why should folks go fullframe?

[Damkader]

I think half of the reason that people keep on believing that 200mm lens becomes a 320mm lens is because that is what the salesmen at the camera stores are saying.

They don't specifically say that you will get the same reach as at 300 with a 200 (they know that it is not true) but they talk about the FOV as if with an APS-C sensor all of a sudden you can turn a cheapy lens into a real bargain buy buying the crop bodies. And they know that they are not going to be selling a $3000 Camera W/O Lens to a newbie.

I know when i bought my 300D a couple of years ago that is what the salesman told me. And to be honest i belived him.

I hope I don't sound mad at the guy because i am not Really. He is just trying to make a living and besided that some times less is more.

At that point in time if he were to have went into an explanation about how i would be "Losing" the out side 1/3 of the image i am sure i would have been totally confused and probably would have went out and bought a point and shoot (with an even smaller sensor) and would never gotten back into photography like i have.

No regrets.
--
Jay
Equipment on Profile

 

[Daniella68313]

I see a lot of folks say they want to go full frame and prefer that
than the current crop cameras. Would this be true for folks who are
more into wildlife photography and the crop actually increases the
reach of your telephoto lenses?

there are 2 things playing in favor of the 1.6x crop factor cameras when used for wildlife.. first thing is the crop factor yes..that means you don,t capture too much wasted pixel and usualy you never can frame your subject completely anyway..so those pixels would be wasted.

secondo..the pixel density of the sensor is capturing more detail. so both the crop factor but more the pixel density here is beneficial to the wildlife photographer.

If one had truely professional crop cameras, would folks still go
full frame? If so, why?

of course they would..because they would be able to have a 14mm lens and get a real 14mm lens.. now with the 1.6x we can buy the 10-22mm and only get 16mm equivalent at the end..there is no possibility to go wider unless using fisheye lenses.

with the full frame you also have a more narrow depth of field.

I am considering investing in EF-S lenses at this time (10-22 and
17-55) and my friends have been advising me against it saying i
should be L lenses which can fit on FF cameas as well...

yes and no..if you are anyway into wildlife, you are better off with a crop factor camera.

but..if you have any plan to buy the 1D or the 5D..then don,t buy into EF-S. if wildlife is not your main photography..and landscape is your main interest..then buying a 17-40mm lens makes more sense..but then just get rid of your 1.6x camera and buy a 5D right away..because if you plain on buying a 5D in 5 years..what will you use right now to get wider angle?

Please advise.

Thanks
--
[email protected]

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Stovall]

With full frame your lenses work as they should and you'll never get the low noise and image quality out of a cropped sensor you will out of full frame.

I'm currently shooting a 5D and can not wait to move up to a 1DsMkII or a back on a medium frame view camera with a true 16bit back (even a scanning back).

If you value the quality of your images, you'll demand full frame.

--
---

'I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated.'
-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

 

[Daniella68313]

I think the 1Ds is currently the one that has the best image quality with the best resolution.

but here are 100% crop from the same distance to subject and with the same focal length..showoing the detail captured with a 8mp 1.6x crop factor and a full frame 1Ds:

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm

20d/30d/XT:



and 1Ds II 16mp camera FF:



so you can imagine that the 5D with even less resolution is not there at all.

the 1Ds II even with 16mp of resolution, can barely keep up with the 1.6x crop factor camera..at 8mp.

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Daniella68313]

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?
thanks

it is not apealing if you are into wildlife and can't frame your subject completely..this is not an advantage for wildlife..it is a disadvantage.

on the other end..if you manage to frame your subject and move closer with the FF..then you will get a better subject isolation from the background due to the more narrow depth of field.

on the other end..if you are into landscape..you do want that huge file full of detail. you don't have to crop there.

This post question is what I have wondered offen. Thanks you all.

--



http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
DSC V1 Sony for Infrared, Canon 20D,
a few too many lenses...

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Daniella68313]

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

 

[Daniella68313]

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...

you can think in term of 2 to 3 years when it come to the body yes..but not when it come to the lens. I have 17 year old lenses here that I am using and my fantastic 400mm F5.6 L is 14 year old.

you can't think in term of 2 to 3 years when buying a lens..it is a long term purchase.

Good luck!

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

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

.....The 5D's viewfinder is marvelous compared to my earlier 300D's viewfinder. It's hard to describe but everything is amazingly easy to see through that viewfinder. So much so that I can now follow a football or lacrosse play from begining to end without looking away from the camera. That includes following the ball during a passing play and nailing the reception at least some of the time. And that's with only 3 fps! I can't think of any other feature on my 5D that is more important for me. For only $2500, there's no other camera like it for that feature alone, in my opinion. The beautiful IQ is a nice bonus though...... grin

 

[Lee Jay]

there are 2 things playing in favor of the 1.6x crop factor cameras
when used for wildlife.. first thing is the crop factor yes..that
means you don,t capture too much wasted pixel and usualy you never
can frame your subject completely anyway..so those pixels would be
wasted.

secondo..the pixel density of the sensor is capturing more detail.
so both the crop factor but more the pixel density here is
beneficial to the wildlife photographer.

The above are true only in one situation - when you are focal-length limited. When Daniella finally buys her 500/4 and stacked 1.4x TCs, that may happen less often for her. ;-)

I realize wildlife types (like Daniella) are focal-length limited a lot (those !@#$% 4" birds) but not always and, when they are not, the large sensor cameras will out-perform their smaller-sensor counterparts.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[POAH]

if all you do is studio work then FF is a better option than crop purely because of the picture quality but for everything else there is no argment against crop bodies.

--
PhD Student and photographer

 

[POAH]

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

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

if all you do is studio work then FF is a better option than crop
purely because of the picture quality but for everything else there
is no argment against crop bodies.

.........For landscapes, architecture and all other wide angle shots, FF is better than cropped. With a proportional increase in lens focal length for FF, the FOV advantage at long focal lengths of a cropped sensor camera disappears as well.

 

[Lee Jay]

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

At a constant DOF, there is no advantage to one format over another. The large-sensor advantage comes into play when you can allow DOF to go shallower.

Large sensors are said to have "more DOF control" because they can get just as deep as small sensors but can go shallower because of the availability of larger aperture lenses at a given FOV.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[mattr]

But could it be that you still end up with better wildlife shots when you are chasing the critter with a 400mm and not a 640mm lens? Maybe in the field when chasing animals the small advantage in megapixels (12 vs 8) is more than compensated for by the advantage of a smaller and lighter lens.

 

[Lee Jay]

But could it be that you still end up with better wildlife shots
when you are chasing the critter with a 400mm and not a 640mm lens?

No.

Maybe in the field when chasing animals the small advantage in
megapixels (12 vs 8) is more than compensated for by the advantage
of a smaller and lighter lens.

In theory, it's not smaller and lighter. For example, a 600/4 and a 400/2.8 (close to the same on full-frame and 1.6 crop) are about the same size. Of course, exactly equivalent lenses are not always available which is one reason the smaller-sensor cameras have an advantage in some cases. For a detailed examination of the topic, see here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=16176921

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[saynomore]

... So due to the larger pixel pitch and the superb sensor technology, it's very reasonable to assume the 5D produces sharper images with the same lens. I know they're sharper than my 20D's in this sense. Those shots you posted are a different kind of test. They test the "reach" of the sensor using the same focal length at the same distance.

What Digic meant was that for the same given resolution (your objects in the picture have the same number of pixels defining them) the 5D's pics will show more detail, because of the larger pixel pitch, and maybe the less blurry AA filter. You would most probably have to stand closer or have a longer focal length for this specific test, thus having more magnification, thus more detail.

This is also the reason it's said that the 5D is more forgiving of lens' resolution.

I would tend to agree here with Digic, but I don't know if he was also counting the original 1D, at least at lower ISOs, it should be able to get super sharp images because of its even lower pixel density / larger pixel pitch.

 

[Bob Graham rvg]

Both cameras show you about 95% of what will be in your picture, it's just that crop cameras viewfinders are like looking at a small window at the end of a tunnel compared to a full frame cameras viewfinder.

I'd prefer if they just put a full frame viewfinder on the smaller cameras with crop lines to show you what wil be in your final exposure but that would mean a larger mirror, ground glass and pentaprism, which they like to avoid...

Bob

 

[mattr]

So you are saying that, roughly, my 350D with the 400/5.6 would correspond to a 5D with a 600/8. I agree, size of these two lenses should be similar. But still, wouldn't be the shutter speed wide open at similar ISO slower with the 600/8? Also, with the current 5D autofocus would not work :-(

 

[Lee Jay]

So you are saying that, roughly, my 350D with the 400/5.6 would
correspond to a 5D with a 600/8. I agree, size of these two lenses
should be similar. But still, wouldn't be the shutter speed wide
open at similar ISO slower with the 600/8?

Yes, but the 5D is 1 1/3 stops better at a constant level of detail so that makes up for it.

Also, with the current
5D autofocus would not work :-(

And that was the subject of the thread I posted.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[DIGIC]

I was not considering the original 1D, that without any doubt has the alll time best detail at pixel level. I have taken it of the discussion because even with that such image quality, 4MP is simply out of the equation by today's standards (at least that's my humble opinion) - and this is not offending 1DmkI users... i too am wondering buying a used 1D for myself, it's a fantastic camera!

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).

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