Why I went full frame

This is actually going to be a pretty short blog post.  The reason I went full frame was for the visual perspective and depth of field control that I had with 35mm film and missed since converting to digital.  It wasn’t for the amazing low light performance, although that is pretty awesome, and it certainly wasn’t so I could be a “cool kid” and have “fx” on the front of my camera. :-)  Truth be told, if I hadn’t shot 35mm film for over 20 years there is a good chance that I might not have gone with a new full frame camera.  But I have missed that perspective and have been anxious to get back to it since converting to digital in 2007.



This entry was posted in Photography.


  1. Denzil Jennings December 29, 2012 at 8:54 am #

    I’ve been asking myself if I’ll ever make the jump to full frame lately, and I still don’t know the answer. How does the visual perspective and depth of field differ between a full frame and crop sensor? I know that you have access to the higher end FX lenses, and I know that you have the ability to create images with a shallower depth of field since the lenses are closer to the sensor, but I guess I don’t understand how beneficial some of that is since I’ve never shot film. If you could expand a little more on what you feel makes the jump worth it I’d love to hear it.



    • ScottWood December 29, 2012 at 11:16 am #

      I am not really convinced that there is a real benefit of FX over DX unless you have spent a lot of years in the 35mm world. There are amazing DX lenses out there that really negate the argument that the FX lenses are better, and in many cases you get the exact same benefit of a high end lens when you use an FX lens on a DX body.

      For me, it was all about what I thought scene should look like at any given focal length. For most of my photographic life a 50mm lens produced a scene that was pretty neutral, meaning that it was close to what you saw with your eyes. With a crop sensor camera I needed to use a 35mm lens to get that same perspective. This isn’t a bad thing, but with 20+ years of shooting, some things sort of become ingrained and habit.

      As I said, if I came into the photography world in the digital age I would probably be more than happy to stay with DX.

  2. Denzil Jennings December 30, 2012 at 7:26 am #


    Thanks for the reply. I would definitely imagine it’s hard to retrain the brain after 20+ years if seeing something a certain way. One downside that I have come across with the crop factor lenses is there is no ultra wide. Having never used an ultra wide I don’t even know what I would be missing out on. 17mm vs 27mm is pretty different though, and I can imagine this would be a valuable difference for a landscape photographer. I doubt I will ever move beyond a serious hobbyist, and I know that a better camera doesn’t make a better photographer, but it might be nice to have that extra lens range available.

  3. Kris Koeller January 3, 2013 at 4:33 pm #

    Congrats! I got a D800 in July and have been very pleased with the transition. I do a lot of landscapes so I appreciate the wider field of view, and the detail is amazing (but that might have more to do with the D800’s 36MP sensor). I think you’ll be very happy with your decision.
    Kris Koeller recently posted..Happy 2013!My Profile

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *


CommentLuv badge