Full frame "look"; real or a myth?

8string said:
David, thanks for your comment. 100% agree.

The smaller sensor will not hold as much detail as the full frame Mkiii. The 5D will give you a bit more dynamic range, that might matter to your footage.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your informative reply. I only quoted this sentence because I'm curious what you mean by it. 5D has more detail? In what, resolution? Because that not true imo as smaller sensored camera's have proven to resolve more detail than the 5D (and others)
Also, the Black Magic Cinema Camera, and even the small GH3, have more DR than a 5D.

That means it is not really the full frame sensor that's responsible for more detail / DR, but the processing by the other electronic parts. If all camera's were created equal (and perfect), the larger sensor would gave the best image. That is what you meant, right?
 
Quite interesting how this thread has turned out. I agree with imdjay, the thread is kind of all over the place but I have learned a lot in the process. Back to my original question: "So my question. Is there really a distinct full frame "look" that's different from the aps-c look everything else held constant?"

So far this thread is proving another statement I made in the original post true: "...you do your research and can't find a consensus from the pros on whether this is true or not".

Someone suggested I rent and test for myself. Easier said than done, or at least I think so. I started a THREAD elsewhere about my frustrations with this. Maybe I can get some pointers here?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UmFzLRgsQNE

This shows that if you slap the same lens with the same settings on a full frame camera and an apsc camera, they will look different - period. YES, you can try to match them...but just taken as they are...the look will be different. (discalimer: I consider fov and dof part of the look because of how they play into composition.) The low light is far cleaner on the MK 2 as well.
 
Last edited:
Stab said:
Thanks for your informative reply. I only quoted this sentence because I'm curious what you mean by it. 5D has more detail? In what, resolution? Because that not true imo as smaller sensored camera's have proven to resolve more detail than the 5D (and others)
Also, the Black Magic Cinema Camera, and even the small GH3, have more DR than a 5D.

That means it is not really the full frame sensor that's responsible for more detail / DR, but the processing by the other electronic parts. If all camera's were created equal (and perfect), the larger sensor would gave the best image. That is what you meant, right?
Click to expand...

True that 'if all cameras were created equal..." But also I am not sure that your statement that the 5D is not as capable of resolving than the OP's question about comparing it to the 7D. I base that on the analysis done at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii for one source.

I have not seen any scientific analysis (and can't find any via Google) on where the 7D actually sits on resolving more detail than the 5D Mkiii that you state. Please point me to some, as I'm willing to be proven wrong. Not trying to be uppity. I have both cameras, and I can tell you I don't want to shoot with my 7D anymore, though it's an excellent camera! It does great stills, but the video is not up to the mkiii. The 5D image is visibly better with the same lens in the same light. The Mkiii is, for me, producing noticeably better images in all shooting situations. This includes using Philip Bloom recommendation to lower the sharpening in the camera and add it back in via Premiere. But I don't add much (maybe 10+ at most)

Also, the choice upgrading it's video compression rates to ALL-I should and does seem to give better quality, from my video capture.

Check out the video at 3 and 5 minute markers here. Go full frame. The mkiii is outresolving the 5D mkii using Adobe RAW images, granted, that stills. but it's showing better *resolution*.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5XF9l3W_-Q

And I agree with your comments, in general, that other cameras likely can outperform it, but that's not the question we were asked. If given unlimited budget, I'd likely buy the C300. But I like having a stills camera with me, as I shoot lots of stills, even when filming, (not while filming but during the shoot), and also I have a lot of great Canon glass. So the mkiii is not a disappointment for the price, and it's, in my mind, a good upgrade over the 7D, including a different *look* to the footage.
 


NAB 2010 Slow motion silliness with the Panasonic TM700 1080p 60p by Philip Bloom :



Photokina 2012 shot with full frame by Philp Bloom:





 
ScottNelson said:
never in my life did I think we would ever be talking about the FOV of a 165mm Super Angulon lens on a Sinar 8x10 view camera!
Click to expand...

Ha!

...I like to mention the 165mm Super Angulon, because so many people think that a 165mm lens is a telephoto, because they are using a 35mm Full Frame camera as their frame of reference.

Where as you know, in reality a 165mm lens can also be a super-wide angle lens depending on the camera format, in this case an 8x10 view camera.

I can't remember what lens focal lengths we used with the Polaroid 20x24 inch camera, but I do remember that the lenses were very old and looked like something from the early 1900's. We shot my hand dipped in green paint holding a red apple, and this took about 30,000 watt-seconds of flash power from about 1 foot away. Every time the flash fired, I felt a heat-blast and I could see the bones in my hand with my eyes closed!
 
Cory Braun said:
There is definitely a distinct look
Click to expand...

I agree that there is a distinct Full Frame sensor look, but I think much of this is coming from choices made when shooting with these cameras.

- Shallow DOF
- Color settings of the camera
- Post processing of the video
- A distinct type of softness in the image ( capturing a lower resolution image from a larger sensor )

...However, I do think it's possible to match almost any two cameras, even if they are different formats.
 
TheDingo said:
Ha!

...I like to mention the 165mm Super Angulon, because so many people think that a 165mm lens is a telephoto, because they are using a 35mm Full Frame camera as their frame of reference.

Where as you know, in reality a 165mm lens can also be a super-wide angle lens depending on the camera format, in this case an 8x10 view camera.

I can't remember what lens focal lengths we used with the Polaroid 20x24 inch camera, but I do remember that the lenses were very old and looked like something from the early 1900's. We shot my hand dipped in green paint holding a red apple, and this took about 30,000 watt-seconds of flash power from about 1 foot away. Every time the flash fired, I felt a heat-blast and I could see the bones in my hand with my eyes closed!
Click to expand...
The Schneider Super-Angulon f8 210mm is a super wide angle with 100° FOV on an 8x10 camera.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info...format_lenses/super-angulon/data/8-210mm.html
 
TimurCivan said:
To reply to TheDingo, yes you are correct but only if you stop down to match DOF. If you keep both lenses at a F2.8 the dof characteristics will be different between the different cameras.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought about this afterwards and realized I was wrong about using the same F-stop.

i.e. 5D MK2 with a 50mm at f/4.0 = GH3 with 25mm at f/2.0
 
I think I understand it more. In fact, it's likely The Dingo has the answer that I choose to believe. It's more about the choices that are made when you use a larger sensor, not necessarily that it's a look of the sensor. For the most part, the examples have shown that--given the right glass, you can match them all. But, likely, if I had a different tool I would play to the tool's strength so the look would be different inherently.

Good thread, anyway. Enjoyed checking back in to see some different perspectives.

Can't wait for the next generation of massive sensors in small bodies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top