Full Frame for the Insecure?

Dodge69 · 2011-09-20T11:18:27+0100

'Hi, I am going full frame so my gear has to go' - sound familiar? I'm wondering if some people move to full frame because they feel insecure about their equipment, or think it will magically turn them into professionals? Do they stand at a view point and feel insecure because the guy next to them is 'holding something bigger in his hands'? Why I'm scratching my head - ISO performance of the latest generation of ASP-C sensors more than matching something like the Canon 5D Mark II 'I need a bigger sensor' - 'I need it for landscape' - buy a Sigma 10-20mm or 8-16mm 'I need more detail' - a 16m pixel ASP-C given the crop is essentially around 20m pixel Full Frame, pixels are not the whole story with regard picture quality, and how big are the prints you're actually planning to make? (Is there something else I am missing/got wrong? ) Obviously I am talking about comparison to moderately priced Full Frame gear (if there is such a thing), I know the very high end stuff is in its own league, but I find it unlikely your average joe would make the leap to that expense? Be interested to hear what people think, guess I am feeling insecure myself... :-)

General Digital Photography DiscussionGeneral Digital Phot...

Add Comment

scathontiphat scathontiphat

63 posts
15 years
Yorkshire

Posted 11/10/2011 - 18:46 Link

To me full frame versus crop frame is almost exactly like any other gear or technique related question you see on forums. And it comes down to a simple: If you have to ask, it probably doesn't matter.

Pentax makes great little cameras with great features and build quality for the price. Dxo test aside, real world performance 5DII beats out the K-5. Sorry, just does. I wanted to believe the K-5 could run with the 5dII in image quality, and that's why I bought one, but it just can't. There's more to camera/lens performance than lab tests. I had/have a K-5 with a set of FA ltd lenses. I've worked a lot with a 5DII + L lenses, great camera (although full kit with lenses is 2-3 times the cost of a k-5 kit). I've also worked a lot with Hasselblad H3 and H4 cameras with Phase One and Hasseblad backs which are even nicer than the 5DII (although the 5DII has WAAAY better ISO performance, hell the k-5 probably has better high ISO performance. And sometimes I prefer the 5Dii response to highlights over the Phase and Blad backs. And now you're talking 20times the cost of a K-5).

Also worked with the original 5D and I'd take a K-5 over the original 5d any day no QUESTION!

When it comes down to it though. These are all just tools. A great photo comes from the photographer, not the camera. And anyone buying a new camera thinking they will make "better" photos or turn them into a professional is fooling themselves. That's like upgrading to the newest version of Photoshop and expecting your photos to get better. Just tools. And anybody who "NEEDS" anything and goes onto a forum to lament about it probably needs something other than new gear Just worked on a shoot that resulted in 48sheet prints (billboards) shot on a canon 5dmkii. Looks fine. You don't "need" extra detail. You might want it (and hot dog, I love it) but you don't really ever "need" it. And to me, who's to say you shouldn't get something nicer even if you don't need it

Dodge69 wrote:

Obviously I am talking about comparison to moderately priced Full Frame gear (if there is such a thing), I know the very high end stuff is in its own league, but I find it unlikely your average joe would make the leap to that expense?

actually, on the Canon side (I've never worked with Nikon) at the moment the top of the line Canon (1DS mk III) isn't really any better IQ wise. I've worked with this camera as well, and while it has a ton of great pro features, fantastic build quality, and great AF, the final image quality is no better than the 5dmkii.

Edited by scathontiphat: 11/10/2011 - 19:00