Does FF make your photos pop?

[stabmasterasron]

I think there could be something else at work here. I have thought about this same issue for quite some time. When you troll the flickr groups for the full framers (like the 5D group or the 5Dmkii group) you will see some stunning photos. Then you go to the crop group (maybe a rebel group) and the photos are still good, but maybe just a notch lower. I think what could be happening here has less to do with camera and sensor and more to do with skill levels of photographers. I think it is more likely that if a photog is shooting full frame, they probably have many years of expience with lighting, composition and all the little details that make a stunning photo. Now I am not implying that there are not good rebel shooters, there certainly are. But the overall skill level when looking at large groups of photos could be lower from a rebel group than from a FF group.
Do I think there is an advantage to FF camera? I think there probably is. But I think the skill of a photographer is many times more important than the equipment they are using.
By the way, I do believe that the photos you selected as examples of what a FF can do are very good compositionally and also most likely heavily post processed. You are comparing them to your photos which are weaker in composition and jpg's straight from your camera. I don't think this is a very good comparison.

 

[JerryBruck]

Agree with neuro but with viggo too -- in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing FF can help produce a very pleasing difference (at least on the evidence of looking at some other people's FFs).

But then again how high should this concern rank, in the drive to make pictures that stun? Is the following FF? http://photomoment.bg/photo/82375 (Check the EXIF data.)

Professionals naturally concern themselves with efficiency and keeping up with those Joneses, but among serious amateurs, where most of the memorable work seems to come from, does an obsession with equipment do any good? Or can less be more?

@stabmastereason: I've had some opposite impressions looking at Flicker. For example check the tag for Zeiss Distagon 35mm f1.4 -- heartbreaking.

 

[ghosh9691]

I guess there are people here who feel that their photographic talents are being constrained by anything other than a full-frame camera and they are trying to justify the cost of upgrading to a full-frame. Well, why do you need justification from others? It's really a simple matter: if you have the budget, then you should go ahead and get one.

Don't talk rot about FF having more "pop" than APS-C. There are umpteen number of photos (and photogs) out there shooting APS-C professionally and their photos have equal amount of pop as anyone else shooting FF.

Don't believe me? Here are some samples from Flickr (these aren't mine, but they illustrate the point - and they were shot with a Rebel T2i):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/robbyryke/6846645823/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilovelotsofpizza/4675165898/#

And if these still do not have enough pop and don't jump out of the screen/print, then maybe ya'll should consider this camera: http://www.shopfujifilm.com/detail/FUJ+16082969

 

[JerryBruck]

@DarStone: You made steel wool of that poor little girl's hair "with just a little editing"! I'm calling Child Protective Services before you can get your hands on her raw.

 

[ejenner]

My photos from my 5DII suck just as bad as with my T1i, but I feel like a better photographer with the 5DII in my hands. Maybe FF is enough for extra inspiration and thought?

Seriously though, choosing a 5DII over a 7D came down to addressing specific issues I had with the T1i and had nothing to do with going FF per-se.

 

[stabmasterasron]

By the way, I know the OP was looking for a photo that popped from a crop sensor. I am not pro, but here is a picture of I took of my daughter that seems to have some of that magic. I shot it with a Rebel XS with no special lighting setup (although the natural lighting was quite good). I am pretty sure I shot it with the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, a good lens, but most here would probably not consider great. Maybe I just got lucky.

 

[Kernuak]

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned. If you have control over the position of the subject, then moving them away from the background will give you more separation and give you similar amounts of blur if you position them right. Because full frame is often the choice of studio photographers, there is a greater chance that they have actually set up the positioning, therefore they have more options when it comes to aperture choice. Of course for candid shots this isn't always possible, although you do have the option of moving yourself, so that you can choose a different background that is further away.

 

[Viggo]

I guess there are people here who feel that their photographic talents are being constrained by anything other than a full-frame camera and they are trying to justify the cost of upgrading to a full-frame. Well, why do you need justification from others? It's really a simple matter: if you have the budget, then you should go ahead and get one.

Don't talk rot about FF having more "pop" than APS-C. There are umpteen number of photos (and photogs) out there shooting APS-C professionally and their photos have equal amount of pop as anyone else shooting FF.

Don't believe me? Here are some samples from Flickr (these aren't mine, but they illustrate the point - and they were shot with a Rebel T2i):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/robbyryke/6846645823/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilovelotsofpizza/4675165898/#

And if these still do not have enough pop and don't jump out of the screen/print, then maybe ya'll should consider this camera: http://www.shopfujifilm.com/detail/FUJ+16082969

I guess it has something to do with what you shoot also. From my perspective, I shoot a lot of my images at larger than f2,0 apertures, and that gives the FF cameras a huge advantage, but other styles may not be THAT much different, for example at f11 snapshots with useless light ;D

But these two examples, to me at least, prove the difference I see with my own images. It's too snapshotty.

This is my personal taste, and I'm not here to dog the aps-c, but for ME, the images will always be better no matter what you shoot with a fullframe. And extremely often, isn't very difficult to see what image shot with what, although there can be a garabage picture with a FF and a fantastic, optimal with an aps-c camera that won't tell the whole story. But there is a reason Canon released the FF cameras, and we will see more of them.

The x-factor or magic of the FF camera isn't that at all. It's much smoother gradients between light and dark, less depth which really show off the smoother better bokeh of those lenses used, it's better dynamic range and less noise.

My last comment for this thread, I just had to argue with that it's "no difference, it's all light and skill and framing" it isn't.....

it's the same as saying it's better to buy a polarizer than a better lens, no it isn't, because they also sell polarizer for the more expensive lens. It's the same as saying, learn how to sharpen and shoot raw and you don't need the more expensive lens, but you can also sharpen the images from the more expensive lens , so the better gear will always keep their advantage....

 

[JT13]

I like the second horse picture best. Interestingly, it has the lower focal range (85mm vs. 200mm) and the lower aperture (2.8 vs. 1.2) which goes against all the technical rules mentioned so far.
The main reason for me is the contrast and the sharp head in front of a dark background.
To be fair the perspective and focus are not completely equal.

Most of the crop pictures posted are really great but don't have that three-dimensional feel to me.
That might be very subjective.

I love Viggo's photo, that is exactly what I mean.

I think the reason for it are sharp edges, either by blurring the background or high contrasts.
The boy's head and shoulders as well as the woman's face really stand out from the background.

The girl's chin blends in with the background and therefore doesn't give me the feel of depth.

BTW, I don't like 3D movies. I am not after some gimmick but great IQ.
Good plasmas also create a light spatial impression.

 

[TexPhoto]

I like to think that I as a photographer, make my images pop.


Untitled by TexPhoto, on Flickr

 

[AJ]

This thread seems to equate "pop" with selective focus.

Personally I think "pop" is more of a matter of good colors, microcontrast, and composition where the eye immediately goes to the main subject. Large-dof compositions like landscapes can have pop too.

Good color and microcontrast is a function of good light, good composition (e.g. no supercontrasty background), competent post-processing, and a quality lens. Sensor format doesn't matter as much.

As for shallow dof. Yes full-frame will help with this. But I think blur is often overdone. Let's go back to the first photo.

If this photo was shot with ultrashallow dof, the lanterns in the background would just be a sea of yellow. But with the photog's choice of dof we can make out some detail. Not enough detail to distract, but just enough to tell what's going on. In other words, dof is just right. This photo could have been shot with either crop or FF gear.

 

[NotABunny]

Photography is about LIGHT (= natural or artifical, mood giving), GEOMETRY (= composition, distortions due to the focal length and angle of view, depth of field / background blur) and EMOTION. Post-processing is used to alter the light / color and geometry after the fact.


The photo with the asian kid is lacking light on the kid's face (to make the subject pop more).
The second has bad geometry. It just looks distorted.
The giraffe... ummm... while butts can make very good photos, that's just not one of them.
The valley shot is awful - all blurry and with bad light (= low and monochromatic) in the valley. (The geometry is good though.)
The clock tower should have been without the building on the right side (= it just unbalances the tower) and post-processed to give it contrast.
The beach + sea is nice, but it still feels unbalanced because both land and see are about equal in size. Usually in such cases the sea takes most of the photo.
The black dude with the crazy hair is good, but too tight and has The Finger, plus it could have used some fill light for the eyes.
The girl would make really good portrait photos, but this one is overcrowded and the girl is centered.
The toddler shot is crowded and has the red hue due to the red umbrella filtering the sunlight.

The background on the FF shots isn't more blurred than in my pics.
So, I don't think it is about the aperture.

Do I need to catch the right light and shoot from a slight up-/downward angle?

Normally, if you use a long focal length and shoot (a portrait) from a slight up-/downward angle, it's not going to show good geometry, it just feels slightly off and nothing more; you really need the space to use a hefty off angle. A short focal length is going to amplify the view, like this: http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/090518/16/4a11ef9f15285.jpg or http://pics.livejournal.com/klyukovkin/pic/0002r0g3 (I couldn't find the color corrected one that I have on my computer)

Here is a shot at F 7.1 and 200 mm (not full frame camera) to show that in the end it's all about breaking the rules: https://plus.google.com/photos/106877334390873766615/albums/5659712870189269345/5659713156902762434


And remember, not everything makes good subjects

 

[smirkypants]

I think it's plenty easy to get photos that pop with a crop sensor camera. I took this in the park last Friday. With a 1.4 lens it's easy to manage depth of field on a crop sensor camera. Cheers.

 

[elflord]

I guess it has something to do with what you shoot also. From my perspective, I shoot a lot of my images at larger than f2,0 apertures, and that gives the FF cameras a huge advantage,

True, and that's the main thing that sets FF apart as a portrait camera.

The x-factor or magic of the FF camera isn't that at all. It's much smoother gradients between light and dark, less depth which really show off the smoother better bokeh of those lenses used, it's better dynamic range and less noise.

Compared to a body like the 7D, the 5D is about 1 stop better across the ISO range. So in practice, if you're shooting low ISOs, you won't see a huge difference. BTW, some of the new APS-C sensors from Sony do better in the dynamic range component of the DXO mark at low ISOs.

My last comment for this thread, I just had to argue with that it's "no difference, it's all light and skill and framing" it isn't.....

If OP had asked, "I want a camera for shooting portraits and landscapes. Should I get a 5D or 7D ?", I would have voted for the full frame. But the "pop" that the OP is talking about really does seem to be largely about better photography -- a mix of composition, light, and perhaps some post processing skills.

A full frame camera will perform much better at high ISOs (the 5D MkII is about 2 stops better than my old rebel XS) and provide some shallow dof options, but it won't fix problems in front of or behind the camera.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think it's plenty easy to get photos that pop with a crop sensor camera.

If you want to see 'pop' in your photos, get a full frame camera. It really is that simple. After spending thousands on a new camera, you will immediately start seeing that pop, whether it's really there or not. Mind over reality - works wonders. :

 

[ghosh9691]

I think it's plenty easy to get photos that pop with a crop sensor camera.

If you want to see 'pop' in your photos, get a full frame camera. It really is that simple. After spending thousands on a new camera, you will immediately start seeing that pop, whether it's really there or not. Mind over reality - works wonders. :

Depending on how many thousands one spends on a full frame camera, one might start seeing disco lights instead of pop

 

[JT13]

I think the attempts to ridicule me are unnecessary. :-X

My definition of "pop" was:
"The main reason for considering FF is that I sometimes see photos that have something mine are missing. It is hard to put a finger on it. It is a certain brilliance that gives the pictures the impression of depth. While there seems nothing obvious to be wrong with my photos they are “flat” and unspectacular in comparison.
Has one of you encountered something similar? I am not even sure if it is the FF or composition, light, post procession, primes etc.
In my pictures nothing pops out, everything seems to be on one plane."

I described my impressions on different photos and tried to put it into technical terms.

Still, none of the posted crop photos made a similar impression on me like the two shots in my last post.
BTW, I never claimed that all FF pics look great, but the ones I like best were taken with a FF.
How about a "blind" test to make sure that not my wish for a FF is misleading me?

 

[frisk]

As for shallow dof. Yes full-frame will help with this. But I think blur is often overdone. Let's go back to the first photo.

Indeed, it can be overdone. Consider this: crop camera 85mm @ f1.2

It is interesting to see the narrow strip of gravel that is in focus, as it demonstrates how "thin" the area in focus really is....but the overall effect might perhaps have been more pleasing with if this was less extreme.

Having said that, I really want to put my 50mm f/1.0 lens on a FF camera and play around with it a bit.....

 

[wellfedCanuck]

I think it's plenty easy to get photos that pop with a crop sensor camera.

If you want to see 'pop' in your photos, get a full frame camera. It really is that simple. After spending thousands on a new camera, you will immediately start seeing that pop, whether it's really there or not. Mind over reality - works wonders. :

Depending on how many thousands one spends on a full frame camera, one might start seeing disco lights instead of pop

Or stars when your spouse sees how much you spent...

 

[Viggo]

I guess it has something to do with what you shoot also. From my perspective, I shoot a lot of my images at larger than f2,0 apertures, and that gives the FF cameras a huge advantage,


Compared to a body like the 7D, the 5D is about 1 stop better across the ISO range. So in practice, if you're shooting low ISOs, you won't see a huge difference. BTW, some of the new APS-C sensors from Sony do better in the dynamic range component of the DXO mark at low ISOs.

Have you even tried these cameras?

The lower iso's of the 5d is waaaaaay cleaner than the 7d, are you kidding me?

The 5d is also much better at the lower iso's compared to the 1d4. And, ahrg, pay attention so I don't have to write the same stuff all over, the difference in the overall IQ and "feel" of the image on the 5d2 compared to the mk4 is huge! If you don't see it, then fine, you saved a lot of money, but don't give me quotes from DxO marks telling me otherwise.