Reading mode: Light Dark

Why is full-frame so important ? / 40D isn't but it's a great camera

Go to last post
One thing you'll notice is that you'll have shallower Dof at a given field of view and aperture, due to the longer focal length you would use with the 5D. For example, a 40D with 35mm f/1.4 will have a similar fov to a 5D with a 50mm f/1.4, but because the 5D is using a 50, the depth of field is shallower. A 5D can also be stopped down more without losing IQ to diffraction. You'll also notice the 5D has about 1 stop better high ISO performance and because the pixel density is lower, it tends to make a given lens look better than on the 40D (DPR's 70-200 2.8 IS review for example)
--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/
 
MisterPootieCat said:
rezSjen said:
can only use L lenses
thanks,
-rez
Click to expand...
Not quite true, you can't use EF-S lenses on the 5D.
Click to expand...
The only reason EF-S lenses cannot be used is that Canon took advantage of the smaller mirror of the APS-C models and designed the rear element closer to the sensor than EF lenses. By doing that, Canon can make the lenses sharper, but is also meant they cannot be used on full frame models. Third party lenses designed for the APS-C Canon cameras can be used on a full frame without the mirror hitting the back of the lens, but the image circle is still smaller than full frame.
 
subroc said:
Could you explain "far better high iso" or how you measure "far better."
Click to expand...
I did below.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Boy, Canon sure has you drinkin' the Kool-Aid. I think L lenses are great and have very little bad to say about them. However, I hate to say it, but there are other lenses out there that are not way less sharp or have less aberration than L lenses. The 17-55 comes to mind. I've owned a 17-40L and had a fair amount more aberration and equal or even less sharp images than my 17-55 can deliver. No discernable difference in color either. Granted, that particular lens won't work on a FF camera, but I'm pretty confident that there are other similar examples out there.

Jerry
PH-Digi said:
...and better color, less aberration and way sharper.

Of course everything can be corrected in PP, but I prefer to have
more time to actually take photos.

--
Paul Hakimata
Web: http://www.hakimata.com
Stock portfolio: http://www.dreamstime.com/resp288114

Photography: The Art of Converting a 'split second' into 'eternity'.



Click to expand...
 
That's super.
 
I have read that full frame sensors are more forgiving of lower quality lenses, that is to say you can use a lens with a little lower resolution on a 5D and get the same final quality in the image that you would need a higher quality lens to get on a crop camera. On the 5D the pixels are larger and farther appart - because the image can be spread over a larger area - an easier task for a lens - you don't need as high quality of a lens. If this is true - I would call it a significant reason to prefer a full frame sensor.

Jim
 
hockeynut said:
I would not count on a successor to the 40D anytime soon. It was
released last fall. The general rule is 18 months for the life cycle
of a camera body. That means you're looking at next April.
Click to expand...
Next year's PMA is held in February. So we will probably see the 45D then with a 12mp 1.6x sensor.
hockeynut said:
If you talk to camera store salespeople, they will explain the 1.6
crop factor as if it were free magnification... like you're getting a
gift without paying any extra!
Click to expand...
yes, that is what many fans of cropped cameras claim. They don't realize that they are merely making bigger enlargements with the small sensor to get the same reach.
hockeynut said:
That's not quite true... it's a crop factor. It means the image is
narrower than if you were to use a full frame camera. If you think
that a 200mm lens is really 320mm, fine, that's your perogative, but
it's not the same.
I'll take a 320mm lens on a full frame camera over a 200mm lens on a
1.6 crop factor camera any day. For me, it boils down to image
quality and better depth of field. I get incredibly shallow depth of
field with a 1.6x crop factor. While that's nice for some things,
it's not so good for others. Shooting macro, it's very tough to get
good depth of field with a 1.6 crop factor. A full frame gets more
depth of field. Also, with the extra depth of field, the chances of
an error are lessened with a full frame camera.

Find an online Depth of Field calculator, you'll find that they offer
the ability to pick focal length, subject distance, and then you can
select the camera type to see how depth of field changes.

Good luck.
Click to expand...
What people do not realize is that ultimately they are making enlargements from an individual pixel. A 1.6x sensor may have the same number of pixels as a full frame, but the individual pixels are much smaller. When prints are made, an individual pixel from a 1.6x sensor would need to be magnified 1.6x times more compared to a full frame pixel to make up the final print. Since a bigger pixel contains a higher quality signal than a smaller one, the same sized print made with a full frame camera will have better image quality than the print made with a smaller sensor with the same number of pixels. Better ingredients make for a better pizza, as one ad says.
 
David Zeno said:
Hello,

I'm thinking of upgrading my 20D sometime soon, and am thinking of
going with the 40D, or perhaps waiting a few months to see what Canon
shakes out of its camera tree. A successor to the 40D may be amongst
the offerings.

Something I don't understand is the frame size of higher priced DSLRs
like the 5D which offer full frame.

The 20D doesn't. Can somebody explain what the difference is, and
what I actually see or don't see after I take a shot ?
Click to expand...
what the 5D does is that it will capture the .6 that your camera is cropping out.

you will have more of the surronding in the shot..and larger file.

Now wether you need all that surronding is depending on your subject.

for exemple if you take landscapes, having a FF body lets you use longer lens to get the same field of view.

so with the 1.6x crop factor camera you would need a 10mm lens to get the same framing as you would with a 16mm lens and a FF body.

a 16mm lens would be much less expensive than a 10mm lens as well.

Lucky with the 40D and EF-S, we do have the excellent 10-22mm so that'S a moot point.

the larger pixels mean having less noise at higher ISO.

But if you shoot birds like I do or wildlife, you will get much better detail in your subjects if you use a 1.6 crop factor camera because with higher pixel density the 40D capture more detail from the same distance to subject.

that is why I stick with 1.6x crop factor and hoping that they will eventualy improve the 40D line to match up the 1D line so that I don't have to go with a 1.3x crop factor and lose that advantage.
David Zeno said:
The 20D and 40D are amazing cameras. Quality is there, and so I
wonder, is a full-frame camera so different in terms of quality ? or
is it that what it takes when the shutter is the only thing that is
different ( more area )

Thanks for any explaination gentlemen,

Dave.
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'
 
hockeynut said:
I would not count on a successor to the 40D anytime soon. It was
released last fall. The general rule is 18 months for the life cycle
of a camera body. That means you're looking at next April.

If you talk to camera store salespeople, they will explain the 1.6
crop factor as if it were free magnification... like you're getting a
gift without paying any extra!
Click to expand...
actualy they are rigth in their wrongness.. it'S not the crop factor that give more magnification but the pixel density.

If you take a shot of a subject at 20 feet, lets say a small bird, with a 400mm lens, you will get more detail in the shot taken with the 40D than with the 5D.

why? because the 40D pack more pixel density so in a given area to capture the same detail.

the 5D would need to have quite a bit more mp in order to compensate this.
hockeynut said:
That's not quite true... it's a crop factor. It means the image is
narrower than if you were to use a full frame camera. If you think
that a 200mm lens is really 320mm, fine, that's your perogative, but
it's not the same.
I'll take a 320mm lens on a full frame camera over a 200mm lens on a
1.6 crop factor camera any day. For me, it boils down to image
quality and better depth of field. I get incredibly shallow depth of
field with a 1.6x crop factor.
Click to expand...
you would get even more shallow DOF with the FF camera :)

While that's nice for some things,
hockeynut said:
it's not so good for others. Shooting macro, it's very tough to get
good depth of field with a 1.6 crop factor. A full frame gets more
depth of field. Also, with the extra depth of field, the chances of
an error are lessened with a full frame camera.
Click to expand...
actualy I think it's the opposite.
hockeynut said:
Find an online Depth of Field calculator, you'll find that they offer
the ability to pick focal length, subject distance, and then you can
select the camera type to see how depth of field changes.

Good luck.

--
'Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress.
But I repeat myself.'
  • Mark Twain
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'
 
Anastigmat said:
hockeynut said:
I would not count on a successor to the 40D anytime soon. It was
released last fall. The general rule is 18 months for the life cycle
of a camera body. That means you're looking at next April.
Click to expand...
Next year's PMA is held in February. So we will probably see the 45D
then with a 12mp 1.6x sensor.
Anastigmat said:
If you talk to camera store salespeople, they will explain the 1.6
crop factor as if it were free magnification... like you're getting a
gift without paying any extra!
Click to expand...
yes, that is what many fans of cropped cameras claim. They don't
realize that they are merely making bigger enlargements with the
small sensor to get the same reach.
Click to expand...
oh really?

100% crop from a 20D 8mp:



100% crop from a 1DII 1.3x 8mp:



and 100% crop from a 1Ds 1.0 16mp:



it takes the 1Ds ff camera 16mp of res to barely match up with the 8mp 1.6x camera :)

why? pixel density.
Anastigmat said:
Anastigmat said:
That's not quite true... it's a crop factor. It means the image is
narrower than if you were to use a full frame camera. If you think
that a 200mm lens is really 320mm, fine, that's your perogative, but
it's not the same.
I'll take a 320mm lens on a full frame camera over a 200mm lens on a
1.6 crop factor camera any day. For me, it boils down to image
quality and better depth of field. I get incredibly shallow depth of
field with a 1.6x crop factor. While that's nice for some things,
it's not so good for others. Shooting macro, it's very tough to get
good depth of field with a 1.6 crop factor. A full frame gets more
depth of field. Also, with the extra depth of field, the chances of
an error are lessened with a full frame camera.

Find an online Depth of Field calculator, you'll find that they offer
the ability to pick focal length, subject distance, and then you can
select the camera type to see how depth of field changes.

Good luck.
Click to expand...
What people do not realize is that ultimately they are making
enlargements from an individual pixel. A 1.6x sensor may have the
same number of pixels as a full frame, but the individual pixels are
much smaller. When prints are made, an individual pixel from a 1.6x
sensor would need to be magnified 1.6x times more compared to a full
frame pixel to make up the final print. Since a bigger pixel
contains a higher quality signal than a smaller one, the same sized
print made with a full frame camera will have better image quality
than the print made with a smaller sensor with the same number of
pixels. Better ingredients make for a better pizza, as one ad says.
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'
 
Jim222 said:
I have read that full frame sensors are more forgiving of lower
quality lenses, that is to say you can use a lens with a little lower
resolution on a 5D and get the same final quality in the image that
you would need a higher quality lens to get on a crop camera. On the
5D the pixels are larger and farther appart - because the image can
be spread over a larger area - an easier task for a lens - you don't
need as high quality of a lens. If this is true - I would call it a
significant reason to prefer a full frame sensor.
Click to expand...
that does not mean that a 40D cannot produce tack sharp images with a sharp lens.
Jim222 said:
Jim
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'
 
You are right, the 40D can produce tack sharp images with a good lens. It might also be true that the extra money one might spend on a 5D will be offset by the abilitiy to use somewhat less expensive glass and get good results. Maybe it's my thrifty nature, but I find the idea of spending more than 500.00 for a lens to be so painfull I couldn't do it if I had the cash burning a hole in my pocket.

J
 
Daniella said:
hockeynut said:
I would not count on a successor to the 40D anytime soon. It was
released last fall. The general rule is 18 months for the life cycle
of a camera body. That means you're looking at next April.

If you talk to camera store salespeople, they will explain the 1.6
crop factor as if it were free magnification... like you're getting a
gift without paying any extra!
Click to expand...
actualy they are rigth in their wrongness.. it'S not the crop factor
that give more magnification but the pixel density.

If you take a shot of a subject at 20 feet, lets say a small bird,
with a 400mm lens, you will get more detail in the shot taken with
the 40D than with the 5D.

why? because the 40D pack more pixel density so in a given area to
capture the same detail.

the 5D would need to have quite a bit more mp in order to compensate
this.
Click to expand...
Pixel density has absolutely nothing to do with magnification. If the 5D had the same pixes density as the 40D, the 40D would still pull the subject in more than the 5D with the same lens. The 40D is, in a manner of speaking, cropping the image. The 40D, because of it's smaller sensor, needs a higher pixel density.

The only reason the 40D, as compared to the 5D has more "detail" is because the subject is covering more of the sensor than the 5D with the same lens. In effect it is magnifying the image as compared to the 5D.
--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
 
Go online, calculate depth of field for a 5D with a subject distance of 20 feet, at f4, and 200mm. Total depth of field is .71 feet.

Change to a 40D.
Total depth of field is .45 feet.

Not sure about your math, but my math says that the 5D has MORE depth of field.

Good luck.

--

'Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.'
  • Mark Twain
 
Daniella said:
But if you shoot birds like I do or wildlife, you will get much
better detail in your subjects if you use a 1.6 crop factor camera
because with higher pixel density the 40D capture more detail from
the same distance to subject.
Click to expand...
If you are using the same lens..... that is true.

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
 
hockeynut said:
Go online, calculate depth of field for a 5D with a subject distance
of 20 feet, at f4, and 200mm. Total depth of field is .71 feet.

Change to a 40D.
Total depth of field is .45 feet.

Not sure about your math, but my math says that the 5D has MORE depth
of field.
Click to expand...
Yes, but remenber that with 40D you must also change the focal length with 1,6x to 125mm, to get the same Field of View.
 
any camera with a poor lens will give you poor results.
Jim222 said:
You are right, the 40D can produce tack sharp images with a good
lens. It might also be true that the extra money one might spend on a
5D will be offset by the abilitiy to use somewhat less expensive
glass and get good results. Maybe it's my thrifty nature, but I find
the idea of spending more than 500.00 for a lens to be so painfull I
couldn't do it if I had the cash burning a hole in my pocket.

J
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
  • Question Question
Purpose built full spectrum camera vs conversion?
Replies
7
Views
3K
Le Camerique
L
S
looking for feedback/recommendation for Canon 2x teleconverter
Replies
2
Views
3K
rsn
R
H
  • Question Question
Using Apsc mode on Sony A7RV
Replies
13
Views
6K
AngelusHD
A
oneofone25
Can it happen? A Full frame OM System w/ M43 camera ?
Replies
18
Views
5K
addlightness
A
J
Upgrading to a full frame on a budget (Kinda)!
Replies
6
Views
1K
a_c_skinner
A

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