FF is the future

I like 1.6x for my long lens. Or when I have my 17-55 on it.

I like 1.3x for my 85L. Or any of my lenses at 10fps.

I like ff when there is a decent WA lens.

I don't think there is a single camera that will do all those things for me. Unless if they make a selectable ff/crop camera.

boarderphreak said:

I like the 1.3x factor in the 1Dxxx series just fine - best of both
worlds, IMO.

FF, much like the 5D, is overrated.

Click to expand...

Arun Arangil said:

Last year I asked why we cant have live preview on SLRs and nearly
got shot. I wished to see a live histogram then.

This year i am predicting that in 2 years there would be so many
versions of FF bodies that you would be asking

'Why would you want a cropped body over a FF when FF are selling

Questions:

1. Who all agrees with me?
2. Would you invest in EF-S lens in future?

--

• Arun

Click to expand...

--
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b

dtuason said:

PS Is it the lower noise in high ISO? The better dynamic range so
higher IQ? The wider field of view? C'mon please tell us! Thanks!

Click to expand...

Yes to 2.

Right now, it would be lower noise at higher ISO. But in the future, once pixel density is the same between the two, they should be identical with FF having more realestate on the chip for more pixels.

Dynamic range once pixel density should be the same.

Wider FOV, yes, the same lens on a FF mounted on a crop will always have wider FOV.

IQ is true two if the lens doesn't fall off in the corner, which both should have the same untill the FF gets to the corner.

The question would be be the same when comparing medium format to 35mm. When pixel density is the same for the crop and FF, it is a similar comparison.

Right now there is only Canons flagship that even approches the current pixel density of crop sensors but it is not quite there yet.

There are also the same downsides to medium format and 35mm. Bigger and heavier lenses. The film would equate to memory storage, you need more. One other downside is with more memory comes slower transfer speed and slower Photoshop processing.

So yes FF has advantages over crop but also some disadvantages. It would seem to me that you could make a much smaller and less expensive 400 2.8 IS lens for a crop sensor but I don't think you will see manufacturers doing that.

matthew saville said:

And I'm sorry, but Rebel buyers are just NOT interested in
full-frame. One in a hundred or one in a thousand, maybe.
Amateurs who want "something more" will NOT be upgrading from one
cheapo Rebel body to another.

Click to expand...

If that is the case, why do consumers go out and buy the highest megapixel point and shoot they can find, regardless of the other specs.

I know people that have come to me and said I want an SLR because I know they produce good pictures and I want the highest MP for the best quality. If you show them something, they will say to you, sure but Y brand has more MP so it should be better right? They go buy Y brand.

They are not educated, they read the literature at best. If Canon advertises that FF is better, consumers will buy it even in the Rebel body. They rebel body probably sell more than any other Canon body regardless of how cheap it feels. I the Canon advertisment says FF is more profession or better and is now in the rebel body, joe average consumer will buy it. They are not as educated as you.

The masses are uneducated, and that is where the volume is sold. And guess what, FF is the future, and crop is a dying breed, the sooner you get your head around that, the less money you will waste buying EF-S Lenses.

Thanks Richard!

Danny Tuason

--
'What, me worry?' - Alfred E. Neuman

'Don't worry, be happy' - Bobby McFerrin

'Tawa lang!' - Danny Tuason
('Just smile!')

Take a look at the Sigma 100-300/4. It's the same price as the 70-200/4 IS, a bit heavier and from all accounts just as good IQ wise. And remember that the 70-200 doesn't behave like an f/4 on the crop body, it's about f/6.3

JackM said:

With a crop camera, my lovely 70-200 f/4L IS becomes a 112-320. You
can't get that kind of reach AND quality AND speed out of a FF camera
without spending big bucks on less useful primes and hauling around a
lot of weight.

My prediction is in 2 generations, the 60D will arrive at $999 and
the 5D successor will be $1800. Or less. In either case, until
Canon comes out with a 100-300 f/4 (or f/2.8) L IS, I'm sticking with
croppers.

Click to expand...

--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/

1. The capacity for many more pixels over a crop camera.
2. Getting the correct perspective from EF lenses.
3. Having the option of shallower DOF.
4. More advanced features to go with the more expensive sensor in some cases.
5. Many more wide angle options (especially from Canon).
6. Larger brighter viewfinder.

And those are just the things that everyone can agree on. There are many more things which could be debated one way or the other like Iso and DR.

Of course for me, I prefer the advantages of APS-C.

--



Yawn...

Can someone explain why the 35mm size is THE full frame? why not 35.2? why not 39, or 44 or any other number?

Just because we have a large base of aging, expensive, hard to manufacture and to maintain glass lenses for a particular format, everyone is expecting the future will be stuck with one size number a film company has chosen for us in the past.

If 35mm was optimal for film, why everyone is assuming it is also optimal for digital?

We talk about advances in sensor technology which give us less noisier sensors and densities which clearly outresolve most affordable lens glass and coating materials, but everyone is afraid talking about new lens materials and designs.

So you say we should throw away the EF-S lens and start puting our money in EF because in 3-4 years everything will be "full frame"? If I predict that in 10 years your tens of thousands dollar worth of EF lenses will be worthless because the new sensors will laugh at the lenses' useless resolution will this make you throw the gear away and forget about photography?

What about the size and weight of the supposed "better glass"? When electronics become smaller and lighter, do you expect a lens technology that requires more glass/weight in order to be better, to last?

Here is what I predict: the "FF" has a future, but so it has 1.3x, 1.5x, 1.6x and also the p&s. Just don't expect your 10lbs camera+lens that you bougt now to be better than other person's 2lbs crop DSLR ten years from now...

Richard said:

The masses are uneducated, and that is where the volume is sold. And
guess what, FF is the future, and crop is a dying breed, the sooner
you get your head around that, the less money you will waste buying
EF-S Lenses.

Click to expand...

Complete non-sense. Crop is not dying. Far, far, far from it. As for the megapixel argument, even "uneducated" consumers are asking "How many megapixels do I really need?" I hear it all the time. More and more consumers are realizing that they don't need monstrous amounts of megapixels, especially as they are becoming more and more accustomed to using digital cameras they are realizing that they are getting very good image quality even from lower megapixel cameras. So more and more, consumers are being educated by their own first-hand experience with megapixels.

Another very important factor for "uneducated" consumers is the size factor. For a casual shooter, size is definitely something they consider. And an APS body with an EF-S kit lens is significantly smaller and more compact than a FF body with equivalent EF lens. I hear this as an issue of concern all the time. People want the quality of a DSLR but don't want to lug around a big camera. I show them my 5D with FF lens and they say, "Woah! That's a big camera!" Then I show them my Rebel XT and EF-S lens and they say, "That size is a lot more manageable for me." Crop bodies with crop-specific lenses will always have a size advantage, which is a big advantage for casual shooters and regular consumers.

Plus, even as a serious FF shooter, I will always want an APS body. Each has its advantages. That's why I regularly shoot with both. And as long as consumers continue to buy both, manufacturers will continue to off BOTH! And THAT is what YOU DON'T GET!!!

Richard said:

Nikon has another selling point over Canon. Their lenses for the DX
work on FX bodies. EF-S is dead. Any PRO putting money into these is
not too bright because FF is the future, EF-S is the past and is now
dead. But not for Nikon. Their lenses will be working for generations
to come.

Click to expand...

Is there a DX lens which any PRO (your emphasis) would actually want to use on his full-frame camera?

RovinHoot said:

Can someone explain why the 35mm size is THE full frame? why not
35.2? why not 39, or 44 or any other number?

Click to expand...

FF refers to the 35mm format that Canon, Nikon, Minolta (now Sony), Pentax, etc systems were originally based. It is the consensus reference point. When DSLRs first came out, they couldn't make sensors that fit the "full" 35mm "frame" because it was too difficult and to costly. So for practical issues, they went with a small frame than the standard 35mm frame. Now that technology has caught up, they can now make a sensor that matches the original 35mm "full frame" that they originally wanted to go with. Hence the term "full frame". No one is saying that this is the "ideal". Maybe a millimeter smaller or a millimeter larger might be the "ideal". Who knows? But what we do know is that full frame lenses from all these camera systems were originally designed specifically for the 35mm frame size. And hence, given that all the major brands have lenses specifically designed for use on the 35mm frame size, it makes sense for them to make sensors that also match that 35mm frame size-- not some other size like 39mm or 44mm.

Richard said:

Nikon has another selling point over Canon. Their lenses for the DX
work on FX bodies. EF-S is dead. Any PRO putting money into these is
not too bright because FF is the future, EF-S is the past and is now
dead. But not for Nikon. Their lenses will be working for generations
to come.

Click to expand...

A lot of working pros use both FF and EF-S. Who says I have to use one or the other? And who says I have to use an EF-S lens on a FF body? Why would I even want to? I typically shoot weddings with two or three bodies. I usually have a 5D and a 40D hanging from my shoulders. Who says they both have to be FF bodies?

I think it was mainly a compromise. Smaller film was really grainy, larger film, ie medium format was inconvinient for the average person. With modern digital, a 1.6x sensor can have the same resolution as a piece of 35mm film, but have less noise at equivalent ISO.

I saw somebody put full resolution comparison between the 40D and 5D on the forum months ago, and the differences were mostly negelegable. Yes, the 5D has slightly more resolution, slightly less noise, and requires less out of glass to make the most of itself. For the average photographer, is it worth the cost? That is their call. But I doubt crop is going anywhere.

Like others said earlier, it is much less expensive to produce, bodies and lenses can be smaller, and the average consumer is starting to realize they rarely need more than 10MP in a camera. A 10MP dSLR can easily produce clear, stunning, well detailed 15x20s, and most people don't even go that large.

Even a good point and shoot can make good prints at 8.5x11. The 6MP fuji 1/1.7 SCCD series made some awesome medium sized prints. The later generation, ie F10, F11, F30, F31fd of this sensor could produce awesome medium prints even at ISO400.

And of course a dSLR could produce better photos than the P&S I mentioned before. My point was that the detail and resolution they are capable of is enough for medium prints, ie 8x10 or 8.5x11.

I hope to soon get some 20x30 prints from my 20D for a gallery in my photography club. I may upsample them in PS to try and maximize IQ, but I doubt the 8MP of my 1.6x sensor will be of severe limitation, especially at standard viewing distances. And how much better would those shots look at 20x30 if taken with a 5D and a comparable lens? My guess is slightly better if you looked very close, possibly with a magnifying glass.

And considering Olympus went the route of no possiblity of FF with their 4/3rd system, they will continue to produce some of the smalles dSLRs, and Canon could not come close to an Olympus size camera if they eliminated crop sensors.

--
Main Albums: http://picasaweb.google.com/Carskick/
Older Albums: http://www.flickr.com/photos/carskick

Richard said:

matthew saville said:

And I'm sorry, but Rebel buyers are just NOT interested in
full-frame. One in a hundred or one in a thousand, maybe.
Amateurs who want "something more" will NOT be upgrading from one
cheapo Rebel body to another.

Click to expand...

If that is the case, why do consumers go out and buy the highest
megapixel point and shoot they can find, regardless of the other
specs.

I know people that have come to me and said I want an SLR because I
know they produce good pictures and I want the highest MP for the
best quality. If you show them something, they will say to you, sure
but Y brand has more MP so it should be better right? They go buy Y
brand.

Click to expand...

I know many who asked me the same question.

Richard said:

They are not educated, they read the literature at best. If Canon
advertises that FF is better, consumers will buy it even in the Rebel
body. They rebel body probably sell more than any other Canon body
regardless of how cheap it feels. I the Canon advertisment says FF is
more profession or better and is now in the rebel body, joe average
consumer will buy it. They are not as educated as you.

Click to expand...

Fully agree with you.

Richard said:

The masses are uneducated, and that is where the volume is sold. And
guess what, FF is the future, and crop is a dying breed, the sooner
you get your head around that, the less money you will waste buying
EF-S Lenses.

Click to expand...

--

• Arun

JackM said:

JackM said:

Eventually when
FF sensors resolution becomes high enough (like 24mp) you can crop
later at a post-processing stage and still maintain good quality.

Click to expand...

I'd consider upgrading to a 16mp FF camera at that point. Then I
could crop to 10mp and get what the 40D gives me now (in terms of
pixels anyway). Hmm... maybe I'm not so "all in" with EF-S after
all! I just hope they put IS on the 24-70/2.8L by then, because I
love my 17-55!

However a $900 XXD may continue to make too much sense on my wallet.

Click to expand...

You'll actually have to wait for a 26Mp sensor to crop to 40D size and have the same resolution. The current 5D has 12.8MP and when cropped to APS-C it ends up being 5MP or so.

--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/

Thanks NWcityguy2!

Danny Tuason

NWcityguy2 said:

1. The capacity for many more pixels over a crop camera.
2. Getting the correct perspective from EF lenses.
3. Having the option of shallower DOF.
4. More advanced features to go with the more expensive sensor in
some cases.
5. Many more wide angle options (especially from Canon).
6. Larger brighter viewfinder.

And those are just the things that everyone can agree on. There are
many more things which could be debated one way or the other like Iso
and DR.

Of course for me, I prefer the advantages of APS-C.

--



Yawn...

Click to expand...

--
'What, me worry?' - Alfred E. Neuman

'Don't worry, be happy' - Bobby McFerrin

'Tawa lang!' - Danny Tuason
('Just smile!')

T3 said:

Another very important factor for "uneducated" consumers is the size
factor. For a casual shooter, size is definitely something they
consider. And an APS body with an EF-S kit lens is significantly
smaller and more compact than a FF body with equivalent EF lens.

Click to expand...

Nah, the 28-90 is about the same size as the 18-55. And I don't think the Canon EOS 300 V, which was a full-frame film-body, is bigger than the 450D.

Below 100 mm, most APS-C are not smaller than the equivalent FF-lens.

Arun Arangil said:

Richard said:

matthew saville said:

And I'm sorry, but Rebel buyers are just NOT interested in
full-frame. One in a hundred or one in a thousand, maybe.
Amateurs who want "something more" will NOT be upgrading from one
cheapo Rebel body to another.

Click to expand...

If that is the case, why do consumers go out and buy the highest
megapixel point and shoot they can find, regardless of the other
specs.

I know people that have come to me and said I want an SLR because I
know they produce good pictures and I want the highest MP for the
best quality. If you show them something, they will say to you, sure
but Y brand has more MP so it should be better right? They go buy Y
brand.

Click to expand...

I know many who asked me the same question.

Click to expand...

No, the only issue is that you (or someone) erroneously told them that "more MP should be better". Increasingly, more consumers are wising up to that erroneous assumption.

Arun Arangil said:

Arun Arangil said:

They are not educated, they read the literature at best. If Canon
advertises that FF is better, consumers will buy it even in the Rebel
body. They rebel body probably sell more than any other Canon body
regardless of how cheap it feels. I the Canon advertisment says FF is
more profession or better and is now in the rebel body, joe average
consumer will buy it. They are not as educated as you.

Click to expand...

Fully agree with you.

Click to expand...

That assumes that Canon will market a FF sensor in a Rebel body. The chances of that are nil. Why? Because FF bodies are always going to cost more to manufacture than APS bodies. The mid to lower level market is extremely price sensitive. In order to sell a FF body at the same low price as an APS body, that would mean less profit. The manufacturers won't do that.

Arun Arangil said:

Arun Arangil said:

The masses are uneducated, and that is where the volume is sold. And
guess what, FF is the future, and crop is a dying breed, the sooner
you get your head around that, the less money you will waste buying
EF-S Lenses.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

As I said above, Canon won't sell a FF body in the more price-sensitive, lower level bodies because by doing so, they only hurt their bottom line because FF is more expensive to produce than APS. It is MUCH to their advantage to sell both APS and FF. Not only are their advantages in manufacturing costs, but it also gives APS buyers an incentive to "upgrade" in the future to a higher priced FF body, which means return sales from someone who originally bought APS. Heck, the more wrungs in the upgrade ladder you can provide, the more chances for upgrade sales. Hence, manufacturers like Canon want you to start with an APS Rebel as the entry point, move up to a 30D/40D/50D series body for more advanced capabilities, then move up again with a 5D-series body for FF.

Redteg94 said:

Take a look at the Sigma 100-300/4. It's the same price as the
70-200/4 IS, a bit heavier and from all accounts just as good IQ
wise.

Click to expand...

Interesting, I'll check it out.

Redteg94 said:

And remember that the 70-200 doesn't behave like an f/4 on the
crop body, it's about f/6.3

Click to expand...

ok... you don't mean in terms of speed, right?

Per Olof Pettersson said:

T3 said:

Another very important factor for "uneducated" consumers is the size
factor. For a casual shooter, size is definitely something they
consider. And an APS body with an EF-S kit lens is significantly
smaller and more compact than a FF body with equivalent EF lens.

Click to expand...

Nah, the 28-90 is about the same size as the 18-55.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. The 18-55 EF-S is smaller. Definitely a difference that the average size-sensitive consumer will notice.

Also, one factor that everyone forgets is that manufacturers WANT to keep APS sensors around because they are cheaper to produce than FF sensors. By swapping out APS sensors for FF sensors in consumer lower-level bodies, they only hurt their profitability. In other words, since FF sensor cost more to make (whether that difference is a lot or a little), they'll make less money per body if they continue to sell these FF bodies for the same price as APS bodies. And they basically eliminate one big upgrade incentive-- the idea of wanting up upgrade to from an APS body to a FF body. After all, if all bodies are FF bodies, what would be the difference between an XXD-series body and a 5D-series body.

Manufacturers will continue to sell APS because it is to their advantage to do so. It provides more differentiation along their product line, gives them cost advantages, and offers an upgrade path that entices consumers to buy additional bodies.