Is Full Frame Worth Pursuing?
Quote from HeggenDazs on February 8, 2022, 3:55 pmSo 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.
This video illustrates the difference you're talking about (K-1 better noise at high ISO, K-3iii better color retention): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xADsUXb2OM&t=3s
Quote from denniscrommett on February 8, 2022, 4:21 amPopping 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!
This thread is really interesting and is something I've thought about often. I love my APS-C K-3, but I would like better high ISO performance. And a huge viewfinder sounds sexy. So I start thinking about the K-1, and I notice its articulating screen, that it has improved autofocus, I could really use the extra subject separation... and I have to stop myself and remind myself that there are things I wouldn't like as well. The extra weight of the body and glass. The cost of all new glass. File size, buffer size, FPS, less reach. Sometimes I *want* deeper DOF (action shots). So the APS-C is a good middle ground for me.
But people who shoot full frame don't complain too often about those things...perhaps because they have a 2nd body for wildlife/action, I dunno. That's the best if you can swing it. I will say I see "I'll have the K-1 till the day I die" a lot haha
So... in summary, I think full frame is just something you have to try to know. "Rent one" was good advice.
Quote from denniscrommett on February 8, 2022, 4:21 amPopping 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!
I have a Fuji X-Pro2 graphite which has the same sensor and essentially the lens maybe (23mm f2). I have owned most of Fuji's prime lenses 2 years ago from the XF 16mm 1.4 to the XF 90mm f2. I have also tried all the Fujicrons. Throughout that journey, I realised I went for all the biggest and fastest lenses of the FujiX lineup because I wanted the full frame look on APS-C. In the end, I decided to try out full frame by buying a cheap Sony A7 (I think I bought it for 300 EUR including the battery grip and warranty at that time). Both X-pro2 and Sony A7 have 24 MP sensors albeit the latter has a a FF one. First thing I have noticed is that the detail on the Sony A7, even though its a much older sensor, is much better. I know this depends on glass but I was merely using a cheap Samyang 35mm and compared it against the XF 23mm f2.
I then decided to sell all my fast Fuji lenses and only stick with Fujicrons as the size and weight of my kit was getting ridiculous.
So I've tried fast lenses on the sony like the 35mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4 and I really liked the look. However, I started getting eye strain from the EVF so eventually sold the Sony and with with the Pentax K-1.
In the end, I sold all my Fuji gear except the grapite X-pro2 and lens. Bought a bunch of lenses for Pentax K-1 and completed a kit for less than the cost of my whole Fuji kit because I went for older lenses except for the Sigma 35mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4.
I have tried the 5D. I think you should go for the 5D ii. I know the 5D is a little bit hyped up in the last years but at the end of the day, it's an outdated body. The 5D ii is much more refined. Then again, I had it when I already had the K-1. I wasn't too inspired to use it so I ended up selling it but hey, Canon EF lenses are very cheap (at least some of them!)
I think full frame is worth a try but it's one of those things that you have to find out for yourself. Take the jump. Borrow one. See what happens!
Quote from denniscrommett on February 8, 2022, 4:21 amPopping 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!
Meeeeee.
But not a Canon.
I love shooting APS-C most of the time, especially because size/weight matters a lot to me. My daily shooter is a Ricoh GXR M with tiny vintage rangefinder lenses. But, I've also felt like I am missing out by giving up ~40% of the image circle with my vintage glass.
So I just got a (used) Sigma fp. It's a tiny FF mirrorless camera with really stellar image quality and high ISO/low light performance, and can adapt lots of vintage lenses. It does not, however, have a built-in viewfinder (costs extra), hot shoe, or grip.
However, it does have a built-in feature to correct chroma issues with adapting vintage lenses (esp wide angles) and outputs corrected RAW files. For me, that sealed the deal.
I'm still testing it out but so far, I'm really happy with it. It is hard as hell to focus in bright light without a viewfinder though — and I live in the desert, so it's always bright — so I'm gonna have to cough up the cash.
APS-C's crop factor sure hides a lot of vintage lens sins though… I never knew how many.
Quote from tristancarlos on February 8, 2022, 9:45 pmQuote from denniscrommett on February 8, 2022, 4:21 amPopping 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!
I have a Fuji X-Pro2 graphite which has the same sensor and essentially the lens maybe (23mm f2). I have owned most of Fuji's prime lenses 2 years ago from the XF 16mm 1.4 to the XF 90mm f2. I have also tried all the Fujicrons. Throughout that journey, I realised I went for all the biggest and fastest lenses of the FujiX lineup because I wanted the full frame look on APS-C. In the end, I decided to try out full frame by buying a cheap Sony A7 (I think I bought it for 300 EUR including the battery grip and warranty at that time). Both X-pro2 and Sony A7 have 24 MP sensors albeit the latter has a a FF one. First thing I have noticed is that the detail on the Sony A7, even though its a much older sensor, is much better. I know this depends on glass but I was merely using a cheap Samyang 35mm and compared it against the XF 23mm f2.
I then decided to sell all my fast Fuji lenses and only stick with Fujicrons as the size and weight of my kit was getting ridiculous.
So I've tried fast lenses on the sony like the 35mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4 and I really liked the look. However, I started getting eye strain from the EVF so eventually sold the Sony and with with the Pentax K-1.
In the end, I sold all my Fuji gear except the grapite X-pro2 and lens. Bought a bunch of lenses for Pentax K-1 and completed a kit for less than the cost of my whole Fuji kit because I went for older lenses except for the Sigma 35mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4.
I have tried the 5D. I think you should go for the 5D ii. I know the 5D is a little bit hyped up in the last years but at the end of the day, it's an outdated body. The 5D ii is much more refined. Then again, I had it when I already had the K-1. I wasn't too inspired to use it so I ended up selling it but hey, Canon EF lenses are very cheap (at least some of them!)
I think full frame is worth a try but it's one of those things that you have to find out for yourself. Take the jump. Borrow one. See what happens!
Thanks for sharing all of that! So it sounds like you now have the X-Pro2 (I did briefly have, and really like, an X-T2) and the K-1? Is the Sony still in your life? Admittedly I'm an EVF fan (just since it's all I've ever used), and have been tempted by the Sony A7, or A7ii. But, without being able to rent or borrow one, unfortunately, I'm doomed to look at people's photos on Flickr and try to compare. I should probably just be realistic with myself that I don't *need* anything other than what I have (X100F), but I do start to get "focal length envy," ha, and wonder what life is like beyond 35mm. Anyway thanks for these and any other thoughts, @tristancarlos and all!
A few months ago, I made the switch from a Fuji X-E2 to Sony A7ii, and I did it for several reasons, sensor size being a big one. The second reason is IBIS, and the Sony A7ii is the cheapest camera with both. There are definitely differences in resolution and the Sony raw files have astounding dynamic range. Personally, it was very much worth it to me, because I can also use S-log for video, and the IBIS lets me get down to like 1/15 of a second handheld with a 4o mm lens.
Far from hiding sins, I feel like shooting vintage glass on FF makes me like them even more! I can get so much more character out of them, since the FOV isn't cropped in.
Quote from Justin Tung on February 10, 2022, 3:23 amFar from hiding sins, I feel like shooting vintage glass on FF makes me like them even more! I can get so much more character out of them, since the FOV isn't cropped in.
Depends which lenses we're talking about 😅 I've been shooting mostly with tiny vintage Russian rangefinder lenses. I have been kinda shocked by some of the corners on FF.
I would love IBIS though………
I am a pro crop mode cameras fan, but now the last week-end my mate was using his new FF camera and his images where stunning (also as an important note: he is a great photographer). But yeah then I thought maybe FF is a good way to go.
Quote from red5isalive on February 11, 2022, 11:51 amI am a pro crop mode cameras fan, but now the last week-end my mate was using his new FF camera and his images where stunning (also as an important note: he is a great photographer). But yeah then I thought maybe FF is a good way to go.
That's a good point about photographer skill. I think that and lens choice are going to make a bigger difference on image outcome than sensor size. Definitely each sensor size has its strong suits (APS-C for wildlife, Full frame for portraiture, for example). But often I have seen an image and thought it must have been full frame and it turned out to be APS-C. I strongly want to try full frame but I don't want to invest in another lens type right now, so when that happens it helps quell that urge for me.
Here's an example that happened today. I was looking up the TAIR 11/11a that @heggendazs just acquired (yet another stellar lens I had no clue about) and saw the below photo on the pentaxforums review page. I was like "aww yeah that K-1 rendering and DOF is so nice!" But...it was a K-5! haha Joke's on me. 😛
van elkaar genieten by margreetz, on Flickr
Yes I agree lenses are usualy the most important part of the equation.
Now same lenses different bodies on aps-c and ff that sounds like getting to know what will work best for you (or me). Same spot and same cars and same parameters being used (I say cars, it can be anything else).
But yes glass is very important.
Someone else has opened a thread about the Pentax DA* 50-135mm f2.8 and I have to say this is a supreme lens. It doesn't work that well for fast action (even tho I have taken pictures with it and it worked somehow) but it creates super nice portrait images. And this is an APS-C lens.
Plus I agree, trying FF could be nice but not at any cost. Having to buy FF lenses and so on can be a pain.
Like swiching systems.
Quote from denniscrommett on February 8, 2022, 4:21 amPopping 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!
Hey @denniscrommett the 5D is going strong! My summary would be this:
- Full frame has an advantage in better noise performance at higher ISO.
- Shooting with a DSLR is fun in my opinion
- The simplicity of the 5D and the controls are make you think less about the camera and more about the image.
- Looking back over photos from the past year, I have favorites that are shot on every camera I've owned Canon 5D, Panasonic GX85 (now sold) , Fuji X-T20 (also sold with much regret), and Canon EOS R (most recent acquisition)
