[thibs]

Blablabla and in all of this, I should add, at a given print size.

[markku55]

Anvh do you have and use Leica, or do you only believe on what you say?

[Macario]

It absolutely is not.



Probably 90% of photography is shot at smaller apertures than f/1.4 (f/1.4 --> f/22 that is) (not 99.99%,) but probably over 50% of photography is shot at apertures larger than f/5 (f/1.0 --> f/5 that is.) In this range, at the wide to mid-telephoto focal lengths have a distinct advantage for FF over aps-c.

For example, the majority of folks would probably wish that when shooting their f/2.8 zooms wide-open, they could retain the nice f/2.8 DOF and pleasing background blur and subject isolation while somehow gaining the sharpness and reduced CA that zoom shows at f/4.5, say. FF allows you to do that. You get the f/2.8 DOF at the f/4.5 (sharper) aperture for the same FOV.

If I shoot my 50 1.8 at f/2.8 on FF, it's sharper than my 35 1.8G wide-open on aps-c (of course) - yet has the same FOV/DOF. (Note: I shoot it at f/1.8 --> f/2.8 all the time - nicer subject isolation at typical shooting distances.)

(below, f/1.8 50mm on FF == about 35mm f/1.2 on aps-c. Price a 50 1.8 vs a 35 1.2. )


And for anyone who wants the same DOF for that FOV, you simply stop down to get it.

More DOF control. Any photographer would want it. (I would think.)



Not true. My local paper features shots taken at f/2.8 or higher with 20, 24, 35mm lenses or focal lengths all the time in daylight, in order to isolate the subject while retaining a sense of setting. The best shot I've seen in my paper in a while was taken outside at a funeral wake, daylight, subject about 15 feet away - I emailed the photog; 24mm f/1.4 shot wide-open on FF. Beautiful, stunning shot. Un-reproduceable on aps-c from that position.


.

The 45 Most Powerful Images Of 2011
Look at these photo's again, and tell for which of these you need FF instead of APS-C. All of them could have been made with APS-C and have the same impact (I think looking at them that only 1 or 2 were made wide oen, the rest was stopped down to 5.6-8, I think)

[Billgscott]

(I think looking at them that only 1 or 2 were made wide oen, the rest was stopped down to 5.6-8, I think)

Photojournolism - f8 and be there!

[Rondec]

Which equates to more DOF control when you realize that you can simply stop down to match the aps-c DOF for that FOV if you wish with no penalty - you can't always open up a lens wider to do the opposite.

Consider: A typical 50mm lens shot at f/4 is blisteringly sharp at the plane of focus, probably at it's peak MTF in the center. Most 35mm lenses are at f/4 as well. But 35mm at f/4 on aps-c, depending on the subject distance, maybe doesn't really isolate the subject very well. f/2.4 gives you that nicer isolation, but you miss that f/4 acuity, that pop. 50mm @ f/4 on FF gives you that peak sharpness with the nicer f/2.4 DOF. and it's just an option. You can stop down even past f/4 if you want more DOF. With the extra 1+ stops (at least) of noise control from the bigger sensor, shutter speed isn't a problem when you stop down because you can just reclaim that stop with an ISO bump with no additional noise. If you need to, if light is a problem in the shot.

Consider II: A subject is far enough away that you can shoot your 50mm f/1.8 at f/2 on FF and still get the whole subject in focus, within the DOF. To get the same 'look' on aps-c, you'd need to be shooting a 35mm f/1.3 lens - wide-open. Think for a moment 1) how much a 35mm f/1.3 would cost, 2) how big it would be, and 3) how a 35mm f/1.3 would probably perform with regards to acuity and CA - wide-open at f/1.3, on a high-MP aps-c sensor.



.

Pal's point (and I think I agree to a certain extent) is that APS-C gives you one stop more depth of field for a given exposure over full frame. This is definitely true. If you want that extra stop of depth of field on full frame you will need to stop down and push your iso up. I think you overestimate the difference in noise between APS-C and full frame sensors as to how easy it is to go up a stop. I shoot to iso 12,800 on my K5. Would I be comfortable going to 25,000 on full frame? I kind of doubt it.

Narrow depth of field is easily achievable on APS-C, it just really tends to be there more at longer focal lengths (55mm seems about perfect to me on APS-C).

Anyway, I understand that your photography style depends on narrow depth of field, but there are many (macro, landscape, even journalism) where narrow depth of field is not particularly beneficial and sometimes is detrimental to the end image. Most photogs that shoot with full frame have an APS-C back up.

There is a Sigma 30mm f1.4 out there that is pretty decent, as mentioned earlier in this thread. It works quite well as a portrait lens as even wide open it has good center sharpness and is very reasonably priced.

[Emacs]

Pal's point (and I think I agree to a certain extent) is that APS-C gives you one stop more depth of field for a given exposure over full frame. This is definitely true. If you want that extra stop of depth of field on full frame you will need to stop down and push your iso up. I think you overestimate the difference in noise between APS-C and full frame sensors as to how easy it is to go up a stop. I shoot to iso 12,800 on my K5. Would I be comfortable going to 25,000 on full frame? I kind of doubt it.

Narrow depth of field is easily achievable on APS-C, it just really tends to be there more at longer focal lengths (55mm seems about perfect to me on APS-C).

Anyway, I understand that your photography style depends on narrow depth of field, but there are many (macro, landscape, even journalism) where narrow depth of field is not particularly beneficial and sometimes is detrimental to the end image. Most photogs that shoot with full frame have an APS-C back up.

There is a Sigma 30mm f1.4 out there that is pretty decent, as mentioned earlier in this thread. It works quite well as a portrait lens as even wide open it has good center sharpness and is very reasonably priced.

Don't you notice this picture IQ is not on par with one taken with 50@f2 and full frame camera?

[Rondec]

Don't you notice this picture IQ is not on par with one taken with 50@f2 and full frame camera?

The biggest problem with this picture is that I shot at f2 and should have stopped down to f4.

[stanleyk]

Wow.....this thing just keeps going. I'm not a very technical person but after using a Nikon D700 for several months I would say most of what is stated about the advantages of Full Frame are reasonably accurate. I would also add it's a very heavy camera the the lenses are really expensive if you want to get good lenses. I think it's kind of stupid to spend over $2000 on camera (I actually got one new for $2000 but that's not relevant) and spend $300 on a lens. I probably would have waited for Pentax but the more I thought about and looked at what Pentax has to offer for lenses I just couldn't see them doing a Full Frame camera for several years. I got a nice lump sum payment for vacation days from a former employer so I went with the Nikon. It's a great camera and I would highly recommend it provided you want to get good lenses. This camera does not need more megapixels unless someone is doing prints that are on the order of multiple feet/meters.

On the lenses, I own/owned some good Pentax lenses and to my eyes none of them are even close to the Nikon 35mm F1.4. But.....that lens cost $1600. It better be good at that price. I've sold most of my Pentax stuff but for sentimental reasons I've held on to the K5 and 31, 43, 77. I sure wish Pentax had a roughly 28mm equivalent in this same line of lenses. The one thing I will say in Nikon's favor is they still make the manual focus AI-S lenses. They are really, really good both mechanically (which is very important to me) and optically.

The biggest advantage I see with Full Frame over the K5 is the how much easier it is to manual focus. I don't even bother with the K5. If I want to do manual focus the D700 is the camera I use. I thinks it's fun to manual focus so in that regard I've really enjoyed the camera. I've also found that the Nikon's focus confirmation is absolutely accurate. It's a really well made camera but again it should be at that price.

Is it a better camera than the K5 which I also own? The depth of field is a relevant issue again provided you have lenses that actually work at their widest apertures. Are you going to get $300-$500 lenses that are really good at F1.4? Yes you can use them at that aperture, but does that mean you are using the lens where it's optimized, probably not. I'm not going to argue that point with anyone because a lot of this stuff is subjective anyway. I would say for those who want this type of camera just make sure you want to carry it around. It's big and heavy. I usually just end up going out with the GXR and X100.

[Clinton]

The 45 Most Powerful Images Of 2011
Look at these photo's again, and tell for which of these you need FF instead of APS-C. All of them could have been made with APS-C and have the same impact (I think looking at them that only 1 or 2 were made wide oen, the rest was stopped down to 5.6-8, I think)

Thanks for the link.

Actually, I think most of these photos could have been made with the camera on the iPhone 1 and had the same impact. The title of the article is 45 most powerful photos, and they are indeed quite emotion provoking. Downsampled for internet viewing, you really don't need the same resolution as to make a print unless the image is bring cropped.

Without the captions, if you submitted all 45 to our exclusive photo gallery here, how many do you think would be accepted?


Edit: Well certainly the face of Harold Camping... That image is positively unforgettable.

[jsherman999]

The 45 Most Powerful Images Of 2011
Look at these photo's again, and tell for which of these you need FF instead of APS-C. All of them could have been made with APS-C and have the same impact (I think looking at them that only 1 or 2 were made wide oen, the rest was stopped down to 5.6-8, I think)

You can find absolutely award-winning shots made with entry-level cameras and 18-200 consumer zooms, or even P&S's, especially if they were shooting at f/8 Why does anyone need a K-5, when a K-x is more than good enough? Or the Limited lenses, when all these great shots are being created by 18-200 or 70-300 zooms? Aren't those Limited lenses a silly waste of money?

No. As a shooter you personally value the things a better camera + lens brings to the table, the better performance across the board that comes with a larger sensor, the better AF and metering, very good AF lock in low light...



...faster, more corrected lenses, etc.

f/8 and being there - plus being a very good photographer, as the folks who took those 45 shots were - IMO can give some folks the wrong impression that better equipment is of no value. It is, though, even if the end result doesn't always tell the frustration (or lack thereof) that went into getting the shot. Good equipment is not a requirement for good photography, it just makes it easier to achieve.



.

[jsherman999]

Wow.....this thing just keeps going. I'm not a very technical person but after using a Nikon D700 for several months I would say most of what is stated about the advantages of Full Frame are reasonably accurate. I would also add it's a very heavy camera the the lenses are really expensive if you want to get good lenses. I think it's kind of stupid to spend over $2000 on camera (I actually got one new for $2000 but that's not relevant) and spend $300 on a lens.

But in fact it's not stupid, unless the $300 lens you're talking about is a slow, bad older consumer zoom. My little 20 2.8D, 50 1.8D and 85 1.8D all cost less than $300 and are excellent on the D700. Being able to get great performance out of these lenses is one of the benefits of FF.

(If size really matters most of the time, you may want to forego the large $ uber-lenses, but the D700/D300 form factor isn't as big as some folks think, especially when paired with a smaller lens. K-5 + grip + 31ltd is bigger/heavier than D700 + 50 1.8 - and the combo costs nearly the same )

.

[jsherman999]

Pal's point (and I think I agree to a certain extent) is that APS-C gives you one stop more depth of field for a given exposure over full frame. This is definitely true. If you want that extra stop of depth of field on full frame you will need to stop down and push your iso up.

Yes, as I've said - but can you always do the opposite with aps-c? The aps-c DOF is always available to you with FF, the reverse isn't true.

I think you overestimate the difference in noise between APS-C and full frame sensors as to how easy it is to go up a stop. I shoot to iso 12,800 on my K5. Would I be comfortable going to 25,000 on full frame? I kind of doubt it.

The best aps-c (K-5, D7000) is still a full stop behind the 2008 D700 in noise performance. Theoretically this means that yes, you would be just as comfortable at ISO 25,000 on the D700 as 12,800 on the K-5, if you would be shooting under such conditions where you'd require the exact same DOF as aps-c and had to stop down.

Anyway, I understand that your photography style depends on narrow depth of field, but there are many (macro, landscape, even journalism) where narrow depth of field is not particularly beneficial and sometimes is detrimental to the end image. Most photogs that shoot with full frame have an APS-C back up.

As do I, although looking at my stats I could make the case that aps-c is my primary and D700 is my back-up (and f/8 is my most-used aperture overall)

There is a Sigma 30mm f1.4 out there that is pretty decent, as mentioned earlier in this thread. It works quite well as a portrait lens as even wide open it has good center sharpness and is very reasonably priced.

Yes, nice lens, good value.

.

[Rondec]

Yes, as I've said - but can you always do the opposite with aps-c? The aps-c DOF is always available to you with FF, the reverse isn't true.



The best aps-c (K-5, D7000) is still a full stop behind the 2008 D700 in noise performance. Theoretically this means that yes, you would be just as comfortable at ISO 25,000 on the D700 as 12,800 on the K-5, if you would be shooting under such conditions where you'd require the exact same DOF as aps-c and had to stop down.



As do I, although looking at my stats I could make the case that aps-c is my primary and D700 is my back-up (and f/8 is my most-used aperture overall)




Yes, nice lens, good value.

.

,
Dxo Mark does indicate that the gap has narrowed significantly between the K5 and D700. By iso 3200, K5 smoothed is pretty close to the D700, much less than a stop different. I really think the bigger difference is in other things like auto focus speed, accuracy and locking.

[Winder]

,
Dxo Mark does indicate that the gap has narrowed significantly between the K5 and D700. By iso 3200, K5 smoothed is pretty close to the D700, much less than a stop different. I really think the bigger difference is in other things like auto focus speed, accuracy and locking.

You are comparing a 1 year old APS-C to a 3+ year old FF. So yes, APS-C has closed the gap in 3 years.

The Canon 1DX is expected to shoot 12,800 ISO like 1600 on a current APS-C. The 18MP sensor is creating a lot of excitement on the Canon forums.

Remember when the D3s came out? Remember how much better it was over any APS-C on the market AT THAT TIME?

For web use APS-C is more than enough. 4/3 is actually more than enough. For people who print 8x10 or 11x14 with any regularity 4/3 is better than APS-C.

Everyone has an opinion based on their style and final output. I have friend who shoots sports for a college sports service. He is still using Olympus E-5. All of his work is posted on the web. 12MP files and Olympus has one of the best JPEG engines which makes his work flow pretty simple. He has no need for a FF. I have another friend who still shoots 6x6 film in his Hassy 503CW, but he shoots people and makes big prints.

There is no one format/size that works for everyone. They all have a different look, different capabilities, and different challenges.

[Macario]

For web sue a p&s is more than enough. I have a stack of photography magazines at home. And even when looking back at photo's of the Nikon D1 printed double page (you know, a APS-C camera with 3meg pixels). It printed fine, it printed really nice. And I do not see any difference when looking at pics printed now from 24meg cameras.
So to say you need a FF to print big is nonsense, it is just an excuse to justify you wanting a FF camera.