Do we actually want full frame?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by fernando lopez, Sep 16, 2005.

  1. 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.
     
  2. *I* most certainly do...a full frame 8x10 camera ;)

    But, I'll settle for the 24x36 size of the 5D...for now.
     
  3. 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
     
  4. I think the question is really 'do we want to pay 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.
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. 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?
     
  7. lhg

    lhg

    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.
     
  8. YES, on the Canon forum.

    NO, on the Nikon forum.
     
  9. 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?
     
  10. I like the low depth of field afforded by using a medium format camera. I want a larger chip before I'll consider digital.
     
  11. 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.
     
  12. yes, oui, ja, da, Yes, YES, eee-SSSSss!...
     
  13. Yes, yes, yes ... Now we can move on to other issues :)

    - Harman
     
  14. 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.
     
  15. 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.
     
  16. 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!
     
  17. I'd rather have 8mp FF than 12mp APS. But then give me 12mp FF anyday! :)
     
  18. 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.
     
  19. 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-
     
  20. 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.
     
  21. 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 ?
     
  22. 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.
     
  23. 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,
    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.).
    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.
     
  24. 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!
     
  25. 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.
     
  26. My .02 cent's worth: I bought a 20D almost a year ago. I then bit the bullet for a 1DsII. My 20D sits largely un-used now, even when shooting with the "virtual teleconverter" advantage of the 1.6x crop-factor and a 500mm lens. I'll almost always put up with lugging the extra weight of the 1DsII as well. Why? The viewfinders can't be compared, I got my wide angle lenses back and I can crop away almost 2/3rds of the 1DsII image and still have around 6 megapixels to play with. If I don't need to crop I've got plenty of pixels for a big print if needed. The two negatives (for me) of the 1DsII are cost of course and the need to buy extra storage - and lots of it. But the prices are always coming down. Example: I recently purchased a 300 gigabyte external Seagate hard disk, new at Best Buy for $250 - less than a buck a gigabyte.
     
  27. "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."
    No they didn't. You didn't get anything that you couldn't get from a full frame sensor with the same pixel density and cropping in post processing. You got cropping for free, and a reduced camera cost. You don't get free magnification from a cropped sensor. To see this for yourself, pick up a FF camera and compare the viewfinder image with a cropped DSLR using the same lens. At the same time, you can also see why many people want a full frame DSLR.
     
  28. I don't care what the others say.<br>
    I ain't gettin no crop factored cameras. Not one, not me...
     
  29. Do I want a full frame digital SLR- hell yes. It's the next best thing to medium format digital, which I will never be able to afford. Everyone else for themselves.
     
  30. "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."
    While I don't disagree that this idea and square formats have merit, I'd like to point out that most final images, especially prints, are in rectangular format. Generally, monitors are rectangular, web pages are rectangular, paper is rectangular, magazines are rectangular, posters are rectangular, and so on. At that time, you're cropping and throwing away some pixels. So why pay for those pixels in your equipment and data processing -- just flip the thing, and optimize a bit for the end product. Cropped sensors are used to reduce cost, and this cost is high, and the elbow swivel can help out here.
    This might also help explain why 645 digitial tends to be more common than 6x6 digital.
    But if you happen to really like sqare format, and publish your own work in that format, then of course, you'd want a square sensor to start instead of throwing away the rectangular excess pixels.
     
  31. I don't need it. I thought i would have to upgrade, but my 20d is more than sufficient for my
    needs. I dont want those large file sizes. Sure, when FF dslrs are around 1500 and its features
    far and away surpass those on the 20d I wouldnt mind upgrading. Until then I am working
    with ef-s.
     
  32. So, you want it.<br>
     
  33. I prefer the large viewfinder and like my wide angle lens to remain wide angle. If 1.6x crop
    sensors die out I will not shed a single tear. Memory
    cards are cheap and plentiful, computers are fast and HD storage is inexpensive and huge.
    Anyway, 5D RAW file are nothing compared to 4000dpi 16 bit scans. After years of
    scanning 5D files are very petite!
     
  34. Just wanted to make a point on the future "sub $1000" FF dSLR.

    Doubt it.

    FF dSLRs are taking the MF niche. MF cameras dont' sell for under $1000. Hell, a basid full manual Hasselblad body, with no lens, no AF, no motor drive, no prism finder still costs over $2000!
     
  35. I own a 1ds MKII since yesterday and ? yes, i wanted it so badly, now I have it and I am happy!
     
  36. yes we do
     
  37. yes here too, for me viewfinder is the most importnat right now, followed closely by the larger files and res. And I dont only want FF, when they are all at FF, I can't wait for them to reach the pixel density present in something like the D2X.

    I'm using the word want here...not need. I like my 350D very much.

    [sorry, that was a little self help exercise I'm trying]
     
  38. ky2

    ky2

    Oh, we definitely "want it". But only when they give it to us for a nice price, and not cut down on any of the features. 3.3k for a 5D is still overpriced, especially when the thing has a sub-par fps count and a slightly modified AF.

    The main question here is not the viewfinder, as Nikon and Minolta have clearly demonstrated, APS-sized cameras can come with wonderful viewfinders. The question is how good a lens do you need to team with your FF camera... especially at the wide-side. Ironically, the Nikkors are much in that respect (their 17~35 for example), although they don't even use it digitally.
     
  39. next camera after my 20D will be a FF .. I shall wait .. I dont like the 5D
     
  40. Jose, I bet my life that FF DSLR will be under $1,000.00 eventurally.<br>
    I gurantee you, I will buy a FF DSLR when they go for $1,500.00 or less.<br>
    I hope you'll stick around in this forum, so we can have a chuckle.<br>
    :)
     
  41. Going by the numbers, if the 20D is twice the camera that the 10D is, then the 10D is twice the camera that the 5D is... No? Oh well, I do love my 10D anyway, regardless of the fact that I cant shoot straight with it :)
     
  42. YES we do want FF Canon DSLRs.<p>
    YES all squares are rectangles.<p>
    YES a FF Canon DSLR will be available for 2000 dollars by summer 2007.<p>
    More importantly, YES because of the tiny APS-sized viewfinders and lack of proper wide angle lenses for APS DSLRs.
     
  43. Mad Wand wrote:

    "While I don't disagree that this idea and square formats have merit, I'd like to point out that most final images, especially prints, are in rectangular format. Generally, monitors are rectangular, web pages are rectangular, paper is rectangular, magazines are rectangular, posters are rectangular, and so on. At that time, you're cropping and throwing away some pixels. So why pay for those pixels in your equipment and data processing -- just flip the thing, and optimize a bit for the end product. Cropped sensors are used to reduce cost, and this cost is high, and the elbow swivel can help out here."

    Of course the idea has merit. A 36x36mm format (let's call it "Super 35") would be technically superior to the 35mm format while still being able to use all lenses designed for 35mm. It would be a higher-cost format, at least in the short term, for people who want/need more flexible framing.

    The 35mm format is rigid. You may love the 3:2 aspect ratio but what if I love 4:3? Or 6:7? Isn't it better to have a reconfigurable finder that shows me 4:3 or 6:7 framing if I want it? Isn't it better to have a finder that can switch between horizontal & vertical frames? I can, of course, always crop my 3:2 images after-the-fact. And I can flip the camera on its side for verticals. But why should I have to? Technology is advancing...let's make use of it.

    So you throw away some pixels with a 36x36mm sensor. So what? In return you get a far more flexible system. If you like shooting square with a 35mm camera you're left with a 24x24mm image after cropping. With the Super 35 format you'd get a 30x30mm image, a 56 percent increase in image area. Using the same lenses. If you like 4:3 photos you can crop the 35mm format to 24x32mm frames. Or you could use Super 35 and get 27x36mm frames instead. (You might have to go back down to 24x32mm or so with wider lenses due to corner light falloff. But let the camera worry about this too.)

    What's driving the push towards "full frame?" IMO it's mainly the inability or unwillingness of 35mm adherents to imagine something better. If we ask for nothing more the camera companies will take the path of least resistance and give us nothing more.

    -Dave-
     
  44. Re: the sub-$1000 FF dSLR: Don't doubt it. I think your reference to the MF niche is flawed. I believe we'll see the FF dSLR extend its market reach downward as well as upward.

    A year ago, many in this forum were dissing the notion of a sub-$4K FF dSLR, and now we have the 5D. Heck, a week before it was officially announced, many were proclaiming the leaks were an elaborate hoax!

    And since Derek C.'s willing to bet his life that FF DSLRs will sell for under $1,000.00 eventually, I'm willing to do the same. (Bet HIS life, that is...)

    Re: the success of the 1Ds series: Mark Chappell already countered the challenge to the successfulness of Canon's top-of-the-line dSLRs. My point is that Canon has been able to maintain a new selling price between $7k-8k for these bodies, and still sell all they care to make. That's a definition for success in my book!
     
  45. >>Has the 1Ds series really been a sales success?<<

    Absolutely! Have you seen data to suggest otherwise? At the price point of the camera ($8,000 USD) it has in fact surpassed even Canon's own expectations, hence the forthcoming 5D.

    You are NOT *seriously* comparing sales of items that are nearly $7,000 apart, are you?

    Success is relative to the market for which a product is intended. A Ferrari is NOT meant to compete with a Ford minivan therefore, the PRICE point is different and so are the units per month/year. But, as long as it meets projected sales for its *intended* market a product WILL be a success.
     
  46. jtk

    jtk

    20D and D70 are easy to detect, vs good film scanned desktop, at 11X14. Therefore there's demand for full frame.
     
  47. 20D and D70 are easy to detect, vs good film scanned desktop, at 11X14
    Have you made this test yourself? I have, and I strongly disagree. At larger print sizes, you can begin to notice a difference, but in a blind comparison (where the viewer is unaware of which print is from scanned film and which is digital), any differences are extremely minor. And unless it's an extremely good scanner, the prints from a 20D or D70 may well be better. They will certainly have a better dynamic range, if the film in question was a slide film.
     
  48. Is that the "royal we"? We say YES!
     
  49. "Sounds like somebody is trying their damndest to rationalize NOT buying a 5D. Did the wife say no, Leon?"

    I am not saying she did, but neither that she did not.....;-). Sometimes you have to read between the lines with women... .
     
  50. "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" that is.... :)
     
  51. Yes, I want a full frame camera. Why: my wide angle lenses will be really wide again, the big viewfinder, high resolution and good dynamic range.

    I have a 10D now and I'm going to buy the 5D in a few months.
     
  52. Good grief! We just went through this about 3 weeks ago. YES!
     
  53. I want a dSLR with a 30.5 mm x 30.5 mm square sensor.

    Lenses designed for 24x36mm image planes should be able to handle this no problem.

    a=SQRT((24^2+36^2)/2), where a is a square that will fit in the circle.

    If Nikon comes out with this, I will sell my digital rebel and my canon EOS IX.
     
  54. What I'd much rather have is a 36x36mm sensor.
    What's so magical about 36mm? A panaramic ratio like 40x16.5 would also be very nice, so I say at least a 40x40 sensor.
     
  55. Yes I do want FFI want my 24mm lense to be a 24mm lense. I love shooting wide angle. I love the reduced noise and most certainly love a large and bright viewfinder.
     
  56. Puppy Face, you DO realize that a 4000 DPI scan, while providing a larger file size than a 5D
    RAW file, may offer substantially less resolution. Unless, of course, every film grain is
    exactly the same size as a photosite on the scanner's imager, and they are all precisely
    aligned into the same exact grid pattern that the imager has.

    You can't just scan a file, look at the dimensions, and declare that it has higher resolution.
     
  57. why should we apply the old (i.e. film) standard to the new (digital) technology? I say use what ever image size that is optimal for quality/cost and forget about the 35mm film size.
     
  58. Good thing the camera companies are ignoring guys like you dude.
     
  59. I am using film and digital to take landscape and with my 16-35mm lens and 1.6x crop on 20D, I was having difficulties getting the width I want and this past trip, i ended up using more of my 1V instead of my 20D. the 8MP on 20D is great, but FF on 8MP I can deal with that. I guess it's really depends on what kind of work you use with your camera. For portrait, 1.6x probably not a big of deal since the working disctance between the subject and the photographer is is manageable.
     
  60. tan

    tan

    Wow, there's a lot of opinion, and mostly from those who want FF, yours truly
    included.

    I have already sold my 20D and 10-22 lens, as I am afraid the value of the
    20D will plunge soon after the release of the 5D, to be followed probably by
    the announcement of the 20D Mk II. I lost $650 on the 10D (because I waited
    a few weeks too long) and $400 on the 20D, both after a year's use.

    I have been blown away by 24 x 36" poster prints I have seen from the 1Ds
    Mk II - gallery quality you would normally associate with medium format film
    cameras. The 20D is IMO a joke compared to the 1Ds Mk II. I am assuming
    the 5D uses the same sensor as the 1Ds Mk II, so I am expecting the same
    CLEAN noise-free high-resolution images from the 5D i.e. at least as good as
    the 1Ds. I wasn't able to get that with my 20D.

    The bigger/brighter viewfinder and 2.5" LCD monitor are just icing on the
    cake.
     
  61. Yes to full frame. I am here because of FF interest. I shoot with a Nikon D70. I am happy with the quality. I have a real problem with the small image in the viewfinder. I used a Nikon F3 before, a 35mm film camera, and wasn't that thrilled with its finder. By comparison to the D70, my F3 is heaven. So much so that it is now forbidden. It is too hard for me to readjust to the D70, an APS format.

    Bill
     
  62. do we really, really want it, or is it just another gadget that we can do we without?
    I don't know what about "we" but yes, I want FF badly. And yes, as the 5D is still 2000$ more expensive than 20D, I can do without it till I save enough.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  63. I can get very nice A4 size prints with a powershot S70, and also with scanned 35mm transparencies.

    I still don't have a FF DSLR, even the 5D is twice the price of a brand new EOS 1V, so... and nearly 8 times the price of a EOS 30 (which is what the 5D should be compared to).

    Still, when they stop producing Velvia 100F or Astia 100F, I suppose I will have to buy a DSLR, and it will be FF. Therefore, I am glad there will be cheaper options than the FF 1 series available.
     
  64. A fair amount of hogwash in this thread.

    First. . . .there are sooooo many people who plan to "not lose too much money" on their cameras. Puhlease. Unless you are really, really, really careful (sell every camera one week before the next model is announced); cameras are "sunk" investements. Worthless the moment you open the box.

    Second. . .I also laugh at all those people who say "I am selling my 20D to get a 5D!". Geez. . . .this is litterally "I am selling my Honda Civic to get a new Lexus"! Canon must be laughing all the way to the boardroom. Everyone is going to sell their new $1300 20D's -at a loss- to buy a new $3200 camera.

    Third . . .do I want full frame? Not if the 24-105 "L" lenses stay over $1000! Can't afford the lens! Never mind the body! Maybe once full frame drops to under $1500. . and I am due for a new camera body. . .maybe. Might still opt for a $500 1.6 sensor over a $1500 ff.
     
  65. "... I am afraid the value of the 20D will plunge soon after the release of the 5D, to be followed probably by the announcement of the 20D Mk II."

    I doubt very much that you'll see any downward price pressure on the 20D as a result of the 5D's release. These bodies are in two separate categories. I also don't believe we'll see a replacement for the 20D until at least 2/06; at least 5 months away.

    "I am assuming the 5D uses the same sensor as the 1Ds Mk II, so I am expecting the same CLEAN noise-free high-resolution images from the 5D i.e. at least as good as the 1Ds. I wasn't able to get that with my 20D."

    Hmmm, I get clean, noise-free, high-resolution images from MY 20D!

    The 5D uses a different sensor than the 1Ds Mark II, which is why its FF sensor is ~ 13MP, compared to the 1Ds Mark II's ~ 16MP. The photosites in the 5D are identical to those in the 1D Mark II (8.2 microns); in fact, you could think of the 5D's sensor as identical to the 1D Mark II's, grown out from 1.3x to FF size.

    Since both bodies use the Digic II chip, barring any other neat little technological enhancements Canon may have tucked into the 5D, I think it's fair to assume image quality at least as good as the 1D Mark II. It might even better the 1Ds Mark II on this score, since the 1DsII's photosites are smaller (7.2 microns).

    http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_5d_or_20d.html
     
  66. tan

    tan

    "Hmmm, I get clean, noise-free, high-resolution images from MY 20D! "

    Let me qualify what I said. I do get clean, noise-free images from my 20D as
    well BUT only up to maybe 13 x 19" and only if I am shooting at ISO 100 - and
    maybe ISO 200. I don't think you can get noise-free images from a higher
    ISO, and I don't believe you can get very clean images (even at ISO 100) with
    very large poster prints. You should be able to, with the 5D, and most
    definitely with the 1Ds and 1Ds Mk II. The 8 megapixels and half-frame
    sensor of the 20D is quite limiting.
     
  67. tan

    tan

    I should make another qualification. With FF sensors, you need good quality
    glass, or you will see some softness at the corners. Unfortunately, not all the
    Canon glass (including their L-series and prime lenses) are really that good,
    especially at the wide-angle end. So having good glass is a necessary evil to
    owing a 5D, as it will amplify anything that is good ... or bad.
     
  68. Why does this question keep surfacing? If you don't want/need a FF sensor camera, don't buy one. Why do people that don't want a FF camera feel the need to make everyone that wants/needs a FF sensor camera feel as if they are wrong?
    If it's down to those that have the money to buy what they want, regardless if they need it or not, you should cheer them on! The more people that purchase a product tends to lower the cost in the long run for the rest of us. That includes more people buying FF cameras WILL lower the price for smaller sensor cameras.
    Why do you care if I or Joe Smith buy what we buy? It's none of your business. I don't see people complaining about Porsche creating faster, better cars, or Panasonic making 60" plasma TVs (Do we really need 60" TVs?! Isn't the 20" plasma enough?). :) Sorry, but I find this and the other 400 similar posts to be absurd.
    Go pet your camera, or shoot your dog, or play with your kids. Something more constructive than worthless questions that just fill up PN's database...
    R.H
     
  69. While we're on the square sensor subject...

    You want to be able to select portrait/landscape without tilting the body, well why not make it circular, so that we can rotate it any way we see fit? I hate having to tilt my camera to get that shot... Give us more to experiment with!
     

Share This Page