What are the advantages to full frame?

[FlipsidE]

I know this may seem like an odd question, but I really do have to ask. Besides more room for pixels on the sensor, what are the other advantages? The 1.6x and 1.3x bodies catch only the sweet spot on the lens where the full frame bodies get it all (including the not so sweet spots). Plus, you lose the extra telephoto capabilities that come, by default, with 1.6x and 1.3x bodies.

Please don't think I'm trying to talk badly about any full frame digital cameras or those people who own them. I just don't see the advantages. I need to be enlightened.

[gjl711]

Lower noise due to pixel density and lenses are what they say they are so if your into wide angle, you get full benefit of the lens.

[gjl711]

BTW, here is the Canon full frame white paper (http://nikondigital.org/articles/canon_fullframe_whitepaper.pdf). Goes into a bunch more detail.

[birdstrike]

I know this may seem like an odd question, but I really do have to ask. Besides more room for pixels on the sensor, what are the other advantages? The 1.6x and 1.3x bodies catch only the sweet spot on the lens where the full frame bodies get it all (including the not so sweet spots).

Not all lenses are worse near the edges. With a full-frame sensor you get what you pay for in the lens. With a cropped sensor you just throw away glass you have paid for, good or bad. Spend less on S lenses and you are back where you started with this question.

Plus, you lose the extra telephoto capabilities that come, by default, with 1.6x and 1.3x bodies.

There is no telephoto capability. Any lens will deliver the same image to the camera it is attached to. Cropped sensors just don't record it all and expand the rest in the camera to compensate.

Please don't think I'm trying to talk badly about any full frame digital cameras or those people who own them. I just don't see the advantages. I need to be enlightened.

Nothing wrong with different sized sensors. Just like film with APS, 35mm, and wide format; different missions are best served by different backs.

[Jonathan Consiglio]

The quality is unmatched due to pixel size..

[SkipD]

Lower noise due to pixel density and lenses are what they say they are so if your into wide angle, you get full benefit of the lens.Lenses are ALWAYS "what they say they are". No characteristic of any lens - either focal length or aperture range - changes when you put a lens on a different format body.

The difference between various formats (size of film frame or digital sensor) on cameras that can accept the same lens family is strictly one of reduced field of view angle for any particular lens on the smaller format camera relative to the same lens on a larger format camera. The field of view difference is purely a function of the camera format.

All lenses that will fit on them have a wider field of view when used on a 35mm film camera or "full-frame" DSLR than when used on cameras with smaller formats. That makes the "full-frame" camera able to use EF lenses such as the 16-35 as an "ultra-wide-angle" while it is not an "ultra-wide" on an APS-C body. The EF-S 10-22 provides virtually the same angle of view on an APS-C camera as the 16-35 does on a "full-frame" body. However, you cannot use the EF-S 10-22 on a "full-frame body" to get wider field of view than the 16-35.

[InverseX]

Lenses are ALWAYS "what they say they are". No characteristic of any lens - either focal length or aperture range - changes when you put a lens on a different format body.

The difference between various formats (size of film frame or digital sensor) on cameras that can accept the same lens family is strictly one of reduced field of view angle for any particular lens on the smaller format camera relative to the same lens on a larger format camera. The field of view difference is purely a function of the camera format.



Is it fair to say however, that the main characteristic of any focal length is its field of view? Regardless or full body or crop, if I'm looking through a camera at 100mm I get a certain field of view and if I look through it at 300mm I get another. What is the point of changing the focal lengths really apart from changing the field of view.

Don't get me wrong, I do completely understand what your saying, nothing magically turns the 100mm lens into a 160mm lens physically, what I'm saying is what is the purpose of pointing out the difference?

What is the difference (purely in focal length terms, and no smart a** responses of 60mm) between a 100mm on a 1.6x crop body and a 160mm on a full frame?? (We'll also assume for the purpose of this the full frame sensor gives exactly the same picture capabilities as the cropped sensor).

How does the different field of view effect the camera?

Hope that is clear, doubt it though :D

[gjl711]

Lenses are ALWAYS "what they say they are". No characteristic of any lens - either focal length or aperture range - changes when you put a lens on a different format body.
....
I understand that nothing changes optically. But the net effect of putting on a 100mm lens in a 1.6 crop camera is that you have the equivalent of a 160mm lens. You have to take this into effect when using a 1.6 crop. Telephoto guys love the crop but if I'm looking for a nice wide field of view, say a 14mm I'm just not going to get it in a crop camera.

[birdstrike]

I understand that nothing changes optically. But the net effect of putting on a 100mm lens in a 1.6 crop camera is that you have the equivalent of a 160mm lens. You have to take this into effect when using a 1.6 crop. Telephoto guys love the crop but if I'm looking for a nice wide field of view, say a 14mm I'm just not going to get it in a crop camera.

But if you want to do that with a full frame sensor, you just crop it in the computer and throw away what the 1.6 failed to capture in the first place.

Your point about wide field of view is spot on. The 1.6 completely fails to capture it.

[FlipsidE]

Telephoto guys love the crop but if I'm looking for a nice wide field of view, say a 14mm I'm just not going to get it in a crop camera.You are correct in saying that you can't get 14mm. But, you can get 16mm, and I have to ask, is 2mm really that much of a difference?

[ScottE]

There are several advangtages to full frame.

You can pack more pixels on a larger sensor which means you get more resolution in very big enlargements. That is the reason the people who need high resolution huge prints use medium format based digital cameras or scaned large format film.

You can pack the same number of pixels on a larger sensor and get less interference from one pixel to the next because there is more separation. This should give less noise and a cleaner image. As technology improves you can pack more pixels on a smaller sensor and get less noise and a cleaner image, but the same technology can be applied to full frame so this advantage will always remain. This is another reason to get a medium format based digital camera if controlling noise and getting a clean image are very important to you.

People who have used 35 mm cameras for years and are starting to get old have trouble adapting to a new format because their lenses don't do "what they are supposed to" in their mind and they can't update the programming of their mind.

The lack of ultra-wide lenses for smaller sensors is not an inherant advantage of full frame, but just a symptom of the fact that there is not much market for lenses wider than 10mm (16 mm equivalent) and no one has botherd to manufacture them.

There are also several significant disadvantages to full frame, but you did not ask about those.

[Bob_A]

Is it fair to say however, that the main characteristic of any focal length is its field of view? Regardless or full body or crop, if I'm looking through a camera at 100mm I get a certain field of view and if I look through it at 300mm I get another. What is the point of changing the focal lengths really apart from changing the field of view.

Don't get me wrong, I do completely understand what your saying, nothing magically turns the 100mm lens into a 160mm lens physically, what I'm saying is what is the purpose of pointing out the difference?

What is the difference (purely in focal length terms, and no smart a** responses of 60mm) between a 100mm on a 1.6x crop body and a 160mm on a full frame?? (We'll also assume for the purpose of this the full frame sensor gives exactly the same picture capabilities as the cropped sensor).

How does the different field of view effect the camera?

Hope that is clear, doubt it though :D

The field of view isn't a characteristic of a particular focal length, it also depends of the crop factor. So a 100mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera has the field of view of a 160mm lens on a FF camera. On the other hand, even though the FOV for, say, 160mm on a FF camera and 100mm on a 1.6 crop camera would be the same, there can be a significant difference in DOF.

Also, if I used the same 100mm lens on both cameras, I'd have to move further away from the subject to fill the frame the same with the crop camera, which would result in a change in perspective.

None of the above makes one type of camera necessarily "worse" than the other ... just different :)

[gjl711]

But if you want to do that with a full frame sensor, you just crop it in the computer and throw away what the 1.6 failed to capture in the first place.

Your point about wide field of view is spot on. The 1.6 completely fails to capture it.
Thats true if the pixel density remains the same. But it doesn't and this is where I confuse myself all the time. The 30 has a sensor of 22.5x15mm or 337 square mm and the 5D 36x24mm or 864 square mm. That gives a pixel density of about 25k pixels for the 30D to 15k pixels of the 5d. So, the crop sensor area of the 5D only has 5 mpixels.

[gjl711]

You are correct in saying that you can't get 14mm. But, you can get 16mm, and I have to ask, is 2mm really that much of a difference?
Not for me, I like shoot more tele then wide. But it might to some.

[birdstrike]

None of the above makes one type of camera necessarily "worse" than the other ... just different :)

Exactly. It is the photographer that makes the difference in the end. Cropped sensor cameras are lighter and less expensive than full frame or wide format cameras yet offer the same ability to exchange lenses and control aperature and shutter speed.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Thats true if the pixel density remains the same. But it doesn't and this is where I confuse myself all the time. The 30 has a sensor of 22.5x15mm or 337 square mm and the 5D 36x24mm or 864 square mm. That gives a pixel density of about 25k pixels for the 30D to 15k pixels of the 5d. So, the crop sensor area of the 5D only has 5 mpixels.

To crop a full shot from the 5D to 1.6x would indeed yield approximately 5mp. However, you can crop to 1.3x equivalent (1-series) and maintain the full resolution of 8+MP.

[FlipsidE]

Thats true if the pixel density remains the same. But it doesn't and this is where I confuse myself all the time. The 30 has a sensor of 22.5x15mm or 337 square mm and the 5D 36x24mm or 864 square mm. That gives a pixel density of about 25k pixels for the 30D to 15k pixels of the 5d. So, the crop sensor area of the 5D only has 5 mpixels.Ya know, you make a very, very good point here.

[FlipsidE]

To crop a full shot from the 5D to 1.6x would indeed yield approximately 5mp. However, you can crop to 1.3x equivalent (1-series) and maintain the full resolution of 8+MP.True, but I gotta admit that I find it somewhat disconcerting that cropping a 5D image to a 1.6 crop factor would effectively drop the resolution below that of a 300D.

[Bob_A]

Thats true if the pixel density remains the same. But it doesn't and this is where I confuse myself all the time. The 30 has a sensor of 22.5x15mm or 337 square mm and the 5D 36x24mm or 864 square mm. That gives a pixel density of about 25k pixels for the 30D to 15k pixels of the 5d. So, the crop sensor area of the 5D only has 5 mpixels.

You're correct (although I didn't check your math :) ).

However, coming from film I always had enough reach with the lenses I owned to frame the image so that I didn't need to crop. But I don't shoot wildlife, so I've never really needed much more than 300mm on full frame. Sure I've shot a few images at 280mm on my 20D, but it's a pretty rare occurrence :)

I'm waiting for the next generation of 5D and then may jump. Larger photosites (lower noise, etc), better AF than my 20D, and brighter viewfinder are very attractive to me. I'm just hoping that the next version has some performance and features improvements along with weather sealing.

[Carzee]

Correct FOV, pixel density and extra AF power is what sold me. Also, re pixel density, I'll remind readers that the earlier, less mega-pixel density sensors of the D30 and 1D Mk 1 produce beautiful rich/ luxurious colours.

[birdstrike]

the crop sensor area of the 5D only has 5 mpixels.

Which results in less noise, but that's not the point. The point is choosing the proper tool for the job. A P&S camera is perfect for job A. A 1.6 sensor camera perfect for job B, a 35mm sensor for job C, a wide format back for job D and film vs. digital adds yet another dimension.

It's pointless to argue about the camera without first defining the job it is supposed to accomplish.

I happen to have a 5D and have no desire to own a 1D or a wide format camera. My camera and lens system are perfect for what I want to accomplish today.

Neither the 1D nor the 30 fit my needs. That is neither good nor bad, just what it is.

Edit to say if you want to introduce glass into the discussion, I still lust after more capable glass :D

[gjl711]

Ya know though, all the Canon products deliver outstanding quality. I picture captured with one can be captured with the other just as well. Until the sensor boys solve the noise problem, the one real big advantage of full frame has got to be lower pixel density thus lower noise and more saturation. All of the other differences pale in comparison.

[kahren]

dont be fooled by "you get the sweetspot of the lens" with the 1.6 crop to get 28mm view you now have to get a 17mm lens, which is usually much worse optically then the 28 would be. so you dont really gain anything, and the wide angle lenses seem to be more expensive as well. canon really needs to update their prime collection under 50mm.

[pradeep1]

Another advantage of full frame is that huge and gorgeous viewfinder image. Step back one generation and pick up an EOS film body and put that next to a modern 1.6 X FOV camera and you will be thoroughly impressed with the size and clarity of having a large viewfinder image. That is why I like cameras like the 5D.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

True, but I gotta admit that I find it somewhat disconcerting that cropping a 5D image to a 1.6 crop factor would effectively drop the resolution below that of a 300D.

No offense, but that's like the average consumer asking me why I spent $5k on my camera when their $199 P&S has more megapixels. It's just rather irrelevant. Just because cropping the heck out of an image makes it smaller than an uncropped image from a 300D doesn't make the 5D worse. Sure doesn't make the IQ worse.

Not talking about you, rather in general, but all too many people equate megapixels to image quality. Nowhere near true.

[FlipsidE]

Which results in less noise, but that's not the point. The point is choosing the proper tool for the job. A P&S camera is perfect for job A. A 1.6 sensor camera perfect for job B, a 35mm sensor for job C, a wide format back for job D and film vs. digital adds yet another dimension.You bring up a very good point here. My focus is on people in general. I'm not very big on Candids or Urban, but more along the lines of Event and Glamour. Now that I've defined the job, a P&S isn't going to cut it. But, a 1.6 crop 35mm, 1.3 crop 35mm, Full Frame 35mm, Medium Format, or for that matter Large Format camera would all fit the bill perfectly.

I currently own a 1.6 body, but I have owned a 1.3 in the past. I decided to sell the 1.3 camera as it wasn't being used enough to justify the overall cost (eyes bigger than my stomach). I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what would be the advantage, for me, of upgrading to a Full Frame camera? Let's even put aside the cost of having to buy a 24-105 f/4L to cover the 70mm to 90mm range that would be lost on my 24-70 f/2.8L because of the upgrade. What advantages does a full frame camera offer? to an Event and Glamour photographer that I can't already get from a 1.6 or 1.3 camera?

I know glamour photographers that swear by Full Frame sensors, but I just can't get a grasp on why.

[grego]

True, but I gotta admit that I find it somewhat disconcerting that cropping a 5D image to a 1.6 crop factor would effectively drop the resolution below that of a 300D.

300D has more megapixels than the original 1DMKI. Regardless, the 1D will deliever a better picture. Heck, I'd use it over a 20D/30D if it didn't lack in the high noise levels.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Just think of it the "right" way. Use the right length lens, and you'll have all the megapixels. Then there's no fuss about cropping. Why crop at all? Just get it right in the camera (or at least close enough that you aren't cutting off half the image!).

[Bob_A]

Ya know though, all the Canon products deliver outstanding quality. I picture captured with one can be captured with the other just as well. Until the sensor boys solve the noise problem, the one real big advantage of full frame has got to be lower pixel density thus lower noise and more saturation. All of the other differences pale in comparison.

With my film camera I can manual focus if I want. However with my weak eyes it just isn't possible with my 20D ... so a brighter viewfinder with FF is a big advantage for me.

[grego]

Just think of it the "right" way. Use the right length lens, and you'll have all the megapixels. Then there's no fuss about cropping. Why crop at all? Just get it right in the camera (or at least close enough that you aren't cutting off half the image!).

That's true and not true to some degree. When shooting long distance, you are pulling out a lot of information just to get that same crop.

[FlipsidE]

No offense, but that's like the average consumer asking me why I spent $5k on my camera when their $199 P&S has more megapixels. It's just rather irrelevant. Just because cropping the heck out of an image makes it smaller than an uncropped image from a 300D doesn't make the 5D worse. Sure doesn't make the IQ worse.

Not talking about you, rather in general, but all too many people equate megapixels to image quality. Nowhere near true.I agree that MP is taken far too seriously by most consumers when looking to buy a camera. But, take a photo taken by a 5D cropped to 1.6 and a photo taken by a 30D for example. Blow them both up to 20x30. Wouldn't the 5D start to show its weaknesses.

Again, I completely agree that the number of megapixels in a camera is taken way too seriously these days and shouldn't be the deciding factor when buying a camera at all. But, at the same time, in the above example, wouldn't an 8MP image at 20x30 just absolutely blow away a 5MP image at 20x30? Granted, if the same photos were taken and no cropping was done on the 5D, the 12MP 5D image should, in theory, blow away the 8MP 30D image at 20x30.

[birdstrike]

I know glamour photographers that swear by Full Frame sensors, but I just can't get a grasp on why.

Beats me. I'm a wildlife guy. I don't even know what "glamour" means, except it is associated with "nudes" for which I have an inherent appreciation. :D

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Another obvious point I didn't think of. You can see what you're getting so much clearer with the 5D's huge viewfinder. It's right up in your face, rather than peering down a tunnel. The image is so big in the viewfinder, in fact, that it almost feels like you're using a longer lens, even when you're not. That's the best way I can describe.

[Bob_A]

You bring up a very good point here. My focus is on people in general. I'm not very big on Candids or Urban, but more along the lines of Event and Glamour. Now that I've defined the job, a P&S isn't going to cut it. But, a 1.6 crop 35mm, 1.3 crop 35mm, Full Frame 35mm, Medium Format, or for that matter Large Format camera would all fit the bill perfectly.

I currently own a 1.6 body, but I have owned a 1.3 in the past. I decided to sell the 1.3 camera as it wasn't being used enough to justify the overall cost (eyes bigger than my stomach). I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what would be the advantage, for me, of upgrading to a Full Frame camera? Let's even put aside the cost of having to buy a 24-105 f/4L to cover the 70mm to 90mm range that would be lost on my 24-70 f/2.8L because of the upgrade. What advantages does a full frame camera offer? to an Event and Glamour photographer that I can't already get from a 1.6 or 1.3 camera?

I know glamour photographers that swear by Full Frame sensors, but I just can't get a grasp on why.

For glamour I would think the biggest advantages would be some improvement in color, better AF and brighter viewfinder. I doubt you would be using a high enough ISO for noise to be an issue.

[Bob_A]

Beats me. I'm a wildlife guy. I don't even know what "glamour" means, except it is associated with "nudes" for which I have an inherent appreciation. :D


LOL!

[FlipsidE]

Another advantage of full frame is that huge and gorgeous viewfinder image. Step back one generation and pick up an EOS film body and put that next to a modern 1.6 X FOV camera and you will be thoroughly impressed with the size and clarity of having a large viewfinder image. That is why I like cameras like the 5D.Ya know, it's funny. Charles Umberger let me take a gander through his 5D when I was at one of his workshops about a year ago. He was also very impressed with the huge view through the viewfinder. Honestly, at the time I was shooting with a 1D Mark II, and I really didn't notice much of a difference...definitely not enough to pick a 5D over a 1D Mark II seeing that they aren't *that* terribly far apart in price (relatively speaking of course).

[FlipsidE]

300D has more megapixels than the original 1DMKI. Regardless, the 1D will deliever a better picture. Heck, I'd use it over a 20D/30D if it didn't lack in the high noise levels.You are right. I really didn't think of it that way, but the 4MP 1D can deliver some very high quality photos.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I agree that MP is taken far too seriously by most consumers when looking to buy a camera. But, take a photo taken by a 5D cropped to 1.6 and a photo taken by a 30D for example. Blow them both up to 20x30. Wouldn't the 5D start to show its weaknesses.

Again, I completely agree that the number of megapixels in a camera is taken way too seriously these days and shouldn't be the deciding factor when buying a camera at all. But, at the same time, in the above example, wouldn't an 8MP image at 20x30 just absolutely blow away a 5MP image at 20x30? Granted, if the same photos were taken and no cropping was done on the 5D, the 12MP 5D image should, in theory, blow away the 8MP 30D image at 20x30.

I doubt much of anyone would ever notice a difference. They'd just ask why you've got two. ;-)

Assuming you're printing at 300 dpi, you're gonna be upsampling both images to get a 20x30. In the 5D's native size, however, 20x30 is a piece of cake. The original file is twice that size.

[FlipsidE]

That's true and not true to some degree. When shooting long distance, you are pulling out a lot of information just to get that same crop.I have to agree. Sometimes it could be rather tough. A 70-200 f/2.8L ($1700) lens at full zoom on a 1.6 body would be equivalent to a 320mm lens. To get the same speed glass and telephoto capability on a Full Frame camera, you'd probably have to end up buying a 300mm f/2.8 ($4000). Sometimes you can't just "get" the shot with a Full Frame camera (without spending a drastically larger sum of money)...at least not the same shot you could get with a 1.6 camera. So, I have to agree with this post.

[FlipsidE]

Beats me. I'm a wildlife guy. I don't even know what "glamour" means, except it is associated with "nudes" for which I have an inherent appreciation. :D:lol: Check out the link in my sig, then.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Well see, if you're at those distances, and can't afford both the 5D and long glass, then a 30D or a 1-series is probably the body for you. Just get what you need- simple as that. However, you said glamour and fashion photography. I don't see you needing 300mm unless you really get the crap seats to the show. :lol:

[grego]

Well see, if you're at those distances, and can't afford both the 5D and long glass, then a 30D or a 1-series is probably the body for you. Just get what you need- simple as that. However, you said glamour and fashion photography. I don't see you needing 300mm unless you really get the crap seats to the show. :lol:

Of course. It's just that cropping doesn't always solve it. That's all. Even the 1 series can be too short. :(

[Bob_A]

Well see, if you're at those distances, and can't afford both the 5D and long glass, then a 30D or a 1-series is probably the body for you. Just get what you need- simple as that. However, you said glamour and fashion photography. I don't see you needing 300mm unless you really get the crap seats to the show. :lol:

OK, it's getting late, but that one made me smile! :lol:

[FlipsidE]

For glamour I would think the biggest advantages would be some improvement in color, better AF and brighter viewfinder. I doubt you would be using a high enough ISO for noise to be an issue.Hmmm... Definitely some good thoughts, but I have some questions. First of all, improvement in colors and saturation can be taken care of in post processing for the most part, can't they? Granted, I'd always like to get it right the first time if possible, but in this case, couldn't you still make up for what the 5D offers in better colors in post processing?

Also, while I could be COMPLETELY wrong on this one, I find it kind of difficult to believe that the 5D's 9 point AF system could do a better job than the 1D Mark II's 45 point AF system. Again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well could be).

And you are correct. When it comes to Glamour, I don't think I've ever shot higher than ISO 100 when using strobes. When just messing around with ambient light, I believe I've pushed it up to 400.

[FlipsidE]

In the 5D's native size, however, 20x30 is a piece of cake. The original file is twice that size.Which is awesome! I don't have any doubt about the 5D's ability to produce impressive large prints.

[Bob_A]

Ya know, it's funny. Charles Umberger let me take a gander through his 5D when I was at one of his workshops about a year ago. He was also very impressed with the huge view through the viewfinder. Honestly, at the time I was shooting with a 1D Mark II, and I really didn't notice much of a difference...definitely not enough to pick a 5D over a 1D Mark II seeing that they aren't *that* terribly far apart in price (relatively speaking of course).

Maybe it would be worthwhile to ask Charles why he chose to use full frame.

[FlipsidE]

Well see, if you're at those distances, and can't afford both the 5D and long glass, then a 30D or a 1-series is probably the body for you. Just get what you need- simple as that. However, you said glamour and fashion photography. I don't see you needing 300mm unless you really get the crap seats to the show. :lol:I literally laughed out loud at that last line. But, again, I have to agree with grego (in his post right below the one of yours that I've quoted). Cropping doesn't always fix the problem, unfortunately. And who knows, even as a Glamour photographer, a family member might ask you to photograph his/her son's first football game.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I see absolutely no reason why you'd ever need 45 AF points in a studio. That sounds completely dumb to me. Not saying a 1-series is pointless in a studio, but 45 points? For what?! Is that AI servo predictive tracking going to help you track that model running all over the backdrop? Please. ;-)

Saturation can be added later, yes, but there's nothing like true quality right out of the camera. Get yourself a 35L, 85L, 135L, along with a few others, and you'll see natural saturation that's the stuff of dreams. That, coupled with the tested and proven #1 skin tone reproduction of the 5D, is just smoooth.

Bottom line is, there's nothing like getting it right when the picture is taken. I know that's not always possible, but in a studio, it should be.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I literally laughed out loud at that last line. But, again, I have to agree with grego (in his post right below the one of yours that I've quoted). Cropping doesn't always fix the problem, unfortunately. And who knows, even as a Glamour photographer, a family member might ask you to photograph his/her son's first football game.

Yes sir, and that's why you get a 20D for a second body. Nice and cheap, and has all the length you want.

[FlipsidE]

Maybe it would be worthwhile to ask Charles why he chose to use full frame.Ya know, I'm sure I did. But, I just don't remember the answer. His studiomate had ordered one and started using it. Charles tried it and just fell in love with it. Thinking back, I'm not sure if he gave much more of a reason than that. I could be wrong...I may have (and probably have) just forgotten the other reasons.

[Bob_A]

Also, while I could be COMPLETELY wrong on this one, I find it kind of difficult to believe that the 5D's 9 point AF system could do a better job than the 1D Mark II's 45 point AF system. Again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well could be).

You're right, I can't see how it could either. But as I understand it the 5D AF system is a big improvement over my 20D.

[tsaraleksi]

I don't understand why, if you shoot glamour, you are at all concerned with what will result from cropping the 5D? I'd think you could get a frame filling shot every time?

Not to mention that people have shot on full frame 35mm for what? Almost 100 years? I agree that for distance shooting there is an advantage to the 1.6 cameras if you'd rather not spend the cash for the glass (I know I strongly agree) but I don't see how it's relevant to glamour shooting.

edit: didn't see that you'd already answered my question.

[FlipsidE]

I see absolutely no reason why you'd ever need 45 AF points in a studio. That sounds completely dumb to me. Not saying a 1-series is pointless in a studio, but 45 points? For what?! Is that AI servo predictive tracking going to help you track that model running all over the backdrop? Please. ;-)

Bottom line is, there's nothing like getting it right when the picture is taken. I know that's not always possible, but in a studio, it should be.Oh I agree. I'm not sure there's anyone in this world that hates post processing more than I do. I seriously SERIOUSLY hate it. So, getting it right the first time is always my goal. But, once you learn the right routine in your software, you have to ask yourself if better saturation in camera is worth the extra couple thousand dollars.

As far as 45 AF points in a studio... You are completely right in that it's not needed. I was just trying to make a point about an earlier post. The 45 AF points are meant more for action shots using the 1D Mark II's 8.5fps burst mode.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I literally laughed out loud at that last line. But, again, I have to agree with grego (in his post right below the one of yours that I've quoted). Cropping doesn't always fix the problem, unfortunately. And who knows, even as a Glamour photographer, a family member might ask you to photograph his/her son's first football game.

You won't catch me building a system that costs a small fortune around a "what if" favor. ;-)

[FlipsidE]

I don't understand why, if you shoot glamour, you are at all concerned with what will result from cropping the 5D? I'd think you could get a frame filling shot every time?

Not to mention that people have shot on full frame 35mm for what? Almost 100 years? I agree that for distance shooting there is an advantage to the 1.6 cameras if you'd rather not spend the cash for the glass (I know I strongly agree) but I don't see how it's relevant to glamour shooting.I'm more concerned with the "not-so-good" parts of the lens being recorded by the sensor. I think there are third party plug-ins for photoshop and maybe even built-in photoshop plug-ins that help correct the edges of full frame shots.

If it's happened enough times where it's worth writing a plug-in to fix, then it has to be a legitimate and often problem.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Oh I agree. I'm not sure there's anyone in this world that hates post processing more than I do. I seriously SERIOUSLY hate it. So, getting it right the first time is always my goal. But, once you learn the right routine in your software, you have to ask yourself if better saturation in camera is worth the extra couple thousand dollars.

At this point, it's like an extra $900..no couple thousand. It's not just better saturation, either. It's a bigger, better built body, full frame, big viewfinder, lower noise levels, better IQ, better color reproduction, better skin tone reproduction, and so much more.

As far as 45 AF points in a studio... You are completely right in that it's not needed. I was just trying to make a point about an earlier post. The 45 AF points are meant more for action shots using the 1D Mark II's 8.5fps burst mode.

Yeap.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I'm more concerned with the "not-so-good" parts of the lens being recorded by the sensor. I think there are third party plug-ins for photoshop and maybe even built-in photoshop plug-ins that help correct the edges of full frame shots.

If it's happened enough times where it's worth writing a plug-in to fix, then it has to be a legitimate and often problem.

I had a 5D for several months. Never once did I notice any "not so good" parts. How often do the corners of your shot matter anyway, even if they were a bit soft? I mean come on. You've gotta use some pretty junky lenses to have that be an issue (and that's exactly what some do).

Would I use a nifty fifty on a 5D? Nope. I didn't buy a $3k body to put a $50 lens on it. I'd rather have a $1k body and put a $2k lens on it. ;-)



As much as I'd like to go on with this discussion, I have to be up in 4 hours. Buona notte.

[FlipsidE]

At this point, it's like an extra $900..no couple thousand.Unfortunately, this is something I have to disagree on. You're probably going to be purchasing a high end photo editing program no matter what camera you buy (be it a 30D or a 1Ds Mark II). So, the cost of the program doesn't really play into the cost of the camera as it's probably going to be constant no matter which camera you decide on.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Exactly. I agree completely. I got CS2 when I bought an XT, and I've used it right through to the 1DMkIIN (half a dozen cameras later). I assumed when you said that you weren't sure better saturation in camera might not be worth a couple thousand, you were saying that it was the main "upgrade" of the 5D, which might make it not worth the extra over a 30D, and that's just not the case (for most). I just said that the 5D is only a thousand or so more than the 30D, and less if you buy used. That's all.

[FlipsidE]

I just said that the 5D is only a thousand or so more than the 30D, and less if you buy used. That's all.Honestly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 30D run about $1100 where the 5D runs about $2800?

[Ronald S. Jr.]

$600 in rebates, good sir. People are selling brand new 5D's for $2200. Used are going for $1900-2k.

[FlipsidE]

I guess the entire discussion comes down to this...

From the standpoint of a Glamour Photographer, what is it about the Full Frame 5D that makes it worth the extra $1700 (or so) over the 1.6 30D? And for that matter, what makes the Full Frame 1Ds Mark II worth the extra $3500 over the 1.3 1D Mark II N?

The cost of lenses (24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L) is just about the same, so that really isn't a contributing factor...it's the bodies.

[FlipsidE]

$600 in rebates, good sir. People are selling brand new 5D's for $2200. Used are going for $1900-2k.That I wasn't aware of. I stand corrected.

[FlipsidE]

On another note, the 1Ds Mark II has twice the number of pixels as the 1D Mark II N yet the sensor on the 1Ds Mark II is nowhere near twice the size of the one on the 1D Mark II N. Wouldn't that mean that the 1Ds Mark II would actually have more noise from adjacent pixels than the 1D Mark II N?

[steveathome]

Just think of it the "right" way. Use the right length lens, and you'll have all the megapixels. Then there's no fuss about cropping. Why crop at all? Just get it right in the camera (or at least close enough that you aren't cutting off half the image!).


Spot on

If you use the camera with the correct choice of lens's (minimal cropping) you are in effect doubling the image size of a 1.6 crop camera. You can see the difference, even on the low resolution pics pasted on this forum.

[Lightstream]

Flip... it is a tough call. I'm not sure the 5D is for you since it cannot offer you a compelling reason why you should go with it. I see no reason why one cannot shoot glamor with any other camera - if it does what you need it to.

Largely the reason for the 5D's existence is that the lenses behave exactly the way they were designed. Say, a 28/1.8 will be a true 28mm. I like my 17-40 behaving like a true 17mm UW. However if this is not important then that nullifies one of the 5D's advantages. This is one of the three primary criteria for me (not saying it is for anybody else).

High ISO performance is important, but if you have good lighting, this is also moot. My second criteria. The 5D is King of the High ISO in terms of low noise.

Viewfinder is my third - after experiencing the brilliance of an FF viewfinder I cannot go back. However, my 1D classic's 1.3X VF is very, very close to the 5D. I can switch between the two without feeling like I am missing out. Both hand the 20D/30D class cameras their rear on a platter.

The 5D's AI Servo is very impressive and the AF is excellent. I would rate my 1D classic a notch above it however. The difference is small, but 45-point AreaAF and CFn 18-2 REALLY make my day ;) While I love my 5D, I wish it had both of these without the 1-series weight (important to me). Wish it had weather sealing too. Maybe in the next generation. The 1DsM2 is the only way to get all of the above, full frame with 45pt AF and all of the extra customizability that makes the 1-series special.

[AdamJL]

But if you want to do that with a full frame sensor, you just crop it in the computer and throw away what the 1.6 failed to capture in the first place.

Depth of field changes as well.

an image at f/4 200mm on a crop is the same identically as an image at f/5.6 320mm on a FF.
Or the other way around, I can't remember.
It's not as simple as cropping on your PC.

[AdamJL]

Largely the reason for the 5D's existence is that the lenses behave exactly the way they were designed. Say, a 28/1.8 will be a true 28mm. I like my 17-40 behaving like a true 17mm UW. However if this is not important then that nullifies one of the 5D's advantages. This is one of the three primary criteria for me (not saying it is for anybody else).


The lenses behave exactly the same on every camera, FF or not.
It's the camera that performs differently.

[SkipD]

The lenses behave exactly the same on every camera, FF or not.
It's the camera that performs differently.How true....

[Wilt]

I decided to sell the 1.3 camera as it wasn't being used enough to justify the overall cost (eyes bigger than my stomach). I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what would be the advantage, for me, of upgrading to a Full Frame camera? ... What advantages does a full frame camera offer? to an Event and Glamour photographer that I can't already get from a 1.6 or 1.3 camera?

As you can see from my signature, I use multiple formats. A truism is that when it comes to image quality (tonal and color rendition; higher quality large size prints which come from lowered magnification required), size matters! The new factor, with digital, is that the smaller format is so darned good, that size no longer matters quite as much as it did with film, but it still does matter.

But in addition to tonal rendition and overall image quality, the smaller format still loses in DOF control, and it loses in the range of lenses available to meet different application needs. For example, I have a 24mm Perspective Control lens. On my dSLR it is nowhere as useful as when it is mounted on my 35mm film camera...I would need to buy a 5D to get the versatility of this lens to its full value. Because it simply does not see wide enough.

OTOH, FF does not give as much benefit in the use of long lenses as the APS-C -- but then that same argument applies to my other larger format cameras, too! So ultimately, as someone has said "It simply is different" and "the application matters". Yet, the need for lower magnification to achieve same final size print ultimately leads to the size matters ultimatum. But as has always been true, sometimes you do not simply NEED the increased size of a format -- which is why pro photographers have always had the need for 35mm in some circumstances, medium format 645 in some circumstances, medium format 6x7 in some circumstances, and 4x5 film in some circumstances...some times for the features of that format, some times for the absolute size needed for the highest quality.

[mij]

Depth of field changes as well.

I am surprised it took so long into the thread for someone to say that! Going back to the question on page one:

What is the difference (purely in focal length terms, and no smart a** responses of 60mm) between a 100mm on a 1.6x crop body and a 160mm on a full frame??

As Adam points out, at the same aperture the full frame body will have a smaller depth of field than an APS-C body. I would imagine that those who shoot sports would prefer a 300/2.8 on full frame than a 200/2.8 on a APS-C body as although the field of view would be similar (at least on a 1.5x Nikon), the larger sensor would enable them to better isolate subjects from their surroundings.

Michael.

[SkipD]

Is it fair to say however, that the main characteristic of any focal length is its field of view? Regardless or full body or crop, if I'm looking through a camera at 100mm I get a certain field of view and if I look through it at 300mm I get another. What is the point of changing the focal lengths really apart from changing the field of view.The answer to the question that I put into bold above is a very simple no.

It is the combination of focal length and camera format that defines the field of view.

For example - many folks assume that a 50mm lens is a "normal" lens focal length for APS-C DSLR's just because it happens to be the "normal" focal length on 35mm film cameras. This is not true. A 50mm lens is a "normal" lens on a 35mm film camera (one which uses the standard 24mm x 36mm film frame), but 50mm is a short telephoto when used on an APS-C camera and 50mm is a medium wide-angle when used on a 6cm x 6cm camera such as my Mamiya C-33. On a 4" x 5" camera, a 50mm lens would be an ultra wide-angle lens.

Merely considering a focal length alone does not define a field of view. It is totally impossible to define the field of view for a given focal length without knowing the size of the target (the piece of film or digital sensor) that the lens is projecting an image onto.

It is unfortunate that camera manufacturers designed the DSLR's to use the same lenses that 35mm film cameras use. They have created such a widespread misunderstanding about focal lengths, fields of view, etc. Back in the days of film-only, few photographers had even the slightest misunderstanding about the fact that you needed a different focal length on a medium-format camera to get the same field of view as you had with a particular lens on a 35mm camera, for example. None of the lenses were interchangeable between the various format cameras, and there was no confusion. Today, however, with multi-purpose lenses (the EF series), confusion runs amok.

[SkipD]

I understand that nothing changes optically. But the net effect of putting on a 100mm lens in a 1.6 crop camera is that you have the equivalent of a 160mm lens. You have to take this into effect when using a 1.6 crop. Telephoto guys love the crop but if I'm looking for a nice wide field of view, say a 14mm I'm just not going to get it in a crop camera.The bolded statement above is incorrect because it does not define the format of the camera the lenses are used on. The field of view with any particular focal length and format is a function of BOTH the focal length and the format.

If you added a few words to the sentence above, it would be true. It would read like this: But the net effect of putting on a 100mm lens in a 1.6 crop camera is that you have the equivalent of a 160mm lens on a 35mm film camera.

I don't like being so picky, but my purpose is to teach the newbies who read these threads what the truth is about focal lengths and camera formats so that they won't develop the distorted ideas that seem to be so prevalent.

[Wilt]

I see absolutely no reason why you'd ever need 45 AF points in a studio. That sounds completely dumb to me. Not saying a 1-series is pointless in a studio, but 45 points? For what?! Is that AI servo predictive tracking going to help you track that model running all over the backdrop? Please. ;-)
.

Agreed. Ultimately only ONE focus point is what matters, and we all know how poorly cameras are at guessing WHICH ONE to use at times. The camera will pick the one with highest contrast, even if our subject is the one with low contrast. So ultimately WE need to choose the focus point. And in that case, it matters not if the camera provides one or provides one hundred focus points!

When the predictive focus helps when the subject is moving across the frame, having more focus points will help that circumstance, perhaps. But if the camera got fooled before, it would continue to be fooled to the same degree with the predictive focus, wouldn't it (rhetorical question)?

[Lightstream]

Why is it these threads always degenerate into semantics and nit picking? You people know what I mean. One has to prefix everything with a disclaimer or risk being nitpicked to death.. and I am sick and tired of that.

Forget it... in future I will think twice before trying to help others.

[AdamJL]

Why is it these threads always degenerate into semantics and nit picking? You people know what I mean. One has to prefix everything with a disclaimer or risk being nitpicked to death.. and I am sick and tired of that.

Forget it... in future I will think twice before trying to help others.

Don't throw a hissy. A lot of new people come here trying to learn, and false statements will only throw them. A lot of us knew what you meant, but a new person will not know and then they go away thinking something that's not right.
Seriously, don't take it all so personally.

[SkipD]

Why is it these threads always degenerate into semantics and nit picking? You people know what I mean. One has to prefix everything with a disclaimer or risk being nitpicked to death.. and I am sick and tired of that.

Forget it... in future I will think twice before trying to help others.Nobody's attacking the concepts that you have been trying to get across. It's just that newbies read every word from the folks who they feel understand the answer to their question and - right or wrong - will believe every single word.

For example - when someone with a high post count on the forum writes that a lens is "actually something else" than what it really is when you put it on a different format camera, the newbies put that into their memory banks as the honest truth when in fact it is not.

It isn't hard to write things in a way that is as simple to read but does not distort the actual truth. Just look at what you write (before clicking on "submit reply") as if a person who knows nothing about what you are describing is reading it and help them learn the actual facts of the subject.

[FlipsidE]

Let me say this...thank you so much for all your input, everyone. I really appreciate all the opinions and facts that have been shared. This is a ton of great info. I'm not sure Full Frame is for me, but I'm extremely happy with all the information everyone has given me in this thread.

You all are great!

[poah]

FF sensor - less noise, more mp, less DOF for given aperture, wide lenses offer FOV with less distortion

crop - cheaper to make, greater DOF for given aperture, increase in FOV comapred to FF

For most people a crop sensor is the best because it is cheap, you can get equiv 35mm from 16mm up, you can used a small aperture in low light and get a great DOF compared to FF, how many people regularly print A4 or larger for their own use so mp is not really a true issue other than marketing. people get fooled by FF, its not the be all and end all of it all. for me upgrading my 20D I'd be looking at better more acurate AF, more FPS and a larger buffer = 1dmk2N not 1dsmk2 or 5D. a studio or still life photographer would probably want a 5D or 1dsmk2 however.

[ScottE]

dont be fooled by "you get the sweetspot of the lens" with the 1.6 crop to get 28mm view you now have to get a 17mm lens, which is usually much worse optically then the 28 would be. so you dont really gain anything, and the wide angle lenses seem to be more expensive as well. canon really needs to update their prime collection under 50mm.

That is because you are comparing a lenses designed for use on a full frame camera. A 17 mm EF-S lens built to the same standards as a 28 mm EF lens costing the same amount would be able to out-resolve the EF lens.

For example, compare a 60 mm f/2.8 EF-S macro lens and a 100 mm f/2.8 EF macro lens and the EF-S lens is capable of better resolution than the EF lens.

That does not mean that the EF-S camera is better. If you are making a very large print, say 24 x 36 inches, the image from the EF-S camera has to be enlarged more than the image from the EF camera. This means that despite the EF lens not having as fine resolution, the EF picture will have more fine detail.

This is not new for digital. If you compare lines per mm resolution from similar quality 35 mm, medium format and large format lenses, the smaller format lens will always have have better resolution. This attribute does not change when a lens is designed specifically for an even smaller format.

That is the reason that people who buy L lenses designed for EF cameras and avoid EF-S lenses for their EF-S capable cameras are actually compromising their resolution capabilities.

[ScottE]

Just think of it the "right" way. Use the right length lens, and you'll have all the megapixels. Then there's no fuss about cropping. Why crop at all? Just get it right in the camera (or at least close enough that you aren't cutting off half the image!).

That is correct, but there are some problems when it comes to telephoto lenses. Take a picture using a 500 mm f/4 IS lens on a 30D. Now compare it to a picture taken with an 800 mm f/4 IS lens of a 5D. This will be difficult since Canon does not make an 800 mm f/4 lens.

OK, let's compare photos from a 300 f/4 IS lens on the 30D and a 500 f/4 IS on the 5D. The 5D wins the resolution contest by a small amount, but look at the difference in cost. Full frame telephoto is very expensive.

Now, lets put the 300 mm/30D and 500 mm/5D in our backpacks and take them up to the top of that mountain and get some moutain goat pictures. I'll carry the pack with the 300 mm/30D and you can carry the 500 mm/5D. How come you can't keep up? Full frame telephoto is heavier and more bulky.

If EF-S delivers sufficient resolution for your purposes, it is more practical for telephoto work.

[steveathome]

Now, lets put the 300 mm/30D and 500 mm/5D in our backpacks and take them up to the top of that mountain and get some moutain goat pictures. I'll carry the pack with the 300 mm/30D and you can carry the 500 mm/5D. How come you can't keep up? Full frame telephoto is heavier and more bulky.

.

If it were a pro, the right gear for the job would be taken regardless, and more times than not it would be the 5D

[ScottE]

If it were a pro, the right gear for the job would be taken regardless, and more times than not it would be the 5D

Why? A medium format system will outperform a 5D by a huge margin. That is why you see top of the line studios and glamour photographers using medium format, not a 35 mm based system.

Many pros still use Nikon cameras and none of their DSLRs are full frame.

For remote expedition use where weight is important, most will choose the lightest outfit possible, often a mechanical 35 mm film camera, but now more are going to small DSLR's.

[steveathome]

There are obviously advantages and disadvantages to both formats. The 30D is a great camera, I know I've got one - but I still want a 5D.

Everyone to their own, but I have read so many testimonials now by pro's converting to digital, that absolutely love the 5D.

[Jon]

You are correct in saying that you can't get 14mm. But, you can get 16mm, and I have to ask, is 2mm really that much of a difference?
Since 5 pages on, noone's answered this: at the wide end of things, it really is. On a FF body, a 14 mm lens has a FoV (at 1000 ft) of 2571 ft; the 16 has a FoV of 2250. That 2 mm makes a difference of over 7 deg. AoV. (104 vs. 97 deg.).

[Jonathan Consiglio]

Use one for a week and you'll see the advantages!

[Jonathan Consiglio]

Now, lets put the 300 mm/30D and 500 mm/5D in our backpacks and take them up to the top of that mountain and get some moutain goat pictures. I'll carry the pack with the 300 mm/30D and you can carry the 500 mm/5D. How come you can't keep up? Full frame telephoto is heavier and more bulky.

Have you done this?? I have a 20D and a 5D. I'd take the 5D with the 300.. If you print from the 30D/300 and 5D/500 at their full resolution, the 5D will produce cleaner, larger prints. Now, put the 300 on both cameras. The prints at full resolution will be larger from the 5D and the subject in the print will be just as large as the subject from the 30D. Crop the 5's shot (I wouldn't, but for this thread) and print at same size and pixel count.. The images from the 5D will be cleaner that those from the 30D. And it's not a small difference, they are much better prints.

Now, of course you can Post Process the 30's shots for noise and saturation... I only shoot RAW and run it through a quick PP unless selective edits are required.. But if I shot a quick JPEG from both in low light at ISO 800, you will know which shot is from the 5D!

Wide angle capabilities was not a determining factor for my purchase of the 5D, but it's nice to know I have a wider field of view for those times a wide-angle lens is required. It's nice using a 24-70 for table shots and not having to switch to a 17-40, God forbid having to switch to an EF-S lens that I spent too much on and can only use on my 20D!

Remember, it's Field of View Crop Factor (FOVCF) not Focal Length Crop Factor (FLCF)!!

[Jonathan Consiglio]

Why? A medium format system will outperform a 5D by a huge margin. That is why you see top of the line studios and glamour photographers using medium format, not a 35 mm based system.

Why is that?? Because of the larger sensor.. Pixel Density.. Medium format is to 5D what the 5D is to the 30D.... Superior in image quality.

[Jonathan Consiglio]

Scott, I would hate lugging that 500mm Beast up a hillside though! Carrying a 70-200 IS 2.8, Battery Grip and a 580EX is very heavy as it is!! :) Excuse me if I come across defensive, but my 5D and I are very close! Happy Holidays!

[Jonathan Consiglio]

I'd be looking at better more acurate AF, more FPS and a larger buffer = 1dmk2N not 1dsmk2 or 5D. a studio or still life photographer would probably want a 5D or 1dsmk2 however.

Granted the AF of the 5D is not 45 point like the 1 series, but inside the circle there are 6 more invisible focusing points that are not displayed in the viewfinder, but are in Image Review. 95% of the time I only use 1 focusing point, and it's usually the center (plust the 6 invisible). The AF and tracking are very much improved over the 20D. I'll admit 3 fps isn't the fastest camera I've ever used, but it gets the job done! It definitely makes me more aware of my timing though. I shoot mostly weddings and Private Parties, but when I shoot surfing or other sports I still grab the 5D, and my clients and I are always happy with the results. 3 fps sounds kinda slow, but once you start using this camera regularly, it's really not as bad as it sounds!

[cosworth]

Why? A medium format system will outperform a 5D by a huge margin. That is why you see top of the line studios and glamour photographers using medium format, not a 35 mm based system.

No. Medium format film is beat (not my much) by Canon's FF cameras. Medium format digital backs? Yes, better than Canon's FF cameras.

[Jonathan Consiglio]

I was referring to digital backs also.. A friend of mine rents a H3D periodically for fashion shoots, and it is unbelievable!!

[FlipsidE]

I was referring to digital backs also.. A friend of mine rents a H3D periodically for fashion shoots, and it is unbelievable!!I so envy your friend. I'd love to just hold an H3D in my hands.

[Bob_A]

I am surprised it took so long into the thread for someone to say that!

Ummm ... look at post #12 on the first page :)

[mij]

Ummm ... look at post #12 on the first page :)

Sorry Bob, I missed that. I guess that explains why no one else said it, you had already answered the question!

Michael.

[ScottE]

No. Medium format film is beat (not my much) by Canon's FF cameras. Medium format digital backs? Yes, better than Canon's FF cameras.

That's what I meant. Sorry I wasn't more specific.

The point is that a larger format using the same technology will always outperform the smaller technology. However, a larger format system will always be heavier, more bulky and more expensive that a smaller format system that will do the same thing. We all have to make a compromise between quality, convenience and price. For years in the film world the compromise chosen by the majority of photographers was 35 mm film. Smaller formats were tried, but failed due to image quality. Larger formats were always available, but were never as successful because of cost and the inconvenience of carrying more bulky cameras and lenses, and especially for wildlife and other telephoto users the fact that long medium format telephoto lenses were not available.

With digital things have changed. For colour photography the large prints from a 30D, Xt or XTi are just as good or better than anything produced by having prints made from 35 mm transparencies. This has made the APS-C sized sensors the logical compromise between cost and performance for the majority of DSLR photographers, as shown by the volume of sales. That does not mean full frame is not better. It just means that most photographers do not need and are not willing to pay for the image quality of full frame.