Posted by Jim Harris on October 5, 2009 at 10:54 AM
I currently shoot with a Canon 40D and am pretty happy with its performance but after viewing alot of work here and seeing the result of a full frame sensor Ive been having thoughts, it seems the detail is amazing for landscape use, not so much for Macro use though.
I'm just opening a discussion here for your thoughts and opinions, are they worth the investment? I think probably so,, or quality glass is a better investment ? of course quality glass goes without saying,,
this might be beating a dead horse here, I dont know, I checked history first and didnt see much discussion on this matter,,
a Canon 5D Mark II is in the back of my head,, the body alone is upwards of $2.500
your thoughts ?
Posted by David Bostedo on October 5, 2009 at 12:55 PM
The main difference between crop and full frame sensors is the size of the pixels. Larger pixels make it easier for the electronics to achieve higher dynamic range and lower noise. Other than that, there really isn't much difference.
So when you say you see great pics on here from full frame sensors, I'd argue that the sensor has very, very little to do with it. At web posting sizes, the noise issue mainly goes away, and the dynamic range issue isn't all that big. (Although that one I'm less sure about.) In any case, I think the better photographers on here would get results just as spectacular with a 40D, especially when posted at these sizes. (Large prints would be a different story.)
My own feeling is that there's nothing "magical" about full frame. You should consider one if you want :
-- Lower per pixel noise (notice I didn't say image noise - there's a difference)
-- Higher dynamic range
-- Wide glass that's somewhat better (you don't need to go as wide as a crop sensor, so the optics are somewhat easier to make, and have been made for longer)
Posted by Austin Booth on October 5, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Just depends on what your main purpose is and whether the cost is really worth it to you. For landscapes a full frame sensor is undeniably better. The difference isn't huge but it is noticeable. Full frame has better color rendition and lower noise that an APS-C sized sensor. With the current technology a 22MP sensor would not be so great on an APS-C sized sensor because there would be more noise but a full frame sensor can handle so with less noise and larger file sizes you can make larger prints with the 5D MK II. Also the high quality L lenses were designed for 35mm format not the smaller APS-C sized sensors. That doesn't mean you can't take great landscape images with an APS-C camera, your 40D can take exceptional quality landscape images if you operate it well but the full frame sensor has a slight edge in image quality and will render colors slightly more accurate. So you just have to decide for yourself if the cost of the 5D MK II is worth the cost for the slightly improved image quality. However, for wildlife and macro photography an APS-C format camera is definitely better because of the increased zoom with the crop factor. The new 7D will probably be the next camera to have for wildlife and sports photographers much like the 5D MK II is to landscape photographers.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 5, 2009 at 7:58 PM
From what I've read, it depends on what you want to do with the camera. For example, Frans Lanting uses a D300 DX camera for his wildlife photos.
For 99% of our professional shooting, cropped works well. There's just not enough advantage for full frame in our shooting. If I was making gaga prints, then yeah. But for our shooting, no.
If you are not getting satisfactory macro images from a 40 D then I think the problem is in technique and/or lens choice. I use a 40 D and consistently get wonderful macro images and I am a rank amateur. Do you use live view? Do you use a tripod? Do you use a wireless remote??
Regarding a full frame sensor: Go for it. You may end up cropping more depending on your imaging style. The real difference is when you get into the high end bodies which are much more expensive and require a fairly tough learning curve.
Posted by Don Miller on October 5, 2009 at 9:59 PM
what glass do you have now? How large do you print?
Posted by Jim Harris on October 6, 2009 at 10:02 AM
thanks for all the comments here, as stated in my opening statement, I am satisfied with the results I achieve with the 40D and am very happy with its performance in macro, check my portfolio, I guess in my mind I equate back to film days and when the best landscape photographers Like Ansel Adams would use large format cameras, Ive seen some comparisons in imagery comparing the crop with the full and I do believe for the right usage there is an advantage landscapes enlarged having fuller dynamics and lower noise at low light.
I do have good glass for my camera with my favorite landscape lens being the Canon 10-22 and my favorite macro lens being the Sigma 105mm macro and I use a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 for walkaround and a Canon 85mm 1.8 for portraits,
another I noticed is it seems the better photographers on here mostly use large format cameras,, now I do realize that its not the camera but the photographer that makes a great image, Im aware of that and I know you cant go out and buy a great image ,,
just thought Id open a discussion about large format cameras and see what people who have them have to say about the comparisons,
I do know a macro shooter, a published and accomplished shooter that bought the 5D Mark II and for his macro stuff I prefer the crop sensor much more and he shoots primarilly macro so I think it was a waste of $2600 for him but for landscapes I think there must be a benefit there.
I also think image quality has alot to do with post processing skills as well as some of these people are amazing in photoshop.
Thanks again for commenting everyone and your thoughts !!
Posted by David Bostedo on October 6, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Also the high quality L lenses were designed for 35mm format not the smaller APS-C sized sensors.
Depending on your use, this can actually be an advantage for a cropped sensor camera. Because lenses are almost always better in the center than the edges, using a 35mm lens with a cropped sensor captures only the best part of the lens. So corner-to-corner effects on the lens (distortion or softness) can be less of a problem with a cropped sensor.
You've hit the edge of my only reason for considering full-frame Buck. I'm sure Nikon would much rather sell new lenses than hear this, but the sole attraction of full frame is the ability to go back to using my old D-series lenses. They are so sharp and so solid compared to the DX lenses, it would be great to use them again while taking advantage of their full potential. The only thing their new lenses have to offer is image stabilization.
Canon users must have some similar lens choices available rather than new for use of full frame, but I'm not educated in that arena.
I'll propose an alternate strategy for Nikon users contemplating full frame. "Recover" the extra cost of full frame over DX by buying good used D-series lenses to go with their new body, rather than being saddled with the cost of both the new body and new lenses. You might even save some money overall, while getting a range of really excellent glass with everything but VR going for them. If I were a dedicated landscape shooter, it would be the only way to fly.
Posted by Kent Mearig on October 7, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Here's my personal experience: I switched to full-frame for the simultaneous increase in resolution and high ISO capability. I don't regret it. The larger sensor delivers those things without a doubt. I also have two main complaints. For me, due to cost, it's impossible to match the long telephoto with wide aperture options provided by a cropped sensor with more tightly packed pixels. This is somewhat compensated by the better high ISO results of full-frame, but not completely. Second, getting sufficient depth-of-field for foreground to background sharpness has been very difficult for me. Especially with anything longer than a middle focal length, stopping down way past the point where diffraction is seriously limiting detail is almost always required.
I would disagree somewhat that wide angle photography is an advantage of full-frame sensors. My experience with the Tokina 11-16mm leads me to believe lenses in a similar price range for full or cropped-frame deliver similar results on their respective cameras if you remove the absolute resolving capabilities of the cameras from the equation.
I also followed that route. I bought a Sigma 12-22mm lens for use on my 1-series 1.3-crop-factor body. It gives me the equivalent of about 16mm. It was a compromise that I'm not completely satisfied with.
However, I have a friend who recent got Canon's EF-S 10-20 lens for his APS-C body, and his results have been satisfactory.
Perhaps the Canon EF-S ultra-wide is a better lens than the Sigma ultra-wide, but I don't have a body that will accept EF-S lenses. Likewise, the Tokina ultra-wide lens is only for use on APS-C sensor bodies. In my situation, since I can only use lenses that will work on a full frame body anyway, my next significant gear purchase will be a full frame body.
Discussion
12 repliesI'm just opening a discussion here for your thoughts and opinions, are they worth the investment? I think probably so,, or quality glass is a better investment ? of course quality glass goes without saying,,
this might be beating a dead horse here, I dont know, I checked history first and didnt see much discussion on this matter,,
a Canon 5D Mark II is in the back of my head,, the body alone is upwards of $2.500
your thoughts ?
So when you say you see great pics on here from full frame sensors, I'd argue that the sensor has very, very little to do with it. At web posting sizes, the noise issue mainly goes away, and the dynamic range issue isn't all that big. (Although that one I'm less sure about.) In any case, I think the better photographers on here would get results just as spectacular with a 40D, especially when posted at these sizes. (Large prints would be a different story.)
My own feeling is that there's nothing "magical" about full frame. You should consider one if you want :
-- Lower per pixel noise (notice I didn't say image noise - there's a difference)
-- Higher dynamic range
-- Wide glass that's somewhat better (you don't need to go as wide as a crop sensor, so the optics are somewhat easier to make, and have been made for longer)
Kent in SD
Regarding a full frame sensor: Go for it. You may end up cropping more depending on your imaging style. The real difference is when you get into the high end bodies which are much more expensive and require a fairly tough learning curve.
I do have good glass for my camera with my favorite landscape lens being the Canon 10-22 and my favorite macro lens being the Sigma 105mm macro and I use a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 for walkaround and a Canon 85mm 1.8 for portraits,
another I noticed is it seems the better photographers on here mostly use large format cameras,, now I do realize that its not the camera but the photographer that makes a great image, Im aware of that and I know you cant go out and buy a great image ,,
just thought Id open a discussion about large format cameras and see what people who have them have to say about the comparisons,
I do know a macro shooter, a published and accomplished shooter that bought the 5D Mark II and for his macro stuff I prefer the crop sensor much more and he shoots primarilly macro so I think it was a waste of $2600 for him but for landscapes I think there must be a benefit there.
I also think image quality has alot to do with post processing skills as well as some of these people are amazing in photoshop.
Thanks again for commenting everyone and your thoughts !!
Canon users must have some similar lens choices available rather than new for use of full frame, but I'm not educated in that arena.
I'll propose an alternate strategy for Nikon users contemplating full frame. "Recover" the extra cost of full frame over DX by buying good used D-series lenses to go with their new body, rather than being saddled with the cost of both the new body and new lenses. You might even save some money overall, while getting a range of really excellent glass with everything but VR going for them. If I were a dedicated landscape shooter, it would be the only way to fly.
I would disagree somewhat that wide angle photography is an advantage of full-frame sensors. My experience with the Tokina 11-16mm leads me to believe lenses in a similar price range for full or cropped-frame deliver similar results on their respective cameras if you remove the absolute resolving capabilities of the cameras from the equation.
I also followed that route. I bought a Sigma 12-22mm lens for use on my 1-series 1.3-crop-factor body. It gives me the equivalent of about 16mm. It was a compromise that I'm not completely satisfied with.
However, I have a friend who recent got Canon's EF-S 10-20 lens for his APS-C body, and his results have been satisfactory.
Perhaps the Canon EF-S ultra-wide is a better lens than the Sigma ultra-wide, but I don't have a body that will accept EF-S lenses. Likewise, the Tokina ultra-wide lens is only for use on APS-C sensor bodies. In my situation, since I can only use lenses that will work on a full frame body anyway, my next significant gear purchase will be a full frame body.