Full Frame?

thanks john well put.

I agree that mattp should learn to use what he has already-his small photo is very dark and under-exposed,no 'professional' lighting so how is he going to get 'paying'customers if that is a sample? I wouldn't pay for a studio session to get dark results!

The APS-C sensor is full frame as far as most of my modern lenses is concerned. I would have to invest in bigger (and longer) lenses if I switched to a camera with a larger sensor.

I don't see the need anyway while the quality and power of APS-C sensors continues to improve. The K20D, for example, seems to have done the "impossible" in providing more pixels yet lower noise than the preious model with the same sensor size.

In twenty years time, we'll be talking about gigapixels on a sensor the size of a pin head, and great huge cameras will only be found in museums.

Don't think like Canon and Nikon. Think ahead - like hopefully what Pentax are doing.

Of course a "FF" Pentax dSLR would cause excitement, but think how more useful for more people a K30D would be if it was similar to the K20D but even better.

It will all depend on sales. If Canon, Nikon and Sony start to make progress with FF then everyone will have to follow.

That of course has nothing to do with what we need and I guess a K30D in due course will be more than sufficient to make some great images. But then again the K10D can already do that in the right hands.

No I don't expect new members to search before posting a question. It doesn't hurt to point out there is a search facility though so that people can look at earlier debates/answers on a question.

I asked why he thought he needed a FF camera for professional studio work, and pointed out, as others have since done, that a FF is not necessary for this - plenty of top profs use APS-C cameras. I didn't receive an answer to that question merely a rather nasty reply to my statement about being bored by the whole FF debate.

Hi,

Right........... Gwyn i wasnt being nasty, just saying that if i was fed up of hearing about full frame and saw a new post about full fram then i wouldnt even look at it if it annoyed me. As for the dark picture , lol , that was taken with a 0.3mp webcam!!##The reason i was on about full frame is that i have seen canon,nikon and sony releasing them and did a little research on google and it said that full frame is much better for noise levels. I have no doubt that in a well lit studio then it will be overkill probably but it was just a question.

Truce?

Matt. I think you've jumped to the wrong conclusion re: noise levels.

It's higher pixel density that causes noise. I was going to start explaining it, but found this on the net & it sums up what I was gonna say - so I've taken the lazy copy & paste option.

Full frame is 36mm x 24mm

APS-C is roughly 22.2mm x 14.8mm

I say 'roughly' because the size of an APS-C sensor can be slightly different between camera manufacturers, though the difference is negligible.

Given that you have a 10mpx camera, one at Full Frame, one at APS-C, the full frame camera will provide the best result in low-light. This is because the same amount of pixels are spread out over a larger area, which allows some spacebetween each pixels.

This is good because when each pixel is placed further from each other, it is less likeley that the electrical charges 'spill' from one pixel to another - this is more prevalent when using high ISO speeds.

When the pixels are placed closer to each other, there is more chance that the adjacent pixel will be receiving electrical 'spillage' from the adjacent pixel when the ISO is turned up.

Long exposures and/or high ISO's increase the sensitivity of the sensor so if you do either or both of these, it increases the chances of 'noise' appearing in your pictures. This is why when engaging either of these two methods - a camera with a full frame sensor, or comparitively a camera with a lower pixel density (x number of pixels over larger sensor area) will have a cleaner, less noisy picture than a camera with a higher density of pixels (x number of pixels over a smaller sensor area).

Hope this helps your understanding Matt. One thing I would add though, is that APS would provide an advantage in the studio as it gives greater depth of field than a FF equivalent. This is not so good when trying to isolate subjects in an uncontrolled environment by throwing the background out of focus. In the studio however the background is controlled & therefore greater DOF is an advantage.

Ok 2 things to add - Some pros are using the Olympus E3 which has a crop factor of 2 over FF & this really suffers from noise at high iso. but is delivering excellent results in the studio at base iso.

Ok 3 I think the megapixel race will thankfully start to slow shortly as sensors are starting to out resolve all but the best lenses. Affordable glass will be the limiting factor in Image Quality terms for hobbyist photography over the next few years I think.

Hi,

Thanks for the explanation. I probably couldnt afford a ff anyway , but was just asking the question.

Matt

If you don't ask, you can't learn! Good luck with your venture and I look forward to seeing your efforts, it will likely be a lot less than 5 years if you stay focused. Posting pictures in the gallary will invite comments and help you to improve.

In the meantime, spend your money on good lenses, good lights and reflectors.

Hi Mattp,

I'm not the greatest tog but if you care to look in my ephotozine gallery you will see what the *istD and K10D can do in a studio (the latest half dozen were from a D300, but that's another story ). Noise levels in a studio are irrelevant as you will mostely be using the camera at the lowest ISO (100/200) setting available. For club comps a lot of these images have been printed at 18 x 12 (by ProAm Imaging) and have have been well recieved, a few winners too .

Mattp,
My last two shots on epz are "studio style" - actually shot outdoors in the evening with a single remote flash and reflector. But it'll give you a small idea of what the K20D is capable of:
"Sweet Nothings" & "Hold Me Close" - both shot at ISO640 and are incredibly detailed.
(As mentioned earlier, it's the lighting that does most of the work )
Matt