Is Full Frame Worth Pursuing?
I have another nagging question!
Up to this point, I have only used Micro Four Thirds and some APSC cameras. I know that those cameras can produce great images. That being said, is it worth trying to get ahold of a full frame camera? I'm thinking something cheap/used like an original Canon 5d or an older Nikon. Perhaps eventually looking into an early full frame mirrorless later on.
What are the real differences between full frame and crop outside of being more expensive and generally much larger?
Any and all thoughts appreciated!
Quote from Beau Carpenter on June 13, 2021, 9:57 pmI have another nagging question!
Up to this point, I have only used Micro Four Thirds and some APSC cameras. I know that those cameras can produce great images. That being said, is it worth trying to get ahold of a full frame camera? I'm thinking something cheap/used like an original Canon 5d or an older Nikon. Perhaps eventually looking into an early full frame mirrorless later on.
What are the real differences between full frame and crop outside of being more expensive and generally much larger?
Any and all thoughts appreciated!
So, this is a really good question and something I ponder a lot... even after buying a full frame camera many years ago.
There are many things I have yet to learn about photography. But a few years ago I knew even less. When I bought my Pentax K-1 (FF) I mostly did it under the assumption that you simply could not get the same low-light image quality out of an APS-C as you could a FF sensor. While there is some basis for cleaner images coming from larger sensors, there are so many other factors that influence that that I have since concluded that it's almost a moot point, unless you are truly comparing all other factors apples to apples (as if that's even possible).
What I've discovered since then is that a much bigger difference is FoV with different lenses and related, the DoF at certain focal length/aperture combinations. This I feel like is less about "image quality" in any practical sense, but much more about style and replicating a certain look. It mostly applies only in those larger apertures. It's difficult to replicate the same FoV/DoF from a 50mm 1.4 on a FF using an APSC camera. You'd need something like a 33mm f1.0 on APSC. And the wider you go the more ridiculous the example gets. Excuse my spontaneous math, might not be very accurate, but you get the idea.
Like I said, I don't think this practically matters. Is anyone going to look at your awesome image and be like, oh man if only you had this much more DoF at that FoV. No. And that only really applies to scenarios going wide and open in the first place. And then you could take that further and want to go medium format, or heck, even large format film. But in a non-practical way it's still really cool. Shooting old vintage lenses at the 35mm format frame size they were designed for really does have a look that is difficult to reproduce. Is it a better look? Maybe someone could argue for certain situations, but I would argue that if your picture is so reliant on a certain sensor size to be "better", then there's not a lot of other good stuff going on there to begin with. Of course, I'll defer to the real artists out there to override that comment. What do I know? 🙂
I don't know if I made any sense. I think it could be fun for you to pick up an old FF camera just for kicks sometimes. As much as I love my K-1, sometimes I wish I hadn't picked it up. It's led to chasing expensive and heavy lenses with only marginal gains, most gains coming just from a newer more capable sensor and less so because of the sensor format itself. But man does it make vintage lenses look good.
If you need help not spending the money, shoot a compact sensor size for a while and then go back to APS-C. Feels like a big step up 🙂
My ramblings.
I haven't ever shot digital full frame, but I regularly shoot full frame and medium format film. I generally agree with everything James said above, but I would want to emphasize another aspect of sensor size, which is overall size. As a rule of thumb, a smaller sensor will mean a smaller body, but this isn't definite anymore. The smallest FF camera is probably the Sigma FP, which is smaller than a lot of even M43 cameras. Glass, however, is always going to be a limiting factor for size. Broadly speaking, bigger lens coverage is always going to need bigger glass. Sometimes that's tolerable, but sometimes it's not. It'll just come down to your use case.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses!
I took me a while to understand crop vs. full-frame in terms of DOF at a given FOV, but I think I get the difference now. There's a lot of confusing info out there, but your description @james-warner-b seems dead on.
Shooting film has given me a little idea of the "full frame look" at 28mm and 50mm. I do like the look with an f/2.8 depth of field at 50mm full frame. In some of my work, I think it could also be helpful for making backgrounds less distracting as there are certain situations where I can't do much about the background.
I have enjoyed M4/3 and APSC formats and most of the time I don't think full frame would add much. I think I need to borrow/rent a full frame setup to get a better feel for how it would work for me (Or shoot more film 😊). Then again looking at camera/lens prices, I have a lot more appreciation for the equipment I do have!!
I would do an older camera, but for it really to fit into my workflow I do need something with unlimited video record time which narrows down the options quite a bit.
@justintung you are correct there are some smaller full frame cameras that would fit the bill. I find the Sony A7c to be a fairly compelling prospect for photo & video (Except for cost and fewer physical controls) The only way I could justify it would be to sell pretty much all of my M43 gear to afford a used body/lens. Not sure I'm ready to do that haha.
Not sure if y'all have ever used this website: CameraSize.com I just found it the other night and it gives a pretty great visual comparison of size, even with different lens combinations. In some ways that has helped ease my camera size concern as I very much enjoyed shooting with a Pentax K-5 and that is larger and heavier than something like a Sony A7iii.
I'm enjoying a Fuji X-T20 right now maybe it's worth considering investing more in APSC.
I'm sure like many of you, these considerations roll around in your head for a long time. Need to think on it more!
Thank you once again for your input!
Fuji is arguably the best mirrorless APSC system today. Can't go wrong with investing in Fuji primes to get the best out of the APSC sensor.
I have a the Fuji X-pro2 graphite and four digital Pentax bodies including the K-1 and KP. To me it's more about the function. APSC has its place. That said, I tend to grab my K-1 more often than the rest for "full frame look" especially portraits of my daughter. The KP tends to get some use when I want reach. The X-pro2 gets used when I want to be inconspicuous.
A side note:
From the experience I had when I was heavily invested in Fuji glass, the Fuji-X system is so damn expensive. I'd rather put my money on full frame glass. I had their best lenses: XF 16mm 1.4, XF 56mm 1.2, XF 90mm f2. I also had a couple zooms and the Fujicrons. The advantage of having the Pentax K-1 is that you don't necessarily have to have the newest lenses. I bought the Pentax-F 28mm, F 50mm 1.7, F 50mm 28 macro, FA 20mm 2.8, A 50mm 1.2, Sigma 105mm 2.8, FA 17-28mm fisheye, Sigma 85mm 1.4, Sigma 100-300mm f4, Sigma 150-500mm, all for less than the price of ONE or TWO premium Fuji glass. Talk about a cheap cure for GAS. 🙂
p.s. I'm also a bargain hunter hence I got all my Pentax gear cheaply. I never pay full market price.Â
Quote from tristanludlow on July 1, 2021, 11:04 amFuji is arguably the best mirrorless APSC system today. Can't go wrong with investing in Fuji primes to get the best out of the APSC sensor.
I have a the Fuji X-pro2 graphite and four digital Pentax bodies including the K-1 and KP. To me it's more about the function. APSC has its place. That said, I tend to grab my K-1 more often than the rest for "full frame look" especially portraits of my daughter. The KP tends to get some use when I want reach. The X-pro2 gets used when I want to be inconspicuous.
A side note:
From the experience I had when I was heavily invested in Fuji glass, the Fuji-X system is so damn expensive. I'd rather put my money on full frame glass. I had their best lenses: XF 16mm 1.4, XF 56mm 1.2, XF 90mm f2. I also had a couple zooms and the Fujicrons. The advantage of having the Pentax K-1 is that you don't necessarily have to have the newest lenses. I bought the Pentax-F 28mm, F 50mm 1.7, F 50mm 28 macro, FA 20mm 2.8, A 50mm 1.2, Sigma 105mm 2.8, FA 17-28mm fisheye, Sigma 85mm 1.4, Sigma 100-300mm f4, Sigma 150-500mm, all for less than the price of ONE or TWO premium Fuji glass. Talk about a cheap cure for GAS. 🙂
p.s. I'm also a bargain hunter hence I got all my Pentax gear cheaply. I never pay full market price.
I totally agree with you that fuji lenses are pricey, and that might be a dealbreaker for some. I'm personally happy with the 27mm f2.8 (the old version) being my only native Fuji lens. I got it for 185$ and wanted it because it's such a portable pancake. Everything else is adapted and manual focus. I know Viltrox makes 3rd party fuji lenses with AF, but I don't think there are many of those on the market, either new or used.
In case anyone's interested, I made a video comparing a native Fujinon lens, Chinese lens, and a vintage lens.
Quote from Beau Carpenter on June 13, 2021, 9:57 pmWhat are the real differences between full frame and crop outside of being more expensive and generally much larger?
Any and all thoughts appreciated!
All things the same, better image quality.  Better in low light. Less noise.  Looking thru the viewfinder looks gigantic.  As  said lenses used the way they were intended etc... I'm usually cropping with a crop sensor camera so don't really matter to me.
Fo a while Nikon d610 was going cheap on the used market around $600. Â Backwards compatibility for like 60 hears of lenses.
Might be a case if you don't know why you need it, you probably don't. On the otherhand you might go ... crap... where have you been all my life.
Rent one.
@kankrat thanks for adding to the conversation! Sorry all for being away for a few weeks.
So, I ended up coming by a Canon 5D (Mark 1, Classic) with a 50mm f1.8, and CF Card for $300. Then got a little G.A.S. and picked up a used Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art for a good price.
My thoughts are as follows:
Why haven't I gotten ahold of one of these before now?!
Just like KankRat said, "Where have you been all my life"
The look especially at 35mm f2 is so nice with the additional separation at wider angles (Like @james-warner-b pointed out). Also, the noise performance even at ISO 16oo is so good and completely useable for my needs. In fact, the grain at ISO 1600 on the 5D is much nicer than on my micro four thirds camera at ISO 400-800.
Overall, I'm very happy having bought it and plan to shoot most of my photos on it.
I thought the size of the camera and lenses, especially the Sigma 35mm would make it unenjoyable to use, but it is hasn't been nearly as bad as I thought. However, for less weight/size than the 5D and one lens, I can pack my Panasonic GX85 with lenses to cover 28, 50, 85, and 70-200mm FOV. The M4/3 system still makes a lot of sense for my video work and when I need to pack light.
I think the full frame format will be especially helpful in certain circumstances. I shoot often in situations where backgrounds are a bit messy and extra background separation makes difference.
I don't need a full frame camera to enjoy photography
This experience has been just one more reminder that the "best" equipment is not required to have a good time making photos! Every camera I've used has enabled me to make images and memories that I enjoy, so it's more important to go shoot, edit, and learn 🙂
Popping into this old thread started by @beau-carpenter to see how the 5D is holding up 6 months later. I'm also curious if anyone else who has been an APS-C person (like me, currently in a relatively satisfied one-camera X100F state of being) has explored the lure of full frame. It's so tempting to get a 5D or even 5D II for cheap. (Side question: is the Auto ISO on the 5D II worth the extra money?) Is it... fun? Exciting to see that "look?" Annoying at all? Thanks for any thoughts to help a fellow photographer who is likely happy enough with one camera, but can't help looking!
So here's some thoughts as someone who's been shooting on every digital format but full-frame until just this year. I've always had crop sensors, my previous two cameras before purchasing my K-1 were the K-50 and the K-3 II. Both of those cameras have phenomenal sensors but neither perform near as well as the K-1 in low-light. The K-3 II can get to about 1600 ISO before color noise and distortion comes into play in darker shots, where I've been able to crank the K-1 to 3200 ISO before seeing color noise. I'd say just about any 1600 ISO shot from the K-1 needs no heavy editing (AI noise removal and related noise cleanup methods), I can't say the same about the K-3 II.
But where things get murky is with image processors and sensor density. It is my understanding that the KP and the K-3 III, though still APS-C and similar sensors to the K-3 II, both those cameras end up with far better low-light performance. And to make things even murkier, I've also been told that the sensor density can greatly affect how it performs under low-light conditions. The more MP, the smaller color noise artifacts are but the sensor might marginally more exposure due to density. There are truly way more factors at play than ever before in this age of image processors and the only sure fire way to find the better sensor is to compare two specific examples.
With all this said, every sensor size has it's benefit, I think in most cases Four-Thirds and APS-C sensors are going to be dramatically faster than full-frame. Full-frame faster than medium format. Medium format and full-frame performing better in low-light than crop sensors and so on. I tend to believe every camera and every sensor has it's perfect use case and best practices. I love my K-3 II and K-1 equally and use them almost interchangeably but for one case, low-light.
