why should folks go fullframe?

[Lee Jay]

I think you pretty much nalied it. The lower strength of the AA
filter on the 5D and the amazing DIGIC II coupled with a full frame
sensor (large photosites) gives simply the best image quality at
pixel level (i would say a different thing if we were talking about
color and tonal range, on which i thing the 1DSmkII still has the
edge).

On better lenses, I would argue that the 1DII probably has better IQ at the pixel level than the 5D due to a higher-Q AA filter. The 1DsII might be in the same category.

Of course, you'd have to look really, really, really hard to see any of this on any real image assuming you are using good lenses.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[DIGIC]

That was true for film. On digital, lenses will only last until one of two things happen:

• sensor resolution outresolves the current optics we have
• sensor size gets even bigger (like a medium format for digital) in order for technology to be able to provide additional resolution and higher sensivities

If in 10 years we still have the full frame format and the 1.6x crop cameras and the sensors still don't outresolve our lenses, then i agree they can last decades!

I think about this everytime i go and buy a new lens... but also think that the day before the world knows there's a big change and our lenses will be unuseable in a couple months, we as photography passionates will know that much ahead, enough to get all our gear sold on eBay or anywhere else... right?

--
DiG!C
http://www.pbase.com/hugoneto
(PBase Supporter)
http://digitalphotography.blog.pt/
(Digital Photography Techniques Blog)

 

[DIGIC]

Between the two, the difference should be very tiny at the pixel level. So tiny, that only the photographer behind each camera will do the difference, not the cameras...

--
DiG!C
http://www.pbase.com/hugoneto
(PBase Supporter)
http://digitalphotography.blog.pt/
(Digital Photography Techniques Blog)

 

[mattr]

OK, I will sure be tempted if Canon at Photokina introduces a 5D successor that autofocuses at f/8 and a 640mm f/8 L to go with it!

 

[mfurman]

I have had problems (after a very long use of film SLR) adjusting to cropped DSLRs. It was mostly because of dark viewfinder and strange (to me) relation of perspective and size of the image in the viewfinder. I wanted my lenses to behave the way they should and could not wait to buy a FF DSLR. What changed my thinking was realization that top of the line EF-S lenses can be better than EF counterparts. I saw clearly that 17-55 f/2.8 IS was sharper than any copy of 24-70 f/2.8 L. I looked more deeply into lens design, compared 135 with medium and large format lenses and became convinced that EF-S lenses may be the way to go. In addition, my interests shifted from landscape to long tele photography (I cannot justify buying 500 or 600 mm lenses).
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan

 

[mattr]

Sorry, but I keep thinking about it and I'm still not convinced that the "5D successor 600/8" combo will "out-perform" the "350D 400/5.6", as you have stated initially.

Two reasons:

1) Even if its true that you can crank up ISO by one stop on the 5D and get similar print quality as with the 350D at lower ISO, images are probably not much BETTER anymore.

2) Performance of the AF system at smaller aperture will ALWAYS be worse compared to larger aperture. And AF performance plays a crucial role in the overall performance for wildlife photography.

 

[Skip M]

doesn't mean you can't buy "L" lenses, don't forget. A 17-55 f2.8 IS or 17-85 IS matches up well with a 70-200 f2.8L IS. A 24-70 f2.8L doesn't have IS, like its EF-S equivalent does.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Daniel Clune]

Jeeze i read all this stuff and cant believe theres so much confusion about focul reach. Crop sensors dont give you any more reach than full frame its PIXEL DENSITY that does.

Example a 10D 1.6 crop has less effective reach than a 20D even though there both a 1.6 crop sensors,, its the simple fact that the 20D has a higher pixel density.

So if canon makes a full frame sensor that has the same pixel density as the crop cameras have the 1.6 crop cameras wont have any more reach that the full frame with the same pixel density.

Right now the pixel density is the highest in the 30D/XT/20D cameras for now. The next highest is the 1DSMK2 then the 5D/1DMK2 at the same pixel density.

Dont forget difraction sets in with higher pixel densities. Thom Hogan over on the nikon forum has discussed this as how the D2X has this effect because of the high pixel density of that camera. So to high and it starts to have defraction problems and theres no cure for that.

So in conclusion full frame is if you want the highest possable resolution with low noise and less of a problem with diffraction. Other side benifits are better depth of feild control, bigger brighter veiwfinder.

Crop sensors will stay because of lower costs. So you can always sell an EFS lens to somone like that.
--
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm

 

[Doug Kerr]

n/t

 

[MusicmanUK]

Moving from a 300D to a 5D was like coming home.

I realised I really missed a FF viewfinder every time I picked up my old AV-1.

Everything else, such as a properly wide FoV on a 17-40L and the low noise, is just a bonus.
--
http://www.cybertects.co.uk/

 

[4thnebula]

I will be using the APS cropped sensor cameras (like my XT and 20D) for telephoto purposes since the crop factor allows me much greater length and ability to crop and scale up. In most cases I expect the IQ would be greater in these cases than with a FF of the same (or near the same) MP.

When FF cameras get to the point where the MP/price ratio is where I need it, I plan to purchase FF for portraits, copying my paintings, and for photos where I won't be cropping much.

 

[Doug Kerr]

. . . (or maybe a couple!).

For 135 film it was 36.4 mm x 24.4 mm. For 120 film it was anything about 57.2 mm wide. For "4x5" film it was 97 mm x 122 mm. Etc.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Lee Jay]

1) Even if its true that you can crank up ISO by one stop on the 5D
and get similar print quality as with the 350D at lower ISO, images
are probably not much BETTER anymore.

Right...the camera quality is equal. But the larger sensor with less enlargement is less hard on the lens MTF.

2) Performance of the AF system at smaller aperture will ALWAYS be
worse compared to larger aperture. And AF performance plays a
crucial role in the overall performance for wildlife photography.

That's the thing - they have the same aperture (roughly) - 400/2.8 = 142.3mm, 600/4=150mm. The AF sensors aren't designed for the smaller f-stop but, if they were the AF performance would be similar since the DOF is similar.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lee Jay]

A 24-70
f2.8L doesn't have IS, like its EF-S equivalent does.

The EF equivalent of the 17-55/2.8IS is the 24-105/4L IS (equivalent to a 15-66/2.5L IS).

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lee Jay]

Why is that s appealing then? Just curious, why one would want to
have to store such huge files to get pretty much the same thing?

Because if you have enough focal length to fill the frame, you get more resolution and cleaner files and more DOF control. High-pixel-density is only an advantage if you are focal-length-limited. The rest of the time, a larger, lower-pixel-density sensor is better.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Hellashot]

..slapping a 300mm lens on a 20D only gives you slightly more detail (maybe) than if you had a 5D with the same 300mm lens and cropped the image down. A 300mm lens does not magically become a 460mm on a 20D. Now that I have my 5D, I love it because I CAN crop majorly and have much more creative flexibility after shooting that you don't have when the sensor crops it ahead of time.

Just like you should avoid shooting in B&W because you should shoot color and convert later so you have the color version (might be different if shot RAW). Same here - capture everything and fine tune later if you like.

 

[Lee Jay]

..slapping a 300mm lens on a 20D only gives you slightly more
detail (maybe) than if you had a 5D with the same 300mm lens and
cropped the image down.

It's more than slight - it's like adding a 1.25x TC. That's a pretty signficant level of detail - the same as switching from a 400mm lens to a 500mm lens.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Matthew Field]

nice sarcastic tone do you use that in all your PhD work..?

I never implied that a crop camera gave you no DOF control. I shoot with a 20D and have no FF snobbery going on, I was merely stating one big benefit of having a FF sensor.

and as ljfinger pointed out, you have more control because you have the option of shallower depth of field. You can always gain more by stopping down to match the crop sensor camera but the crop sensor cannot achieve the same shallow DOF as a full size sensor and that is essential for portrait work and the like.

As for the low light work with greater DOF, remember also that you can push the ISO higher on a FF sensor and thus stop down more to gain back the DOF whilst keeping the same noise performance. What is more of an issue is how far you can stop down before diffraction effects start to cause you problems on each system.

yes because in a crop camera you have no DOF control.

also a crop camera will give more DOF for a lower aperture meaning
more of your subject is in focus for low light work.

--
PhD Student and photographer

 

[originalamit]

Hi DIGIC,

Thanks for your inputs.. .valid points on making the decision...I should be looking to what i need now rather than worry about something which may/may not happen in the future.

I do see the crop cameras getting better and better in technology and maybe this will be one major reason for folks to stay with crops...(price being the other factor of course)

Amit

Because if you do, you will then start wondering if EF (full frame)
lenses should worth the investment too, because in 10 years time,
we may even not have any digital 35mm cameras by then...

Why should digital keep the 35mm format in 10 years? If sensor
technology and optics evolve at a great pace, in 10 years we may
have mobile phones equipped with 20MP sensors with good IQ up to
ISO 6400 and with a single liquid optic giving much better images
than what we have today...

A truely honest and personal advice: buy considering the next 2-3
years at most. Don't plan too much ahead or you'll have
headaches...

Good luck!

--
DiG!C
http://www.pbase.com/hugoneto
(PBase Supporter)
http://digitalphotography.blog.pt/
(Digital Photography Techniques Blog)

--
[email protected]

 

[originalamit]

Hi Daniella,

I guess we may not be able to say what development work is underway on sensor technologies... I am optimistic that crops will have a long run and megapixels will keep increasing with better sensor performance...

look at the memory card market...who would have thought 3 years back that you can get CF cards for 8GB storage?

Thanks

Amit

Would not technology keep getting better? I would assume the pixel
density will also improve drastically in the coming years and so a
crop camera will also give you less pixels per area...

you really don,t understand this. with less pixels density, that
would mean to lower the resolution on the camera..this will not be
the case.. no way Canon will keep the same sensor size and reduce
the pixel density or we would return to 6mp.

in order to lower the pixel density (number of pixel on the sensor)
they must do one thing..make the sensor bigger..what does this
mean? that the sensor will be bigger so not a 1.6x crop factor any
longer.

the only way the technology could improve is to provide a better
signal to noise performance..thus making it possible to put even
more pixels on the 1.6x crop factor sensor.

Sony did it with the D200 Nikon but this signal to noise increase
is creating a more noisy pic at anything higher than ISO 400.

what technology must improve is the performance of the
sensor..sothat they can cramp more pixels and don't elevate the
level of noise. therefore, the 1.6x crop factor is doomed to a
limit..what limit it will be is yet to see..maybe 12mp at most.

Sensor

technology still has some more distance to go for it to truely
reach a peak in technology...

10 years back, i was king with 16MB of memory on my PC and i could
play DOOM on it...

I completely agree with your lines of thinking on buying lenses and
L alone is not the criteria. I would want to invest in one
technology and stick with it... so if its crop cameras, then thats
where i would stay and buy what suits my needs for now and for the
future.

1. First, Crop vs FF cameras:

The difference between 350D/30D (crop) and the 5D (FF) is mainly at
the sensor density. The 5D has bigger individual sensors, thus even
if you crop to the same level the image is cropped on a crop
camera, you get less pixels per area.

Putting this in numbers:

5D ~ 12.8MP
5D image cropped to 1.3x ~ 8MP
5D image cropped to 1.6x ~ 5MP

What this means is that if you shoot from the same position using
5D and 30D, the 30D will give you an image with 8MP, while the
image captured by the 5D cropped to the same FOV the 30D is giving,
will have only 5MP.

What this means in terms of IQ? Well, it depends on the camera. On
my opinion, the 5D has the best per-pixel IQ available today, so
even with only 5MP, i still prefer using a 5D than a 30D, even for
telephoto work like sports or wildlife.

2. EF-S Lenses vs EF Lenses (not necessarily 'L'):

If you plan to keep using crop cameras in the future, then there
are very good EF-S lenses available today from Canon's lineup.
If you plan to move to full frame in the ner future (1-2 years), i
would personally go with EF lenses (full frame).

As for 'L' vs 'non-L', it all depends on each particular lens /
preference. Some 'L's ar worth the extra investment, some may not,
depending on your usage and credit card... There are very good
non-L lenses like 35 f/2, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2.8 SF, etc...

Hope this helps.

--
DiG!C
http://www.pbase.com/hugoneto
(PBase Supporter)
http://digitalphotography.blog.pt/
(Digital Photography Techniques Blog)

--
[email protected]

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

--
[email protected]