Why would i need full frame?

so at the same equivalent focus range stood in same place with subject in same place at same aperture etc why would bokeh differ?

Tobiah wrote in post #4055196
so at the same equivalent focus range stood in same place with subject in same place at same aperture etc why would bokeh differ?

Because you are changing the distance ratio between camera to subject and subject to background.

Gerhard

sorry for being a pain but if u and the subject were stood in the same place how would it be changing the ratio?

On Ken Rockwell's site he has an article titled "Fullframe Advantage" where he makes the statement that a full frame camera like the 5D will make better pictures with a consumer lens than a crop camera using a pro lens. I found the statement hard to accept since crop cameras use the sweet spot of the lens and therefore should be sharper, but he makes his point by showing pictures from his Nikon d200 with ED lens compared to his 5D with a consumer lens. The 5D pictures did show much more detail and were noticeably sharper. If this is true then this is a big reason to have a full frame camera.

Tobiah wrote in post #4055265
sorry for being a pain but if u and the subject were stood in the same place how would it be changing the ratio?

You can't take the same picture with the same focal length if you are glued to one spot. If at 10 ft you take a photo at 50 mm with a ff you would have to change to 30 mm on a crop and that will effect bokeh, if you want to maintain 50 mm you have to step back 6 feet and that will also effect bokeh.

Gerhard

personally i'd love to go FF just for better high ISO IQ.

TDCat wrote in post #4054812
I was shooting some dance a few weeks ago and, due to the setup, I ended up having to use ISO1600 and between f/1.4 and f/2.8 to get any useable action shots.

The results, while clearly not as 'pure' as they could have been with better lighting were certainly acceptable. I haven't used the 30D but I know the 400D would not have a chance in the same situation, partially because of the full frame performance.

I took pictures at a ballroom dance a few weeks ago with a 400D at ISO 800 and an 85/1.8, and managed several good shots. Using the right autofocus techniques was a much bigger factor in lost shots than the lighting ever was: when a couple separated to do a move, the AF points fell between them and switched to the wall behind.

Full frame or a 40D with its great low-light AF would have been much better and the results more enjoyable, but a 400D is capable.

Styria wrote in post #4055472
Full frame or a 40D with its great low-light AF would have been much better and the results more enjoyable, but a 400D is capable.

Agreed. I should have phrased that differently by either saying that it would have been more difficult with a 400D or alternatively I would not have a chance with a 400D. I've never taken pics at a dance before...I was learning and possibly didn't use the best technique.

fWord wrote in post #4055122
1) Greater degree of perspective compression in the image from the FF camera (and less of the background being included in the image, hence a more 'simplified' and non-distracting background).

This is not correct. The only thing that affects perspective is the distance between the viewer (or camera, of course) and the subject. Focal length alone has nothing to do with perspective.

Try this experiment: Shoot a series of photos of the same subject from the same location using a variety of focal lengths and crop all the images to the field of view of the longest lens you used. What you will wind up with is a series of essentially identical photos with slight differences due to the quality of each lens, resolution differences due to the crops, etc. However, the "perspective compression" will be absolutely identical for all of the images.

Here's something I post from time to time that may help folks here understand the perspective thing:

Let's assume that you are taking a photo of some friends in a scene that has mountains in the background. You stand 20 feet from the people and view the scene. A 50mm lens will let you fill the frame with the group of people and some of the background quite nicely, so you take a shot. Then you realize that the mountains are rather small in the background.

Back up to to 40 feet (twice the distance) from the group of people and view the scene, you will see that the mountains are now larger relative to the people - twice the size they were before, in fact. However, the people are smaller in your viewfinder. You now need a 100mm lens to keep the people the same size as in the first image, but the mountains now appear twice the size that they were in the first shot.

Why is this? It's because the additional twenty feet that you put between yourself and the people is insignificant relative to the fifteen miles between your viewing spot and the mountains.

When you are closer to subjects, perspective still comes into play. If you shoot a portrait from a location very close to the subject, the nearest objects (a nose, for example) will be larger relative to more distant objects (such as an ear) than they would appear from a greater distance. That is why experienced portrait photographers like to use a little more distance - and thus a little longer lens – than some beginning photographers would choose when shooting conventional portraits. The subject will usually be happier with the perspective achieved by the greater distance.

I moved from MF film to Full Frame 18 months ago for three main reasons:

1. The 5D offers stellar low light ISO performance that has not disappointed me.
2. I need excellent wide angle capability for landscape as well wedding/event group shots, and "L" lenses on this body give superb results.
3. I wanted a large enough "digital negative" that wouldn't make me miss my old medium format film negs. Again, the 5D with the right lens is a winner.

This is not to say that you cannot produce excellent results with crop cameras and non-L glass. Many people here have done so and I continue to be impressed by the talent they share in their posts. But in MY situation, I was migrating from Hasselblad with Zeiss lenses and didn't want to be disappointed with my choice.

twotimer wrote in post #4055375
You can't take the same picture with the same focal length if you are glued to one spot. If at 10 ft you take a photo at 50 mm with a ff you would have to change to 30 mm on a crop and that will effect bokeh, if you want to maintain 50 mm you have to step back 6 feet and that will also effect bokeh.

Gerhard

you didn't read my post properly... I said same positions for subject and shooter same everything ....

EQUIVALENT focal length... ie 30mm on the crop and 50mm on the ful frame (dont know if that's exact but u get what I mean)

how will ratio be any different?

SkipD wrote in post #4055106
Methinks you didn't quite understand about the DOF.

A larger format (size of the film frame or digital sensor) will produce a shallower depth of field with a given focal length, aperture, and camera-to-subject distance. Many folks are striving to have a shallow depth of field to isolate their subject(s) from the background. Thus, the larger format (the "full-frame" 35mm film format) enables them to do this a little more than the smaller (APS-C) format.

The format has no effect whatsoever on exposure relative to the aperture used. f/1.4 on either camera format will provide the very same exposure (assuming the ISO and shutter speeds are also the same, of course).

The "bokeh" (non-measurable quality of the out-of-focus background) is primarily a function of the lens being used and the aperture setting being used with that lens. It really has nothing to do with the format.

Exactly!

And having a FF camera has nothing to do with being a pro. There are a plethora of professional wedding photographers using 30D or Nikon equivalents to shoot. Look at the sidelines of almost ANY sports event and I'd guarantee the vast majority of those cameras ARE NOT full frame. Everyone one of those photogs is a pro.

It's not the camera that makes the pro. Hell I have a IIN, a pro class camera and I'm as big an amateur as there is. I shoot lots of indoor sports and action photography, I had the budget, and the need. If I didn't shoot sports, I'd have a 30D in my hands right now.

What makes you think FF means better ISO quality? I'm sure the current Mark III has better ISO quality than the original FF 1D. FF is not what decides the quality of the image.

TDCat wrote in post #4055586
I've never taken pics at a dance before...I was learning and possibly didn't use the best technique.

Hey, it was my first time doing it too. It sure made the thought of getting a 40D that much more tempting, versus the cost of a 5D + 135/2 to keep the same focal length. =) But I'd have to answer the question of how likely I am to do it again. That was purely recreation, other than having it put me on very good terms with my employer's PR guy.

Tobiah wrote in post #4055656
you didn't read my post properly... I said same positions for subject and shooter same everything ....

EQUIVALENT focal length... ie 30mm on the crop and 50mm on the ful frame (dont know if that's exact but u get what I mean)

how will ratio be any different?

You are no longer taking the same photo but the bokeh would then be the same.

Gerhard

guess I'm saying with ff cameras they put there best technology...

I'm not claiming to know a lot at all just here learning...


i d be interested to see the article that guy reffered to about the ff is better with cheaper glass than crop with better glass...

I'd always thought was other way round....