Is full frame all that

Sebzy

Well want to find out what people think.

Canon have crop and Full Frame sensors great but why??
Nikon have just crop but get bashed for no FF why?

Is it the resolution gained with larger sensors or the comfort zone of film frames?

Have never ever got the whole FF fever but it seems the rest of you have and now with the MkIII popping up it's just got worse.

ThOnda

For the first - the crop factor.
Lenses have been precized in last 50 years to have the best physical transofrmation of light to the size of film frame. So if you need "wide" lenses for sport, indoor or reportage photography, you'd prefere FF camera, because the lenses are superb already. And they don't have to "bend" the light so much.
And the second thing is the physics of the silicon chip and wafer. The bigger distance among cells, the better susceptibility (or shielding) from other cells. And it means lower noise. So very good for low-light photography.
And for the third - the more expensive camera, the better camera! (Just joking here )

Edit for Calina: Yes, I do agree. If you need longer lenses, the crop factore is more than welcomed. It saves you teleconverter. I understand your point of view, but I just love documentary photography with lots of sharp details, being close to people and get the feeling of my presence in my pictures.

Fajitas!

Well, wide angle's are much...erm...wider.

The screen is so so much brighter too, as opposed to 1.6's

But the lack of noise in images, and the general image quality of modern FF sensors is excellent.

Lenses behave like they should. Take my 24-70 - It's horrible on a cropped body. Pointless. Put it on a full frame, and it's a fantastic lens, completly different attributes.

All well and good, I could have bought a cropped body and bought an 18-55 etc, but meh, I prefer it this way.

Calina

Me, I'm not all that excited. This would be because I depend a lot on zoom and as a result, exploit the crop factor that I have on my camera.

For other people, it might be different.

eas

Sebzy wrote:

Nikon have just crop but get bashed for no FF why?

Nikon will be announcing a Pro FF body in a couple of days....I guess they got bashed enough.

Sebzy

Well then tell me this what is the best lens ever produced for canon and which sensor dose it work best on????

Maybe the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM now which gives less Vignetting/distortion on APS due to the smaller sensor size this is the same for all canon glass. When you push the glass to the extents of the sensor quality drops off.

or have I got it wrong?

311

Sebzy is that not false economy though ? ,you've got better results on a much smaller area.

Sebzy

_Brian_ wrote:

Sebzy is that not false economy though ? ,you've got better results on a much smaller area.

Then why not invest in making a 21MP APS sensor rather than a FF one?

Anyone who knows anything about electronics will tell you if you throw enough money at a problem a solution can be found.

311

Canon have a couple of fractal lenses ,but people complain about them ,so it sounds like they are a good few years ahead yet.

I personally think it's the balance of glass technology and sensor technology that dictates the current outcome.

mathias

Well , for me , it goes like this ,

Most of the pro lenses out there were originally designed for a 35 mm film frame, thats what a full frame sensor is , a sensor thats the same size as a 35mm film frame.

Lens/camera technology has spent who knows how many years perfecting for the 35mm frame. So thats where a lot of people are comfortable working , your older photographer probably hates APS-C cos hes used to a 35mm frame.

If you compare looking through a viewfinder on an APS-C dSLR to looking through the viewfinder on a 35mm film SLR , well using the APS-C type is like working in the dark. If you were used to using a film camera this is a hard pill to swallow when switching to digital. Given the choice and the money , most old film users would go for a Full frame 5D over an APS-C 400D/30D.

I have a friend whos a pro photographer , thats his sole income , he has a selection of Nikon lenses lads here would drool over , but he shoots exclusively on film , using F6's or similar , he tried a D200 and hated it , for the very reasons mentioned above , he loves my 5D , but is hardly going to switch to Canon with all that lovely Nikon gear , and he is one of the lads bashing Nikon over FF. If they released an equivalent to the 1ds mk II /or 5D tomorrow hed be first in the Queue. I would imagine there is a lot like him , If Nikon drop film without a decent full frame dSLR there will be an exodus.

APS C sensors are cheaper to make, and the cheaper lenses work better with them because the small sensor is not showing up the imperfections in the glass due to the crop.
These sized sensors are great because the brought affordable digital SLR's to everyone .

But the best gear was , and still is , designed in 35mm frame terms and that means full frame.
So its hard to see APS-C sensors as anything but a stop gap to bringing digital camera technology up to a par with the old film technology.

Sure there are some specially designed APS-C lens , like the EF-S series , but own up , who likes shelling out for those over EF , knowing it could be a flash in the pan and everything may go FF eventually , when the costs of manufacturing the sensors goes down.

I shelled out for a 10-22 , and while I like it , it choked me to have to spend that much on a lens that may be short lived , in camera terms.
At the time I bought 10-22 , this was the only way to get a decent wide angle on a 20D. If there had been an affordable EF alternative , I would have bought it. ( wide angle i.e. 17- 40L mm EF came later ! )

Now that the 5d is getting so cheap , the days of the APS-C could well be numbered. Sure the 40D looks great , but would you take one of those over a 5d if they were close in price ?

JMcL

Well, from what I understand, the really difficult thing about large sensors is getting lenses to perform well with them. With film it doesn't matter so much as a film frame is to all intents and purposes a flat plane, and doesn't care what angle light strikes it at. Not so a digital sensor. The pixels/photosites are actually at the bottom of tiny "wells" capped with microlenses, so the further away you get from the center of the frame, the greater the angle at which the light strikes the photosite, and the less light reaches the actual photosite. Lenses can be designed to maximise the amount of light that emerges from the back element at as close to 90 degs as possible, but this is expensive (there's a word for this, but it's too early in the morning to think of it!).

So the upshot of the above, is that marrying a full frame sensor to a cheap lens, will most probably result in lots of vignetting (Hasselblad actually apply a software correction for this with their medium format sensors), so you have to prepared to cough up for top quality glass on top of the hefty price for the camera (ok, the 5D isn't that extreme these days, but it's still around 2 grand give or take).

On the other hand, because the photosites aren't packed together so tightly, noise performance is much better (the 1DsM3 pixels are still larger than those of the 40D despite the doubling in resolution). Canon claim to have improved the microlens performance in the new cameras, so it'll be interesting to see how test pan out.

My opinion is that because of the demands for top quality glass for large sensors, cropped sensors aren't going to go away anytime soon. Given that there are good ultrawides to cover the wide end, unless you need to use them at large apertures, or simply must have that 14mm L so that you can see your feet and head in the frame at the same time, most people will get all they need from APS-C bodies. If however getting large prints is paramount, then full frame is the way to go.

SOL

I think the word you are looking for is telecentric but again it is early in the morning so who knows?

JMcL

SOL wrote:

I think the word you are looking for is telecentric but again it is early in the morning so who knows?

That's the one!

DaireQuinlan

Ahh, I presume thats where that daft rumour came from that Nikon actually -couldn't- make a FF sensor because the size of the F mount (few MM smaller than a 35mm frame) wouldn't allow them make a lens that would actually cover the full frame without vignetting. Regardless of the fact that they've had fullframe sensors (film !) for the last 60 years on the same size mount ...

eas

DaireQuinlan wrote:

I presume thats where that daft rumour came from that Nikon actually -couldn't- make a FF sensor because the size of the F mount (few MM smaller than a 35mm frame) wouldn't allow them make a lens that would actually cover the full frame without vignetting.

just to further dispell that daft rumour - Kodak have had a full frame (CMOS) DSLR since 2001-2002, and they use the nikon f-mount.

and to mention again - Nikon Full Frame body expected this week (exciting)

Morlar

Full frame gets my vote. Focal lengths are back where they should be - specially if you are used to a 35mm.

Valentia

Sebzy wrote:

Maybe the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM now which gives less Vignetting/distortion on APS due to the smaller sensor size this is the same for all canon glass. When you push the glass to the extents of the sensor quality drops off. or have I got it wrong?

That's brings up a really important benefit of FF, DOF. DOF is better with FF and so the 300 2.8 will give better OOF shots at wider apertures. Macro shots also benefit from FF.

FF quality is sumptuous. Wide angle is so much more dramatic. My Sigma 12-24 is amazing on the 5D. Safety in numbers, cropping still retains quality.

FF is best for the more sedate side of photography, portraits and landscapes which will benefit massively. EF-S has it's place but more for sport, nature, spying......

Either is better than the other in different circumstances. They both have their useful uses!

DotOrg

mathias wrote:

Now that the 5d is getting so cheap....

compared to a pro film camera it's still hugely expensive. compared to a prosumer or a basic film camera it's ten times more expensive. you could buy 3 or 4, 350D Canons for the price of a 5D

Valentia

DotOrg wrote:

compared to a pro film camera it's still hugely expensive. compared to a prosumer or a basic film camera it's ten times more expensive. you could buy 3 or 4, 350D Canons for the price of a 5D

And join the photos together? I could buy 5 5Ds for the price of a 1Ds Mark III. The 5d is amazing value these days considering the cost of other cameras.

ThOnda

But you have three or four times higher chance to sell technicaly good picture from 5D than from 375 (350 and 400, but I wanted to write them in one word)

Rojo

DotOrg wrote:

compared to a pro film camera it's still hugely expensive. compared to a prosumer or a basic film camera it's ten times more expensive. you could buy 3 or 4, 350D Canons for the price of a 5D

I'd choose the 1 5d over the multiple 350s..

Calina

vast majority of people don't have that choice though which is the point being made.

That being said, I still want a 40D because the crop factor does matter to me because I use a lot of zoom.

Valentia

As I said on a previous thread, the 5D and 40D are a mighty combo.

Stephen

APS-C for me, purely for financial reasons. I can't afford high end glass and a high end body, especially when I don't make my living from this!

ThOnda

Stephen - I am also waiting for new Lidl didjital cameras, don't worry :-)

Borderfox

Sebzy wrote:

Then why not invest in making a 21MP APS sensor rather than a FF one?

Anyone who knows anything about electronics will tell you if you throw enough money at a problem a solution can be found.

At the moment in DSLR's a 21mp aps will be too noisy or require too much work to fix. In my terms FF in a 1d body and Digic III is fantastic, it ticks all the boxes I want and I might well be slipping over to the states to pick up a 1ds MK 3 in December for a Christmas box!!!

rymus

Boards NYC meetup!

Borderfox

Cool at Christmas too..

GristlyEnd

rymus wrote:

Boards NYC meetup!

Don't be putting up posts like that. I usually end up looking at flight and hotel prices (which I have just done )

rymus

hmm... €434 return from Shannon to JFK..

Valentia

1Ds Mark III? You'd really have to think of upgrading your computer first! Imagine the wait for a RAW file to open. Quad core at least I'd imagine.

Valentia

Borderfox wrote:

In my terms FF in a 1d body and Digic III is fantastic, it ticks all the boxes I want and I might well be slipping over to the states to pick up a 1ds MK 3 in December for a Christmas box!!!

As above Keith and 5fps? Not what you want surely?

Borderfox

Well I was thinking of getting a 1d Mk3 or a 1ds Mk2 but I was holding off because of the focus issues and whether the 1ds was good enough for low light, but the 1ds Mk3 is roughly the same price as the Mk2 if estimates are anything to go by. Not too worried about the computer specs for the files as I am pretty handy at building them and can put one together for small money. The release comes at just the right time €434 sounds good. Arrive NY @ 10am in BH for 12pm and back on the flight for 10pm perfect

rymus

jaysus no man... give yourself at least 48 hours to sample the various wonderful deli's and restaurants. (and apple store)

Borderfox

Only kidding, of course I will be sampling the many delights that NY has to offer. How many of these Mk3's will I get for everyone?

rymus

as many as you can stuff into your underpants going through customs

Borderfox

. More on topic, I think that the ff sensor has a wider dynamic range than the crop one.

JMcL

rymus wrote:

jaysus no man... give yourself at least 48 hours to sample the various wonderful deli's and restaurants. (and apple store)

What you mean you'll be able to afford anything more than baked beans after forking out for a 1Ds3?

rymus

If you're able to buy the camera in the first place you're hardly balancing on the poverty line

Valentia

rymus wrote:

as many as you can stuff into your underpants going through customs

C'mon. He's not Billy Morgan!!

For GAA followers only.

Borderfox

Its an investment!! No really, I am being made redundant at the end of the month and I have been with the company for 19 years so I have some money to buy new equipment, I have bought all the lenses I need off Albert in Kea, just want a 1d body with plenty of scope for taking on whatever work get thrown my way. I was thinking of the 1ds already so next step up doesnt seem too bad. I must actually rent a 1ds mk2 and see how it handles what I do at the moment. Its a scary time to be losing what was a very stable job

Calina

Ah, that explains a lot. I don't feel quite so inadequate any more...

311

Borderfox wrote:

Its an investment!! No really, I am being made redundant at the end of the month and I have been with the company for 19 years so I have some money to buy new equipment, I have bought all the lenses I need off Albert in Kea, just want a 1d body with plenty of scope for taking on whatever work get thrown my way. I was thinking of the 1ds already so next step up doesnt seem too bad. I must actually rent a 1ds mk2 and see how it handles what I do at the moment. Its a scary time to be losing what was a very stable job

Keith have you got insurance on all your stuff ,I'd nearly insure a 1D before I even get my hands on it

Borderfox

I have insurance on what I have already, thats all covered. I will buy the 1ds on CC so I will have insurance for the way home (I think thats the way it is on my one)