Do we actually want full frame?

I've been visiting many forums lately and there seems to be a

tendency among serious amateurs and fanatics that a digital full

frame SLR is the way to go.... . But....do we really, really want it,

or is it just another gadget that we can do we without?

 

1. On a FF- body, the amount of megapixels will increase (look at the

5D)and we will get files that are fairly big (especially in RAW) and

that will eat up a lot of space on our memorycards and take longer to

open in our software.

2. A serious amateur loves to print his photos on say, A4 size, but

really doesn?t need a resolution for billboard prints. 6 to 8 MP will

do just fine there.

3. With the increase in sensor size,we as photographers are put to

the test in terms of camera handling and technique. Small errors will

become more apparent when you have larger prints and inferior optics

will show off more easily.

 

Don?t we serious amateurs already have all we need with our 6-8 MP

Digital SLR?s.

 

The only thing one could wish for is viewfinder view similar to that

of a Pentax D- slr. Oh yeah, one more thing, spotmetering. I hope

Canon is listening.

*I* most certainly do...a full frame 8x10 camera ;)

 

But, I'll settle for the 24x36 size of the 5D...for now.

I grew up on 35mm, and I miss the large viewfinder and ease of manual focus.

 

Is it worth the extra $$? Nope, not until it's a lot cheaper.

 

Plus, what will I do with my 17-85

I think the question is really 'do we want to <em>pay</em> for it?' It will always be more expensive. Computers are growing at Moore's Law, storage at about half that, and sensors something less than that. So I suspect that the camera will remain the bottleneck for some time to come.

Who is "we"?

 

Obviously, some of us do, as has been demonstrated by the sales success of the 1Ds I and II. To shell out up to 8 grand for a new 1Ds, some of us want full frame *very badly*!

 

Many more of us want full frame, but we're not willing to pay quite so much for it. For some of us in this category, the 5D is on its way. For the rest of us, we'll wait for the sub-$3K, then the sub-$2K and then the sub-$1K FF dSLRs that will eventually arrive in the market place.

 

The size of the files is a non-issue. The CPUs in the digital bodies will get faster. Larger capacity memory cards will arrive and gradually tumble in price. We will upgrade our PCs' CPUs, or replace them with faster models. We will buy ever more capacious hard disk drives.

 

Over the past twenty years, CPU speeds have improved nearly 1,000 fold -- and CPU power many times that -- and hard disk drives have increased in capacity by a factor of 10,000 or more, all the while the prices have tumbled in actual dollars, never mind inflation-adjusted dollars (or yen or Euros or GBP or what have you). There's no indication that this trend is going to change any time soon.

 

And finally, for those of us who are left, we're either completely happy with the current crop of sub-FF dSLRs, or are (im)patiently waiting for the prices to fall even further so we can get into the game. Maybe one day, those of us in this camp will get those bigger, brighter viewfinders, spotmeters, ISO displays in the viewfinders, and all the rest we've been asking for.

 

It's all good. Time (and product development) marches on.

Yes. We really want full frame.

 

1. Bigger files can be cropped more easily, and memory cards are cheaper now than ever

and getting cheaper.

 

2. Serious amateurs are known to make 20x30 inch prints or more. That's a meter wide

for the rest of the world.

 

3. Bigger sensors don't provide any challenge that 24x36 film doesn't, and amateurs and

pros have been handling that format for 75 years.

 

Sounds like somebody is trying their damndest to rationalize NOT buying a 5D. Did the

wife say no, Leon?

From Leon's itemized observations:

 

1 - One general rule in understanding trends in digital technologies, is that storage often can be assumed to be free and infinitely expandable. When I first bought a digital camera, a 64MB memory card was fancy. Now at least 1GB, which is 16 times bigger, is common. Given that MP growth is bound to be capped eventually, and that storage density and in-camera processing power will continue expanding exponentially, there's no problem here.

 

2 - Who says that full-frame means more MPs ? You can perfectly imagine full-frame sensors with low pixel count and a stellar dynamic range and low noise at very high ISO, bringing photography in a territory that film technology was never allowed to explore. Related to point 1 above : the total amount of information recorded per frame is bound to stop increasing exponentially with the pixel count, and maybe grow a little bit linearly (meaningful bits per pixel), so storage won't be a problem.

 

3 - I don't know what you mean here.

 

For me the real frustrating thing with cropped sensor is how most people use these cameras and then pay for -- and haul around the weight of -- glass that was design to yield a full-frame image. You could have imagined that Canon would eventually switch to a full EF-S lens catalog like they did back when they introduced the EF lenses, including professional-rated lenses, but we know they won't do that, because they have explicitely chosen to make all their higher-end DSLRs full frame.

YES, on the Canon forum.

 

NO, on the Nikon forum.

Has the 1Ds series really been a sales success? With 2k units made per month, while hundreds of thousands of 1.5/1.6x bodies are sold in the same time?

I like the low depth of field afforded by using a medium format camera. I want a larger chip before I'll consider digital.

The best thing about the less-than-full frame bodies like the D1mk2 is that all my telephoto lenses just got 30% longer, for free, and without any additional weight. All those little feathered creatures just got a lot closer.

yes, oui, ja, da, Yes, YES, eee-SSSSss!...

Yes, yes, yes ... Now we can move on to other issues :)

 

- Harman

There are both advantages and disavantages of FF versus APS, so there is simply no universal answer that will satisfy all photographers. If FF ever becomes dirt cheap I would probably still use both FF and APS sized sensor, to take advantage of each formats best features.

 

Cameras are tools. we should get over this debate which is premised on there being one tool that will be right for every job and every person.

P.S. a FF dSLR sensor is not the !only! way to go; I'll also use my 20D with long lenses, and 35mm film on "FF" 35mm bodies, and 120 roll film on MF bodies, and 4x5 sheet film on LF bodies. Also, I have a hand-held spotmeter which works fine with all of the above.

 

P.P.S. I like gadgets a lot, but I don't have any which take photos.

Ilkka, the 1Ds and 1Ds II were both $8k new. The 5D will appeal to a much larger

audience, including those folks who already have wide angle lenses and didn't want to

invest a lot of money for ultra-wides that become effectively just wides on a cropped

body.

 

Heck, you could buy a 20D for $1200, and a 10-22 for $800, and a fast 24 or 35mm f/1.4

for $1200, or just get a 5D for $3200 and use your existing 20-35 zoom and a 50mm f/

1.4, making the total system cost for equivalent angle of view and apertures about the

same.

 

I think the only barrier between full frame cameras and runaway commercial success has

been the high price. We'll see in a year or so whether I'm right. I'm pretty confident that a

$3200 full frame, quality camera will appeal to a much larger mass of buyers than an $8K

camera. In two years or so, when Canon releases a full frame for $1500, we'll see 1.6x

cameras practically on life support.

 

The Nikon camp is working overtime manufacturing reasons why they don't want a full

frame camera, but if Nikon ever does produce one you know they'll change their tune. My

problems with cropped cameras are so:

 

1. For any given level of technology, a larger sensor will have the capability of producing

higher resolution or lower noise, or both.

 

2. There exist no 18mm perspective control lenses in the Nikon lineup, nor are there any

16-20mm f/1.4 lenses. These angles of view and speeds are critical for many people.

The 12-24mm f/4 DX lens is a full stop slower than the 17-35 zoom it purports to

replace.

 

3. The DX (or EF-S) format could theoretically provide smaller, lighter, and cheaper

lenses. This was one of the benefits extolled by the manufacturers. This is a fantasy that

hasn't been forged into reality.

 

The reality is that full frame cameras haven't been a huge success yet, for the same reason

the Maybach isn't. Not because you wouldn't drive one, but because you can't or won't

spend the cash on it!

I'd rather have 8mp FF than 12mp APS. But then give me 12mp FF anyday! :-)

The only good reason I can think of for smaller formats is that they act as a virtual

teleconverter for telephoto shooters. I like the fact that my 10D makes my 300 f/4L IS into

a virtual 480 f/4L IS, and with 1.4x TC a 672 f/5.6L IS.

 

Smaller sensors also crop out the corners and edges of an image circle, reducing vignetting

and increasing sharpness. However, I would rather have my wide angle act as such, even if

it means dealing with slightly lower corner sharpness.

I don't want "full frame" because I see the aura of hype surrounding it as an impediment to re-thinking how digital cameras should be designed. The 35mm format has such photo-dogmatic weight due to its decades of popularity in the film era that I think people are too willing to settle for it in digital form rather than push the camera companies for something better & more flexible.

 

There are no magical properties to 24x36mm sensors. What I'd much rather have is a 36x36mm sensor. This would allow for both horizontal and vertical framing, in a number of different aspect ratios, with the viewfinder reconfiguring itself accordingly. Want to shoot 24x36mm? Go right ahead..the finder will give you a 3:2 aspect ratio. Want to change from horizontal to vertical framing? Press a button. Want to shoot square? Fine...you'll get a square finder image and roughly a 30x30mm portion of the sensor. Shoot in RAW and you'll get the whole 36x36mm, dark corners and all, to play with.

 

But we won't get any of this if the market simply rushes towards an imaginary "full frame" nirvana due to nostalgia, the all but guaranteed full-court marketing press or (most likely) both.

 

-Dave-

Why are people so mentally entrenched with APS? APS is a much more dead film format than 35mm.

 

Ah, I remember now: It's cheap!

 

I want my full frame viewfinder back. Stop, end of story. Okay, I lied. I want my 24mm f/2.8 (or faster!) back, too.

 

"With the increase in sensor size,we as photographers are put to the test in terms of camera handling and technique. Small errors will become more apparent when you have larger prints and inferior optics will show off more easily."

 

With the decrease in viewfinder size, we as photographers are put to the test in terms of camera handling and technique. Small errors become more common when you can no longer judge focus and smaller compositional elements critically through the viewfinder.

Leon, you say end by saying "The only thing one could wish for is viewfinder view similar to that of a Pentax D- slr...". Over the last year, I have spent a lot of time, effort and $ to switch my primary small format system from Pentax 35mm film to Canon dSLR. I have no regrets. I think that Pentax has a lot to learn from Canon in the "D-slr" arena. I think that all of the other competition should take the same lessons. Do you have a different perspective ?

So, you'd rather pick a smaller sensor for the sake of being progressive, despite the many

advantages of a larger one?

 

Smells like Nikon apologism to me.

<I>The best thing about the less-than-full frame bodies like the D1mk2 is that all my

telephoto lenses just got 30% longer, for free, </i><P>

 

You got a 1DII for free?!?! Seriously, I think the 1.3 crop factor of the 1D is a very nice

compromise, but if myriad rumors are correct, few agree (most importantly, few program

managers at Canon, Inc.).<P>

 

Ilkka, 24K units/year at $8K apiece is almost $200 million in income. Assuming they

make some profit (and why introduce the 1DsII if they lost money on the 1Ds), that's a

substantial bit of black ink (at a wild-ass-guess profit margin of 20%, nearly $40 million).

Whatever

you might think about them, Canon and the other manufacturers are in this to make

money.

And David, you are ignoring some facts here.

 

As I said above:

 

1. Larger sensors will always have less noise, more resolution, or both.

 

2. There are no ultra-fast super wides, nor are there any ultra wide PC or TS lenses. They

would be incredibly difficult to design, and even if invented would be insanely expensive.

 

3. PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE 35mm LENSES!

Andrew, I agree with almost everything you have said, but I have to dispute two parts of "full frame cameras haven't been a huge success yet, for the same reason the Maybach isn't." Can you guess which they are ?

 

P.S. (i) I would fully agree if you put "digital" between "frame" and "cameras", and (ii) I don't know of any Canon sellers who will adapt the size, colour and texture of the camera body to suit my personal preferences: this Canon boutique may be next to the Maybach desk at my MB dealer, but I haven't yet found it.