Why would i need full frame?

89 posts, 2 or 3 of which address the root question: What is so fundamentally fabulous about fullframe that I should pony up the extra cash? To answer that you need to explain more than circular arguments about DOF. So, besides an ability to use DOF differently, what makes the 5D such a phenomenon? And the first guy that says DOF gets my rottweiller gnawing on your backside.

timbop wrote in post #4114546
So, besides an ability to use DOF differently, what makes the 5D such a phenomenon? And the first guy that says DOF gets my rottweiller gnawing on your backside.

Um...depth of field?

*runs away*

timbop wrote in post #4114546
89 posts, 2 or 3 of which address the root question: What is so fundamentally fabulous about fullframe that I should pony up the extra cash? To answer that you need to explain more than circular arguments about DOF. So, besides an ability to use DOF differently, what makes the 5D such a phenomenon? And the first guy that says DOF gets my rottweiller gnawing on your backside.

Good point. My view is that the whole FF thing is largely hype. If you can get the pictures you want with a crop camera, there is no reason to change - and the crop cameras are getting better all the time.

timbop wrote in post #4114546
What is so fundamentally fabulous about fullframe that I should pony up the extra cash? <...> So, besides an ability to use DOF differently, what makes the 5D such a phenomenon? And the first guy that says DOF gets my rottweiller gnawing on your backside.

Apart from the ability to achieve shallow DoF (:p), the sensor is bigger (duh) so, pixel count being equal, you get bigger pixels. Hence less noise (technology being the same).

Also, you obviously get a bigger, mostly brighter, viewfinder. Which makes composition a lot easier.

Lastly, you have the ability to use fast wide lenses. (Sigma 20/1.8 or EF 16-35 f/2.8 really have no comparable EF-s alternative. All you get is some slower 10-20mm zooms.) This is a big one...

I have no problems with 1.6 crop camera's. They have the advantage of giving more DoF sometimes, and the option to use lighter lenses (smaller image circle): The 17-55 EF-s is about 2/3 the weight of a 24-70L... *And* it has IS.

Another thing I do miss is some fast lenses who really take advantage of the fact that a smaller image circle should be making lens design easier: It should be possible to make a 30mm f/1.0 or 45-125 f/2.0 or so.
Then you'ld have a faster, smaller, maybe even lighter lens that gives the same DoF and FoV as a 50/1.4 or 70-200 f/2.8 resp. on FF. Then I'ld buy a 1.6 cropper in a heartbeat...

timbop wrote in post #4114546
89 posts, 2 or 3 of which address the root question: What is so fundamentally fabulous about fullframe that I should pony up the extra cash? To answer that you need to explain more than circular arguments about DOF. So, besides an ability to use DOF differently, what makes the 5D such a phenomenon? And the first guy that says DOF gets my rottweiller gnawing on your backside.

I think "phenomenon" is a little hyped up, but for me what makes the 5D special is that it just seems so well suited to landscapes & portraits that when I go back to using a cropped body I just dont get on as well with that as I do the 5D, composition is so much easier on the 5D as well as manual focus, all largely due to the excellent VF.

I have also mounted my L lens on a cropped body (350D & 30D) & the results while decent enough dont come near the level of detail that I get with the same lens mounted on the 5D.

Another thing which ive experienced is my keeper rate has gone right up compared to a 350D & a 30D, believe it or not but I have a 98-99% keeper rate, the 1-2% being my fault.

I can also get away with less lenses on the 5D to achieve the results I want & the 5D doesnt require the best lenses that money has to buy, its quite the opposite.

If I was into sports/wildlife shots or just general stuff then a cropped body would be a better choice, but for what im using it for the 5D is perfect & none of the previous cropped bodies I have owned have even come close to the results im getting now.

You wont really get a decent solid response from a topic such as this, those that have put all there money into a APS-C system will no doubt defend it to the death & wont see any real reason to go full frame, I say use what works best for you, but since I have been in both camps if you like, I wouldnt want to go back to an APS-C camera after using a full frame, it just suits my photography much better than any cropped body ever has.

Nick_C wrote in post #4117124
You wont really get a decent solid response from a topic such as this, those that have put all there money into a APS-C system will no doubt defend it to the death & wont see any real reason to go full frame, I say use what works best for you, but since I have been in both camps if you like, I wouldnt want to go back to an APS-C camera after using a full frame, it just suits my photography much better than any cropped body ever has.

That's true...and an APS-C setup is actually good enough for the vast majority of us. While I made the trip to try FF for a while, I still see the advantages of using a crop camera and its lenses.

Horses for courses...there is no real need for a FF camera system, but some differences do exist. Those who appreciate the differences may spend the extra dough for it, but that's down to individual preferences.

I think of it as the equivalent of the old film choice between 35mm and medium format. Those who were prepared to take on the additional weight and size and cost in pursuit of the extra image quality would go for MF, while those who appreciated the convenience and all-round abilities of 35mm were in the majority.

There's no right or wrong, or best or worst - just a choice for each photographer to make for himself.

It's very simple. The larger the format the better the detail in the photos. Back in the film days, 35mm photographers would always discuss lens quality in order to bring out the most in the small format- always trying to equal the quality of pictures in medium format. Medium format lenses are known to not resolve as well as high end 35mm lenses, yet when comparing similar photos taken with the two different formats, there was never an argument as to which photo was more pleasing to look at. Especially as the photos are enlarged. DOF is a non issue.

Mark

have we finished now? lol

masterkraft wrote in post #4121460
have we finished now? lol

What do you think?

When this thread dies, lets move over to another thread, how about "should I use a UV filter or not" with another 150+ pages of useful advice

QTVR's go quicker and have less stiching to worry about. Single shot wide-angles with a 15mm fisheye are wider.

Mark35 wrote in post #4121075
Medium format lenses are known to not resolve as well as high end 35mm lenses
Mark

Really? What about the Carl Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad?

Same there.