Photography Lab THIS SPACE OPEN FOR ADVERTISEMENT. YOU SHOULD BE ADVERTISING HERE!
A place to display digital masterpieces, enhance photography skills, photoshop, and share photo tips with one another... | |
09-22-2010, 10:52 PM
|
#1 | resident Oil Guru
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,716
Thanked 10,457 Times in 1,794 Posts
Failed 1,065 Times in 267 Posts
| Do we have a need for Full Frame?
Just read this interesting article: http://www.digitalrev.com/en/do-we-s...s-6677-article
Any thoughts? Is FF worth the price difference with these new cameras coming out with high quality APS-C sensors? (like the 7D)?
Last edited by LiquidTurbo; 09-22-2010 at 11:00 PM.
|
| |
09-22-2010, 11:18 PM
|
#2 | My homepage has been set to RS
Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: burnaby
Posts: 2,284
Thanked 1,275 Times in 303 Posts
Failed 9 Times in 9 Posts
|
If only for the improvement in DOF, yes
That and I can barely stand the viewfinder in my crop bodies, FF has spoiled me!
|
| |
09-22-2010, 11:51 PM
|
#3 | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
|
You can't really see it with APS-C vs. FF sensors in a small print or on the web, but tonality is also improved with the larger sensor. Of course, the FF medium format backs are on another level.
FF sensors also have less noise, generally speaking. The 7D is never noiseless, whereas the 5DmkII is smooth up to 200 ISO. The problem with the 5DmkII is you cannot get rid of the noise banding when you try and bring out the shadows. The 7D has a much more uniform noise structure.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
|
| |
09-22-2010, 11:53 PM
|
#4 | I am grateful grapefruit
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,094
Thanked 831 Times in 392 Posts
Failed 83 Times in 11 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Senna4ever FF sensors also have less noise, generally speaking. | It's just the A900 that's the exception right? hehehe
|
| |
09-23-2010, 12:19 AM
|
#5 | I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,721
Thanked 12,136 Times in 3,361 Posts
Failed 1,848 Times in 413 Posts
|
Is a 4x6 better than a 35mm frame?
Bigger is always better, from a purely quality perspective. The tradeoffs are in cost, size, weight, etc.
__________________ Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira Does anyone know how many to a signature? | .. Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?" | |
| |
09-23-2010, 12:33 AM
|
#6 | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by gars It's just the A900 that's the exception right? hehehe | That's why I put the 'generally speaking' part.
Well, yes and no. Up to 400 ISO, the A900 has stellar image quality, then the other FF cameras kill it. But if you compare the noise of a medium format back, the 35mm FF cameras absolutely destroy them. Even though 645 medium format backs are are a bit more than twice that of 35mm FF sensors, the pixel density is roughly the same as a 5DmkII. Those are only usable up to about 200 ISO, then they just fall into a black hole of noise. The Phase One P45+ & P65+ have a special high ISO setting, but they reduce the MP by quite a lot. The MF backs are optimized for maximum sharpness, as they are made for studio use, more so than everyday street shooting.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
|
| | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:45 PM. |