Advantages of FF

normhead · 03-31-2015, 06:26 AM - **1 Like**

TO me, there is one real advantage to an FF camera, and that is if you shoot for narrow DoF and APS-c and MF are not good enough for you.... but that's a judgement call, not a scientific deliberation. It makes no sense to go FF unless you shoot fast lenses wide open and that is a critical part of your workflow. If you shoot ƒ 8 on an FF, you can shoot ƒ5.6 on APS-c with almost exactly comparable results. Use the one stop faster to bump the ISO and there goes your noise and low light advantage. If you shoot ƒ1.2 on FF, there is nothing you can do to match that on APS-c. To me, that's the FF advantage. With current K-3 images, comparing them to D810 images, the FF and APs-c images are close enough, the picture is made by the skill of the photographer, not the format. The one exception to that being formal portraits and landscapes, where at least IMHO you always go to the largest format possible. That would be a 645, but if you don't have the bucks, going FF is a good compromise.

alexcox · 03-31-2015, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by oculus

Can you explain this last statement? Do you see any advantages at all in a FF camera?

If it is true that a FF camera doesn't mean greater print size or better quality prints then what exactly is the advantage? Shallow depth of field is not a quality.

oxidized · 03-31-2015, 06:30 AM

Circular bokeh with some lens. Try getting swirl with the Helios 40-2 or 44-2 on APSC. I know it doesnt matter to a lot of ppl but it does to some. Same as every other point on this list.

rasebe · 03-31-2015, 07:27 AM

Lets be honest here. Its the digit behind the camera not the digital image. Very few pros used 35mm as the format was wrong for pro work. Remember most pros used 6cm x 6cm or 6cm x 7cm at the very least, many using 5" x 4" or 10" x 8"cut film cameras. 35 mm was used by sports or press photographers as they could shoot loads of images to get that saleable one. Some of the most compelling images taken are often blurred or grainy, its the picture that counts not the pixel count.

**jatrax** · 03-31-2015, 08:10 AM - **1 Like**

19 posts on FF with good, fair discussion and no mud slinging. I'm stunned. What is this forum coming to? And no one has used the 'D' word.

Pros:

Bigger view finder
Potentially better low light performance
Potentially lower noise at given ISO
Potentially better images
Potentially more MP
Being seen as a 'professional' because you have a big camera

Cons:

Lenses will have an alien looking angle of view
Long glass will get much shorter
Camera weight potentially higher
Camera cost potentially higher
Larger file sizes
DOF shallower at given aperture

Bottom line, there really is no clear advantage. it depends on what features you value most. For me the deciding factor will be final image quality. If it is significantly higher than the k-3 can produce, I'm in. Otherwise, I don't know, I see more downs than ups (for me).

Adam · 03-31-2015, 09:09 AM

Two words: image quality

**Byrd-2020** · 03-31-2015, 09:33 AM

How about 'colour depth' and 'tonal gradation'?

These are, to my thinking, a huge factor in choosing full frame over apsc.

**todd** · 03-31-2015, 10:17 AM

I'm tired of the absolute 'pros use MF+' argument against FF. I understand what is meant, and obviously a lot of pros use MF+, but I have personally observed plenty of 'pros' (people earning a living through photography) also using FF and APSC, or all of the above... I have even talked to "pros" who barely even know what medium format or large format is. I also talked to a pro (a very successful L.A. wedding shooter) not too long ago who mostly shoots FF Canon (he said mainly because he is sponsored) but he also mixes in a lot of Iphone images (with attached lenses) and has even shot entire weddings with his Iphone. There is only one industry I know of where a guy absolutely has to have a large one to make it.

Bryce K · 03-31-2015, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by todd

There is only one industry I know of where a guy absolutely has to have a large one to make it.

I see what you did there!

**kiwi_jono** · 03-31-2015, 11:40 AM

For me the more tangible attractions are:
* Bigger brighter view finder (it looks likely the new Pentax has a OVF)
* Potential for better low light performance (unless they reach for the skies in Megapixel count which I don't care for)
* A new toy with a learning curve that will encourage me to do more shooting (my best photos often happen when I have something new to me!)

Biggest disadvantage for me (assuming size as per mock up) will be cost and so I'm not likely to be an early adopter.

jonby · 03-31-2015, 12:08 PM

The best way to make qualitative comparisons between FF and APS-C is to imagine a world where there is no real difference in price or availability. Which one would you choose then?

In the current state of play, more or less all FFs are more expensive than all APS-Cs. This alone makes it hard to be objective about the pros and cons. The apple which is just beyond our reach tends to look bigger, riper and jucier than those within our grasp. For Pentax people it's even harder - the apple hasn't even sprouted yet so we are doomed (yes DOOOMED) to slaver as we imagine its sweet succulence....

Clearly both systems have pros and cons and I suppose what I'm saying is that in the current environment, the particular advantages of APS-C tend to get forgotten about, because we have those already. With FF gradually becoming more mainstream and economies of scale causing prices to drop, I think that eventually the two will cross over quite substantially, with high end APS-C being a lot more expensive than low-end FF. That's the way it should be, because they are really just different tools for different jobs. At that point we'll all be better placed to ignore the hype and choose the best tool for what we do (and be happy and content forever after).

Sorry for this - November seems a long way off.

Volker76 · 03-31-2015, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by normhead

TO me, there is one real advantage to an FF camera, and that is if you shoot for narrow DoF and APS-c and MF are not good enough for you.... but that's a judgement call, not a scientific deliberation. It makes no sense to go FF unless you shoot fast lenses wide open and that is a critical part of your workflow. If you shoot ƒ 8 on an FF, you can shoot ƒ5.6 on APS-c with almost exactly comparable results. Use the one stop faster to bump the ISO and there goes your noise and low light advantage. If you shoot ƒ1.2 on FF, there is nothing you can do to match that on APS-c. To me, that's the FF advantage. With current K-3 images, comparing them to D810 images, the FF and APs-c images are close enough, the picture is made by the skill of the photographer, not the format. The one exception to that being formal portraits and landscapes, where at least IMHO you always go to the largest format possible. That would be a 645, but if you don't have the bucks, going FF is a good compromise.

f1.2 on full frame and apsc is exactly the same.

Really people.

The DoF is exactly the same. Put the same lens on both, shoot from the same distance. DoF will be identical.

---------- Post added 31-03-15 at 20:20 ----------

Originally posted by Adam

Two words: image quality

which should be pretty much identical.

Or why do more and more 'pros' use m4/3 as their walk around cameras?

And when I go to a photographer for a nice portrait (or wedding group shot), those won't use a 'full frame' camera.

They use their good old view cameras, with a digital back.

**RobA_Oz** · 03-31-2015, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Volker76

f1.2 on full frame and apsc is exactly the same.

Really people.

The DoF is exactly the same. Put the same lens on both, shoot from the same distance. DoF will be identical.

The issue is that the Circle of Confusion will be the same on both. However, the magnification in the final viewed image will more than likely be different, so in that case the Depth of Field will be different. It may be an optical illusion, but Depth of Field changes the viewer's experience of the image.

AtitG · 03-31-2015, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Volker76

f1.2 on full frame and apsc is exactly the same.

but then you have to stitch 2.25x the image of apsc to get the same picture.

Na Horuk · 03-31-2015, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by kiwi_jono

* Bigger brighter view finder (it looks likely the new Pentax has a OVF)

I read this one a couple times in this thread. Now, it is true that old SLRs have huge viewfinders. And an FF will have a bigger viewfinder than APSC because the sensor is bigger, bigger area. But is it still bigger relative to sensor size? I mean, the viewfinders in Pentax cameras since the K-5 are pretty great, large, prism (instead of mirror), good magnification. Do FF viewfinders have better coverage % and magnification?

03-31-2015, 08:10 AM - 1 Like	#20
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	19 posts on FF with good, fair discussion and no mud slinging. I'm stunned. What is this forum coming to? And no one has used the 'D' word. Pros: Bigger view finder Potentially better low light performance Potentially lower noise at given ISO Potentially better images Potentially more MP Being seen as a 'professional' because you have a big camera Cons: Lenses will have an alien looking angle of view Long glass will get much shorter Camera weight potentially higher Camera cost potentially higher Larger file sizes DOF shallower at given aperture Bottom line, there really is no clear advantage. it depends on what features you value most. For me the deciding factor will be final image quality. If it is significantly higher than the k-3 can produce, I'm in. Otherwise, I don't know, I see more downs than ups (for me).

03-31-2015, 09:09 AM	#21
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Two words: image quality Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
With only APS-C glass, does FF offer any advantages?	Newtophotos	Pentax Full Frame	27	09-23-2014 09:14 PM
What are the advantages and dis-advantages of using a Focusing Screen?	HoBykoYan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	10-06-2011 12:28 PM
Advantages of 360fgz? AND flash future?	FastPhotography	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	3	07-20-2008 11:59 PM
Advantages of buying Pentax DSLRs	ckanthon	Pentax DSLR Discussion	35	06-30-2008 09:10 PM
Advantages of Prime Lenses	stafford588	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	12-29-2007 06:34 PM

03-31-2015, 06:26 AM - 1 Like	#16
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	TO me, there is one real advantage to an FF camera, and that is if you shoot for narrow DoF and APS-c and MF are not good enough for you.... but that's a judgement call, not a scientific deliberation. It makes no sense to go FF unless you shoot fast lenses wide open and that is a critical part of your workflow. If you shoot ƒ 8 on an FF, you can shoot ƒ5.6 on APS-c with almost exactly comparable results. Use the one stop faster to bump the ISO and there goes your noise and low light advantage. If you shoot ƒ1.2 on FF, there is nothing you can do to match that on APS-c. To me, that's the FF advantage. With current K-3 images, comparing them to D810 images, the FF and APs-c images are close enough, the picture is made by the skill of the photographer, not the format. The one exception to that being formal portraits and landscapes, where at least IMHO you always go to the largest format possible. That would be a 645, but if you don't have the bucks, going FF is a good compromise.

03-31-2015, 06:28 AM	#17
alexcox Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Colestin, OR Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 79	Originally posted by oculus Can you explain this last statement? Do you see any advantages at all in a FF camera? If it is true that a FF camera doesn't mean greater print size or better quality prints then what exactly is the advantage? Shallow depth of field is not a quality.

03-31-2015, 06:30 AM	#18
oxidized Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: USA - Delaware Photos: Albums Posts: 435	Circular bokeh with some lens. Try getting swirl with the Helios 40-2 or 44-2 on APSC. I know it doesnt matter to a lot of ppl but it does to some. Same as every other point on this list.

03-31-2015, 07:27 AM	#19
rasebe New Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Worcestershire, England Posts: 18	Lets be honest here. Its the digit behind the camera not the digital image. Very few pros used 35mm as the format was wrong for pro work. Remember most pros used 6cm x 6cm or 6cm x 7cm at the very least, many using 5" x 4" or 10" x 8"cut film cameras. 35 mm was used by sports or press photographers as they could shoot loads of images to get that saleable one. Some of the most compelling images taken are often blurred or grainy, its the picture that counts not the pixel count.

03-31-2015, 09:33 AM	#22
Byrd-2020 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: eastern Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 151	How about 'colour depth' and 'tonal gradation'? These are, to my thinking, a huge factor in choosing full frame over apsc.

03-31-2015, 10:17 AM	#23
todd Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,793	I'm tired of the absolute 'pros use MF+' argument against FF. I understand what is meant, and obviously a lot of pros use MF+, but I have personally observed plenty of 'pros' (people earning a living through photography) also using FF and APSC, or all of the above... I have even talked to "pros" who barely even know what medium format or large format is. I also talked to a pro (a very successful L.A. wedding shooter) not too long ago who mostly shoots FF Canon (he said mainly because he is sponsored) but he also mixes in a lot of Iphone images (with attached lenses) and has even shot entire weddings with his Iphone. There is only one industry I know of where a guy absolutely has to have a large one to make it.

03-31-2015, 10:34 AM	#24
Bryce K Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Richmond, TX Posts: 93	Originally posted by todd There is only one industry I know of where a guy absolutely has to have a large one to make it. I see what you did there!

03-31-2015, 11:40 AM	#25
kiwi_jono Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,437	For me the more tangible attractions are: * Bigger brighter view finder (it looks likely the new Pentax has a OVF) * Potential for better low light performance (unless they reach for the skies in Megapixel count which I don't care for) * A new toy with a learning curve that will encourage me to do more shooting (my best photos often happen when I have something new to me!) Biggest disadvantage for me (assuming size as per mock up) will be cost and so I'm not likely to be an early adopter.

03-31-2015, 12:08 PM	#26
jonby Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 161	The best way to make qualitative comparisons between FF and APS-C is to imagine a world where there is no real difference in price or availability. Which one would you choose then? In the current state of play, more or less all FFs are more expensive than all APS-Cs. This alone makes it hard to be objective about the pros and cons. The apple which is just beyond our reach tends to look bigger, riper and jucier than those within our grasp. For Pentax people it's even harder - the apple hasn't even sprouted yet so we are doomed (yes DOOOMED) to slaver as we imagine its sweet succulence.... Clearly both systems have pros and cons and I suppose what I'm saying is that in the current environment, the particular advantages of APS-C tend to get forgotten about, because we have those already. With FF gradually becoming more mainstream and economies of scale causing prices to drop, I think that eventually the two will cross over quite substantially, with high end APS-C being a lot more expensive than low-end FF. That's the way it should be, because they are really just different tools for different jobs. At that point we'll all be better placed to ignore the hype and choose the best tool for what we do (and be happy and content forever after). Sorry for this - November seems a long way off.

03-31-2015, 01:17 PM	#27
Volker76 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 211	Originally posted by normhead TO me, there is one real advantage to an FF camera, and that is if you shoot for narrow DoF and APS-c and MF are not good enough for you.... but that's a judgement call, not a scientific deliberation. It makes no sense to go FF unless you shoot fast lenses wide open and that is a critical part of your workflow. If you shoot ƒ 8 on an FF, you can shoot ƒ5.6 on APS-c with almost exactly comparable results. Use the one stop faster to bump the ISO and there goes your noise and low light advantage. If you shoot ƒ1.2 on FF, there is nothing you can do to match that on APS-c. To me, that's the FF advantage. With current K-3 images, comparing them to D810 images, the FF and APs-c images are close enough, the picture is made by the skill of the photographer, not the format. The one exception to that being formal portraits and landscapes, where at least IMHO you always go to the largest format possible. That would be a 645, but if you don't have the bucks, going FF is a good compromise. f1.2 on full frame and apsc is exactly the same. Really people. The DoF is exactly the same. Put the same lens on both, shoot from the same distance. DoF will be identical. ---------- Post added 31-03-15 at 20:20 ---------- Originally posted by Adam Two words: image quality which should be pretty much identical. Or why do more and more 'pros' use m4/3 as their walk around cameras? And when I go to a photographer for a nice portrait (or wedding group shot), those won't use a 'full frame' camera. They use their good old view cameras, with a digital back.

03-31-2015, 01:45 PM	#28
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,197	Originally posted by Volker76 f1.2 on full frame and apsc is exactly the same. Really people. The DoF is exactly the same. Put the same lens on both, shoot from the same distance. DoF will be identical. The issue is that the Circle of Confusion will be the same on both. However, the magnification in the final viewed image will more than likely be different, so in that case the Depth of Field will be different. It may be an optical illusion, but Depth of Field changes the viewer's experience of the image.

03-31-2015, 01:49 PM	#29
AtitG Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 269	Originally posted by Volker76 f1.2 on full frame and apsc is exactly the same. but then you have to stitch 2.25x the image of apsc to get the same picture.

03-31-2015, 02:46 PM	#30
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by kiwi_jono * Bigger brighter view finder (it looks likely the new Pentax has a OVF) I read this one a couple times in this thread. Now, it is true that old SLRs have huge viewfinders. And an FF will have a bigger viewfinder than APSC because the sensor is bigger, bigger area. But is it still bigger relative to sensor size? I mean, the viewfinders in Pentax cameras since the K-5 are pretty great, large, prism (instead of mirror), good magnification. Do FF viewfinders have better coverage % and magnification?