Contemplating Full Frame-edness

Nobody seem to mention the better background blur you get from a full-frame sensor. That is a HUGE reason for me to want the 5D.

Ro1

That about sums it up as far as framing goes, but it is still dependent on a bunch of other factors. The folks standing along the sideline with those big white lenses are most likely shooting with 1D Mk II's and not 20D's - which means they share the same pixel density as the 5D, but with a smaller sensor area. In terms of framing, there's no gain or loss since a cropped 5D is exactly the same as the 1D II. Meaning that if you're satisfied with the long-lens use on the 1D II, you'll be satisfied with the 5D as well.

In terms of nature, it agains depends on what you're wanting to shoot. Certainly, reaching out to touch a distant bird in flight benifits the 20D user over the 5D, 1D II, or 1Ds in terms of getting the greatest number of pixels on the subject. So if getting the most pixels on a distant subject is your sole concern, the 20D (and its successor, probably) will be the best choice.

Given that 80-90% of my shooting falls into a range of roughly 24-200 mm on full frame, it doesn't make sense to NOT shoot with the bigger sensor - FOR ME. Especially when I consider the other factors that contribute to image quality and the shooting experience - finer-grained, cleaner ISO-3200 images, greater room for cropping, the ability to use the DOF scale on my lenses again, the bigger viewfinder, more DOF control, and the increased (modestly) feature set of the 5D. And I've lost nothing in pixel density from my previous camera, the 1D II.

I've owned four crop cameras and now own a 5D and I would NEVER go back. Full frame has opened up a whole new world of photography for me. It used to be, I only used my 50 1.4 lens for portrait work (which I didn't do that much anyway), now it's my walking around lens and it's an INCREDIBLE walking around lens. I never knew how useful a 70-200 could be till I used it on a full frame camera. With a crop camera, it was too long for closer work and not long enough for things like birding.
Full frame gets me the most out of the lenses I love.

Dont think about it...I thought about it, read too much about it and just got a 5d a month ago. Have not used my 1dmkIIn much since.

Not quite, Harry! My comment stated that your feet don't move and you want the same material in the image. You're comment about cropping, the way you're using it, doesn't work. If I put the 50mm on the FF and then on the APS-C, I must crop the FF image to get the same scene capture. You are correct, with the FF, you do get more pixels. . .but you get more scene capture from a given lens, too! In point of fact, you have less pixel density in the image captured in the FF than you do for the APS-C with any given lens. This is inescapable.

Chris' comment about "it depends" makes sense, larger sensors, less noise, etcetera. The difference in image quality does depend on more than just pixels. And you do address that in your post. But your "if you chose to crop" and "I want to use the whole frame aren't on point to my post, which you quote.

I certainly agree with you, you certainly can get more pixels per scene capture with a different lens lineup. No doubt. If instead of my 35mm, the FF fellow has a 50mm, and instead of my 50mm the FF fellow has an 85mm, then they'll get the same scene capture without moving their feet. And then they'll have more pixels.

The "Aha" moment for me was understanding that for any given lens lineup the FF will always give you less pixel density than the APS-C for the same scene captured. The really interesting thing to me is the tradeoff between sensor size (inversely related to pixel count on same-sized sensors) and noise levels.

It surprises me that the 'crop' concept generates so much confusion on the forums. It seems pretty straightforward to me, but I'm a very mathematical thinker. I guess the 'right hemisphere' folks have trouble with it. On the other hand, I often find myself running down a rabbit hole of correct fact, but missing the 'big picture' entirely. Guess that's why these forums are so helpful!

John

It is certainly one of the other advantages of full frame, and is similar to the bokeh advantage a 1.6 crop camera has over a P&S.

Exactly!

This is why FF appeals to me. I'm NOT a birder, and for 99% of what I shoot I have no need to go over 200mm with a FF camera. And if I do, I have a 1.4X TC I can put on my 70-200.

This is true I agree. But as someone pointed out to me it is easier to get more depth of field at wide f-stops which is an advantage for some subjects in lower light levels. Personally I tend to find the more scope for isolating the subject with blur the better but as always it depends.

I'm learning a lot here, but I've not heard about the difference between background blur or DOF differences between the 1.6 crop and the FF. Can someone elaborate on that a bit?

Is it still true if you change lenses? In other words, if you use a 50mm on an APS-C sensor and then use an 85mm on the FF sensor, are there still differnces? This is a terrific thread. For us newcomers to digital. Thanks!

John

There are some plots on my site showing how blur increases away from the subject http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk …aphy/dof.htm#Fi​gure%203-2.

Put simply for the same angle of view and perspective you have to use a longer lens with a larger format sensor. The longer lens will give increased blur away from the subject.

So in the two plots http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk …phy/dof.htm#Fig​ure%204-1a and http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk …phy/dof.htm#Fig​ure%204-1b consider the curves for 50mm for APS-C and 85mm for FF.

I went through all this reasoning to convince myself that I would want to go full frame one day.

The DOF of field is greater on an APS sensor because you are using a wider angled lens to achieve the same crop... The wider the angle of the lens the greater the DOF...

I would love to go FF and hopefully one day I will. I shoot a lot of landscapes and would love to put an ultra-wide lens on a 5d. At over $3,000 I can "afford' it, but just can't justify the cost at the moment.

Or, if you need more depth of field, to not want a 5D. For practical purposes I would use aperture and composition to control depth of field rather than camera selection.

I agree with a lot of what Tom is saying here. I’m actually coming at the 5d from a different viewpoint though many here view the road to this model as an upgrade path from their current camera.

I’ve been a serious photographer for more than 35 years, having shot weddings and events for 31 of those. I’m about ready to make my first digital purchase and it will likely be the 5D.

The world of medium format is pretty much all I’ve known since the mid ‘70’s. Most of my shooting takes place in the MF range of 60mm (I use this as my "normal" lens) to 150mm. This would equate to about 35mm - 90mm in the 35mm world, or thereabouts. So the 1.6 crop is almost a non issue for me.

My lab takes my 2 ¼ negs, scans them at 30MB and returns them to me on CD as 6MB jpegs. So given this sort of work flow, I’m looking for something in that MP range, with a little bit of heft, that won’t get lost in my hands, with a large viewfinder, and controls and LCD readouts I can still see. The latest digital Hasselblad at $26,995 is a little too rich for my blood. And it really is not practical to buy digital backs for my current Hasselblads.

Although a fine camera, the 20D is just a little too ergonomically small for me. This is very noticeable in the LCD and viewfinder. For some it’s perfect, but for what I am accustomed to the 5D is more desirable. And as for FF, it is all I’ve ever shot so I may as well stick with it. It is not the main reason I’m considering the 5D, but certainly a desirable feature for MY preferences.

Stu Pearl

You get a bit better range of DOF with the the 5D. On the shallow end, you'll get the rough equivalent of having 2/3 stops wider aperture in terms of narrow DOF available with the same lens aperture due to having to use a somewhat longer lens for the same field of view as the APS-C. On the deep end of the DOF scale, you can use smaller apertures before diffraction begins to negatively effect the image, due to larger photosites.