|
|
|
| Friday, November 06, 2009 3:54 PM | ||
 Location United Kingdom Powys llanidloes | OK. I am going to risk the humiliation of the Purestorm forum, but can someone tell me in words of one syllable what is the actual difference in full frame and non full frame sensors. Also why and how will my photographs be better (if at all). Finally, what is the lens issue. I shoot a D300 with a 17-55 f2.8 and a 200 f2.8 plus an assortment of other odds and sods, of which my 50mm f1.4 i love lots. So why would I choose to spend probably another 1100 quid to get a full frame body. |
|
| Joe from Ayon West imaging and photography. www.aytonwest.com | ||
 |   |
|
| Friday, November 06, 2009 4:01 PM | |||
 Location United Kingdom West Yorkshire |  Quote from Ayton_WestOK. I am going to risk the humiliation of the Purestorm forum, but can someone tell me in words of one syllable what is the actual difference in full frame and non full frame sensors. Also why and how will my photographs be better (if at all). Finally, what is the lens issue. I shoot a D300 with a 17-55 f2.8 and a 200 f2.8 plus an assortment of other odds and sods, of which my 50mm f1.4 i love lots.
So why would I choose to spend probably another 1100 quid to get a full frame body.
OK I'll try, advantages of full frame( not in any order) 1. lenses are what they say they are ie a 50mm lens is..a 50mm lens 2. The view finder is a LOT bigger 3. DOF is shallower ( the second best feature) 4. Noise is a lot less of a problem ( the big deal for wedding togs) I'm sure there are a few others 5. They are just nicer to use..hard to say why, they just are. The 17-55 is designed for DX so won't work on a FF body properly unless your happy with a loss of resolution. The 200 is an FX lens so will be fine |
||
| |
||
| Friday, November 06, 2009 4:08 PM | ||
 Location United Kingdom Staffordshire Stoke-on-Trent | Full frame sensors are 35mm in size same as a film SLR The D300 sensor is something like 23mm Given the same number of pixels on the sensor (12mp comparing D300-D3/D700) the pixels are larger on a full frame sensor since the whole thing is bigger This makes then more responsive to light/less noise/better colour rendition/sharper. Overall a better picture natural picture straight out of the camera. In terms of lenses, you need glass that focuses the image over a larger area (bigger sensor) so the lenses tend to be more expensive - but then produce better results. Some of your DX lenses will have vignetting problems due to not letting in enough light around the edges and are therefore not suitable for a full frame body. The bigger sensor shoots wider (or true to the lense focal length) whereas your D300 shoots cropped or zoomed by a factor or 50%. This means your 50mm is actually behaving like a 75mm Why should you upgrade - sharper pics/less noise. |
|
| |
|
| Friday, November 06, 2009 4:12 PM | |||
Location United Kingdom Essex | People with full frame cameras (which tend to cost a lot more) need a reason to justify their purchase! Apart from that...very little difference....it's all down to the photographer's skill. However, I have several full frame bodies....but they are 35mm film cameras.....different kettle of fish! Try using a Canon 1V to experience what FF can offer!  |
||
| |
||
| Friday, November 06, 2009 4:13 PM | |||
 Location United Kingdom Buckinghamshire Stoke Mandeville | Quote from anthonyh Try using a Canon 1V to experience what FF can offer! For once I'll agree with you - best camera I've ever used |
||
| I'm never eating beans during lunchtime at work ever again - EVER!!! | |||
| |
||
| Friday, November 06, 2009 4:16 PM | ||
 Location United Kingdom Nottinghamshire Mansfield | Full frame not as small as crop frame, so has not as small cells that catch light.......... No good, I'm going to have to include at least 2 syllable words, like "bigger". In a nutshell, a full frame sensor is the same size as a frame of 35mm film. The DX sensor of your D300 is about 2/3 the size, which is why you multiply the length of your lens by 1.5 This means that an 18mm lens on FX (Nikon for full frame) gives the same view as 18mm on 35mm film, whereas DX gives you the same view as 27mm on 35mm film. If you're into landscape photography or crazy wide angles, then this is good. In terms of "why should I pay more for full frame", the photocells on the FX sensor are larger (as they have a larger area to inhabit) and so will collect more light. As they collect more light physically, the camera does not need to boost the signal with software. As the signal is cleaner to start with, it means that there is siginificantly less noise at higher iso's. Concert photography with long lenses? Weddings in dark churches? Indoor motorsports? No problem, iso 5000 on a D3/D700 will sort you out. The larger photocells will also help in giving better resolution of fine detail. The best way I can describe this is imagine you're colouring in squares on graph paper. You'll stay more accurately within the square if the squares are larger. If you really want to get into those corners, you need a sharper pencil, or in this case, a sharper lens. So basically, full frame = wider angles, shallower depth of focus (trust me) and less noise at high iso's. And they make you a better lover. That's why the person reading over my shoulder should agree with me that a D700 is a justifiable addition to my kit. |
|
| |
|
| Friday, November 06, 2009 4:17 PM | |||
Location United Kingdom Surrey | My D700 makes me cry its so lovley....nearly as lovely as my FM2....but nowherenear as lovelrly as mamiya c330s. At the end of the day a big sensor makes making great images easier...simples |
||
| |
||
| Friday, November 06, 2009 4:18 PM | ||
 Location United Kingdom Powys llanidloes | Thanks, I think I understand what you are saying. But I have always thought the picture came person who took the photograph, not the technology of the camera. So why should it be better for me to spend over a grand of my children's university money to upgrade? My personal favourite pictures that I did, I did on my Mamiya Medium Format and my Nikon 35mm. The D300 is great, but from a piece of art the film is, for me aesthetically nicer. Now digital cameras are coming with HD video (A concept I understand for journalists) are the camera manufacturers putting in the final nail of the coffin of the professional photographer, as they appear to be making it easier by getting the camera to do all the work. Is full frame closer to 35mm? All seems allot of money for not allot of advantage, or maybe I am wrong. Anyway thanks again. |
|
| Joe from Ayon West imaging and photography. www.aytonwest.com | ||
| |
|
| Friday, November 06, 2009 4:19 PM | ||
Location United Kingdom Powys llanidloes | Quote from Ayton_West Thanks, I think I understand what you are saying.But I have always thought the picture came person who took the photograph, not the technology of the camera. So why should it be better for me to spend over a grand of my children's university money to upgrade?My personal favourite pictures that I did, I did on my Mamiya Medium Format and my Nikon 35mm. The D300 is great, but from a piece of art the film is, for me aesthetically nicer.Now digital cameras are coming with HD video (A concept I understand for journalists) are the camera manufacturers putting in the final nail of the coffin of the professional photographer, as they appear to be making it easier by getting the camera to do all the work.Is full frame closer to 35mm?All seems allot of money for not allot of advantage, or maybe I am wrong.Anyway thanks again. This crossed over some other replies... |
|
| Joe from Ayon West imaging and photography. www.aytonwest.com | ||
| |
|
| Friday, November 06, 2009 4:20 PM | ||
Location United Kingdom Dorset Poole | Quote from Ayton_West OK. I am going to risk the humiliation of the Purestorm forum, but can someone tell me in words of one syllable what is the actual difference in full frame and non full frame sensors. Also why and how will my photographs be better (if at all). Finally, what is the lens issue. I shoot a D300 with a 17-55 f2.8 and a 200 f2.8 plus an assortment of other odds and sods, of which my 50mm f1.4 i love lots.
So why would I choose to spend probably another 1100 quid to get a full frame body.
Set aside the tech stuff....... think for a moment...... why on earth would big bucks, much time on r&d,huge reputations etc be wasted or risked on Bull  ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
