Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
Thread started 06 Oct 2018 (Saturday) 10:56
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

“The full frame look”

 
this thread is locked
Sapre
Junior Member
22 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2015
     
Oct 06, 2018 10:56 |  #1

Its been bugging me for a while, what ‘the full frame look’ is all about...

I ve used a number of camera systems in recent years including full
Frame, Quite recently i switched exclusively to fuji xt1 and am very happy with it even though its crop sensor and has less resolution than my previous 5dii.

Logically Doesn't it come down to the resolution/megapixels?
E.g. a crop sensor with 16mp is equivalent to a full frame with say 10mp (Im making the numbers up of course, but you get the idea)

Or do i miss something fundamental?? Please set me straight!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,736 posts
Likes: 2007
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Oct 06, 2018 11:25 |  #2

I don't really buy into the whole full frame look thing. Other than very shallow DOF at large apertures, or less noise at high ISO, or extreme wide angle, anything you can do with a FF based camera, you can do with a crop sensor. For the vast majority of the pictures taken around the planet, any camera will work equally well.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,276 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2353
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 4 months ago by Wilt.
     
Oct 06, 2018 13:12 |  #3

no such thing as 'full frame look'.

I fundamentally agree with gjl711 that (almost) "anything you can do with a FF based camera, you can do with a crop sensor."

  • With APS-C 32mm f/1.4 lens you cannot get as shallow DOF zone as FF with 50mm f/1.4 lens
  • With APS-C and 17mm shift lens you cannot replicate what can be done with FF and 24mm shift lens
  • With APS-C you cannot replicate what can be done with FF and 8mm fisheye
  • With APS-C you cannot get quite as low noise high ISO images as with FF (unless APS-C single-pixel area is same as pixel on FF sensor, if all other factor equal)

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sapre
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
22 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2015
     
Oct 06, 2018 14:40 as a reply to  @ Wilt's post |  #4

Thanks guys for confirming, the phrase has been confusing me for a while! good point on the DOF, but indeed not a biggie most of the time.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,590 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1044
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Post edited 4 months ago by Alveric.
     
Oct 06, 2018 14:40 |  #5

More about DOF than resolution.

What we learn from the table confirms my prior statement. To achieve a fixed angle of view, different sensors must use different focal lengths to get the same angle of view. In doing so, we find that when the aperture is fixed, the depth of field increases as the sensor gets smaller. Our full frame example has the least amount of depth of field at any distance while our point and shoot has a lot more, and even at a relatively wide aperture of f5/6 basically doesn’t have to focus at all if the subject is ten feet away or farther. This is why focusing takes longer and requires more precision the larger the sensor is.

Some sellers say that if you are a wildlife or sports shooter you are better served with a crop sensor because you get more reach out of your glass. Since the sensor sees less, this appears to be true, but it’s also important to remember that for near equivalent pixel coverage, the sensor pixels are much smaller and so low light performance will not be as good as on full frame, and you will get more digital noise from the smaller sensor components. There is always a tradeoff.

On the other hand, getting to really super wide is tougher on the smaller sensors, not because they cannot cope, but because manufacturers typically don’t build ultra wides designed for crop sensors. So while there are 10mm to something zooms, they have the look of 15mm or 16mm full frame lenses. If you want the real look of an 11mm or even 14mm rectilinear wide angle, you have to go full frame, with a couple of M4/3 exceptions.

Source: What exactly is crop factor? (external link) (Emphasis is mine.)


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,614 posts
Likes: 489
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Post edited 4 months ago by davesrose.
     
Oct 06, 2018 15:32 |  #6

I remember a few years ago Tony Northrop made a video that was a rant for camera manufacturers to also include crop factor marketing with aperture...or that even better, they have more lenses that have larger apertures for equivalent shallow DOF. I guess manufacturers haven't included crop factor with aperture due to marketing and making faster lenses would make them heavier (the outlier being the Sigma Art f1.8 series zoom).


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aezoss
Senior Member
433 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Likes: 850
Joined Nov 2013
     
Oct 06, 2018 15:40 |  #7

Apples/oranges comparison fwiw (not much). A close approximation of the FF shallow DOF look and feel is definitely achievable with APS-C if you ballpark focal lengths to maintain distance to subject thus angle of view or whatever. It's not 100% due to lens magnification, max aperature blah blah blah. Unless the images are side by side no one's going to know the difference.

What about the medium format look? Seen a few articles about that surface recently. Is that also not a thing?


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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,736 posts
Likes: 2007
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Oct 06, 2018 16:49 |  #8

aezoss wrote in post #18723633 (external link)
Apples/oranges comparison fwiw (not much). A close approximation of the FF shallow DOF look and feel is definitely achievable with APS-C if you ballpark focal lengths to maintain distance to subject thus angle of view or whatever. It's not 100% due to lens magnification, max aperature blah blah blah. Unless the images are side by side no one's going to know the difference.

What about the medium format look? Seen a few articles about that surface recently. Is that also not a thing?
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by aezoss in
./showthread.php?p=187​23633&i=i242219496
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

The difference would be even less if you would have shot a f1.4 on the crop. If you play around with a DOF calculator, using the first shot's parameters and assuming a distance of 5 feet, near focus would be 4.94, far focus=5.05 for a dof of .13. Setting the crop lens to f/1.4 near focus would be 4.92, far focus=5.08 for a dof of .16. All you would see then is the slight effect from the different fl.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,590 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1044
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Oct 06, 2018 16:56 |  #9

Yes, there is the medium format look, and even the large format look (albeit you'd need to shoot film for that one).

Alas, the medium format now is being cropped as well. Fuji's and Pentax's 'medium formats' aren't really so.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,010 posts
Gallery: 1466 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9482
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited 4 months ago by MalVeauX. (3 edits in all)
     
Oct 06, 2018 17:34 |  #10

Stick with what keeps you shooting. This is more important than minutia differences between resulting angular field of view & resolution combinations.

I sold three of my Canon full frames (including 1DS) and went to an APS-C sensor again, mirrorless, with F1.2 and F1.4 glass. I don't miss the full frame at all. My new kit does the same thing, is much smaller (much!), silent (literally dead silent with an electronic shutter if I want, and my other is a leaf shutter), has gorgeous RAW files, etc, works with my lighting equipment, weather sealed, etc. I went Fuji with Samyang manual glass (focus peaking is my preferred way, even at F1.2). I don't miss my full frames or 135L or any of that.

Shoot with what you like to shoot with.

Super shallow DOF does not make a photograph.

I finally "knew it" when I had a 5D & 1Ds II with a 135L and was tired of lugging it around, and having to run 20 feet away to get a shot. I thought I had the dream setup, like everyone else, a 135L and other L lenses, with a full frame. But they're huge, heavy, loud, clunky. I bought a mirrorless that replaced my full frame + 35mm F2. The silence and weight difference was profound. I then replaced the rest. Then I knew the affair with the "idea" of full frame, and fast primes, for the "full frame look" was just in my head. It was re-created with a smaller, faster system that I enjoyed more. I sold all my full frame and L stuff and went smaller. I don't regret it even yet.

+++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++

Here's why I changed up (and the "look" is virtually the same) / (equivalences):

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4541/38051767724_0facb12f70_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ZYvf​QL  (external link) X10S9469 copy (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4525/27236879589_38dcb15756_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/HuQ8​oe  (external link) X10S9589 copy (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4758/39796017524_0839306e58_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/23CC​Zxb  (external link) X10S0209 copy (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4690/39430567111_c5aaf4dcb7_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/235k​XRZ  (external link) DSCF7541 copy (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4263/35166002766_394c65ac94_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/VzuX​sw  (external link) Demo_02_06092017 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4747/39610022955_f2962033e8_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/23mc​HQg  (external link) X10S0204 copy (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Very best,

My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,276 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2353
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Oct 06, 2018 17:43 |  #11

gjl711 wrote in post #18723687 (external link)
The difference would be even less if you would have shot a f1.4 on the crop. If you play around with a DOF calculator, using the first shot's parameters and assuming a distance of 5 feet, near focus would be 4.94, far focus=5.05 for a dof of .13. Setting the crop lens to f/1.4 near focus would be 4.92, far focus=5.08 for a dof of .16. All you would see then is the slight effect from the different fl.


...yes, DOF is 'equivalent' from both FF and APS-C with the FL appropriate to the format size, AND if also the f/stop is larger by 1.6EV (which is not always possible to find in the lens with shorter FL for APS-C)


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,243 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 481
Joined Aug 2009
     
Oct 06, 2018 18:34 |  #12

davesrose wrote in post #18723624 (external link)
I remember a few years ago Tony Northrop made a video that was a rant for camera manufacturers to also include crop factor marketing with aperture...or that even better, they have more lenses that have larger apertures for equivalent shallow DOF. I guess manufacturers haven't included crop factor with aperture due to marketing and making faster lenses would make them heavier (the outlier being the Sigma Art f1.8 series zoom).

They'd like people to believe that their 50 mm f/2.8 is the same as a FF 100 mm f/2.8 and smaller/lighter due to some pixie dust only they have. But if you more accurately compare it to a 100 mm f/5.6 then the reduced size isn't so impressive.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottboarding
Senior Member
Avatar
570 posts
Gallery: 120 photos
Likes: 398
Joined May 2016
     
Oct 06, 2018 20:24 |  #13

The full frame look doesn't necessarily come from the full frame sensor in some cases. Depth of Field for example: I own a Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 for my M43 camera which is a 50mm f1.9 equivalent. Theoretically a full frame camera with a 50mm f1.9 lens would look the same. It just gets difficult to go past that though. Physics come into play and make a lot lens equivalences extremely difficult to achieve. In order to have an equivalent to the 50mm f1.2L, I would need a 25mm f0.6 which would be massive, heavy, and ridiculously expensive. The Nikkor W 300mm f5.6 lens for 8x10 film gives a 35mm equivalent to a 40mm f0.7; a lens we will likely never see made.


Gear: https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18556308
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com​/photos/130385961@N05/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aezoss
Senior Member
433 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Likes: 850
Joined Nov 2013
Post edited 4 months ago by aezoss.
     
Oct 06, 2018 20:45 |  #14

gjl711 wrote in post #18723687 (external link)
The difference would be even less if you would have shot a f1.4 on the crop. If you play around with a DOF calculator, using the first shot's parameters and assuming a distance of 5 feet, near focus would be 4.94, far focus=5.05 for a dof of .13. Setting the crop lens to f/1.4 near focus would be 4.92, far focus=5.08 for a dof of .16. All you would see then is the slight effect from the different fl.

For sure. Thanks for adding that.

I think there's loose consensus that most of what can be done with FF can also be done with APS-C and smaller sensors with the right lenses, or in the phone case, software.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Avatar
2,930 posts
Gallery: 320 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 2970
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ireland
     
Oct 07, 2018 04:45 |  #15

Alveric wrote in post #18723693 (external link)
Yes, there is the medium format look, and even the large format look (albeit you'd need to shoot film for that one).

Alas, the medium format now is being cropped as well. Fuji's and Pentax's 'medium formats' aren't really so.

Now being cropped? Yes just look at Hasselblad, from 2002 they have been using a 'cropped' size in their digital backs, if you take todays Full Frame MF size into account, nothing new about that it's just a bigger sensor than the 35mm one.
___

Even shooting on a proper Full Frame camera like the IQ3100Mp it can be hard to see the 'look' people go on about but it depends on how you shoot it a lot more than what you shoot it on.

I had a hard time telling what camera took what shot when I was shooting Fuji-X alongside Canon 35mm at weddings so much so that I sold my Canon gear. In my experience it not as big a thing as some say it is.


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T3. 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8.
Pelican, Ona, ThinkTank, Matthews Grip, Elinchrom

Gear & Discounts (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)
Coffee & Fujis (external link)YouTube (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,183 views & 138 likes for this thread
“The full frame look”
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is eecee
471 guests, 375 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.