Why would you want to buy a Full Frame DSLR Camera?

[chinmaya]

<p>

I know this question might sound bit weird.

<p>

 

<p>

I have XTi and and I am building my DSLR system based on its 1.6

crop factor. The only things ghosting my mind are budget + IQ + my focul length

requirement. Most of the time, in lens posts, I have seen folks (including me, I

did)

saying like tomorrow I may buy full-frame body, so I will stick on EF lenses only...

<p>

 

<p>

I think one's lens selection is complete, if it meets their focal length

requirements,

IQ and ofcourse speed (am I missing anything important here?).

<p>

<p>

So if one builds a system today with the mix of EF/EF-S or third party lenses,

with best IQ, and say these lenses meet other requirements of that user, then,

in future, if ever need an upgrade, then all that person should be worrying (I

think)

is about a body with advanced features like better AF system or may be

advanced controls etc? isn't it?

<p>

<p>

The question i am asking is more in terms of why would

any one want to just buy a Full-Frame body, is it because it gives me

35mm coverage.

 

<p>

Or because it will captures more detail than 1.6crop body? I am sure

Camera maker can build it into 1.6 crop body.

<p>

<p>

Or is it that some day in future only cameras out there is Full-Frame bodies.

<p>

<p>

Or is it because current full-frame body(ies) is more advanced than 1.6 crop,

then why not just build a better 1.6 crop body with more advanced and

professional features.

<p>

 

<p>

I may be short-sighted here, but I wanted to here more from

you folks, on why would you want to buy full-frame camera? just because its

35mm or anything more?

<p>

 

<p>

thanks

<p>

chinmaya

[martijn_houtman]

The reasons may vary, but, apart from the reasons you already mentioned, to me, the

most important reasons are:

<ul>

<li>Bigger/brighter viewfinder</li>

<li>Less noise: the photon-sensors on the chip can be larger because the surface of the

sensor is bigger. Larger sensors means less noise, basically.</li>

<li>You already mentioned it, but coming from film, my lenses would remain the same

focal length, which is a big advantage to me.</li>

</ul>

<p>

It has nothing to do with advancedness, although the full-frame camera's in general are

considered more professional, so they have more features as well. But for example the

crop 40D has a lot of new features the 5D does not have.

</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

Image quality and the ability to use wide lenses as wide lens, not normal lenses. I dislike putting a 24 on the camera and have it work as a 35 and then not have a 24 for which I would have to get a 16.

 

I have a 18/70 and 55/200 DX Nikon lenses and will not get more. Everything else is prime auto focus or manual focus. The 24/35/50 are duplicated in auto/manual. They are so cheap I don`t feel bad owning both. Then I got a 80/200 4.0 zoom that looks brand new and makes excellent images for a Nikon lens.

[picpocket]

I think reading the following essay should help a lot

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm

 

 

But the summary is that a larger sensor gives a big noise advantage

 

Besides that are DOF and FOV changes, which may or may not be desirable

[j_smith6]

Because I sucks at multiplying by 1.6 :/

[pjmeade]

Because I didn't want to steal one?

 

The noise, lens, dof, fov issues are all valid reasons.

 

P

[lester_wareham]

A number of reasons:

 

Pros for full frame are in common for all large vs small format considerations:

 

1. Yes 1.6X more resolution from your lenses. Specially important at the wide end for landscape photographers as wide lenses tend to have more limited performance due to their design trade-offs.

 

2. Larger viewfinder is often quoted: for me with glasses this might be a downside.

 

3. Apparently it is almost impossible to use the TS-E lenses on APS-C cameras at least using the tilt function.

 

4. Narrower depth of field, for a given perspective (position) a larger format always has less depth of field partly because you are using longer lenses. This can be an advantage for some subjects like portrait and a disadvantage for other subjects, say available light work.

 

5. Lower Noise. For a given pixel resolution you have larger photo sites.

 

There are probably other reasons too. I doubt at this point in time the desire for parity with film focal lengths is a big one. One soon adapts to the use of focal lengths on APS-C.

 

Of course if you are mainly into wildlife then APS-C has many advantages.

[freelance]

Don't forget that for many people photography is an addiction. You always want more ad more...

 

Crops sensors has also its advantages: 400 mm = 640 mm

 

I started with XT and after buying a lot of lenses and a 40D, I am considering the 5d ... or its successor

[matt_needham]

"Or is it that some day in future only cameras out there..."

 

Full frame, or 35mm format, is about 90 years old. I have a hard time imagining that the camera designers of the future are going to feel sentimental enough about it to have any obligation to stick with it. The technology will decide the format, and the technology is going to change immensely in the next 10 to 15 years.

 

Buy equipment for today, because tomorrow or the next day someone will introduce technology that will change everything.

[denisbergeron]

For me the question should be : "Why someone will not..."<br>

If I can buy a bigger than 24x36 sensor with same quality lenses, I will buy it right away just for the DOF control.

[baivab]

Chinmaya - read my thread on 40D or 5D. In brief, I shoot film, have lens, etc. covering most of the f.length. Not L series but I like what i shoot, have shot. Planning to go digital. If I opt for 40D, etc. I'll need to buy ANOTHER lens - zoom or prime to cover wide-angle, ANOTHER lens - prime to cover my normal, i.e. 50 mm. the length I'm most comfortable with. On the other hand, by going FF, I retain and re-use. Also, there are numerous others who might have a Sumicron, Jupiter 9 or some exotic lens which although a pain in the #@@# regarding manual focus in DSLR might still want to continue to use it using the same ol' adapters they have. FF is great and better for landscape photography, whereas having a 1.x crop - helps in portrait. Also, if you have a 1.x crop, you can *get away* with kits lens too, as they are mostly *center sharp*, in FF - it's better to have well received, reviewed *good* lens.

[photo_dark]

to me, the body is more related to the lenses than the other way around. If you prefer L glass, then you are probably going to want a full frame body eventually. They are still designed with full frame in mind. It seems to me that aside from non-L primes, there aren't a lot of non-L zooms that cater to a full frame sensor body.

[jake_holt]

Three words: bokeh, bokeh, bokeh

[mike_earussi1]

If you're happy with what you've already got then you don't have to do anything. The main reason, as others have pointed out is improved IQ. For example, using full frame lenses, a 12mp 5D will look better than a 12MP 450D because, to obtain the same final resolution, it uses the lower frequences of the lens which have higher contrast.

[wes_baker1]

For me, it came down to the intended use of the whole system. If I want to print anything larger than about 8X10, I'll use film, in either MF or 4X5 (because I can't justify buying a large format inkjet printer of my own, given the very few large prints I make). So the DSLR is strictly for web and 8X10 work.

 

For that purpose, max full frame resolution is overkill, and would force me to deal with larger file sizes that I don't really need. I mostly shoot landscapes, so I don't need narrower depth of field than I can get with something like a 17-55 EF-S lens. And because I usually shoot landscapes from a tripod, I can get around any noise issues through longer exposures, blending, etc. (and to be perfectly honest, I don't think the latest generation of crop cameras have much noise to worry about anyway, pixel size not withstanding).

 

So a 1.6 camera is actually better for my purposes. The only thing I really give up is the larger finder and the better weather sealing, which again, is not worth the price for what I want to do.

 

Interestingly, there are a lot of L lens quality complaints from 1Ds MkIII users these days. I think they've reached a resolution now where even the L lenses can't keep up. So look for Canon to release new, more expensive, higher quality lenses in the coming years. If you come down with the ultimate image quality bug, this kind of equipment churning never ends...

[andre_stull]

Canon sells over 60 Full Frame Lenses and about 7 Crop Lenses. Their full frame glass ranges from 14mm-1200mm. If you go full frame you can use all of these full frame lenses as designed. And people do not realize that BOKEH is much better with full frame bodies and lenses which improves image quality. People also think that a 50mm magically becomes a 80mm on crop body..well, it's still a 50mm lens with 50mm bokeh characteristcs and only your field of view is longer. A 85mm full frame lens with a full frame body has different bokeh quality and the image will look better/smoother than a crop body with a 50mm lens.

 

Look at prices for crop vs full frame lenses. A 10-22 crop lens costs the same as a 17-40L full frame lens that is faster, weather sealed, comes with hood and case and is mechnically and optically superior. Yet, people buy the 10-22? Not only that, this is the ONLY wide lens for a crop body. Why limit yourself to one lens when you could use a 14mm, 15mm, 16-35, 17-40 or 20-35mm full frame lenses with full frame body. On the telephoto end, all one has to do is crop the full frame bodies image to the same fov in post processing to have the same image as a crop body.

 

So, your question should be, Why would you want to buy a Crop Body DSLR?

[g dan mitchell]

<p>First of all, APS-C 1.6x crop sensor bodies of fine for many, many purposes. In many cases a lot of DSLR users would

not notice a significant difference in their photographs, depending on what/how they shoot and what they do with the

photographs.

 

<p>Photographic reasons that some photographers will prefer FF DSLRs include:

 

<ul>

<li>More options for wide angle coverage.

<li>Better resolution in cases where it might matter, including large prints. (With X lp/mm from a given lens, a frame can

record "more line pairs" when it is captured with a larger sensor.)

<li>Greater range of usable apertures. Since diffraction won't become an issue until somewhat smaller apertures, FF

bodies can use smaller apertures but don't lose the ability to use larger apertures.

<li>Somewhat related to the above, greater DOF control - narrower DOF at large apertures and equivalent apertures

(compared to crop) at smallest usable apertures.

<li>Potentially lower noise and/or greater dynamic range.

</ul>

 

<p>As I stated in the first paragraph, I'm not going say that everyone should rush out and get FF sensor bodies - it is

really more about matching the equipment to the photographer's particular needs. These considerations and others could

be part of a decision to use anything from a crop sensor DSLR to an 8x10 LF camera.

 

<p>Dan

[mtwhite]

I can only speak for myself and my smallish hands, but until someone builds a fullframe DSLR that's as compact as a rebel, I'll stick with my XT-and-1st-gen-EF-primes setup. A 5D is too big and conspicuous for my tastes, to say nothing of the Godzillian bulk of a 1Ds-class body.

[mrossi]

I've weighed this question for a long time. I know I want a FF sensor, but I've also realized that for birding and other zoom stuff the crop sensor is a real plus. That said, I think for certain types of shooting (landscape, product or subject where DOF is important), I know I'm not getting out of my lenses what I would with FF... In the end I'm going to want to have both, the FF will serve its purposes (more towards the professional kind of shooting) while the crop sensor will continue to be my birding and general hobby lens... Now if the 5D would drop in price I'd be a happy camper but until then I'm just waiting. However, it will be nice to get 28mm out of a 28mm lens, 50 out of a 50, and 85 out of an 85, rather than whatever I'm getting now....

[andre_stull]

I just wanted to give a different perspective to the original question. Both serve photographers well...

[chinmaya]

<p>

I see all kinds of comments from Film-Era, Math challenged to noise to Bokeh. There is lot of heat in this thread :-). <p>

 

<p>

Looking at some responses, I would like to make couple of things clear. One: I am not against Full-Frame bodies. In fact I choose Canon-Path because of 5D and EF lens lineup. Second: The whole point of this thread was, (may be I was not clear in my initial post), if a newbie starts to build a DSLR system, how much should he/she be worried about Full_Frame upgrade and EF only lenses. To me it sounds like a great upgrade for a serious/professional photographer and may not be for a family/hobbyist photographer.

<p>

<p>

So that person should be least concerned about choosing only EF lenses. Makes sense?

<p>

[tdigi]

Is full frame good? yes of course but so is a 20/30/40D.

 

I have seem many photographers using 20D's and other various 1.6 bodies for years with great results. I too will

probably jump on the FF bandwagon in time but mainly for the wide coverage and viewfinder but I don't see the need to

do it now since I have a 40D and its a really good camera.

 

I tested my 40D for noise and at 800 its minimal. Also as to depth of field I am sure you get better results on FF but I

am able to produce very good background blur using my 50 1.4 or even at 2.8 so I don't see this as a big issue either. I

also don't think resolution is much of an issue unless your really pixel peeping.

 

Again I do think the wide end is where FF really shines but I have been reading many posts where its taken as un-

professional or your looked down upon if you use a 20/30/40D.

[KenPapai]

"If I can buy a bigger than 24x36 sensor with same quality lenses, I will buy it right away just for the DOF control."

 

That will likely not happen from Canon. The only bigger sensor would be a 36x36 (sqr. sensor) able to still use your EF lenses. 135 is fixed and here to staty for a long while. Only a scant, small minority would hop to a larger ($$$) format than 135.

[keith_lubow]

The same reason anyone would want a larger format camera.

 

It's not a case of one or the other, but which you prefer.

 

For me, the reason for full frame is rather arbitrary, though it is a reason nonetheless: I simply like 24x36mm format, and always have. Full frame is a digital version of your classic 35mm format.

 

Keith

[wes_baker1]

In the film days, one could buy medium format cameras that framed a shot on 120 (or 220) film in many different ratios: 6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7, 6X8, 6X9, 6X12, and some even wider aspect ratios in the pano cameras. One chose the format for the kind of work one wanted to do.

 

For some reason, except for the 4/3rds cameras, the DSLR world seems mired in the 24X36 proportions that Leica established in the 1920s for 135 film. Here we are worrying about 2 size variants of that same framing ratio. If you print at a multiple of 8X10, you're going to end up throwing away pixels either way. Or, you can just trim the paper to fit whatever image format you've chosen. I never print at 24X36 proportions. Ever. Personally, I'd rather enjoy a 36X36 sensor camera, but I don't think it will ever happen.