Do we actually want full frame?

[fernando lopez]

"Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" that is.... :-)

[jespdj]

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.

[John Crowe]

Good grief! We just went through this about 3 weeks ago. YES!

[william_wallace1]

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.

[markci]

<i>What I'd much rather have is a 36x36mm sensor.</i>

<p>

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.

[brambor]

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.

[andrew robertson]

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.

[steve santikarn]

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.

[andrew robertson]

Good thing the camera companies are ignoring guys like you dude.

[atan]

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.

[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.

[bill_b2]

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

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>do we really, really want it, or is it just another gadget that we can do we without? </i> </p>

<p> I don't know what about "we" but yes, <b>I</b> want FF badly. And yes, as the 5D is still 2000$ more expensive than 20D, I can do without it till I save enough.</p>

 

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[pbizarro]

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.

[jim_larson1]

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.

[jon_austin]

"... 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

[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.

[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.

[rick h.]

<P>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?</P>

<P>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.</P>

<P>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.</P>

<P>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...</P>

 

R.H

[jake_v]

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!