Full frame vs APS-C or smaller sensor

[ravibhuchara]

I am looking for my second DSLR. I have been using Nikon D90 for few years now. I am not a professional photographer, I use my camera for my hobby only.

There is no problem with D90 as such but I am looking to upgrade myself with new techs.

Nikon D800 released recently and it caught my attention but I am having confusion that should I go for Full Frame body.

I am looking for forum's opinion on full frame camera vs APS-C or other small sensor DSLRs. What does Full Frame body get me extra? Is it worth spending 3k?

Thanks,
Ravi

[veritasimagery]

Originally Posted by ravibhuchara

DSLRs. What does Full Frame body get me extra?

A bigger sensor.

[RLucas]

Originally Posted by ravibhuchara

I am looking for my second DSLR. I have been using Nikon D90 for few years now. I am not a professional photographer, I use my camera for my hobby only.

There is no problem with D90 as such but I am looking to upgrade myself with new techs.

Nikon D800 released recently and it caught my attention but I am having confusion that should I go for Full Frame body.

I am looking for forum's opinion on full frame camera vs APS-C or other small sensor DSLRs. What does Full Frame body get me extra? Is it worth spending 3k?

Thanks,
Ravi

What lenses do you have. Depending on that, it may cost more than you think.

[inkista]

For me? Yes, it was worth it, but it probably isn't for most photogrpahers.

As of a few weeks ago, I am now shooting full frame, APS-C, and micro four-thirds in sensor sizes, and I can tell you the difference isn't as dramatic as some people would try to make you believe it is. Particularly if you're delivering at smaller sizes.

What a full-frame sensor will gain you is a bit shallower DoF, a bit better high iso noise performance, a lot more resolution (if we're talking about the D800), a slight gain on dynamic range, and tonal smoothness. And you'll be able to compose with a much wider view, and shoot with longer lenses for equivalent fields of view.

But all of these gains are marginal. Whether it's worth it to you is how much you need those gains, and how much cash you can easily afford to blow on camera gear.

And, as those above point out, going full-frame has a hidden cost in that your crop DX lenses will need to be "traded-in" for FX equivalents. And there are no cheap FX equivalents for something like an ultrawide lens. And given the super-high resolution of the D800, chances are good, you're going to want the pro-level glass to match the sensor capabilities.

BTW, looking at the images I'm getting out of my new G3, if it weren't for the aspect ratio and DoF, I'd have an extremely hard time determining if they were coming from my G3 or my 50D, given the small-sensor tech gains we've had in the last two years.

So, honestly? You need a more specific reason than "new techs" to guide your purchase choice. You need to know which new technologies are the ones you want the most. For me, micro four-thirds was the way to go, because I needed something smaller and lighter with an image quality and controls comparable to what I was used to getting out of my dSLRs (albeit with some tradeoffs for the size), and I'd been intrigued by mirrorless compact systems for three years, now. The fact that used micro four-thirds bodies are in the $200-$500 price range just made them that much more attractive: I paid less for my used G3 kit than I did for my Powershot G9 when it was new.

What is it about your current gear that dissatisfies you? That's always the best guide to what new gear you should aim for.

[AshNZ]

D800 is right up there and it's not just the camera. Imagine the storage required for 35MB RAW files. And also imagine processing 35MB files on your computer. My computer is no mug but I know it will need a upgrade to deal with that. Plus the cost of upgrading the lenses..!! Ofcourse Full Frame is always ideal but I think the APS-C is adequate for 90% of hobbyists.

[ravibhuchara]

Main reason for full frame dilema came from the lenses. I wanted to buy some good lenses which are all full frame lenses, to be frank could not find pro lenses in APS-C format.

From the answers it seems like APS-C camera is just fine for me but how is the performance of those pro full frame lenses on APS-C camera?

Probably I am naive but I think we would loose some light/quality of pro lens when used on APS-C. Does it really reduce performance? Has anyone experienced it?


Thanks,
Ravi

[ErikUngerPhotography]

Originally Posted by ravibhuchara

Probably I am naive but I think we would loose some light/quality of pro lens when used on APS-C. Does it really reduce performance? Has anyone experienced it?

I don't know the exact physics behind it, but I'd be willing to wager that if there is any loss in quality using FF lens on an APS-C body, you probably wouldn't be able to tell with the naked eye.

Course it would also depend what your final output was, but unless you needed a tack sharp and really large print, I don't think it matters.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by ravibhuchara

Main reason for full frame dilema came from the lenses. I wanted to buy some good lenses which are all full frame lenses, to be frank could not find pro lenses in APS-C format.

Just because none of the EF-S lenses are designated as Ls doesn't mean none of them perform like Ls. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is an L in all but name and build quality, and the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro is probably the sharpest lens Canon makes.

From the answers it seems like APS-C camera is just fine for me but how is the performance of those pro full frame lenses on APS-C camera?

The performance is generally good, but the field of view they give up is the reason they're often not a perfect fit on crop. For example, while a 24-70 is wide-to-short telephoto on a full frame, on a crop body, it's merely widish-to-short telephoto. 24mm on crop is similar to 35mm on full-frame. Not particularly wide.

Probably I am naive but I think we would loose some light/quality of pro lens when used on APS-C. Does it really reduce performance? Has anyone experienced it?

Actually, it's a little bit the opposite. Lens performance is usually weakest in the corners, where the light has to be bent the most. The smaller sensor hides those weaknesses from you. I used a 24-105 on an XT and 50D before I got my 5D Mark II, but how I used the lens changed substantially between the format switchover, because of the different FoV. With my crops, I mostly used the telephoto end of the lens. On my 5Dii, I'm all over the range, with heavier use on the wide end. On crops, I used it as more of a event lens, on my 5Dii, it's my walkaround default lens.

I see more issues with C/A and distortion at 24mm on the 5Dii, because I'm seeing the corner performance now. But I've been happy with the quality on both. Don't take all this online board "you have to have L lenses" advice too seriously. You have to consider the source. It's either from people who've never actually shot with a full frame, or from professionals who are going to be hypercritical of image quality details (and who can write lenses off on their taxes).

I will also tell you that an L lens is nice, but it's just a lens. It's not magic. And just because an L is 3x more expensive doesn't make it 3x better. Improvements with an L are marginal, not order-of-magnitude. If you have a lot of money to spend on glass, or if your income depends on that marginal improvement, it can be worth it. But for most hobbyist shooters, it may not. Technique, stopping down to f/8, and good post-processing skills can make just about any lens look more expensive.