"...there is no compelling reason for going to a full-frame DSLR."

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by mc2imaging, Mar 13, 2009.

  1. Yep that's the quote from the Pop Photo that just arrived in my mailbox today. Of course, we all knew this because we discuss the reasons for this every other day in this forum...
    I'm glad the guys at Pop Photo think $2700 for a body is "down from the stratosphere."
    I found the article very interesting and it was nice to see them verbalized by someone who isn't blindly following the Pentax branded lemmings over the cliff for no more than an emotional attachment to a brand name. I also learned that Canon EF-S lenses won't even mount on a FF body - way to screw your customers again, Canon!
    I also liked their statement that FF DSLRs are becoming the 'medium format' of the film days.
    Now that I've stirred the pot a little, I'll let it boil for a while...
     
  2. EF-S lenses won't even mount on a FF body - way to screw your customers again, Canon!​
    I'm kind of wondering just what the point is of having a "digital only" lens that covers only a roughly 15x22mm sensor area mount on a "FF" (i.e. 24x36mm) body. The point of the separate mount is that it makes it possible for these lenses to clear the mirror on the smaller sensor cameras, without worrying about having to clear the "FF" mirror. If you really want to force it, there are mods that allow the EF-S lenses to mount, but some of them just won't work with the bigger mirror regardless. Many Sigma and other "digital only" lenses will mount on the larger cameras, but they will not cover the whole 24x36mm area in most cases.
    I guess Pentax would never have changed their mount for improvements in functionality, would they? I'm pretty sure I must be able to mount all the latest AF Pentax lenses on my M42x1 mount Asahi Pentax H2, right?
    Anyway, Canon customers are not "screwed", they are loved , and basking in post-coital bliss. ;)
    Stir your own damned pot.....
     
  3. Why would anyone want to mount a EF-s lens on a full frame camera? Do you mount your 35mm lenses on your medium format camera? Same deal. EF-S lenses aren't designed to go on full frame cameras. Getting mad bacause they won't is like yelling at the rain because it got you wet. What did you expect?
     
  4. And here we go...
     
  5. If I were 20 years younger and started out with dSLR a few EF-S lenses because that's what I could afford, then decided I wanted to upgrade, what incentive would I have to stay with Canon? At least Sony and Nikon have given their users an upgrade path...
     
  6. What are you talking about Matthew? 20 year younger you would just buy your way up Canon's APS-C sensor product line if what you had bought were EF-S lenses. If you thought you were going to buy a full frame camera eventually, you should have just bought full frame lenses. It's not like there aren't dozens of them out there.
    Your argument makes no sense.
     
  7. Yikes! I'm really a coward at heart...I'm heading over to the Classics forum...and hide out for a while ;)
     
  8. Sorry to startle you, Scott.
    The classics forum sounds like a nice place to hang out... I guess that's where the guys who don't ebay everything they own when they buy a new camera are.
    That also reminds me that I need to get a new battery for the Mamiya... CRAP... I forgot I can't put a DA* on it... nevermind.
     
  9. I personally concur more with the logic Nikon seems to be following with their FF system. Their FF models, as far as I know, will accomodate their DX lenses and the camera will crop accordingly, so the lenses are usable without having to carry two cameras at any one time. That way, APS-C lenses are usable on FF models, and FF lenses are usable on an APS-C DSLR. But I agree with Nikon only to a point, because Nikon also makes all but their more expensive cameras now without the ability to AF with any lens not having its own AF motor. So a large portion of Nikon's very good AF lenses are incompatible with these cameras! That is worse than what Canon has done with FF, IMO.
     
  10. I don't see the point behind the 28mm DSLR lenses, either. I mean, what gives? The lens structure itself if only slightly smaller; why not build it compatible with 35mm in the first place? I don't think the companies making lenses for 28 millimeters are really saving any money on the overhead; the lens assembly appears to be about the same to me; has anyone seen a real structural difference in a 28 millimeter's lens?
    Is there anything there that just cannot be done if it were a 35mm system lens? I don't think so. Hey, I don't know everything there is to know about lens assemblies, especially the newer contemporary ones; so, if you think I'm wrong, let me know; but, I look at these situations, and I see marketing madness more than structural design influence.
    This problem with "one platform" is another good reason for all-manual, used lenses. You'll pay 1/3 the cost, and get the same quality; after a full day of using it, you might have burned an extra 1/4 calorie by turning the dials yourself. It'll bayonet on to the 35mm; it'll bayonet onto the 28mm DSLR. The investment will last longer, and provide the user with much more utility.
    If the companies had any sense at all, they would re-release old, successful designs onto the market. If you think about what the user is getting for their dollar; it seems to me that the pricing is backwards. It's the 28mm-only lens that should be costing 1/3. How companies get into this, I have no idea. I suppose that is why I am not a mogul.
     
  11. "...there is no compelling reason for going to a full-frame DSLR."
    For the vast majority of people who use cameras to document their every day life and travels that is a true statement.
     
  12. Interesting replies. Sony, aka Minolta, didn't stay with the same lens mount, they only added a FF sensor to their existing DSLR lines. They kept the same lens mount from film AF to DSLR to save redesigning existing lenses but they changed the lens mount from their manual focus line, causing users to buy all new lenses. And Nikon lenses are not fully backward or forward compatible, so while your lenses have the same lens mount, they won't necessarily work on every body.
    As for FF DSLR's, that simple for me. I went from Minolta MF line (never bought into their AF equipment) to Canon's EOS line with both a film and digital SLR's, so both work with the lenses and I don't have to rethink focal lengths. Makes the work a lot easier. I don't see any boiling, just a lot of hot something else.
     
  13. [Ellis V] "For the vast majority of people who use cameras to document their every day life and travels that is a true statement."
    I'd venture that for more than 3/4 of all the aforementioned people an 8mp decent-quality P&S with a usable ISO 800 would do the job, weigh far less than a DSLR, and as so many here have expressed, the in-camera processing does a great job, too. Add a simple, fast, image processing software for minor tweaks, and that's all one would need. And there are P&S's that allow for filter use, too. As the dynamic range problem is addressed with P&S's, the 'need' for DSLRs will be even lower.
    A lot of newbies are intimidated by the ambient technophilia here.
     
  14. I don't see any boiling, just a lot of hot something else.​
    Exactly. Our reach can easily exceed our credit card limit as hobbyists. I just ordered a less than APS-C sensor body. When will I come to my senses and act my age.
     
  15. Our reach can easily exceed our credit card limit as hobbyists.​
    I think you will be paying 18% on your credit card DSLR soon....But even for cash I can see a compelling reason to not buy a FX camera which is they cost to much for me.
     
  16. I always pay the bill in full, Ross , but I am in synch with what you wrote. Haven't paid any interest for a long time and think the CC companies are banditos. It has been five years since my last camera body purchase and so I guess I am not really a passionate photo hobbyist, got too many pastimes to be more than a moderate true believer. I could have managed with the good old 5 meg body longer,but you know the feeling. I guess Spring fever. I shop slowly but there is that fatal lure: " promotion good until march 31st." aloha. gs
     
  17. ". . . it was nice to see them verbalized by someone who isn't blindly following the Pentax branded lemmings over the cliff for no more than an emotional attachment to a brand name. . . "
    C'mon, now. How about attachment to Pentax because I can pick up an entire medium format system for under $2K? How about using lenses older than I am on cameras that still work after 20 years? There's a lot of good in Pentax equipment. And, if they follow through on a digital 645, given the excellent performance and enviable ruggedness of the 1986 645, they'll do well.
    The reality of our DSLR situation is, overall, we've got more than enough of what it takes to make a decent still picture in digital these days. We've seen decades of improvement in the technology, and it's good enough to make a decent photo. It's not like we're beset with lines across a monitor, or files so huge you need a network of computers to process one image, anymore. While I still favor film, technology-wise, I think we're fast approaching a point where we're well inside the minimum limit of what we would need to record a good image. If anything, the technology on hand is excessive.
    I don't believe it's unreasonable for Pentax to not build a 35mm DSLR. What more is it, that's really needed to go from 28mm DSLR to "full frame"? The main point about a lot of these technology sales is Keeping Up with the Joneses, or some kind of consumer-class prestige. How is it that the 28mm sensor, as it is, is not good enough? 6 megapixel JPEG images are beyond adequate.
    I think we're more at a stage where companies would do some good for themselves to kind of broaden up the base a little. How about some interchangeable backs for cameras, so that users can switch from digital to film and back, with the same equipment? Size-wise, that's not unreasonable. How about a little more making use of what's on hand; and making things last a little while longer, rather than racing down the factory line to the trash heap? There are a lot of directions and innovations camera companies can make right now that could be a little better than the standard "race to prestige" manufacturing.
    Hey, how about a digital sensor system that you could snap into any old 120mm camera? 127 cameras would be a great place to start. And, why not? Didn't a lot of these companies shell out fortunes to do the R&D on those old camera designs? And, why should those investments be put out to pasture when they could be making someone profit?
    Every company that turns its back on its older technologies, that it paid so dearly for, is burning a very expensive bridge behind them. Why rush to a full frame sensor? What exactly is wrong with the sensors we have? Anyone look at their equipment, and really, honestly say, Man, if only I had a few more megapixels, everything would be alright.
    I doubt it.
     
  18. Nikon also makes all but their more expensive cameras now without the ability to AF with any lens not having its own AF motor.​
    Actually Michael, it isn't Nikon's most expensive bodies that AF with most of their lenses, it is only their very low-end bodies that don't. In other words, the only Nikon bodies that don't AF without AF-S or equivalent lenses are a couple very inexpensive consumer bodies.
    But to Nikon's credit, the have been consistent with their F-mount for fifty years, meaning even quite old lenses will mount on today's bodies. Moreover, their newer FX (full frame) digital bodies even have a DX mode to accommodate APS-C sensor lenses. There are some sacrifices but at least they continue to work.
    As for Pop Photo's comment, I am sure this is true for most DSLR users. But for most pros and some hardcore hobbyists, the benefits of full frame digital are obvious. Certainly they are the minority of total users out there but that's why Canon/Nikon/Sony et al offer so many flavors of ice cream. Gotta love all the choices.
     
  19. Bob passes Valium out to everyone.....then writes them all a Reality Check......now, if I can just find my violin.............
     
  20. I have to say I didn't agree with this until recently, but a year or so shooting bands playing in tricky lighting has demonstrated to me that with the right raw file processing (Capture One in this case) my D300 is a more than capable camera, and every time I get full frame lust I find I can still get more from it. About the only thing I'd really like is a viewfinder of the kind you get on a D3, but in the meantime the format suits my needs fine.
    Plus, a full-frame camera for when you really need it is pretty cheap. As long as you are comfortable using the old-fashioned floppy sensors that came on a roll in a little tin.
     
  21. Gerry, paraphrasing Browning! Way to go, Dude.
     
  22. Well, I have to admit that I haven't seen some of the things in this thread that I expected to. Some of that may be because the thread got moved out of the Pentax forum where there never seems to be any shortage of users whining about no K-Mount FF bodies...
    I picked on Canon's EF-S series lenses because I was curious about who would come to the defense of the big C. Actually, I get the EF-S series. They are small, light, and cheap. Most people wouldn't have more than 2 or 3 of them anyway, so at this point someone with the coin for a FF body probably wouldn't blink if they were making a jump from a Rebel to a even a used Mk II.
    The fascinating thing about the EF-S is the fact that Canon is taking advantage of the smaller sensor in a way that Nikon and Pentax have not. Historically speaking, Nikon has followed second behind Pentax in forwards and backwards compatibility between lenses and bodies, and this may be why they haven't brought the rear element closer to the sensor plane on their dSLR's. Obviously, Pentax is committed to APS-C (and anyone who argues that this is unprofessional is welcome to come by and look at some of my 20x30 prints) so I would expect Pentax to eventually engineer some lenses that won't clear the mirror on a FF body myself.
     
  23. Bigger and better files are just more useful. When I capture an image I like, I find myself doing various treatments and crops. I do this with my DX cameras. Fx or Mx would be even better. That is the most compelling reason I can think of for going to a larger sensor.
     
  24. OP said, " I also learned that Canon EF-S lenses won't even mount on a FF body - way to screw your customers again, Canon!
    Written like a complete Newb to Canon. Personally I am NOT a fan of EF-S at all, except for tyros who wanna stay in the crop format, but geez...
    And intentionally trolling Matthew is a sign of someone who just signed on to the Internet for this first time in her life.
     
  25. I would like to second what Mr. O'keefe-Odom stated in his last post..When the realities of life are realistically looked at with dispassionate eyes, there are very few photographers, amateur or professional, that are eeking every last bit of performance out of their less-than-full-frame cameras, much less those using full-frame cameras..
    I can see several areas that would be of benefit in improving..The primary one would be for a digital body priced under $2000.00 to have a very high ISO performance, say ISO 12500 to ISO 25000, with the ISO 100-200 digital noise performance of one of the current flagship bodies..This would allow people practicing many different types of photography to eliminate the need for flash for 80-95% of their work..Then, the on-board flash systems could be designed out of those cameras, both lightening and simplifying them..Sports, wildlife, night, photojournalists, street, just to name a few, photographers would immediately benefit from such high ISO performance..
    It is tempting to lust for the latest, and most advanced digital camera with a plethora of lenses to compliment it..As these cameras get bigger, they also grow heavier..The latest FF bodies with a selection of 3-4 zoom lenses, extra batteries, and all of the necessary ancillary gear weighs as much as a good large format camera and its equipment..What the hell is the difference between lugging 15-25 lbs of digital gear around compared to lugging 15-25 lbs. of large format gear around..A pound weighs the same regardless of the format being used, regardless of whether the camera is film or digital..
    It seems to me that the latest and greatest full frame digital camera systems have brought the 21st Century photographer full circle, weight wise at least, to exactly where our 19th Century counterparts were at the dawn of photography..
     
  26. The reason I posted this 'bottom line' from the pop photo article was really in response to the trolls who constantly come into the Pentax forum crying about Pentax screwing their customers because they aren't giving their customers an 'upgrade path' to a 'professional' FF DSLR. These trolls are whining about a problem that doesn't exist.
    The remark about the EF-S lenses was really an afterthought that I added to my OP because I was curious how many of the trolls would come out of the woodwork to defend the bloody papacy known as Canon for its unusual commitment to its cropped sensors. Nobody is griping that 4/3rds needs to grow up and become 24mmx36mm, but for some reason the Pentax forum is littered with trolls that are convinced that the death of the APS-C sized sensor is "inevitable" so we as Pentax users have taken it in the shorts.
    Of course, when the trolls in the Pentax forum start spewing their venom on the Pentax platform for their dedication to the cropped sensor, all of the same positives for the small sensor that are listed in the pop photo are mentioned, then the trolls start accusing the platform's defenders of being mindless slugs who carry an illogical loyalty to a brand name that they find no value in.
    If you couldn't guess, I really did think this post would have found more value in the Pentax forum.
     
  27. If you still can't figure it out - Matt & I pretty much feel what John O'Keefe-Odom stated so well in his post up there.
    How about attachment to Pentax because I can pick up an entire medium format system for under $2K? How about using lenses older than I am on cameras that still work after 20 years? There's a lot of good in Pentax equipment. And, if they follow through on a digital 645, given the excellent performance and enviable ruggedness of the 1986 645, they'll do well.
    The reality of our DSLR situation is, overall, we've got more than enough of what it takes to make a decent still picture in digital these days. We've seen decades of improvement in the technology, and it's good enough to make a decent photo. It's not like we're beset with lines across a monitor, or files so huge you need a network of computers to process one image, anymore. While I still favor film, technology-wise, I think we're fast approaching a point where we're well inside the minimum limit of what we would need to record a good image. If anything, the technology on hand is excessive.​
    The full backwards compatibility is only one of the reasons we hung onto film as long as we could, and put up with a gorgeous-glassed, but fully obnoxious other-wise digital camera (reasons why electronic viewfinders are a bad idea is another thread), until Pentax announced the K10D was coming.
    I love my Pentax, my K10D will be pried out of my cold, dead hands years from now. I find it silly & obnoxious for people to gasp & die in an orgasm of technophilia when there's an announcement of the next step for some other company.... when it's obvious they have no good reason for NEEDING the latest & greatest (full frame), they just "must have it" because they think it will somehow make their work so much better all the sudden.
    The whole entire point of the thread: You're not taking full advantage of your APS-C sensor, so why, exactly are you just dying to buy FF? Keep your $$.
     
  28. PS: the best line of the entire thread -
    Plus, a full-frame camera for when you really need it is pretty cheap. As long as you are comfortable using the old-fashioned floppy sensors that came on a roll in a little tin.​
    YOU SAID IT
     
  29. Seriously. I have a 10+ year old full size 4x4 pick-up. I hardly ever drive it fully loaded and never drive at full throttle. Must be no compelling reason to get a new truck.
    Well, maybe the better mileage, better trailer towing and braking features, better seating arrangements, better ride. Nah, not compelling.
    Since when is it anybody's business what camera I want or care to buy? What's next some dweeby cabinet level post? The Camera Czar determining corporate average pixel counts. Is there some kind of silicon wafer shortage?
     
  30. But to Nikon's credit, the have been consistent with their F-mount for fifty years, meaning even quite old lenses will mount on today's bodies.​
    Yes the backward compatibility is super on Nikon. That's why all of my non-AI Nikkor lenses will mount on nearly none of the current lineup without serious surgery. That's why they won't work with metering on hardly any modern Nikons. I love my old Nikon lenses. I can mount and meter with all of them on the crop-body Canon EOS cameras, and most of them on my full-frame Canon EOS cameras.
    That's compatibility. Nearly all of camera companies have at one time or another abandoned their user base with new mounts. Nikon when they brought out the F, Pentax when they changed to the K mount, Praktica when they went to the B mount, Canon from FD to EOS, and so on.....
     
  31. I am an enthusiastic emateur photographer. I like to document family events and memories of places that I visit. Among my top end cameras are a Nikon F4s, Leica M6, and a Nikon D200. But I don't like being a pack animal for photo gear when I am flying.
    My wife and I took a 7 day river cruise on the Danube this past November from Budapest to Passau, Germany. My wife carried a Canon Powershot A620 and I had a Canon A650IS. We were delighted to when we returned and got our copy of National Geographic Traveler, and on the cover was a photo of Chessky Krumlov, a place we visited.
    Here is the Nat Geog Traveler cover.
    00SlW6-116401584.jpg
     
  32. And here is a photo taken by my wife with here Canon Powershot A620.
    00SlWI-116403584.jpg
     
  33. My point is that a moderately priced camera will meet the needs of most amateurs.
    40 years ago, I worked in support of the NRO, the National Reconnaisence Office (Spy satellites). For this type of photography, astronomical costs might be justified. I wish I had just my Canon A650IS and could get back the $15,000 - 20,000 I spent on cameras I really didn't need.
     
  34. For the 'recon' stuff, I put a DA* in front of Tech Pan. With grain that tight, who cares about a little cropping?
     
  35. Kerry, it is a neat feeling when one of your photos shows up on a mag cover or a postcard. Whenever I see that, I tell my wife they stole my photo. :)
    Getting back to the OP, I finally read the entire article. Matt's quote is accurate but this applied to "most serious amateurs and many pros." Personally, I would substitute "some" for many pros.
    However, they also said, "If you require extremely high-resolution images, make really big enlargements, or if you want great leeway in cropping deep into an image, you'll want a high-megapixel full frame DSLR," adding that current technology has a limit of 14-15MP for APS-C.
    Surely full frame DSLR's are way less than 10% of the market, which is no immediate threat to crop sensors. Fact is, both have their place and should be here for a long time to come until technology changes the path.
     
  36. I enjoy my high end cameras because they are marvelous devices. I may upgrade to a D300 when they come on the used market.
    The things I like about all four Powershots I have owned are 1) 4-AA batteries in them; use lithiums and you can shoot for months, 2) optical viewfinder, 3) flexible LCD. The things I don't like about them are 1) wide angle limited to 35 mm equiv, 2) no hot shoe for a real flash.
    But they are portable with a good zoom. I have never made a print larger than 12 x 18 inches. i have found that unless you crop a lot, a 5 meg image can make excellent prints of this size. Now, mind you, I don't try to count all the blades of grass while standing 1/2 inch away from photo.
    I use the LCDs as a viewfinder when I amshooting macro, otherwise I like the stability of having the camera braced against my forehead. I really like the fact that these are takeanywhere cameras. And when I compare their output to what I though were fairly good photos in the '60s, the digitals produce better imagery for the most part and are vastly more flexible.
     
  37. You can generally pay more and get more quality. The FF dSLRs can ultimately, with skill, give better images than any of the crop format breed. But the danger is that advertising will convince you that you need more quality than you can use.
    I happen to think that with the images that we make to document our lives, content is more important than quality, and as Kerry says, a compact like a Powershot is there as far as quality is concerned, for screen views or pocket prints. The consumer dSLRs take it up another level with more flexibility as regards lenses and variable ISO, but unless you routinely print larger than 8x10, you don't get to see the increased quality.
    So yes, I see no compelling reason.
     
  38. "as Kerry says, a compact like a Powershot is there as far as quality is concerned, for screen views or pocket prints."
    The last three Powershots I have owned, the 5 meg A95, the 7.2 meg A620 and the 12 meg A650IS were all capable of making very nice 12 by 18 inch prints. So was the 3 meg (extrapolated to 6 meg) Konica A602.
    Read some of the articles written for the NY Times by David Pogue on the "megapixel myth". The prosumer and professional DSLRs have a wider envelope of applicability in terms of ISO, lens focal length, and the ability to make billboard size prints, but as long as one is shooting within a common envelope of say, ISO 200 or less, focal length (equivalent) of 35-140 mm, and print size of one to two feet, the output of either sets of cameras is not worth the very large difference in cost to a pure amateur like me. Given nominal equipment, the eye and judgement of the photographer trumps quipment, IMHO. My wife hardly knows the difference between an f-stop and a door stop, but she consistently produces more pleasant photos than I do. I have graduate degrees in engineering and a better appreciation of the physics involved, but that doesn't help my phtotgraphic "eye". But I fugure that even a blind pig sometimes finds an acorn. They just have a lower batting average.
     
  39. even a blind pig sometimes finds an acorn​
    Wow, I hadn't heard that in years. I love it!
     
  40. Of course film is better than digital or is it the other way round?
    This maize beer is quite strong.
     
  41. What the article forgot to really talk about (they did a little on te bottom of p.58) was the ISO and size of pixel benifits of FF. They didnt even put that on thier "Sensor-Size Scorecard."
    With every issue of pop photo I read I become more and more dissapointed. There seem to be more ads in the back every time and less useful info. Today there was an HD cam article and a waste of an editorial with "Raising the Bar" the new resolution tests. I should shut up and just cancel my sub, but its so cheap its hardly worth trying to figure out how to stop getting it.
     
  42. "EF-S lenses won't even mount on a FF body - way to screw your customers again, Canon!"
    I think we discussed this a gazillion times on here, if you are thinking about moving up to FF don't invest in a bunch of EF lenses. I purchased exactly one EF lens for my Canon 30D(not that I have allot of lenses) and that's because that is the only lens that will allow you to have Real wide angle with smaller sensors.
    I could have opted for the 16-35mm, but it was out of my budget back then. I would not trade my FF canon 5D for anything except maybe the 5 Mark II. I like the resolution I get with this camera and it's not overkill like the 50D. I'm also getting used to the Clunck of the shutter instead of the Clack of my 30D. Now wheen I slap on my 24-70mm it's a 24-70mm.
    I don't have to pull out my calculator an do the math anymore. The 10-22mm stays mostly at home in my bag unless I know I'm going to be in real tight situations. The good thing about the smaller sensor of the 30D is that I could shoot long-distance, but IMHO I would not go over 800 ISO with that camera unless it was absolutely neccessary. I just rather use flash.
     
  43. ...there is no compelling reason for going to a full-frame DSLR."​
    I like the bright viewfinder of the D700 I have gotten to play with. Reminds me of the veiwfinder in my F100! Honestly, if I could afford FF, that would be enough for me to justify the purchase. Of course there are other bonuses, like better high iso performance, getting the actual focal length of your lenses, etc.
    I guess I now have a reason to look forward to my Pop Photo. That's right... the mail does run slow in Montana.
     
  44. Of course film is better than digital or is it the other way round?​
    That kind of statement makes me cringe! (and what's with the p.net exclamation point police?) Better for what? I guess my answer would be 'both!'
    ISO and size of pixel benifits of FF​
    Which would be what exactly? Typically, high ISO performance is cited as an 'obvious' benefit, but many forget the smaller sensor gives more depth of field so I can leave my lens open one more stop than on FF. Where there other points on this subject you think pop photo should have made?
    Is it really that hard to know that grabbing the 35mm prime will give you about the same FoV as yer old 50? To know that a short zoom is a short zoom and a long zoom is a long zoom? I was shooting 35mm SLRs for over 20 years before I went primarily digital. This whole "use a calculator" or "get my actual focal length" stuff seems like a weak excuse to me. Maybe that means I never had enough primes, but I did come from the old school 28-50-135 kit...

     
  45. I personally think FF is a precious option in a camera system, because there area advantages. Whether I will move to FF eventually, is a less obvious thing. I use a D200 with a number of primes. My set of lenses turned ount in time to work very well with the small sensor, and no matter how hard I think of it, moving to a D700 (which I would love) would cost me a significant amount of extra money in lenses (first of all, something at the wide end to replace my 12-24 DX) and/or a serious rethinking of my shooting habits. Would the advantages that FF would have for me outweight the disadvantages (including bulkier lenses in this)? currently I don't think so. So I'm likely to look very carefully at the D400 when Nikon will release it, and if I like it, I might just stay with APS-C.
    The point is: what if Nikon introduces some new lenses that make my move to FF less difficult? I might want again to move up. So I will say it again: FF and APS-C have both strong points, and I'm happy that my brand of choice offers high end cameras on both formats, and hope they will continue.
    L.
     
  46. Remember the Half Frame Olympus Pen F of the 70's? A Half Frame 35mm is the same size as a 1.6 or 1.5 crop camera sensor. I don't seem to remember people complaining about the Half Frame lenses not being compatable with their Full Frame Olys.
    Also, no one ever seemed to make much of an issue of DOF disadvantage or advantage of the Half Frame cameras, nor did they say the Half Frame Olympus gave an advantage when shooting telephotos during sporting or BIF shoots. More "Film Grain" per Duck so to speak.
     

Share This Page