Why FF?

In the previous century, 35mm film format became popular because it was good enough. A Leica rangefinder gave you mobility.

However, most pros stayed with larger formats in order to sell large prints. 25 years ago, almost all wedding photographers used 2¼. Now, they all use DSLR, FF or even cropped Nikons. For us hobbyists, cropped DSLRs give us cheaper, lighter cameras.
Currently, the advantages of FF are:
1. More pixels and/or lower noise.

2. Ability to use existing lens as they were designed, such as wide angles and standard zooms (24-70).
3. Large and bright viewfinders.
These advantages are becoming irrelevant, because:

1. The resolution & noise level of cropped sensors are good enough for most of us.

2. With the availability of EF-s and other “digital lens”, new users do not need to carry old baggage.

3. Optical viewfinder size is the only remaining advantage of FF cameras. Because, the size of the viewfinder screen is the size of the sensor, DSLR cannot use sensor much smaller than Oly’s 4/3. However, electronic viewfinders will solve this problem. The current EVF on P&S has limited dynamic range, poor resolution and terrible lag, making them unusable for most situations. In 10 years, I bet that EVF will surpass optical finders.

--
Peter Kwok
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok

Whether you like it or not, you better get used to the idea of FF. Canon reps have already said they're planning on taking every model in the line to FF except the Rebel.

Bottom line: higher res is better, all other things being equal. I myself like the extra tele I get from the 1.6x, but that's no excuse--you can always use FF at the same lens focal length and crop the shot down to the lower res, more zoomed shot if you like.

I see no needs for FF because I don't print anything bigger than 13"x19" and at that print size difference between picture taken with 30D and 5D is nonexistant. And yes, soft corners are in the past when one uses FF lenses on 1.6x crop body, which is a huge plus for XXD.

Peter Kwok said:

In 10 years, I bet that EVF will surpass optical finders.

Click to expand...

Eh! They'll be faster than the speed of light?

saynomore said:

If I read it right, he was stating that by using 50mm on FF, 30mm
on 1.6x and 90mm on his mamiya, he would get a different
perspective. As you said, perspective does not change. Not as long
as he doesn't move, even if using a 1200mm lens or a 10mm lens on
the SAME camera, or any other camera. It is independent of focal
length. Only dependent on position.

There is no such thing as a "30mm perspective", "50mm perspective"
or "90mm perspective", on any camera. The FOV and/or DOF would
change, but that's about it (besides more detail/less grain).

afterburn said:

This is not correct. The perspective does not change, just the FOV
due to the crop.
--
Gijs from The Netherlands
Canon 30D ~ EF-S 17-55/f2.8 IS ~ User Error.
http://www.crashdot.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about "field of view" or "angle of view". I said the PERSPECTIVE is different between a 30, 50 and 90mm lens. Imagine photographing a long tree lined road with the 3 lenses - keep the vanishing point in the same place, with the shorter lens the relationship between the trees will be more pronounced - it's called perspective(objects getting smaller in the distance). With a longer lens its less pronounced ie. more compressed. That's why we use slightly longer lenses for portraits; so that features like noses and chins don't get accentuated too much. The appearance of depth or lack thereoff is as important a lens characteristic a

Luigi_V said:

I'm not talking about "field of view" or "angle of view". I said
the PERSPECTIVE is different between a 30, 50 and 90mm lens.

Click to expand...

Perspective is function of position, and nothing else.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Perspective_01.htm

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

By the time you crop to the same ratio thats 180dpi vs 225. Sorry, that's visible to most people. When you reach 23M pixels you're at about the visible limit for a 13x19" print, we've got a way to go yet.

Al_10D said:

I see no needs for FF because I don't print anything bigger than
13"x19" and at that print size difference between picture taken
with 30D and 5D is nonexistant. And yes, soft corners are in the
past when one uses FF lenses on 1.6x crop body, which is a huge
plus for XXD.

Click to expand...

If you crop 5D picture to 30D size you will have 4368/1.6 =2730 and 2919/1.6=1824 pixels or 2730x1824 against 3504x2336 on 30D.

...have lower noise than current FF.

95% of my photography is Landscapes. I use a 20D because FF isn't affordable to me yet, but when it is, I'll be dropping the 20D. Nothing is more irritating to me then having to use my 17-40L at 17mm and still not be wide enough to get the shot I want.

I've also found that using 17mm for stitching panoramics you'll find "fish ey like" distortion. Makes panoramics harder to stitch. I would think that 28mm on a FF camera would have less "fish eye like" distortion because there is less curvature on the lense. But I don't have a FF digital camera to test with.

As someone who does landscapes I see no advantage to 1.6 crop. I have noticed most people who argue against FF seem to shoot sports.

Mike

severoon said:

Whether you like it or not, you better get used to the idea of FF.
Canon reps have already said they're planning on taking every model
in the line to FF except the Rebel.

Click to expand...

Now I got it: Canon planning to kill sales of their newly developed $700 10-22 and $1000 17-55IS, right? I don't think so.

Cropping a 3:2 ratio image to 19:13 gives 2912/13=224for a 5D
and 2336/13=180dpi for a 20D
Now if you can figure out some way of increasing that by magic...

Al_10D said:

If you crop 5D picture to 30D size you will have 4368/1.6 =2730
and 2919/1.6=1824 pixels or 2730x1824 against 3504x2336 on 30D.

Click to expand...

n/t

Feel free to buy me one. Can't exactly afford dozens of lenses.

When I bought the 20D I could afford one good lense (have a few lenses from my film days: Canon 70-300 and Sigma 28-105). Went with the 17-40 because it was high quality and would give me a decent range for landscapes.

Also I don't want any EF-S lenses because someday I plan on replacing my camera with a FF camera. Making the EF-S lense a waste of money.

Now you're acting plain silly. We're talking a couple of years before the xxD models are nolonger APS-C. You think that Canon can't sell enough 10-22s' and 17-55s' to make a decent profit over that time span?

Al_10D said:

severoon said:

Whether you like it or not, you better get used to the idea of FF.
Canon reps have already said they're planning on taking every model
in the line to FF except the Rebel.

Click to expand...

Now I got it: Canon planning to kill sales of their newly
developed $700 10-22 and $1000 17-55IS, right? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Nothing, but where's the 7.5-15?

I misunderstood you, sorry.

Did you anderstand what I said about soft corners of FF lenses on FF cameras as oppose to FF lenses on cropped cameras?

and that relates to better overall IQ. If you are happy with your IQ you get out of APS, then stick with it. If you want better potential IQ, then FF offers a solution. This, of course assumes, you have the skill to work each one correctly and have a decent understanding of light and composition.

So at the end of the day, FF offers more growth and higher overall IQ.

Steven

--
---
2006 Southern Arizona Monsoon Wildflowers
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2006_ii

Summer 2006:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/gallery/images_summer_2006

Slayer9292 said:

95% of my photography is Landscapes. I use a 20D because FF isn't
affordable to me yet, but when it is, I'll be dropping the 20D.
Nothing is more irritating to me then having to use my 17-40L at
17mm and still not be wide enough to get the shot I want.

Click to expand...

If you only want wide, there are very good options, like the 10-22 mentioned.

Slayer9292 said:

I've also found that using 17mm for stitching panoramics you'll
find "fish ey like" distortion. Makes panoramics harder to stitch.
I would think that 28mm on a FF camera would have less "fish eye
like" distortion because there is less curvature on the lense. But
I don't have a FF digital camera to test with.

Click to expand...

If you mean barrel distortion, that may be less with a prime, but it's mostly dependent on the lens. If you are referring to the wide angle distortion of rectilinear lenses at the edges, then a 17mm lens on 1.6x crop will have the same distortion as a 27.2mm on a FF.

Slayer9292 said:

As someone who does landscapes I see no advantage to 1.6 crop. I
have noticed most people who argue against FF seem to shoot sports.

Click to expand...

I think the wide angle advantages are negligible. The advantages to me are more DOF control and considerably more detail/less noise for same final size image.

I think stitches are better done with long focal lengths. If you do them with wides, you'll get a lot of error at the edges due to the wide angle distortion. You'll have to overlap more and hence take more shots to get the same resolution.

saynomore said:

Slayer9292 said:

95% of my photography is Landscapes. I use a 20D because FF isn't
affordable to me yet, but when it is, I'll be dropping the 20D.
Nothing is more irritating to me then having to use my 17-40L at
17mm and still not be wide enough to get the shot I want.

Click to expand...

If you only want wide, there are very good options, like the 10-22
mentioned.

saynomore said:

I've also found that using 17mm for stitching panoramics you'll
find "fish ey like" distortion. Makes panoramics harder to stitch.
I would think that 28mm on a FF camera would have less "fish eye
like" distortion because there is less curvature on the lense. But
I don't have a FF digital camera to test with.

Click to expand...

If you mean barrel distortion, that may be less with a prime, but
it's mostly dependent on the lens. If you are referring to the wide
angle distortion of rectilinear lenses at the edges, then a 17mm
lens on 1.6x crop will have the same distortion as a 27.2mm on a FF.

saynomore said:

As someone who does landscapes I see no advantage to 1.6 crop. I
have noticed most people who argue against FF seem to shoot sports.

Click to expand...

I think the wide angle advantages are negligible. The advantages to
me are more DOF control and considerably more detail/less noise for
same final size image.

Click to expand...