What are reasons to purchase a full frame body?

<p>Other than for super wide angle photos?<br>

Less noise? Larger prints? </p>

<p>Larger, brighter viewfinder.</p>

<p>Less noise, less depth of field</p>

<p>For me, I greatly prefer the larger and brighter VF. It's much easier to see what the hell I'm shooting. Really helps keep horizons level too. Also, I grew up shooting 35mm film and FF feels more natural. And I especially appreciate my lenses having the coverage they were meant to have. Of course the the stunning IQ and low noise are secondary benefits.</p>

<p>Most Canon lenses are designed for full-frame, and while you can use them on a crop body, you aren't getting their full value.</p>

<p>More lens choices. (5D owner)</p>

<p><a href="../photo/8243626&size=lg">Sigma 12-24MM @12MM</a></p>

<p>You can get ultra wide angle lenses for APS-C; I always find that to be a silly reason to go to full frame. Granted, with full frame you can find a 14mm f/2.8 prime, but this is extremely wide and outside the scope of most peoples' interests (I find 10mm on APS-C to be pushing it).</p>

<p>There are the obvious "technical" differences (depth of field, noise at high ISO), which I understand. However, considering a scene shot at low ISO with equivalent quality lenses and similar depth of field, is there really a difference? And I'm not talking about pixel-level detail, but overall image quality. For example, considering a medium-sized print (8x12 or thereabouts) is there a visible difference between FF and crop?</p>

<p>I don't doubt that there is, I just haven't heard anyone really explain it well - they just say "it looks better to me" or "the difference is obvious". I'm sure someone around here is capable of explaining it.</p>

<p>If you have a large collection of EF lenses then it might make sense to make full use of your lenses especially at the wide end. However, from ISO 100 to 800 (or 1600 depending on who you talk to) the performance between the latest cropped and full frame bodies are more or less on par. For super high ISO work you will probably need full frame.</p>

<p>Here is Canon's take on the advantages of full frame...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nikondigital.org/articles/canon_fullframe_whitepaper.pdf">Canon's own view of full frame advantage</a></p>

<p>If you've shot 35mm film for an extended period of time, your mind already has embedded in it what a 50mm lens will look like, what a 200mm lens will look like. Go to an APC sensor, and your mind will have to relearn all of that.</p>

<p>Density of a sensor has direct effects on things like fringing and noise. Yes they have noise reduction within the camera and via seperate programs or plugins, however it's WAY better to start with a clean image.</p>

<p>I used to shoot a Sony F828 and the noise levels at higher ISO's were horrible. I moved from that to the Canon 5D and I was completely blown away by the lack of noise.</p>

<p>To get the most out of your wide angle lenses.</p>

<p>For me, it was the 5D was a natural transition from 35mm... no change in aspect, lenses looked the same. And the time of purchase, it was in the right position on the product scale between the 20D and the 1D.</p>

<p>More pixels in more space are nice, and many of the other advantages of 35mm-sensor (as I prefer) are one way or another related to that.</p>

<p>Clearly if you have a large selection of "legacy" lenses, there are reasons to go to the larger sensor. Ditto if your mind can't wrap itself around the fact that this is not "crop;" it is simply a different format. (what's so hard about realizing that a 28mm lens is a "normal" lens?) I personally bought a 5D just so my old PC-Nikkor 35mm focal length perspective-control lens could be put back into service for its original purpose. Frankly, I'd just as soon have got the new TS-E 17mm if it had been released at the time and if it weren't so pricey.</p>

<p>If you are starting from scratch, I don't think it really matters much. Canon's new 7D certainly shows that the APS-C format is not some transition stage until everybody flocks back to "full-frame" (I still can't figure out that 7D designation, maybe purposely chosen to make a point about APS-C in relation to 35mm? ?).</p>

<p>Since all EF lenses work on all APS-C lenses, it's a little, well, wrong to suggest that your choices are more limited on APS-C, since none of the 35mm bodies will accept EF-S lenses. There are numerous ultrawides now for the APS-C cameras, and, as said, the new TS-E 17mm finally brings even tilts and shifts to the APS-C cameras at a usable focal length for architectural work.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Greater resolution</li>

<li>Better high iso performance / lower noise at high iso </li>

<li>A larger number of usable apertures between max aperture of lens and onset of visible diffraction blur</li>

<li>Smaller DOF at largest apertures</li>

<li>More wide angle lens options</li>

</ul>

<p>That said, not everyone needs or will benefit from full frame. For one thing, the better cropped sensor camera can produce image quality at least equal to that of 35mm film already. For another, the potential resolution improvement will only be apparent if you print rather large and shoot carefully. And there can be downsides: slower burst rates for those who might need this, etc.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>The Canon paper is quite good. It does mention the one clear advantage of the smaller sensors--smaller bodies and lenses.<br /> <br /> The viewfinder advantage will always rest with FF.<br /> <br /> The DOF advantage of the FF is under the circumstances of using the same lens/aperture where you have to back up with APS-C for the same image and thus lose DOF, but with a wider lens on the APS-C doesn't the DOF argument go away?<br /> <br /> It seems that the larger FF sensor will always have an advantage in terms of more total pixels, or larger individual pixels, but the 7D suggests we are reaching a point, speaking practically, where the extra light-gathering advantage of the larger FF pixel is becoming irrelevant in terms of dynamic range and high ISO noise.<br /> <br /> In the trivial category, the smaller sensor suffers more lost data for a given dust particle, but the shutter has less distance to travel over a smaller sensor for higher FPS.<br /> <br /> In my mind, it's coming down to a bright viewfinder versus less weight. The weight advantage is not trivial. Look at reasonably matched equipment sets in terms of focal lengths and apertures (assuming all other factors will eventually be reasonably equal): a 5D2 + 24-70 + 70-200f4 + 400f4 versus a T1i + 17-55f2.8 + 28-135 + 300f4. You could carry TWO APS-C sets and still be lighter than the FF suite! For me as a casual photographer who likes to lug his gear all over, I'll take the smaller/lighter option.</p>

<p>I went with APS-C because of the weight and size issue. On seeing a 70-200 2.8 IS I realized why it is a professional lens, you would have to pay me to carry it around all day. I like the Tamron 17-50 and the Tokina 50-135 a lot. I hear good things about the Tokina 11-17. APS-C has the bases covered nicely at this point.</p>

<p>I think it's more of a habit. Like previously mentioned, if you used to shoot 35mm, used to the FOV, DOF, and larger viewfinder, it's just feel different. Like people that used to shoot with Leica or rangefinder kinda camera, they prefer to it because they used to the style of shooting rangefinder camera. Resolution benefit, IMO, at where it is now (technology wise), is pretty minor.</p>

<p>Continuing with the trivia theme regarding:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"In the trivial category, the smaller sensor suffers more lost data for a given dust particle, but the shutter has less distance to travel over a smaller sensor for higher FPS."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since the larger sensor has more surface area it may end up holding more dust bunnies. (I always felt that was part of the issue with the 5D...)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

All the comments are right on the ball. For me, I allways felt kind of short changed by the cropped cameras. They are nice to have because of the extra magnification, but there are some subtle differences that come with a FF, that you just have to experience.

<p>Preference.</p>

<p>I shot 35mm film since 1992 (nothing like as long as many here, but I couldn't sensibly have started much earlier...). I bought a used D30 in 2003, used it alongside my EOS 3 until 2005 when I sold both for a 20D. </p>

<p>I was never really happy with the 20D. I just couldn't get on with the crop-frame. I can't totally say why, it just didn't "feel" right. I took about 2000 shots with the 20D over 4 years (mostly of things for ebay or car parts, etc), and became somewhat fed up with photography.</p>

<p>Earlier this year I was very generously given an EOS 5D. I've taken almost 2000 pictures with it in 5 months. I find that I'm enjoying photography once again.</p>

<p>Ironically, I find that I crop LESS with FF than APS-C. I get what I want in the frame to a much greater degree with FF. I find that the images need less PP. </p>

<p>Ultimately, for me, the reason for a full frame body is that <strong>I prefer it. </strong></p>

<p>I have found the images created by my 5D tend to be smoother, with a bit better color, more film like than those created by the 50D, 40D and Xti I have used. But the biggest difference I have noticed is in processing of the RAW images in Photoshop Elements. Wow - it is so much easier to achieve better, sharper, smoother images with the RAW images from the 5D. It is nearly effortless. It's a much greater struggle with the images created by the crop cameras. My imagination? I have noticed it consistently in dealing with many thousands of images over the last 6 months.</p>

<p>For me it would be one reason: natural selection of fast, good-quality primes, that fit at their intended focal lengths: 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, etc. There are no equivalents of these in the APS-C world.</p>

<p>One reason not pointed out, and important in my decision. Pro AF and metering (until the 7D) only came in 1.3 crop and FF, Canon do not make an ultra wide zoom for the 1D series cameras (why has this gone on so long? A true pro camera that you can't get wides for, shame on you Canon)</p>

<p>So if you want wides and the best AF you have to buy the FF 1Ds series, or off brand lenses.</p>

<p>For most people there is no difference, and with the 7D I think a new generation of pros will grow up never bothering with the FF, I am stuck with my film roots and "see" in 24x36 areas and all my lenses (bought before digital) work on FF, so why would I not use them. To truly integrate crop the 70-200 2.8 EF-s lenses are needed.</p>

<p>If I was starting out now it would take a lot to convince me that EF-s lenses and a 7D were not the way to go.</p>

<p>Greg, I have had issues with mosaicing and moiré on crop bodies that I haven't had with FF ones (they were older much lower resolution crop bodies though), but now the resolution is so high on crop bodies I agree, the instances of being able to tell the difference on small prints are very rare.</p>

<p>One thing no one has mentioned that occurred to me is that an APS-C sensor of the same pixel count as a full frame sensor taxes the same lens at a greater spacial frequency. If I understand MTFs correctly, this not only affects resolution but also larger scale image contrast. Does this make sense? Would this explain what Jeff H described?</p>

<p>I know that larger structure contrast on the compact cameras I've used is certainly inferior to my APS-C cam, though I never understood if this was a function of the lens or the sensor.</p>

<p>I personally don't think all the advantages are with the FF. Smaller size has been mentioned, but as a macro shooter, I'd rather shoot DX on a D300s than FX on a D700. Same MPs, but the D700 has 95% viewfinder accuracy, weights 20% more and costs as much as 33% more. The D300s has 100% viewfinder accuracy and for my work, the 1.5 factor is in important advantage. I want the shallow DOF and long working distance.</p>

<p>I use the 105/2.8 micro and 200/4 micro for most of my shots. With a FF body, I'd be looking for a 300/4 micro that's neither made, nor would it be carriable.</p>

<p> </p>