Full Frame changed my life...

[anonymous-user]

Ok, so the title is a massive exaggeration, but I just wanted to say that I wish I had moved to full frame years ago.

I few weeks ago I started a thread saying I had stopped using my Nikon DSLR DX/Crop gear a year or so ago, and I moaned that despite having a bag of decent glass I was frustrated with my some of the results that I was getting, and the look I was getting.

I mentioned that I was looking to go down the Sony A7ii full frame route, instead of Nikon/Canon.

A change is as good as a rest and all that.

I already had an RX100 M3 so was already familiar with Sony menus and general operation.

I did end up buying an A7ii, along with a 28mm f2, a 50mm 1.8, and then pushed the boat out and also got an 85mm 1.4 G-Master.

I suddenly found that I could use longer primes, get that lovely bokeh I was after, and not be very far from the subject to fit the whole scene in. Unlike when I tried using 50mm or 80-200 2.8 lenses on my crop body, and found that I had to be approximately one squillion metres away from whatever I was photographing, which just didn't work for me.

I shot a car show today with the A7ii and just the 85/1.4, and I was totally over the moon with how everything came out.

Well, not everything of course, but the ones that didn't come out well were purely as a result of my amateur failings.

But yeah, so sharp, so crisp, and so much bokeh...

Quick wizz though Lightroom and I was very happy.

I've heard so many photographers saying things like "Your gear doesn't make a difference and a good photographer can get good results from any camera and kit lens", along with "When I shoot an event with both a FF body and crop body I can't tell the difference between the two sets of images".

But you can't beat the laws of physics and light, and sometimes the only way is bigger sensors, bigger apertures, and longer focal lengths.

An automotive photographer I admire very much is Amy Shore who has her work often featured in Octane and so on, and there is a line in her 'How to photograph cars' blog, which says along the lines of "It wasn’t until I got my full frame camera (Nikon D600) that my images really started to take off".

I kind of agree with her.

I get that everyone shoots different things, and full frame sensors and fast primes aren't needed at all for a lot of types of photography, but I'm certainly happy I made the change.

[justin220]

Interesting. Care to post any examples?

[thebraketester]

One of my favourite things about FF is the massive viewfinder.

[Lucas CAV]

Lord Marylebone said:

Ok, so the title is a massive exaggeration, but I just wanted to say that I wish I had moved to full frame years ago.

I few weeks ago I started a thread saying I had stopped using my Nikon DSLR DX/Crop gear a year or so ago, and I moaned that despite having a bag of decent glass I was frustrated with my some of the results that I was getting, and the look I was getting.

I mentioned that I was looking to go down the Sony A7ii full frame route, instead of Nikon/Canon.

A change is as good as a rest and all that.

I already had an RX100 M3 so was already familiar with Sony menus and general operation.

I did end up buying an A7ii, along with a 28mm f2, a 50mm 1.8, and then pushed the boat out and also got an 85mm 1.4 G-Master.

I suddenly found that I could use longer primes, get that lovely bokeh I was after, and not be very far from the subject to fit the whole scene in. Unlike when I tried using 50mm or 80-200 2.8 lenses on my crop body, and found that I had to be approximately one squillion metres away from whatever I was photographing, which just didn't work for me.

I shot a car show today with the A7ii and just the 85/1.4, and I was totally over the moon with how everything came out.

Well, not everything of course, but the ones that didn't come out well were purely as a result of my amateur failings.

But yeah, so sharp, so crisp, and so much bokeh...

Quick wizz though Lightroom and I was very happy.

I've heard so many photographers saying things like "Your gear doesn't make a difference and a good photographer can get good results from any camera and kit lens", along with "When I shoot an event with both a FF body and crop body I can't tell the difference between the two sets of images".

But you can't beat the laws of physics and light, and sometimes the only way is bigger sensors, bigger apertures, and longer focal lengths.

An automotive photographer I admire very much is Amy Shore who has her work often featured in Octane and so on, and there is a line in her 'How to photograph cars' blog, which says along the lines of "It wasn’t until I got my full frame camera (Nikon D600) that my images really started to take off".

I kind of agree with her.

I get that everyone shoots different things, and full frame sensors and fast primes aren't needed at all for a lot of types of photography, but I'm certainly happy I made the change.

New gear always feels like the best gear in the world.

Let's see some examples -

[Simpo Two]

How much of the difference do you think is down simply to the larger sensor area, and how much to other factors? You also have different glass, different electronics and, if you shoot JPG which I'd hope you don't, different in-camera processing. 'Sharp and crisp'?

[anonymous-user]

Simpo Two said:

How much of the difference do you think is down simply to the larger sensor area, and how much to other factors? You also have different glass, different electronics and, if you shoot JPG which I'd hope you don't, different in-camera processing. 'Sharp and crisp'?

Fair point and well made!

I think probably everything is helping that little bit, as it's all moved on since my D7000. Sensor tech improvements etc.

The fact I'm now enjoying an £1800 lens which gets rated 5 star by most reviews is certainly contributing to my images being nice and sharp.

But the biggest change to the 'look' of my photos has been the fact that I can use something like an 85mm and still be able to get up fairly close.

With my crop sensor gear, it didn't really matter which of my lenses I used, I still wasn't getting the really shallow depth of field I was seeing in other people's photos.

The only way I could get things to look as I wanted with a crop sensor was to use a 70-200 2.8 type lens and use the higher end of the zoom, but that just wasn't convenient or practical in most situations.

I appreciate there are more educated people out there who can explain sensor size vs focal length vs depth of field, but I'm happy with what I'm seeing in my images.

[anonymous-user]

thebraketester said:

One of my favourite things about FF is the massive viewfinder.

Well... I'm now using Mirrorless, so it's an EVF for me rather than a generous 'normal' viewfinder.

But to be fair, the Sony EVF is really good so no complaints.

[Simpo Two]

It does seem as though the prime change for you was the extra (lack of) DOF which is indeed physics, either sensor size or aperture. If you're already at 1.4 and still need less DOF it's about the only option short of Photoshop. I like the extra reach of a crop sensor so it's interesting that you like the opposite!

You might like to play with a longish macro lens - more shallow DOF than you can eat

[anonymous-user]

Simpo Two said:

It does seem as though the prime change for you was the extra (lack of) DOF which is indeed physics, either sensor size or aperture. If you're already at 1.4 and still need less DOF it's about the only option short of Photoshop. I like the extra reach of a crop sensor so it's interesting that you like the opposite!

You might like to play with a longish macro lens - more shallow DOF than you can eat

Yep, I'm completely the other way. I don't like any additional reach from smaller sensors.

I like to be fairly close to subjects, tight framing, and still be able to get shallow DOF.

When I'm not looking for shallow DOF I'm looking for wide, another advantage of full frame for me.

My sister in law shoots a lot of wildlife and nature, and she was changing her camera recently and debated full frame, and I advised her to stick with crop for the reach. She's now got a D7200 and with her 70-300 lens and similar, she's well happy.

Horses for courses!

[ukaskew]

As others have mentioned, new gear can have a big psychological impact on creativity or even just getting out there and shooting. Looking back over 20 years of shooting anything between Micro 4/3 and full-frame I’d say for the vast majority of subjects it hasn’t made that much difference. To this day some of my best motorsport work was from my Nikon D50 days, you could count AF points (and MPs) on one hand then.

I’m a fully paid up member of the FF club now but that’s purely because I’m a wedding photographer. I know many do use crop, but small differences become quite noticeable once you hit those high pressure situations, and for half the year it’s pretty darn dark so I’ll take all the high ISO performance I can get given I like to shoot in natural light when possible. If it wasn’t for the weddings I’d probably chop it all in for a bunch of Olympus gear, E-M1 MkII, PEN-F, 25mm 1.2 and 40-150mm 2.8 would make me a very happy (and lighter) shooter indeed.

I wrote an article for Petapixel last year, shooting the Festival of Speed with the D750 and Fuji X-T2 (last time I’ll do that, the abuse/personal attacks etc were relentless for a few weeks even though I went out of my way to be as balanced/neutral as possible). Looking back I prefer the D750 images, but that was the light as much as anything, but I was very happy with both and I’d be willing to bet if I went back with Olympus Micro 4/3 gear this year I could probably mix those images in and most would not know any different.

Amy Shore was mentioned, I follow her work on Instagram and it really is lovely, but I’d say that was composition, use of light and some very specific (and consistent) processing more so than the kit used. She’s not one to use excessively shallow depth of field so I honestly don’t think you’d see a significant difference in her work if you’re only ever viewing it online if she, for arguments sake, moved to Fuji tomorrow.

[Gandahar]

Is there anyone buying really good camera/ lenses nowadays and therefore does not have to "improve it" via software?

If so that I guess is the holy grail, would show the perfect hardware. Even if expensive.


My second thought is.

How good is your viewing device? Or anyone elses?

No point getting that perfect camera only to have a crappy monitor .....


How does monitor and software compare to camera and lens on the overall viewing experience?

[Lucas CAV]

Gandahar said:

Is there anyone buying really good camera/ lenses nowadays and therefore does not have to "improve it" via software?

If so that I guess is the holy grail, would show the perfect hardware. Even if expensive.

"not have to improve it?
Did you never use a darkroom!?

[Simpo Two]

Gandahar said:

Is there anyone buying really good camera/ lenses nowadays and therefore does not have to "improve it" via software?

If so that I guess is the holy grail, would show the perfect hardware. Even if expensive.

Not so; often a decent smartphone makes a better 'out of the box' photo than a DSLR.

Gandahar said:

My second thought is.

How good is your viewing device? Or anyone elses?

No point getting that perfect camera only to have a crappy monitor .....

How does monitor and software compare to camera and lens on the overall viewing experience?

There's little point trying to assess/process/improve an image on an uncalibrated monitor because you don't know what you're looking at. You can't control what other people use to see your photos, but you can at least make sure they're as good as possible when they leave.

And finally, camera, lens, software and monitor are all every well - any monkey can buy them - but you still have to know how they work and be able to spot a good photographic opportunity.

[SCEtoAUX]

My experience, speaking as someone who earns half of his living as a photographer, is as follows:

1 - Nothing says "Professional" like a shallow depth of field. People don't necessarily know what such a thing is, but they do know that such photos somehow look "better". This is even more true these days with camera phones being so common. They produce great pics but with small sensors and wide lenses, everything is pretty much in focus. Electronic trickery doesn't do the same thing.

1a - Foreground elements that are out of focus make the above even more true.

2 - There is no image that doesn't benefit from post processing. When I take a photo that's only half the job.

3 - In many instances, photography is a numbers game. More pics = more good pics.

[Heres Johnny]

I’m going through this dilemma right now, my Nikon D7000 is due an upgrade. A D500 would get me the top of the APS-C tree, and I can keep my lenses. But full frame seemed like an opportunity and a D850 while stretching the budget more than a little seems to do for FF what the D500 is doing for crop. But.. heavier. the cost and new glass.

Because of this thread I’ve looked at the mirrorless FF - it just doesn’t feel like you’re buying into a heritage with Sony - I know I can sell on or buy Nikon gear easily, quite useful with lenses, I’m just not sure that applies with Sony.

[steveatesh]

Heres Johnny said:

I’m going through this dilemma right now, my Nikon D7000 is due an upgrade. A D500 would get me the top of the APS-C tree, and I can keep my lenses. But full frame seemed like an opportunity and a D850 while stretching the budget more than a little seems to do for FF what the D500 is doing for crop. But.. heavier. the cost and new glass.

Because of this thread I’ve looked at the mirrorless FF - it just doesn’t feel like you’re buying into a heritage with Sony - I know I can sell on or buy Nikon gear easily, quite useful with lenses, I’m just not sure that applies with Sony.

I’ve just been through this dilemma and come out of the other side.

My camera was a D5100 and I had a 50 f1.8 prime and a18-140 zoom, plus some accessories.

I wanted to move to FF as there was a lot I wanted to do the D5100 couldn’t do, but at the same time I wanted 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 lens. Plus I’d been asked to do professional portraits and family shots with another photographer and of course man maths told me I needed a FF for this

I was looking at the D750 then convinced myself not to compromise and go for the D850. Then on this very forum somebody mentioned the new Sony mirrorless getting rave reviews, so I had a look at the A7iii out of curiosity.

I watched every video and read every review I could on this camera, looked at Nikon rumours to try and get a feel for what was happening with the Nikon brand and possible new releases and read articles on mirrorless versus dslr.

I also watched and read reviews of the Sony GM lens.

Everything was extremely positive of the new Sony camera and the lens. Everything. I was blown away with the auto eye focus, the promise of high dynamic range, the ability to customise it. I was underwhelmed by Nikon’s progress and whilst the D850 is a fantastic camera I didn’t really need the high resolution files especially as they would place extra demand on my processing hardware.

My view was simply that the direction of travel is mirrorless, Nikon rumours suggest a new mount for their mirrorless (when it finally arrrives) so nothing to be gained by staying with the brand and in any case I wasn’t heavily invested in Nikon lens.

Alongside this I believe that there has been a significant move to Sony mirrorless from Nikon and canon and that this trend will continue. A risk I know but nevertheless that was and is my view. Whilst heritage is important I looked to the future prospects rather than what’s happened in the past and decided mirrorless prospects are growing and with it demand for professional quality Sony lens will increase too.

I decided to take the plunge and ordered the Sony A7iii, 24-70 f2.8gm and 70-200 f2.8gm lens.

I have not been disappointed with my choice. I take mainly portraits and landscapes and the camera and lens has excelled at both of these. The eye tracking is everything I saw on the videos and, along with the size of the focus area on the sensor makes accurate sharp portraits much easier than focus, hold focus and recompose that I was doing with the DSLR. It easily automatically keeps pace with, for example, a baby moving around on the set.

The ability to customise it is fantastic and has made the camera very easy to handle in the field. The EVF is much better than I had hoped for and I love the ability to both see a scene as it will be in the final shot and review shots easily even in bright daylight.

Sony GM lens are very quick to focus, sharp and with good definition. Colour rendition is excellent too.

The camera tracks wildlife or moving subjects in such a way that very few shots are no good - I’m getting far more keepers than with the DSLR.

I have no regrets with my choice at all, and this from somebody who was a Nikon fanboy lol.

I’ve kept the D5100 as a spare camera but I don’t expect to use it much.

Of course each to his own but the technology in the latest mirrorless cameras is compelling if you have a choice.

Whatever you chose I wish you well with it and hope this helps.

[Elderly]

SCEtoAUX said:

My experience, speaking as someone who earns half of his living as a photographer, is as follows:

1 - Nothing says "Professional" like a shallow depth of field. People don't necessarily know what such a thing is, but they do know that such photos somehow look "better". ............

1a - Foreground elements that are out of focus make the above even more true.

Depends on what branch of photography you're in.
When I was a working photographer, 99% of my subjects required a large depth of field.

[anonymous-user]

SCEtoAUX said:

My experience, speaking as someone who earns half of his living as a photographer, is as follows:

1 - Nothing says "Professional" like a shallow depth of field. People don't necessarily know what such a thing is, but they do know that such photos somehow look "better". This is even more true these days with camera phones being so common. They produce great pics but with small sensors and wide lenses, everything is pretty much in focus. Electronic trickery doesn't do the same thing.

1a - Foreground elements that are out of focus make the above even more true.

2 - There is no image that doesn't benefit from post processing. When I take a photo that's only half the job.

3 - In many instances, photography is a numbers game. More pics = more good pics.

I agree.

Especially with the bit about shallow DoF and smartphones.

Almost everyone shoots everything on their phones these days, so you just get so used to seeing that particular 'look'.

Now when I post photos on social media that were taken with my 85mm 1.4 and tweaked in Lightroom (as an example) people suddenly take an interest, and start asking questions like "What camera do you use" etc and it becomes clear that the photo has jumped out at them as being 'professional looking'.

I also agree that electronic trickery does not do the same thing. Fake blur and fake shallow DoF make me want to vomit when I see them... and they stick out like a sore thumb whenever people use them!

[Heres Johnny]

Lord Marylebone said:

I agree.

Especially with the bit about shallow DoF and smartphones.

Almost everyone shoots everything on their phones these days, so you just get so used to seeing that particular 'look'.

Now when I post photos on social media that were taken with my 85mm 1.4 and tweaked in Lightroom (as an example) people suddenly take an interest, and start asking questions like "What camera do you use" etc and it becomes clear that the photo has jumped out at them as being 'professional looking'.

I also agree that electronic trickery does not do the same thing. Fake blur and fake shallow DoF make me want to vomit when I see them... and they stick out like a sore thumb whenever people use them!

Could be worse, they could ask what phone you took it with

Had a little trip into Jessops as it was near where I work, sadly disappointed with what that store (based on a sample of one) seems to now be although I'm probably showing my age. It just felt like a bigger version of the camera department at Currys. They didn't have a D850, D500 nor Sony A7 III in as far as I could tell, and staff who seemed more interested in loitering around the compact cameras. Maybe they thought anyone sniffing around Nikon DSLRs knew as much as they did.

On DoF - its nice to have the choice - with current ISO ranges its easier than ever to use a smaller aperture if you want a big DoF. but It's not so easy to shrink it. And besides,,, isn't it all about the quality of the boketh !?

[anonymous-user]

Heres Johnny said:

And besides,,, isn't it all about the quality of the boketh !?

Well I watched a number of comparison videos between the Zeiss Batis 85mm 1.8 and the Sony GM 85 1.4 and everyone kept going on about how much nicer the bokeh was on the Sony 1.4 and how nice and round the bokeh balls were....

I'm a man who enjoys nice round balls, so naturally I purchased the Sony 1.4