Starting a Discussion - APS-C vs. FF

I guarantee that this is going to raise hackles. I'm an xxD shooter. Have used xD cameras and they don't suit my photographic style. Sorry about that. I imagine to some, that makes me something of a ne're do well. However, I have [ahem] sold photos, won awards, and have enlargements displayed in public places.

So, my gauntlet to be thrown is that I'm tired of hearing the FFC (Full Frame crowd) extoll the virtues of what are basically 35mm digital sensors as "Full Frame", implying thereby that everything else is somewhat less full and, therefore, distinctly inferior. Nevertheless, the images that I get from by 20D and 40D seem somehow to fill the frame in the images that I view.

"Full frame", of course, originated from the original SLRs that used 35mm film. However, with the quality of images from APS-C size sensors, I think it's outmoded. I propose another term, one that is more appropriate, such as 35mm, large format, or APS-B (which is probably not correct).

this should get interesting... subscribed.

I shoot both and each has their benefits.

Hey, if I am going to pay for an image circle that is x diameter, I want a sensor capable of using that diameter to its fullest. I like that canon has started selling lenses that only make circles the size that a smaller sensor can utilize to its fullest. I hope it leads to lighter, less expensive lenses with either smaller chunks of flourite or maybe more of 'em.
Given the size and weight of the best lenses out there now, I want a camera that at least puts all that weight and size (and expense) to good use. Full frame for me, so there!

I dunno, whatever. It seems like a strange thing to fight about.

"Bring it on"
nothing like a good fight to get the poor mods working.

I'm not sure there's anything to fight about here.

Larger and smaller sized sensor bodies each have their own applications and uses.

Full Frame is just a reference point, don't get too worked up on the terminology. Everything has become smaller over the years, but since lenses between crop and full frame are interchangeable for the most part, giving a reference point helps one determine what the numbers mean.

If you're commenting on the attitudes of full frame users, I haven't seen it myself. I have seen plenty of film people who dislike the digital revolution, but I understand their point of view, so it doesn't bother me. If you don't understand what the fuss is all about with full frame, I would ask you if you've even owned a 5d + 24-105/24-70? I don't think that combo is awesome because of the full frame sensor. I think it's a great camera that happens to be full frame.

As for choosing a different name, it doesn't matter, it's arbitrary, call it whatever you like. Call it a Pringle's Powered Poop Tube if it makes you feel better...3PT for short.

If you don't mind, I've changed the title of this thread to something a little less confrontational and a bit more descriptive...

He's from New York, they love to...discuss.

If you shoot a good deal of wide angle then shoot FF if not rock on with whatever floats your boat. Cameras are just tools. A means to create. Find one that helps you create. The rest is all BS. Who cares what the image is made with. Its the image thats important. I shoot with equipment that works for me. You shoot with gear that works for you. Its all good.

I would argue that the 14L, 24L and 35L really shine on FF.

thats it i knew those nice mods would sort it out,but keep it running its an interesting point.

joedlh wrote in post #8060616
So, my gauntlet to be thrown is that I'm tired of hearing the FFC (Full Frame crowd) extoll the virtues of what are basically 35mm digital sensors as "Full Frame", implying thereby that everything else is somewhat less full and, therefore, distinctly inferior. Nevertheless, the images that I get from by 20D and 40D seem somehow to fill the frame in the images that I view.

I think you are needlessly reading some kind of put down in the terminology that isn't there. It's true that 35mm film was just an accident of creation in using half motion picture film segments. But once that happened all of the camera makers steadily developed full lines of lenses designed to just cover the 35mm film format with their image circle.

'Full frame' means simply that the sensor is the full size of the format for which the lens line has been developed.

As for the quality discussion, sure, APS-C digital cameras are capable of very good image quality. But that also sidesteps the fact that if you hold all else equal a larger format will always be capable of better IQ than a smaller format simply due to the physics of the optical system. The advantage of the smaller format is essentially only cost. You don't even get much of a size/weight advantage because the vast majority of EOS lenses are designed to cover the full 35mm frame.

I think that because main advantage of APS-C is cost some users may have an inferiority complex, but IMO if you get the quality you need from APS-C then being frugal is not a bad thing.

Decision tree:

Do I feel limited by my APS-C?

Yes
Get a full frame


No
Stop


Next.

This is an interesting debate, albeit a bit repetitive.
I use what ever size/type of camera best fits the job at hand. I have (and still shoot on occasion) film camera's from 6x6 to 110. Now which of those is considered full frame?
My digital cameras include FF, crop, compact, and even my very small Fuji F20 that is usually with me everywhere I go.
My avatar is a very small crop taken from a photo of a cat that showed the whole body (including tail) that was taken with my 10D. I don't see any lack of sharpness or quality there, even though it is dated by today's standards.
The major advantage of using a FF camera aside from being able to use wide angle lenses to their fullest, and once again getting shallow dof when I want it, is that I no longer have to do the math to figure out what the perceived focal length will be.
-Bruce