full frame

so what are the benefits of full frame? is it worth spending the money?
are they faster more accurate on focusing, sharper. whats up?:p

generally better image quality, with less depth of field at the same aperture.

yep, and worth the extra coin but a 5d can be had for a bargain price these days

Larger pixels therefore slightly more light and amazing IQ.

Of course no crop of course... going from an XTi to FF was interesting. I was zoomed all the way and still thought I could zoom some more so you'd have to adjust a little.

For me, I shot with film for so many years I didn't want to have to consider the conversion factors and I generally like the wider end, which FF has the advantage of not using a smaller fov. Plus the quality of the 5D and 5DII bodies is quite a bit better than the Rebels and xxD bodies. Featurewise, the 7D has some advantages, but just not ones that are important to me.

Search button is your friend.

Essentially a full frame dSLR uses better film.

Willie133 wrote in post #10033710
Of course no crop of course... going from an XTi to FF was interesting. I was zoomed all the way and still thought I could zoom some more so you'd have to adjust a little.

Yes, that is right. But of course at the other end of the scale your wide angle lenses really ARE wide. Whereas your 17-55 lens on the crop sensor is a quite wide angle, it is equivalent to the 24-70 on FF (more or less). The good old EF 17-40mm L can be had at a reasonable price these days and is a terrific lens for general use, and is pretty much the equivalent of the EFS 10-20, at the wide end anyway. Depends on what you want to pay, and what EF-S lenses you have to replace if changing from crop to FF.

Re image quality?...depends on the output. The biggest difference I notice is not so much sharpness or detail but in tonal gradation in large prints.

Another thing to consider is what you shoot.

Some types of photography will lend itself well to full frame, some are better suited for crop cameras. Wildlife is one such example. My 40D with 1.6x crop on a 400 mm lens is like 640mm. That is some serious reach in focal length for the money. Also, my 40D will shoot 6.5 fps where the 5D Mark II will only shoot 3.9 fps.

However for landscape, I just got a 5D Mark II and 17-40 for landscape. A combo I feel will be superior for my intended usage compared to my 40D and 10-22. It all comes down to what you shoot. Generally speaking, if you don't know if you would benefit from full frame, don't waste the money (yet).

Bigger, brighter viewfinder.

timbop wrote in post #10033634
generally better image quality, with less depth of field at the same aperture.

Provided that you have used a longer lens to maintain framing. The effect is due to the focal length, not the format.

DANATTHEROCK wrote in post #10034288
My 40D with 1.6x crop on a 400 mm lens is like 640mm. That is some serious reach in focal length for the money.

This increased "reach" is because the smaller cropped image must be enlarged more to reach a comparable size. By this method, you can have whatever "reach" you want with a lens of any focal length; just enlarge more or less as suits.

This "reach advantage" is marketing hype, intended to convince the gullible that less (a smaller sensor) is actually more (subject takes up more of the frame).

Well I shoot from landscaping and family pictures,
I have 3 lenses. 70-200 , 24-105 and 10-22. I pretty much have the reach for what I do
I was just wondering about the benefits.
I see the ff are very expensive. Like the nikon D3 6k for the body

illrooster132 wrote in post #10036130
Well I shoot from landscaping and family pictures,
I have 3 lenses. 70-200 , 24-105 and 10-22. I pretty much have the reach for what I do
I was just wondering about the benefits.
I see the ff are very expensive. Like the nikon D3 6k for the body

A 5DII is an freakin' bargain at ~$2200. 21MP, full-frame, insanely good image quality. AND it takes Canon lenses

Nikon "stuffs" their more advanced autofocus system into their full-frame bodies, but don't have as much resolution as the Canon full-frame. So a D700 is around the same price as the 5DII, but is only 12MP. It's still a nice camera, just different than the 5DII.

But you do NOT have to spend $6K to get a full-frame body

egordon99 wrote in post #10036237
A 5DII is an freakin' bargain at ~$2200. 21MP, full-frame, insanely good image quality. AND it takes Canon lenses

Nikon "stuffs" their more advanced autofocus system into their full-frame bodies, but don't have as much resolution as the Canon full-frame. So a D700 is around the same price as the 5DII, but is only 12MP. It's still a nice camera, just different than the 5DII.

But you do NOT have to spend $6K to get a full-frame body

As far as pure cameras go the d700 smokes the 5dII. The 5dII is a better HDVslr though.

Ricardo222 wrote in post #10033916
The good old EF 17-40mm L can be had at a reasonable price these days and is a terrific lens for general use, and is pretty much the equivalent of the EFS 10-20, at the wide end anyway. Depends on what you want to pay, and what EF-S lenses you have to replace if changing from crop to FF.

the canon 10-22mm UWA's equivalent would be the 16-35L

back to topic, FF is better on portrait, and crop bodies are better for sports and for other photography that needs "reach". the 1.6 (APS-C) and the 1.3 (APS-H) crop factors give you a little more reach that a full frame BUT image quality will be better on a full frame since the pixels isnt as crammed in together.