why should folks go fullframe?

[originalamit]

This is exactly what i have been thinking too... if i am into wildlife & birding, the 1.6 crop is much better for me than FF.. landscape is only a 2nd priority compared to wildlife.... So a crop would always be better as i can frame better and ensure i am focussing is accurate on my subject. The difference in focussing is that your 500mm becomes a 800mm crop in your view finder itself and that is a huge huge advantage if you are doing birding...

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

--
[email protected]

 

[Mark Hanson]

And you don't hear much talk about double-expsoures with digital
either. The game has changed a little bit since it was a
film-only world.

Because that has so much to do with a topic on APS-c-vs.-FF sensors?

Mark

 

[originalamit]

Yep, for me, i plan to stay with wildlife photography which is where i see myself investing heavily in gear...

If full frames are not the answer for my quest for the best in wildlife gear, then crops is the way for me...for a long long time..

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?

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

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...

Please advise.

Thanks
--
[email protected]

It all depends on what one plans to do with one's camera. As you
said, wildlife photographers tend to like the 1.6 crop because of
the narrower field of view, which gives more effective telephoto
and better edge sharpness. Portrait photographers and those using
DOF control as an artistic tool would probably still prefer full
frame. I want one of each.

Another consideration is that the viewfinder for a full frame
camera can be larger and brighter. Oh how I miss the viewfinders
from my old 35mm film cameras.

For you, consider what you will be doing with your camera. Also
remember that lenses can be sold these days without taking a huge
loss. Also consider that even if you get a full frame camera in the
future, you might keep the APS for backup.

I expect APS cameras are here to stay and though I hope to some day
get a full frame body for commercial studio, portraiture, and
photojournalistic work, I would still want a small APS camera for
backup and to use for backpacking/hiking, travel, and any
situation where smaller is better.

-Gene L.

-Gene L.

--
[email protected]

 

[originalamit]

but what would you do if you are say doing birding with a 500mm lens? Would you rather shoot the bird at 500mm and not know where it is focussed as it would be a smaller object in your viewfinder or have a 1.6 crop in your viewfinder to see the bird more accurately?

They simply crop what the lens is seeing (aside from digital only
lenses). You'll get the same shot, with slightly less detail, if
you shoot with a FF camera and crop the image to the size of said
crop dSLR. The tiny viewfinder of crop cameras make it look like
you've got a longer lens, but you don't.

I went from a Drebel (6MP) to a 5D (13MP) and if you crop a 5D shot
to an APS sensor you'll get 5MP. I'll tell you that the amount of
detail I get is noticeably more on my 5D shots. People say they
have different filters on the sensor which make the difference.

An uneducated nikon user on here said he liked his DX sensor
because he could use a smaller 135mm lens and not be noticed as
much as if he had a 200mm lens and he liked that his shots look
like he took them on a 200mm lens. Well I could do the same thing
with a 135mm lens and crop the image afterwards to give a 200mm
FOV.

--
[email protected]

 

[originalamit]

I will stay with wildlife as my primary camera purpose....for a wide angle, a 10-22 mm would do nicely and i dont see myself needing any wider..

thanks so much for your clarifications.... got me thinking clearly on my invvestments...

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

--
[email protected]

 

[DIGIC]

As the viewfinder on a crop camera is so small/tiny, you actually can better frame/track wildlife/birds with a full frame camera, which a much larger/brighter viewfinder. I am concluding this from experience, as i moved from a 10D to a 5D last year.

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

 

[pertti]

1DSMKII 100% full viewfinder look of subject any day over my tunnel vision 30D at 500/4 (same goes for studio photography as well)

On of the main reasons I would like Canon to introduce big resolution, fast fps fullframe is be the possibility to see what I'm actually shooting in the wild. 10D/20D/30D view is dark tunnel garbage even compared to 5D viewfinder.

 

[Skip M]

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Kai Hui]

Some cases, people need more DOF, then it is a drawback for FF cameras.

For instance, macro photographing, people usually needs very deep DOF, people set the apperture to the lens limit, f22 or even f32 on some lenses.

Shalow DOF is not always a good thing.

 

[Lee Jay]

Some cases, people need more DOF, then it is a drawback for FF
cameras.

No it's not. FF cameras can get just as much DOF as smaller-sensor cameras, but smaller-sensor camera can't get as shallow of DOF. I can get just as much DOF for the same FOV with my 5D and my 1/4" CCD camcorder.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Kai Hui]

35mm looks like much "cropped" compared to 5X7.

 

[mfurman]

I mentioned different formats in my post. My FF refers to a camera that can use EF lenses (or other lenses with an adapter) projecting on 24x36mm sensor (or film). The quality of any large or medium format lens is not up to the quality one can achieve with 35 mm dedicated 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

 

[Greg83]

is the main reason: a 50/1.8 lens on 30D translates to 80/2.9 lens on FF. If you want to take a similar pic as one taken with 85/1.2 L on 5D, you would need a 53/0.75 lens!!! With FF you can make nice bokeh even at longer distances, while with APS-C you need to be much closer.

--
Greg

 

[Hellashot]

You can have the same FOV, but with at the most 25% more detail. Different filter on the 5D sensor compared to previous low end Canon dSLRs allow for more details and sharper images.

I'll take a FF shot over a cropped shot with slightly more detail anyday. I don't upgrade a computer unless I can get significantly better performance. 25% increase isn't much. That'd be going from a Pentium 400Mhz to a 500Mhz. Hardly worth the money.

 

[mattr]

No it's not. FF cameras can get just as much DOF as smaller-sensor
cameras, but smaller-sensor camera can't get as shallow of DOF. I
can get just as much DOF for the same FOV with my 5D and my 1/4"
CCD camcorder.

But only if you stop down the 5D lens much more. If you are already at the diffraction limit with the smaller sensor camera to get maximum DOF, you will lose the resolution advantage of the 5D sensor due to diffraction.

And here is the real catch22: You will see sensor dust more clearly with the stopped down 5D lens. The devil is always in the details...

 

[Daniella68313]

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.

you're comparing a F4 vs F2.8 lens..my 400mm F5.6 weight near to nothing..surely I would be impaired by a 500mm F4 a lot more than I am by the 400mm F5.6 L. so it really depend on the subject. obviously the best way to go is getting closer..but that's not possible most of the time.

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)

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Daniella68313]

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.

how can a 400mm lens be 600mm equivalent on the 5D...it's not. it's just 400mm. however a 400mm lens no the 1.6x crop factor camera is multiplied by 1.6 for focal length equivalent.

where do you get that 600mm?

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)

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Daniella68313]

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.

you keep assuming that the person using the equipement would use a 400mm lens on one and a 600mm lens on the other...this is not so

first there is no 600mm F8 lens..it does not exist for now in the Canon AF L lens.

second..If I had a 600mm lens, I would use it with what ever body I have. If I had a 1.6 x..I would use it on that and if I had a FF..I would use it on that..but

if I was to nowaday..shoot a 600mm lens with a 5d and from the same distance shoot the same lens with a 1.6x XT..despite the higher res of the 5D, I woudl get a lot more detail in the XT shot at 8mp.

no way the 5D would give me more detail..not even the 16mp 1Ds II would do it.

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.

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Daniella68313]

the 5D is far from the best widllife camera.. at the game farm recently I was shooting with my XT and the 80-200 F2.8 L. one of the guy was shooting the 5D and the 70-200 F2.8 L.

both very sharp lenses..but I saw his photos at 100% crop..oki..no thanks.

of course we could not get as close as we wanted too from the animals and at 200mm we could not frame them fullly...we both had 400mm lnes but 400mm was too long..

so at the end..he looked at my images and was shocked to see that mine were sharper and much more detailed than his. he ended up putting a 1.4X TC on his in hope of getting the same results that I had! lol.

there you go.

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)

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

 

[Skip M]

Even with the advent of the 10-22, there's still no crop frame equivalent of the 14mm f2.8 or 16-35 f2.8L. Yes, the 10-22 works out to 16mm, but it's still not f2.8. The only way to get a 16mm end on a zoom and f2.8 is to go FF.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com