Is it worth a full frame camera ?

[Joan]

What are the real advantages of full frame cameras ? Less noise ? higher dynamic range ? is it worth the extra cost they have when compared with APSC units ?

I'm considering buying a EOS 6D. I have now a 450D. I have read several reviews of the 6D, but It is not clear for me the real advantages of FF (BTW the lenses I have are ok for FF).

Any advise from the experts will be welcome.

Best regards

[Manfred M]

Hi Joan - have both a full-frame (Nikon D800) and crop frame (Nikon D90) bodies. The advantage of the full-frame are:

1. Larger viewfinder;
2. You gain about 1 additional stop of shallow depth of field
3. Generally higher quality sensor - less noise, better dynamic range and colour range
4. Often better for ultra-wide angle shooting
5. As these cameras are more expensive, they tend to be better featured; i.e. buttons on the body for controls, rather than having to do everything through menus.

Disadvantages:

1. Cost;
2. Larger and heavier than crop frame
3. Lenses are more expensive;
4. Not as good as crop frame for macro and wildlife photography (crop factor advantage)

[Colin Southern]

Hi Joan - have both a full-frame (Nikon D800) and crop frame (Nikon D90) bodies. The advantage of the full-frame are:

1. Larger viewfinder;
2. You gain about 1 additional stop of shallow depth of field
3. Generally higher quality sensor - less noise, better dynamic range and colour range
4. Often better for ultra-wide angle shooting
5. As these cameras are more expensive, they tend to be better featured; i.e. buttons on the body for controls, rather than having to do everything through menus.

Disadvantages:

1. Cost;
2. Larger and heavier than crop frame
3. Lenses are more expensive;
4. Not as good as crop frame for macro and wildlife photography (crop factor advantage)

And I'd just like to add ...

... nothing. Hit the nail on the head!

Personally, having shot with 1.6x crop, 1.3x crop, and FF - for me - the aspect of FF that I appreciate the most is the viewfinder. Not too long ago I took a quick shot on someones 30D and I was really quite shocked at how small the viewfinder was - I'd completely forgotten.

[DanK]

I also have both (Canon 5DIII and 50D), and I agree with Manfred. I'd add one to his disadvantages for FF: not only are lenses more expensive; for a given reach, they are also a lot heavier. It really depends on what you do. If you describe more what photography you mostly do and how you display (print large? print small? display on the web?), we could probably give you more specific feedback.

The bottom line is that for some people, FF is better; for some, it is not as good; and for a great many it doesn't make a lot of difference (in terms of image quality).

I'll be concrete. My 5DIII is a remarkable camera in many respects, and my old 50D doesn't really compare. However, when I go bug hunting, I will probably use my 50D much of the time. It's considerably smaller and lighter, I get more pixels on the subject at maximum magnification, and I get more reach when I am further away. You may not do macro, but that is an example of the general idea that what is best for you will be determined by what you shoot.

[ajohnw]

And I'd just like to add ...

... nothing. Hit the nail on the head!

Personally, having shot with 1.6x crop, 1.3x crop, and FF - for me - the aspect of FF that I appreciate the most is the viewfinder. Not too long ago I took a quick shot on someones 30D and I was really quite shocked at how small the viewfinder was - I'd completely forgotten.

I suspect that's down to evolution Colin not the size of the sensor. Must get my 300D and 5D out to check.

Some comments on certain M 4/3 cameras stress the excellent size of the view,

I would say the main gain can be the sensor but a lot probably depends on which camera which in turn has cost implications.

John
-

[rpcrowe]

Manfred posted...

"As these cameras are more expensive, they tend to be better featured; i.e. buttons on the body for controls, rather than having to do everything through menus."

This may or may not be generally true regarding Nikon crop cameras but, it is not so regarding all Canon crop cameras...

It is true that the Rebel family of Canon crop cameras (generally the xxxD and xxxxD models) require much control to be accessed through the menu; which is to me a big PITA. However the Canon xxD and 7D family of crop cameras have a better control setup and the controls can be accessed through use of buttons and through the two control dials. As a result, I would rather use a xxD or 7D camera that is an older model than to use the latest xxxD or xxxxD Canon DSLR.

The two dial control system is really great and is a very quick and painless way to adjust the controls. Even if you are using Programmed exposure, the f/stop and shutter speed can be accessed on the fly using either of the two control dials.

The Canon 7D viewfinder is far away superior to that on my old 30D...

The Canon 7D focusing system is excellent in the default mode and can really be customized to be top-notch...

Finally, if you are not getting the imagery you want from a crop camera equipped with good lenses, it is probably time to look at the indian rather than the arrow...

At the risk of being bashed by 6D aficionados, the 6D is kind of a watered down camera which allows a photographer to join the "Magical Mystery Tour" of full frame shooting at a lower price than the 5Diii.

There are at least two parameters of thee 6D that I would not like...

First, the auto focus is not a sophisticated as the 5Diii, 7D or 1D (series) cameras. Whether you would use the more sophisticated A/F system or not, is up to the individual photographer...

Second, the maximum flash sync speed of 1/160 second would force me to use HSS more that I do with my 7D with its 1/250 second sync speed.

Doubtlessly, if landscape and portraiture is your main interest, the extra size of the full frame sensor will be a benefit. Additionally, if you need (or just want) very high ISO capability, the 6D might be what you are looking for...

[inkista]

To me the main advantage is the wider field of view: both in the viewfinder and on the sensor. All your lenses (assuming they're not EF-S) just got 1.6x wider.

I shot film for 20+ years. I missed the old FoV. I have a lot of adapted manual lenses from the film era. They're designed to work on 135 format--so full frame is a better fit than a crop body. My once-wide lenses are wide once again. Not something that happens when you adapt to, say, micro four-thirds.

Yes, you get better dynamic range and high iso noise performance and probably higher resolution, but you also often gain on all three of those things just waiting for the next sensor generation in a smaller format, too, so I think there are diminishing returns, there.

To me, one of the not-mentioned disadvantages to going Canon prosumer full-frame is that you lose having a pop-up flash , and, if you go for a 6D or pre-MkIII 5D, you also lose fast-action capability in terms of the AF system and burst rate. For example, a 70D has a pop-up with the ability to wirelessly master a remote flash, has a burst rate of 7fps, and an AF system with 19 points, all cross-type. By contrast, the 6D has no pop-up flash at all, a burst rate of 4.5 fps, and an AF system with 11 points, and only a single center cross-type sensor. The 5DmkII is even worse with a burst rate of 3.8 fps, and a 9-pt array with single center cross-type sensor.

There are reasons I kept my 50D for birding when I got the 5DMkII...

[Brev00]

I have been considering a full frame camera recently. More for the advantages in low noise and shallow depth of field. I have found that people often categorize full frame and dx according to types of photography. So, macro and wildlife may be considered dx strengths while landscapes and portraits would be the provenance of full frame cameras. I have, however, reached a major stumbling block. I tried out a D800 with an 85 1.4 at a local camera shop. Awesome performance! Just the speed of attaining focus was noticeably better than my D90. Like a Napa Valley Cab--qualitatively better than a generic California wine. But, the weight gain was similarly noticeable. Like a brick. My old film cameras were lighter than my D90. Having shot film for so long, I wanted to sort of return to that format (in digital terms). Maybe Nikon will pursue mirrorless full frame tech at some point. Until then, I will stick to dx and might add some lighter gear as well.

[Colin Southern]

the weight gain was similarly noticeable. Like a brick. My old film cameras were lighter than my D90. Having shot film for so long, I wanted to sort of return to that format (in digital terms). Maybe Nikon will pursue mirrorless full frame tech at some point. Until then, I will stick to dx and might add some lighter gear as well.

Larry,

I often hear this, but I really don't understand why some folks find it to be such a problem. I'm just an average strength guy - and I shoot with a 1D X (inc bracket) - often a 70-200/2.8 - and sometimes even with a 600EX-RT on top as well (well over 3kg) - and it's never a problem.

Bulk up man

(Many photographers like to lift jugs of beer as a training aid! )

[William W]

. . . I'm considering buying a EOS 6D. I have now a 450D. I have read several reviews of the 6D, but It is not clear for me the real advantages of FF (BTW the lenses I have are ok for FF). . .

Also, as well as asking these two general & broad questions: "Is it worth a Full Frame Camera?" / "What are the real advantages of a Full Frame Camera" -

I think that your task would be well served by considering more specific questions something like:

I have a 450D and I want to buy a new camera, because:

>I usually like this type of photography and I will / will not probably change from that
>I want to improve the following aspects of my photography
>The 450D is limited in these aspects
>I cannot do this; this and this adequately with my 450D

Also I have these lenses (specifically) [list of lenses]. . . . and I now want to list the pros and cons of cameras which are within my price range . . . such as 6D; 7D, 70D . . .

I think that now you have a lot of excellent GENERAL information about APS-C vs. 135 (aka Full Frame) Format - a follow up post with lots a details filling in the gaps outlined above will serve you well.

WW

[William W]

Answering your original question - if one likes working with very Fast Prime Lenses in the Wide to Normal FoV range and if one likes working with T/S Lenses in the Wide to Normal range then add that as another two reasons for liking 'Full Frame' Cameras - for example one can't get 24/1.4; nor 17 T/S . . . equivalent in APS-C.

(Well, actually one can't get 35/1.4 nor 50/1.0 - 1.2 nor 85/1.2 equivalents either for APS-C, but that already been covered in the shallow DoF rationale).

I do a lot of work with a 24mm F/1.4 (at F/1.6~2.0) and even more work with a 35mm F/1.4 (at F/1.4~1.8) on 5D Series Cameras - there is no comparable lens to mount on any APS-C Camera: I've been using my Fuji X100s (a recent addition) and it is very nice very sharp and very fast (23mm F/2) and the camera has many benefits especially: silence; weight and size: but it cannot, can never compete apropos DoF to the 35/1.4 on a "FF" format camera.

But - it is very easy to realize that my use of a "FF" camera is based upon a purpose within MY photography in addition to all the other general benefits listed in the other commentaries above. So that brings me back to advising you to consider YOUR Photography, very carefully, when considering what you buy next.

WW

[lukaswerth]

Manfred outlined the main issues; apart from those, I'd say it's down to the camera one prefers. I got my camera not because of crop or full frame, but because it was at the time I bought it, and still is, the best one available for my needs (Nikon d800e).

A camera which I think might also be quite useful, however, is the Fuji x pro 1 (haven't looked more closely yet at that new model of theirs) which I think is simply, all in all, a much better camera than the Nikon DF (I compare them because of pixel size and high ISO performance).

I won't get a Fuji any time soon, there is no real need and I need my money for other things. But the above is in principle what I think, so I would say the question between crop and full frame should not be made in theory but respect to the camera which serves one best.

Lukas

[Joan]

Also, as well as asking these two general & broad questions: "Is it worth a Full Frame Camera?" / "What are the real advantages of a Full Frame Camera" -

I think that your task would be well served by considering more specific questions something like:

I have a 450D and I want to buy a new camera, because:

>I usually like this type of photography and I will / will not probably change from that
>I want to improve the following aspects of my photography
>The 450D is limited in these aspects
>I cannot do this; this and this adequately with my 450D

Also I have these lenses (specifically) [list of lenses]. . . . and I now want to list the pros and cons of cameras which are within my price range . . . such as 6D; 7D, 70D . . .

I think that now you have a lot of excellent GENERAL information about APS-C vs. 135 (aka Full Frame) Format - a follow up post with lots a details filling in the gaps outlined above will serve you well.

WW

1- The real fact is that I want to upgrade my current camera and I was wondering if the FF was really worth. I have had in mind to go to a FF camera since I bought my 450D and this is why after buying my 450D I have spent my money on lenses that could be used on FF cameras. Right now I have a EF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM, a EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM, a EF 50mm f1.4 USM. In other words, I have spent on lenses more than 4 times what I spent on the 450D camera body. From the very beginning I was thinking on ending with a FF camera.

2- My current camera is very restricted with high ISO shooting. This is an undeniable fact. Going to a FF I understand that will improve this since bigger sensor means bigger sensor elements, which in turn means less need of amplifying the signal and, hence, better quality on higher ISOs (is this true ??). However, with the new sensors and processors in the market since I bought my 450D I don't know if I could get to the same place spending less money.

3- I don't know if besides the high ISO issue there are other benefits of FF. Better image ? better colors ?

4- Most of the pictures I take are not action shoots, nevertheless I think that this is relevant for the AF system (number of AF points, type of AF points) and not on being FF or cropped.

[dje]

Hi Joan

I'm in a similar position to you - considering an upgrade from a 600D to a 6D. However I didn't have your foresight regarding lenses and have all crop factor lenses So it's a bigger decision for me financially.

You've been given some very good advice here, and frankly, given your situation, I reckon you should go for the 6D. I had a play with one the other day and was impressed by it's feel. From what I have read, it's a good performer with very good image quality and low noise, and the central AF point is very sensitive in low light conditions. The AF on this camera with the 24-105 was very fast and very quiet. And you'll get wider shots with the lenses with a FF.

The only other thing I would mention is that there should be a 7D MkII out soon and it might be worth holding off to see what specs and price it has. The 6D is likely to remain the front runner though I think.

Dave

[John 2]

I can't disagree with any of the above but I went through the same decision process when the Nikon D600 came out. I decided against it. The principal reasons were:

1. Some of my favourite lenses are DX and there was an added cost to make the change - doesn't apply to you I know.
2. The full frame lenses that I do have give superb quality on a DX sensor because by definition most of the performance fall off towards the edge of the image area that would otherwise exist, is eliminated by the crop.
3. The noise performance and definition of crop sensors is improving at a rate of knots and IMHO we must be rapidly approaching the point at which "better" is good enough.

And so I bought the smaller D7100 instead and its is excellent - for what I do - as purely an amateur. It has buttons to spare and doesn't rely on just the menu system and if you want an idea of what this generation of DX cameras are capable of, look at some of Joe's BIF shots.

I have since also acquired a Fuji XPro1 and it's noise and sharpness very nearly equals all but the best from FF. I have to say Colin that despite a lifetime achievement award in raising pints of beer, the fact that I ramble over the hills or through a town with a 35mm standard lens on the camera, a wide angle in one pocket and a 200mm zoom in the other provides a freedom I didn't have before. The camera bag generally stays in the car. The end result has been that I take more photographs and that for me is what it is all about.

[Joan]

I have since also acquired a Fuji XPro1 and it's noise and sharpness very nearly equals all but the best from FF. I have to say Colin that despite a lifetime achievement award in raising pints of beer, the fact that I ramble over the hills or through a town with a 35mm standard lens on the camera, a wide angle in one pocket and a 200mm zoom in the other provides a freedom I didn't have before. The camera bag generally stays in the car. The end result has been that I take more photographs and that for me is what it is all about.

Going or not going to a FF camera is one of the issues that puzzles me, and the second one is if getting rid of DSLRs, selling all the parts patiently collected during the last years (that is, the lenses) and buy a mirrorless camera with a set of good lenses. This is a hard decision because all the money that I have spent during these years was spent thinking on ending with a good DSLR equipment.

Is it time to conclude that I may be wrong ? Mirrorless cameras imply less weight and volume for the equipment, and this is something to consider. Quality is supposed to be better on the DSLRs but I guess that the gap between both type of cameras is going down and down.... Most mirrorless cameras are not FF and now we come back to the origin of this thread: does it make sense to go to a mirrorless camera ? This is a key decision for me because it brings me to a new approach to photography...

[Manfred M]

Joan - what I did not mention in the original post is that I knew that I would be going full-frame fairly shortly after I bought my crop frame camera (having been a life-long SLR shooter; I was simply more comfortable in using the full-frame format), so with relatively few exceptions, I bought full-frame lenses to use with the crop frame camera.

What I did not mention was that I probably shoot full-frame about 95% of the time now. The only time I really go back to crop frame and the kit lenses is when I am out hiking or biking and size and weight will make a difference. The larger viewfinder and the "pro" features are so much better to use (the crop frame was Nikon's top end amateur model when I bought it, so it had a lot of features that the entry and mid-level cameras did not have).

I'm also looking at getting a micro 4/3 body (size and weight) for size and weight reasons. It's like everything else, there is no "correct" answer that is universal and no one-size solution for cameras (or anything else).

[ajohnw]

If some one does make a mirrorless full frame camera it and it's kit will weight significantly more than say micro 4/3 or an APS mirror less plus kit as the size of the sensor influences the size of the lot. Rather than saying I get a wider view on full frame most people would look at lenses on the basis of filed of view unless they had their tongue in their cheek. Smaller sensors means shorter focal lengths for the same angle of view. Shorter focal lengths mean less glass diameter for the same f ration. There is a huge knock on effect on size and weight when sensors get down to 4/3 size. In full frame terms it's easy to carry around 18 to 600mm in a medium sized should bag - try that on even APS. That 4/3 set up can finish up weighing less in total than a full frame camera plus one medium telephoto wide range zoom lens. A lot less if it's a fast one and still less if it's max aperture is the same as the 4/3 one.

Really I should have used the term micro 4/3 and not 4/3. Having recently ventured into some pro 4/3 glass I find the lens weighs in at 1.3kg and the camera at just under 1/2 kg. On the other hand I'm pretty sure that a full frame 100-400mm F2.8 lens would weigh significantly more than 1.3kg especially if it was pro glass. Also that a modern 4./3 lens version would weigh less than 1kg.

People mention depth of field. In many ways that is a read herring. For the same field of view the crop camera needs the aperture opening up by an amount that is proportional to the crop factor. 4/3 for instance 1 stop, APS less.

Where larger sensors can gain is in the area of resolution. Easiest way to explain that is putting say some top of the line full frame lens on a crop body. The lens still resolves exactly the same level of detail as it would on full frame but the image is smaller. Another way of putting it is to say all lenses record 200 line pairs per mm. Full frame camera will always catch more lines because the sensor is bigger. There is a counter effect though. As the lenses get bigger and bigger it gets harder and harder to get them to resolve this fictitious 200 lp/mm. One example is Nikon and the One range. They even show higher resolution data on the lenses. Not that these can match full frame just as it's very doubtful if full frame can really match digital medium format.

The viewfinder effect has nothing to do with the sensor. Only the manufacturers choice really. Take Colin's 1DX for instance the magnification is 0.76x. 5D III 0.71x, 7D 1x. Crop factors alter what that means in practice. A D7000 has 0.94x. What it mostly means is that some cameras will be easier to manually focus as the apparent view is larger. A site keeps a list here

http://www.neocamera.com/article/viewfinder_sizes

The OMD E-M5 is the same as the E-5. Probably part limited by pixels in the view finder but it's useless for manual focusing without peaking or a magnified view, The OMD E-M1 and one of the Sony Nex gets up to very near the same view as a 1-DX, Actually a larger view as the sensor has a different format.

John
-

[Glenn NK]

Like Manfred I've been looking closely at the M43 format:

1) The size/weight reduction is significant compared with FF and APS-C. Very attractive for travel, particularly on aircraft (spent two weeks lugging two bodies and four lenses last fall; Luxembourg/Paris/Milan).

2) Although sensor MP is still rising, the largest I've printed since I started semi-serious photography in 1962 is 11" x 14" (280 x 356). Perhaps one image in ten thousand has been printed - the vast majority are displayed on computer screens and cell phone screens - this doesn't require large format high MP sensors.

3) The size of high MP images isn't so much an issue with HDD space being cheap, but the processing power required for larger files requires can be.

4) When I tried some street photography in Paris (many great subjects at sidewalk cafes etc), the best combination to get good framing was my 5DII + 70-200 f/2.8 lens. Not quite unobtrusive!!

5) Bulking up simply isn't an answer - one doesn't get stronger with age.

Several years ago, no one was talking about mass and size being an issue, but now there are threads on most forums with photographers extolling the virtues of less mass and size. Maybe they are getting older and are coming to grips with the inevitable?

FF mirrorless bodies (MILC) are lighter/smaller but this is cancelled out by the size/weight of FF lenses or that would be a good option.

Glenn

[Manfred M]

When I tried some street photography in Paris (many great subjects at sidewalk cafes etc), the best combination to get good framing was my 5DII + 70-200 f/2.8 lens. Not quite unobtrusive!!

Glenn - I found exactly the same thing - virtually all of my street photography in Guatemala was done with my D800 and the f/2.8 70-200mm lens. Nope, not unobtrusive, but I learned that "hiding in plain sight" worked quite well for me.

While it wasn't street photography in the "classic" sense, same comment goes for people shots in the villages in the Omo Valley in Ethiopia.

The camera / lens combo may be large and rather "in your face", but it simply can't be beat, based on the results I've gotten.


That being said; I would not want to backpack with it; hence my interest in MFT (I own Panasonic 14-140mm and 100-200mm lenses already for my MFT video camera), which is probably why I am not looking at the Sony NEX-7.