Pros: Why Full Frame over DX?

wildviper

I have been puzzled by all the hoopla for a Full Frame camera over a DX by a lot of the pros. I can't seem to understand why?

If the DX crops it, say 1.4x, you just zoom out no? I mean, with a 10-20mm, 18-200mm and up....what exactly are you missing in capturing?

I like the DX crop factor because it gives me that extra zoom. While it cuts on the wide angle side...it is usually easier to walk back a little then to try and walk forward a lot for zooming.

Is it just that the cost of Full Frame puts it away from most noobs trying to steal the pro's business and that's why the Pros are singing the Full Frame tune? Well, trying is the key word there.

I realize that there is a lot of technology out there..I am just curious about the Full Frame vs DX format issue.

NikonsandVstroms

wildviper wrote:

I have been puzzled by all the hoopla for a Full Frame camera over a DX by a lot of the pros. I can't seem to understand why?

If the DX crops it, say 1.4x, you just zoom out no? I mean, with a 10-20mm, 18-200mm and up....what exactly are you missing in capturing?

I like the DX crop factor because it gives me that extra zoom. While it cuts on the wide angle side...it is usually easier to walk back a little then to try and walk forward a lot for zooming.

Is it just that the cost of Full Frame puts it away from most noobs trying to steal the pro's business and that's why the Pros are singing the Full Frame tune? Well, trying is the key word there.

I realize that there is a lot of technology out there..I am just curious about the Full Frame vs DX format issue.

A couple things, first the two lenses you mentioned are crop sensor only, and relatively wide so they do get to about the level of a full frame wide-angle.

Which leads to the main advantage of crop sensors, smaller lenses. If you look at the equivalent lens in a full frame versus crop focal length range, you'll see the difference in size. Especially at the telephoto range.

As for pros being anti-crop, I'm sure many are still using crop sensors especially cameras like the D2Xs which will produce great images, but Nikon, Canon and now Sony have made it clear that they plan to have their high end be full frame sensor bodies, and if you're a pro photographer, you want your lenses which are huge investment of thousands of dollars to not become obsolete. So it makes sense to move to full frame now, instead of investing heavily into crop lenses, plus the full frame bodies are offering more resolution and increased dynamic range/high ISO performance.

swintonphoto

The real argument is over quality of the larger pixels on FX cameras. Though in my opinion technology is on the side of the DX format. I am a pro who isn't tempted by the traditional FX format because the size, cost, and zoom benefits of DX format far outweighs the larger pixels of the FX format. I carry my gear all day, need to get a lot of reach, and don't have thousands of dollars to drop on a regular basis. Hence, the crop sensors (in my case 4/3 - though it technically is a full-frame format - just smaller) are much more appealing to me. Some great new wide angle lenses have proven wide angle is no longer a limitation in the wide angle side of crop format.
Many will disagree, but for me - shooting weddings, portraits, magazine shoots, and real estate photography - crop sensor is the perfect setup.

sherijohnson

Without even reading anyone else's answer I will tell you why I am interested in getting a full frame camera. I shot on 35mm film cameras for decades. Only recently did I finally decide to try DSLR and it is not the same experience with a crop sensor. For someone like me who is accustomed to getting wide angle view, you just can't compare. You can't always back up to get that wide angle, like say when you are indoors or in a tight spot, etc. So for me, that is the main reason. I expect I would still use a crop camera for those zoom shots though.

Matt336

High ISO performance and image quality did it for me. Shooting sports is 100x better now. Sure I lost a little length but I'll take that minor loss for the positives. The D3 is just so much better of a camera than my D200 as well.:D

kdog

sherijohnson wrote:

... Only recently did I finally decide to try DSLR and it is not the same experience with a crop sensor. For someone like me who is accustomed to getting wide angle view, you just can't compare.

How wide do you want to go? You can get 10mm lenses for crop body cameras. That's 16mm on a full frame. You can shoot an entire room from a corner with it. Or get the entire Horseshoe Bend.


Personally, I'm interested in switching to FF because of the better sensor. The FF sensors have way better noise control and better color detail.

-joel

Tee Why

I currently have a Canon 5D and a 30D, which are similar generation (digic II) cameras. There are some subtle differences between the two.

First the full frame sensor has bigger pixels and the overall image quality in how much detail is resolved and tonality is slightly better along with slightly less noise.

The viewfinder is also bigger, making composition easier.

If you compose the shots exactly the same at the same focal length and walking closer to the subject with a full frame sensor, your depth of field becomes shallower which is nice for isolating subjects. Because diffraction comes later, you can stop down and use a smaller aperture without softening the image.

For many that came from 35mm film cameras, a full frame just feels "normal" to them.

Their are now lenses that cover upto 10mm for cropped sensors which equals upto 15/16mm in full frame, but if you really like wide angles, there are 14mm f2.8 primes and a 12-24mm zoom from Sigma for full frames, which do not have equivalent lenses to cover the same fov for cropped sensors. There are also plenty of cheap 50mm primes for full frames but a lot less option in terms of a fast 30mm prime for cropped sensors. For the most part though, you can get lenses for cropped sensors that mimic the traditional zoom ranges for full frames, but I still don't think the option is as good. I'm sure this is debateable though.

Lastly, cropped sensors can be a boon for those who want to shoot long. A 500mm lens on a Canon cropped sensor gives a field of view equivalent to a 800mm lens on a full frame. This is huge savings to buying a full frame and a 800mm lens. Olympus 4/3 sensors have a 2X crop and if you use a Sigma 50-500mm lens, you basically have a fov eiquivalent to a 100-1000mm lens with a built in body sensor to boot. This was unheard of prior to cropped sensored dslr's.

I guess to a working pro, getting a Canon 1DsMIII with a 800mm prime is no big deal at about $16,000 and get the ultimate image quality but a hobbiest can also get a 40D and a supertelephoto zoom combo for under $2000 and get a very good image quality with the same f.o.v. and to me, that's great.

So while I personally think full frame is good, there is a great place for cropped sensor as well.

wildviper

At one time I had a 35mm camera (Practika) but I was too young to really use it to full extent. So for all intense and purpose, my experience is with a digital SLR (cropped).

In that realm, I do not see what I am missing out from the viewfinder and thus work within the boundaries I have without feeling any loss. Its almost a mute point if one has never seen through a full frame.

The image quality is where I think one could make a good argument. However, even there, I feel that with technology leaping such huge bounds, that will also become a mute point sooner than later. Am I wrong in that thinking?

Matt, is the ISO directly related to the size of the sensor? Or is it more related to the technology within the sensor no matter the size? I am curious.

The lenses I mentioned are just examples. The point is that the whole range can be covered with a crop sensor without any loss. (Except for the ultra ultra wide at 12-14.99mm range). Then again, those situations I am sure are very rare and most photographers won't miss that. Or just step back a little.

I am raising this point here is because inevitably, we all get scooped up by the latest and greatest phenomena and try and purchase that(even if our means are tight sometimes). I know I have done that.

Perhaps this will help someone save $5K(or similar). I know I am not salivating :cry over a full frame any more after reading the pro's take.

Matt336

wildviper wrote:

Matt, is the ISO directly related to the size of the sensor? Or is it more related to the technology within the sensor no matter the size? I am curious.

I would believe that it is due to the size of the sensor. My D3 has a pixel density of 1.4 MP/cm² compared to my D200's 2.7 MP/cm². The fewer the megapixels on the sensor the better the ISO performance.

angevin1

sherijohnson wrote:

Without even reading anyone else's answer I will tell you why I am interested in getting a full frame camera. I shot on 35mm film cameras for decades. Only recently did I finally decide to try DSLR and it is not the same experience with a crop sensor. For someone like me who is accustomed to getting wide angle view, you just can't compare. You can't always back up to get that wide angle, like say when you are indoors or in a tight spot, etc. So for me, that is the main reason. I expect I would still use a crop camera for those zoom shots though.

I think Sheri hit the nail on the head for me without me even knowing what it was that was amiss for me. I came from the 35mm format background over the years and something has always seemed to be missing...perhaps this is it!

thanks, Sheri~~

tom

ziggy53

wildviper wrote:

... is the ISO directly related to the size of the sensor? Or is it more related to the technology within the sensor no matter the size? ...

Random noise (especially High ISO random noise) is related to:

Pixel density and photosite size. As in film, the lower the pixel density, assuming other things being equal, the lower the random noise especially at high ISO.

Sensor design, including micro lens design and placement, sensor amplifier design, A/D converter, amplifier and data transfer design and shielding.

Image Processor (generally DIGIC in Canon cameras) and Bayer Interpolation algorithm (JPG and TIFF files). (There is some evidence that the latest image processor engines do some noise reduction that cannot be defeated or turned off and affect even RAW stored images.)

There's probably more I'm forgetting, but yes, the photosite size generally has an effect on random noise and in modern designs larger photosites are better and larger chip designs allow larger photosites assuming the same number of pixels.

Cygnus Studios

sherijohnson wrote:

Without even reading anyone else's answer I will tell you why I am interested in getting a full frame camera. I shot on 35mm film cameras for decades. Only recently did I finally decide to try DSLR and it is not the same experience with a crop sensor. For someone like me who is accustomed to getting wide angle view, you just can't compare. You can't always back up to get that wide angle, like say when you are indoors or in a tight spot, etc. So for me, that is the main reason. I expect I would still use a crop camera for those zoom shots though.

For most of us that came from film, the FF sensor was a welcomed choice. I switched to digital a few years ago and while I loved many of the extra features that digital allows, there was always something missing.
What keeps most of us brand locked is our investment in glass. When the D3 was released I jumped on it. It only took a few shots for me to remember why I had loved the full frame so much.
While Nikon and Canon have built better DX glass, the best is still built for the FF.

I have heard all sorts of reason to justify the DX sensor, but let's be honest. If the D3 was the same price as the D300 would there really be a decision?

wildviper

Cygnus Studios wrote:

While Nikon and Canon have built better DX glass, the best is still built for the FF.

I have heard all sorts of reason to justify the DX sensor, but let's be honest. If the D3 was the same price as the D300 would there really be a decision?

You mean to tell me that the 50/1.4 performance is better with a full frame than a DX ignoring the 50mm vs 70mm bit for this? The 50/1.4 is more sharper in Full Frame?

Also, if the D3 and D300's prices were the same, I think it would still come down to which feature you want. Of course currently the D3 has more "other" features that are better, but if they both had the same features..only difference being the sensor size, I don't think it is an automatic slamdunk for the D3.

Here is something that I found:

" Nonetheless, It looks to me like there's not a significant difference between the 20D's 1.6 crop 3937 ppi sensor and the 1Ds Mark II's full frame 3540 ppi sensor. If you want to try to find a winner here, it just may be the 20D, exactly the opposite of what the mechanics of the sensors would predict. At least with Canon DSLR's it looks to me like the camera's firmware affects noise output more than the size of the photosites. "

Taken from: http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm

The above is a good read. Not sure if it is conclusive, but surely Steve has done the test.

By the way, I am playing a Devil's advocate here. I do have an open mind about this.

ziggy53

wildviper wrote:

...

Here is something that I found:

" Nonetheless, It looks to me like there's not a significant difference between the 20D's 1.6 crop 3937 ppi sensor and the 1Ds Mark II's full frame 3540 ppi sensor. If you want to try to find a winner here, it just may be the 20D, exactly the opposite of what the mechanics of the sensors would predict. At least with Canon DSLR's it looks to me like the camera's firmware affects noise output more than the size of the photosites. "

Taken from: http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm

The above is a good read. Not sure if it is conclusive, but surely Steve has done the test.

By the way, I am playing a Devil's advocate here. I do have an open mind about this.

DxO Labs have produced a handy comparison tool to try to quantify camera image attributes. In terms of image quality there are vague similarities between the output images of the Canon 20D and 1D MKII, but the differences are distinct and measurable and visible on a print.

http://tinyurl.com/8pm5em

In particular the 1D MKII beats the 20D handily on:

Low-Light ISO - the 1D MKII has a score almost double the 20D
SNR 18% (Print) the measure is over 3 dB better
Tonal Range (Print) is around .5 bits better
Color Sensitivity (Print) is around 2 bits better

The reason this is significant is because the vast majority of photographers use their images for either on-screen viewing or printing at size.

Let's face it, cameras long ago exceeded the gross pixel count and basic attributes to produce generally decent scaled on-screen images, so the important indicators are for printing.

These are just image attributes so additionally you need to consider (as appropriate to your task):

Autofocus speed and accuracy
Responsiveness (not just fps)
Metering capabilities and accuracy
Durability and weather resistance
Battery life
Crop factor and influence on lens compatibility and FOV
Total weight

... and other things like the User Interface and available accessories that might influence the suitability of a camera to a particular task.

Cygnus Studios

wildviper wrote:

By the way, I am playing a Devil's advocate here. I do have an open mind about this.

The original question was to why pros prefer FF to DX. While DX cameras will accept FF glass, the field of view is different. Depending on your application, this can be a huge difference.
When you couple this with the technical advances that Ziggy provided the FF is the logical choice. Now of course, your application can be different. If you were a wildlife pro who has to have the ability for that extra reach on most occasions, your choice may be different.
It is kind of like the pros who shoot medium format. If asked why one would choose medium over FF, their answers lean towards the format used.

From what I gather the choice is made by two factors.

1. What kind of pro you are (by what you shoot).
2. Budget

chrisjohnson

People feel happy with the 35mm format because it is the result of many decades of product evolution and meets most needs. It takes a while to get use to a cropped sensor but not that long, and the results are better than 35mm film although I guess there are a few die hards who still use film, just like some people prefer vinyl records.

The camera manufacturers need to keep innovating, not because there is anything wrong with their cameras. They want to maintain the retail selling price and their margins and their brand image. If they stop then the industry will become commoditized, prices plummet, and the Chinese will take over. As long as consumers are tempted that the new features they offer represent the best possible equipment they will keep the Chinese at bay.

I suppose the manufacturers now have a puzzle. The Megapixel game has run its course - does anyone think a 32x CDROM is better than a 2x, or even remember CDROM. Does anyone think they need 20 Megapixels in a digital camera? Will the manufacturers dare to move full frame into the consumer cameras with the extra penalty of added weight and inconvenience? Or will they maybe introduce HD video into still cameras - as Canon seems to be planning.

As consumers we should recognize that digital camera technology is already pretty damned good. If we take bad photos then we should be looking firstly at ourselves. When we choose a new camera we should be looking at what we need as individuals. Is it convenience and portability? Or do we have a thing for taking detail macro shots in the deep of the night?

The main myth to bust is that the camera equipment is more important than the photographer.

jonh68

For me, it's a noise issue. I love the high ISO noise performance of the D700 for sports under the light. If a DX model had this performance, I would use it too.