Reading mode: Light Dark

Why are people buying crop sensors when they know that FF is the future?

Go to last post
papparazzi said:
is this:

"But I couldn't justify buying a FF camera with such a price tag esp
on something that gets obsolete withing 18 months or so thus I
settled for the crop body"
Click to expand...
True but Moore's Law has been applied in real life at least once in the DSLR industry, example the first ground-up Canon DSLR, the D30 launched in 2000 costs as much as the first affordable FF DSLR the 5D launched in 2004. I was not willing to pay such a high price on the 5D just for IQ only, and am sure there could be much improvements implemented in the 5D, more of which already existing at that moment. That justified my reluctance in the purchase of the FF and instead I bought the 30D to launch myself into digital photography and wait for an FF that justifies its price tag.

VJ
Member said:
--



http://www.pbase.com/jdf
Click to expand...
--

'Intelligence plus character – that is the true goal of education.' Martin Luther King Jr.
 
sergey1968 said:
sergey1968 said:
I'll offer my guess: less than 1%.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
sergey1968 said:
I think less.
Click to expand...
Less than "less than 1%"?! Daaaaaamn! : )
sergey1968 said:
But among the images I care for it may be much much higher percentage.
Click to expand...
Well, of course. But are the "images you care for" representative of what the "average DSLR user" produces?

Of course, I understand that people can buy what they like. I'm not being all uppity and saying that people need to "earn" their camera by the pics they take. Instead, what I'm saying is that, for the types of pics the vast majority take, they'll see little to no difference between FF and crop, so why ditch all the advantages of crop and pay more money for FF?
sergey1968 said:
And only this percentage is important for me - as I don't own shares in Nikon
or Canon or Pentax. Come on - that was the same idea exactly - 35mm is too
good for average camera user - that created terrible APS film format.
Click to expand...
Actually, I know next to nothing about film. However, all things equal, people want the best, whether they know what to do with it or not (e.g. look at all the people driving Corvettes, Porsches, etc.). But all things are far from equal (size, price, features, etc.), so I think that, all things considered, crop is the future, not FF.

That said, I certainly prefer, and have a "need" for, FF, and will even consider MF when the price becomes managable for me. Regardless of what I do, however, crop will still be more popular, by far.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
 
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
maybe my english so poor and you can't undersand it well, if so, i am
sorry for mine bad english
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
Dude, don't apologize for your English. It's we Americans who don't
speak more than one language that should be apologizing for our
ignorance! : )
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
joe mama said:
i thought that everyone knows one another language in US, mostly
catalanian spanish
Click to expand...
Well, as the US becomes more and more Mexican, that will be more and
more the case (don't know, exactly, what "Catalanian" Spanish is,
however). But, as of today, the "typical" American speaks but one
language, and, given the results of how our schools perform, they
don't do particularly well at that one language, either. : )
Click to expand...
Completely off topic, but some (not all) Mexicans in the US may start with learning Spanish, because at this point they neither speak Spanish nor English but an dreadful mixture (including in the TV).

Also speaking of ignorance, please, Catalonian Spanish does not exist; there are just two different languages.
 
I tried to read your explanation and it reminded me too much of my college physics classes, so I decided not to continue. I'd rather look at the practical situation at hand, which is contrary to you swapping an f/4 lens for an f/2.8 lens to try and get an apples to apples comparison of two camera bodies. The bottom line is an f/2.8 lens on a full frame camera is going to yield the same exposure settings in a given situation as an f/2.8 lens on a crop camera. So I can shoot with a 5D or a 40D at the same subject, and the settings will be the same. If you are shooting at ISO1600 and need a shutter speed of 1/500s, if it takes f/2.8 on the 5D, it will take f/2.8 on the 40D... and it will take f/2.8 at 300mm and it will take f/2.8 at 400mm. My Sekonic meter has no setting for full frame or crop sensor, and it has no settings for focal length... it deals only with aperture, shutter speed, and ISO... which is the triangle of settings to properly expose an image. If you are going to stand at a point on the ground and take a picture of a subject that is a fixed distance away, assuming the same lighting, then you will need to stick with an f/2.8 lens when you bump yourself up to a longer lens.

As for whether more people shoot wide or long (over 200mm), it doesn't matter. The situation is that there are photographers that do both, how many I don't know. Those that shoot more long are going to favor crop sensors more likely than those who shoot wide. The thread asked why anyone would ever buy a cropped sensor now. The reason why is that... full frame is "a" solution, and crop is another solution. Why in the world is it that full frame fans think that EVERYONE should use full frame or they are just wrong. I don't really care what other people use personally... I only own cropped cameras at present, but I did own a 5D for a year. I didn't need or want what it offered, and couldn't justify keeping it sitting on the shelf when I rarely put it in the bag to take to a shoot. I prefer the 1.26 crop of the 1D series, and hope that it continues to be available for a long time to come.
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
How is his comparison different apertures? 300 f/2.8 to 400 f/2.8 is
the same aperture on any two camera bodies, while a 500 f/4 is
different???? You totally lost me on that one.
Click to expand...
Let's define "aperture":

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aperture

"the opening in a photographic lens that admits the light"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture

"In optics, an aperture is a hole or an opening through which light
is admitted."

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

"F-ratio is the ratio of the FL (focal length) with the diameter of
the aperture, or, equivalently, aperture is the quotient of the focal
length with the f-ratio. For example, 30mm at f / 2.8 has an
aperture of 30mm / 2.8 = 11mm; or, a 30mm lens with an aperture of
11mm has an f-ratio of 30mm / 11mm = f / 2.8. The f-ratio is a way
to measure the intensity of the light striking the sensor; the
aperture, in combination with shutter speed and sensor area, is used
to measure of the amount of light reaching the sensor. An excellent
analogy to make is to think of the intensity of the light as the
voltage and total amount of light as the current. Images created
with the same perspective, FOV, and DOF will have the same aperture,
not the same f-ratio."
joe mama said:
And you continue to mix apertures for your comparison. Explain to me
how a 135 f/2 is going to compare to a 200 f/2.8? When I went to a
1.26 body from a 1.6 body, I had to buy a 200 f/1.8 (at $4K) to shoot
the same stuff I did before with the much cheaper 135 f/2. I need
f/2, so the 200 f/2.8 doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...
All explained above.
joe mama said:
You are making the assumption that everyone needs wide angle more
than tele?
Click to expand...
Where did I say, or imply, this (note: you said "everyone")? In
fact, you made the assumption in your comparison that people only
need telephoto. However, I did imply that more people shoot at and
below 200mm than above 200mm (but not "everyone"). Do you disagree
with that?
joe mama said:
This is simply not the case, and is the reason why some buy full frame and
some by crop. One is not right, and one is not wrong... they are different
tools for different jobs.
Click to expand...
Did I say, or imply, different? I gave a counter-example to your
example.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Click to expand...
--
Regards, Mike - Lot's of Canon Stuff

Photographer in the Northeast? NorthEastFoto.com
 
Because, same as you, they think that 5D is too expensive - although they wouldn't consider such a price to be "unjustified" when byuing, say, a used car.
--
lordofthelens.co.nz
 
v5point0 said:
papparazzi said:
is this:

"But I couldn't justify buying a FF camera with such a price tag esp
on something that gets obsolete withing 18 months or so thus I
settled for the crop body"
Click to expand...
True but Moore's Law has been applied in real life at least once in
the DSLR industry, example the first ground-up Canon DSLR, the D30
launched in 2000 costs as much as the first affordable FF DSLR the 5D
launched in 2004. I was not willing to pay such a high price on the
5D just for IQ only, and am sure there could be much improvements
implemented in the 5D, more of which already existing at that moment.
That justified my reluctance in the purchase of the FF and instead I
bought the 30D to launch myself into digital photography and wait for
an FF that justifies its price tag.

VJ
v5point0 said:
--



http://www.pbase.com/jdf
Click to expand...
--
'Intelligence plus character – that is the true goal of education.'
Martin Luther King Jr.
Click to expand...
I get your point, and i think the same happens to most of us, i too can't see nothing in the 5d besides it's great image quality, wich we also have in a crop camera, "but not as good". I started 4 years ago with canon, and with a crop body untl now... Since then i have learned a lot about gear, nº1, i would very much like to have a pro grade camera, not expensive and FF...ando no that not the 5d yet... and 2nd: I have concluded that Canon is not the best manufacturer...so i'm really expecting a top FF from the dark side..wich will not be so soon...
--



http://www.pbase.com/jdf
 
Mike Collins said:
I tried to read your explanation and it reminded me too much of my
college physics classes, so I decided not to continue. I'd rather
look at the practical situation at hand, which is contrary to you
swapping an f/4 lens for an f/2.8 lens to try and get an apples to
apples comparison of two camera bodies. The bottom line is an f/2.8
lens on a full frame camera is going to yield the same exposure
settings in a given situation as an f/2.8 lens on a crop camera. So
I can shoot with a 5D or a 40D at the same subject, and the settings
will be the same. If you are shooting at ISO1600 and need a shutter
speed of 1/500s, if it takes f/2.8 on the 5D, it will take f/2.8 on
the 40D... and it will take f/2.8 at 300mm and it will take f/2.8 at
400mm. My Sekonic meter has no setting for full frame or crop
sensor, and it has no settings for focal length... it deals only with
aperture, shutter speed, and ISO... which is the triangle of settings
to properly expose an image. If you are going to stand at a point on
the ground and take a picture of a subject that is a fixed distance
away, assuming the same lighting, then you will need to stick with an
f/2.8 lens when you bump yourself up to a longer lens.
Click to expand...
............
Joe wrote in part:
Mike Collins said:
Mike Collins said:
the aperture, in combination with shutter speed and sensor area, is used
to measure of the amount of light reaching the sensor. An excellent
analogy to make is to think of the intensity of the light as the
voltage and total amount of light as the current. Images created
with the same perspective, FOV, and DOF will have the same aperture,
not the same f-ratio."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You win! I did read his attempt at reasoning. As you can see, Joe thinks the intensity of light depends on the area of the sensor. He confuses quantity with intensity. Using his reasoning, a 5x7 piece of film needs more light to expose than a 8x10. More quantity or energy, yes, but not more intensity. The same lens opening will expose each the same.

Dan
 
Think of the change in history if the Romans had used one-horse or three-horse carriages.

Dan
 
Mike Collins said:
I tried to read your explanation and it reminded me too much of my
college physics classes, so I decided not to continue.
Click to expand...
...it's physics, just like you say. And if it reminded you too much of your college physics classes, and you chose not to read it and understand it because of that, well, then, what can be done?
Mike Collins said:
I'd rather look at the practical situation at hand, which is contrary to you
swapping an f/4 lens for an f/2.8 lens to try and get an apples to
apples comparison of two camera bodies.
Click to expand...
People would always "rather" not do the math.
Mike Collins said:
The bottom line is an f/2.8 lens on a full frame camera is going to yield the
same exposure settings in a given situation as an f/2.8 lens on a crop camera.
Click to expand...
Had you read, and understood, the essay, you would see that that means nothing. A compact digicam at f / 2.8 also has the same exposure. So what? Are you saying an S3 IS is as good as a 40D? Or, is it "magic" that makes bigger sensors better?

Anyway, I'll cut my losses short. The essay explains it all, in detail, but you've not the inclination to read it. Why should I spoon feed it piece by piece?

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
 
altair8800 said:
altair8800 said:
altair8800 said:
the aperture, in combination with shutter speed and sensor area, is used
to measure of the amount of light reaching the sensor. An excellent
analogy to make is to think of the intensity of the light as the
voltage and total amount of light as the current. Images created
with the same perspective, FOV, and DOF will have the same aperture,
not the same f-ratio."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
altair8800 said:
You win! I did read his attempt at reasoning. As you can see, Joe
thinks the intensity of light depends on the area of the sensor.
Click to expand...
Nice logic, friend! You quote me right above, where I say "the aperture, in combination with shutter speed and sensor area, is used to measure of the amount of light reaching the sensor" and conclude from that that I think "the intensity of light depends on the area of the sensor".

Good one.
altair8800 said:
He confuses quantity with intensity.
Click to expand...
Yep. That's me all right.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
 
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
the aperture, in combination with shutter speed and sensor area, is used
to measure of the amount of light reaching the sensor. An excellent
analogy to make is to think of the intensity of the light as the
voltage and total amount of light as the current. Images created
with the same perspective, FOV, and DOF will have the same aperture,
not the same f-ratio."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
joe mama said:
You win! I did read his attempt at reasoning. As you can see, Joe
thinks the intensity of light depends on the area of the sensor.
Click to expand...
Nice logic, friend! You quote me right above, where I say "the
aperture, in combination with shutter speed and sensor area, is used
to measure of the amount of light reaching the sensor" and conclude
from that that I think "the intensity of light depends on the area of
the sensor".

Good one.
joe mama said:
He confuses quantity with intensity.
Click to expand...
Yep. That's me all right.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Click to expand...
Glad you agree.

Dan
 
The Cropped Cameras are for those that can't or don't want to spend $5,000+ on long tele lenses, or can't or don't want to spend more then $2,500 on a DSLR body.

Price, and FPS issues aside, the best DSLR's for the best image quality are full frame.

I think it's that simple.
 
altair8800 said:
Glad you agree.
Click to expand...
No iffs, ands, or butts. Aperture measures intensity, that's what I said. Sure does. I couldn't have possibly be going by what the dictionary says:

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aperture

"the opening in a photographic lens that admits the light"

or what I said in my own essay:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

"F-ratio is the ratio of the FL (focal length) with the diameter of the aperture, or, equivalently, aperture is the quotient of the focal length with the f-ratio. For example, 30mm at f / 2.8 has an aperture of 30mm / 2.8 = 11mm; or, a 30mm lens with an aperture of 11mm has an f-ratio of 30mm / 11mm = f / 2.8. The f-ratio is a way to measure the intensity of the light striking the sensor; the aperture, in combination with shutter speed and sensor area, is used to measure of the amount of light reaching the sensor. An excellent analogy to make is to think of the intensity of the light as the voltage and total amount of light as the current. Images created with the same perspective, FOV, and DOF will have the same aperture, not the same f-ratio."

No sireee! You got me pegged. I confuse the amount of light with the intensity of light.

Nice to see we agree that I'm wrong and you're right! What an enlightening conversation.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
 
I just luv my cropped sensor!
--
Fred

 
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
I tried to read your explanation and it reminded me too much of my
college physics classes, so I decided not to continue.
Click to expand...
...it's physics, just like you say. And if it reminded you too much
of your college physics classes, and you chose not to read it and
understand it because of that, well, then, what can be done?
joe mama said:
I'd rather look at the practical situation at hand, which is contrary to you
swapping an f/4 lens for an f/2.8 lens to try and get an apples to
apples comparison of two camera bodies.
Click to expand...
People would always "rather" not do the math.
Click to expand...
Some people would always "rather" do the math wrong.
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
The bottom line is an f/2.8 lens on a full frame camera is going to yield the
same exposure settings in a given situation as an f/2.8 lens on a crop camera.
Click to expand...
Had you read, and understood, the essay, you would see that that
means nothing. A compact digicam at f / 2.8 also has the same
exposure. So what? Are you saying an S3 IS is as good as a 40D?
Or, is it "magic" that makes bigger sensors better?
Click to expand...
This shoots down your argument that exposure with a 2.8 lens depends on sensor area. If you use the 300mm 2.8 IS lens with the S3 IS sensor, you get the same exposure wide open. With some advance in sensors and lenses, the S3 IS could equal the 40D.
joe mama said:
Anyway, I'll cut my losses short. The essay explains it all, in
detail, but you've not the inclination to read it. Why should I
spoon feed it piece by piece?
Click to expand...
The essay explains your misunderstanding, in detail.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top