Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor

letmethefuqin on 02/03/2016 - 15:28

This is always an interesting subject to have..

Was having the discussion of Full Frame vs Crop with a friend that is about to jump for a 70d to a full frame (I shoot Nikon so I don't know)
And they where telling me I need to go full Frame (I have been looking at a Nikon D610 forever)

But Then It got me wondering.. Everything I shoot is indoor, based around people/models
With the odd bit of 'Landscape' when I go on road trips.
Even then, these pictures only ever end up on FB/Instagram with the rare few actually getting printed.

I just can't see the Benefit of going Full frame, unless i'm missing something quality/HDR wise?

Why did you end up going full frame?

Electrical & Electronics

Comments

  • BigglesKDH on 02/03/2016 - 15:44
    +2

    If it is only for FB/instagram then why not just spend the money on a decent cropped sensor lens (or two)?
    The cost of a full frame camera and then full frame lenses to go with it would be a expensive exercise just for facebook photos that are going to be resized smaller than crop sensor resolution anyway.

  • Evil-Elmo on 02/03/2016 - 15:49
    +1

    I don't think there is any doubt that FF produces a better image in nearly all circumstances. However, whether this is noticeable in the intended application (e.g. downsized web) or whether it's worth it for the added bulk, weight, and cost is another matter.

    Personally, for my usage, I prefer APS-C because it's cheaper and lighter and I'm more than happy with the results. If, however, I were a professional photographer I'm sure I'd go FF.

    • zealmax on 02/03/2016 - 16:08

      FF in the same generation as the crop, will always produce better image quality. However, they will produce different perspective. I would take cheapo 750D over 5D first gen any day.

  • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2016 - 16:48
    +2

    Been rocking a 5DMII for a few years now, upgraded from a 40D. The move from 40D to 5DMII was partly for the larger MP count, better low light performance, and much better sensor capability. At the time I was doing some paid real estate work which got blown up to sales boards that got stuck into the ground outside homes. I needed my 17-40mm to be capturing their real wide angle capabilities.

    Your friend is a fool, you do not need a FF. If your work is never seeing print bigger than A3, I would not bother, I doubt you could tell the difference, even then, most reasonable printed sizes you would have to know what you're looking for or compare side by side to know.

    Save the money and buy lenses instead!

  • tonyjzx on 02/03/2016 - 17:04
    +4

    If you dont know if you need full frame, you dont need full frame.

  • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2016 - 17:47

    I went FF because I wanted my 35mm lens on film, to be 35mm on digital as well.
    But after getting FF digital, I still prefer using the film camera.

  • IdBuyThat4aDollar on 02/03/2016 - 18:22

    FF if you can afford it. FF bodies are a lot cheaper these days (under $2k depending on the model). But then FF lenses get pretty expensive.

    Personally I shoot with a D7100 (crop sensor) and I reckon my photos are alright quality wise.

  • SuperMick on 02/03/2016 - 19:52

    I have been working as a professional photographer, for the last 7 years. I work for a regional newspaper, doing sports photography. My job is only part time so I am happy with that. I own a Nikon D800, I only bought it for its cropping. Before that I had a D80. I keep thinking about a D5, but I need to do lots of work to get the $5000 back. My advice, for what its worth, if you are not going to use the full frame, and not into photoshop, then stick with what you know

  • OzBestDeal on 02/03/2016 - 21:15

    I shoot lots of low lights, but I won't consider FF cameras even though they give me extra 1-2 stops, mainly due to the bulk of most FF cameras.
    Faster lens will easily fix the shortage of cropped sensors.
    Now that Sony came up with those alpha series, it might be a game changer for me…

    • SuperMick on 02/03/2016 - 22:23
      +1

      Sorry I honestly dont think that you know what you are talking about.

    • SuperMick on 02/03/2016 - 22:23

      Sorry I honestly dont think that you know what you are talking about.

      • tonyjzx on 03/03/2016 - 10:06

        There's so much wrong with what he said that I'm not even sure its not deliberate.

        And then hey said "Sony is a gamechanger"…. LOL

  • mistermr6 on 03/03/2016 - 08:50

    I'm an amateur and also rarely get anything printed - even then it's usually just 4x6. Based on all my research and similar to what a few people here are stating I started of on a crop sensor and my last camera was a 7D (at that time the top end crop from Canon) with some decent glass (a 50 1.4 and a 70-200L). I recently upgraded to a Canon 6D FF and I don't think I could go back… Not because it gives me more megapixels but because it lets me shoot in lower light without a flash and also the pictures just seem to 'pop' more even just for sending the pics through whatsapp I get comments on the quality of them..

    To the user who said they weigh too much - depends on what you're comparing it to - from a 'plastic' entry level slr sure but compared to something like a 7d the weight is basically the same!

    So don't knock the FF until you've tried it…. BUT as everyone says spend more money on your glass and less on the body :-)

  • zealmax on 03/03/2016 - 10:47

    Your friend will know when he needs FF, and until then just concentrate on taking good looking photographs.

  • [Deactivated] on 03/03/2016 - 17:51

    D3300 and I have a few grand worth of lenses.
    The camera for me is the least important piece of the puzzle.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join