# Help! Full Frame or Not for derelict shots?



## Kezz44 (Feb 4, 2014)

Need advise, thinking of investing in a full frame camera for all those dark and abandoned places we go to. Is it worth the extra money? And will I see a big difference in the shots I take with a full frame compared to a crop? There supposed to be much better at low light conditions/ less noise etc..... I use a nikon d5100 thinking of D610!
Hope its ok to post this question. You guys are the experts after all!
Any help or advise would be great!

Suzi


----------



## krela (Feb 4, 2014)

A camera forum contains the experts...

Unless you're an artist or professional who sells photos it's a huge amount of money to spend for snaps. Common wisdom says spend the money on glass not bodies.


----------



## AgentTintin (Feb 4, 2014)

A full frame camera will let you capture more light and achieve a greater depth of field, however they are a lot heavier to carry around. I presume you have 'DX' (crop-sensor) lenses which will work on a Nikon full-frame SLR but they will run in crop mode so you will not get the unlock the full potential of a full-frame camera. If you are needing to capture more light there are a couple of options, something like the Nikon DX 35mm f1.8 lens will let in more light than a standard kit lens (the lower the f-stop the more light will be let in) or you could get a flash (I use the Nikon SB-700 but the Yongnuo flashes from Hong Kong are cheap and provide a good light source).

Links:
[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-SB-700-Speedlight-Flash-Unit/dp/B0042X9L6A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391504298&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+sb-700"]Nikon SB-700[/ame]
[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-1-8G/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391504302&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+35mm"]Nikon 35mm Lens[/ame]
Yongnuo Website
Yongnuo eBay Store

Hope that helps


----------



## krela (Feb 4, 2014)

Tripod, longer exposure, learn to light paint. Very very few people use an external flash in urban photography other than for off camera light painting. A £20 tripod and a torch will give you much better results than a £300 flash.


----------



## Kezz44 (Feb 4, 2014)

Thanks guys, will think on it and do lots of research and have a gi at light painting. Yes, it is alot of money to spend!


----------



## mookster (Feb 4, 2014)

Light painting is one of the best arts to learn, if you can conquer it you'll be onto a winner.


----------



## AgentTintin (Feb 4, 2014)

I have tried light painting but recommended the flash and lens because it's what I use for urbex photography


----------



## krela (Feb 4, 2014)

Flashes are designed to illuminate focal subjects at a near-mid field distance. You have very little control over the exposure across a whole frame and taking into account depth of field, as the light from a flash is a single source pulse that diminishes rapidly with distance. Obviously they will give you extra light to take photos in dark places, and they're an improvement over any on board camera flash (in that they will throw light further, and you'll get less orbs, dust etc), but not much more than that.

Similarly a low f/stop lens is great for letting more light in, but when you lower the f/stop you lose depth of field, so that is also very situational and inflexible. A low f/stop prime lens is an excellent investment as you can take awesome photos with them, but they're not a viable solution to low light photography.

I can guarantee that 95%+ of all the photos taken in darkness that make you go *wow* on here have been light-painted with a tripod, long exposure (sometimes 5+ minutes) and torches. Sometimes practice, perseverance and some tricks can go a whole lot further than throwing money at kit, which unless you learn to light-paint most probably still wont give you the results that other people get. 

Ultimately it doesn't matter so long as you're happy with your photos. It's all subjective. My point is you don't have to throw money at kit to get good photos, and if you do it might not work. Much better to learn all the tips and tricks until you feel your kit is the limiting factor, THEN it's time to upgrade.

As I said right at the top, this isn't a photography forum, and you're better off asking the question on a camera/photography forum of which there are many filled with pro experience.


----------



## Kezz44 (Feb 4, 2014)

Thanks again. Its all been really helpful!!


----------



## UrbanX (Feb 4, 2014)

krela said:


> Tripod, longer exposure, learn to light paint. Very very few people use an external flash in urban photography other than for off camera light painting. A £20 tripod and a torch will give you much better results than a £300 flash.



This... Then you have £280 for petrol / ferry / plane money


----------



## shot_in_the_dark (Feb 4, 2014)

it really all depends on the size of the 'room' you are trying to light. for example a huge warehouse will be hard to light with either, to get a crisp exposure from one end to the other. where as small rooms often are better lit with light painting, as a flash can cast harsh shadows, and very quickly 'flatten' your subject. effective use of light painting can be used through practice, to give the illusion of daylight in an other wise dark space. 

the best two bits of kit you can get for low light photography, are a tripod, and shutter release, i never go anywhere without mine.


----------



## MD (Feb 5, 2014)

I shoot full frame have done for a couple if years now 
I like wide angles so I use a 17 40 for exploring 
Which is the same as a 10 20 on a crop 
Mine is a little less "plasticky " than a crop bodied camera 
Meaning it handles any little knocks 
But 
Like others have said it's not totally nessesary 
To go full frame 
I think I could achive the same results using a crop body with a sigma 10 20 
If I'm being honest 
I never use flash ( my camera hasn't got one )


----------



## cogito (Feb 5, 2014)

For derelict locations, you _generally_ want the following from your photos:
*•* Large depth of field to show detail throughout the scene
*•* Due to often dark environments, longer exposures are necessary so a tripod is essential. So sensitivity / shutter speed isn't really an issue.

Full frame has the following advantages over APS-C:
*•* More pronounced separation in depth of field at wide apertures.
*•* Marginally quicker shutter speeds in the same ambient lighting due to a larger light-recording surface (although this does have any change in the effect of camera shake.)
*•* Better signal to noise ratio for cleaner images while using high sensitivity settings.
*•* Slightly better tonal gradation in smooth areas of a photo due to larger imaging sites (pixels.)

Therefore, it's main benefit in terms of photographic situations over APS-C cameras is when using large apertures in low (or variable) light situations to photograph smooth sufaces such as skin or the sky/water. Basically adding up to it being great for portraits, weddings and landscapes.

So as far as I can see there is no correlation between the benefits of a full frame camera over APS-C and the requirements from photographing derelict locations. It's also worth pointing out that APS-C cameras and lenses are smaller and lighter on the whole, which is a significant benefit when photographing derelict locations.

Lighting is a completely independent factor from sensor size and will make a far bigger difference to your photos.


----------

