Why go full frame?

What are the reasons for being on a FF camera? I'm thinking about going FF when the next gen come out.

Razeus wrote in post #13155442
What are the reasons for being on a FF camera? I'm thinking about going FF when the next gen come out.

Here is a really good resource to learn about the differenct sensor sizes and how it influences photography.

http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …al-camera-sensor-size.htm

Some advantages of a 35mm Sensor are as follows.

1. Thinner DOF (Depth of Field).
2. More pleasing bokeh > Thinner DOF creates more bokeh
3. Higher image quality at the center of the frame.

One more potential advantage of full frame is better high-ISO noise control, although recent crop sensor cameras are coming closer to current full frames in that regard (e.g., 1D Mark IV (crop) compared to 5D Mark II (full frame); even the 7D comes within about a stop or so of the 5D Mark II with regard to high ISO noise). This could change with the next generation of cameras - time will tell.

Disadvantages of full frame compared to crop:
- New full frame cameras are significantly more expensive than equivalent crop sensor cameras.
- Full frame cameras have less "effective reach" compared to higher pixel density crop cameras using the same focal length.

On the second point, if you like to shoot birds or other relatively small objects at long distances, you get more bang for the buck with a higher pixel density crop sensor camera compared to a full frame. This is because with the crop sensor the distant small subject will fill more of the frame with more "pixels on target" at any given focal length compared to the full frame sensor. Note for nitpickers - my working definition of "effective reach" is the ability to fill more of the frame and hence more pixels with the subject at a usable image quality level (including noise considerations).

Razeus wrote in post #13155442
What are the reasons for being on a FF camera? I'm thinking about going FF when the next gen come out.

What is your reason for considering going to a 35mm sized sensor?

Is it because of what you read on here and other sites about 35mm sensors? ( I feel this is the wrong reason to shell out about $2500 )

Is it because you have identified a need that your current equipment does not fill? ( this would be a good reason )

I ask these questions only to motivate you to think about your own reasons.

You could go broke chasing the advice and ideas on forums like this.

Razeus wrote in post #13155442
What are the reasons for being on a FF camera? I'm thinking about going FF when the next gen come out.

You need to think about what you shoot and what you want to accomplish..

I use a FF when I take some landscape photos and I expect that they will be on a wall at 18x12 and above. Also, when I expect the scene to have some very fine detail; but again, landscapes at large print..

The rest of the time I usually shoot a 1.3 crop camera... even then the enlargements need a good eye and a magnifier to really see differences..

Personal choice is likely the only real reason that most of us would use to justify going FF over the very fine crop cameras available today...

Razeus wrote in post #13155442
What are the reasons for being on a FF camera? I'm thinking about going FF when the next gen come out.

Some lenses have a unique look and feel on certain formats. 50mm is my single favorite focal length on ALL of canons SLR formats.

50mm does have a special quality on 35mm film/digital, the 70-200 however looks great on anything canon makes.

I tried out a couple of Sigma 30mm's in store once(ALL worked btw), it for me was THE one lens I've seen that can give you that special quality on canons 1.6x crop sensors.

If I had bought that lens I would have never looked at a 1Ds1(it was a deal I could NOT ignore)

My Nifty-Fifty is waste on my Rebel, but very versatile on 5D.
For me, personally, primes in 50, 85 and 135 are better on FF, not to mention 17-40F4L.
70-200 is something very narrow for indoors in my Rebel, but great portrait lens on 5D.

For a given print size comparison, the FF image will have been enlarged less and will show optical imperfections (lens imperfections, camera shake, diffraction blur etc etc) at e.g. 1.6x less.

For equal enlargement comparisons, from the FF sensor you will get a larger print.

For equal (original) ppi on the print, the pixel density will be more important than the size of the sensor it came from

Then there's DoF difference for (and differences between the lenses required to capture) a particular image with one format compared to the other.

Lots of things to consider...

In my opinion there are two reasons to go for full frame:

-You must have a wider field of view with a lens for which there is no wider equivalent for a crop body, for example the 17mm TS-E.
-You need the better noise performance. This one isn't such a huge advantage these days, as mentioned they're only about 1 stop ahead and the money you save going with crop means you can get faster lenses.

The narrower depth of field argument is a load of bollocks, 60% is hardly anything. The bokeh argument is a bit better, you can use a 50mm on full frame where you'd need to use a 35mm on crop and the longer lens will enlarge the background, however this only applies to cases where you simply can't step backwards.

Now, crop bodies on the other hand have quite a few advantages, although not directly related to the sensor size. They're generally faster, have more reach, higher resolutions, can mount EF-S lenses and even adapt a few that would hit the mirrors on full frame bodies, and of course they're a hell of a lot cheaper.

If you shoot a lot of wide angle then its a no brainer, go FF.

I will consider a 1.3 crop but otherwise it will always be FF. It just gives me the IQ i want consistently.

I use my FF camera for portraits, macro and landscape type shots. These are where it gives me some advantages: greater control over DOF (not actually "more" DOF) and ability to make lovely OOF background blurs, also FF can be stopped down a little more before diffraction becomes an issue so it's useful for macro and landscapes. Plus it gathers the most fine detail possible, which is useful for big enlargements, such as are often wanted for landscapes and macros.

I use crop sensor (1.6X) cameras for sports/action, wildlife, birds, general purpose and some macros/close-ups. The extra reach (actually another fallacy... but it feels that way in practice), speed, focusing/tracking capabilities makes these the best choice for these shots.

In a sense, it's like the good/bad old days of film when I used 35mm cameras alongside medium and large format, for different purposes. The difference now is that my two formats share lenses and other accessories... that's much more convenient.

I picked up a 5D ("Classic") after shooting with the 30D for a year or so.

The full frame choice was a "natural" for m landscape shooting -- more "pixels on target" since I had good lenses for wide-angle and such!

But what "tipped" me is the fact that the 30D images struggled with noise when lower light forced higher ISOs. The 5DC is noticably better in the low light/high ISO performance. And that means a lot to me and the photography I do.

Now, 5 or so years later, technology has moved on and crop sensors have a better high ISO performance, but then so do the newest full-frame sensors, even though the 5D2 and the 1Ds3 are getting a bit aged. We haven't seen what the 5D3 and the 1Ds4 will bring us. But, even with the 5D2 there is still the full-frame resolution and also the better low-noisehigh ISO performance over the 7D, even if for some people "only one stop" is not so meaningful.

But, hey, I still have my 30D and do get some use from it and it still can deliver good images (especially in good light). I also added the 1DM3 to my collection because the 1D3 combines more "pixels on target" for the subject requiring more reach than the 5D can get. Plus, the 1D3 is a high-performance workhorse.

If I didn't have the 1D3 for wildlife and such, I imagine I'd pick up the 30D more often for the things where a crop body would have an advantage.

But where I can fill my 5DC frame with my compositions, that is still my body of choice!

A FF sensor should have larger photosites and 2.5 times more light gathering area, and also will use much larger area of lens per photosite, this should make it better for IQ than a crop sensor.

The downside is expensive sensors and lenses.

RobDickinson wrote in post #13156785
A FF sensor should have larger photosites and 2.5 times more light gathering area, and also will use much larger area of lens per photosite, this should make it better for IQ than a crop sensor.

The downside is expensive sensors and lenses.

That sensor is also older, we're talking about the 5D classic here. Also I don't get your last point, if anything a crop will provide better quality as it uses the centre of the image circle a crops out the usually softer sides.