Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
- Thread starter Sabaki
- Start date
Sabaki....a year ago I was in much the same position and upgraded from the 7D to the 5DIII. This is one of those decisions that I am somewhat conflicted about, but I doubt I will ever go back.
So, if you are happy with a crop sensor or if you can convince yourself to be happy. Do not upgrade. Just be happy. Get something like a used 7D or 70D. There are people taking excellent photos (even pros) working with crop sensor cameras. They really are very very good.
That said, there are several areas of improvement going to FF. The question gets to be do you want/need those areas of improvement. Are your crop sensor camera good enough for you. Because, there is always more money to be spent for what are often marginal improvements in photography....both with lenses, sensors, or formats.
The improvements I've noticed include color rendition, bokeh, contrast, low-iso noise, high iso noise and the general latitude you have to process the photo in post (shooting RAW) are all at least a little bit, better. In short, almost everything is at least a little bit better. The real game changer that opened up for me is low light photography without a flash. I am now routinely taking photos at ISO 2000-3200 before I really tried to limit myself to ISO 400-800 on the 7D. So I am doing a lot more low light indoor photography. As others have noted, I even sometimes get "keepers" all the way up to ISO 12,800 (but ISO 6,400-8,000 is really the typical max).
But this is always about deciding what is "good enough" for you....
Good luck....
So, if you are happy with a crop sensor or if you can convince yourself to be happy. Do not upgrade. Just be happy. Get something like a used 7D or 70D. There are people taking excellent photos (even pros) working with crop sensor cameras. They really are very very good.
That said, there are several areas of improvement going to FF. The question gets to be do you want/need those areas of improvement. Are your crop sensor camera good enough for you. Because, there is always more money to be spent for what are often marginal improvements in photography....both with lenses, sensors, or formats.
The improvements I've noticed include color rendition, bokeh, contrast, low-iso noise, high iso noise and the general latitude you have to process the photo in post (shooting RAW) are all at least a little bit, better. In short, almost everything is at least a little bit better. The real game changer that opened up for me is low light photography without a flash. I am now routinely taking photos at ISO 2000-3200 before I really tried to limit myself to ISO 400-800 on the 7D. So I am doing a lot more low light indoor photography. As others have noted, I even sometimes get "keepers" all the way up to ISO 12,800 (but ISO 6,400-8,000 is really the typical max).
But this is always about deciding what is "good enough" for you....
Good luck....
Upvote
0
jhaces said:
Look, I am not saying that a professional photographer doing a paying gig should photograph the whole thing in JPEG. If you think that that is what I am saying, then you're simply not thinking. Also, this is not about RAW vs JPEG, so stop waving that flag each time somebody mentions JPEG's out of the camera.
The OP is a student of photography (and this goes for anybody else learning photography), so he is basically mucking about with his camera and lenses. I sincerely doubt whether he is doing any paying gigs (i.e. weddings) and I sincerely doubt whether he will ever have any reason to re-process this "student" output.
Besides, it's only for three months ... and then it's back to RAW!
jhaces said:
Garbage in, garbage out. Sure, you can do wonders with RAW in post-processing to save your butt when you screw up. But the more the photograph is "optimized" and technically correct, then the more can be achieved with RAW. This means getting it right right there in the camera when the shutter button is pressed.
jhaces said:
Again, if you understand the limitations and bugs of the camera in your hand, then so much the more will you be able to produce RAW files that can be optimally post-processed. (As an aside, a lot of the post-processed images on the Internet look pretty much the same to me - seems like a lot of people have simply traded the Canon recipe for the Adobe recipe.)
But ultimately, what do I care whether or not someone becomes a great photographer or not. Go with the flow, follow the wave ... say "Baaaah!"
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:Oh no, I'm too late to the thread, it's already page 3 and the mudslinging has already started
I actually surprised it took that long. Photographers tend to be rabidly opinionated.
People just need to learn to do what they want. If they want to shoot JPEG, shoot JPEG. If they want to shoot RAW, shoot Raw. Same applies to FF vs CS. There are people shooting with either system and shooting fantastic pictures. There others shooting either system and shooting crap.
Pick what you can afford and get out there and start honing your skill.
This is why I snicker when some people claim that it is the photographer and not the gear, but then spend time arguing about gear. LoL
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Too late!
neuroanatomist said:
Ah, yes, the old "putting down" post. You should try adding humour, like I did here ...
Sella174 said:
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Sella174 said:
Ok, so people 'learning photography' should just blithely ignore post processing – it's not important so don't bother to learn it. Or maybe it's just less important, so they should learn it later.
To learn photography properly, you must shoot JPG, use only a 50mm lens, and stand on your left foot. Any other handicaps you'd like to dump on students of the art?
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Reminds me of the time when I was studying chemistry - we had to do test series with ~60 year old equipment, the swastikas and imperial insignias (nearly
)) still on them. The front argument: You gotta know the basics even though you'll never ever use them again, only then can you learn modern methods. The real background: The people in charge did it in their time, hated it like everybody else, so why lift the burden? Also never touch a running system :->Back to the subject: For me, digital photography is knowing what you can easily "fix" in postprocessing, and what more severe problems you can work around if in a pinch for select shots. That lets me concentrate on the issues I have to get right while shooting.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Marsu42 said:Reminds me of the time when I was studying chemistry - we had to do test series with ~60 year old equipment, the swastikas and imperial insignias (nearly
Yeah, that's likely one of the reasons. That reminds me…I forgot to add 'turn off autofocus and don't look at the camera's meter' - learn to focus manually and use a light meter!
They used toluene to wipe down the benches in our chemistry labs. Perfectly safe. Oops.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
You know what, neuroanatomist, you can put me down, make fun of what I write and twist it around all you like, but it doesn't bother me ... because I know why you are doing it. [INSERT DERANGED LAUGH HERE]
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
I really think this off-topic debate really boils down to differences in psychology and maybe culture.
There are those who read a manual from cover to cover before flipping the "on" switch. Then there are those who once they find the "on" switch, just jump in learning as they go.
One is not right and one is not wrong, they are different. This is true of even the greatest practitioners of any art (although I admit it doesn't work quite so well with things like heart surgery or wiring a house.)
The history of photography is full of great artists from each school of thought. Because photography is a technological art to a much greater degree than many of the traditional arts like painting, most great photographers arrived at a certain level of technical expertise sooner or later. But, whether you take it from the beginning progressing methodically through each step or just jump in and start trying things, it ultimately doesn't matter. After all, it's the final image that counts.
There are those who read a manual from cover to cover before flipping the "on" switch. Then there are those who once they find the "on" switch, just jump in learning as they go.
One is not right and one is not wrong, they are different. This is true of even the greatest practitioners of any art (although I admit it doesn't work quite so well with things like heart surgery or wiring a house.)
The history of photography is full of great artists from each school of thought. Because photography is a technological art to a much greater degree than many of the traditional arts like painting, most great photographers arrived at a certain level of technical expertise sooner or later. But, whether you take it from the beginning progressing methodically through each step or just jump in and start trying things, it ultimately doesn't matter. After all, it's the final image that counts.
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
Interesting enough it seems men are said to be the "just turn it on, change all options and see if it still works" type, while women are more likely to rtfm - but as we don't have any (or very few) women on tech internet forums, we wouldn't know about the latter
Upvote
0
That only applies to Canon - have you ever tried to use a Panasonic or other camera with a lousy manual and locked features? Example with my Panasonic LX-5: Flash is disabled if bust mode is enabled. Period. I took it to an event once and couldn't turn the !@#$ing camera flash on no matter what mode was selected and the 30 pages of menus didn't help. Weeks later, I read the manual and found a "Tip" explaining this "feature". Canon cameras may have some faults, but bad manuals, uinintuitive controls, bad menus, and self-defeating features are not among themSkirball said:
Upvote
0
mkabi said:
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?
Upvote
0
Larry said:
+1, I'd like to add that every image from a *d*slr is already postprocessed, or you would see the pattern of the bayer sensor to begin with, so the image already is processed and lens/ca/exposure-"corrected".
Most important: The camera freezes motion that is a blur to your bare eye, has a depth of field characteristic alien to us and presses a dynamic range you cannot see with the human eye at one time into one image. So why is a jpeg out of camera suddenly sacred and exempt from further modification?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
