The 'Magic' of full frame?

[JJ!]

I have been on Talk Photography for a number of years now, and I would say 50% of FF users describe pictures produced from FF 'magical' and on another level from crop sensors.

Out of interest, what is the true benefit of full frame? I understand that at high ISO levels, any FF camera will produce cleaner shots. Apart from this benefit, what makes FF so magical?

I was going to go the D600 route, rather than my D7100, and was just wondered what I am missing?

The shots from my D7100 are good, full of detail but not 'crisp' sharp so too speak. I think that's more down to the jpeg processing, rather than the camera itself.

I still think about full frame, but I don't have expensive glass to go with it. I'm not sure, if with my current lenses, I would gain much from going full frame.

 

[Niall]

I’ve recently made the change and it was obvious from the start that the images had a nice look to them. The bokeh was smoother and the DoF is shallower, also the tone rendition was better. Another thing that I like is the huge viewfinder you get with the mirror being so much bigger, it makes framing a shot a lot nicer.

Bare in mind that this is a fairly valid opinion given that I’ve had the lens I have for my 5D2 for my D7000 so I can compare them directly with no lens variables.

Don’t get me wrong it isn’t night and day but I’m definitely sticking with FF. This question is like asking why should I go for APS-C over micro 4/3’s, so if you consider it like that then it makes more sense.

 

[JJ!]

My trouble would be the lenses. I wouldn't be able to jump on the f2.8 lens brigade and would be using the 24-85 'kit', 70-300vr and 50mm f1.8g. I know the latter would be ideal as I find it a little long on crop.

I'm only enquring as have had an exchange offer for a clean sensor D600.

 

[l33th3tr33]

It's just so expensive! I need to get into photography more before I trade in the D3100!

 

[Niall]

Yeah, I mean the lenses that you will see the biggest difference with are your fixed aperture 24-70’s etc, the focal lengths are given new purposes too. As is mentioned above, it is expensive to do but luckily my choice to go with Canon when going full frame is a good one when you consider the extensive second hand market; I can get a second hand 70-200 F4L for £300, or a 24-105 F4L for late 300’s. So the cheaper full frame fixed aperture lens choice with Canon exceeds the Nikon in that respect.

 

[JJ!]

I understand the cost, and that it will take a while to get to the holy grail of fixed aperture lenses. I guess I am just wondering if I will notice a difference in IQ with my 'consumer' lenses.

 

[Niall]

I couldn’t guarantee that seems as I’ve not used either camera, it depends on what you shoot. I shoot a lot of general things with some motorsport thrown in so it’s fine for me, but if you need those longer focal lengths then crop is advantageous.

Just have a surf on Flickr through some photos taken with both and have a look for a comparison video on youtube, hopefully that should clear some things up

 

[ukaskew]

Personally just a FF camera and the basic boggo 50mm 1.8 will highlight an immediate 'magic-ness' (a proper honest to goodness 50mm is also a really nice focal length). The problem comes with fleshing out your kit, the 70-300 VR is actually pretty good on the D600, as I understand it, but fulfilling the wider range to do an FF body justice won't be so easy on a budget.

Even as good as the Canon 24-105 f4 was on my 5D, I honestly didn't really feel or appreciate the FF benefits until I put some really nice fast glass on it (35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.8, 135mm f2, 200mm 2.8), but that obviously comes at a huge cost, looking at the options even more so on Nikon than Canon.

If I didn't "need" other focal lengths I would just own a Sony RX1 in a heartbeat as it would fulfill my compact and FF wants, but as with everything most people need to make some sort of a compromise.

 

[dunganick]

I would say yes you would notice a difference. But it probably isn't worth the £££ difference and sacrifice in focal length unless you are quite serious about your photography.

I was lucky enough to be given a 1dX to play with. I loved the extra wide focal lengths it provided, i loved the hair thin depth of field and the smooth Bokeh that goes with it.

Even the 50mm F1.8 produces (in my opinion) nice pics on FF and also focal lengths such as 50mm and 24-70mm start to make sense when previously they were awkward (on 1.6 or even 1.6 crop)

​

 

[JJ!]

The focal length is an interesting one. I really thought for my equestrian photography the extra reach would be ideal, but on my latest shoots I have found the 70-300 too long as I have been close to the action and stuck on the 16-85.

 

[Habitual]

There's not much I can add to this, but I am going FF really soon. Nearly bought a 6D on Saturday actually lol.

I had just had a play on a 6D in a camera shop in Bristol. I had my 600D with a 50mm F1.8 lens with me and I took a simple portrait picture of my missus at 1.8, ISO 100, AV mode.

Then I put that lens on the FF 6D. From the same distance I obviously had loads more room in the picture (as it was an actual 50mm and not 80mm) and the depth of field was so much more shallow with the focal points looking far more crisp. Additionally, as has been mentioned, the bokeh was completely different!! It's actually quite odd but so smooth. So, so smooth.

All in all, the picture was significantly better.

The main reason I want to go FF is because of the improved ISO handling and better DoF control.

I was originally going to buy the 5D MKIII but I can't warrant the significant price jump anymore after seeing the technical differences according to DXOMark:

Here is the 7D (crop) vs the 6D (entry level FF) and the 5D MKIII (the best non-pro FF Canon offer).

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...rand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/619|0/(brand3)/Canon

Doing a simple price comparison using, let's say, Jessops:

6D, body only, free grip: £1549
5D, body only, free grip: £2329

That's just over 50% more, however, the difference according to DXO mark looks like it's less than 10% better across the range - and that's being super generous!

Therefore, got to be the 6D for me.

 

[Tigger]

Is it just me or is the bokeh & DOF a hell of a lot nicer on a D800 than a D3?

 

[Niall]

Bokeh can differ from body to body, I noticed a difference a good while ago when I switched from my D40 to a D5100, and again when I switched from a D7000 to 5D2. So there probably will be a difference

 

[JJ!]

Well I have a done a deal and gone FF. Obviously I have had to start with some lesser lenses, but things will get better after saving!

 

[Tigger]

Niall I know what you mean - all makes sense I guess

JJ you went for the D600, am I right?

 

[JJ!]

Yes to the D600. Sadly the D800 was way out of my price range. The ISO performance has already blown me away!

I did also try out the 50mm f1.4g. Boy is that lens slow to focus compared to the 1.8g - sticking with that lens for sure!

 

[Niall]

I got the Sigma 50mm F1.4 for my Nikon for the reason of focussing speed compared to the Nikon, but the 1.8 is still a great lens.

 

[JJ!]

The magic of the D600 oil spots - straight from the factory too.

 

[Niall]

I thought they'd sorted that problem?

 

[JJ!]

Me too!

But a quick search on talk photography and dp review shows I'm far from alone.

 

[Niall]

How easy is it to sort? Is it a matter of sending it off to Nikon?

 

[JJ!]

You can clean yourself, but apparently some of the oil is hard to shift and its a wet clean rather than a rocket blower.

I'm sending it back for a replacement as I don't think its acceptable for it to arrive with oil spots.

Nikon are offering a warranty service for cameras that its happened/happening too as well.

 

[Brazo]

This problem does marr an otherwise excellent camera but am sure you'll get it fixed soon! Must be your third SLR this year???