Downgrading to full frame -- how do you feel about 1.6x?

Doesn't bother me I keep different bodies for different things. I tend not to see the crop factor as a help or a hinderance just that its there and you shoot accordingly. That said my FF has their uses and my 40d 's there uses. One I don't shoot wedding formals with my 40d and I don't shoot sports with my 5d.

It's called "more money than sense".

Anyway, the poll is missing one answer: I moved from film and I prefer the APS-C format. With 35mm cameras, my budget was never going to get me the AOV that I really wanted, so the 1.6x crop was a minor revelation. Price cannot be ignored either, since the crop UWAs are very good value and the only 35mm equivalent that I can think of that comes close is the 17-40 f/4.

John_B wrote in post #6303860
So because of the Ultra Wide now available for 1.6 sensors crop factor doesn't bother me.

Pretty much... exactly.

[QUOTE=Ade H;6304424]It's called "more money than sense".

Could envy be rearing it's ugly head?

[QUOTE=chauncey;630457​4]

Ade H wrote in post #6304424
It's called "more money than sense".

Could envy be rearing it's ugly head?

No, he's simply stating that it makes absolutely no sense to refuse to buy anything but L glass from Canon, which prevents some people from getting the most out of their cameras. Nothing to do with envy.

Ol Jalopy wrote in post #6303986
=Ol' Jalopy;6303986]Where's the "I still shoot film, and miss FF with digital" option? I actually just picked up my EOS-3 last week. I don't think digital will replace film; it's just another artistic medium, each with their own applications in which the respective technology excels. But that's an entirely different topic of debate

+1

My Canon 10-22mm is wider than anything I had for my 35mm film cameras.

No, Chauncey, it is not. You may like to check the kit list in my bio. I'm just sensible with money, knowing that there are more important things to do with it than owning lots and lots of very expensive lenses.

I went from 6x6 film to FF and that was hard....

I shot film for years, I still shoot a 5D for work but I prefer a crop for my personal camera. I really do not see all that much of a difference between the two unless your specifically looking to minimize DOF. Anything that has to do with FOV is is just a matter of choosing the right lens.
SO in a practical sense, I never pay attention to form factor. All the equipment these days is so close in quality that to see any differences yo have to go to the extremes.

[QUOTE=DDCSD;6304583]

chauncey wrote in post #6304574
No, he's simply stating that it makes absolutely no sense to refuse to buy anything but L glass from Canon, which prevents some people from getting the most out of their cameras. Nothing to do with envy.

That all depends. For some people it may be that their equipment has to say "Canon" on it but I have all Canon glass for a reason. Not because I "have more money than sense" but because I shoot for event companies who hire multiple photographers. We will shoot 20k shots in a weekend and the colors need to be as similar as possible when they come out of the camera because there simply isn't time to do post processing when. Shots have to be on view screen in a matter of minutes. When I purchased my 28-70 F2.8 I tried Tokina, Sigma, Tamron, and Canon. All settings being equal compared to the Canon the Tamron and Tokina both had a slight yellow/red tint and the Sigma had a slight blue/green tint. Nothing that you would notice if you shot them alone and nothing that cannot be fixed in PP but it was still there. By having all Canon glass I know that when I change lenses I don't have to worry about my color balance being off.

Michael

mspringfield wrote in post #6307210
That all depends. For some people it may be that their equipment has to say "Canon" on it but I have all Canon glass for a reason. Not because I "have more money than sense" but because I shoot for event companies who hire multiple photographers. We will shoot 20k shots in a weekend and the colors need to be as similar as possible when they come out of the camera because there simply isn't time to do post processing when. Shots have to be on view screen in a matter of minutes. When I purchased my 28-70 F2.8 I tried Tokina, Sigma, Tamron, and Canon. All settings being equal compared to the Canon the Tamron and Tokina both had a slight yellow/red tint and the Sigma had a slight blue/green tint. Nothing that you would notice if you shot them alone and nothing that cannot be fixed in PP but it was still there. By having all Canon glass I know that when I change lenses I don't have to worry about my color balance being off.

Michael

You might want to read my posts again. I specifically said L glass, since Canon also makes some great non-L glass, notably the 10-22 and 17-55 IS that are made specifically for 1.6 crop sensors. These are viable options for anyone to get wide with a 1.6 crop camera. The only reason anyone would complain about not being able to get wide with a 1.6 crop camera is by refusing to use these lenses because they don't have a red ring.

Ol Jalopy wrote in post #6303986
=Ol' Jalopy;6303986]I don't think digital will replace film; it's just another artistic medium, each with their own applications in which the respective technology excels. But that's an entirely different topic of debate

And people still use metal needles to scrape against large plastic disks to play music. Heck, many people still use those laser disk things to play music.

Film will be around for a long time, but digital has already, effectively, replaced film. Done deal. The entire industry has shifted to digital.

But, yes, as an artistic medium, film will be around for many, many years. There are always die-hards.

Ade H wrote in post #6304424
Anyway, the poll is missing one answer: I moved from film and I prefer the APS-C format.

+1

defordphoto wrote in post #6307342
And people still use metal needles to scrape against large plastic disks to play music. Heck, many people still use those laser disk things to play music...

Or glorious diamond needles against that lovely petroleum-based vinyl, which, in the end, produces better sound then the dominating mpeg/AAC format…but quality is not everything, right? Actually, vinyl record sales are up (http://www.cnn.com …S/06/10/vinyl.r​ecords.ap/).

Digital music could have progressed had it not stopped at the CD (yes, I'm aware of DVD-Audio and SACD, both of which didn't catch because of mpeg). But mpeg's sound just as good as CDs; well, that's an accomplishment, to sound as good as a format that is a quarter-century old; older than the first Macintosh Apple.

Anyway,

Poll should have also had: I used to shoot digital, now I shoot film and love being able to use a fast 50mm as a standard, and a 35mm as a wide, and I also look forward to October's scheduled release of the Zeiss ZE (Canon mount) 21mm (http://www.digitalkame​ra.de/), since it will hopefully knock down the price of the older Zeiss Contax variant, which is well beyond my financial reach at this stage, and since I do not use zooms simply because I do not like them, the crop factor offerings in the wide area are limited, which is why I am glad that I no longer have to deal with that crop factor factor.

chauncey wrote in post #6304574
Could envy be rearing it's ugly head?

No, but empty elitism appears to be…