Why would i need full frame?

[QUOTE=Breitling65;406​3223][QUOTE=Tobiah;405​4786]

I can get as wide as I want with my sigma 10 to 22mm

Same here - 5D + 12-24mm Sigma is WIDE.

[QUOTE=JasonSTL739;406​3381][QUOTE=Breitling6​5;4063223]

Tobiah wrote in post #4054786
I can get as wide as I want with my sigma 10 to 22mm


Same here - 5D + 12-24mm Sigma is WIDE.

There's never been a wider rectilinear lens for 35mm! It's quite an achievement.

AdamLewis wrote in post #4060388
Ok, I see what youre saying about composition. However, Im just saying for the same lens, the smaller format camera will give you the shallower DOF, correct?

Since it won't be the same picture, whether the DoF's the same, larger, or smaller is pretty much meaningless. It's like comparing a Corvette and a Suburban. Even with essentially the same engine, the 'Vette isn't going to haul 7 people, but the Suburban can't match it for 0-60.

Jon_Doh wrote in post #4055360
On Ken Rockwell's site he has an article titled "Fullframe Advantage" where he makes the statement that a full frame camera like the 5D will make better pictures with a consumer lens than a crop camera using a pro lens. I found the statement hard to accept since crop cameras use the sweet spot of the lens and therefore should be sharper, but he makes his point by showing pictures from his Nikon d200 with ED lens compared to his 5D with a consumer lens. The 5D pictures did show much more detail and were noticeably sharper. If this is true then this is a big reason to have a full frame camera.

Rockwell known as person with most ridiculous and "not smart" reviews and statements about cameras on Internet. Unfortunately people continue posting his lame reviews and opinions everywhere. He is not as good photographer in my opinion as well, oversaturated images & bad compositions that is Ken Rockwell.

[QUOTE=JasonSTL739;406​3381][QUOTE=Breitling6​5;4063223]

Tobiah wrote in post #4054786
I can get as wide as I want with my sigma 10 to 22mm

Same here - 5D + 12-24mm Sigma is WIDE.

Since we are going wide direction limits, nothing is wider that fisheye on FF camera.

[QUOTE=Breitling65;406​6387][QUOTE=JasonSTL73​9;4063381]

Breitling65 wrote in post #4063223
Since we are going wide direction limits, nothing is wider that fisheye on FF camera.

rectilinear

[QUOTE=mikeassk;406641​3][QUOTE=Breitling65;4​066387]

JasonSTL739 wrote in post #4063381
rectilinear

Do you know any lens with this effect?

SkipD wrote in post #4055614
This is not correct. The only thing that affects perspective is the distance between the viewer (or camera, of course) and the subject. Focal length alone has nothing to do with perspective.

What I meant was Perspective compression, not just 'perspective'.

Longer lenses render more flattering portraits because they 'flatten' features'. I think a quick example would be a comparison between a photo out of a P&S that has a very short lens, compared with a photo out of a FF camera.

Assuming the same FOV, the features of a face will undoubtedly be more pronounced on the image from the P&S compared to that out of the FF camera.

Additionally, the P&S image will include more elements in the background compared to the FF image, and the elements in the former image will appear further apart, in contrast to a FF image where the elements will seem closer together.

fWord wrote in post #4068100
What I meant was Perspective compression, not just 'perspective'.

Longer lenses render more flattering portraits because they 'flatten' features'. I think a quick example would be a comparison between a photo out of a P&S that has a very short lens, compared with a photo out of a FF camera.

Assuming the same FOV, the features of a face will undoubtedly be more pronounced on the image from the P&S compared to that out of the FF camera.

Additionally, the P&S image will include more elements in the background compared to the FF image, and the elements in the former image will appear further apart, in contrast to a FF image where the elements will seem closer together.

Take any two cameras or any camera with two different lenses. Shoot two photos of the same subject from the same position. Crop the photo that appears to be taken with a wider angle lens so that it has the same amount of the subject as the image with less of the subject. The two photos will have precisely the same "perspective compression".

The thing you need to realize is that "perspective compression" is NOT a function of the focal length you are using. It is, however, totally a function of the distance between you and the various elements of the subject (near, far, etc.). Back away from the primary subject and the background elements will appear to be closer to the subject.

I know you probably don't believe it now, but if you actually do the experiments I have suggested, you will become a believer. You could do two shots of a subject using a 200mm lens and a 20mm lens from a single location and the results will prove my point when you do the crop properly.

SkipD wrote in post #4068507
Take any two cameras or any camera with two different lenses. Shoot two photos of the same subject from the same position. Crop the photo that appears to be taken with a wider angle lens so that it has the same amount of the subject as the image with less of the subject. The two photos will have precisely the same "perspective compression".

The thing you need to realize is that "perspective compression" is NOT a function of the focal length you are using. It is, however, totally a function of the distance between you and the various elements of the subject (near, far, etc.). Back away from the primary subject and the background elements will appear to be closer to the subject.

I know you probably don't believe it now, but if you actually do the experiments I have suggested, you will become a believer. You could do two shots of a subject using a 200mm lens and a 20mm lens from a single location and the results will prove my point when you do the crop properly.

Agree to disagree. Certainly I will need to do an objective test. Not that I have the lenses or will be able to invest the time to do so.

However I am fairly sure that a 600mm lens on a FF camera would generate an image with more developed bokeh and greater degree of perspective compression than a setup achieving a 600mm FOV on a 1.6X crop camera (eg. a 100-400mm zoom @ 375mm on a 40D), given the same aperture settings. If anyone has samples to show, I would be deeply interested to see them, for if there wasn't this advantage to owning a FF system, I should definitely change to a 30D at the beginning of next year. FF systems are expensive and heavier in general, compared to an APS-C system yielding the same FOV equivalents.

I would have thought that this is where one of the biggest differences between a FF and APS-C setup lies, and not necessarily in better IQ or better noise control (which are also dependent on advancements in technology rather than the format alone).

fWord wrote in post #4068560
Agree to disagree. Certainly I will need to do an objective test. Not that I have the lenses or will be able to invest the time to do so.

However I am fairly sure that a 600mm lens on a FF camera would generate an image with more developed bokeh and greater degree of perspective compression than a setup achieving a 600mm FOV on a 1.6X crop camera (eg. a 100-400mm zoom @ 375mm on a 40D), given the same aperture settings. If anyone has samples to show, I would be deeply interested to see them, for if there wasn't this advantage to owning a FF system, I should definitely change to a 30D at the beginning of next year. FF systems are expensive and heavier in general, compared to an APS-C system yielding the same FOV equivalents.

I would have thought that this is where one of the biggest differences between a FF and APS-C setup lies, and not necessarily in better IQ or better noise control (which are also dependent on advancements in technology rather than the format alone).

Here's something you can test without even having a camera:

To test the perspective of a potential image, you can stand in a test location and look at your subject through a "frame" that you either make with your hands (with your thumbs making an "L" out of each hand) or possibly by using two framing squares (a carpenter's tool) and see the perspective that you will achieve from that location. Study the relationship between foreground and background object sizes.

Once you have found a location that looks the way you want it to through the "frame", try expanding the frame and then concentrating on the portion of the image that you initially framed. You will find that there is absolutely no difference in the "perspective compression". This is precisely the same as if you put a shorter focal length lens on the camera.

Now, move to half the distance between yourself and the subject and do the framing thing again. You will see that the "perspective compression" changes. Perspective, in the sense of relational size changes between foreground and background objects, is totally a function of distance between the viewer (camera) and the subject.

There are, of course, other perspective issues related to the angle of viewing something such as a tall building. That is totally different from what we've been discussing.

Do the two-lens experiment some time, though. You will, if you do the test properly, become a total believer in what I have been saying.

The "bokeh" issue is totally unrelated to the perspective thing. That has to do with the physical characteristics of the lens used, the aperture chosen, etc. You can have two images with precisely the same perspective and different bokeh characteristics. That doesn't change the perspective/distance thing one bit, though.

http://jamesmskipper.t​ripod.com …mskipper/perspe​ctive.html

http://web.canon.jp …g/enjoydslr/par​t3/3B.html - look "The sensor size also affects the 'coverage' even with the same lens."

http://web.canon.jp …g/enjoydslr/par​t3/3C.html - Scroll to the bottom.

This should, resolve this once and for all. Maybe not...

bwolford wrote in post #4068707
http://web.canon.jp …g/enjoydslr/par​t3/3C.html - Scroll to the bottom.

This should, resolve this once and for all. Maybe not...

There is a significant problem with newbies being able to understand the Canon illustration in the link above. While the illustration shows the camera being backed away from the subject a little bit, there is no text stating that the camera was moved (and by how much) between the various shots.

Canon erred, in my opinion, by leading one to believe that focal length is the only variable in the shots. The distance between the camera and the girl is being radically changed for each of the shots.

The fact is that the distance between the camera and main subject (the girl) has to be doubled when the focal length is doubled in order to maintain the same image size of the girl.

SkipD wrote in post #4068760
There is a significant problem with newbies being able to understand the Canon illustration in the link above. While the illustration shows the camera being backed away from the subject a little bit, there is no text stating that the camera was moved (and by how much) between the various shots.

Canon erred, in my opinion, by leading one to believe that focal length is the only variable in the shots. The distance between the camera and the girl is being radically changed for each of the shots.

The fact is that the distance between the camera and main subject (the girl) has to be doubled when the focal length is doubled in order to maintain the same image size of the girl.

I agree Skip, but it illustrates what you've been saying about the subject and it would be up to the newbie to determine how much they needed to move to keep the same subject the same size in order to test/see the results in perspective changes. Fortunately, just above it shows how angle of view is effected by staying put and changing lenses.

It's not perfect, but at least it demonstrates the concept.

This makes me a believer...

http://www.digitaljour​nalist.org/issue0710/t​ech-tips.html