I Can't Understand Why Everyone Has Gone Full Frame Crazy

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Joe, Aug 14, 2006.

  1. Joe

    Joe Guest

    Well, with the exception of very wide angle photographers, I can't
    understand why everyone has gone full frame crazy. Mmm, no thanks.

    For example, how much would a EF 480mm f4.0 L IS USM cost? Well, with a
    cropped sensor camera, around £875 for the 300mm. The price for a EF 500mm
    f4.0 L IS USM (closest match)? £4359! Not to mention the size and weight
    of it!

    My 70-200 means I have an easily transportable, flexible 112-320mm 2.8 L IS.
    I will stay with cropped sensors thanks. The only downfall is that the
    wider primes are designed for 35mm film, still, I can live with that.

    OK, serious Pro's may be into full frame for low noise, higher resolution,
    etc, however for the majority of non pro's, are you crazy?!? IMO, camera's
    such as the 20D and 30D are fantastic!
    Joe, Aug 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joe wrote:
    > Well, with the exception of very wide angle photographers, I can't
    > understand why everyone has gone full frame crazy. Mmm, no thanks.
    >
    > For example, how much would a EF 480mm f4.0 L IS USM cost? Well,
    > with a cropped sensor camera, around £875 for the 300mm. The price
    > for a EF 500mm f4.0 L IS USM (closest match)? £4359! Not to mention
    > the size and weight of it!
    >
    > My 70-200 means I have an easily transportable, flexible 112-320mm
    > 2.8 L IS. I will stay with cropped sensors thanks. The only downfall
    > is that the wider primes are designed for 35mm film, still, I can
    > live with that.
    > OK, serious Pro's may be into full frame for low noise, higher
    > resolution, etc, however for the majority of non pro's, are you
    > crazy?!? IMO, camera's such as the 20D and 30D are fantastic!


    Full size sensors have several advantages. The big one is that in
    general they have less noise. This can be an issue under some conditions.

    As for those who need wide angle being a good reason, frankly I would
    down rate that one. I have a 1.6 sensor and a very nice 10-22 mm zoom that
    handles very wide images very nicely. That does not totally eliminate the
    wide angle factor but I don't believe it to be a really big one.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
    Joseph Meehan, Aug 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joe

    bmoag Guest

    My prediction is not that full frame sensors will take over the 35mm form
    factor dSLR but that as sensor technology develops and photographers can
    unwrap their heads from around the film paradigm that bigger is better there
    will be less and less of a market for medium format film cameras with
    digital sensors in the studio realms.
    bmoag, Aug 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Joe

    Guest

    Joe wrote:
    > Well, with the exception of very wide angle photographers, I can't
    > understand why everyone has gone full frame crazy. Mmm, no thanks.


    Well, I came from 35mm film world, and I have 10 years of experience of
    shooting in 35mm full-frame perspective. When I compare the results I
    get with my current 1.6x DSLR's, it left a lot to be desired for. I
    can't really quite put my finger on it, but I feel that my photographs
    are limited, even afting shooting with the DSLR for the past 5 years.
    I've also shot 1.25x APS format for several years. And I feel my
    treasured 35mm lens aren't producing the results that I originally
    bought them for. Do I want full-frame? Absolutely. I guess that is why
    medium format photographers have a hard time switching to 35mm for the
    same reason.

    Chieh
    --
    Camera Hacker - http://www.CameraHacker.com/
    , Aug 14, 2006
    #4
  5. (bmoag) wrote:

    > My prediction is not that full frame sensors will take over


    You're fighting physics. With a small sensor there are only so many
    photons to go around, especially in low light/fast speed situations.
    Unless you have a *huge* chunk of glass bringing in a lot of photons to
    tickle each pixel on the sensor, you're going to end up with a horribly
    noisy picture because the sensor doesn't have enough information to
    accurately capture the picture.

    Things might improve, but I think bigger is always going to mean faster
    and more accurate capture.

    Andrew McP
    Andrew MacPherson, Aug 14, 2006
    #5
  6. Joe

    John Guest

    "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    news:344Eg.6990$...
    > My prediction is not that full frame sensors will take over the 35mm form
    > factor dSLR but that as sensor technology develops and photographers can
    > unwrap their heads from around the film paradigm that bigger is better
    > there will be less and less of a market for medium format film cameras
    > with digital sensors in the studio realms.


    I agree that 24x36mm formats will challenge MF.

    However, we will have monsterous new investments to make in wide-angle
    lenses. So far, sensors are not friendly to extreme wide angles.
    John, Aug 14, 2006
    #6
  7. Joe

    Kinon O'cann Guest

    You're right! When I was shooting 35mm film, I never saw the need for medium
    format, or, God forbid, large format. Total waste of time.

    ;-)

    "Joe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well, with the exception of very wide angle photographers, I can't
    > understand why everyone has gone full frame crazy. Mmm, no thanks.
    >
    > For example, how much would a EF 480mm f4.0 L IS USM cost? Well, with a
    > cropped sensor camera, around £875 for the 300mm. The price for a EF
    > 500mm f4.0 L IS USM (closest match)? £4359! Not to mention the size and
    > weight of it!
    >
    > My 70-200 means I have an easily transportable, flexible 112-320mm 2.8 L
    > IS. I will stay with cropped sensors thanks. The only downfall is that
    > the wider primes are designed for 35mm film, still, I can live with that.
    >
    > OK, serious Pro's may be into full frame for low noise, higher resolution,
    > etc, however for the majority of non pro's, are you crazy?!? IMO,
    > camera's such as the 20D and 30D are fantastic!
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Kinon O'cann, Aug 14, 2006
    #7
  8. Joe

    JohnR66 Guest

    "Joe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well, with the exception of very wide angle photographers, I can't
    > understand why everyone has gone full frame crazy. Mmm, no thanks.
    >
    > For example, how much would a EF 480mm f4.0 L IS USM cost? Well, with a
    > cropped sensor camera, around £875 for the 300mm. The price for a EF
    > 500mm f4.0 L IS USM (closest match)? £4359! Not to mention the size and
    > weight of it!
    >
    > My 70-200 means I have an easily transportable, flexible 112-320mm 2.8 L
    > IS. I will stay with cropped sensors thanks. The only downfall is that
    > the wider primes are designed for 35mm film, still, I can live with that.
    >
    > OK, serious Pro's may be into full frame for low noise, higher resolution,
    > etc, however for the majority of non pro's, are you crazy?!? IMO,
    > camera's such as the 20D and 30D are fantastic!
    >


    Another reason to consider full frame is, for a given number of pixels, the
    full frame camera will have larger cells and thus spaced more distant center
    to center. This means the absolute resolution is lower and the the camera
    requires less from the lenses. A 6mp aps sensor would equal about a 15mp
    sensor if the cell size were the same yet covered a full frame sensor. I've
    noticed my 6mp dRebel is more finicky to lens quality than film cameras were
    given an enlargement size.

    A camera with 12mp aps sensor such as the Nikon D2Xs sensor can resolve
    about 90 lines per mm. This is beyond the capability of all but high-end
    glass. A 12mp full frame would resolve around 60 cycles per mm. A much more
    reasonable figure.

    Of course, with full frame, the lens needs to perform well to the corners.

    John
    JohnR66, Aug 14, 2006
    #8
  9. "Joseph Meehan" <> wrote:
    >
    > Full size sensors have several advantages. The big one is that in
    > general they have less noise. This can be an issue under some conditions.


    There's also dynamic range at low ISOs, although (a) RAW converters have
    trouble giving it to us and (b) there'd be even more with more bits in the
    A/D converters.

    The _only_ real advantage to FF is more resolution without compromising
    noise and dynamic range.

    Everything else is just hot air. Well, mostly hot air: FF does do sharp
    images with extreme narrow DOF better than APS-C. Oh, yes. The 24mm TSE acts
    like a 24mm TSE, and my 35mm Mamiya lens would be a lot less interesting as
    a 55mm shift lens than it is as a 35mm shift lens.

    > As for those who need wide angle being a good reason, frankly I would
    > down rate that one. I have a 1.6 sensor and a very nice 10-22 mm zoom
    > that handles very wide images very nicely. That does not totally
    > eliminate the wide angle factor but I don't believe it to be a really big
    > one.


    That's not wide: the Sigma 12-24 is wide<g>. But:

    http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Rev...de_Angle/a_5D_vs_20D_Wide_Angle_Shootout.html

    Much much better in the center, and noticeably better in the corners _at
    every f stop_. This is bigger than you might think; since subjects tend to
    be rendered smaller and compositions tend to be busier, more resolution is
    appreciated in wide angle work.

    Given how much better the 17-40 is on the 5D than the 10-22 is on the D20,
    the almost universal praise for the 10-22 and the almost universal
    complaining about the 17-40 is rather odd.

    The 10-22 does focus closer than the 17-40, for some insanely extreme
    perspective, though.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 14, 2006
    #9
  10. Joe

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:16:45 +0100, "Joe" <> wrote:

    >Well, with the exception of very wide angle photographers, I can't
    >understand why everyone has gone full frame crazy. Mmm, no thanks.


    OK.
    Is someone trying to force you to go to full-frame?
    I haven't noticed that even a substantial minority of digital shooters
    have gone full frame crazy.
    For Canon, the only company to sell full frame DSLRs, their full frame
    DSLRs are far outsold by their APS-C cameras, and their P&S cameras
    outsell their DSLRs.
    And Kodak sells more P&S cameras than Canon.
    Who are all these people you're talking about?
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Aug 15, 2006
    #10
  11. Joe

    SkipM Guest

    "Joseph Meehan" <> wrote in message
    news:wO3Eg.53115$...

    >
    > As for those who need wide angle being a good reason, frankly I would
    > down rate that one. I have a 1.6 sensor and a very nice 10-22 mm zoom
    > that handles very wide images very nicely. That does not totally
    > eliminate the wide angle factor but I don't believe it to be a really big
    > one.
    >
    > --
    > Joseph Meehan
    >
    > Dia duit
    >

    Yeah, but your 10-22 isn't an f2.8, which my 16-35 is, with the same field
    of view, or approximately so, on my 5D...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    SkipM, Aug 15, 2006
    #11
  12. Joe

    Matt Ion Guest

    Joe wrote:
    > Well, with the exception of very wide angle photographers, I can't
    > understand why everyone has gone full frame crazy. Mmm, no thanks.
    >
    > For example, how much would a EF 480mm f4.0 L IS USM cost? Well, with a
    > cropped sensor camera, around £875 for the 300mm. The price for a EF 500mm
    > f4.0 L IS USM (closest match)? £4359! Not to mention the size and weight
    > of it!
    >
    > My 70-200 means I have an easily transportable, flexible 112-320mm 2.8 L IS.
    > I will stay with cropped sensors thanks. The only downfall is that the
    > wider primes are designed for 35mm film, still, I can live with that.
    >
    > OK, serious Pro's may be into full frame for low noise, higher resolution,
    > etc, however for the majority of non pro's, are you crazy?!? IMO, camera's
    > such as the 20D and 30D are fantastic!


    Actually, the one that really baffles me is the desire for 4:3 aspect ratio
    sensors vs. the current 3:2. Why is this SUCH a big deal? Shoot a little wider
    and crop accordingly!

    If you REALLY want the "ultimate" sensor, make it ROUND to match the actual
    light pattern the lens projects. Gives a hulluva lot more cropping options!
    Matt Ion, Aug 15, 2006
    #12
  13. Joe

    Roy G Guest

    "Joe" <> wrote in message
    news:...


    If you don't want to go full frame, just like I don't, then don't.

    If anyone else does want to go full frame then, fine, let them.

    Everyone to their own taste.

    Roy G
    Roy G, Aug 15, 2006
    #13
  14. Joe

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:47:29 GMT, Matt Ion, who has demonstrated
    that he is not a square, wrote:

    > Actually, the one that really baffles me is the desire for 4:3 aspect ratio
    > sensors vs. the current 3:2. Why is this SUCH a big deal? Shoot a little wider
    > and crop accordingly!
    >
    > If you REALLY want the "ultimate" sensor, make it ROUND to match the actual
    > light pattern the lens projects. Gives a hulluva lot more cropping options!


    Hah! Very unlikely. Do you know what that would do to the sensor
    yield from silicon wafers? It would waste more than 21% of the
    silicon. Probably waste even more trying to remove circular slices
    from the brittle(?) silicon. Some photographers might even demand
    circlar photo paper, which would also waste space on store shelves
    and mess up precious prints quicker than you can say "Frisbee".
    Also, without vertical or horizontal guides (buildings, horizon,
    etc.), prints would start showing some *very* creative angles. <g>
    ASAAR, Aug 15, 2006
    #14
  15. Joe

    Guest

    I can see no use for a full frame camera in my future. I have a Nikon
    D70S and a D200. I have several 16 X 20 inch prints made from a Nikon
    D70 camera [about 6 mega pixel] that weren't even full frame and now
    they are hanging on a museum wall. They look great. The D80 will
    probably produce better images than the D200, and for a lot less money,
    because every new Nikon, and presumably Canon, camera takes advantage
    of better firmware. The technology just keeps improving.

    This full frame mania reminds me of audiophiles who want to connect
    their speakers with wires the size of a rope you could tie up an ocean
    freighter with. And, they will connect the speakers to their vacuum
    tube amplifier [you have to be as old as I am to probably even know
    what a vacuum tube is!!]. Yes, with their golden ears they sneer at
    "transistor" sound. . They will even "prove" that the sound is better
    with tubes and gigantic cables connecting to their speakers, or so they
    claim. If these guys take up photography, you can bet they will not
    settle for less than full frame.

    The facts are that you pay less for a lens and get a better lens when
    you don't have to have to cover a full frame. That means you save big
    $$ and, technically speaking, get better pictures. Take all the money
    you save by buying a less than full frame DSLR and buy a 12-24mm lens
    [assuming you own a Nikon DSLR] to take care of your wide angle needs.
    That's what I did.

    So basically this is all a lot of hooey. In the end the picture is made
    by the photographer and in many cases historically, some great photos
    suck technically. Henri Cartier-Bresson did have a Leica but didn't
    give a hoot about how sharp the lens supposedly was. He was too busy
    taking pictures instead of talking specs. Now if you want to talk about
    quality instead of take pictures with quality, and you have more money
    than Bill Gates, then by all means buy a full frame camera and sneer at
    the hoi polloi. Don't forget to buy a 3000 line per mm lens chart to
    snap pictures of. Make 20 by 40 foot prints from the images created by
    your full frame camera. Your neighbors will "ooh" and "ah". I'd rather
    leave the science to Nikon/Canon engineers who make these modern
    incredible DSLRs.

    There's an old cartoon called "The Birth of Marketing" showing a guy
    picking up rabbit droppings and putting them in a jar labeled "Raisins
    - 5 cents each!". That guy is now in the marketing department selling
    full frame DSLRs. Why not just end it and buy a used Linhof 4 X 5 view
    camera. I think that in terms of image quality, it will probably exceed
    what you can get from a full frame DSLR like the one Canon makes.

    Just my opinion based on 47 years of taking pictures with a Nikon.

    Tom


    Joe wrote:
    > Well, with the exception of very wide angle photographers, I can't
    > understand why everyone has gone full frame crazy. Mmm, no thanks.
    >
    > For example, how much would a EF 480mm f4.0 L IS USM cost? Well, with a
    > cropped sensor camera, around £875 for the 300mm. The price for a EF 500mm
    > f4.0 L IS USM (closest match)? £4359! Not to mention the size and weight
    > of it!
    >
    > My 70-200 means I have an easily transportable, flexible 112-320mm 2.8 L IS.
    > I will stay with cropped sensors thanks. The only downfall is that the
    > wider primes are designed for 35mm film, still, I can live with that.
    >
    > OK, serious Pro's may be into full frame for low noise, higher resolution,
    > etc, however for the majority of non pro's, are you crazy?!? IMO, camera's
    > such as the 20D and 30D are fantastic!
    , Aug 15, 2006
    #15
  16. <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I can see no use for a full frame camera in my future. I have a Nikon
    D70S and a D200. I have several 16 X 20 inch prints made from a Nikon
    D70 camera [about 6 mega pixel] that weren't even full frame and now
    they are hanging on a museum wall. They look great.

    <SNIP>

    Just my opinion based on 47 years of taking pictures with a Nikon.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Yep. That's exactly what people with only 35mm experience find.

    People with MF or LF experience have a different view of what large prints
    should look like. That's why there's a difference of opinion.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 15, 2006
    #16
  17. Joe

    Tim Guest

    In article <ebrccu$v3l$>,
    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:

    > <> wrote:
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    > I can see no use for a full frame camera in my future. I have a Nikon
    > D70S and a D200. I have several 16 X 20 inch prints made from a Nikon
    > D70 camera [about 6 mega pixel] that weren't even full frame and now
    > they are hanging on a museum wall. They look great.
    >
    > <SNIP>
    >
    > Just my opinion based on 47 years of taking pictures with a Nikon.
    > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    >
    > Yep. That's exactly what people with only 35mm experience find.
    >
    > People with MF or LF experience have a different view of what large prints
    > should look like. That's why there's a difference of opinion.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    David, I'm curious about what you meant by that. Do the full-frame
    digital bodies provide better image quality than the 1.6x bodies? I'm
    unclear about why MF and LFs shooters would find the full-frame digital
    body more appealing.

    Thanks.
    Tim, Aug 15, 2006
    #17
  18. "Tim" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Yep. That's exactly what people with only 35mm experience find.
    >>
    >> People with MF or LF experience have a different view of what large
    >> prints
    >> should look like. That's why there's a difference of opinion.
    >>
    >> David J. Littleboy
    >> Tokyo, Japan

    >
    > David, I'm curious about what you meant by that. Do the full-frame
    > digital bodies provide better image quality than the 1.6x bodies? I'm
    > unclear about why MF and LFs shooters would find the full-frame digital
    > body more appealing.


    I have a 300D for snapshots. It's a pitiful joke compared to 645. Even in A4
    prints.

    The 5D competes with the best I can get from 6x7.

    (6x7 captures the next level of fine, high-contrast detail where the 5D is
    just beginning to lose it, but for everything else, they are very similar.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 15, 2006
    #18
  19. Joe

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    > David, I'm curious about what you meant by that. Do the full-frame
    > digital bodies provide better image quality than the 1.6x bodies? I'm
    > unclear about why MF and LFs shooters would find the full-frame digital
    > body more appealing.


    Generally, yes. The larger pixel size not only means lower noise (the 5D
    is *really* impressive at ISO 3200, which if measured against a calibrated
    meter, is closer to ISO 4000!), it means that less resolving power is
    demanded of the lens in order to take full advantage of the sensor.

    The 5d, at 12 megapixels, needs about 60 lp/mm in order to give you an
    honest, full, 12 megapixels of detail. The D2X, at 12 megapixels, needs 90
    lp/mm in order to give you the full resolution.

    Now, it's easier to design a higher-resolution lens for a smaller sensor,
    so you can't say something silly like "The D2X would only give you 2/3 the
    resolution" - but still, given real-world cost and design constraints, the
    5D is able to do more with less, so to speak.

    As why MF and LF shooters would want a larger digital sensor, it's the
    same as film: Even though lens performance goes down somewhat as the
    coverage gets larger, going to a larger medium still gets you more detail.
    Just like 6cm x 6cm gets you more detail than 35mm and 4"x5" gets you more
    than 6cm x 6cm, a larger sensor can capture you more detail.

    Now: All of that being said, do you *need* - or even *want* a full-frame
    sensor? While some (perhaps many) may *want* it, few *need* it, and some
    wouldn't even take it if it were offered to them. But that's fine,
    photographers should use tools that suit their particular drives, desires,
    and styles.

    steve
    Steve Wolfe, Aug 15, 2006
    #19
  20. "Steve Wolfe" <> wrote:
    >
    > Now, it's easier to design a higher-resolution lens for a smaller sensor,
    > so you can't say something silly like "The D2X would only give you 2/3 the
    > resolution" - but still, given real-world cost and design constraints, the
    > 5D is able to do more with less, so to speak.
    >
    > As why MF and LF shooters would want a larger digital sensor, it's the
    > same as film: Even though lens performance goes down somewhat as the
    > coverage gets larger, going to a larger medium still gets you more detail.
    > Just like 6cm x 6cm gets you more detail than 35mm and 4"x5" gets you more
    > than 6cm x 6cm, a larger sensor can capture you more detail.


    It turns out lens performance doesn't go down anywhere near as much as we
    thought. The Mamiya 645 lenses are brilliant on the 5D; painfully sharp. And
    the Mamiya 645 lenses are known for their bokeh, not their sharpness.

    > Now: All of that being said, do you *need* - or even *want* a full-frame
    > sensor? While some (perhaps many) may *want* it, few *need* it, and some
    > wouldn't even take it if it were offered to them. But that's fine,
    > photographers should use tools that suit their particular drives, desires,
    > and styles.


    The 5D is the right thing if one has artistic pretensions for prints in the
    11x14 to 13x19 range. If you want people to be able to walk up to your
    prints and keep going "Wow" until their noses hit the glass, you want/need a
    5D.

    If you want to shoot birds with a long telephoto, you probably don't want,
    let alone need, a 5D.

    By the way, people who like big prints from the 6MP cameras are _NOT_ nuts.
    If you have a strong image, the larger you print it the better it looks.
    Whatever the MP count.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 15, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stephanie

    My "tab" button has gone crazy!

    Stephanie, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,445
    Brian H¹©
    Jul 24, 2003
  2. bulldog

    My Browser has gone crazy

    bulldog, Jun 8, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    671
  3. Ronald Singer

    IE gone Crazy!!

    Ronald Singer, Aug 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    466
  4. Scribner

    Windows Installer gone crazy

    Scribner, Sep 19, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    381
    Scribner
    Sep 19, 2004
  5. dr greg

    crazy browser go crazy

    dr greg, Jan 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    954
Loading...

Share This Page