Why go full frame?

The Ran wrote in post #13177149
What was the depth of field there, about a meter? Would an extra 60cm have made much difference? I doubt it. Or if it really did then you could've have used the money saved by getting a crop body to get a 35mm f/1.8 (assuming you used the 50mm, if it was the 85mm then just use the 50mm on crop) and get the same depth of field and a better lens.

The EXIF indicates a shooting distance of 2 meters, so the DOF (according to http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html) would have been .17 meter. To equal that with a 1.6X crop and achieve the same framing from the same shooting distance (for the same perspective) would require a focal length of 31.25mm shooting at about f/1.2 (I got this using the closest focal length in the calculator, 31.4mm). More realistically, using a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which would come very close to duplicating the framing from the same shooting distance of 2 meters, the DOF would be .24 meter or 7cm more than the full frame (about 3 inches for us non-metric types). To duplicate the .17 meter DOF with the crop at 50mm and f/1.8 the crop would have to be shot from a shooting distance of 2.5 meters, which would change the perspective and framing. Most fun of all, if the subject were small enough in the frame so that it would fit in the crop frame using the 50mm focal length at the original 2 meters shooting distance, at f/1.8 the crop would have .11 meter DOF, .06 meter less than the full frame. Bottom line: as with many other things, this is all relative.

So it would have been an extra 10cm, nothing to shout about.

To achieve the same shot on a crop, I would need a 31mm F1.1 lens.
And of course, when shooting wide open, FF will be allot sharper.

The Ran wrote in post #13177327
So it would have been an extra 10cm, nothing to shout about.

Actually, I think people care more about the bokeh behind (or in front) the subject, not how much of the subject is in focus (in fact they would probably prefer more of the subject in focus allot of the time).

Below is an example of such juicy bokeh...

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

Everything is relative. By the way, bokeh is far more a function of the lens than the camera.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

rhys216 wrote in post #13177424
To achieve the same shot on a crop, I would need a 31mm F1.1 lens.

Indeed you're correct, or at least I assume you are because I can't be bothered to work it out myself. The 35mm f/1.8 would give practically the same depth of field as the 50mm with the same framing (1.6x that of the full frame body) so you would need a faster lens to get the same depth of field, my mistake. However the point still stands that the difference isn't that huge, we're not comparing full frame to 1/2.3" here.

No it wouldn't, not for definite.Assuming the lens can resolve the crop sensor a D300 would produce a sharper image as it actually has a slightly higher resolution and wide open the edges of the imaging circle are almost always softer than the centre. For the D700 to be sharper the lens would have to be so soft that it couldn't even resolve a 12mp crop sensor (in which case use the money saved to buy a sharper lens).

stsva wrote in post #13177457
Everything is relative.

How about a shot of a larger subject at similar distance?

stsva wrote in post #13177457
By the way, bokeh is more a function of the lens than the camera.

No matter the lens, you will always be able to achieve shallower DOF with FF.

The Ran wrote in post #13177483
Indeed you're correct, or at least I assume you are because I can't be bothered to work it out myself. The 35mm f/1.8 would give practically the same depth of field as the 50mm with the same framing (1.6x that of the full frame body) so you would need a faster lens to get the same depth of field, my mistake. However the point still stands that the difference isn't that huge, we're not comparing full frame to 1/2.3" here.

No it wouldn't, not for definite.Assuming the lens can resolve the crop sensor a D300 would produce a sharper image as it actually has a slightly higher resolution and wide open the edges of the imaging circle are almost always softer than the centre. For the D700 to be sharper the lens would have to be so soft that it couldn't even resolve a 12mp crop sensor (in which case use the money saved to buy a sharper lens).

Find me a lens that can out-resolve any modern DSLR when shot wide open...

ALL of my lenses are sharper on my D700 than my D7K, even when the D7K file is scaled down (which isn't as much as the Mp's would suggest tbh).

rhys216 wrote in post #13177499
How about a shot of a larger subject at similar distance?

That probably wouldn't have worked as well (this was at 200mm and f/4).

rhys216 wrote in post #13177499
No matter the lens, you will always be able to achieve shallower DOF with FF.

True enough, as long as you can move closer to the subject with the FF than with the crop.

rhys216 wrote in post #13177526
Find me a lens that can out-resolve any modern DSLR when shot wide open...

ALL of my lenses are sharper on my D700 than my D7K, even when the D7K file is scaled down (which isn't as much as the Mp's would suggest tbh).

Sharpness, is ONE component that makes an image. There are a million other things that make a shot great. To me and many many others, ultimate 100% sharpness is VERY LOW on the list of priorities. Is it sharp enough? Most crop shots done properly are. Does it NEED to be sharper than "sharp enough"? Many would not notice unless you are specifically analyzing the photo for sharpness.

The points you are harping on over and over are true, but that doesn't make it important to most. In my case, I often found the DOF on my FF setups to be TOO THIN when using fast primes, and just a bit too large when using zooms. Using fast primes wide open on a crop has given me the perfect level of DOF that I like. I didn't like stopping primes down on FF to achieve the same DOF because the instant you stop down even 1/3 of a stop, it negatively affects the bokeh/blur quality, ESPECIALLY the specular highlights, and most especially on trees and foliage, of which I'm shooting in often. The Canon 50 1.8 was the worst for this, as was my Nikkor 50 1.4D. BTW, I could have gotten almost the exact same picture of your dog with the same perspective and DOF using my 2.0 crop micro four thirds camera.

So just understand that there are DIFFERENCES between the two formats, and each bring their own sets of ADVANTAGES to the table. What might be important to you may not be to someone else. But I would never go as far as to universally say FF is better than crop and vice versa. It's DIFFERENT. It's all up to your own personal needs that determine which works best for YOU.

picturecrazy wrote in post #13177647
Sharpness, is ONE component that makes an image. There are a million other things that make a shot great. To me and many many others, ultimate 100% sharpness is VERY LOW on the list of priorities. Is it sharp enough? Most crop shots done properly are. Does it NEED to be sharper than "sharp enough"? Many would not notice unless you are specifically analyzing the photo for sharpness.

People always want to add a little sharpening to an image, the more sharpening that's added the noisier and image appears, hence the sharper SOOC the better imo, especially for high ISO's.

picturecrazy wrote in post #13177647
The points you are harping on over and over are true, but that doesn't make it important to most. In my case, I often found the DOF on my FF setups to be TOO THIN when using fast primes, and just a bit too large when using zooms. Using fast primes wide open on a crop has given me the perfect level of DOF that I like. I didn't like stopping primes down on FF to achieve the same DOF because the instant you stop down even 1/3 of a stop, it negatively affects the bokeh/blur quality, ESPECIALLY the specular highlights, and most especially on trees and foliage, of which I'm shooting in often. The Canon 50 1.8 was the worst for this, as was my Nikkor 50 1.4D.

This is not making sense to me tbh, Maybe I'm not understanding something?

picturecrazy wrote in post #13177647
BTW, I could have gotten almost the exact same picture of your dog with the same perspective and DOF using my 2.0 crop micro four thirds camera.

I doubt it, but then again 'almost' is relative.

rhys216 wrote in post #13177691
^^^
People always want to add a little sharpening to an image, the more sharpening that's added the noisier and image appears, hence the sharper SOOC the better imo, especially for high ISO's.

Like I said, you just need "enough" sharpening. If you are creating artifacts then you're doing it wrong. And 100% sharpness isn't crucially important to many people anyhow... just mostly the gearheads, pixelpeepers, and measurebators.

rhys216 wrote in post #13177691

picturecrazy wrote:
I could have gotten almost the exact same picture of your dog with the same perspective and DOF using my 2.0 crop micro four thirds camera.

I doubt it, but then again 'almost' is relative.

Open your mind and accept the fact that FF isn't the end all be all. There ARE other ways to achieve excellent results.

I only said ALMOST because surely your dog would have moved a bit between shots, and different lenses have different distortion and flare characteristics. But the DOF, subject distance, focus distance, and perspective would be the same. I could duplicate your shot with this. And who knows, it might have even handled the flare better than your lens and improved the shot.

picturecrazy wrote in post #13177750
Open your mind and accept the fact that FF isn't the end all be all. There ARE other ways to achieve excellent results.

This seems to be the underlying message that everybody that argues about FF tries to make. Yet, I've never seen somebody that likes Full Frame or discusses the FF "advantage" try to actually say that there is no other way to achieve excellent results. That's not the point of the discussion, at all. It's possible to take an award winning photograph with a half-used disposable camera that you found soaked in booze on a homeless man's dead body while it was hailing golf balls on the streets of NYC... does that mean we should all give up buying equipment and head out on the streets looking for used cameras?

This is one of the most difficult things about discussing things on the internet. People always want to make the discussion about something that it isn't. Saying FF has an "advantage" does not necessitate "crop isn't good enough", and I've never once seen anybody try to say that it was except for the "FF deniers" who, for whatever reason, seem to enjoy putting words in people's mouths.

ktownhero wrote in post #13177772
This seems to be the underlying message that everybody that argues about FF tries to make. Yet, I've never seen somebody that likes Full Frame or discusses the FF "advantage" try to actually say that there is no other way to achieve excellent results. That's not the point of the discussion, at all. It's possible to take an award winning photograph with a half-used disposable camera that you found soaked in booze on a homeless man's dead body while it was hailing golf balls on the streets of NYC... does that mean we should all give up buying equipment and head out on the streets looking for used cameras?

If you have been reading rhys' posts, the DIFFERENCES he notes between the croppers and FF are being presented by him as DEFICIENCIES rather than differences. I'm saying it's up to the shooter's needs as to whether they are deficiencies or not. He presents SHARPNESS as the ultimate measure of sensor comparison. I'm just saying that he should open his mind and realize that there are many other factors to make excellent images. Having a SHARP image with thin DOF is one way of a billion to make a quality image, just as you pointed out. Why are you getting on my back if we're saying the same thing?

ktownhero wrote in post #13177772
This is one of the most difficult things about discussing things on the internet. People always want to make the discussion about something that it isn't. Saying FF has an "advantage" does not necessitate "crop isn't good enough", and I've never once seen anybody try to say that it was except for the "FF deniers" who, for whatever reason, seem to enjoy putting words in people's mouths.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA​HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA​HAHAHA!!!!!!

Have you read the Camera forum lately for the last 5 years? It's full of some of the most biased, unscientific blanket statements of how inferior crop is to FF, or how your problems would disappear if you upgrade to FF, or how you should upgrade to FF and never look back. And many of these people are taking pictures of their cat, and their kids at the park. I'm sorry, FF doesn't help these people, but they buy 'em because people are constantly saying, "it's the best" without really knowing if or why it is, FOR THEIR PURPOSES.

I don't know why people are so sensitive to having a two sided discussion instead of an all-agreeing circle jerk. It's like having a different viewpoint and healthy debate automatically makes me a hater.

Lloyd, I lol'd @ the cat part.