Why choose full frame?

[JJ!]

I have never taken that much interest in full frame, but when I was reading all the D7100 previews and reviews they compared it a lot to the D600. In some areas they said the D7100 was better, in others the D600.

The difference in price of the D7100 and D600 body (if you get an import), is around £200.

But whats the real benefits of going full frame? Really interested to know before i splash the cash on the D7100.

Glass is of course a lot more expensive.. which could end up being a deciding factor.

 

[Cup_Phil]

Better noise handling, better image quality and shallower depth of field

But you loose reach and everything becomes more expensive

I don't like the way people call Full Frame an upgrade - it entirely depends on what you're shooting
For portraits/weddings etc... I'd definitely want full frame
But for sports/action stuff crop gives you a better reach

 

[ukaskew]

Phil has nailed it really. I'm glad I tried it, the novelty was great for a while, but I wouldn't go back. You've got to be ultra-commited (and loaded) to really gain any benefit over APS-C in my opinion. I've gone from APS-C to M43 to FF to M43 to APS-C, it's actually surprising how little difference there is in day to day shooting between them all if you aren't pushing the limits of your kit.

It really does become more expensive, particularly if you shoot all sorts of things. The difference between full-frame and APS-C in terms of what it does to focal length really can't be underestimated. When I first put the 50mm 1.8 onto my 5D I was shocked, pretty much a wide angle lens! At the other end of the scale it's almost impossible to get any significant length without spending obscene amounts of money.

If I shot weddings I wouldn't hesitate, FF bodies with 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 would be the ultimate 'safe' set-up.

 

[JJ!]

Kind of backed up what I was thinking. I shoot sports and mainly jpeg which kinda makes me lean towards crop. Plus the 17-50 f2.8 tamron is about a third of the 24-70 lol.

 

[Niall]

The images from full frame cameras just have a special look to them, something that is hard to explain. I’ve used a Canon 5D Mark II on quite a few occasions with the same Sigma 50mm F1.4 as I use on my D7000 and the images were in another league; the bokeh was smoother and more pleasing, the tones were nicer and it was nice and contrasty straight out of the camera without compromising the details in the shadows, the files were a lot more flexible in PP too.

If you can afford the lenses to go with having a full frame camera I wouldn’t think twice.

 

[Brazo]

Agree with ukaskew. I have changed every body and lens I own since jan this year and considered full frame but instead bought some really nice 'dx' glass!

 

[Wick]

Kind of backed up what I was thinking. I shoot sports and mainly jpeg which kinda makes me lean towards crop. Plus the 17-50 f2.8 tamron is about a third of the 24-70 lol.

Surely it would be mad shooting JPG on FF? All that extra quality you could have from RAW wasted? Or am I missing something here.

 

[Niall]

That was his point, Wick JPG doesn’t make a huge difference in most shooting situations, I only shoot raw for things like Landscape that will need a some tweeking, so full frame is still advantageous in any file format.

 

[Cup_Phil]

The images from full frame cameras just have a special look to them, something that is hard to explain. I’ve used a Canon 5D Mark II on quite a few occasions with the same Sigma 50mm F1.4 as I use on my D7000 and the images were in another league; the bokeh was smoother and more pleasing, the tones were nicer and it was nice and contrasty straight out of the camera without compromising the details in the shadows, the files were a lot more flexible in PP too.

If you can afford the lenses to go with having a full frame camera I wouldn’t think twice.

Very very true about the "feel" - something warm and silky about them

But - and this is just based on canon here

7D + 70-200 2.8L or 70-300L is a weapon of a motorsport camera. Ridiculously fast AF speed, long reach, good DOF when you need it

To get the same experience from full frame you'd need a 1D or maaaaybe a 5D MKIII, with a 400mm f4 or f2.8

The difference in cost is £2-2.5k for the crop setup and £6-9k for the full frame setup
And I don't think back to back motorsport/action shots that 99% of people would tell the difference

If you were shooting a model with a 70-200 2.8 however the full frame and the silky bokeh would be sooo worth it. So it really does depend on the subject.

I'm getting a 7D and a 5D MK1 later this year - the 5D MK1 is a crap AF system and an old camera but FF and lovely for portrait work

 

[Niall]

Yeah I agree about the motorsport stuff, and the matter of reach is a problem too. But looking at the two cameras in question the D600 isn’t going to be miles off the D7100. Tbh it looks like the OP’s best option is the D7100, but if it were me I’d be wanting something that is better for static shots and other general shooting situations too, you can only do so many motorsport photos before you get bored and want to shoot something else.

 

[JJ!]

Well I'm going to be doing equestrain and general photography, people shots etc. if I go D600 I would only afford a 24-70. D7100 would include 17-50 and 70-300 and a prime!

 

[Cup_Phil]

It's the same as trying to build a track car that you can also use on the road.

2 cars FTW - 2 cameras FTW lol

 

[JJ!]

Two I certainly can't afford!!!

 

[dunganick]

I wouldnt like to choose to be honest. I really really wish Canon didnt seem to be dropping the 1.3x crop. This is such a great compromise!

I really hate 1.6x crop sensors. Their noise handling is pants compared to even older generation larger sensors. The lack of DOF actually requires faster glass to achieve a decent Bokeh. The viewfinder is so much nicer on larger sensors.

Larger sensors just produce much nicer images. On modern cameras you can crop seriously hard without any issue. So a lens like the 100-400 would be fine on say a 5dmk3 (which has a superb AF system).

And now that the ISO ability of modern cameras is so good, you can use kit such as the 400 F5.6 or 300F4 + 1.4tc - or just crop.

All of the L series lenses also sit in much more sensible focal lengths with full frame rather than 1.6x

 

[JJ!]

Ah man, this ain't easy!!!

D600 and tamron 24-70vc or kit lens and 50mm.

or

D7100 and tamron 17-50, 70-300vc and 50mm

 

[ukaskew]

I feel your pain, I spent weeks figuring out which new body to go with (and they were both crop!), in the end you just have to be completely honest with yourself and decide what you can afford, what is practical for you and what will ultimately be of the most benefit to your photography.

I for example could have had the ultimate motorsport set up (D7100, 80-200 2.8 AFS, 300 f4) for my budget, but that would have killed any other sort of photography (particularly travel), which I just couldn't do with a big holiday coming up. In the end I compromised, lost a fair bit in terms of motorsport ability but had a good balance between general shooting, motorsport and travel (a77, 16-50 2.8, 70-300, 100-300mm f4).

 

[JJ!]

Yeah I got holiday coming up. I think the Tammy combination would be much more beneficial all round... I think lol

 

[Brazo]

I'm buying and selling a lot of kit at the moment, if you buy carefully losses if any are minimal, profit isn't unheard of! It's great because you get to try loads of stuff and find out what's best for you!

 

[JJ!]

D7100 and D600 are pretty much built the same so guess they will feel similar in hand.

I think full frame would be nice but I don't think I would benefit from it enough TBH. I was selling equestrian photos with an Olympus e620 and kit lens so think the D7100 would do better!

​damn it!!

 

[ukaskew]

I'm buying and selling a lot of kit at the moment, if you buy carefully losses if any are minimal, profit isn't unheard of! It's great because you get to try loads of stuff and find out what's best for you!

I just sold 2 Micro 4/3s bodies and 4 lenses. Profited on 3 of the 6 items, broke even on 1 and had minimal losses on the other 2

 

[JJ!]

Ken Rockwell seems to think the D7100 is as good as the D600 with D600 only becoming clear winner at really high ISO. Not that I rea a lot in to his reviews!

 

[JJ!]

£150 cash back on D600 too. Kit lens is meant to be pretty good.

 

[JJ!]

Off to park cameras today. Who knows what I am going to come back with!!!

 

[Cup_Phil]

Hahhaah that's most of the fun

 

[unofficialPete]

I'd only go full frame if I could afford the glass to back it up. 5D + 85mm f/1.2 would be immense.

I just sold 2 Micro 4/3s bodies and 4 lenses. Profited on 3 of the 6 items, broke even on 1 and had minimal losses on the other 2

Dayum, could have been interested, especially if you shifted that fisheye! Although sounds like you got near market price!

 

[JJ!]

All done! Photos to follow when home!

 

[JJ!]

Well... here it all is!!

50mm f1.8g to follow next week as was out of stock.

 

[ukaskew]

Good work, the right choice imo. Looking forward to some handheld shots at 300mm with the 1.3 crop mode

 

[JJ!]

Just couldn't justify full frame costs. Had a good play with the D600 and handling terms the D7100 was near on identical. The focus points on the D600 are all so close together and don't fill the frame at all.

Tried out a whole load of lenses and made my decision. Got a bit of discount and some free filters.

 

[Niall]

Let me know/post examples of what the 70-300 is like, I’m considering it for my next lens.

 

[JJ!]

Hopefully get and about on Sunday. Was impressed by shots I took in the shop, but will see how it fares in the real world!

 

[Clart]

Selling the lens already mate?

 

[JJ!]

Selling the lens already mate?

Yeah - not what i expected to be honest - going with the Nikon lenses instead. Would take them back, but it was not on my credit card which is a pain! Still, was worth experimenting!

 

[Cup_Phil]

I hate tamron & sigma s**t
Every time I buy one I end up selling it and getting a proper Canon lens instead

 

[JJ!]

I had high hopes TBH, but learn by mistakes and move on lol.

 

[Xanda73]

For me, I've been waiting for a full frame Nikon at a sensible price for years. It's getting better, but still £1400 is too much - my car isn't worth that.

That's the reason that I stick with APS-C, but I really don't want to. I've been a film shooter for years before digital, so amassed a nice range of expensive f/2.8 glass and really want to keep the benefits FF gives with nice glass.

I've still yet to use a Nikon digital that rivals my F100 - not in terms of picture quality per se, but in terms of the 'use', and fitting so well with fast expensive glass. The crop cameras look lost on a 28-70AFS. If they (FF) hit £1k then I'm in, but otherwise I'll stick with the smaller sensor.

 

[Tigger]

I would of upgraded lenses first and went FF when you've had enough jobs done to save up for it
Then it's just a matter of selling the crop body & accessories or keep it as a backup for important events

That's what I did before I got my FF, now the only lens I really use on the D90 is the 10.5 fisheye - only lens I have thats not FX

 

[sneeks]

Good choice. I briefly considered going FF but decided the A77 with 16-50, 50mm, 85mm and 100-300 f4 was the correct choice for me and gives me plenty of options for landscapes, portraits and motorsports.

Don't think you can go wrong with a D7100, lovely camera.

 

[ukaskew]

Good choice. I briefly considered going FF but decided the A77 with 16-50, 50mm, 85mm and 100-300 f4 was the correct choice for me and gives me plenty of options for landscapes, portraits and motorsports.

Don't think you can go wrong with a D7100, lovely camera.

Do you use the 50 much considering you have the 16-50? I'm trying to decide which fast prime to get, leaning towards 85mm 1.4, but wondered if the 50mm 1.4 would be a better option.

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

85mm 1.4 is an epic lens. But on non full frame would be pretty long.