Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor

[mackguyver]

So why is a jpeg out of camera suddenly sacred and exempt from further modification?

Because the 'pure photographers' say so. Come to think of it, Nikon should really have made the Df a JPG-only camera.

+1 and it would have made more sense if they had limited you to 36 24 exposures and one ISO setting per day - and a built-in "protection" that would have made it impossible to use a zoom

 

[Larry]

Perhaps you should just focus on perfecting your quoting technique first

What?

I have an imperfection?

I was afraid it would happen someday!

How can I go on? :-[

( …at least I know how to spell screwball.)

 

[candc]

Ansel Adams was known for saying "50 % of the creative process happens in the darkroom"

 

[Sporgon]

Those who think that an image should be perfect from the camera have clearly never worked with film. Negative film was all about the developing and printing. Those on this thread who call post processing 'editing' and not photography are way off the mark. Post processing ( aka developing and printing) has ways been an integral part of photography.

"But transparencies were straight from the camera"! Not so in the professional world. When I was in my teens and used to assist some pretty well known London photographers even transparencies were 'post processed'. Test strips were developed from a shoot, and then the developing process (generally time) was adjusted depending upon what the initial test clips had shown. Colour was added by duping; that is re photographing the transparency with selective colour.

Processing is as much photography as firing the shutter; always has been.

I think what Stella is meaning is that as a photographer you can become complacent about exposure when always shooting RAW. There was a staunch advocate of shooting RAW on CR about six months ago, who I think has now left, and he stated that a full stop difference in exposure was neither here nor there. That's a mistake in my opinion. Nailing the optimum exposure for a scene makes for better IQ in the image - thank goodness. I hope that will continue.

 

[jdramirez]

Ansel Adams was known for saying "50 % of the creative process happens in the darkroom"

That was his pickup line at bars...

 

[jdramirez]

Those who think that an image should be perfect from the camera have clearly never worked with film. Negative film was all about the developing and printing. Those on this thread who call post processing 'editing' and not photography are way off the mark. Post processing ( aka developing and printing) has ways been an integral part of photography.

"But transparencies were straight from the camera"! Not so in the professional world. When I was in my teens and used to assist some pretty well known London photographers even transparencies were 'post processed'. Test strips were developed from a shoot, and then the developing process (generally time) was adjusted depending upon what the initial test clips had shown. Colour was added by duping; that is re photographing the transparency with selective colour.

Processing is as much photography as firing the shutter; always has been.

I think what Stella is meaning is that as a photographer you can become complacent about exposure when always shooting RAW. There was a staunch advocate of shooting RAW on CR about six months ago, who I think has now left, and he stated that a full stop difference in exposure was neither here nor there. That's a mistake in my opinion. Nailing the optimum exposure for a scene makes for better IQ in the image - thank goodness. I hope that will continue.

I contend that the shroud of tourin was the first raw image... and that definitely was in need of post production.

 

[Sporgon]

Ansel Adams was known for saying "50 % of the creative process happens in the darkroom"

That was his pickup line at bars...

I thought that was "50 % of the creation process happens in the bedroom"

 

[candc]

Ansel Adams was known for saying "50 % of the creative process happens in the darkroom"

That was his pickup line at bars...

I thought that was "50 % of the creation process happens in the bedroom"

So Ansel Adams walks into a bar, walks up to a smoking hot blond and says "50% of the creative process happens in the darkroom, come with me and I'll show you why they call me tripod"?

 

[dash2k8]

"I contend that the shroud of tourin was the first raw image... and that definitely was in need of post production."

LOL x100

 

[CarlTN]

Hi everybody

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

You will love full frame cameras, but you won't like how much the lenses cost.

 

[scyrene]

I don't have anything constructive to add, except that I'm enjoying this thread immensely.

 

[jdramirez]

Hi everybody

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

You will love full frame cameras, but you won't like how much the lenses cost.

There are some value ef lenses... but if you get a nice body, it is just a waste to put on mediocre lenses.

Even then... if you just go with primes like the 40mm, 35 f2 is, 100 f2... you can get by.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Hi everybody

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

You will love full frame cameras, but you won't like how much the lenses cost.

There are some value ef lenses... but if you get a nice body, it is just a waste to put on mediocre lenses.

Even then... if you just go with primes like the 40mm, 35 f2 is, 100 f2... you can get by.

not to mention the decent 3rd party options...

 

[jdramirez]

Hi everybody

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

You will love full frame cameras, but you won't like how much the lenses cost.

There are some value ef lenses... but if you get a nice body, it is just a waste to put on mediocre lenses.

Even then... if you just go with primes like the 40mm, 35 f2 is, 100 f2... you can get by.

not to mention the decent 3rd party options...

Speak of the devil and he'll try and sell you a tamron. Kidding... I swear.

 

[CarlTN]

Hi everybody

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

You will love full frame cameras, but you won't like how much the lenses cost.

There are some value ef lenses... but if you get a nice body, it is just a waste to put on mediocre lenses.

Even then... if you just go with primes like the 40mm, 35 f2 is, 100 f2... you can get by.

Sure, but you'll want to add at least one pricey one.

 

[CarlTN]

Hi everybody

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

You will love full frame cameras, but you won't like how much the lenses cost.

There are some value ef lenses... but if you get a nice body, it is just a waste to put on mediocre lenses.

Even then... if you just go with primes like the 40mm, 35 f2 is, 100 f2... you can get by.

not to mention the decent 3rd party options...

Speak of the devil and he'll try and sell you a tamron. Kidding... I swear.

I'd buy a Tamron!! I own two Sigma...but might sell them. Not because they aren't good enough, but because I can't afford to own a lot of lenses right now.

 

[koolman]

If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree...

Nope. Don't have to agree.

A photograph is a thing. The person who makes the thing is a photograph-er. The thing is not made until the image captured by the camera is made visible on the paper or other viewing surface. This "making" consists of the entire process from choosing/arranging/lighting the subject, adjusting/aiming/operating the camera and doing what one will to get it onto the paper. Ansel has already been mentioned as an example of a "back in the day" photograph-er who certainly made use of his dark room, his enlarger, and whatever other tools he chose, to create his "art". The photographs thusly made have been greatly admired by many, and few of the admirers fail to call him a "photographer", rather than an "editor". (Ansel the dodger/burner?)

Adams and the numerous other "photographers" one could mention as widely recognized and acclaimed, used the tools available to them in their time, just as we do today. I don't doubt that they would envy us our new tools.

It hardly seems appropriate to try to differentiate a carpenter from a measurer, a sawer or a hammerer. Perhaps we should further distinguish him as a laser level technician, an adhesives applier, or a plumb(vs. apple)-bobber.

Are we having fun yet?

Larry - I need to totally disagree with you. Photography is the skill of producing photographs. There is a big difference between a photograph and digital picture. "digital art" produces stunning pictures - which more often then not do NOT reflect anything real.

Photography as I understand it - is about recording a real moment or object in the most accurate way.

Yes I understand that some tweaks can be allowed - but these should be minor and unnoticeable. The "photo" should remain something real that the photographer saw. Photography is about VISION - NOT about enhanced photoshop / lightroom skills.

My 2 cents

 

[Sabaki]

Hi everybody

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

You will love full frame cameras, but you won't like how much the lenses cost.

There are some value ef lenses... but if you get a nice body, it is just a waste to put on mediocre lenses.

Even then... if you just go with primes like the 40mm, 35 f2 is, 100 f2... you can get by.

Sure, but you'll want to add at least one pricey one.

lol. I do have some pricy (for me) lenses.

Canon 100mm macro L, Canon 400mm f/5.6 L, Canon 70-200 f/4.0 L, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L mkii.
Then also have the EF-S 10-22 & 50 f/1.8.

 

[scyrene]

If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree...

Nope. Don't have to agree.

A photograph is a thing. The person who makes the thing is a photograph-er. The thing is not made until the image captured by the camera is made visible on the paper or other viewing surface. This "making" consists of the entire process from choosing/arranging/lighting the subject, adjusting/aiming/operating the camera and doing what one will to get it onto the paper. Ansel has already been mentioned as an example of a "back in the day" photograph-er who certainly made use of his dark room, his enlarger, and whatever other tools he chose, to create his "art". The photographs thusly made have been greatly admired by many, and few of the admirers fail to call him a "photographer", rather than an "editor". (Ansel the dodger/burner?)

Adams and the numerous other "photographers" one could mention as widely recognized and acclaimed, used the tools available to them in their time, just as we do today. I don't doubt that they would envy us our new tools.

It hardly seems appropriate to try to differentiate a carpenter from a measurer, a sawer or a hammerer. Perhaps we should further distinguish him as a laser level technician, an adhesives applier, or a plumb(vs. apple)-bobber.

Are we having fun yet?

Larry - I need to totally disagree with you. Photography is the skill of producing photographs. There is a big difference between a photograph and digital picture. "digital art" produces stunning pictures - which more often then not do NOT reflect anything real.

Photography as I understand it - is about recording a real moment or object in the most accurate way.

Yes I understand that some tweaks can be allowed - but these should be minor and unnoticeable. The "photo" should remain something real that the photographer saw. Photography is about VISION - NOT about enhanced photoshop / lightroom skills.

My 2 cents

With all due respect (uh oh) I think this is a misunderstanding of what happens when a picture is created - especially in a digital camera (although as others have pointed out, film wasn't necessarily 'truer' in any sense).

Your camera records the world in a partial way. The choice of lens, the sensor, the in-camera processor and software - all are making choices about how the light is recorded, altering it. It's arbitrary to say what happens in the camera is fundamentally different to what happens when the file is transferred to a computer. One is not 'truer' than the other. Both devices - camera and computer - are making decisions, or implementing decisions made by the photographer.

Now I happen to try to make most of my photographs look as much like the world as I saw it (with the exception of depth of field, which has no real correlate in human vision (except maybe when I don't wear my contact lenses). But that is a stylistic choice - and indeed one that requires a lot of fine postprocessing, in my experience (mostly to try and mitigate or overcome the limitations of the technology). But that style is no more or less photography than one departing from what I may have seen - not that others necessarily know what the scene looked like to me anyway.

It's a rather strange myth that has developed - maybe it's always been there in photography - that some pictures aren't real pictures. Of course, where one draws the line between a photograph and photo-art is itself arbitrary, and we'll all choose different places along a continuum (for me, it would probably be the creation of a scene whose elements could not have been so arranged in the real world).

To end my rambling, I'd say: you use the word 'accurate' without acknowledging that it is not an objective term. You seek to imbue some pictures with an authenticity, whilst denying it to others, but that is based on a subjective assessment. And terms like 'vision' don't really clarify anything. Sorry.

 

[Zv]

Hi everybody

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

You will love full frame cameras, but you won't like how much the lenses cost.

There are some value ef lenses... but if you get a nice body, it is just a waste to put on mediocre lenses.

Even then... if you just go with primes like the 40mm, 35 f2 is, 100 f2... you can get by.

Sure, but you'll want to add at least one pricey one.

lol. I do have some pricy (for me) lenses.

Canon 100mm macro L, Canon 400mm f/5.6 L, Canon 70-200 f/4.0 L, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L mkii.
Then also have the EF-S 10-22 & 50 f/1.8.

Nice glass shame about the body! Did you just forget to upgrade your camera when you were acquiring your L lens collection??