My Opera"Going full frame" - a return to the full 35mm format.
Sunday, April 20, 2008 6:20:55 AM
Hi All,
A Duploworld update partly by request, but mostly because I have felt like putting my words and feelings about the shift from APS-C (1.53 crop) format and back to a full frame 35mm format, but a digital one.
As you might have already guessed, this post is about the differences between camera formats and thus may be downright dull to read for some. In that case there are a few photos to enjoy, so just skip the text and look at the photos:D
Now that out of the way, I will try to retain my focus on what I have experienced at the important differences, both between the formats in general, but as with all digital some of it will be relative to the specific sensor used in the cameras I have owned or do own. thus some of the thing may be different if you have a sensor from a different maker. the sensor of reference in this review, will on the APS-C side be the 6MP Sony sensor used in the D40/D50/D70 by Nikon and all of the pentax 6MP digitals. The 10MP sony sensor used in the the D200/D80/D60/D40x and pentax K10D/K200D. The full frame sensor reference will be the 12MP Nikon designed sensor found in the Nikon D3.
Now there is probably a lot more, but these are what springs to mind:)
Now first of all the difference in Image area between the two formats is 1.53 horizontally and vertically, giving a 2.3 times larger image area.
Now the differences will be described as I see them and this list gives you a quick overview in a "pros vs. cons" style.
Pros:
Dynamic range
Digital noise
Viewfinder
DOF control
No crop factor
Cons:
Vignette
Corner softness
Weight
Price
towards the end I will list up a few other experiences, from using what is the fastest DSLR on the market today.
The Pros:
Dynamic Range:
Dnamic range is usually measured as Exposure Value stops (EV stops) and one thing many users noted when going from negative film to digital was the loss of dynamic range, especially at the highlight end.
Now the move to both a 14bit RAW file and the larger pixels has resulted in a full frame sensor that not only has a massive dynamic range, it also has about 1.7 stop that can be retrived where highlights appear blown.
The shadows can be retrived almost from total darkness too and has an impressive colour accuracy even in areas that appear black.
In short I have much less need for grad ND filters and less need to use HDR to compress the dynamic range. IT makes shooting high contrast scenes a lot easier than previously.
This photo, captured without the use of ND grads gives an idea of the DR available, serious reviews has announced that it is close to the performance from the two sensor design found in the Fuji S5 pro in terms of DR and yes the difference is massive compared to what I have used before.
Digital Noise:
Digital noise is that disturbing scatter of seemingly random pixels that rarely looks good. The digital equivalent to "film grain" some might say, but due to its patterned behavior it appears more disturbing.
Well in this department the full frame is good news. it has a stunning Noise performance. ISO 6400 is easily comparable to ISO 800 from the 10mp sony sensor and comparable to the ISO 1600 performance found in the new D300 from Nikon. Pictures speaks a thousand words they say and well this monocrome photo was shot as ISO 12800 and the only light available was the tea candle held by Miss Duplo.
yes the difference is massive and where noice does appear it is mainly luminance noice and actually has a very film like appearence.
The viewfinder:
A negative sideeffect of the cropped formats is that the mirror housing needs to be smaller to fit the sensor size. this gives for a much smaller image when looking through the viewfinder.
One of the good news is that with full frame the viewfinder gets huge in comparison and as an added bonus it does make the use of manual focus lenses a lot easier. I can now manually focus precisely with my ultrafast primes with ease, such a welcome thing and perhaps one of the best things from going "full frame".
DOF control:
Depth of field, is another thing that changes with the format used. Well actually it does not, theoretically speaking it is a function of focal length, aperture, distance to subject and distance between objects with in the frame.
however I prefer the incorrect approach, where we keep the distance to subject the fixed variable. now what this means is when you mount a 35mm lens on a cropped sensor set at f2, it gives you the DOF of a 53mm lens set to f2.8 on full frame.
Now this can work either for you or against you. I will claim it to be an advantage, as it opens up my options for usage of DOF.
The protrait below was shot with an 85mm lens at f1.4. Now to recreat that photo from the same position with an APS-C camera, you would need a 56mm lens at f1.0. now imagine what mounting a 50mm f1.2 on full frame opens up for you:)
That said if you are into macro photography this will work against you. I was struggling getting sufficient DOF at times on APS-C, the move to full frame has not made that struggle any easier.
No crop factor:
Well what this means is that a 35mm lens is now back to being a wide angle lens, a 50mm is now a normal lens, actually slightly wider in terms of AOV than a 35mm on APS-C.
It means that wide angle gets easier and generally with less distortion or at least less complex distortion. A 14mm lens is now on the far side of ultra wide. For a wide angle to short tele enthusiast like me it is simply bliss. Now for a tele or wildlife shooter the story might be completely different, all of the sudden you need a 600mm lens where your 400mm used to get the job done.
But again at the wide angle to normal or short tele range I find it a blessing. This 14mm photo is the best example I can give you and one of my personal favourites:
Now that concludes what I see as the major Pros of the move to full frame, but it is not all a bed of roses there are cons too.
The Cons:
Vignette:
Now this is a problem already known from shooting APS-C specific lenses wide open. however on full frame it will appear with pretty much any lens when shot wide open, the degree of vignette varies from lens to lens and aperture used. In general fast lenses shot wide open will result in notisable vignette. Expensive lenses like the zeiss ZF line is largely free of it, but it coomes at a price.
Now for portraiture and certain macro shots it is generally a desirable feature as it helps framing the subject in a subtle way, but just as often it is an undesired side effect. Now a major issue it is not, but it a con it is.
Below is an unusual example from the the Nikkor AIS 50mm f1.2 shto wide open. In this particular situation it works for the photo and the mood I was after. now it has been slightly emphasized during prossesing, but I could have removed it just as easily.
Corner softness:
Now as the full frame sensor uses the entire image circle of the lens, corner softness is a risk and in general it takes newly designed and rather expensive lenses to avoid the issue. It is an issue that has been reinforced with digital, as a sensor responds differently to light than film did, thus several lenses designed for film will show perhaps even severe corned softness.
Wide angles is in this respect more difficult than teles, but the Nikkor 70-200/2.8VR pro grade zoom is a lens that also has an issue at the 200mm end, so even newer and rather expensive lenses may suffer from it.
Weight and size:
There is no way around it, a full frame body is larger and heavier than an APS-C one, it is just a fact.
Now look at it this way:
My basic APS-C kit was a Pentax K10D, with grip, a 21mm, 43mm and 70mm prime has a total weight of aprox 1500 grams. Now my fullframe basic kit of Nikon D3, Zeiss ZF 28/2, Nikkor AIS 50/1.4 and Zeiss ZF85/1.4 is roughly twice that. Add the fact that both my WA, tele and macro lenses has grown heavier, well the you get the picture.
Price:
Well no secrets or surprises here, the cheapest FF available from new is the 2-3 year old 5D from canon at around 2300USD, my nikkor is roughly 5000USD. Adding up the fact that fast primes and high quality nikkor zooms are rather expensive, well the move to full frame is an expensive one, it is as simple as that.
Factor in that both photobags and perhaps even tripod and ball head may well be in the need for an upgrade too, I had the tripod covered, but it has cost me a few additional bags.
Now there is a variety of other bonuses from my camera upgrade, but those are not directly related to the sensore size, but more to the fact that a 5000USD state of the are pro body is going to have a preformance in almost any area that can only be described as blistering fast. from AF, start up times, shutter lag and view finder black out, to frame rate and write speed, rugged build and durability, well the D3 is a hugely rugged and blistering fast machine when coupled with the right lenses, but also the most complex camera I have ever seen.
All in all I am thrilled by the step up and I have not regretted it for a second. Knowing what I know to day I think it was the right decision for me, but full frame is not all bliss, there is trade offs, personally I think they work out to my favour, they may not for all though.
If you actually mae it to the end, then thank you for reading my ramblings... I hoep it answers some of the questions there has been and if not feel free to ask.
Thanks for reading and do take care:)
Thomas
A Duploworld update partly by request, but mostly because I have felt like putting my words and feelings about the shift from APS-C (1.53 crop) format and back to a full frame 35mm format, but a digital one.
As you might have already guessed, this post is about the differences between camera formats and thus may be downright dull to read for some. In that case there are a few photos to enjoy, so just skip the text and look at the photos:D
Now that out of the way, I will try to retain my focus on what I have experienced at the important differences, both between the formats in general, but as with all digital some of it will be relative to the specific sensor used in the cameras I have owned or do own. thus some of the thing may be different if you have a sensor from a different maker. the sensor of reference in this review, will on the APS-C side be the 6MP Sony sensor used in the D40/D50/D70 by Nikon and all of the pentax 6MP digitals. The 10MP sony sensor used in the the D200/D80/D60/D40x and pentax K10D/K200D. The full frame sensor reference will be the 12MP Nikon designed sensor found in the Nikon D3.
Now there is probably a lot more, but these are what springs to mind:)
Now first of all the difference in Image area between the two formats is 1.53 horizontally and vertically, giving a 2.3 times larger image area.
Now the differences will be described as I see them and this list gives you a quick overview in a "pros vs. cons" style.
Pros:
Dynamic range
Digital noise
Viewfinder
DOF control
No crop factor
Cons:
Vignette
Corner softness
Weight
Price
towards the end I will list up a few other experiences, from using what is the fastest DSLR on the market today.
The Pros:
Dynamic Range:
Dnamic range is usually measured as Exposure Value stops (EV stops) and one thing many users noted when going from negative film to digital was the loss of dynamic range, especially at the highlight end.
Now the move to both a 14bit RAW file and the larger pixels has resulted in a full frame sensor that not only has a massive dynamic range, it also has about 1.7 stop that can be retrived where highlights appear blown.
The shadows can be retrived almost from total darkness too and has an impressive colour accuracy even in areas that appear black.
In short I have much less need for grad ND filters and less need to use HDR to compress the dynamic range. IT makes shooting high contrast scenes a lot easier than previously.
This photo, captured without the use of ND grads gives an idea of the DR available, serious reviews has announced that it is close to the performance from the two sensor design found in the Fuji S5 pro in terms of DR and yes the difference is massive compared to what I have used before.
Digital Noise:
Digital noise is that disturbing scatter of seemingly random pixels that rarely looks good. The digital equivalent to "film grain" some might say, but due to its patterned behavior it appears more disturbing.
Well in this department the full frame is good news. it has a stunning Noise performance. ISO 6400 is easily comparable to ISO 800 from the 10mp sony sensor and comparable to the ISO 1600 performance found in the new D300 from Nikon. Pictures speaks a thousand words they say and well this monocrome photo was shot as ISO 12800 and the only light available was the tea candle held by Miss Duplo.
yes the difference is massive and where noice does appear it is mainly luminance noice and actually has a very film like appearence.
The viewfinder:
A negative sideeffect of the cropped formats is that the mirror housing needs to be smaller to fit the sensor size. this gives for a much smaller image when looking through the viewfinder.
One of the good news is that with full frame the viewfinder gets huge in comparison and as an added bonus it does make the use of manual focus lenses a lot easier. I can now manually focus precisely with my ultrafast primes with ease, such a welcome thing and perhaps one of the best things from going "full frame".
DOF control:
Depth of field, is another thing that changes with the format used. Well actually it does not, theoretically speaking it is a function of focal length, aperture, distance to subject and distance between objects with in the frame.
however I prefer the incorrect approach, where we keep the distance to subject the fixed variable. now what this means is when you mount a 35mm lens on a cropped sensor set at f2, it gives you the DOF of a 53mm lens set to f2.8 on full frame.
Now this can work either for you or against you. I will claim it to be an advantage, as it opens up my options for usage of DOF.
The protrait below was shot with an 85mm lens at f1.4. Now to recreat that photo from the same position with an APS-C camera, you would need a 56mm lens at f1.0. now imagine what mounting a 50mm f1.2 on full frame opens up for you:)
That said if you are into macro photography this will work against you. I was struggling getting sufficient DOF at times on APS-C, the move to full frame has not made that struggle any easier.
No crop factor:
Well what this means is that a 35mm lens is now back to being a wide angle lens, a 50mm is now a normal lens, actually slightly wider in terms of AOV than a 35mm on APS-C.
It means that wide angle gets easier and generally with less distortion or at least less complex distortion. A 14mm lens is now on the far side of ultra wide. For a wide angle to short tele enthusiast like me it is simply bliss. Now for a tele or wildlife shooter the story might be completely different, all of the sudden you need a 600mm lens where your 400mm used to get the job done.
But again at the wide angle to normal or short tele range I find it a blessing. This 14mm photo is the best example I can give you and one of my personal favourites:
Now that concludes what I see as the major Pros of the move to full frame, but it is not all a bed of roses there are cons too.
The Cons:
Vignette:
Now this is a problem already known from shooting APS-C specific lenses wide open. however on full frame it will appear with pretty much any lens when shot wide open, the degree of vignette varies from lens to lens and aperture used. In general fast lenses shot wide open will result in notisable vignette. Expensive lenses like the zeiss ZF line is largely free of it, but it coomes at a price.
Now for portraiture and certain macro shots it is generally a desirable feature as it helps framing the subject in a subtle way, but just as often it is an undesired side effect. Now a major issue it is not, but it a con it is.
Below is an unusual example from the the Nikkor AIS 50mm f1.2 shto wide open. In this particular situation it works for the photo and the mood I was after. now it has been slightly emphasized during prossesing, but I could have removed it just as easily.
Corner softness:
Now as the full frame sensor uses the entire image circle of the lens, corner softness is a risk and in general it takes newly designed and rather expensive lenses to avoid the issue. It is an issue that has been reinforced with digital, as a sensor responds differently to light than film did, thus several lenses designed for film will show perhaps even severe corned softness.
Wide angles is in this respect more difficult than teles, but the Nikkor 70-200/2.8VR pro grade zoom is a lens that also has an issue at the 200mm end, so even newer and rather expensive lenses may suffer from it.
Weight and size:
There is no way around it, a full frame body is larger and heavier than an APS-C one, it is just a fact.
Now look at it this way:
My basic APS-C kit was a Pentax K10D, with grip, a 21mm, 43mm and 70mm prime has a total weight of aprox 1500 grams. Now my fullframe basic kit of Nikon D3, Zeiss ZF 28/2, Nikkor AIS 50/1.4 and Zeiss ZF85/1.4 is roughly twice that. Add the fact that both my WA, tele and macro lenses has grown heavier, well the you get the picture.
Price:
Well no secrets or surprises here, the cheapest FF available from new is the 2-3 year old 5D from canon at around 2300USD, my nikkor is roughly 5000USD. Adding up the fact that fast primes and high quality nikkor zooms are rather expensive, well the move to full frame is an expensive one, it is as simple as that.
Factor in that both photobags and perhaps even tripod and ball head may well be in the need for an upgrade too, I had the tripod covered, but it has cost me a few additional bags.
Now there is a variety of other bonuses from my camera upgrade, but those are not directly related to the sensore size, but more to the fact that a 5000USD state of the are pro body is going to have a preformance in almost any area that can only be described as blistering fast. from AF, start up times, shutter lag and view finder black out, to frame rate and write speed, rugged build and durability, well the D3 is a hugely rugged and blistering fast machine when coupled with the right lenses, but also the most complex camera I have ever seen.
All in all I am thrilled by the step up and I have not regretted it for a second. Knowing what I know to day I think it was the right decision for me, but full frame is not all bliss, there is trade offs, personally I think they work out to my favour, they may not for all though.
If you actually mae it to the end, then thank you for reading my ramblings... I hoep it answers some of the questions there has been and if not feel free to ask.
Thanks for reading and do take care:)
Thomas
Asgeirmisund007 # Sunday, April 20, 2008 10:30:31 AM
Interesting reading, I am sure you'll be very happy with your new camera. A way of getting full frame of a digital camera is Olympus's 4/3 standard where the hole system has been developed from the ground as digital.
Peter Battypjbatty # Sunday, April 20, 2008 11:19:40 AM
I hadn't realised the dynamic range made such a difference. I'd need at least two, probably three exposures with my D50 to get the scene at the top. Quite remarkable. What were the exposure details for Miss Duplo lit by candlelight? It would be almost impossible to achieve with the D50 or similar because the exposure time would be too long.
I think you'll find you hang onto this camera for a long time to come. I saw a photographer from my local paper with a D1 a few months back. He obviously had faith in 8 year old technology!
Allanricewood # Sunday, April 20, 2008 2:44:30 PM
I own a D200 plus a D300 and consider trading my D200 for a D3 - that way I will have a set of cameras with the best from both worlds. Your considerations help me a lot in order to reach a final decision in the near future.
One question: My D300 has an "Active D-lightning" mode-algorithm-something which at the same time keep details in highlight as well as in deep shadows. Therefore I think I already experience what you list as a "pro" concerning the D3. Does the D# have Active D-lighting?
Thomas Bojer EltorpDuplo # Sunday, April 20, 2008 6:49:34 PM
Actually the 4/3 format invented by Olympus is not full frame in the sense my reference was meant. The 4/3 has a sensor size of 17.3x13mm that is compared to 35mm full frame with 24x36mm a crop factor of 2.
Meaning that for the example above with a 35mm @ f2.0 on a cropped format equalling a 50mm @ f2.8 on 35mm format, the oly would need a 25mm @ f1.4, given distance to subject is the constant.
Olympus is full frame 4/3, but not actually full frame as i defined it above. 645, 6x6, 6x7 or 8x10 is all full frame as well, but all larger formats than 35mm film. the wording full frmae actually started off with film, with the introduction of APS cameras.
The only difference from Olympus to most other makes is that they had no mount to carry over to digital, and chose a smaller mount, with smaller registration distance and smaller sensor.
Now as said, the smaller sensor can either work for you or against you, but Dynamic Range, Noise and resolving power is not the strong sides of the 4/3 system.
All makers today has a system that is close to fully electronic, the canon EF mount IIRC was the first full electronic mount, nikon has made the transition with the new PC-nikkors that has electronic aperture control, Pentax is not fully electronic yet, they still have a mechanical aperture control, Sigma is based on pentax K bayonet with canon electronics, I know little about the Sony/KM mount.
Nikon F and Pentax K mounts are the most backwards compatible, as they both has the option of using screw driven autofocus and mechanical aperture control.
Sorry about the long explanation Asgeir, you probably new most of it in advance:)
Agreed PJ,
The D3 does not come cheap, neither does the pro grade nikkor optics, but they do deliver.
Well The sunset above is a RAW conversion that included pulling shadows up and regaining highlights, aside from a sligtly blown red channel in some of the highlights, but it holds up without any ugly highlight clips.
The RAW converter used has big impact on the amount of highlights you are able to retrieve btw. Capture One 4 is excellent with the D3 files in general and the best I think when it comes pulling back blown highlights. Capture NX is the best when it comes to ultra high ISO files.
The exposure details for the candlelight shot is actually in the link when you click it:) but here they are:
Nikon D3 - Nikkor 70-200VR @ 110mm - 1/25 - F2.8 - ISO 12800
It was one of those test shots done both to see how far I could push it and if it would work as a portrait. Now with a prime like the 85/1.4 on your D50 shot wide open at ISO 3200 and a monopod to support the slow shutterspeed you would be able to bag the shot as well. the VR made it possible to shoot it handheld though:)
The D3 is most likely more camera than I need, how I ended up with it is a long story though.
You are most welcome Allan.
I actually must have missed your upgrade to the D300... I am glad I have been able to help you out with your considerations, my pleasure to do so.
With regards to the "Active D-lighting" it is the same only pulled to the extreme in the example above. "Active D-lighting" lowers the exposure to retain the highlights and lifts the shadows accordingly, but on the D3 there is a lot more information available than the potential used by ADL.
What I did was blowing the highlights by about 2 stops at the time of shooting, recovering them in the RAW converter and at the same time do some heavy shadow lifting.
ADL, Auto CA and Auto vignette correction, only applies to RAW if you use capture NX for the RAW conversion. 3rd party RAW converters ignores these and pretty much any other setting made in camera.
Wakajawaka # Sunday, April 20, 2008 8:36:43 PM
Thomas Bojer EltorpDuplo # Sunday, April 20, 2008 9:09:22 PM
I will pass on your kind compliment.
Wonderful to see you back in OC again.
Peter Battypjbatty # Monday, April 21, 2008 11:50:05 AM
Thomas Bojer EltorpDuplo # Monday, April 21, 2008 2:28:14 PM
beavidal # Monday, April 21, 2008 3:25:23 PM
I told this before, I love your images and to me, it can be in which format do you want, cos I will always apreciate them!!
Wakajawaka # Monday, April 21, 2008 8:15:38 PM
Thomas Bojer EltorpDuplo # Monday, April 21, 2008 11:30:26 PM
That is probably one of the finest compliments I have received in quite a while.
You have me blushing here. thankful I am:happy:
No Problems Waka.
Just being honest here.
beavidal # Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:35:55 AM
Sprogger McSprogsprogger # Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:45:44 AM
I will probably stick to the bridge type camera, most recently I have been looking at the FinePix S100FS
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/s/finepix_s100fs/specifications/index.html
As always your photos are beautiful and an inspiration.
Good luck with your foray in to the world of the full frame
Thomas Bojer EltorpDuplo # Tuesday, April 22, 2008 2:32:22 AM
Well glad if I have, the S100fs looks like a very nice bridge type camera, from what I have read and seen of samples.
The fuji super CCD is quite an interesting bit technology wise, so I can clearly understand why.
Thank you for both you kind compliments and "good lucks" apprecaite both:)
Peter Battypjbatty # Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:58:44 PM
The main advantage the D3 has is the combination of larger pixels, so much better light gathering capability and therefore higher signal to noise. Also, I think they will have enhanced the microlenses to gather even more light than before.
Thomas Bojer EltorpDuplo # Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:35:15 PM
The D3 sensor is I think the first to have a dual microlens setup, though I am not sure how it works, then I can conclude two things from usage.
It renders differently in native RAW than other sensors, a rendering I like a lot btw.
and above all it works:)
Peter Battypjbatty # Friday, April 25, 2008 2:58:16 PM
These days, Nikon et al design every single part and build a camera that surpasses anything from the days of film.
I'm guessing that Nikon sent Sony the mask for their sensor and Sony just stuck it through their fab plant, otherwise Sony would have a D3 killer by now. That didn't seem to be the case with the D80/D200 and others that shared Sony sensors.
Thomas Bojer EltorpDuplo # Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:11:05 PM
I guess you are right that sony is the likely producer of the D3 chip, but the design was a nikon.
Sony has the A900 in the cards with a 24MP sensor, so I guess they went the high MP count route. THe roumer is that a D3x is on the way, with a 24.4 MP sensor, but no actualy news or official words on it yet.
It is funny though how the camera makers has gone from being about optics and camerabodies, to being just as much about sensor design.
The 10mp sensor from sony was/is a rather popular design and not a bad one per se. it is at times marred by VPN if you push the RAW to their extreme though, and it seems that the D200 has a different design around it, something about a four channel read out vs. the standard 2 channel read out used in all other bodies. Interesting is it, that the 10MP sensor performed slightly different in the D200/A100/K10D/D40x/D60/K200D, if pushed to the extreme, but with the same overall drawing style.