Reading mode: Light Dark

Full Frame or Not???

Go to last post
Ah, the choice between amply-desirables ... !

I didn't see it mentioned (might've missed...), but with the FF a850/900/D3x/...
one has also the cost of computer-files manipulation, storage, et cetera. That
could imply a computer-systems upgrade, to be efficient. YMMV.

Happy waiting.

-drofnad
 
Only if you decide to shot raw. I have the 850 and do not have a problem with good exposures shot with good cz glass. I know that this is an on going arguement about jpegs vs. raw. But I still wonder if raw is worth it. I agree if you want the ultimate in white balance , etc that raw is the only way to go, but if you are not that critical, and only want good pictures that will be remarkably wall hangers jepg's are hard to beat. I have no problem with my laptop which is about three years old.

Bruce
 
I would say JPEG only "easier" than RAW if you are doing very light or no post processing.

Once you have become familiar with RAW in a program such as LightRoom the processing time goes way down but the ability of the processing to improve the image goes way up.

Would think using JPEG makes sense at times but really what would you have a high end DSLR for if you are only shooting JPEG? Does not make sense to me but then I can remember back when I was struggling with processing RAW images. Took a while.

--
tom power
 
I hope all is well with your choice, I think you made the correct one. Who knows, maybe Sony will come out with an excellent FF wildlife camera that even better fits your needs than the A900. I hope you found the comments here helpful.
 
Bryan89 said:
I hope all is well with your choice, I think you made the correct one. Who knows, maybe Sony will come out with an excellent FF wildlife camera that even better fits your needs than the A900. I hope you found the comments here helpful.
Click to expand...
Most of the comments were very helpful. I'm like a lot of folks who are waiting for the A7XX. I think Sony will come through and produce a wonderful full featured camera.

We all shall see!!!!

--
Thanks, Ed
Torrance, CA
 
I think you made the right choice for what you want out of a camera.

FF does have it's advantages... resolution being no1 in Sony's case. Plus the fact that if you're buying the top of the line CZ you're getting the most out of those lenses and older lenses work well since you don't have to deal with awkward FL's (nothing to sneeze at).

But the A900/850 do have their disadvantages too compared to APS. For one it looks like Sony will implement video on APS first... APS is cheaper... APS is smaller... and more and more lenses are coming out both oem and 3rd party that give good performance as opposed to two years ago where all the manufacturers were putting out lenses that were FF first... FF sized and specced that made them frankly less than stellar on APS...
 
Touchdown said:
Touchdown wrote:

While I'm not very good at BIF, I'd hate to give up the crop factor when using my 70-400 G. The other factors like weight, size, cost (including the cost of the CZ 24-70 & the CZ 16-35) I could have lived with. I tried an A900 and I will miss that incrediable view finder. At least for now , FF is a closed issue.
Click to expand...
Hello Ed, have you considered the "cropping power" of the A900, as explained below?

A 400mm lens on the A900 provides a field of view (FOV) of 400mm, and an image size of 6048 pixels x 4032 pixels.

Because of the 1.5 crop factor, this same 400mm lens on the A700, provides a FOV of 600mm, but an image size of only 4272 pixels x 2848 pixels.

At this point, you could say that the image from the A700 has a 50% "telephoto advantage" or "crop factor advantage" over the A900 (600mm FOV vs 400mm FOV).

But, when you CROP a 400mm A900 image to the same FOV as a 600mm A700 image, you get an image size of approx. 3959 pixels x 2639 pixels. By doing this, the images from both the A900 and the A700 now have an identical FOV, so you have eliminated the original 50% telephoto advantage of the A700.

So, when BOTH the A700 and A900 images have a FOV of 600mm, the uncropped image width of the A700 is only 7.9% greater than that of the cropped image width of the A900 (4272 pixels vs. 3959 pixels). This small 7.9% "gain in image width" in favour of the A700 is now due solely to the fact that the pixel density of the A700 (in pixels per linear centimetre) is 7.9% greater than that of the A900 (1818 / 1685).

Does anyone agree with this analysis?

Further information in support of the above is given here:

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/crop-factor-advantage-s700-s900.html

Regards
Rob
 
As a former FF user (35mm film) who now uses the APS-C I have no desire to go full frame. Which is more important to you, ultra wide angle or telephoto? Since I have no need for focal lengths lower than 28mm (FF equiv) and more need for longer telephoto the APS-C format suits me best. Combine that with the fact that I have no need for anything beyond 10-12 megapixels where FF really shines. My 18-70 and 70-300 two lens combo covers 28-450 mm (FF equiv). To do that with FF would result in much bulkier more expensive lenses.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
 
Alec said:
I personally do not buy into the part of pro-crop argument playing up the advantages of "built-in teleconverter" and "full-frame lens sweetspot", for two reasons. Firstly, they can be realized on any full-frame camera by, um, cropping (with more flexibility and with time on your side).
Click to expand...
What you are saying may be true but most of us want to minimize the necessity for post processing. Also the extra cost of FF cameras cannot be underestimated. The extra money spent on FF would be better spent, for the majority of us anyway, on something else such as another lens.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
 
tbcass said:
My 18-70 and 70-300 two lens combo covers 28-450 mm (FF equiv). To do that with FF would result in much bulkier more expensive lenses.
Click to expand...
All things being equal, what you say it true.

However, at this particular time in the development of Sony cameras, this really doesn't apply because FF by necessity equals 24MP. Thus with my lightweight KM 28-75 f2.8 and 70-300 G, I end up covering the exact same spread of 28-450mm as you, if I’m willing to crop the central APS-C 11MP portion out of the center of my FF image. Same lens and similar pixels equals similar image. The issue is more complex in other camera lineups and will get more so as cameras continue to specialize, but for right now, in the Sony lineup, that alone is not a compelling issue IMO.

When I was sitting on the fence about getting my a850, this is one of the issues that pushed me to FF.

Bruce
--
http://www.pbase.com/misterpixel
 
tompower53 said:
But the point is why carry around a FF camera and lens if you are going to crop it.

Much cheaper to buy an APS-C camera and if possible a cheaper lighter smaller APS-C lens and actually get slightly more resolution.
Click to expand...
As an example, the Pentax K7 is quite a bit smaller than the A700 and much smaller and lighter than the A900, yet is built very well and has great specs.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com
 
tompower53 said:
But the point is why carry around a FF camera and lens if you are going to crop it.

Much cheaper to buy an APS-C camera and if possible a cheaper lighter smaller APS-C lens and actually get slightly more resolution.
Click to expand...
I own the Sony 70-300G lens, but I don't crop many of the pictures taken on my A900 with this lens, only a few taken at 300mm where I really need to get up to say a FOV of between 400mm and 600mm.

At least you can crop the image from a full frame camera and get the same field of view, and similar image size to what you get from an APS-C camera.

But, if you have the same 70-400mm lens on both FF and APS-C, you get a true 70mm with FF, but only 105mm with APS-C (if the crop factor is 1.5x). If you take a lot of wide angle images, FF is probably the way to go.

It's also worth remembering that, quite a few APS-C cameras, such as the Canon 7D have a lot higher pixel density than FF cameras:

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/crop-factor-advantage-7D-5DII.html

But, I would rather have a FF camera with large pixels, than an APS-C camera that has a high pixel density and a lot smaller pixels. The push towards producing APS-C cameras that have as much as 18mp is not all good news because they are unlikely to have as good a high ISO performance as a lower pixel density FF camera.

Regards
Rob
 
Not quite accurate...

This FF equivalent that is bandied about is ok for APS-C cameras but is pointless when used to compare both types.

Remember Every FF is also an APS-C (hint Cropping) but an APS-C is NEVER FF!!!

On the A900 (and I am sure on the A850) you can choose to shoot in APS-C via menu (why you would want to I am not sure though).

Go FF, you know you are covered, APS-C and you might regret it.... My Sigma 12-24mm can take wide angle shots that you can't get with APS-C (the edges in unltra wide angle lenses are the most dramatic areas of the photo.) at a reasonable price (8mm primes are expensive :) )

W.
tbcass said:
As a former FF user (35mm film) who now uses the APS-C I have no desire to go full frame. Which is more important to you, ultra wide angle or telephoto? Since I have no need for focal lengths lower than 28mm (FF equiv) and more need for longer telephoto the APS-C format suits me best. Combine that with the fact that I have no need for anything beyond 10-12 megapixels where FF really shines. My 18-70 and 70-300 two lens combo covers 28-450 mm (FF equiv). To do that with FF would result in much bulkier more expensive lenses.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
Click to expand...
 
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