Reading mode: Light Dark

Why FF?

Go to last post
H

Henry Porter

Active member
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Location
Oslo, NO
I honestly don't understand why so many people want to go FF. OK, the 5D is a great camera but so is the 30D. What are the true advantages of FF? WA is of course one factor but WA lenses are cheap compared to the long tele. And remember that on a 1.6x camera we only use the BEST part of the lenses, the center. Of all the comparisons I have seen I find it difficult to see any difference in IQ between the 5D and the 20/30D. Bigger pixels on the sensor should mean higher S/N ratio. But it s signifiant for most amateurs?

And by the way, why stop at 24x36, why not bigger format? (who startet calling medium-format FF? Canon?)

Bottom line: I think I'll stick to the 1.6X bodies.

( I don't know the reason for this rant, maybe I just have to convince myself ) :)

--

The only thing we know for sure about Henry Porter is that his name wasn't Henry Porter ( Bob Dylan, Brownsville girl)
 
Henry Porter said:
And by the way, why stop at 24x36, why not bigger format? (who
startet calling medium-format FF? Canon?)
Click to expand...
Not sure who (if anyone) calls medium format full frame, but if you're rich you can always go digital in medium format. All you need is a digital back (and a medium format camera of course). Phase One makes a bunch of them. I have no idea how much they cost, but I won't be surprised if they cost more than my car.
 
Henry Porter said:
And by the way, why stop at 24x36, why not bigger format? (who
startet calling medium-format FF? Canon?)
Click to expand...
24x36 is the maximum frame size that will fit within the image circle projected by Canon EF (35mm full frame) lenses, that's why. Using a larger format would entail designing an entirely new lens system, and would render all of Canon's existing EF lenses unusable because the sensor frame would extend beyond the image circle projected by Canon EF (as well as all 35mm) lenses.

Luminous Landscape illustrates this concept nicely with this illustration:



http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

And by the way, Canon doesn't call medium format FF. Canon calls the 35mm format FF. And they call it FF because it uses the "full frame" of 35mm lenses. And Canon isn't the only one that uses the term "full frame" in this manner either. It's a standard term used by publications and other manufacturers.

 
If you have never used film SLR's, I can understand you view. The 24x36mm format just became a standard, and the camera manufactorers made the the most used lenses around this format. I remember when I had a 28mm prime as a wide angle and bought a 24mm. Wow, that was really wide angel (on film). On my 5D, the 24-70mm or the 24-105mm are great walk-around lenses and wide enough. On the 30D, I have to use the 16-35mm to get (almost) the same view, but the 16-35mm is not the same quality as the 24-xx lenses. Also, if you have been working with the FF format for many years, you got used to what to expect from the different lenses. With the crop factor cameras, you will not feel confident with this "screwed up" format. For telephoto and extreme macro, the crop factor cameras are nice because of the higher pixel density, but the large photosites in the 5D makes a better surface. If you see a difference in the two images below, you know what I'm talking about. If you don't see a difference, you shouldn't waste you money on a FF.



What's best? I do not know that answer. But until I know, I like to take photos with the 5D, and in some situations, use the benefit of the crop factor with the 30D. Of course you can use the excellent 10-22mm as a wide angle, but why change something you got used to and have the feeling for?

If anybody have any comments or corrections to my thoughts on this subject, I would appreciate very much to hear you view.

Ludvig
 
gullevek said:
a bigger sensor area can hold bigger photodiodes which are way
better for low light shooting. Plus why have full frame lenses if
you do not use them, and still, for canon, the "pro" lens line is
layed out for full frame sensors.
Click to expand...
That's certainly true right now, but are there any physical limitations that would prevent smaller sensors from improving to the extent that the additional size and weight of bodies and lenses to support ff sensors returned little benefit?

I can't help feeling this the same discussion as was had when 35mm film started becoming popular: Can't you just imagine some guy saying "sure its ok, but it'll never be as good as by 4x5 view camera"? He was right of course, but it certainly improved, and was a tad easier to shoot sporting events with.

i
...
http://picasaweb.google.com/iWorthington
 
The main reason why FF would interest me besides low noise is the fact that with a standard lens on a FF body I get the perspective of a 50mm lens, whereas with a standard lens on a 1.6 crop body I get the perspective of a 30mm lens. Thats the reason why I like medium format, with the standard lens on my mamiya I get the same field of view as 50mm(on FF) and 30mm(on 1.6) but the perspective(and compression) of a 90mm.

hope that wasn't too unclear.

L

http://louisvorster.com
 
Ludvig said:
If you see a difference in the two
images below, you know what I'm talking about. If you don't see a
difference, you shouldn't waste you money on a FF.
Click to expand...
Ludvig- thanks for posting the comparison. I agree completely with you about the benefits of a FF camera. However, I am not sure your sample photo is very representative of the difference. There are a lot of factors that must be controlled carefully to do the comparison. I'm not privy to the details of what you did, but I put a lot of faith in the reviews Phil Askey puts on this site. He's very methodical and careful, and documents how all the comparisons were done. His spin is a bit different from yours. His EOS 5D review says:

"The EOS 5D carries some 56% more pixels than the EOS 20D and it really shows, it's capable of extracting far more detail from the scene than the EOS 20D (which to be fair still does a very impressive job). It looks as though the EOS 5D's "Standard" Picture Style is a good match for the EOS 20D's "Parameter 1" (default) setting, with very similar tone and color response. Theoretically of course it would be difficult to spot the difference between an EOS 20D and EOS 5D shot printed at 11 x 8 inches (300 dpi)."

So while there is a significant difference, it is hard to see except in much larger prints. according to Phil. I'm very curious to find out how you produced such a big difference in your comparison photos, which show significant difference in detail even at the small viewing size on my monitor. Are those 100% crops by any chance?
Member said:
Click to expand...
 
You can get wide lenses for crop bodies, and you can get fast lenses for crop bodies, but you can't get (as yet) fast, wide lenses for crop bodies. the equivalent of a 20 f1.8 on FF would be a 12.5mm f1.8 on a 1.6 crop body. If you're in search of shallow DOF as well as wide angle, then the situation is even worse as the FF bodies give an apparent DOF 1 stop "shallower" than crop bodies. i.e. an f4 lens on an FF body will give the same "apparent" DOF as an f2.8 lens on a crop body. hen of course there's the viewfinder..... :-)
 
Topaz said:
Ludvig said:
If you see a difference in the two
images below, you know what I'm talking about. If you don't see a
difference, you shouldn't waste you money on a FF.
Click to expand...
Ludvig- thanks for posting the comparison. I agree completely with
you about the benefits of a FF camera. However, I am not sure your
sample photo is very representative of the difference. There are a
lot of factors that must be controlled carefully to do the
comparison. I'm not privy to the details of what you did, but I
put a lot of faith in the reviews Phil Askey puts on this site.
He's very methodical and careful, and documents how all the
comparisons were done. His spin is a bit different from yours.
His EOS 5D review says:

"The EOS 5D carries some 56% more pixels than the EOS 20D and it
really shows, it's capable of extracting far more detail from the
scene than the EOS 20D (which to be fair still does a very
impressive job). It looks as though the EOS 5D's "Standard" Picture
Style is a good match for the EOS 20D's "Parameter 1" (default)
setting, with very similar tone and color response. Theoretically
of course it would be difficult to spot the difference between an
EOS 20D and EOS 5D shot printed at 11 x 8 inches (300 dpi)."

So while there is a significant difference, it is hard to see
except in much larger prints. according to Phil. I'm very curious
to find out how you produced such a big difference in your
comparison photos, which show significant difference in detail even
at the small viewing size on my monitor. Are those 100% crops by
any chance?
Click to expand...
When I take a closer look at all the parameters used on this test, I agree that it's not 100% representative for the difference. The 30D image was scaled down to 56% of the original size and the 5D image was scaled down to 45%. But I used the same setup: Tripod, cable release, same lighting, picture stype Landscape.

I was looking for the difference in the two formats, but I think I went too quick here. Have to do some more tests in different situations to verify this. Anyway, I will not argue for either formats, just take pictures with the camera I feel is right for the situation. But I like the, 5D and I'm comfortable witht the standard focal length the FF gives in most cases.

Ludvig
 
After having heard your arguments for the FF, I must honestly say that I am more convinced than ever that I'm staying with my 1.6x system.
Thank you !

--

The only thing we know for sure about Henry Porter is that his name wasn't Henry Porter ( Bob Dylan, Brownsville girl)
 
This is not correct. The perspective does not change, just the FOV due to the crop.
--
Gijs from The Netherlands
Canon 30D ~ EF-S 17-55/f2.8 IS ~ User Error.
http://www.crashdot.com
 
--

The only thing we know for sure about Henry Porter is that he will always stay with the crop format.
 
And we also have certain expectations of what these lenses should do. It probably would have been much different if I hadn't owned film cameras and lenses for 30 years.

Now that I own a 5D, I'm almost content. The things that I don't like about the 5D are the same things that annoyed me about my Elan II film camera and that provoked me to buy an EOS-3 film body.

Now if Canon would just make a 3D with a 12.8MP FF sensor, a 50% larger buffer than the 5D, world-class focusing and 6FPS, I probably wouldn't buy another DSLR until that one died.

--
Bob
 
Luigi_V said:
The main reason why FF would interest me besides low noise is the
fact that with a standard lens on a FF body I get the perspective
of a 50mm lens, whereas with a standard lens on a 1.6 crop body I
get the perspective of a 30mm lens.
Click to expand...
Perspective is purely a function of distance between the subject and camera. Obviously the angle of view (function of focal length and sensor/film size) will determine the distance to cover the scene properly which is why it seems like longer lenses compress perspective - you're force to stand further away which is what really compresses perspective.

--
Joe

Any perceived rudeness, condescending tone, or insults are not intended, but rather the result of my inability to properly express myself with the written word.
 
You get 2.5 times more light on a 35mm sized sensor compared to APS-C
So you can have :-
2.5 times more pixels for the same noise levels
2.5 times less noise for the same number of pixels
2.5 times bigger viewfinder for the same brightness
2.5 times brighter viewfinder for the same size

Next there are some optical design properties to worry about. The shortest distance between the back of a lens and the sensor with the Canon EF mount is 42mm. To make lenses with a wider angle than 42mm causes design problems. The further you get from this focal length the harder it is to properly correct a lens, the result of which is slower lenses that are more prone to CA and distortion.

So, you cry, I get 1.6 times longer telephoto with my APS sensor! No you don't. Any advantage you get is down to the difference in sensor pitch. Comparing a 400D to a 5D (the current biggest variation) you get only 40% more reach. At the same time you get lower contrast and lenses which aren't pin sharp show up their flaws more. The rumoured 1Ds mk III is recconned to have the same pixel pitch as the current 20/30D so the telephoto advantage of the 400D works out at about 11%, not a big deal.

The only advantage APS-C has over 35mm is that it's cheaper to make. Canon understand this and have already anounced that in the future all but entry level DSLRs will be 35mm.
Henry Porter said:
After having heard your arguments for the FF, I must honestly say
that I am more convinced than ever that I'm staying with my 1.6x
system.
Thank you !

--
The only thing we know for sure about Henry Porter is that his
name wasn't Henry Porter ( Bob Dylan, Brownsville girl)
Click to expand...
 
Oh true, but 35mm is never as good as 5x6 film. Simply because there is a lot of resolution missing. If you want to make wall size shots without having them look very blurry, bad and boring, you need a bigger sensor. Why are there medium size sensors if the small ones are so superior? Simply you need the size for certain print sizes.

I fully agree that a normal amateur shooter rarely needs a FF sensor, but if you compare the detail from a 5D to the current 30D, then you can see that there is a huge difference in detail.

And then there is the physical limitation of the sensor size and its diodes. You just cannot cram more into it, because the physical dimenions of light stay the same. If you have more megapixels, the elements get smaller and you have just a higher noise count. Now you need more software/hardware to surpress this, and that just can't be good for the end quality of a shot.

just my two yen.

--
Gullevek
my pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gullevek/
other: http://www.gullevek.org/gallery/
 
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