Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 14 Mar 2011 (Monday) 19:07
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I still don't understand the point of the full frame camera

 
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,598 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 323
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Mar 14, 2011 22:29 |  #61

cameraperson wrote in post #12020436 (external link)
If it is more about the photographer than the camera, then I don't understand why someone would pay big money for a full frame camera. In other words, I don't understand why they are using it. Maybe they can get great results from an XTi but they can get spectacular results from a FF camera. But, again, I don't know why they would get better with the FF camera.

edit: btw, I know what ff is and it relation to 35mm photography but don't understand why it matters compared to other cropped cameras.

I don't know exactly why, I just like pictures from 5Dc more compare to any 1.6 crop camera.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
RandyMN
Goldmember
3,131 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2005
     
Mar 14, 2011 22:32 |  #62

picturecrazy wrote in post #12021587 (external link)
I think people seem to feel that full frame is a BETTER and SUPERIOR format. It isn't. It's just different.

APS-C 1.6 crop is smaller. But it's just as VALID of a format as full frame. It's just different.

Each have their own sets of advantages and drawbacks. But I'd NEVER EVER say one is superior to the other. Both are well within the range of delivering very high quality professional-grade imagery.

I think people just gotta stop thinking of FF as superior and just remember that 1.6 crop is just as valid of a format as 35mm. Remember, at one point 35mm was considered to be the crappy format for soccer moms and the clueless public.

Different, not superior.

Yes, both are fully capable... Any one wish to trade my 50D for a 5D MKII? I definitely see superiority and I'd love to work with two FF so my back-up is as capable as my 5D ff.

Eventually I will have a second FF body. And I do recall those times when 35 mm was considered crappy fomat... and back then I also invested into a medium format. And it wasn't that 35 mm wasn't fully capable... but medium format was definitely an improvement for weddings with it's larger size negative to handle higher film speeds with less grain.

It is what it is!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,565 posts
Likes: 708
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Mar 14, 2011 22:50 |  #63

RandyMN wrote in post #12021686 (external link)
Yes, both are fully capable... Any one wish to trade my 50D for a 5D MKII? I definitely see superiority and I'd love to work with two FF so my back-up is as capable as my 5D ff.

Eventually I will have a second FF body. And I do recall those times when 35 mm was considered crappy fomat... and back then I also invested into a medium format. And it wasn't that 35 mm wasn't fully capable... but medium format was definitely an improvement for weddings with it's larger size negative to handle higher film speeds with less grain.

It is what it is!

(Not talking specifically to RandyMN...)

Superiority in what? High ISO noise? Yes, FF tends to be better. But like I said, each format has their pros and cons. People seem to define ONE feature as THE DEFINING FEATURE THAT IMPLIES SUPERIORITY. Cleaner high ISO does not automatically make it superior, nor does the ability to shoot at 24mm at F/1.4.

Using the same logic, I could say that the higher pixel density of crops can pick up more detail in small, distant objects, so therefore, CROPS ARE SUPERIOR. But I know that logic is flawed, so I don't make the statement. Yet people automatically call FF superior because of the few things it does better. Yet if a crop shooter does the same thing, they get flamed.

How about dynamic range? 35mm FF is CLEARLY INFERIOR in dynamic range compared to the latest MF phase one backs. If a MF shooter said 35mm "Full frame" is totally inferior, I'm sure a billion 35mm shooters would say things like "I don't want to carry bigger lenses, I don't want to pay the big price premium, I want a higher FPS shooting capability for my dollar, etc... Guess what? These are the exact same things people can say about APS-C compared to FF. Yet does that make 35mm automatically inferior to medium fomat? Hell no. I'll say it again... IT'S NOT SUPERIOR, IT'S JUST DIFFERENT!

And different people have different needs, though the attitude seems to be like, "superior people have superior needs".


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bendel
Senior Member
Avatar
323 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Wisconsin
     
Mar 14, 2011 23:05 |  #64

picturecrazy wrote in post #12021786 (external link)
And different people have different needs

The most important part of this post. Different people DO have different needs and different formats DO have different advantages. If the format fits their needs better than the others, why can't it be superior to them?

If I were a race car driver, saying that a sports car is superior to a minivan is a very valid statement. Is it the ideal tool for everyone? No. But for me that would be exactly what I need and its features would make it superior.


Brandon
Canon 5D, 24-105 F4L, 70-200 F4L, 85 F1.8, 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,565 posts
Likes: 708
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Mar 14, 2011 23:13 |  #65

Bendel wrote in post #12021874 (external link)
The most important part of this post. Different people DO have different needs and different formats DO have different advantages. If the format fits their needs better than the others, why can't it be superior to them?

If I were a race car driver, saying that a sports car is superior to a minivan is a very valid statement. Is it the ideal tool for everyone? No. But for me that would be exactly what I need and its features would make it superior.

I agree with you completely.

But the norm is that people pass of FF as superior. Period. People play it up like FF is the holy grail of photography that everyone should strive to eventually reach. It's often touted as the simple answer to everyone's problems. How many times have you heard "just upgrade to FF" without a proper explanation of how it would actually be practical? It's because the person saying "just upgrade to FF" usually DOESN'T EVEN KNOW the reasons why, they are just spouting off what they've been told... that FF is just automatically a superior format.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyMN
Goldmember
3,131 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2005
     
Mar 14, 2011 23:21 |  #66

picturecrazy wrote in post #12021920 (external link)
I agree with you completely.

But the norm is that people pass of FF as superior. Period. People play it up like FF is the holy grail of photography that everyone should strive to eventually reach. It's often touted as the simple answer to everyone's problems. How many times have you heard "just upgrade to FF" without a proper explanation of how it would actually be practical? It's because the person saying "just upgrade to FF" usually DOESN'T EVEN KNOW the reasons why, they are just spouting off what they've been told... that FF is just automatically a superior format.

So no point in telling anyone to switch their point and shoot to an SLR because they are just 'different'. Perhaps the smaller size makes the portability 'superior'.

I was looking at one point and shoot model that actually goes under water. Now that's superior if your in a kayak.

Most people do assume superior means color, noise, resolution and and of course your comment about dynamic range I'd need to have clarified.

But let me just say from experience from using a 20D, 40D, 50D and now 5D MKII, the 5D is superior for the types of photography I see.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyMN
Goldmember
3,131 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2005
     
Mar 14, 2011 23:24 |  #67

But to give your argument some merit, my niece who is in high school and very interested in photography, emailed me and asked if I had anything 5D or better that I wanted to get rid of and upgrade.

I sent her a reply asking why she was interested in FF. She asked what that was...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
walex19
Senior Member
416 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
     
Mar 15, 2011 00:16 as a reply to  @ post 12020663 |  #68

IQ, IQ, IQ + your lenses work the way they are meant to.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
booja
Goldmember
1,638 posts
Likes: 102
Joined Jan 2008
Location: houston, tx
     
Mar 15, 2011 01:05 |  #69

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12021321 (external link)
I love these types of discussions about APS-C and FF, back when I had the 7D and the 5D2. Here is a quick test between the APS-C and FF.

The equipment: 5D2 vs the XTi, using the 70-200 f2.8 and the 580EX, both at ISO 1600, 1/25th, f2.8, shot in raw, adjusted the wb for both, then saved out to JPG via DPP.

I resized the 5D2 down to match the size of the XTi, giving the 5D2 even a further advantage. I ran both through the same exact action. Many base their conclusions by comparing different images by different folks with different glass, or they shoot with their own same glass they did on with a crop body, but different situations. I always think it is best to compare the two under the same conditions with the same glass in order to draw my conclusions.

You decide your own conclusions from these results. I can see the better noise handling from the 5D2, which is no surprise, the color differences (partly different wb, didn't shoot a custom wb, and should have), and then the DOF differences. Nothing else really stands out that much. Sure this is just one limited test, I understand that. :)

The 5D2 and XTi images...

im with him... i see nice noise handling and dof differences but as far as IQ is concerned a modern crop and FF camera can produce great images as long as you know what youre doing.

i always see people rant on and on about how much better the IQ is on FF cameras. so many threads started on here about how they want to jump to FF after owning a great camera like a 7d and a kit lens for only a few months. with a nice lens and some PP (which many people do) you can hardly tell the difference unless you like viewing things at 200% or you make life size prints... and if you do youd be better off with a medium format camera.

ive had many people SAY they want FF so bad and when i ask why they cannot answer the question. they say IQ and i show some pics and they cant even point out which pic was taken with which camera.

i would never talk anyone out of a FF camera but it seems most people dont need it and have some misconception that it makes their pics better and make them a better photog... :confused:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JustinRageth
Senior Member
Avatar
636 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: SE Wisconsin
     
Mar 15, 2011 01:09 |  #70

kf095 wrote in post #12021671 (external link)
I don't know exactly why, I just like pictures from 5Dc more compare to any 1.6 crop camera.

That is just perception...its like saying you need a lambo to get to work when you also have a toyota...they both get you there on time, and in a safe manner, but you look better behind the wheel of the lambo


T4i Gripped, Sigma 17-70mm, 70-200 f/4L, 50mm 1.8
Panasonic TZ5
Flicker (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vegasboy
Goldmember
Avatar
2,366 posts
Likes: 42
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Mar 15, 2011 01:59 |  #71

pixelmechanic wrote in post #12021370 (external link)
You mean the 7Ds .. . :p

will it be ff? :eek:


-Alex
5D3 Gripped | 7D Gripped | 35 f/1.4L | 85 f/1.2L II | 24-105 f/4L | 17-40 f/4L | 70-200 f/4L | Alienbees |
Fotosbyalex.com (external link) | Flickr (external link) |
Like my Facebook (external link) | Instagram @evoalex (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
muusers
Goldmember
Avatar
1,024 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Haarlem, Netherlands
     
Mar 15, 2011 02:10 |  #72

walex19 wrote in post #12022218 (external link)
IQ, IQ, IQ + your lenses work the way they are meant to.

So i should buy a 5dII for my EF-S 17-55 or EF-S 10-22?


50D + 17-55 | s100 | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
olelovold
Senior Member
270 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Mar 15, 2011 04:32 |  #73

I'd say FF is superior because you can achieve thinner DOF, better colours, higher dynamic range, better high ISOs, higher resolution. And you can push the files a lot more in post.

Comparing MF v FF to FF v APS-C is silly. The cheapest MF system costs at least 8 grand, while a 5Dc can be had for much less than many crop cameras.


My site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bang ­ Bang ­ Boy
Goldmember
Avatar
1,347 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: South Africa
     
Mar 15, 2011 05:04 |  #74

picturecrazy wrote in post #12021587 (external link)
I think people seem to feel that full frame is a BETTER and SUPERIOR format. It isn't. It's just different.

APS-C 1.6 crop is smaller. But it's just as VALID of a format as full frame. It's just different.

Each have their own sets of advantages and drawbacks. But I'd NEVER EVER say one is superior to the other. Both are well within the range of delivering very high quality professional-grade imagery.

I think people just gotta stop thinking of FF as superior and just remember that 1.6 crop is just as valid of a format as 35mm. Remember, at one point 35mm was considered to be the crappy format for soccer moms and the clueless public.

Different, not superior.

True, hell if Digital wouldn't have come by maybe we would have seen more APS SLR's on the market. I love the reach an APS-C sensor gives you. Makes it a whole lot cheaper getting long focal ranges.


Lots of old stuff but hey I am a student
Photojournalist in Johannesburg.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,598 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 323
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Mar 15, 2011 09:39 |  #75

JustinRageth wrote in post #12022426 (external link)
That is just perception...its like saying you need a lambo to get to work when you also have a toyota...they both get you there on time, and in a safe manner, but you look better behind the wheel of the lambo

If this was the case for me, I would have to buy 7D then.
Instead I went with 5Dc which is about same price as used 7D, but nowhere fast and furious as 7D, nor even box of new technologies.
But I like pictures from 5Dc more.

If you like cars anthologies - it is true Landcruser 70 compare to fake modern Lexus SUV.
It is old and simple, rusty, yet capable.
Yes, I don't need AF as fast as Lotus cars, but I need my Nifty-Fifty to be fifty, not useless eighty at fifty.

The only two reasons why 1.6 exists is because:
1. it is easy and less expensive to make in mass production numbers.
2. Canon can't make inexpensive fast AF and high fps on FF.

1.6 Crop is consumer format. Yes, some people with low budget using it to get pro jobs and it is fine. Gifted people often don't have a lot of money.
And as OP has mentioned at his initial post - it will provide great results. This is why I'm very happy with my 500D as well.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

15,636 views & 0 likes for this thread
I still don't understand the point of the full frame camera
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Guashumerda
787 guests, 193 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.