Reading mode: Light Dark

Am I the only one who doesnt care about FF?

Go to last post
coreyh said:
Peter 13 said:
coreyh said:
My next camera will be full frame. While you can get Ultra wide lens
for 1.6x crop, you end up with lots of distortion compared to a full
frame lens. It just makes sense that you can design a 17mm lens with
less distortion than a 10mm lens.
Click to expand...
No, it does not make sense. You can design a 3 mm lens for a P&S with
little distortion, too, as long as there is market for it.

In fact, the 10-22 distorts less at 10 mm that the 17-40 or the 16-35
at their widest ends (see photozone). The distortion at 10 mm is not
worse than that of a standard zoom.

The real difference is that with FF you can use UWA primes that Canon
would not make for a crop sensor.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. You are 110% correct. The 10-22 does have better
distortion control. Wow, maybe there really isn't many reasons to go
full frame LOL
Click to expand...
One big reason to go FF is depth of field. DOF is a function of aperture, focus distance, and focal length. To get the same framing with an APS camerayou're always going to be using shorter focal lengths. So even if you're using the same aperture and the same focus distance to frame the same shot, the fact that the APS camera is using a shorter focal length means you're always going to have greater DOF, meaning less background blur, less subject "pop". So if you like isolating your subjects from busy backgrounds by using shallow DOF, a FF camera will always do a better job of it than an APS camera.

If you want to see the difference, look here and scroll down to the 5D MKII (FF) vs 500D (APS) side by side capture comparison of the street scene (image of the guy with glasses wearing a brown scarf). If you roll over the image with your mouse, you can compare the DOF from FF vs APS. You can see that the scene has much better background blur with the FF camera than the APS camera:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-9973-9976

As the article states: "A shallow focus effect can definitely be achieved with the Rebel T1i, but the 5D Mark II's larger sensor - and resulting longer focal length for a given field of view - allows for shallow focus that is, well, shallower. How apparent or significant this is depends on what you're trying to record, but in the one comparison we've done, the difference was dramatic."

It should also be noted that the FF shot was done at f/4, while the APS shot was done at f/2.8. And in spite of the FF shot being done at a slower aperture, it still produced better background blur than the APS shot.
 
coreyh said:
So I guess everyone now considers the 5D obsolete. Everyone talks
about the 5DmkII when considering full frame like the 5D isn't even
an option anymore. Kind of funny.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. The 5D is by no means obsolete. It's still the least expensive FF camera you can buy, and if you don't care about video and feel that 13mp is plenty of resolution (which it is for the vast majority of people), the 5D is a very good buy. There's a $700 difference in price between the 5D and the 5D MKII. That's not an insignificant amount of money to many people. There are plenty of people who still choose to go with the 5D because it's everything that they need, and it's $700 cheaper than the 5D MKII. If all you care about is FF, then a 5D is a good value, and it's still a great camera. To put things into perspective, you can (almost) buy a 5D ($2000) and a 500D ($800, with video) for the price of a 5D MKII ($2700) alone.
 
... so making 60D FF would make little sense with 5DII out there.

What makes sense are the huge savings generated by sharing sensors (R&D, manufacturing technology) between the Rebels (xxxD) and xxD.

For these 2 reasons I would not worry about the future of semi-pro APS-C cameras.

Personally, as a happy 30D owner, I am hesitating between increasing my field of view with 5DII or absolute resolution with 50D or its successor.

--
Marek
http://galerie.kolas.cz/
 
But I have not found that doubling the exposure time results in a doubling of noise.

For example I have some shots at 1/1000 and others at 1/30 quite a number of stops apart, but I cannot see an increase in noise. I can see the noise increase when I crank the amplification (ISO) up.

So let me again give you an example

Say I shoot with a 5D at 1/125 and F11 and a 40D at a faster shutter speed and smaller aperture, say the shutter is 1/500 to give it a 2 stop advantage. Are you saying the 5D will have more noise if both are at ISO100?

I would say not based on expereince. And let me again say I am not saying the 40D is rubish, just sometimes the 5D is better.

and I am just saying that your assertion on noise needs to be quantified. It is not as absolute as you are indicating.
 
You need to compare apples with apples. An p&s can give you as clear image as you want if you can keep doubling exposure time. Yours is not a valid argument.

At the same shutter speed and same DOF the two sensors will get the same amount of light and have about the same noise. That's all I'm saying.
strawman_John said:
But I have not found that doubling the exposure time results in a
doubling of noise.

For example I have some shots at 1/1000 and others at 1/30 quite a
number of stops apart, but I cannot see an increase in noise. I can
see the noise increase when I crank the amplification (ISO) up.

So let me again give you an example

Say I shoot with a 5D at 1/125 and F11 and a 40D at a faster shutter
speed and smaller aperture, say the shutter is 1/500 to give it a 2
stop advantage. Are you saying the 5D will have more noise if both
are at ISO100?

I would say not based on expereince. And let me again say I am not
saying the 40D is rubish, just sometimes the 5D is better.

and I am just saying that your assertion on noise needs to be
quantified. It is not as absolute as you are indicating.
Click to expand...
 
...depending on the situation? Provided you want equal DOF:

If you're at ISOs other than base ISO then Carl is right.

If you're at base ISO John is right.

No?

Of course, this discussion is largely academic, as we all agree. When actually out there shooting, there are far more variables and you shoot with whatever settings you need with whichever camera you have.

Apart from lower high ISO noise using large apertures (the situation Carl mentioned), FF does have two other advantages that would be tempting for me: greater dynamic range and a correspondingly larger viewfinder. Having been spoiled by the VFs of 35mm cameras, I do find the APS-C VFs to be somewhat small and tunnel-like (though to be fair, the 40D and 50D have pretty decent VFs). I checked out a friend's Sony A900 last month and wow! The camera was a bit clunky but the view through the VF was beautiful.
 
Hey guys. Just take what I said at its face value. When you need deeper DOF and stop the lens down the FF has no noise advantage over APS-C. You can add any qualifications, ifs and buts, as you like. However the statement I made is still absolutely correct and most people shooting their cameras stopped down don’t realize that.

Just remember there are some really great landscape pictures taken with even p&s before you go with your blind admiration of full frame. Why? Because you can take very deep DOF pictures with a p&s even at f2.8 but then again that all that it can do well.
 
carlk said:
Hey guys. Just take what I said at its face value. When you need
deeper DOF and stop the lens down the FF has no noise advantage over
APS-C. You can add any qualifications, ifs and buts, as you like.
However the statement I made is still absolutely correct and most
people shooting their cameras stopped down don’t realize that.
Click to expand...
OK, I'm happy to let that be the final word.
carlk said:
Just remember there are some really great landscape pictures taken
with even p&s before you go with your blind admiration of full frame.
Click to expand...
I agree that you can take brilliant landscapes with any format. I also don't consider myself to have "blind" admiration of FF or anything else. I realize it does have a few genuine advantages, but in actual use they may not be a big deal for most users. And the price of entry is stll too high, for me at least.
 
carlk said:
Hey guys. Just take what I said at its face value. When you need
deeper DOF and stop the lens down the FF has no noise advantage over
APS-C.
Click to expand...
Sorry you need to qualify that statement. Two experiments to demonstrate why.

Take your own camera outside, I would use my 40D. Set it to ISO400 and shoot RAW with NR turned off. Now if I use my macro lens and take photo's at F2.8, F4 , F8, F11. Will I see increased noise as I make the aperture smaller. In short not till I kick into the long exposure routine. If I jump from ISO400 to 800 will I see a change in noise, oh yes.

So you can check for yourself, but under many conditions you can close the aperture by a couple of stops and not see a significant change in the recorded noise.

Experiment 2 set up a 5D and a 50D at ISO800, take RAW Photo's in a normal daylight situation. Take the crop sensor photo's at F4, and the full frame ones at F8 or F11. Let me know which has the lowest noise.
carlk said:
You can add any qualifications, ifs and buts, as you like.
However the statement I made is still absolutely correct and most
people shooting their cameras stopped down don’t realize that.

Just remember there are some really great landscape pictures taken
with even p&s before you go with your blind admiration of full frame.
Why? Because you can take very deep DOF pictures with a p&s even at
f2.8 but then again that all that it can do well.
Click to expand...
It's not blind admiration of full frame, I already told you I use a crop sensor camera and chose it for a reason. But neither do I blindly discard the areas where a full frame sensor has advantages.

All I am asking is for you to check is your assertion correct. Do the test.

Oh and I also shoot photo’s with a 590IS, its amazing what it can do at ISO80 and under F4. In fact apart from the lack of dynamic range, its up to A4 results are very good. OK barrel distortion at the wide end, but for a £60 camera and it has IS as well!!! Go above ISO200 and it starts to fall apart. Be slower than 1/30 and noise also starts to creep in.

My point, there are times of equivalence, and others of not. Use each for their advantages. I know that buying a 40D and spending the rest of my budget on lenses gave me a complete kit that can tackle many subjects. If I had bought a 5D I would have a superior Landscape and Portrait set up, and an inferior sports and wildlife set up.

So I am happy with my choice. It does not make the full frame camera bad nor generate the problems you claim.
 
I am with you, the stopper from me using full frame is price.

The noise results, if you keep the ISo down, favour the full frame camera, just like my 40D out performs my smaller sensor 590IS.

But the 590 slips in the pocket and allows me to always have a camera and people ignore you with it. Plus sometimes it turns in damed good A4 prints.

And is photography not about taking photo's. Each camera has its plus or minus.

Take care.
 
Sorry I did not even fininsh your long post. You really don't understand it and I won't be wasting my on you. It you believe you're right that's fine with me.
strawman_John said:
carlk said:
Hey guys. Just take what I said at its face value. When you need
deeper DOF and stop the lens down the FF has no noise advantage over
APS-C.
Click to expand...
Sorry you need to qualify that statement. Two experiments to
demonstrate why.

Take your own camera outside, I would use my 40D. Set it to ISO400
and shoot RAW with NR turned off. Now if I use my macro lens and take
photo's at F2.8, F4 , F8, F11. Will I see increased noise as I make
the aperture smaller. In short not till I kick into the long exposure
routine. If I jump from ISO400 to 800 will I see a change in noise,
oh yes.

So you can check for yourself, but under many conditions you can
close the aperture by a couple of stops and not see a significant
change in the recorded noise.

Experiment 2 set up a 5D and a 50D at ISO800, take RAW Photo's in a
normal daylight situation. Take the crop sensor photo's at F4, and
the full frame ones at F8 or F11. Let me know which has the lowest
noise.
strawman_John said:
You can add any qualifications, ifs and buts, as you like.
However the statement I made is still absolutely correct and most
people shooting their cameras stopped down don’t realize that.

Just remember there are some really great landscape pictures taken
with even p&s before you go with your blind admiration of full frame.
Why? Because you can take very deep DOF pictures with a p&s even at
f2.8 but then again that all that it can do well.
Click to expand...
It's not blind admiration of full frame, I already told you I use a
crop sensor camera and chose it for a reason. But neither do I
blindly discard the areas where a full frame sensor has advantages.

All I am asking is for you to check is your assertion correct. Do the
test.

Oh and I also shoot photo’s with a 590IS, its amazing what it can do
at ISO80 and under F4. In fact apart from the lack of dynamic range,
its up to A4 results are very good. OK barrel distortion at the wide
end, but for a £60 camera and it has IS as well!!! Go above ISO200
and it starts to fall apart. Be slower than 1/30 and noise also
starts to creep in.

My point, there are times of equivalence, and others of not. Use each
for their advantages. I know that buying a 40D and spending the rest
of my budget on lenses gave me a complete kit that can tackle many
subjects. If I had bought a 5D I would have a superior Landscape and
Portrait set up, and an inferior sports and wildlife set up.

So I am happy with my choice. It does not make the full frame camera
bad nor generate the problems you claim.
Click to expand...
 
FF gives you lower noise, higher resolution, less distrotion for wide angle and generally higher IQ however more mp means glass needs to be better, vignetting is significantly more compared to crop.

8-10mp seems to be the best for crop with 12-16mp best for FF if you want ultimate IQ and noise characteristics.

FF camera would give you cleaner images
russellhorn said:
I am new to the forum and have mostly done astrophotography until
lately. I expect that I do not have traditional thoughts on camera
gear and am curious of your opinions. While reading the expectations
of the future "60D" some say that FF is expected or that the end of
the line for crop sensors is near. I cant imagine Canon abandoning
the EF-S lenses and this got me to thinking. Why do some think that
FF is so much better than crop? Some of my telescopes can barely
cover a crop sensor with a flat field (which is important...nice
round stars in the corners). If I had FF I would have to crop the
final image anyways and I do not have any plans for wall size prints.
Now that I am getting into landscapes, macro, and wildlife I have
added a 14mm f/2.8L II to go wide (I really like primes). Am I
missing something? I have much to learn, but at this point I would
rather spend my money on glass than a larger sensor.

My lenses so far:

14mm f/2.8L II
35mm f/1.4L
100mm f/2.8 macro
200mm f/2.8L II

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61135315@N00/
Click to expand...
 
For my kind of shooting (I shoot a lot in the tele range) FF is a disadvantage because it gives me less range. And hey: I don't want to crop all my images!! For wide angle shooting I use my Canon 10-22mm. That's wider than I ever need, so no problem there!
--
***********************************************



Visit my photo gallery: http://www.retomueller.ch
Reto Mueller, Bern, Switzerland
 
I gave the conditions and experiment to back up your point, and I gave the conditions and experiments to back up my comments.

I fail to see why you are being so defensive.

I can see conditions where the noise advantage will be tiny, and ones where it will be significant.

What is so wrong with recognising both situations.

And as I said I can show you with my camera that the act of stopping down the lens 2 stops does not result in a significant change in noise. why should it be different in another camera?
 
Vibrio said:
FF gives you lower noise, higher resolution, less distrotion for wide
angle and generally higher IQ however more mp means glass needs to be
better, vignetting is significantly more compared to crop.
Click to expand...
Why less distortion for wide angle?
 
it's alleged better IQ ? If so, it's rather limited in it's application. It's rare that one can set up a tripod on a busy city street, in the snow, shooting a bride on the move, etc. Rather limited application.
 
jonrobertp said:
it's alleged better IQ ? If so, it's rather limited in it's
application. It's rare that one can set up a tripod on a busy city
street, in the snow, shooting a bride on the move, etc. Rather
limited application.
--
Click to expand...
Err no. Wedding photographers were the biggest group to take up the 5D, why , well its performance in low light hand held. Often such photographs do not need big DoF.

And the best sports SLR at the moment is the D3, why well the light gathering of the FF sensor and the good Af it has etc.

As I said in the earlier posts, the full frame camera works better over a range of situations.

It is only the situation where you wish to hold a certain shutter speed and keep the DoF the same that you have to increase the ISO, and so end up in about the same noise place.

For the rest its only downside is cost, and possibly weight. Be it cost of the body or long focal length lenses.

OK a question, why are you guys so bitter about FF?

Its like in the past, a medium format film camera out resolved 35mm film. But people often chose 35mm for flexibility and purchase price. What is wrong with crop sensor and full frame having a similar relationship.

So full frame has advantages, to you they may be small so be happy. It does not make full frame bad.

And for as long as I can remember, the top landscape workers have used tripods as appropriate. It has not become a sin has it.
 
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