The DSLR Sony Alpha 99 II received a full-frame 42-megapixel CMOS sensor with a five-axis optical stabilization system, an electronic viewfinder, and a hybrid phase detection autofocus system. Its uniqueness lies in the fact that 79 focus sensors are located on a separate module, and 399 are located directly on the matrix. In terms of performance, Alpha 99 II is also good. Despite the heavy weight of the final photos, the continuous shooting speed is 12 frames per second.

Another feature of the camera is support for video recording in 4K resolution. And considering that there are jacks for connecting headphones and a microphone on the side, the conclusion suggests itself that the Sony Alpha 99 II will appeal to videographers who want to get excellent quality videos. Moreover, the micro-HDMI port allows you to connect an external monitor to the camera.

Note that the Sony Alpha 99 II is very easy to use, and the location of the controls indicates the manufacturer’s thoughtful approach to the ergonomics of its product. By the way, the camera settings, which can be accessed through the on-screen menu, are also structured in the most meaningful way.

Sony Alpha 7: The first mass-produced “mirrorless” camera

Sony Alpha A7 is perhaps the first widely available “mirrorless” camera with a full-frame matrix. 24 megapixel resolution, low-pass filter, hybrid autofocus, high build quality - the list of advantages of this camera goes on and on. Let us note right away that this model costs almost the same as semi-professional DSLRs. But what is the advantage then?

The first and most important thing is that it is almost half the size and weight, which is very critical for most photographers today. Secondly, it supports all modern wireless interfaces and the ability to connect directly to gadgets via Wi-Fi. Of course, the Sony Alpha A7 also has disadvantages compared to DSLRs: for example, shorter battery life, relatively low burst speed, and not such a wide selection of optics. However, you just have to try shooting on the Sony Alpha A7, and big cell I won't want to go back anymore.

With the use of good lenses, the images captured by this camera will satisfy the requirements of professional photographers. Highest quality Pictures both in the light and in the dark are provided to you.

Rating of full-frame SLR and mirrorless cameras

PHOTO: manufacturing companies

Hello again, dear reader! I’m in touch with you, Timur Mustaev. Do you know what a full-frame matrix is ​​in SLR cameras? How does it differ from reduced matrices? Why are they more expensive? What to do if you don't have a full frame sensor?

Before answering these and other questions that interest you, let me congratulate you on the first day of summer. I don’t know how things are with your weather, but here in Dushanbe today it was +36C. In other words, summer has begun in full force. How is the weather with you, what can you brag about? I also congratulate you on Children’s Day, take care, love, appreciate both your own and other people’s children. Children, this is a ray of light in our hearts!

In one of the previous articles the topic of the camera was touched upon. Surely, after reading it, there was still some uncertainty associated with full-frame cameras. Today I will tell you about their advantages and disadvantages. After reading the article, you will find out why you need full frame camera, how pictures from full-frame and cropped cameras will differ, what are the advantages and disadvantages of such solutions.

Full frame sensor.

So, to understand what a full-frame camera is, you need to understand the concept of “full frame”. The frame size is usually considered to be the dimensions of the photosensitive element located in the camera body. Physically, they are completely different. “Full” is considered to be standard 35mm elements, since this size has been the standard for many years.

The width and height parameters of such matrices are 36 and 24 millimeters, respectively. This is where the concept of crop matrix appears, which was touched upon in one of the previous articles. The reason for the creation of “cropped” matrices was and still is the high cost of producing full-fledged sensors for digital cameras. Of course, now the technical process has become less expensive, however, the production of elements of standard sizes is still not the cheapest pleasure.

Of course, there used to be compact cameras. They tried to make them as inexpensive as possible both to purchase and to maintain. This necessitated the creation of “crop films,” so to speak, but they were very rare: even now it is difficult to find a well-preserved camera with reduced-size film.

Towards the end of the training, our teacher showed a very interesting camera that was used by the USSR intelligence services in the mid-late last century. They showed us the Vega camera, produced in Kyiv in the 60s. It's amazing that it was fully functional, even the film was in place. The size of its film frame was 14x10 millimeters, and the drum held only 20 photographs.

We ourselves, of course, were not able to work with him, since we were forbidden to take him with us to photographic practice, but we nevertheless examined several frames captured by Vega. The quality of our exhibit was quite good for this type of camera, especially considering the diminutiveness of its lens. However, this did not prevent the scouts from doing their job efficiently.

Features of a full-size photosensitive element

It is no secret that the image obtained with a crop matrix will be smaller than that obtained with a full-fledged one. This, as you can see, was discussed in the previous article. To a large extent, the story was about cut-down matrices, but now it’s time to talk about full-size sensors. It has both advantages and disadvantages. It seems to me that we should start with the first ones.

So why are they so valued by professionals?

Advantages of full-size cameras

Firstly, detail. Due to the larger matrix size, the resulting raster image boasts better picture clarity. Even the smallest details will be depicted better in full frame than on a cropped lens, if you compare the results shot with one lens.

Secondly, larger viewfinder size. No matter what anyone says, covering a small light-sensitive element with a large mirror is inappropriate. Of course, the size is also affected by the prism, but the latter in such cameras is usually larger than in mass-produced ones. For mirrorless cameras, this is an even more significant advantage, due to the higher resolution of the resulting image.

Third, the size of the pixel itself. If the manufacturer decides not to increase the number of photosensitive units, but to make them a little larger, this will make the sensor more sensitive to light rays. No matter how some photographers explain it, full-frame cameras tend to produce lighter images.

Fourthly, good depth of field. Due to the better ISO sensitivity provided by the larger pixel size, achieve good indicator The depth of field on such a device will be much easier.

“What is depth of field?” you ask. This stands for depth of field of the space used. Why is this necessary? It's simple: for stronger or weaker background blur. The main thing you need to know here is that full-frame matrices allow you to “work magic” with this parameter most effectively.

Fifthly, no zoom effect. It was also mentioned in the article about the crop factor. Perhaps this is one of the main differences from reduced matrices, which allows you to save large quantity images in one frame. This can play both a positive role in the frame and a negative one. For example, at a great distance from the subject being photographed, this can play a negative role, but when working in the “portrait” genre, everything will be exactly the opposite.

At sixth, even at high ISO settings of 1600–3200, the appearance of digital noise is minimal.

Comparison of full-frame and cropped devices. A case from one's life

I would like to say right away that the comparison turned out to be very subjective, since the cameras were different levels, they used different optics, they were controlled different people. So, after showing the spy device, the teacher began to tell us the task for the next work: we had to create a full-fledged photo report.

We were partly lucky: at the additional training center there was a driving school next to us, and that day a driving competition among novice drivers was being held on the territory of the local race track. I don’t think it’s worth going into details; that’s not what you came here for.

So, the competition began, and my classmates and I went to the race track to take the cherished shots. What I had in my hands was not the best best Nikon D3100, so I decided to immediately agree with the guys working with the Canon 5D Mark II to shoot in turns. Both devices, by the way, were used with whale lenses. We agreed that after some time we would exchange cameras to better understand the devices themselves and get the most large quantity pictures.

Upon arrival at the studio, everyone immediately began transferring frames to laptops for processing. Having inserted the memory card, I did the same, after which I began to examine the resulting result. Looking through the photo for the second time, I caught myself thinking that at long distances (about 50-100 meters) Canon took pictures of more or less acceptable quality, but the D3100 showed impressive results, as for a budget amateur SLR camera.

Of course, close-up photographs were taken: it was necessary to photograph the winners, the cars that brought them to this result, and their mentor teachers. The result on Canon was impressive. Nikon also performed well, but in some places it lacked sharpness, in other places the picture seemed a little noisy, and you shouldn’t forget about the zoom effect.

After finishing looking at the photos, I came to the following conclusions: Canon is capable of anything, you just need to choose the right set of lenses, but with Nikon everything is not so simple. Of course, you can get high-quality images, but Nikon makes it quite difficult to get perfect images at short distances due to the crop factor. Nevertheless, it more than justified its cost, just like Canon.

Disadvantages of full-size cameras

First and, perhaps most significant, the difficulty of photographing at long distances. A larger light range, good image clarity and ease of taking pictures are offset by weaknesses when shooting with a long focal length. Of course, this can be solved by using a specialized lens, which will significantly hit your pocket.

Second, but no less significant is the cost. In addition to expensive “glasses” (as the lens is called in slang), you will have to pay a round sum for the carcass itself. Of course, professionals will not stop even at a six-figure price tag, since such an acquisition will pay off fairly quickly.

Third minus - weight. A large matrix, a large mirror, a large viewfinder... It increasingly requires a spacious housing for placement. Among other things, lenses for large bodies have also never been famous for their lightness. Particularly difficult will be configurations with expensive telephoto lenses, the lenses of which are made of glass with a special coating.

Fourth disadvantage - narrow specialization full frame matrices. While a crop with a coefficient of 1.5-1.6 can be called standard and universal. Full-frame sensors are primarily focused on close-up photography. Of course, you can use a full-frame camera for long-distance shooting, but this will be much more difficult and expensive. In addition, even up close it will be difficult for a beginner to implement a device with a standard size matrix.

So, the time has come to understand whether we need a full-frame camera or not? If you are one of the top photographers in the city and photography is your main income, then it’s definitely worth it. If you are an amateur thinking about upgrading your crop camera, then the purchase will be a very dubious action. No matter what is written here, you should competently evaluate all the pros and cons, and then decide which type of matrix to choose.

If you want to get acquainted with your camera in more detail, understand what it is capable of, understand the basic properties of composition, understand how to make beautiful blurred background, learn to control depth of field and much, much more. Then a really great video course will help you " Digital SLR for a beginner 2.0" Believe me, you will get a lot out of it useful information, and your photos will turn into masterpieces.

I hope you found this article interesting and now you know what the phrase “full-frame camera” means. If the information was useful, then be sure to subscribe to my blog, a lot of interesting things await you ahead. You can tell your photographer friends about the blog, let them also get involved in high-quality photography. All the best, dear reader, see you soon!

All the best to you, Timur Mustaev.

@talentonatural77

We've selected the 10 best full-frame DSLR cameras for 2018. Studio heavyweights optimal for enthusiasts and two cameras for photojournalists.

Despite the fact that without DSLR cameras are coming, don’t write off DSLRs too early. In this selection we included mid-range and top-end DSLR cameras.

1.Nikon D850

Nikon D850 is the company's flagship and, according to the editors, the best SLR camera on the market.

The 45.4 MP full-frame sensor delivers stunningly clear images with huge dynamic range and high operating ISO. Fast autofocus is provided by a 153-point system. Video recording available in 4K format with all necessary

Nikon's signature deep-grip, spill-resistant design and rotating touchscreen display provide incredible ease of use.

The 30.4 megapixel matrix and 61-point autofocus make this camera an excellent option for professionals. With this resolution, you can shoot footage of any genre and not suffer from a clogged disk.

The Canon EOS 5D Mark IV is one of the best DSLR cameras available today. Although it lost the top of the chart to the D850.

3.Nikon D810

Despite the release of the D850, this model is still a very powerful tool.

36.3 megapixel matrix, high detail, no AA filter, wide dynamic range and 1200 frames on one battery. The camera copes with scenes of any complexity thanks to the 51-point autofocus system from the reportage D4S.

It doesn't have a rotating display, Wi-Fi or 4K, but it remains an excellent studio and reportage camera with water resistance and high resolution.

4. Canon EOS 5DS

If you need to get maximum resolution, then you should choose the Canon 5DS with its 50.6 megapixel matrix. This is the highest resolution among DSLR cameras today.

Stunning detail, low noise and good dynamic range make this camera ideal for the studio and landscape photographer.

The other side of the coin is slowness, lack of Wi-Fi and 4k video, and, of course, huge files requiring huge memory cards and hard drives.

5.Nikon D750

The first four places were taken by very expensive cameras. In 4th place is the Nikon D750, the main advantage of which is its affordable price.

The camera is equipped with a 24.3-megapixel matrix, a 51-point autofocus system and a high operating ISO. Camera body with water and dust protection like the D810, tilting display and built-in Wi-Fi.

Nikon D750 is a harmonious and affordable full-frame SLR camera.

6. Sony Alpha A99 II

Strictly speaking, the Sony A99 II is a pseudo-DSLR; it is equipped with a translucent mirror and an electronic viewfinder. But still, half of it is a DSLR and therefore ends up in our selection.

Autofocus when shooting at 12 fps, a 42.2-megapixel matrix with back illumination, a built-in stabilizer and ample shooting capabilities in 4k format.

The flagship and best DSLR for photojournalists. D5 is attached to lenses at the Olympics and various world championships.

Everything in the camera is subordinated to one goal - to take the desired frame. 20.8 megapixel matrix, shooting speed 12 frames per second, unprecedented maximum sensitivity ISO 3,280,000. 173-point autofocus system.

The ability to shoot video in 4k is limited to 3 minutes. But these are minor things.

A photojournalist chooses a camera based on the system his news agency uses.

The Canon 1D X Mark II received a 20.2 megapixel sensor, 61 focus points and a shooting speed of 14 frames per second, which is more than the D5.

The camera does not boast a huge maximum ISO, here it is weaker than the D5, but nevertheless, in low light the camera produces high-quality images even at high values.

9. Canon EOS 6D Mark II

The specifications of the 6D Mark II are quite simple. 26.2 MP sensor, 45 autofocus points, rotating touch display and excellent autofocus performance in Live View.

The disadvantages are weak dynamic range and autofocus with small frame coverage.

The company held great job over the 6D Mark II and made a nice camera for enthusiasts who want to upgrade to a full frame camera.

10. Pentax K-1 mark II

This is a unique and controversial DSLR camera.

The Pentax K-1 mark II is equipped with a time-tested 36-megapixel sensor with good dynamic range, serious weather protection, built-in GPS, the ability to shoot handheld in Pixel Shift mode and a lot of functions not available on other cameras on the market.

However, it also has a lot of weak points. The shooting speed is limited to 4.4 frames per second, there is no 4k video recording, and the autofocus area does not cover the entire frame.

P.S.

All these models have mirrorless cameras breathing in their backs. On this moment The market for full-frame mirrorless cameras is represented by the Sony A7R III and , which by their third iteration have become close to ideal. Plus the first reportage Sony A9. You won't see it in stadiums yet, but this is partly due to logistics.

Very soon, or more precisely on August 23, they will be joined by the first full-frame mirrorless Nikon Z, followed by the full-frame Canon. The timing of the announcement of the latter is not known, but reports are coming that Canon is trying its best to make it happen as soon as possible.

At the same time, do not forget mirrorless cameras with APS-C matrices. They become serious players. Especially Fujifilm with its X-H1 (read it, it's cool) and the future one, which we expect to see on.

For six months now I have been the very happy owner of a Canon EOS 6D and, having shot more than 15,000 frames during this time, I can reliably talk about its pros and cons. But first, a little about your activities and the reason for the purchase.

I am a professional photographer in small town. I specialize in family, children's, studio, wedding, fashion photography and related areas of photography. At the beginning of the summer of 2016, my old Canon 500D, which served me faithfully for 8 (!) years, broke down, there was no point in repairing such an old camera, savings did not allow me to take a swing at 5Dm3, but I really wanted to switch to FF - under these conditions, there was a choice only one is obvious.

The camera cost me about 86,000 (with a price of about 105,000 in official partner stores, i.e. suppliers of “white” equipment, at that time). No, it was not purchased from famous Indians at VDNH. The discount of almost 20 thousand was obtained due to the already annual cashback from Canon and coupons from the Svyaznoy store, Googled in 10 minutes. Nowadays you can buy a camera even cheaper if you follow the same scheme. Well, or go to stores with gray equipment.

General impressions of the camera: I’m completely satisfied with it, it’s enough for work, new opportunities have opened up. But you need to understand that the camera is NOT DESIGNED for dynamic reporting. I was slightly shocked by some reviews in which people complain about focusing or rate of fire - my dears, this is all indicated in the camera’s characteristics, why buy a device that has nothing to do with your type of activity, and then blame the mirror?

It’s perfect for leisurely creative photography! At the end of the review, I’ll tell you how not to make a mistake when choosing a camera and what to look for when buying.

What pleased you with the 6D?

1. Good working ISOs

This is the most important plus and an inexhaustible source of joy for me. With my old camera, I couldn’t even dream of shooting at ISO 2000-4000, which meant that entire genres were closed to me, and the picture in dimly lit rooms was indigestible. Now everything has changed, I have gained greater freedom, in the twilight of a restaurant I no longer necessarily grab a flash, in simple Soviet apartments there is enough light from the window, you can safely experiment with night photo shoots and even astrophotography. But photos can speak louder than a thousand words:

Filmed in a closed church, cloudy day, the only light source is a medium-sized window:

At 100% magnification:

The quality is more than acceptable for use on the web, a personal album, and even for A4 printing.

And here is a photo from a report on the arrival of my regular client’s husband from the army. The train arrived at one in the morning, with only city illumination for illumination:

Same source + flash on the ground behind:

Light from a curtained window:

Suddenly, during the shooting, a strong thunderstorm began, in the blink of an eye it became dark, like late evening, and heavy rain poured:

The only light source is candles:

I think you understood my point. The camera is very friendly with high ISOs! Of course, at 8000 the mess starts, but this range is enough for work. With this camera, I was able to see the Milky Way for the first time without leaving the city!

2. Full frame and all that it entails

Wide-angle lenses have finally become so, and to use my favorite 135mm from Canon, you no longer need to travel 5 km per shoot. In general, the legs are resting

I almost never leave this lens, so this is important to me. Now sometimes I even manage to fit in a cramped studio with him. A few examples of photos with my favorite and 6D:

3.GPS and Wi-fi

Filming takes me to the craziest places, and not only hometown, but also throughout Russia, and sometimes beyond its borders, so keeping track of the map of your movements is a kind of little game for me. But unfortunately, GPS noticeably affects the camera’s operating time without recharging, so I don’t always keep it turned on. I often take one or two frames in a new place with GPS turned on, so that I have a mark that “I was here”

GPS is very accurate, determines the location with an accuracy of up to a meter, you can then see what happened during the shooting using the map tab in Lightroom or a program from Canon.

Here is a map from one of my photo days at one stable, it’s clear that during the 8 hours of shooting I did a fair amount of running:

4.Other nice little things

• The raw file size is noticeably smaller than on my old camera, but the resolution is higher.
• Long-lasting battery (can easily withstand an entire wedding or several smaller shoots without recharging)
• Uses SD cards (for me this is a plus, since there are a lot of SD cards left from the 500D and I didn’t have to buy cards of a different format)
• 3 different resolutions for raw (very useful when you know for sure that large photos are not boring)

And now about the unpleasant stuff:

I won’t find fault with the design and placement of the buttons (especially since it clearly wins in comparison with the 5Dm3), since this is a matter of individual preference and a matter of habit. The first time was difficult, changing settings required several seconds of “stupidity” on my part, since the controls were radically different from my previous camera. But this is a matter of practice, now I feel quite comfortable with it.

All of the listed disadvantages do not interfere with working in my genres, so my rating for the camera is 4.75, rounded to 5.

And now some photos under different lighting conditions.

The perfect golden hour

And now about how to choose a camera and not make a mistake.

The first question you should ask yourself is “who am I and why do I need a camera?”

Everything else will depend on the answer to this question. Here are the possible answers that come to my mind:

1) You are an amateur photographer, you know little about the technical side of photography, you need a camera to

• photograph family, children, get-togethers with friends, parties, in general for social purposes. In this case, you definitely don't need a 6D, even if your friend has one and you like the photos from it. For these purposes, there are more budget solutions that are no worse and do not weigh more than a kilogram with a lens. Pay attention to the most budget DSLR models, and spend the saved money on a good fast lens and on-camera flash; in your case, much more will depend on them than on the camera. You can take a closer look at used cameras.
• take pictures while traveling, hiking, trips, in general for tourist purposes. You don't need a 6D either. Pay attention to mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses; when packing suitcases, long walks and on mountain trails, size will matter and every gram will count. The motivation to carry 1.5 kg of camera equipment with you disappears quite quickly when you go on 10 km walks in mountainous areas.
• shoot for yourself - macro, objects, portraits, in general for creative purposes. For you, I have the same advice as for the first point - a budget DSLR + a good lens. The 6D is only worth buying if the lion's share of your creativity is shooting in low light and your budget allows.

2) You are a professional or are going to become one in the near future, you need a camera to

• shoot a report, sporting events, club parties, etc., in general, everything that is in constant motion. The 6D will absolutely not suit you and its characteristics simply scream about it. Pay attention to the number of frames per second, the most short shutter speed, focusing system, and then choose according to your budget; reportage cameras sometimes cost half a million. Don't skimp on memory cards, as they can also affect your burst shooting speed.
• shoot portraits in the studio or outdoors, subjects, macro, in general, everything that allows you to shoot thoughtfully and slowly. 6D is perfect for these purposes for professionals of any level. In some circles there has been a somewhat snobbish attitude towards it, saying that it is not the most serious camera for a professional, but in my opinion this is a misconception, and thousands of professionals will support me in this. However, if you are a novice photographer, I would advise you to pay attention to more budget crops, you will always have time to change the camera when you realize that the crop has become cramped for you, but if you immediately invest in a full frame and end up with a photo you are not it will be a shame, and the camera will not be suitable for home purposes. Invest in lenses and lighting equipment - they play a much larger role in the final picture than the camera itself, and full frame is not a magic wand and will not automatically make your photos better, just keep practicing and learning, and you will always have time to switch to expensive equipment.

To summarize, I will say that 6D left a mostly positive impression, allowed me to expand my horizons, and opened up something that was previously inaccessible. And I can definitely recommend this camera. I hope that we have many more years of adventures ahead of us.

If you still have any questions after reading my review, write in the comments and I will definitely answer them.

© 2014 site

Digital cameras are called full-frame (FX or Full-Frame) if the dimensions of their matrix are 36 x 24 mm, coinciding with the dimensions of a standard frame of small-format film type 135. Cameras with a smaller sensor (APS-C, DX, Micro 4/3), i.e. having a crop factor greater than one are called part-frame, cropped, or simply cropped.

The myth about the absolute superiority of full-frame cameras over crop-factor cameras is so firmly rooted in the mass consciousness that I’m even somehow embarrassed to debunk it. After all, everyone knows that a full-frame camera is better than a cropped one. And why is it better, if it’s not a secret? Most amateur photographers find it difficult to answer this question, but are firmly convinced that “real quality” is achievable only with a full frame. Since Nikon and Canon unanimously declare that purchasing a full-frame camera is ideal solution of all photographic problems, and a legion of amateur photographers unconditionally agrees with this thesis, then maybe a full frame really has some wonderful properties that evaporate without a trace if you just reduce the size of the sensor by one and a half to two times?

It is not difficult to understand photographic equipment manufacturers. Their goal is to increase profits, which means that both Nikon and Canon would prefer that when choosing a camera, you buy the most expensive model, regardless of whether it suits your true needs. Since full-frame DSLRs are more expensive than cropped ones, the desire of photo giants to convince potential buyers of the need to purchase a full-frame camera seems quite natural. Amateur photographers, in turn, readily believe advertising because, firstly, they are not used to thinking critically, secondly, they sincerely believe that “more” or “more expensive” always means “better”, and thirdly, they are generally inclined greatly exaggerate the role of photographic equipment in the process of obtaining a beautiful photograph.

The desire of a beginning amateur photographer for a full frame is usually emotional, not rational. Everyone wants to shoot full frame, but not everyone really needs it. Meanwhile, often using a camera with a crop factor is a completely reasonable decision, and its capabilities are sufficient for almost most photographic situations.

Do not misunderstand me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with full frame cameras. After all, the size of the photosensitive material is one thing you can never have too much of. And the need to operate with such a clumsy artificial concept as equivalent focal length irritates many. If you passionately want to shoot at full frame and you can afford it, then why not? Just don't be under the illusion that your photos will automatically improve as a result of switching to full-frame technology.

This article is addressed primarily to those who are hesitating between crop and full frame and would like to know about the practical consequences of increasing the sensor and whether the game is even worth the candle? The problem is becoming even more pressing due to the fact that full-frame cameras, gradually becoming cheaper, are ceasing to be purely professional tools, and now there are models on the market that differ from each other almost exclusively in sensor size and price, and in other respects similar friend on each other, like twins (for example, Nikon D7100 and Nikon D610).

In the following paragraphs, I will try to reveal as objectively as possible the actual differences between crop and full frame, which affect both image quality and ease of use. You will see that both classes of cameras are not without both advantages and disadvantages, although the gap between them is not nearly as wide as between DSLRs in general and compacts, the sensors of which are truly negligible. I'll mainly be referring to Nikon and Canon DSLR systems as the most popular, but most of the material holds true for other brands as well.

Dynamic range

A full-frame camera potentially has a greater dynamic range than a camera with a crop factor. This is a direct consequence of the increase in the physical size of the photomatrix. As you know, the size of the full frame is 36 x 24 mm, while the size of the APS-C format matrix (Nikon DX), which has a crop factor of 1.5, is 24 x 16 mm. A change in the linear dimensions of the sensor by 1.5 times means a change in its area by 2.25 times. Thus, with equal resolution, i.e. With the same number of photodiodes, larger photodiodes on a full-frame sensor will have approximately twice the capacity compared to photodiodes on an APS-C sensor. Twice the photodiode capacity means a twofold increase in the signal-to-noise ratio, i.e. Increasing the dynamic range by one exposure stop. As a result, full-frame cameras have a maximum ISO sensitivity that is on average one stop higher than similar models with an APS-C sensor, and at equal ISO values, full-frame sensor noise is less noticeable. Roughly speaking, APS-C at ISO 3200 is noisier than full frame at ISO 6400. At lower ISOs the difference is not nearly as obvious, and when shooting at the base sensitivity value (usually ISO 100), the advantage of full frame is manifested only in the ability to stretch a little more freely shadows in post-processing.

I would like to emphasize that the above comparison is valid only for cameras that have the same resolution and were released at approximately the same time. Technologies do not stand still and modern cropped cameras are objectively superior to older full-frame models, including in terms of dynamic range. If you don't intend to shoot at crazy ISO values, the dynamic range of any modern camera will be quite enough for you, as long as it has a crop factor of no more than two. Most people are unlikely to notice a difference of one or two stops of dynamic range at all. If it seems to you that your camera is noisy at high ISOs, then, in order to prevent perfectionism, try shooting a little film with a sensitivity of ISO 800, and you will be surprised at how clear the picture is produced by your amateur digital SLR.

Depth of field

Depth of field depends on frame size only indirectly. To obtain the same image angle, a camera with a crop factor needs a lens with a shorter focal length than a full-frame camera. Reducing the focal length leads to an increase in depth of field in proportion to the crop factor, and vice versa - the longer the focal length, the smaller the depth of field. As a result, with equal values ​​of aperture, equivalent focal length, focusing distance and resolution, a full frame gives approximately one and a half times less depth of field than APS-C. For example, if an aperture of f/4 was used for a certain photo taken full frame, then to obtain a similar image (while maintaining perspective and depth of field) using an APS-C camera, you will need an aperture of f/2.8.

Obviously, full-frame cameras have some advantage in cases where you need to separate the main subject from the background using a shallow depth of field, as is the case when shooting portraits. On the contrary, if the photographer’s goal is to get a sharp frame right up to the horizon, which often happens in landscape photography, then the advantage is on the side of cameras with a smaller format sensor, since, all other things being equal, they provide a greater depth of field.

Lenses

Full frame Nikon and Canon systems include a huge variety of lenses to suit any need. The choice of lenses for cropped cameras is much more modest. Of course, you can use full-frame lenses on cropped cameras, but, firstly, due to the crop factor, choose the right lens with a given equivalent focal length is not always possible, and secondly, is this why they buy cropped cameras in order to install heavy and expensive full-format optics on them? Unfortunately, neither Nikon nor Canon consider it necessary to produce lightweight and compact crop primes, being in the naive delusion that superzooms are enough for the user of amateur DSLRs, and in general, it would be better if he switched to full frame and did not deprive the poor Japanese of their earnings. Wide-angle lenses from Nikon and Canon for full-frame cameras can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Exotics like tilt-shift lenses are only available within Canon Full-Frame and Nikon FX.

But when it comes to telephoto lenses, owners of cropped cameras are in an advantageous position, and this is where the use of full-frame optics is completely justified. Due to the notorious crop factor, 200 mm turns into at least the equivalent of 300, and 300 into 450, which is not so bad even for photographing wild animals. This is why many photo hunters who want to optimize their expenses prefer cropped crops.

Viewfinder

Optical viewfinders on full-frame cameras are definitely more convenient, larger and brighter. A large viewfinder makes the eye less tired and allows better control over autofocus, not to mention manual focusing.

But cropped cameras have an unexpected advantage over full-frame cameras, which lies in the convenient location of autofocus points in the viewfinder. If in cropped cameras the focusing points cover a fairly large part of the viewfinder field, then in full-frame cameras all the points, no matter how many there are, are grouped in the center of the frame.

The fact is that the dimensions of the focusing module in all SLR cameras, both cropped and full-frame, are approximately the same, but since the viewfinder of full-frame cameras is itself larger, the area covered by the focusing points seems smaller. If you focus primarily using the central AF sensor and then recompose the frame, the squashed focus points won't bother you, but if you prefer not to change your composition after focusing, the lack of peripheral sensors may be an issue for you.

Dimensions and weight

On average, full-frame cameras are larger and heavier than cropped ones, but the reason for this is not the sensor, which weighs a little, but rather the positioning of a particular model and related design features. Reliable and, as a result, overweight professional models are now universally equipped with full-frame sensors, while lightweight plastic amateur cameras make do with reduced-format matrices. At the same time, models located at the intersection of two classes can be very similar in their parameters and differ from each other only in the size of the sensor and accompanying units (such as the shutter and viewfinder), and as a result have almost the same dimensions and weight.

However, few people carry a camera without a lens. Full-frame lenses are noticeably heavier and bulkier than crop lenses. Of two homologous ones, i.e. covering the same range of equivalent focal lengths of optics kits, a full-frame kit will weigh on average one and a half times more.

Thus, if you need a lightweight travel system, the total weight of which will not exceed one kilogram, consisting of a camera and two or three lenses covering a range of focal lengths from 28 to at least 300 mm equivalent, then full-frame solutions simply do not exist here. If you need professional reporting equipment, which today is exclusively full-frame, then you will inevitably have to put up with its impressive dimensions and solid weight.

Price

Of course, full-frame cameras are more expensive than cropped ones. Today, prices for current cropped SLR cameras start from five hundred dollars, while full-frame ones start from about two thousand. The difference in price is explained not only by the fact that the photo matrix is ​​indeed the most expensive part of a digital camera, but also by the pragmatic approach of photographic equipment manufacturers to the formation of a model range. Even if the sensors were worthless, Nikon and Canon would still make full-frame cameras more expensive for purely marketing reasons.

In any case, even if you have enough money to switch to full frame, think about it: have you really exhausted the photographic capabilities of the crop, or is this idea artificially imposed on you? Isn't it better to spend extra money on purchasing additional lenses, flashes, a tripod, educational literature, in a word, those things that will have a much more direct and obvious effect on your photographs than simply increasing the format?

Thank you for your attention!

Vasily A.

Post scriptum

If you found the article useful and informative, you can kindly support the project by making a contribution to its development. If you didn’t like the article, but you have thoughts on how to make it better, your criticism will be accepted with no less gratitude.

Please remember that this article is subject to copyright. Reprinting and quoting are permissible provided there is a valid link to the source, and the text used must not be distorted or modified in any way.