |
->> Ronnie is correct.
If you read my response, you'll notice I did mention subject distance and lens differences. I was simply arguing statements like
"I own both of those cameras and have shot in the same place with them. The 5D has shallower depth of field."
If you stand in the same place with two cameras, and use the same lens, there will not be any separation difference. The ONLY difference will be in how much the image is "cropped."
Changing the sensor size doesn't change how the lens handles light.
"Rob, I'm sorry, but larger formats do indeed have narrower depths of field.
I'll let you borrow my AE-1, Rolleiflex, and Linhof, each with a normal lens, and let you see the difference."
Again, if you use the SAME LENS (not adjusted for crop) - i.e. 50mm on every camera rather than the "normal lenses" - 50, 80, 150 (35mm, medium format, and 4x5 respectively), the only difference will be the amount of crop. Depth of field will be identical.
Travis - "The difference in bokeh results from the fact that you use a longer lens to include the same field of view, which absolutely results in a shallower depth of field."
I took that into account in my original post when I said "If you frame them the same (i.e. different distances), that is when there will be a separation difference in the background."
Back to Ronnie: "You're assuming I will stand in the same place to take a picture regardless of how big my sensor is. "
I wasn't making an assumption. I used that as an example because of the misconception held by some that the sensor actually creates shallower depth of field. Later on in my post, I mentioned different subject distances ("If you frame them the same (i.e. different distances), that is when there will be a separation difference in the background.") |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 2:39 PM on 05.28.10 |
->> So, bringing this back around - Jody, unfortunately for us Canon shooters, we're a bit out of luck. I don't shoot a 5dmkII but from everything I've gathered it's good for ultra-wide but wouldn't want to use it with long glass/narrow DOF because the focus just isn't up to par with the 1d series. So it has benefits as a second camera - especially because of the price point. But as a primary camera I don't think it's a viable solution. The alternative is to switch to Nikon.
Even then I think it depends on what you shoot. As has been mentioned, given enough pixels you can crop a full frame image and get the same image as an APS-H or APS-C camera. But, nikon restricted their sensor to 12mp. So you can't crop a d3s image and keep the same pixels as you would have with a 1dIV. It's a matter, then, of how large an image file you need in the final product and how close you are given the glass at your disposal to the action. If you are close enough to fill the frame, full frame has the advantage - in NIKON. In Canon, you give up the focus system to get the full frame.
For my part, if I could afford it - I'd love to make the switch to Nikon. For what I do, a D700 would be perfect right now. I think if Nikon bumps their next generation up to 15mp they'll have the perfect balance of resolution / dynamic range / bokeh / DOF. All else being equal I'd take 15mp full frame over 18mp aps-h any day. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 5:45 PM on 05.28.10 |
->> John -
1DsIII |
|
Chris Large, Photographer
|
Okotoks | AB | Canada | Posted: 8:54 PM on 05.29.10 |
->> Jody It's not always better but it is different. I shoot 1dsMk111 (full frame), 5dMk11(f/f), 7d & 50d (both 1.6)
When I do my ingest in PM, I sort by capture time before I do my edit/selects. I can tell every time the difference - there does seem to be that "pop" with full frame.
That being said, my normal (non blimp) cameras - 5dmk11 with 24-104 L and 7d with 70-200 L That gives me full 24 to almost 300 when you factor in the crop factor. The reach is nice with the 1.6 but you gotta love have the real wide that f/f gives you. It's great having one of each. |
|
Rick Yeatts, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | USA | Posted: 10:06 PM on 05.29.10 |
| ->> wide angel |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 1:06 PM on 05.31.10 |
->> Jay -- sorry for not replying sooner, amigo.
I've not used the 7D, sorry. I know a few of the staffers here bought some, but that's pretty much as backup video cams to their 5D's ... I think.
I'll ask them what their experience with the still side of that camera has been like.
And dude, last time I saw you guys, weren't you all shooting with IIn's and III's? Maybe I misremember. Anyway, is the Statesman only gonna pony up for 5D's or 7D's?
- gerry - |
|
Jay Janner, Photographer
|
Austin | TX | USA | Posted: 6:17 PM on 05.31.10 |
->> Gerry,
We shoot with Mark IIn cameras that are nearly five years old. Hopefully, we are each going to get one Mark IV and one 7D. We'll see...
Thanks again,
Jay |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|