Is "Full Frame" That Big of a Deal After All?

For the xxD users out there the only real upgrade would be to go FF. Canon knows that and that is why they do what they do.

My next upgrade will definitely be the 5D XX.. right now I have the 40D and im happy with it but Canon lens line especially L are made for full framers.

For the 10D, 20D, 30D users out there, there is no use of upgrading to the 40D because there is not that much difference between those cameras... of course some wonderful added features and performance but image quality at low ISO is pretty close.

that will render the differences in IQ between ff and cropped cameras irrelevant. If you take a look over at outback photo they have a review of PhotoAcute professional. They are very impressed with it and it works with cropped cameras and ff cameras.
What it does is hard to describe in simple terms so take a look for yourself.

Any way back on topic I would say the most important factor for this 'new' type of photography with HDR and other techniques is a fast frame rate. The image quality from the 40D is superb and it's fast frame rate make it a great camera.

The only reason I would get a ff camera is to double the usefulness of my existing lenses. So I can have 35L on a ff like the 5D and the same lens on my 40D is x1.6. So it's like having two lenses for the price of one if you have both a cropped sensor camera and a ff camera.

I see from the forum here though, that a lot of folks still feel that they've got to eventually evolve into FF and they are just waiting for the prices for these cameras to get down to roughly what you'd pay for a 40D now. Is it really worth the wait and expense when cameras like the 40D can deliver awesome images, managable file sizes, less weight and bulk and the choice of either standard and EF-S lenses now? Now that Canon has incredible lenses like the new 10-22 EF-S, wide angle photography is no longer a pain in the butt. I'm really starting to wonder if FF is the "pie in the sky" ultimate digital camera I once thought it was or not?

I feel that you posted a rhetorical question. My answer agrees with your posit that FF might not be pie in the sky.

How about an affordable medium format digital camera? Large format?

The size and weight of cameras and appropriate lenses kicks in for many of us (limits us), after the prices drop.

Pros and amateurs are going to respond differently, BTW.

--
Randomness provides endless beauty.

I don't think so.

I'll keep my larger sensor, get to use my lenses the way they were made.

F1.2 on a FF camera is a sight to behold.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

While I'm personally in no hurray to buy a FF DSLR... your contention that the 40D somehow magically makes your 300 f2.8 lens into a 670 f4 with 1.4x TC is wrong... It's the pixel density that makes it seem like this.. and if you took a FF camera with the same pixel density that the 40D has and cropped the image, you would then have exactly the same magic happening... 1.6x crop does not make the focal length of your lenses multiply by 1.6...

mjam said:

I wouldn't trade my 40D for any camera body in the Canon line-up,
including the 1D line. It turns my 300 2.8 into a 670 f/4 with TC
1.4. I can hand-hold it with awesome results. The High ISO
performance is more than adequate for delivering the fast
shutterspeeds necessary for wildlife.

I can take great landscapes with the 40D as well, but a 5DMKII with
more resolution would be very tempting for brining out the minute
detail needed for this type of photography.

--
http://www.stirringimages.com

Click to expand...

Glenn W. said:

While I'm personally in no hurray to buy a FF DSLR... your contention
that the 40D somehow magically makes your 300 f2.8 lens into a 670 f4
with 1.4x TC is wrong... It's the pixel density that makes it seem
like this.. and if you took a FF camera with the same pixel density
that the 40D has and cropped the image, you would then have exactly
the same magic happening... 1.6x crop does not make the focal
length of your lenses multiply by 1.6...

Click to expand...

That's quite novel. Just buy a 1Ds3 for $8000 and crop it and you can match a 10MP 1.6V crop camera. Better hurry and tell the thousands of sports/wildlife shooters that they're operating under an illusion. All they really have to do is spend a lot more money on a FF camera. Whatever you want to call it, the crop cameras get you closer and you're not losing pixels as you would if you cropped FF.

--
Canon Equipment

I never said you had to buy a FF camera to get the benefit of pixel density... I merely am pointing out that 1.6X crop by it self does NOT get you 'reach' nor does it extend the focal length of your lenses....

bander said:

Glenn W. said:

While I'm personally in no hurray to buy a FF DSLR... your contention
that the 40D somehow magically makes your 300 f2.8 lens into a 670 f4
with 1.4x TC is wrong... It's the pixel density that makes it seem
like this.. and if you took a FF camera with the same pixel density
that the 40D has and cropped the image, you would then have exactly
the same magic happening... 1.6x crop does not make the focal
length of your lenses multiply by 1.6...

Click to expand...

That's quite novel. Just buy a 1Ds3 for $8000 and crop it and you can
match a 10MP 1.6V crop camera. Better hurry and tell the thousands of
sports/wildlife shooters that they're operating under an illusion.
All they really have to do is spend a lot more money on a FF camera.
Whatever you want to call it, the crop cameras get you closer and
you're not losing pixels as you would if you cropped FF.

--
Canon Equipment

Click to expand...

Jerry Brendle said:

Re: Is "Full Frame" That Big of a Deal After All?

Click to expand...

Yes. sure is.

Just to be clear, the fact that it's a crop camera has nothing to do with its resolving power. Today, yes, crop cameras generally have denser pixels than FF. But if you had a 27 megapixel FF camera, it would resolve exactly the same as the 40D.

Sal Baker said:

If you crop the 5D image to the same FOV you get with a 40D, you end
up with much less resolution (and detail) than you get with the 40D.
It's not an illusion, it's the advantage of a crop camera when one is
looking for reach.

Sal

Click to expand...

Glenn W. said:

I never said you had to buy a FF camera to get the benefit of pixel
density... I merely am pointing out that 1.6X crop by it self does
NOT get you 'reach' nor does it extend the focal length of your
lenses....

Click to expand...

Well, as my 100-400 Canon didn't get me close enough with my 5D, I bought a 40D and it sure gives me something different and it looks just like 640mm. You're getting tied up with semantics.

Today I was shooting wild horses in Wyoming. I didn't have to trek as far in the desert with the 40D/100-400 to get my shots. Somehow, mysteriously, that combination got me closer. I put the 24-105L on the 5D for wide angles. I could have cropped the 5D, but the images would have been inferior to the 40D.
--
Canon Equipment

AdityaDatta said:

I was all for 1.6x sensor and once I got the 10-22 I thaught I was
all set. All that was needed was a newer camera with improved IQ,
specially high noise performance. Did canon deliver that with 40D?
Not obviously, maybe marginally.
This would lead me to think that canon has already pushed the limits
of the 1.6 sensor the most they can with 20D's performance. The new
1DMIII indicates that larger sensors have much more room to grow.
Hence for someone doing high ISO work, the dream of a affordable 5d
successor FF becomes a very tempting pie for someone who has been
hungry for better IQ for over 3 years.

Dont get me wrong, the IQ of the current sensor is far greater than
my (and probably a large majority of hobbyists) skill for most
conditions. But a higher performing sensor would Help quite a bit.

Click to expand...

While I agree that the improvement of the 1.6x sensor on the 40D is only a small improvement, I think it's short-sighted to assume that means the end of the line for development of the format.

There is no reason to believe that there will not be more breakthroughs, (regardless of size, frankly).

I expect that over the next ten years we will see continued, if slowed, improvement to the light sensitivity and dynamic range of these sensors. There may be a point where such development plateaus, but I don't think we are there.

In fact, I keep thinking of a post I saw a couple years back about a digital camera/sensor which allowed depth of field (which is to say focus) to be selected and applied in post. It really blew my mind. It was not applying blur, it was using some very sophisticated technology to record focus through an incredible range.

I don't know if that technology will ever develop into something useful, but it always makes me think that there is much, much more around the corner. It would not surprise me if we begin to see HDRI cameras on the market in the next five years.

The reality is that full frame is a legacy of film, one that is somewhat arbitrary. 1.6 is also somewhat equally arbitrary. Full frame merely represents the widest range of input most current lenses will allow. (Not a small consideration.)

AdityaDatta said:

Jerry Brendle said:

After reading numerous posts and viewing many image comparison images
concerning the merits of full frame vs. "crop" sensors such as the
40D's, I'm coming to question the importance of going "full frame".
Being somewhat old school myself, I've always thought I really hadn't
"arrived" completely in digital imaging until I got a true 24 X 36 mm
sensor camera. My biggest reason for not doing so was the obvious:
cost.
I see from the forum here though, that a lot of folks still feel that
they've got to eventually evolve into FF and they are just waiting
for the prices for these cameras to get down to roughly what you'd
pay for a 40D now. Is it really worth the wait and expense when
cameras like the 40D can deliver awesome images, managable file
sizes, less weight and bulk and the choice of either standard and
EF-S lenses now? Now that Canon has incredible lenses like the new
10-22 EF-S, wide angle photography is no longer a pain in the butt.
I'm really starting to wonder if FF is the "pie in the sky" ultimate
digital camera I once thought it was or not?

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adatta

http://picasaweb.google.com/owaustin/

Click to expand...

Maybe I am getting tied up with semantics... and yes, since the 5D does not have the pixel density that the 40D does... with a good lens, you will be able to see what can be perceived as 'reach' when using the 40D vs. 5D... but I also think some of those here who say you do need to move to FF to get better images are also tied up with semantics...

I for one, am VERY happy with my 40D... and I don't have the cash to pay out for the "L" lenses, many of which are still going to look soft in the edges and corners on a FF camera... I'm more then happy to shoot with a 40D and a 17-50mm f2.8 Tamron that is pretty much tack sharp from edge to edge to edge and only really looses IQ at the extreme corners. I do NOT need FF for a variety of reasons.

But then I do understand the pros and cons of each reasonably well and also know that I personally would not be happy with say a 5D... A 1DM3 (assuming focusing works well) would however be interesting, but hey I don't have that kinda cash, and I don't really see it improving my own photography at all.

bander said:

Glenn W. said:

I never said you had to buy a FF camera to get the benefit of pixel
density... I merely am pointing out that 1.6X crop by it self does
NOT get you 'reach' nor does it extend the focal length of your
lenses....

Click to expand...

Well, as my 100-400 Canon didn't get me close enough with my 5D, I
bought a 40D and it sure gives me something different and it looks
just like 640mm. You're getting tied up with semantics.

Today I was shooting wild horses in Wyoming. I didn't have to trek as
far in the desert with the 40D/100-400 to get my shots. Somehow,
mysteriously, that combination got me closer. I put the 24-105L on
the 5D for wide angles. I could have cropped the 5D, but the images
would have been inferior to the 40D.
--
Canon Equipment

Click to expand...

RicksAstro said:

Just to be clear, the fact that it's a crop camera has nothing to do
with its resolving power. Today, yes, crop cameras generally have
denser pixels than FF. But if you had a 27 megapixel FF camera, it
would resolve exactly the same as the 40D.

Click to expand...

yes, ofcourse. Then again if you had a 40 mp ef-s sensor that had 1/10th of the noise per pixel of the 5D it would kill your imaginary camera except for shallow depth of field.

But in terms of todays cameras, the soon to be shipped $8000 1DsMkIII only beats the sub $500 - K100 and 40D - and the $2000 S5 in terms of pixel density of current cameras. It seems fair to say that an APS-H,-C or four-thirds camera will keep a real advantage in telephoto resolution with real not imaginary FF cameras.

There are a couple of real advantages to the throw back, old skool format size. Companies are slow to produce new lenses optimized for the new sensors. Bigger sensors means shallower depth of field lenses are easier to make. Finally Canon and Nikon may hold back features from the smaller formats. Then again the D300 is pretty loaded with features, and if Nikon keeps it up, canon may be forced by competitive reasons to stop defeaturing the XXD line.

RicksAstro said:

Sal Baker said:

If you crop the 5D image to the same FOV you get with a 40D, you end
up with much less resolution (and detail) than you get with the 40D.
It's not an illusion, it's the advantage of a crop camera when one is
looking for reach.

Sal

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Todays designs aren't close to hitting the physical limits.

Technology can greatly improve. Techniques with multiple exposures can be processed to remove noise and/or change the depth of field. Software can remove noise and increase sharpness, even with todays sensors and lenses.

Ominous said:

I don't think so.

I'll keep my larger sensor, get to use my lenses the way they were made.

Click to expand...

They were made for film. If you want to use them the way they were made you can go back to it. The 24-70, 16-35 II, 24-105, etc have been designed for sensors as were all the ef-s lenses.

If you want larger you may want to get a blad. There is a continuum and trade offs of weight, convenience, price, results. If you are happy with the trade offs you should stick to FF. Its the right choice for many.

Ominous said:

F1.2 on a FF camera is a sight to behold.

Click to expand...

YMMV. I think its fugly, but to each his own.

Ominous said:

--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

Click to expand...

on the 1.6 ?? Might be cheaper than buying more lenses, or....what do u think?

BTW, Julie, can u comment on the VF brightness comparing the FF with 4.0 lens vs. 1.6 and 2.8 lens? (on the 40d) which is brighter/easier to see? thanks.
--

Have a great and wonderful Day !! Cheers !!

See China's Best (new !! ) at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

He could be telling the truth, I have been to some of the Photovision shows where they had samples like that. There was a flip up card on the bottom, otherwise you couldn't tell if it was a film or digital camera. Some where even medium format. Those were't sponsored by Canon but Photovision.

--
Travis
http://www.photosbytravis.com
Canon EOS 40D, Canon EOS 30D and Digital Rebel User

Katsoulis said:

AdityaDatta said:

I was all for 1.6x sensor and once I got the 10-22 I thaught I was
all set. All that was needed was a newer camera with improved IQ,
specially high noise performance. Did canon deliver that with 40D?
Not obviously, maybe marginally.
This would lead me to think that canon has already pushed the limits
of the 1.6 sensor the most they can with 20D's performance. The new
1DMIII indicates that larger sensors have much more room to grow.
Hence for someone doing high ISO work, the dream of a affordable 5d
successor FF becomes a very tempting pie for someone who has been
hungry for better IQ for over 3 years.

Dont get me wrong, the IQ of the current sensor is far greater than
my (and probably a large majority of hobbyists) skill for most
conditions. But a higher performing sensor would Help quite a bit.

Click to expand...

While I agree that the improvement of the 1.6x sensor on the 40D is
only a small improvement, I think it's short-sighted to assume that
means the end of the line for development of the format.

There is no reason to believe that there will not be more
breakthroughs, (regardless of size, frankly).

I expect that over the next ten years we will see continued, if
slowed, improvement to the light sensitivity and dynamic range of
these sensors. There may be a point where such development plateaus,
but I don't think we are there.

In fact, I keep thinking of a post I saw a couple years back about a
digital camera/sensor which allowed depth of field (which is to say
focus) to be selected and applied in post. It really blew my mind. It
was not applying blur, it was using some very sophisticated
technology to record focus through an incredible range.

Click to expand...

Imagine a sensor that can shift forwards and backwards to 'focus bracket', then you can select which shot is the sharpest.

Katsoulis said:

I don't know if that technology will ever develop into something
useful, but it always makes me think that there is much, much more
around the corner. It would not surprise me if we begin to see HDRI
cameras on the market in the next five years.

The reality is that full frame is a legacy of film, one that is
somewhat arbitrary. 1.6 is also somewhat equally arbitrary. Full
frame merely represents the widest range of input most current lenses
will allow. (Not a small consideration.)

Katsoulis said:

Jerry Brendle said:

After reading numerous posts and viewing many image comparison images
concerning the merits of full frame vs. "crop" sensors such as the
40D's, I'm coming to question the importance of going "full frame".
Being somewhat old school myself, I've always thought I really hadn't
"arrived" completely in digital imaging until I got a true 24 X 36 mm
sensor camera. My biggest reason for not doing so was the obvious:
cost.
I see from the forum here though, that a lot of folks still feel that
they've got to eventually evolve into FF and they are just waiting
for the prices for these cameras to get down to roughly what you'd
pay for a 40D now. Is it really worth the wait and expense when
cameras like the 40D can deliver awesome images, managable file
sizes, less weight and bulk and the choice of either standard and
EF-S lenses now? Now that Canon has incredible lenses like the new
10-22 EF-S, wide angle photography is no longer a pain in the butt.
I'm really starting to wonder if FF is the "pie in the sky" ultimate
digital camera I once thought it was or not?

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adatta

http://picasaweb.google.com/owaustin/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mkelpie

Any improvement on a crop camera can and is applied to FF cameras. A 5d isn't much bigger than a 40D, and most ef-a lens are only lighter than an L you listed because they are not made to the higher standards. There are no ef-s primes, most of them are rather slow. XXXD and XXD cameras still accept EF lenses, so the lens mount is just as large as that of of 5D or 1D. They could make a FF camera the size of a Rebel, but nobody paying that much for a camera would want something so uncomfortable.

If you see no need for a ff camera that's good for you. I use both ff and crop, which ever best suits my needs.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

You say a billboard looks good from 300 feet. Yes, that would be the point. They are not meant to be viewed from your pixel-peeping distance of 6 inches, and neither are gallery-sized prints.

Why is it so hard to believe that the quality between prints would be indiscernible? The 1D series of cameras offers much more than just some perceived massive image quality advantage over its less expensive brethren.

Do you also think you can tell the difference between RAW v. JPeg when it comes to the final prints?

RedFox88 said:

That doesn't seem like something Canon would do. They want to sell
cameras. Why make an exhibit that show people they only need to buy
their $1300 camera instead of their $8000 camera?

I don't believe you. Nice attempt, troll.

Click to expand...

Glenn W. said:

Maybe I am getting tied up with semantics... and yes, since the 5D
does not have the pixel density that the 40D does... with a good
lens, you will be able to see what can be perceived as 'reach' when
using the 40D vs. 5D... but I also think some of those here who say
you do need to move to FF to get better images are also tied up with
semantics...

I for one, am VERY happy with my 40D... and I don't have the cash to
pay out for the "L" lenses, many of which are still going to look
soft in the edges and corners on a FF camera... I'm more then happy
to shoot with a 40D and a 17-50mm f2.8 Tamron that is pretty much
tack sharp from edge to edge to edge and only really looses IQ at the
extreme corners. I do NOT need FF for a variety of reasons.

But then I do understand the pros and cons of each reasonably well
and also know that I personally would not be happy with say a 5D... A
1DM3 (assuming focusing works well) would however be interesting, but
hey I don't have that kinda cash, and I don't really see it improving
my own photography at all.

Click to expand...

I think many of us are more than a little obsessive when it comes to gear, I know I am. I'm currently packing three cameras, the 5D, 40D and the D40 Nikon with the 18-200VR lens. I live in a dusty environment and hate to change lenses outdoors. I have buddies (one a full time pro and the other part time) that use subframe Nikons, the D200 or D2Xs, and they do great work.

I might see better IQ with the 5D, but the 40D would work just fine for me. I would just add the 10-22 Canon, a lens I used previously. The 5D actually is pretty good with the 17-40L but you have to stop down to f/11 for landscapes. My friends often print large, 20x30, use pro labs, and their work is great. Tamron makes good lenses and I use the 28-75 on my 5D.