Why go full frame?

picturecrazy wrote in post #13177750
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.

Maybe it's because I retouch my images on a 30" screen, but I am often viewing fairly large portions of my images at 100%, and I simply don't like looking at inferior image quality. I have piece of mind knowing that if my images look acceptable at 100%, then they will look great at lower resolutions/prints.

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.

90% of my portfolio was shot on a crop, so that much is pretty obvious, no where have I said using a crop won't get you excellent results, but what is the title of this thread?
So while you can get excellent results on a crop, you can get better with FF (well at least I can from my personal perspective)

picturecrazy wrote in post #13177750
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.

No at the same framing it wouldn't, maybe it would if you filled the frame with his head.

And regarding the flare, bth I thought the flare was lovely in that shot, maybe your a person who doesn't like flare?

rhys216 wrote in post #13177974
No at the same framing it wouldn't, maybe it would if you filled the frame with his head.

And regarding the flare, bth I thought the flare was lovely in that shot, maybe your a person who doesn't like flare?

I am talking about the exact same framing. Same framing, same subject distance, same perspective. 25mm on 2.0 crop vs 50mm on 35mm. F/0.95 vs F/1.8. It would be a wash.

picturecrazy wrote in post #13177912
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.

Well by definition, if FF has an advantage, then crop as a disadvantage (and vice versa).
So if you want use the term "deficiency" to describe the areas where a crop camera is at a disadvantage, then that's not incorrect.

Reasons I went full frame are:

• Want better high ISO usability.
  
  
• Top notch image quality. Whether you want to include the shallower depth of field here is your call. Just an extra bonus for me.
  
  
• Brighter viewfinder.
  
  
• Better usage of lenses (example: 17-40L). And I suspected the focal lengths would just feel more natural on FF, and I was right. It's more comfortable to frame and it just feels 'right' (for me)
  
  
• On top of all that, I simply needed to upgrade from the old rebel.
  

picturecrazy wrote in post #13177912
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.

^^

This is exactly my point as well. Can't tell ya how many 5D's I've seen on Ebay with low shutter counts from folks who have a lot of money tied up in a camera. Fortunately the 5D series holds their value pretty well. On another tangent, almost every day I see a new post about FF vs Crop or will X lens do okay on a Crop or should I upgrade to FF. It's got to the point where if its not FF then it's CRAP. At this point in my photography I feel I know enough to tell the basic differences between the two formats. But what about all the people who just bought or are getting ready to buy? Those folks don't know the underlying differences, and they are reading this stuff we see here on POTN every day. I just feel they are getting a very slanted view. Maybe Canon doesn't mind, after all, they make more money on the 5D then on the Rebel series. I'm sure Canon would love to sell a 5Dmk2 to everyone, but 2+ Grand USD is a lot of money to most folks.

My 2¢

David

If someone blows 2.5K on a camera without knowing what they're buying, they deserve it if they end up being unhappy with it.

On the other hand, if it makes them happy, so be it.

davidc502 wrote in post #13178041
^^

This is exactly my point as well. Can't tell ya how many 5D's I've seen on Ebay with low shutter counts from folks who have a lot of money tied up in a camera. Fortunately the 5D series holds their value pretty well. On another tangent, almost every day I see a new post about FF vs Crop or will X lens do okay on a Crop or should I upgrade to FF. It's got to the point where if its not FF then it's CRAP. At this point in my photography I feel I know enough to tell the basic differences between the two formats. But what about all the people who just bought or are getting ready to buy? Those folks don't know the underlying differences, and they are reading this stuff we see here on POTN every day. I just feel they are getting a very slanted view. Maybe Canon doesn't mind, after all, they make more money on the 5D then on the Rebel series. I'm sure Canon would love to sell a 5Dmk2 to everyone, but 2+ Grand USD is a lot of money to most folks.

My 2¢

David

It's not anyone's job except the buyer to decide if they have enough money.

If everyone says full frame is better, maybe that's because there is scientific/empirical evidence for that..... People have to make choices for "next best" every day due to lack of funds. If you want to convince yourself that "next best" is actually best and anything more is overkill to justify your own personal decisions and abilities, that's fine, but that is opinion and is not motivated or based in proof, only feeling and should not be considered as anything but personal anectdote by potential buyers.

^^^
Well put.

picturecrazy wrote in post #13177994
I am talking about the exact same framing. Same framing, same subject distance, same perspective. 25mm on 2.0 crop vs 50mm on 35mm. F/0.95 vs F/1.8. It would be a wash.

When I saw 2.0, I assumed it was F2.0, so as the lens is F0.95 it would be close or about the same, perspective, DOF etc. although from some rough calculations, for a 2.0 crop to have the same DOF, it would need to be roughly at F0.8, so hardly a wash.

gorby wrote in post #13178029
Reasons I went full frame are:

• Want better high ISO usability.
  
  
• Top notch image quality. Whether you want to include the shallower depth of field here is your call. Just an extra bonus for me.
  
  
• Brighter viewfinder.
  
  
• Better usage of lenses (example: 17-40L). And I suspected the focal lengths would just feel more natural on FF, and I was right. It's more comfortable to frame and it just feels 'right' (for me)
  
  
• On top of all that, I simply needed to upgrade from the old rebel.
  

Those are my reasons why I switched (and why I like FF better). YMMV

• Want better high ISO usability.
  How much usability do you want? My 550D/T2i does great @3200ISO, and then there is always software compensation. 1 stop better ISO is hardly better usablility.
  
  
• Top notch image quality. Whether you want to include the shallower depth of field here is your call. Just an extra bonus for me.
  Shallower depth of field. These days it can be compensated for in a couple of ways #1. Software #2. On APS-C increase the apature and decrease the focal lenght. There are going to be situations which can't be compensated for, but most of the time those can be shot around.
  
• Brighter viewfinder.
  My 550D is bright enough, but hey, for 2.5k it should be brighter, right?.
  
  
• Better usage of lenses (example: 17-40L). And I suspected the focal lengths would just feel more natural on FF, and I was right. It's more comfortable to frame and it just feels 'right' (for me)
  I would agree 35mm is going to frame differently especially on landscapes.
  
  
• On top of all that, I simply needed to upgrade from the old rebel.
  LOL - Old Rebel. I'd gladly put money on a professional photographer with a Rebel in his hand vs. someone off the streets with a 35mm 5Dmk2. Maybe that ole Rebel isn't so bad after all.
  

rhys216 wrote in post #13178010
Well by definition, if FF has an advantage, then crop as a disadvantage (and vice versa).
So if you want use the term "deficiency" to describe the areas where a crop camera is at a disadvantage, then that's not incorrect.

The point is, YOU might see something as an advantage, where someone else would see the EXACT same thing as a disadvantage. That's why I call them differences, because it's totally up to the shooter's needs to determine what is an advantage and what isn't.

The coined phrase "The Full Frame Advantage" that so many people like to quote, is theoretical in that it only applies to those people who are better served with FF's inherent characteristics. But time and time again, people spout off the "The Full Frame Advantage" as being something that is universally accepted. But really, it doesn't apply to everybody.

If we were to apply the same type of thought to other aspects of our lives, you begin to see how silly it actually is.

"The V12 passenger car Advantage" instead of buying a Camry
"The 8ft ground clearance monster Truck Advantage" instead of an SUV
"The 4800W Commercial Microwave Advantage" instead of a countertop residential microwave
"The Samurai Sword Advantage" instead of a paring knife to peel your fruits
"The 15 Ton Excavator Advantage" instead of using a shovel to plant your flowers.

Being an "Advantage" always depends on your situation and needs.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13178073
It's not anyone's job except the buyer to decide if they have enough money.

If everyone says full frame is better, maybe that's because there is scientific/empirical evidence for that..... People have to make choices for "next best" every day due to lack of funds. If you want to convince yourself that "next best" is actually best and anything more is overkill to justify your own personal decisions and abilities, that's fine, but that is opinion and is not motivated or based in proof, only feeling and should not be considered as anything but personal anectdote by potential buyers.

No, no, no. Way off in left field lol.

I'd fully expect your point of view considering you ponied up the $$$ for a 5Dmk2. Lets get down to brass tacks.... we don't really know who on this board has the money and who doesn't, so don't assume anything about a person's ability to pay. LOL even if someone doesn't have the funds... do what everyone else does in the good ole USA ~~~ Charge it!

davidc502 wrote in post #13178116

• Want better high ISO usability.
  How much usability do you want? My 550D/T2i does great @3200ISO, and then there is always software compensation. 1 stop better ISO is hardly better usablility.
  
  
• Top notch image quality. Whether you want to include the shallower depth of field here is your call. Just an extra bonus for me.
  Shallower depth of field. These days it can be compensated for in a couple of ways #1. Software #2. On APS-C increase the apature and decrease the focal lenght. There are going to be situations which can't be compensated for, but most of the time those can be shot around.
  
• Brighter viewfinder.
  My 550D is bright enough, but hey, for 2.5k it should be brighter, right?.
  
  
• Better usage of lenses (example: 17-40L). And I suspected the focal lengths would just feel more natural on FF, and I was right. It's more comfortable to frame and it just feels 'right' (for me)
  I would agree 35mm is going to frame differently especially on landscapes.
  
  
• On top of all that, I simply needed to upgrade from the old rebel.
  LOL - Old Rebel. I'd gladly put money on a professional photographer with a Rebel in his hand vs. someone off the streets with a 35mm 5Dmk2. Maybe that ole Rebel isn't so bad after all.
  

ALL OPINION.

1 - hardly better - opinion. what you mean is not worth it TO YOU.
2 - yes, it's better to take a picture, make a selection, run a filter, etc...sounds like you have more time than money, it's not like that for everyone.
3 - bright enough? for you....? really? opinion.
4 - you conceded the point.
5 - yes, he felt he wanted to do something that ran contradictory to what you would have done. that's FINE. and you know what, maybe a better photographer can take a better picture with a lesser featured camera. that doesn't mean ANYthing.

do you drive the cheapest car you could find? do you NEED leather? do you NEED more than 100 horsepower? do you NEED paint on your car?

give me a break, guy. seriously.

davidc502 wrote in post #13178137
No, no, no. Way off in left field lol.

great argument. i'm sold.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13178143
ALL OPINION.

1 - hardly better - opinion. what you mean is not worth it TO YOU.
2 - yes, it's better to take a picture, make a selection, run a filter, etc...sounds like you have more time than money, it's not like that for everyone.
3 - bright enough? for you....? really? opinion.
4 - you conceded the point.
5 - yes, he felt he wanted to do something that ran contradictory to what you would have done. that's FINE. and you know what, maybe a better photographer can take a better picture with a lesser featured camera. that doesn't mean ANYthing.

do you drive the cheapest car you could find? do you NEED leather? do you NEED more than 100 horsepower? do you NEED paint on your car?

give me a break, guy. seriously.

Pretty much.

How does him feeling his 550D's viewfinder is 'bright enough for him' have anything to do with what I wanted in a camera?

Good for a laugh, that post though.