Reading mode: Light Dark

~ Your reasons for not going f u l l f r a m e ~

Go to last post
I shot with the 20D for three years, and assumed I would get the 5D replacement next. But then, a bit over a year ago, there was an amazing combination of coupons that allowed me to get the 50D for under $800. The 5D Mk II would have been nearly $2000 more expensive, and I would have needed different batteries and grip. So the cost difference would have been quite a bit more than $2000. I certainly couldn't afford that. So, for me, price is still the main reason for not going full frame. I am very happy with the 50D, and get terrific results, all the way up to ISO 6400 (I even get usable results at ISO 12800 with the right processing). I suspect that I will eventually get a full frame camera, but the 7D looks awfully good too. Perhaps I'll get that just before (or even after) the 7D MKII is released. I certainly don't need full frame for wide angle. I have the 10-22, which is simply outstanding. I can't imagine wanting to go wider than 16mm on full frame.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 
Maybe you should try it. It does change.
Select 300mm lens 5.6 aperture 10 meters distance.
DOF 0.241 on 1.6 crop 0.386 on 35mm
.241 means shallower DOF.
--
Eugene

The only time a smaller sensor with the same pixel count is superior to a larger sensor (aka higher pixel density) is when you are focal-length limited.

Lee Jay

 
You're forgetting that the FOV is different between the FF and 1.6x crop if the same lens is used at the same distance to the subject. IE, not comparable because it's not the same composition.

You'll find that the FF has less DOF if the FOV (which is an angle, not a distance) is the same and the aperture is the same between both formats. This is because if the FOV (angle) is the same, the FF camera would actually be a closer distance to the subject than the crop camera, thus giving you less DOF with the FF.

Try not to debate this...it's a fact that's been illustrated over and over on this forum.
 
Thats why i said "effective" reach. Of course the crop doesnt change the focul length, thats what the guy i was responding to said. The more pixels you can put on a distant subject the better the quality the picture will be and also alow for a bigger print plus show less noise in the same size print. So i agree with you. But dissagree how pixel density doesnt play a factor in "effective" reach.

Example would be a FF 5dmk2 and a 10D. 10D being a crop some people actually think its better for taking pics of a distant subject that they dont have enough focul length to fill the frame. They slap there trusty 400 5.6 lens on there 10D look through the viewfinder and that distant subject looks closer in the viewfinder than it does if they put that same 400mm on a 5Dmk2. But in the end there will be more pixels on that distant subject with the 5Dmk2 because of the higher pixel density to give more "effective" reach. It doesnt matter that technically its not a longer lens, in the end the effect of high pixel density gives you a better photos, but has NOTHING to do with sensor size. Pixel density gives that "effective" longer reach. Thats what i was trying to say.

I also noticed no one say a word about how the FF sensor allows longer focul length lenses to be used during landscape photos to compress scences more which is very nice with landscapes with large mountains in the background. The mountains are more pronounced in photos like that with a FF sensor. Something a smaller sensor cant do. Like i said generaly crop sensors are better on wildlife but FF for landscapes. Each has its merits.
Doug J said:
The lens projects the same size image circle, regardless the camera and sensor size. In the case of a 24mm x 36mm sensor (FF), the maximum area of the image circle is recorded.

On a crop body with a smaller sensor, the image circle is the same size, but it will extend beyond the sensor and is not recorded. This basically reduces the field of view.

When all other conditions are the same, a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop body will have the same field of view as an 80mm lens on a full frame body.

Pixel density relates to the resolution of the recorder image - how many pixels captured the image - and has no affect on the field of view.

This link might help
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

Another example
http://www.echeng.com/photo/digital/canondslr/
Daniel Clune said:
Your lens is still a 100-400. It crops in camera the field of view. Typiclly the crop bodies have higher pixel density so they have more effective reach. But for example a 8 meg 30D has no more reach than a 5DmkII as you can crop the 5D2 down to 8 meg and have the same field of view. Another example would be a 1Dmk3 verse a FF 1DSMK2. They have the same effective reach even though the 1Dmk3 has a crop 1.25 sensor verse the 1DSmk2 FF sensor because the pixel density is the same. When the next 1DS the mk4 comes out it might be in the 30 meg range raising the pixel density up pretty high making crop bodies have less effective reach over it.

But since most crop bodies do have high pixel density saying a crop body has more reach is generaly true but its not quite as simple as saying all crop bodies have more reach. or saying its a 1.6 multiplyer.

BUT FF has some advantages most people dont realize. If a landscape shooter you can use a longer lens and have the same field of view a crop body has with a wider lens. So your now saying so what. Well the longer lens allows you to compress the scene making some things like mountains in the background much more pronounced. Now you might say just back up with a crop and use a longer lens. Well thats often not possable. I was shooting in the Grand Tetons and there were large groups of photographers and we all had to be in the same general line as to not block others view and sometimes you cant backup. The picture looks differant when using a wider angle on a crop even though the feild of view is the same. I much prefer the FF for landscape work. Wildlife crop rules for now.
Condor99 said:
Full frame sucks. It is massively overhyped. It turns my 640 mm lens into a 400 mm lens.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Best regards,
Doug
--
http://pbase.com/dougj
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm

 
Daniel Clune said:
Thats why i said "effective" reach. Of course the crop doesnt change the focul length, thats what the guy i was responding to said. The more pixels you can put on a distant subject the better the quality the picture will be and also alow for a bigger print plus show less noise in the same size print. So i agree with you.
Click to expand...
Daniel Clune said:
Example would be a FF 5dmk2 and a 10D. 10D being a crop some people actually think its better for taking pics of a distant subject that they dont have enough focul length to fill the frame. They slap there trusty 400 5.6 lens on there 10D look through the viewfinder and that distant subject looks closer in the viewfinder than it does if they put that same 400mm on a 5Dmk2. But in the end there will be more pixels on that distant subject with the 5Dmk2 because of the higher pixel density to give more "effective" reach. It doesnt matter that technically its not a longer lens, in the end the effect of high pixel density gives you a better photos, but has NOTHING to do with sensor size. Pixel density gives that "effective" longer reach. Thats what i was trying to say.
Click to expand...
This is still defining resolution. I don't equate more pixels used to capture the same image as increasing reach. Consider the same shot taken with the same lens & conditions with a 1D (original) and a 5DII, same sensor size but 4.1MP v. 21MP. The field of view is the same, the difference is resolution which usually means detail. The 5DII image could no doubt be cropped more that that of the 1D to a point that the detail is still acceptable, which is what a crop body does - one is done in post processing while the other is done in the camera based on the smaller sensor size.
Daniel Clune said:
I also noticed no one say a word about how the FF sensor allows longer focul length lenses to be used during landscape photos to compress scences more which is very nice with landscapes with large mountains in the background. The mountains are more pronounced in photos like that with a FF sensor. Something a smaller sensor cant do. Like i said generaly crop sensors are better on wildlife but FF for landscapes. Each has its merits.
Doug J said:
The lens projects the same size image circle, regardless the camera and sensor size. In the case of a 24mm x 36mm sensor (FF), the maximum area of the image circle is recorded.

On a crop body with a smaller sensor, the image circle is the same size, but it will extend beyond the sensor and is not recorded. This basically reduces the field of view.

When all other conditions are the same, a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop body will have the same field of view as an 80mm lens on a full frame body.

Pixel density relates to the resolution of the recorder image - how many pixels captured the image - and has no affect on the field of view.

This link might help
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

Another example
http://www.echeng.com/photo/digital/canondslr/
Daniel Clune said:
Your lens is still a 100-400. It crops in camera the field of view. Typiclly the crop bodies have higher pixel density so they have more effective reach. But for example a 8 meg 30D has no more reach than a 5DmkII as you can crop the 5D2 down to 8 meg and have the same field of view. Another example would be a 1Dmk3 verse a FF 1DSMK2. They have the same effective reach even though the 1Dmk3 has a crop 1.25 sensor verse the 1DSmk2 FF sensor because the pixel density is the same. When the next 1DS the mk4 comes out it might be in the 30 meg range raising the pixel density up pretty high making crop bodies have less effective reach over it.

But since most crop bodies do have high pixel density saying a crop body has more reach is generaly true but its not quite as simple as saying all crop bodies have more reach. or saying its a 1.6 multiplyer.

BUT FF has some advantages most people dont realize. If a landscape shooter you can use a longer lens and have the same field of view a crop body has with a wider lens. So your now saying so what. Well the longer lens allows you to compress the scene making some things like mountains in the background much more pronounced. Now you might say just back up with a crop and use a longer lens. Well thats often not possable. I was shooting in the Grand Tetons and there were large groups of photographers and we all had to be in the same general line as to not block others view and sometimes you cant backup. The picture looks differant when using a wider angle on a crop even though the feild of view is the same. I much prefer the FF for landscape work. Wildlife crop rules for now.
Condor99 said:
Full frame sucks. It is massively overhyped. It turns my 640 mm lens into a 400 mm lens.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Best regards,
Doug
--
http://pbase.com/dougj
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm

Click to expand...
--
Best regards,
Doug

http://pbase.com/dougj
 
I considered the 5DII, but then the 7D came out before I finally decided. Money was a reason: if I'd bought the 5D, I'd have had to buy a wide angle zoom too and the 16-35 was too much for both items. But then I read about the 7D's new features… Since I already own the EF-S 10-22 (plus two other S lenses — although not as important), and are happy with it, I stayed with the cropped frame. That and, again, the 7D's new features. Plus the added power with my other zoom lenses. Did I say the 7D's new features?
 
To properly compare DOF etc, one has to take into account the FOV.

The 55-250mm lens on the crop body has the same reach as the 100-400 on a FF body. IE 250 x 1.6=400. So standing side by side on full zoom, they will drame the same.

Next, take a distance like 3 metres and say F5.6. The crop body will deliver a DOF of 30mm where the FF will deliver 17mm.

So yes, the FF will deliver a shallower DOF at the same Field of View.
--
The Aussie Viking

 
The same reasons exist for full-frame camera users to NOT go to Medium Format cameras.

1. Weight and Bulk
2. Cost
3. No need for Ultra-Ultra Wide
4. No need for Ultra-Shallow Depth of Field
5. No need for less noise at higher ISO

The current APS DSLR cameras are more than almost all photographers in this forum have skills to use.

If you think the 10-22 mm lens is expensive, then you are not ready for how much more expensive the lenses are.

An APS kit with camera and lenses from full-frame equivalent of 16 mm to 640 mm is so much lighter, so less bulkier, and so much less expensive than the equivalent Full Frame kit.

The quality of photos that you can get with APS Cameras at ISO up to 3200 is equivalent to those from Full Frame DSLRs.

Thus, for the vast majority of uses, a Full Framer Camera is not needed, just as for the vast majority of uses, a Medium Format Camera is not needed.
Meshwork said:
Firstly, I'm not a troll. I'm merely interested in your personal reasons for not moving to full frame given the more minimal pricing differences, relatively speaking these days, between crop sensor cameras and ff cameras.

I'm a landscape only photographer who currently uses the 40D and 50D. I haven't gone to the 5D Mk11 (yet!) because I still frequently use my 10-22 EF-S lens - and it was indeed an expensive lens.

No doubt many of you have diverse reasons, such as the extra telephoto length of your crop camera, its frame rates and your EF-S lens collection - or is it still perhaps cost?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and whether you're entertaining the idea of making the transition, either now or further down the track. BTW, I don't work for Canon!

Many thanks

--
Mesh
Australia

5% lighting, 5% composition. 90% location. Get there.
Click to expand...
 
Doug J said:
Daniel Clune said:
Thats why i said "effective" reach. Of course the crop doesnt change the focul length, thats what the guy i was responding to said. The more pixels you can put on a distant subject the better the quality the picture will be and also alow for a bigger print plus show less noise in the same size print. So i agree with you.
Click to expand...
Doug J said:
Example would be a FF 5dmk2 and a 10D. 10D being a crop some people actually think its better for taking pics of a distant subject that they dont have enough focul length to fill the frame. They slap there trusty 400 5.6 lens on there 10D look through the viewfinder and that distant subject looks closer in the viewfinder than it does if they put that same 400mm on a 5Dmk2. But in the end there will be more pixels on that distant subject with the 5Dmk2 because of the higher pixel density to give more "effective" reach. It doesnt matter that technically its not a longer lens, in the end the effect of high pixel density gives you a better photos, but has NOTHING to do with sensor size. Pixel density gives that "effective" longer reach. Thats what i was trying to say.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ok but i think most here when they talk about getting more reach they are talking about the amount of resolution you can put on your target. But what your saying is of course correct too. its how you define "reach". So we just disagree on how you define reach. It just erks me when people say there 1.6 crop camera magically turns there 100mm to a 160mm.

Actually original 1D was a crop of 1.3 not a FF, just thought i would point that out. Maybe you ment original 1ds at 11 megapixel?
Doug J said:
This is still defining resolution. I don't equate more pixels used to capture the same image as increasing reach. Consider the same shot taken with the same lens & conditions with a 1D (original) and a 5DII, same sensor size but 4.1MP v. 21MP. The field of view is the same, the difference is resolution which usually means detail. The 5DII image could no doubt be cropped more that that of the 1D to a point that the detail is still acceptable, which is what a crop body does - one is done in post processing while the other is done in the camera based on the smaller sensor size.
Doug J said:
I also noticed no one say a word about how the FF sensor allows longer focul length lenses to be used during landscape photos to compress scences more which is very nice with landscapes with large mountains in the background. The mountains are more pronounced in photos like that with a FF sensor. Something a smaller sensor cant do. Like i said generaly crop sensors are better on wildlife but FF for landscapes. Each has its merits.
Doug J said:
The lens projects the same size image circle, regardless the camera and sensor size. In the case of a 24mm x 36mm sensor (FF), the maximum area of the image circle is recorded.

On a crop body with a smaller sensor, the image circle is the same size, but it will extend beyond the sensor and is not recorded. This basically reduces the field of view.

When all other conditions are the same, a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop body will have the same field of view as an 80mm lens on a full frame body.

Pixel density relates to the resolution of the recorder image - how many pixels captured the image - and has no affect on the field of view.

This link might help
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

Another example
http://www.echeng.com/photo/digital/canondslr/
Daniel Clune said:
Your lens is still a 100-400. It crops in camera the field of view. Typiclly the crop bodies have higher pixel density so they have more effective reach. But for example a 8 meg 30D has no more reach than a 5DmkII as you can crop the 5D2 down to 8 meg and have the same field of view. Another example would be a 1Dmk3 verse a FF 1DSMK2. They have the same effective reach even though the 1Dmk3 has a crop 1.25 sensor verse the 1DSmk2 FF sensor because the pixel density is the same. When the next 1DS the mk4 comes out it might be in the 30 meg range raising the pixel density up pretty high making crop bodies have less effective reach over it.

But since most crop bodies do have high pixel density saying a crop body has more reach is generaly true but its not quite as simple as saying all crop bodies have more reach. or saying its a 1.6 multiplyer.

BUT FF has some advantages most people dont realize. If a landscape shooter you can use a longer lens and have the same field of view a crop body has with a wider lens. So your now saying so what. Well the longer lens allows you to compress the scene making some things like mountains in the background much more pronounced. Now you might say just back up with a crop and use a longer lens. Well thats often not possable. I was shooting in the Grand Tetons and there were large groups of photographers and we all had to be in the same general line as to not block others view and sometimes you cant backup. The picture looks differant when using a wider angle on a crop even though the feild of view is the same. I much prefer the FF for landscape work. Wildlife crop rules for now.
Condor99 said:
Full frame sucks. It is massively overhyped. It turns my 640 mm lens into a 400 mm lens.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Best regards,
Doug
--
http://pbase.com/dougj
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm

Click to expand...
--
Best regards,
Doug

http://pbase.com/dougj
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm

 
Eugene Powers said:
To get shallower DOF you need better lenses.
Click to expand...
Hello? All lenses of the same focal length produce the same amount of DOF. Better lenses will focus more sharply within the DOF, but the amount of DOF is unchanged. Where do you get this information? (Disclaimer: If it's from some part of your anatomy, please don't answer...)
Member said:
At the same settings crop camera produces shallower DOF than FF.
Click to expand...
If you mean the same lens at the same f-stop, your "point" is misguided and meaningless. If you mean two different lenses producing the same FOV (as in, a 160mm lens on a FF, vs. a 100mm lens on an aps-c), you're simply mistaken.
 
Daniel Clune said:
Ok but i think most here when they talk about getting more reach they are talking about the amount of resolution you can put on your target. But what your saying is of course correct too. its how you define "reach". So we just disagree on how you define reach. It just erks me when people say there 1.6 crop camera magically turns there 100mm to a 160mm.
Click to expand...
You're right, and the so called crop factor will continue to confuse people, until they sit and rationalize it with some examples. I think some new DSLR users come from a P&S experience and are mis calibrated.
Daniel Clune said:
Actually original 1D was a crop of 1.3 not a FF, just thought i would point that out. Maybe you ment original 1ds at 11 megapixel?
Click to expand...
Yup, my bad, I meant the original 1Ds

Best regards,
Doug
 
By better lenses I meant brighter lenses and use wider aperture.

And to all the others. Print size does not matter because you have to take in to account pixel size. So 7D will "reach" farther than 40D with the same lens because you can blow it up much more. DOF will not change though. In the viewfinder it will remain the same.
--
Eugene

The only time a smaller sensor with the same pixel count is superior to a larger sensor (aka higher pixel density) is when you are focal-length limited.

Lee Jay

 
I think cost should be number 1.
ISO performance should be number 2. It sucks on medium format.
3 should be bulk but not for everyone.

IQ is the best if you can bypass first 3.

--
Eugene

The only time a smaller sensor with the same pixel count is superior to a larger sensor (aka higher pixel density) is when you are focal-length limited.

Lee Jay

 
Canon has not produced any FF lens with the same image quality as the 10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS on a cropped sensor. And even if they do, the FF lenses will be heavier and bigger.

I am not a pro so I do not see the need to splurge on FF sensors.

If Canon manages to squeeze a FF sensor into a cheap and lightweight body (~ 500 g or so), I may be interested as long as there are suitable lenses (like 12-24 f/4 and good quality 24-105 f/4 IS).
 
FF doesn't offer an advantage for how I shoot, I'm OK with 1.6 & 1.3 croppers and 17mm FL wide angle. In fact, FF is a disadvantage for long focal length shooting for me.

Best regards,
Doug
--
http://pbase.com/dougj
 
Cost.

I use the extra FPS the 50D has over the 5D2 sometimes. Not often, but certainly on occasion. I would love the reduced noise of a FF camera, but ...

But a 50D/17-55IS combo is, because of the IS on the 17-55, really not significantly worse a low-light combo (and a lot of my shooting is hand-held, low light - low light performance would be the primary advantage I get from FF the way I shoot, although reduced DOF would be nice, too) than a 5D2/24-70L.

Relatively speaking, I'd get about 1.3 stops imrpovement (sqr root 1.6) in noise from going FF, but I get 2-3 stops of shutter speed improvement from the IS. (Yes, I know, IS doesn't freeze subject movement - there are other advantages) but the FF combo costs, what, $1500 more than the 50D/17-55IS combo (at the time I purchased it - now the difference is closer to 1800, although buying today I'd probably get a 7D).

That's a lot of extra money for little gain, especially when it involves giving some things (FPS, some focusing performance) up.
 
Taking pictures of 20 dollar bills taped to the wall, at 100 percent crops, I would be able to tell the difference.

In the really world, taking pictures, I think it would be hard to tell the difference.

I think I would get excited about having a Leica M9 and a bag full of M series primes, but money wise, it's out of my reach.

--
Thanks, Ed
http://edwardintoronto.smugmug.com
 
My reasons are: (not in a particular order)
1. Cost
2. I already own 3 great EF-S lenses (10-22, 17-55 and 60 macro)

3. I don't see any reason to get FF ( I am not a pro when it come to photography)
--

“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he will sit in the boat and drink beer all day.”—OldFox

Canon 350D XT, Canon 40D, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, 50mm f/1.8, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS, 580 EX II, MR-14EX

Marius
 
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