Full frame worth it?

Author
Discussion

RizzoTheRat

Original Poster:

25,085 posts

191 months

Monday 31st October 2016
quotequote all
I'm a point and click compact user so please keep to words of 1 syllable or less so I can follow, but this seems a good place for advice biggrin

The Mrs has currently got Sony A300 and gets some pretty good results with it on a range of subjects (aircraft, birds, landcape, architecture, etc) and doesn't seem to have one particular type of photography she's focused on.

She's been thinking of upgrading for a while, and her brother has just gone and bought a full frame Nikon (can't remember which model) so naturally she thinks getting the same one is the way forward. For a hobbyist is it worth going full frame or sticking with a smaller crop on the grounds you presumably get a much higher spec crop for the price of a basic full frame? My understanding is the full frame gives better low light performance, so presumably that means it's going to cope with movement at longish zooms (eg birds and aircaft) a lot better?

Considering clubbing together with her parents for a Christmas present in which case I guess we'd be looking at a couple of lenses in the 25-50 and 20-300 ish range, but again presumably full frame or crop effects what lens lengths you want?

Anyone got any suggestions of an (I'm guessing entry level) full frame and a (presumably mid range) crop by the same manufacturer (she seems to prefer Nikon at the moment) so we can hunt down some reviews and compare to see if she can work out what she really wants/needs? No real idea on budget at the moment but entry level full frame seems to put us in the £1000 range for the body.

ukaskew

10,642 posts

220 months

Monday 31st October 2016
quotequote all
In general terms spending a lot on a full-frame camera and less on glass (particularly long glass) is less beneficial than spending quite a bit less on a body (APS-C, M-43, whatever) and the rest on better glass.

Many people (even pros) shooting long stuff such as birds and aircraft actually use APS-C/crop bodies for the extra reach.

£1250 will buy you a new Nikon D610 full-frame camera, £750 will buy you a new Nikon D7200 (crop) camera. I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the £500 extra would be worth it for a competent/enthusiastic amateur.


RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Monday 31st October 2016
quotequote all
Full frame has a few absolute advantages over crop.

Lower noise - by a little over one stop (or up to two). so if you shoot in the dark much this is good.

Shallower depth of field - again by 1.2 stops or so, for portraits this is ideal to separate your subject from background. You can do this on crop but its easier/cheaper on FF.


Downsides is you need longer lenses for the same field of view, and/or bigger/chunkier lenses ot cover the larger sensor.

So for a portrait where a FF user might be using an 85/1.8 a crop user would be using a 50/1.8, the FF. The FF user will get a lot shallower DOF if required (you can always stop down..)

I also find FF bodies tend to have better dynamic range and colour range so landscapes work out better - but this is not always true just a by product of the level of gear.

Theres nothing wrong with going straight to FF but almost all of the input into a great photo is down to the photographer, some about the lens, very little about the camera body itself.

DibblyDobbler

11,257 posts

196 months

Monday 31st October 2016
quotequote all
I wouldn't bother going FF unless there's a specific need - why not upgrade her to the most up to date Sony crop body eg something like an A6300? I *think* the lenses she has would fit (but please check!) smile

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Monday 31st October 2016
quotequote all
A300 is an Alpha mount, the mirrorless are FE mount, so an adaptor would be required.

DibblyDobbler

11,257 posts

196 months

Monday 31st October 2016
quotequote all
Ah sorry - my mistake.

rottie102

3,993 posts

183 months

Monday 31st October 2016
quotequote all
DibblyDobbler said:
I wouldn't bother going FF unless there's a specific need - why not upgrade her to the most up to date Sony crop body eg something like an A6300? I *think* the lenses she has would fit (but please check!) smile
Full Frame A7 will be cheaper than A6300 smile

Lynchie999

3,421 posts

152 months

Monday 31st October 2016
quotequote all
A68 or A77ii if you want to keep your lenses!

RizzoTheRat

Original Poster:

25,085 posts

191 months

Tuesday 1st November 2016
quotequote all
Hadn't really thought about sticking with Sony to reuse the lenses. Might be a sensible plan to go for a Sony body now and then upgrade lenses later.

How do the Sony's generally compare with the Canon and Nikons that seem to be used by 90% of people? Are there as good a range of lenses available for them as for the more popular brands?

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Tuesday 1st November 2016
quotequote all
RizzoTheRat said:
How do the Sony's generally compare with the Canon and Nikons that seem to be used by 90% of people? Are there as good a range of lenses available for them as for the more popular brands?
If you want a whole world-full of new, s/h and exotic lenses to choose from, Nikon and Canon are your friends.

singlecoil

33,311 posts

245 months

Tuesday 1st November 2016
quotequote all
RizzoTheRat said:
How do the Sony's generally compare with the Canon and Nikons that seem to be used by 90% of people? Are there as good a range of lenses available for them as for the more popular brands?
If you get on YouTube you will find more videos expressing opinions on that subject than you can wave the leg of a monopod at.

Some of those opinions will be paid for, so bear that in mind.

RizzoTheRat

Original Poster:

25,085 posts

191 months

Tuesday 1st November 2016
quotequote all
Even the unpaid ones don't seem that objective, usually when people start discussing Canon vs Nikon the eventual decision is one is better than the other because the other smells of wee biggrin

I think the available range of second hand kit might turn out to be a major point in the favor of Canon/Nikon over Sony.

DibblyDobbler

11,257 posts

196 months

Tuesday 1st November 2016
quotequote all
For what it is worth I have just switched from Canon FF to Fuji (XT1) and have no regrets. Lovely camera to use, good lens range and nice RAW and jpegs to play with smile

andy-xr

13,204 posts

203 months

Tuesday 1st November 2016
quotequote all
Comparing the D300 and D700, which had pretty similar processors and sensors, the D300 was crop the D700 was full frame. There was a quality to the full frame that you couldnt quite put into words, but same shot, same lens, it was noticeably smoother and just a lot cleaner. That doesnt quite say what I mean, and i dont have reference photos anymore, but hopefully you get the distinction

Whether it's worth it? Depends. For me, it wasnt - I sold both and bought a pro-sumer with a high pixel count and a superzoom lens which covered 99% of what I wanted to do. The other 1% I wasnt that bothered about anyway

For reach, a full frame is probably a bit of a disadvantage (eg birds over in that tree) because of the crop ratio. But if you've a lens long enough then it's not such an issue

The thing is though, I saw a retoucher pull a jpeg off an old Canon 20D and edit it into one of the nicest photos I've ever seen, and there was me with my £1500 camera body and £800 lens not getting half as good out of the camera, sticking them on Flickr at 800px longest side.

Having a bit of knowledge on what you're doing with the camera and what you're doing with the photo is better than buying shinier stuff just because

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Tuesday 1st November 2016
quotequote all
andy-xr said:
Comparing the D300 and D700, which had pretty similar processors and sensors, the D300 was crop the D700 was full frame. There was a quality to the full frame that you couldnt quite put into words, but same shot, same lens, it was noticeably smoother and just a lot cleaner.
RAW or JPG? If you were shooting JPG then the D700 could have been applying different processing parameters. If RAW then it's a fairer comparison but I don't see how full frame = 'smooth'. What is 'smooth' anyway?

Shaoxter

4,048 posts

123 months

Tuesday 1st November 2016
quotequote all
Well I went from a Nikon D90 to a D800 (with the 24-70 f/2.8) and it was a huge step up. I'm still very much a novice but the pictures were just so much more "professional" looking. Not sure if it's just the better depth of field or better glass but you will notice a big difference.

The body + lens was about £3k but using some man maths it's not that much when you depreciate it over time smile

ukaskew

10,642 posts

220 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
The D5500 seems quite nicely placed in terms of value/performance now, superb image quality, high ISO performance and dynamic range. Stick the awesome little 35mm 1.8 DX on it for day to day stuff, add the surprisingly good 70-300mm VR for longer stuff and you have a complete setup for just over a grand, or less than any current Nikon FF body alone.

C&C

3,281 posts

220 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
andy-xr said:
Comparing the D300 and D700, which had pretty similar processors and sensors, the D300 was crop the D700 was full frame. There was a quality to the full frame that you couldnt quite put into words, but same shot, same lens, it was noticeably smoother and just a lot cleaner.
RAW or JPG? If you were shooting JPG then the D700 could have been applying different processing parameters. If RAW then it's a fairer comparison but I don't see how full frame = 'smooth'. What is 'smooth' anyway?
Whilst this is obviously totally subjective, I felt similar when I added a Canon 5D (mark 1) to the 40D I'd been using. The full frame seemed to have a different quality to the images. For reference I always shoot RAW and process similarly.

Although totally different situations, one of the first things I shot on the 5D was our cricket dinner, and found I really liked the look of the photos. I remember clearly having a smile on my face loading them into photoshop thinking that getting the 5D had been a good decision:

web_2793
by conradsphotos, on Flickr

As opposed to the following shot on the 40D crop sensor:
Web_IMG_1763
by conradsphotos, on Flickr

As I said, totally different situations but both with decent lenses (the top on the Canon 24-105 F4L, the bottom on the Sigma 120-300 f2.8).

It was something that is hard to put your finger on (and may not be obvious here), but really hit me when I was processing the images from that first set from the 5D.

I kept both bodies and still used the 40D for faster moving subjects (motorsport) and longer reach (birds).

I have since upgraded to the 5D Mark 3 and now tend to use this almost all the time as (apart from the reach) it does everything really well.

Example of the detail available with the 5D3 and the same Sigma 120-300, particularly if you zoom in on the eyes:
Amur_Leopard_A3_300dpi
by conradsphotos, on Flickr




As others have said, whether this is enough reason for you to go full frame is a decision only you can make, as obviously the increased cost in both bodies and lenses will be significant.

Also in terms of Sony/Canon/Nikon, a number of years ago I used Minolta film cameras - had 2 x 9xi which were brilliant and had a great flash system - 1/300th second flash sync, 1/12000 second fastest shutter speed and built in 4.5 fps motor drive. Bought the Minolta Digital body when it came out (Minolta were then bought by Sony), but a short while later sold it all and went Canon. At the time I wanted to go with one of the 2 bigger players due to wider kit availability etc.. Only reason I went Canon was comparing the Canon 40D with the Nikon D300 at the time, I just got on better personally with the way it worked, menus etc. Both manufacturers make great kit, and over time one has led slightly with the latest body, then the other, but you can't go far wrong with either. Great lenses available for both.

ETA - Final point made by Andy-XR is a good one. Regardless of the kit, the most important factor is the skill of whoever's driving it, and that is one thing that can be continually improved.... which is what makes this photography thing so much fun. smile



Edited by C&C on Wednesday 2nd November 10:49

RizzoTheRat

Original Poster:

25,085 posts

191 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
[quote=C&C]
ETA - Final point made by Andy-XR is a good one. Regardless of the kit, the most important factor is the skill of whoever's driving it, and that is one thing that can be continually improved.... which is what makes this photography thing so much fun. smile

[/quote]

Yeah, she's getting reasonably good and tends to experiment a bit, but it's a good point that there's always more to learn. I think sitting in a hide struggling to get a decent shot of a kingfisher with too short a lens the other day while the bloke next to her with a huge lens rattled of several shots a second might have given her new camera ambitions a little extra kick biggrin

C&C

3,281 posts

220 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
RizzoTheRat said:
I think sitting in a hide struggling to get a decent shot of a kingfisher with too short a lens the other day while the bloke next to her with a huge lens rattled of several shots a second might have given her new camera ambitions a little extra kick biggrin
Shooting birds is probably the single most obvious situation where the better kit makes such a big difference!
Having said that, the really big lenses come with huge prices and equally huge weight/size.
Friend just bought a 600mm f4L IS II - but he's pretty seriously into the bird photography.