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 15 Jul 2016 (Friday) 12:33
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is a full frame really worth it?

 
Alexander ­ J.E. ­ Bradley
Member
Avatar
41 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 90
Joined May 2016
Location: Paris, France
Post edited over 2 years ago by Alexander J.E. Bradley.
     
Jul 15, 2016 12:33 |  #1

Since I got my Nikon D7000 camera 6 years ago I’ve used it almost everyday. That is a lot of shutter clicks, 148,558 to be exact. So it looks like I will be in the market for a new camera soon as the D7000 is only factory tested to 150,000 clicks. My dilemma is should I go full frame, or stick with my cropped frame. I keep asking myself, is a full frame camera really worth it?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,023 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3211
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Jul 15, 2016 12:36 |  #2

The investment in glass is steep. Only you can decide whether or not it is worth it to you.
I'd do a Google search and find some pros and cons and weigh them.

Personally going FF to my 6D was an amazing leap for my skill set but that being said I shoot with my 7D2 quite a bit.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,089 posts
Gallery: 1546 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9965
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jul 15, 2016 12:46 |  #3

Hrm,

Are you asking this question? Or are you just sharing your blog?

Based on looking at your blog article, I think you answered your own question. And to me, it looks like the answer is no, full frame is not really doing anything better for what you're doing, other than the slightly different angle of view.

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
41,414 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2418
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. (3 edits in all)
     
Jul 15, 2016 12:51 |  #4

Shutter life is a statistic, like MTBF ratings on harddrives. You could possibly be able to get 250000 shutter clicks out of the shutter, if not 1 Million

Not the D7000, but a Nikon of the same family
https://olegkikin.com/​shutterlife/nikon_d500​0.htm (external link)
https://olegkikin.com/​shutterlife/nikon_d300​0.htm (external link)


'Worth it' is relative...if you almost never go beyond 13 x 19" enlargements, you might not see a real difference between same-generation DX vs. FX size body.


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
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,023 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3211
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Jul 15, 2016 12:53 |  #5

https://www.dpreview.c​om …-myth-of-the-upgrade-path (external link)

http://www.outdoorphot​oacademy.com/is-full-frame-worth-it/ (external link)

https://www.digitalpho​tomentor.com …e-full-frame-camera-body/ (external link)

https://www.slrlounge.​com …op-vs-full-frame-cameras/ (external link)


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alexander ­ J.E. ­ Bradley
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
41 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 90
Joined May 2016
Location: Paris, France
     
Jul 15, 2016 12:54 as a reply to  @ Wilt's post |  #6

I really wondered about the shutter life. There are some other things with it that make it look quite used. Rubber is coming off at points, the wheel is getting harder to turn, that kind of stuff. But I expect it will keep on kicking on for a while. The thing is though, I can't quite afford to have it pack out on a shoot. I think it will make a great backup camera in my kit.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aladyforty
Goldmember
Avatar
4,074 posts
Gallery: 212 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6057
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Albany: Western Australia
     
Jul 16, 2016 09:45 |  #7

I use canon and to be honest I could pick up either my full frame or crop and both will do the job. The full frame just excels for landscape and shallow DOF photos, but the crop is way more versatile, I only use full frame lenses on it and a Tamron. I pick the crop camera over the full frame way more these days. At least I know if one has an issue the other will do fine


5D3 7D2 Canon G1X Fuji X100 Fuji X10 canon glass & the odd other brands https://500px.com/alad​yforty (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
potinam
Member
36 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2016
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Jul 16, 2016 18:50 |  #8

For me the most advantage full fram is when I shoot iso 6400 and above, otherwise crop doing fine specially with Tele lens when you need mor reach. So in the end it depends what the most you use camera for or just pick up both like me and be done.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JacobL
Member
186 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 529
Joined Jun 2013
     
Jul 17, 2016 04:25 as a reply to  @ potinam's post |  #9

I use a FF (Canon 6D) for a few years now, and the biggest difference for me is the wide angle (less than 16mm) as well as the MUCH better low ISO performance.
If you don't shoot at high ISO, don't need to go very wide and use tele most of the time, don't need the shallower DOG of open aperture lenses - stick with crop.

FF - big lens investment, much bigger lens investment than the body itself.
If you go FF and have the budget to go big - go for the 810 because of DR, shutter life, etc.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,476 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 575
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jul 17, 2016 09:40 |  #10

If you are shooting middling focal lengths, middling apertures, and middling light levels then there isn't going to be much difference between Nikon's FX and DX formats.

Here are the things that would make a 35mm format dSLR a good choice:

1) Shooting wide and fast, like 24mm and f/1.4 on FF. In general there are no very wide and very fast lens options for DX.
2) If you really need shallow DOF for whatever you are shooting.
3) Very low light, as a larger sensor from any given generation of cameras will be about 1 stop better.

One other thing that draws me to using a 35mm format (in my case Canon EOS) is how the lenses match up on the wide end. I like to use a 24-70/2.8 zoom. Both Canon and Nikon have somewhat similar options for the sub-frame cameras, but they tend to be 17-XX zooms which are not quite as wide, and f/2.8 on the smaller format is not the same for either low light or DOF. I also find a 70-200/2.8 to be great on 35mm format, but too long for what I want to shoot on the sub-frame formats.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,276 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 411
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
     
Jul 17, 2016 10:37 |  #11

It's a decision that one must make for oneself after fully answering the question: "Is it really needed?". For me, it would be if I wanted to make a major commitment to landscape photography, portraiture in narrow confines, or billboard photos that you could walk up to and make out a blade of grass. Although if I wanted to do the last one, a Phase I or Hasselblad would be a better choice. The wrong questions, of course, are "Is it time to go the the next level?" Or "How to become a better photographer." That first is naive. The second is best answered by the obvious: become a better photographer through study and experience.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,414 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2418
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. (2 edits in all)
     
Jul 17, 2016 10:41 |  #12

JeffreyG wrote in post #18069431 (external link)
If you are shooting middling focal lengths, middling apertures, and middling light levels then there isn't going to be much difference between Nikon's FX and DX formats.

Here are the things that would make a 35mm format dSLR a good choice:

1) Shooting wide and fast, like 24mm and f/1.4 on FF. In general there are no very wide and very fast lens options for DX.
2) If you really need shallow DOF for whatever you are shooting.
3) Very low light, as a larger sensor from any given generation of cameras will be about 1 stop better.

One other thing that draws me to using a 35mm format (in my case Canon EOS) is how the lenses match up on the wide end. I like to use a 24-70/2.8 zoom. Both Canon and Nikon have somewhat similar options for the sub-frame cameras, but they tend to be 17-XX zooms which are not quite as wide, and f/2.8 on the smaller format is not the same for either low light or DOF. I also find a 70-200/2.8 to be great on 35mm format, but too long for what I want to shoot on the sub-frame formats.

I generally agree, but I will voice that factor #2 may be disproportionately blown up in magnitude as an issue. For example, if shooting with FL proportional to the format size, for same AOV from same camera position...

Example: Shooting to frame 0.9m x 0.6m area, from 4.2m

FF with 160mm f/4.5 image has DOF zone of 6.4cm deep
APS-C with 100mm f/2.8 image has DOF zone of 6.4cm deep

and the degree of background blur is the same too (this graph shown with160mm f/4.4 simply to visually separate the two curves)

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/DOF%20blur_zpsoyruqru6.jpg

...if the aperture size is proportionally sized, the DOF and the background blur is 'the same'. (And generally the max aperture is close to proportional to the FL in order to keep lenses relatively affordable.)

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
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited over 2 years ago by Bassat. (2 edits in all)
     
Jul 17, 2016 11:02 |  #13

The easy answer is: YES.

EDIT:
After reading the thread, I feel the need to elaborate. What follows is my experience, and will not necessarily be yours. I started shooting Canon/digital in 2009 with a Rebel and EF-s glass. Coming from film/manual, I found AF to be quite amazing. After a few weeks/months, I found AF to be quite amazingly slow. The 18-55 II and 55-250 II are not built for shooting action. I bought a 15-85. Quite nice. That lead to wanting a faster aperture lens, and the 35 IS. One thing lead to another, and I found myself wanting more DOF control. Enter the 5Dc. That was a real AHA! moment. I have more control over the results with full frame (much like my film days) than with apsc. Over the course of a year or so, I sold off my ef-s glass, replacing it with EF. Most of it was consumer primes like the 28 1.8. Some was what I consider high-end glass like the 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS. The quality of available EF glass exceeds that of ef-s glass, in most cases. The kicker for me was that I could use EF glass on apsc bodies, but not the other way around. No more ef-s glass.

Some comparisons, if you please. I used a 60D/10-22 combination and was super happy with it. When selling off the apsc/efs stuff, I replaced the 60D with a 6D, and the 10-22 with a 17-40. That was my first foray into the world of 'the general opinions of Canon users just make no sense'. The 10-22 is widely lauded as an excellent lens. It is. The 17-40 is widely panned as mediocre. In my experience, the 6D/17-40 combo is way better than the 60D/10-22. Go figure.

One more. The 18-135 is widely regarded as above average. The 28-135 is widely regarded as crap. The 60D/18-135 setup is pushed to the curb by the 6D/28-135 setup. And yes, the 28-135 is crap. The 24-105L is better, my 24-105 STM is even better.

Glass like the 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS are in a completely different league than any efs glass available. Even lowly consumer primes like the 85 1.8 have no efs equivalent. If you are going to the expense (I did) of buying top quality EF lenses, why mount them on an apsc camera that gives you higher pixel density, higher noise levels, and less control over DOF? After spending about $10,000 on better lenses, it would make no sense at all to NOT upgrade my $800 60D to a $1400 6D. Spending $600 to upgrade my camera seems almost insignificant after spending large on glass.

That said, my 6D is seriously inadequate for sports/action shooting. I tried doing that with 70D, and was not happy with the results. Enter in quick succession (a few months) a 1D, 1D2, 1D3, and now 1D4. I am happy with both the 6D and 1D4. I just wish I could do it all with 1 camera, or at least two with similar controls. Currently pondering a used 1DX. Maybe next year.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PJmak
Senior Member
685 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 302
Joined Feb 2009
     
Jul 17, 2016 11:06 |  #14

One could get outstanding images with either.


Viewbug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drmaxx
Goldmember
1,115 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Likes: 351
Joined Jul 2010
     
Jul 17, 2016 11:46 |  #15

MalVeauX wrote in post #18067827 (external link)
Are you asking this question? Or are you just sharing your blog?

Based on looking at your blog article, I think you answered your own question. And to me, it looks like the answer is no, full frame is not really doing anything better for what you're doing, other than the slightly different angle of view.

+1 - Additionally, there is no reason to expect your camera to fall apart after 150000 clicks. If you are happy with your camera you should use it as long as possible, as the cameras will get better and better.


Donate if you love POTN

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

11,580 views & 9 likes for this thread
Is a full frame really worth it?
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 rkwhyte2
357 guests, 334 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.