Why would i need full frame?

I've read about this too, I think it was on luminous-landscape.

Back on topic: I haven't really summed up my reasons why I want full frame, but I've accumulated a lot of... uh, repulsion, I guess, against smaller than 35mm sensors. My 5D is on the way... I'll tell you exactly how I feel about full frame once I'll have shot a couple of nice ones.

Look at it this way, would you rather have a tiny, tiny sensor, that gives you extreme telephoto and you have to multiply all glass you have by a factor to get 'approximately' what translates to 35mm size?

Generally speaking, 35mm sensor is THE way to go. At one point of stuffing more and more photosites on one APS-C sensor (forgot at what point exactly) diffraction is going to become a serious issue and there will only be one way to add more megapixels - larger sensor.

karusel wrote in post #4127976
I've read about this too, I think it was on luminous-landscape.

Back on topic: I haven't really summed up my reasons why I want full frame, but I've accumulated a lot of... uh, repulsion, I guess, against smaller than 35mm sensors. My 5D is on the way... I'll tell you exactly how I feel about full frame once I'll have shot a couple of nice ones.

Look at it this way, would you rather have a tiny, tiny sensor, that gives you extreme telephoto and you have to multiply all glass you have by a factor to get 'approximately' what translates to 35mm size?

Generally speaking, 35mm sensor is THE way to go. At one point of stuffing more and more photosites on one APS-C sensor (forgot at what point exactly) diffraction is going to become a serious issue and there will only be one way to add more megapixels - larger sensor.

Speaking of diffraction, I rarely went anymore than f/11 on an APS-C body, on the 5D ive had sharp results at f/18 & even F/22 produces excellent sharpness.

karusel wrote in post #4127976
...and you have to multiply all glass you have by a factor to get 'approximately' what translates to 35mm size?

Only if you're bothered what it translates to in 35mm equivalent.

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.

The obvious has been stated: for the same field of view, full frame = greater detail.

For at least the Canon 5D, it is also true that there is much less noise than the cropped sensors produce. This is because the pixel wells are bigger on the 5D. The 30D, an 8 MP camera, has a greater pixel density than the 5D (and is noisier at high ISOs than the 5D). In the same way, the XTi has, at 10 MP, a higher density/smaller well size than the 30D, and is noisier than the 30D as well as the 5D.

I own the 30D and the 5D and have tested the XTi and so I can vouch for the above statements from my personal testing.

So, full frame, given the above comparisons, is great for landscapes because of detail and great for soft light or low light situations because of high ISO performance. But for, say, sports, it's not as fast in continuous mode as, say, the APS-C MarkIII. And I still use my 30D with my 100-400 telephoto for the convenience of cropping wildlife shots in-camera, not because the 30D will give a better picture than an image cropped from the 5D but just because I can see the final shot in the viewfinder. This, though, may just be a passing attachment to my 30D!

Tony

---------------
Several Canon cameras, too many lenses and stuff to list
Tony Long Photos on PBase

There are few true needs for any format, inlcuding FF digital. You might need FF in order to use a 24mm TSE for FOV that was planned in the design of that lens to fit Canon 135mm film format.

Ever other reasons are 'want's, and these are similar to the wants that existed in film formats, too!...

a. Lower noise higher ISO, due to larger pixel area (film: lower grain, better tonality)
b. Larger viewfinder size
c. EF lenses all operate at the FOV at which each of them was designed for, originally
d. Increased DOF control that is inherent to larger formats
e. Ability to enlarge to greater final size, with greater quality than smaller format
f. Improved overall image quality (due to A and E)

And if A thru F are important, why stop with wimpy FF digital, when medium format has 39Mpixel backs ?!?!?!

Practicality and price. Practicality because medium format cameras are larger, the lenses are larger, heavier, the crowds already prefer things as small and light as they can be, and would consider it silly to lug around 10 pounds of equipment, when they can have it for tenth of that, at the loss of a bit of quality. Therefore, it is safe to assume large, heavy cameras with large, heavy lenses would never be mass produced and would inavoidably be more expensive than the 35mm cameras due to low supply, low appeal and more expensive production and research.

They may, of course work a way around the weight and size issue, but not by much. There are DO lenses out there and Sigma makes great ultra compact zooms, so perhaps, one day in the future we may see cameras with larger sensors in a practical housing.

karusel wrote in post #4129146
Practicality and price. Practicality because medium format cameras are larger, the lenses are larger, heavier, the crowds already prefer things as small and light as they can be, and would consider it silly to lug around 10 pounds of equipment, when they can have it for tenth of that, at the loss of a bit of quality. Therefore, it is safe to assume large, heavy cameras with large, heavy lenses would never be mass produced and would inavoidably be more expensive than the 35mm cameras due to low supply, low appeal and more expensive production and research.

They may, of course work a way around the weight and size issue, but not by much. There are DO lenses out there and Sigma makes great ultra compact zooms, so perhaps, one day in the future we may see cameras with larger sensors in a practical housing.

A Canon 5D with 24-70mm zoom is only a small amount lighter than medium format SLR with film winder and zoom lens of equivalent focal range.

If people we so desirous of small and light weight, why are all these amateurs adding battery grips so that cameras 'look like a 1d', in an effort to make their cameras even bigger and heavier than they need to be?! The Olympus OM-1 film camera makes even the naked Rebel look like an overweight oversized moose, yet they add battery grips to that, too!

And 24-70mm lenses should not be mass produced, since it would be silly to lug around 10 pounds of equipment (5D, battery grip, 24-70mm, Custom Bracket) when they can have it for tenth of that, at the loss of a bit of quality (the Rebel with 18-75mm IS USM)

My point is that if you remove 'medium format' and replace with '1D', and you remove 'FF' and replace with 'APS-C' and you are singing the same song!

karusel wrote in post #4127976
Look at it this way, would you rather have a tiny, tiny sensor, that gives you extreme telephoto and you have to multiply all glass you have by a factor to get 'approximately' what translates to 35mm size?

Someone who only uses an APS-C format camera, for example, doesn't need to "worry" about the "crop factor".

In other words, that photographer would never have to multiply anything regarding his/her lenses. I surely didn't even when I was shooting both 35mm film and 6x6cm film. I never cared to compare one to the other. I knew what focal lengths were "normal" lenses for each format and went from there. It was simple and there was no confusion.

Why today's digital SLR photographers (particularly the newer ones) get so wrapped up in the "crop factor" span style="color:Black;"cr@p (INVALID EMAIL) I cannot figure out.

SkipD wrote in post #4129759
Someone who only uses an APS-C format camera, for example, doesn't need to "worry" about the "crop factor".

In other words, that photographer would never have to multiply anything regarding his/her lenses. I surely didn't even when I was shooting both 35mm film and 6x6cm film. I never cared to compare one to the other. I knew what focal lengths were "normal" lenses for each format and went from there. It was simple and there was no confusion.

Why today's digital SLR photographers (particularly the newer ones) get so wrapped up in the "crop factor" cr@p I cannot figure out.

Alas, Skip, this horse is dead. I suggest we stop beating it.

This is virtually identical to the DoF business, where so many keep saying, over and over, that there are three factors affecting DoF (even the cited "professional"), when anyone with eyes can see that there are four variables in the equations. Those who seem to believe that CoC doesn't matter are wrong. It matters exactly as much as aperture, since the two are multiplicands.

My especial loves are those who redefine DoF from the definition it's had since the earliest days of film.

But hey, if it makes them happy, let them believe whatever they wish! Their wrongness has no effect upon the images I capture.

As for the OP's original question, all other things being equal, 1.0× cameras are cabable of producing better images than 1.6× cameras. That's why, if money were of no concern, most would probably do better with a 1.0× camera.

However, as we all know, all things are never equal in the real world, and money is almost always a concern. Therefore, it behoves an aspiring photographer to follow two basic rules:

1: Get the best equipment you can afford for the type shooting you (plan to) do. That means if you are going to be shooting small objects at a distance, you should probably go for a 1.6× camera; the sensor factor will work to your advantage. On the other hand, if you are planning on extensive studio portature, you should probably go for a 1.0× camera; the pixel size will work to your advantage.

2: When in doubt, put your money in glass, not in bodies. A 300D with primo L glass is capable of better images than a 1Ds Mark III with el cheapo consumer glass. Fact of life.

20droger wrote in post #4130063
Alas, Skip, this horse is dead. I suggest we stop beating it.

This is virtually identical to the DoF business, where so many keep saying, over and over, that there are three factors affecting DoF (even the cited "professional"), when anyone with eyes can see that there are four variables in the equations. Those who seem to believe that CoC doesn't matter are wrong. It matters exactly as much as aperture, since the two are multiplicands.

My especial loves are those who redefine DoF from the definition it's had since the earliest days of film.

But hey, if it makes them happy, let them believe whatever they wish! Their wrongness has no effect upon the images I capture.

As for the OP's original question, all other things being equal, 1.0× cameras are cabable of producing better images than 1.6× cameras. That's why, if money were of no concern, most would probably do better with a 1.0× camera.

However, as we all know, all things are never equal in the real world, and money is almost always a concern. Therefore, it behoves an aspiring photographer to follow two basic rules:

1: Get the best equipment you can afford for the type shooting you (plan to) do. That means if you are going to be shooting small objects at a distance, you should probably go for a 1.6× camera; the sensor factor will work to your advantage. On the other hand, if you are planning on extensive studio portature, you should probably go for a 1.0× camera; the pixel size will work to your advantage.

2: When in doubt, put your money in glass, not in bodies. A 300D with primo L glass is capable of better images than a 1Ds Mark III with el cheapo consumer glass. Fact of life.

I agree with that to some degree, but after trying my L lens on a 350D it doesnt give as good results as on the 5D, so the best is good glass on a good body, as if the bodies AF isnt up to the job your still going to get crap results no matter what glass is put on there.

Nick_C wrote in post #4130155
I agree with that to some degree, but after trying my L lens on a 350D it doesnt give as good results as on the 5D, so the best is good glass on a good body, as if the bodies AF isnt up to the job your still going to get crap results no matter what glass is put on there.

Of couse the best is good glass on a good body, it is also the most expensive solution.

What I was trying to say is, if you have a $2000 budget, a $500 body and a $1500 lens will usually provide better results than a $1900 body and a $100 lens.

20droger wrote in post #4130195
Of couse the best is good glass on a good body, it is also the most expensive solution.

What I was trying to say is, if you have a $2000 budget, a $500 body and a $1500 lens will usually provide better results than a $1900 body and a $100 lens.

Yep I do agree with you, its far better to invest in lenses, but of course if you want the ultimate IQ then a good body with good glass is the only way to go, but it does cost a lot.

AF accuracy has a lot to do with how a lens will perform too, when I mount my 24-105L on a 350D body, the overall sharpness isnt as good as when that same moderately expensive lens is put on the 5D, as the AF system is just that much better with the 5D so it brings out the best in the lens.

20droger wrote in post #4130195
Of couse the best is good glass on a good body, it is also the most expensive solution.

What I was trying to say is, if you have a $2000 budget, a $500 body and a $1500 lens will usually provide better results than a $1900 body and a $100 lens.

No, the idea is this:
-budget lenses + budget camera = crappy photos*
-budget lenses + high end camera = mediocre photos*
-high end lenses + budget camera = good photos*
-hight end lenses + high end camera = great photos*

*relatively

If you buy good glass first and put them on a budget camera that is sort of a compromise between price and quality, you will keep them once you can afford a better camera. And in my eyes, better camera means better sensor, preferably larger. I have and will not have, for a long long time, I imagine, have a reason to sell the 85L for instance, while there's a very good reason to sell my 10D, namely the 5D.

I am not sure why i bought my 5D. But I am glad I did.

karusel wrote in post #4135513
No, the idea is this:
-budget lenses + budget camera = crappy photos*
-budget lenses + high end camera = mediocre photos*
-high end lenses + budget camera = good photos*
-hight end lenses + high end camera = great photos*

*relatively

If you buy good glass first and put them on a budget camera that is sort of a compromise between price and quality, you will keep them once you can afford a better camera. And in my eyes, better camera means better sensor, preferably larger. I have and will not have, for a long long time, I imagine, have a reason to sell the 85L for instance, while there's a very good reason to sell my 10D, namely the 5D.

The sublties of basic English are lost on you, are they?