Reading mode: Light Dark

Full frame - Do you really need it?

Go to last post
C

Cliff. Johnston

Senior Member
Messages
1,638
Reaction score
0
Location
Granbury, TX, US
Greetings from Sunny Texas,

I posted the following in part as a response on another thread, but had second thoughts as it really is another distinct topic, so here it is...

The question should be, "Do you really need a full frame dSLR?"

If one is doing nothing larger than 8x10 images then there is no real need for a full frame dSLR such as the 1Ds and its accompanying expense(s) as many other dSLRs on the market will do the job just as well, if not better. It's only when one goes considerably larger that the significant differences may become apparent.

I came across another professional photographer this past week with about $30,000+ of digital gear (including a Nikon with a Kodak 645N digital back) doing static images of volleyball players. Overkill? IMHO, yes. From what I've seen of his work, I can do better with slightly less than $5,000 worth of gear. I base that comment on what I've seen of his previous images and his lighting - flat, a typical studio portrait slam-bam-thank-you-Mam trained p&s'er (meant to be slightly derogatory). It's more a matter of egocentricity in many cases. "Need" is often nothing more than a psychological perception (or neurosis - depending on how strong one wishes to put it). Of course the dSLR manufacturers do depend upon those psychological weaknesses of ours to sell their gear - often it's the name of the game.

If we ever had something akin to the "truth in lending" laws for advertising dSLRs, we'd probably be in for some big surprises.

Cliff.

--
Cliff. Johnston
 
Ok, I'm a serious amateur/semi-pro. I've gone from b/w Mamiya 645 to a Nikon D1x (and I had to buy all new lenses since I've never had Nikon gear before).

Do I need a full frame?

Nope, not at all. I haven't done anything larger than my Epson 1270 can do in years. But I've seen up to 20x24 from a D1x that looked great. Perhaps if I was delivering very large prints to highly discriminating audiences, it would be different. But about 80% of my work is 8x10 or smaller. And I haven't gone beyond 12x17 in years. Do I really need to spend more money? I've got a significant investment in Nikon gear, so I certainly wouldn't opt to go Canon and start over.

Nope, for me that quality of images and equipment satisfies me completely.

Cliff. Johnston wrote:
[snip]
Cliff. Johnston said:
The question should be, "Do you really need a full frame dSLR?"

If one is doing nothing larger than 8x10 images then there is no
real need for a full frame dSLR such as the 1Ds and its
accompanying expense(s) as many other dSLRs on the market will do
the job just as well, if not better. It's only when one goes
considerably larger that the significant differences may become
apparent.
Click to expand...
[snip]
 
John Gerecht said:
Do I need a full frame?

Nope, not at all. I haven't done anything larger than my Epson 1270
can do in years. But I've seen up to 20x24 from a D1x that looked
great. Perhaps if I was delivering very large prints to highly
discriminating audiences, it would be different. But about 80% of
my work is 8x10 or smaller. And I haven't gone beyond 12x17 in
years. Do I really need to spend more money? I've got a significant
investment in Nikon gear, so I certainly wouldn't opt to go Canon
and start over.

Nope, for me that quality of images and equipment satisfies me
completely.

Cliff. Johnston wrote:
[snip]
John Gerecht said:
The question should be, "Do you really need a full frame dSLR?"

If one is doing nothing larger than 8x10 images then there is no
real need for a full frame dSLR such as the 1Ds and its
accompanying expense(s) as many other dSLRs on the market will do
the job just as well, if not better. It's only when one goes
considerably larger that the significant differences may become
apparent.
Click to expand...
[snip]
Click to expand...
i think most people who clamor for full frame do so because they want to be able to shoot their wide angle lenses as wide angles. the quality of the sensor/camera could be improved to a point that any size print was possible at the highest quality, but that still wouldn't solve the problem of not being able to get the field of view/angle/perspective that you (i, anyway) want. i assume it will be more realistic to get to the point where making full frame sensors is affordable then it will be to design fast wide angle zooms that are small enough, light enough, and cheap enough which are the same field of view as 17-35 is to a 35mm frame
 
aaron said:
John Gerecht said:
Do I need a full frame?

Nope, not at all. I haven't done anything larger than my Epson 1270
can do in years. But I've seen up to 20x24 from a D1x that looked
great. Perhaps if I was delivering very large prints to highly
discriminating audiences, it would be different. But about 80% of
my work is 8x10 or smaller. And I haven't gone beyond 12x17 in
years. Do I really need to spend more money? I've got a significant
investment in Nikon gear, so I certainly wouldn't opt to go Canon
and start over.

Nope, for me that quality of images and equipment satisfies me
completely.

Cliff. Johnston wrote:
[snip]
aaron53665 said:
The question should be, "Do you really need a full frame dSLR?"

If one is doing nothing larger than 8x10 images then there is no
real need for a full frame dSLR such as the 1Ds and its
accompanying expense(s) as many other dSLRs on the market will do
the job just as well, if not better. It's only when one goes
considerably larger that the significant differences may become
apparent.
Click to expand...
[snip]
Click to expand...
i think most people who clamor for full frame do so because they
want to be able to shoot their wide angle lenses as wide angles.
the quality of the sensor/camera could be improved to a point that
any size print was possible at the highest quality, but that still
wouldn't solve the problem of not being able to get the field of
view/angle/perspective that you (i, anyway) want. i assume it will
be more realistic to get to the point where making full frame
sensors is affordable then it will be to design fast wide angle
zooms that are small enough, light enough, and cheap enough which
are the same field of view as 17-35 is to a 35mm frame
Click to expand...
--
Nicola (mr)
(Amateur Photographer)
http://www.pbase.com/nicola/galleries
 
I don't see any problem with people wanting larger sensors. With a larger sensor you can use larger photosites, which leads to better image quality than a smaller sensor with the same number of photosites. Greater resolution isn't the issue as I see it...we're already close with the Canon 1Ds, Kodak 14n and the current generation of medium format backs to having sensors that outresolve the lenses mounted in front of them. Piling on the pixels once the sensors exceed the resolving power of the lenses isn't going to accomplish much.

I certainly don't see anything sacred about the 24x36mm sensor size, though. Even calling it "full frame" gives it an aura of inevitability it doesn't deserve. IMO the smaller sensors used in the Canon 10D, DigiRebel, Nikon D100, Pentax *ist D, etc. are as likely to become a new consumer-level standard as anything larger. And why not...they already deliver higher quality than 90%+ of the people who take photos need.

-Dave-
 
Cliff. Johnston said:
Greetings from Sunny Texas,

I posted the following in part as a response on another thread, but
had second thoughts as it really is another distinct topic, so here
it is...

The question should be, "Do you really need a full frame dSLR?"
Click to expand...
Hi Cliff,

Actually, the need for full frame has nothing to do with the size of the print. It just so happens that the 1DS and 14n are high resolution cameras, but full frame is about taking advantage of the wide angle available lenses available and for some applications this is more than just convenience.
Cliff. Johnston said:
I came across another professional photographer this past week with
about $30,000+ of digital gear (including a Nikon with a Kodak 645N
digital back) doing static images of volleyball players. Overkill?
IMHO, yes. From what I've seen of his work, I can do better with
slightly less than $5,000 worth of gear. I base that comment on
what I've seen of his previous images and his lighting - flat, a
typical studio portrait slam-bam-thank-you-Mam trained p&s'er
(meant to be slightly derogatory). It's more a matter of
egocentricity in many cases. "Need" is often nothing more than a
psychological perception (or neurosis - depending on how strong one
wishes to put it). Of course the dSLR manufacturers do depend upon
those psychological weaknesses of ours to sell their gear - often
it's the name of the game.
Click to expand...
The above is just not accurate in that "your" needs and the "needs" of other photographers may differ greatly. I have and use five different digital SLR's including the Canon 1DS, 1D, 10D, D30 and Kodak DCS-760. These are all different tools and each has its own set of capabilities and limitations and with few exceptions I "need" each professionally. If one tool could do it all, there would be no need for the variety.

Digital backs on medium format bodies offer features not available with the 35mm platform. The photographer who was shooting volleyball players may or may not have "needed" what he was using for the job, and his choice of tools and his skill with them is independent and a good bit irrelevant to the issue of whether or not full frame is needed. The Kodak back offers a different aspect ratio from 35mm and for some tasks this is a decided advantage. Whether or not this was applicable to this particular application is another issue, but "egocentricity," though in some cases may play a role, is most assuredly not driving sales of expensive photography equipment for the professional in the vast majority of situations. The professional photographer choses their equipment to do a job. If wide angle lenses were not important, the market for them would soon dry up and they would not be available. Since they are available and in high demand, it follows logically that there is a "need" for them and for a camera body which doesn't restrict them. On the other hand, the reduced field of view sensor is a welcome addition to those who work at the telephoto end of the spectrum because it allows the use of smaller and cheaper lenses to accomplish tasks which take considerably more hardware with the full frame.

There is something for everyone out there and there absolutely "is" a need for full frame sensors to allow full use of the range of available lenses.

Lin
--
--
http://208.56.82.71
 
aaron said:
i assume it will be more realistic to get to the point where making full
frame sensors is affordable then it will be to design fast wide angle
zooms that are small enough, light enough, and cheap enough which
are the same field of view as 17-35 is to a 35mm frame
Click to expand...
Given the current cost of making 24x36mm sensors I wouldn't bet on that assumption. I think we'll see plenty of 10mm, 12–24mm, etc. lenses designed for smaller sensors before we'll see reasonably affordable larger sensors. Personally I like the idea of smaller, lighter lenses designed for smaller sensors (in smaller cameras). I'm not keen on the new Olympus system--the sensor is IMO too small--but I think they're on the right track design-wise for a consumer/prosumer system.

-Dave-
 
Well, you could argue that most people why buy film 35mm cameras could get away with using APS film or something like that. It's a point of view, and if it makes you feel better then that's all good.

Me, I have only bought the 1Ds because it is full-frame. The sensor-size issue is something for other people to worry about these days, I just take pictures. If they're bad, it's entirely down to me.

--
Phil
http://www.wigglesworld.btinternet.co.uk/
 
Go to Steve's Digicams and look at the pictures of the school he shoots for samples.

Look at the detail in the brick walls, the tile on the roof, and the grass in the foreground. On any 1.6x camera the roof tiles are a muddy brown mass, and the grass is mostly lots and lots of green blobs.

On the 1Ds I could actually COUNT the roof tiles, and the grass, while still not perfect, has much more detail than ANY of the others. (SD9 and S2 included.) The red building in back and the trash container actually have texture to their sides.

So for me, to do large landscape prints, or large group shots, even a 24MP FF camera would not be out of hand.

And a FF camera can do it with better dynamic range, lower noise, higher ISOs, better viewfinder visibility, etc. etc., than any equivalent 1.6x MP camera...
 
David Kieltyka said:
aaron said:
i assume it will be more realistic to get to the point where making full
frame sensors is affordable then it will be to design fast wide angle
zooms that are small enough, light enough, and cheap enough which
are the same field of view as 17-35 is to a 35mm frame
Click to expand...
Given the current cost of making 24x36mm sensors I wouldn't bet on
that assumption. I think we'll see plenty of 10mm, 12–24mm, etc.
lenses designed for smaller sensors before we'll see reasonably
affordable larger sensors.
Click to expand...
yes, but not that fit the perameters i mentioned. fast wide angle zooms = f2.8, small enough/light enough = similar size/weight as current f2.8 wide angle zooms, cheap enough.... well, they already aren't cheap enough... but if you think you're about to see 12-24 f2.8 lenses meeting all those criteria... or any of those criteria, anytime soon, you know something i don't know

Personally I like the idea of smaller,
David Kieltyka said:
lighter lenses designed for smaller sensors (in smaller cameras).
I'm not keen on the new Olympus system--the sensor is IMO too
small--but I think they're on the right track design-wise for a
consumer/prosumer system.

-Dave-
Click to expand...
 
aaron said:
I think most people who clamor for full frame do so because they want to be able to shoot their wide angle lenses as wide angles.... I assume it will be more realistic to get to the point where making full frame sensors is affordable then it will be to design fast wide angle zooms that are small enough, light enough, and cheap enough which are the same field of view as 17-35 is to a 35mm frame.
Click to expand...
Yes, I would think so too. Minolta developed special small lenses for their APS SLR but never did a '50mm f1.7' or a wide angle.

One other thing that digital could do but doesn't is a square format. The lens has a circle of quality/cover and anything other than a square wastes potential performance. The 35mm vertical height was dictated by the film, electronic sensors don't have that limitation.
Of course if the whole industry would agree on a smaller standard......

Chris Beney
 
Lin,

Point well made. One had to be there and talk with him - then one would have probably come away with much the same feeling that I did though.

Cliff.
Lin Evans said:
Cliff. Johnston said:
Greetings from Sunny Texas,

I posted the following in part as a response on another thread, but
had second thoughts as it really is another distinct topic, so here
it is...

The question should be, "Do you really need a full frame dSLR?"
Click to expand...
Hi Cliff,

Actually, the need for full frame has nothing to do with the size
of the print. It just so happens that the 1DS and 14n are high
resolution cameras, but full frame is about taking advantage of the
wide angle available lenses available and for some applications
this is more than just convenience.
Member said:
I came across another professional photographer this past week with
about $30,000+ of digital gear (including a Nikon with a Kodak 645N
digital back) doing static images of volleyball players. Overkill?
IMHO, yes. From what I've seen of his work, I can do better with
slightly less than $5,000 worth of gear. I base that comment on
what I've seen of his previous images and his lighting - flat, a
typical studio portrait slam-bam-thank-you-Mam trained p&s'er
(meant to be slightly derogatory). It's more a matter of
egocentricity in many cases. "Need" is often nothing more than a
psychological perception (or neurosis - depending on how strong one
wishes to put it). Of course the dSLR manufacturers do depend upon
those psychological weaknesses of ours to sell their gear - often
it's the name of the game.
Click to expand...
The above is just not accurate in that "your" needs and the "needs"
of other photographers may differ greatly. I have and use five
different digital SLR's including the Canon 1DS, 1D, 10D, D30 and
Kodak DCS-760. These are all different tools and each has its own
set of capabilities and limitations and with few exceptions I
"need" each professionally. If one tool could do it all, there
would be no need for the variety.

Digital backs on medium format bodies offer features not available
with the 35mm platform. The photographer who was shooting
volleyball players may or may not have "needed" what he was using
for the job, and his choice of tools and his skill with them is
independent and a good bit irrelevant to the issue of whether or
not full frame is needed. The Kodak back offers a different aspect
ratio from 35mm and for some tasks this is a decided advantage.
Whether or not this was applicable to this particular application
is another issue, but "egocentricity," though in some cases may
play a role, is most assuredly not driving sales of expensive
photography equipment for the professional in the vast majority of
situations. The professional photographer choses their equipment to
do a job. If wide angle lenses were not important, the market for
them would soon dry up and they would not be available. Since they
are available and in high demand, it follows logically that there
is a "need" for them and for a camera body which doesn't restrict
them. On the other hand, the reduced field of view sensor is a
welcome addition to those who work at the telephoto end of the
spectrum because it allows the use of smaller and cheaper lenses to
accomplish tasks which take considerably more hardware with the
full frame.

There is something for everyone out there and there absolutely "is"
a need for full frame sensors to allow full use of the range of
available lenses.

Lin
--
--
http://208.56.82.71
Click to expand...
--
Cliff. Johnston
 
I've always thought this is the way to go ultimately. The rectangle is really a waste of part of the image imposed by film/viewfinders. We've gotten used to the aspect ratio because of film, but it ends up meaning a constant choice of picturing vertically or horizontally. With a square it's irrelevant.

Now that digital cropping is so easy, it really doesn't matter. Take what you want and crop out the rest. Sure, you could do that before, but it was a lot harder for an amateur/person w/o darkroom or access to printing equip. Now, of course, anyone can do it with the most basic software. Besides, how many online images adhere to the 3:2 ratio? Very few, I woudl guess.
Chris Beney said:
Yes, I would think so too. Minolta developed special small lenses
for their APS SLR but never did a '50mm f1.7' or a wide angle.
One other thing that digital could do but doesn't is a square
format. The lens has a circle of quality/cover and anything other
than a square wastes potential performance. The 35mm vertical
height was dictated by the film, electronic sensors don't have that
limitation.
Of course if the whole industry would agree on a smaller
standard......

Chris Beney
Click to expand...
 
Chris Beney said:
One other thing that digital could do but doesn't is a square
format. The lens has a circle of quality/cover and anything other
than a square wastes potential performance. The 35mm vertical
height was dictated by the film, electronic sensors don't have that
limitation.
Of course if the whole industry would agree on a smaller
standard......

Chris Beney
Click to expand...
You just go to medium format backs - square is available.

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71
 
MinoltaDrew said:
I've always thought this is the way to go ultimately. The
rectangle is really a waste of part of the image imposed by
film/viewfinders. We've gotten used to the aspect ratio because of
film, but it ends up meaning a constant choice of picturing
vertically or horizontally. With a square it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...
The one great advantage to square is that you never, ever have to flip the silly thing onto it's side! Makes tripod work SO much easier.
 
Cliff. Johnston said:
Greetings from Sunny Texas,
Click to expand...
Right back at ya from Sunny California. The official circus tent of the USA. The next time you visit our wonderful state please be sure to say hi to Arnold S. or Gary C. in Sacramento.
Cliff. Johnston said:
The question should be, "Do you really need a full frame dSLR?"
Click to expand...
Is that "you" in general or "you" as in "me"... hehehe (it's fitting that I live in the circus)
Cliff. Johnston said:
If one is doing nothing larger than 8x10 images then there is no
real need for a full frame dSLR such as the 1Ds and its
accompanying expense(s) as many other dSLRs on the market will do
the job just as well, if not better. It's only when one goes
considerably larger that the significant differences may become
apparent.
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out a full frame is needed for wide angle shots. I simply would not have been able to get this perspective of the Trans America building in San Francisco with any camera other than a 1Ds as the focal length on this is 15mm:



You might come close with a 1D but with my 10D, no way.

Wide angle isn't the entire story though. The density of the electronics on the sensor effects the amount of thermal noise introduced into the system (the hotter the sensor, the more noise you get... this is why CCD's used for astronomy are liquid cooled). You can clearly see this effect by comparing a teeny tiny sensor on a consumer digicam to the 3 megalpixel sensor on the Canon D30. The D30 exhibits A LOT less noise. Generally speaking the larger sensors also tend to have better dynamic range. This translates directly into something you can see even on a small print which is less blown out highlights, and more shadow detail. As you pointed out there is also the advantage of resolution. Compare the Canon D60/10D to a Canon 1D. We're talking 6.3 megapixels with a 1.6 fov crop vs. a 4.5 megapixel camera with a 1.3 FOV crop. Pixel for pixel the larger pixels of the 1D are able to resolve more than that of the D60/10D. The fact that most people consider the 1D's images to be as good as (and in most cases better than) a higher resolution camera is somewhat deomonstrative of the advantage that the larger sensor has.

Cheers, Joe

--
'Don't play what's there, play what's not there.' - Miles Davis
 
Joe,

Point well taken.

I appreciate the limits of my current gear, and I don't push it. I'll be the first to admit that for the 5-15% of the images that need a 1Ds (I'm not 100% digital) I go to film. Mind you, I will not hesitate to buy a full frame dSLR someday when I've got nothing better to do with that amount of spare change (but right now the wife likes the new house on the lake, wants a new SUV, and I'm pedaling just as fast as I can). If the 1 Ds is still state of the art down the road - that's what I'll be buying even though I'm not really a Canon fan. I'll credit where credit is due.

Great image, by the way. Thanks for posting it. I enjoyed looking at it.

Cliff.
Joe Ciarcia said:
Cliff. Johnston said:
Greetings from Sunny Texas,
Click to expand...
Right back at ya from Sunny California. The official circus tent of
the USA. The next time you visit our wonderful state please be sure
to say hi to Arnold S. or Gary C. in Sacramento.
Member said:
The question should be, "Do you really need a full frame dSLR?"
Click to expand...
Is that "you" in general or "you" as in "me"... hehehe (it's
fitting that I live in the circus)
Member said:
If one is doing nothing larger than 8x10 images then there is no
real need for a full frame dSLR such as the 1Ds and its
accompanying expense(s) as many other dSLRs on the market will do
the job just as well, if not better. It's only when one goes
considerably larger that the significant differences may become
apparent.
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out a full frame is needed for wide angle
shots. I simply would not have been able to get this perspective of
the Trans America building in San Francisco with any camera other
than a 1Ds as the focal length on this is 15mm:



You might come close with a 1D but with my 10D, no way.

Wide angle isn't the entire story though. The density of the
electronics on the sensor effects the amount of thermal noise
introduced into the system (the hotter the sensor, the more noise
you get... this is why CCD's used for astronomy are liquid cooled).
You can clearly see this effect by comparing a teeny tiny sensor on
a consumer digicam to the 3 megalpixel sensor on the Canon D30. The
D30 exhibits A LOT less noise. Generally speaking the larger
sensors also tend to have better dynamic range. This translates
directly into something you can see even on a small print which is
less blown out highlights, and more shadow detail. As you pointed
out there is also the advantage of resolution. Compare the Canon
D60/10D to a Canon 1D. We're talking 6.3 megapixels with a 1.6 fov
crop vs. a 4.5 megapixel camera with a 1.3 FOV crop. Pixel for
pixel the larger pixels of the 1D are able to resolve more than
that of the D60/10D. The fact that most people consider the 1D's
images to be as good as (and in most cases better than) a higher
resolution camera is somewhat deomonstrative of the advantage that
the larger sensor has.

Cheers, Joe

--
'Don't play what's there, play what's not there.' - Miles Davis
Click to expand...
--
Cliff. Johnston
 
Cliff. Johnston said:
Joe,

Point well taken.

I appreciate the limits of my current gear, and I don't push it.
I'll be the first to admit that for the 5-15% of the images that
need a 1Ds (I'm not 100% digital) I go to film.
Click to expand...
Film is still perfectly viable. Depending on what you're doing with it, it's a little more work but it still produces great results. I think that for someone who has the need for FF that is not professional, film offers pretty good bang for the buck. Where the body is extremely important with digital photography, film is less dependenant on the body relying mostly upon the glass in front of the film plane (and the nut behind the eyepiece).
Cliff. Johnston said:
Mind you, I will
not hesitate to buy a full frame dSLR someday when I've got nothing
better to do with that amount of spare change (but right now the
wife likes the new house on the lake, wants a new SUV, and I'm
pedaling just as fast as I can). If the 1 Ds is still state of the
art down the road - that's what I'll be buying even though I'm not
really a Canon fan. I'll credit where credit is due.
Click to expand...
One thing is for sure, prices will drop! Nikon almost certainly has something waiting in the wings with a ff sensor. I heard a rumor (this was from a Canon rep so take it with a grain of salt) that Nikon will be coming out with a new lens mount (basically a wider apeture on the mount for higher quality optics). You know they've got to have something good in the pipeline. They've been asleep at the wheel for a while now but if Nikon can back up the feature set of the D2H with good images they'll be well on their way to catch up (in fact they'll be ahead of Canon as far as the 1D is concerned in the PJ market).
Cliff. Johnston said:
Great image, by the way. Thanks for posting it. I enjoyed looking
at it.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Cheers, Joe

--
'Don't play what's there, play what's not there.' - Miles Davis
 
Full Frame DSLR and Wide Angle Lenses are just an issue because we're in a transitional day and age: 35mm is just about to be replaced with digital gear, and it is only in the last few months that we have "35mm" cameras like the 1Ds that can deliver an image quality to exceed film. The trend will undoubtedly go on, and at some point we'll be dealing with 100MP cameras which will exceed even 6x7 slide film.

But it's only 2003 and we're not there yet. My point is, a full frame sensor only makes sense because we're trying to replace this one bit (i.e. the image sensor) in a system that's based on something we no longer intent to use. It only an issue because some people are still moving between the two realms of film and digital.

The 4/3rd system is a good example of how things could be resolved around the full frame problem in the future - be it that particular system or not. We'll just have to get used to new focal lengths - like a 9mm wide angle lens as a replacement for our 15mm one. I'm sure the market will catch up on things-- Canon already has with a re-vamped 24-70mm lens (used to be 28-70).
 
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