[jatrax]

The primary difference is in the photographer, and better photographers usually have better gear... even though most great photographs don't require great gear.

Yep, my wife and I can get out of the car and take some pictures of something and invariably hers will look better than mine even though we have nearly identical gear. Gets a little frustrating actually............

[Joel B]

I have a friend who's a pro and uses Canon 5d's. He can take awesome mouth watering shots. Give him my K100D and within it's limits he could still take awesome mouth watering shots! If I used his 5d?? Probably eye watering shots!! Skill and knowledge trump format! Not that it wouldn't be fun to get my hands on a 645d or z some day!! The only thing I don't like about crop sensor is it always cuts off peoples heads!!

[Alcazar]

i suggest you show some of the pictures you talk about, otherwise we're just guessing what you mean

[mecrox]

I guess the argument is that it's possible to take great pictures using anything but it's easier to do so if you have high-quality equipment which Just Works (TM). That means you won't have to worry about the equipment but just concentrate on the images. The sensor will give excellent results, the AF will be on target fairly reliably, the lens will produce excellent rendering without having to worry about bad distortion, soft corners, PF, poor Q&A - and all the rest. In other words, good equipment vanishes, gets out of the way, disappears - because it is good equipment. It's all still up to the photographer, or painter, potter or sculptor and so on - but the tools are sorted. And there are still 1001 things to learn about post-processing from RAW in the case of photography. Even so, since FF seems to come closest to fulfilling all this for a lot of photographers serious enough to be in the market for quality equipment, it's hardly surprising that most tend to go for it. One can debate ad nauseum about how close M43 or APS-C can get to FF in quality, that in practice there is little or no difference for many end uses, etc, etc. But the very existence of the debate indicates that there is an uncertainty there. You cannot be sure, not in every situation. If there were certainty, there would be no questioning or debate. Going FF means such questions won't arise.

Depends on how much uncertainty you're prepared to live with, I guess. None of it will stop anyone from taking great images.

[jsherman999]

Hi there,

I am sure this post is going to annoy many people - I am most certainly a novice and I am sure this is demonstrated by my question.
Nevertheless, I have been spending quite a bit of time on Flickr recently going through various Flickr groups of specific locations (e.g Neist Point, Skye, Scotland) and the thing that most struck me was how it was immediately obvious whether a photo was taken on a fullframe system or a crop camera. Fullframe images just seem so much more 'spacious' that those from aps-c - as in I would feel much more relaxed looking at a FF image than an APS-C image, even when the component of the images were essentially the same - in fact in some cases people using pro aps-c gear had churned out a better composition than those with FF gear. Nevertheless, without exception the FF images were more 'pleasing' and easy on the eye.

I can only think this has something to do with pixel size or resolution - presumably a result of high end glass being used on the FF systems (I expect they are being used by pros afterall).

Does anyone have any insight into this?

Many thanks.

Charlie

I do a little ongoing informal thing where if I see an image from a journalist that looks like a 'FF' image to me, I email the PJ if his/her email address is available and ask - I've sent about 7 or 8 queries since late 2012, got 4 back and I was right each time. They were (IIRC) 24 1.4, 35 1.4, and in two cases they were with the Nikon 14-24 2.8 wide-open (those from same photog.)

I'll try to see if I have the emails saved in which I mention the images, and if I can link to the original images we can see in this thread what is striking and obvious as the 'FF look' as far as I'm concerned.

But basically, to answer the OP - the photographer matters much more than the format, and 'wow' images usually are 'wow' because the photographer nailed the light & the composition (and in many cases the PP.)

However, if you begin to take your own images side-side, two formats, you will often notice the difference in your own output - you will notice the 'FF look' when shooting under the same circumstances whenever, for example, you shoot at the same F-stop, same distance to subject and same FOV. Which describes what folks usually do when they move up a format - they don't start taking radically different pictures, they often shot the same stuff and get different (and maybe better) results.

.

[stevebrot]

I have PHOTOS!!!

Here are a bunch of scans of FF 35mm film images mixed in with a selection of APS-C from my Pentax K10D and K-3. Note: This is not a contest, exif is intact on all photos. Some may have been easier to do on FF and others easier on APS-C.

[narual]

Maybe it's canon's colour rendition that I am finding pleasing

That seems a lot more likely.

[stevebrot]

But basically, to answer the OP - the photographer matters much more than the format, and 'wow' images usually are 'wow' because the photographer nailed the light & the composition (and in many cases the PP.)

However, if you begin to take your own images side-side, two formats, you will often notice the difference in your own output - you will notice the 'FF look' when shooting under the same circumstances whenever, for example, you shoot at the same F-stop, same distance to subject and same FOV. Which describes what folks usually do when they move up a format - they don't start taking radically different pictures, they often shot the same stuff and get different (and maybe better) results.

Yes, yes, and yes...


Steve

[paulh]

I have PHOTOS!!!

Here are a bunch of scans of FF 35mm film images mixed in with a selection of APS-C from my Pentax K10D and K-3. Note: This is not a contest, exif is intact on all photos. Some may have been easier to do on FF and others easier on APS-C.

I don't know or care which shots are aps-c or which ones are FF, but that's a nice set of photos

[stevebrot]

I don't know or care which shots are aps-c or which ones are FF, but that's a nice set of photos

Thanks! The point I am trying to make is that, yes, it is possible to tell which are which for many of the shots if you know what to look for, but for the most part a decent image was made that satisfied the photographer (me) and expressed the artistic goal without regard to the tool used.

That being said, the wide-angle landscapes are much more approachable with non-specialized gear with the larger format and several of the flower macros were much easier to manage with the smaller format. I was tempted to throw in a few medium and large format shots along with a couple of phone images, but thought better of it


Steve

[jpzk]

I have PHOTOS!!!

Here are a bunch of scans of FF 35mm film images mixed in with a selection of APS-C from my Pentax K10D and K-3. Note: This is not a contest, exif is intact on all photos. Some may have been easier to do on FF and others easier on APS-C.

Woah !!! I was getting dizzy watching those !!

Joke aside: this is one great series of VERY good images, Steve.

And I know why they turned out this great: you had a good camera!

JP

[jsherman999]

If you are taking shots under certain circumstances, unless you have a side-side comparison (or even then) there would be no way to determine the format based on a single image. Anything with low-aperture (high f-stop,) low-ISO, deep DOF is going to be almost unknowable at web sizes between micro-four thirds, aps-c, FF and even medium format.

If you find this surprising or reason for an 'ah-ha, FF is not worth it!' epiphany, then you haven't been paying attention!

FF generally allows:

1) More noise control, if you are willing to accept less DOF for the same FOV and shutter speed, for example
2) More DOF control, for the same FOV and distance to subject (for typical non-landscape shooting, when a lens that has the same f-stop range.)
3) More DR above base ISO (with the same contingencies seen in #1)
4) Better performance with less-capable lenses when MP is the same or similar (as follows: the smaller the format, the better the lenses needed to get the same results.)

Unfortunately I very rarely bother to take/save direct comparison shots. As much as I talk about this, I probably should.

Anyway here's an example of a shot where FF gives two (perhaps) small advantages, neither of which can be seen at small web sizes and without a comparison shot - advantage 1) 20mm prime = 13mm prime on aps-c (none exists, afaik,) and 2) the 'sharp' advantage discussed in point #4 above.



Now here's an example of one advantage that could be seen even at web sizes if we had a comparison shot - this is 20mm wide-open at ISO 6400 - ISO 6400 on aps-c or m43 here wouldn't be quite as clean, and you'd have to rely on NR to match the perceived noise:



Here's an example of where some pretty extreme DR-shift was used in PP - at ISO 1100, the FF sensor used here had about a stop more leeway than an aps-c shot would have:



20mm ISO 2500 (DR example)


I think everyone has seen the DOF-difference examples many times from different sources, won't bother with them unless someone has questions.

Now the inevitable follow-up here is "well, I could have gotten the same thing with aps-c, look!" and then some other shot is shown. The real answer is no you can't - if you were to take your example shot with two formats, you would see the difference as long as the circumstances challenged the equipment somewhat and not 'easy/indistinguishable' in the ways I laid out in the first paragraph.. You can take very similar shots using anything between m43 --> medium format, but as you move up in sensor size you have more leeway, more options for getting better results.

.

[Bob from Aus]

I've had an edge in my area of photography by using pentax primes with really rich colours. My opinion is that all current SLRs are between very good to exceptional. The glass at the front and the person behind is what makes the difference.

[mattt]

** bleh.. didnt realize this thread was into 3 pages already ** comment made below is with out the lenghthly preread....


I think the argument about professional status equating to higher keeper rate could be extended to MF... That being said this whole discussion seems to centre about bokeh mush. With great power comes great responsibility.

Now, beyond the technical elements... Photographically speaking the real game changer is the prolific photography being made with phones... even a million monkeys will eventually bang out a good story now and again.

[stevebrot]

And I know why they turned out this great: you had a good camera!

...and I could not have made any of them without a camera.

FWIW, I would like to have the option of a K-mount FF digital camera for the same reason why I sometimes shoot medium or large format film. That being that there are times when it would be the right tool for the job.


Steve