What are reasons to purchase a full frame body?

[DickArnold]

<p>Scott. I will fight to the death for your right to speak your mind. Go to wyfoto.com (no www). Look at the 2008 shootout in the center column of their home page. They are a university group and they have done some nice analysis between the current EOS 1d markxx, 5DII, 5D, and 50D. It is well thought out and addresses somewhat the difference in sensors betwen these bodies. </p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Sorry but that is wyofoto.com (no www)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dick,</p>

<p>Thank you, but please don't fight to the death for me.</p>

<p>Interesting test and it pretty much agrees with those of us that use FF cameras say. It doesn't prove or disprove the macro/tele issue though because their test methodology was not set up to. That is they moved the 50D back to match the framing of the FF cameras they didn't crop the FF images to match the 50D.</p>

<p>It disappointed me that they say in their conclusion that <em>"Crop sensor cameras have advantages in the reach department, for telephoto work"</em> , they did not test that and they did not prove that. But all the rest is what we repeat over and over again, small prints, jpegs crop camera good, big prints, bigger prints FF gooder.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I like the toga suggestion :) I haven't been to a drunken college brawl since I retired (one of the little known codicils in the Faber College by-laws is that faculty can on appropriate occasions attend parties organized by students which, well.....).</p>

<p>In any case, I think that you are going to get pretty decent large prints out of any modern digital, really over 8MP, but certainly anything over 10MP. 12, 15, 20MP pretty much "don't make no difference" after you get that high a sensor density. Also remember that these things go by generations, with each succeeding one getting better in key respects.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Scott. I spent 20 years in the AF doing what I thought was defending your inalienable rights. Things have gotten muddier since then or maybe I am no longer naive. I am a former R&D Director (Civil aviation GPS). It takes a lot to prove something in aviation because lives depend upon the accuracy of that research. The reason I can't make any judgments here is that I have not seen anything definitive about testing a 50D vs. a cropped 5D image of the same size from the same distance as the 50D or other bodies for that matter. To do proper research you need to account for variables like pixel size and density, other sensor differences, the processing capabilities of the cameras you are using etc. Too many unaccounted for assumptions lead to unsupported empirical outcomes effected by unknowns that really don't reveal actual causes and the effects of unidentified variables. I could go on but you get the point. So I don't know the answer but my two cameras seem to work well with telephotos without much difference in the images I get from the same distances except for somewhat better color and contrast from the 5D. But that's anecdotal. Results will also vary between different bodies so broad assumptions and generalizations without fairly rigorous research don't have much weight. To quote Donald Rumsfeld there are "unknown unknowables" and I think there are many of those unknowables in the above debate. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dick, I thank you, on your countries behalf, for your service, even though I am not American, or live in America and I have no rights, inalienable or not, there. And yes things do seem so much more complicated and convoluted now, maybe we are both less naive. I, as did you, lived in Thailand and have spent a good bit of time in Laos, as you know one of the most heavily bombed countries in the world, ever, and one that wasn't actually at war with anybody. So maybe things were always complicated and convoluted and we just see things very differently with hindsight and maturity.</p>

<p>Yes again you are 100% correct in that conclusive proof is very hard to get and even more difficult to then present in a manner that non-technically minded folk truly understand. But the testers you linked to, whilst doing some practical, controlled and interesting comparisons went on to make conclusions about specifics that they did not even test, let alone prove.</p>

<p>In my old fashioned way i just looked at some example prints, when I put a crop print and a ff print next to each other I could see there was no difference in enlarging the ff center section and the full crop image, maybe it was subject matter or post processing etc etc, but to tell the truth, in this solely visual medium, I went with the very unscientific decision with what looked better, or in this case, what didn't look different at all :-).</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Scott. I was a pilot and never set foot in Laos, but, I sure as hell saw a lot of it from the air and you are not stretching the truth about the bombing. I fully agree with your last paragraph having done the same thing and also found no perceptable difference. Like you, I do not like unsupported conclusions. However, I think those at Wyofoto did a better job than most of the less than comprehensive work I see elsewhere that passes as research in photography. Too bad they did not support all of their conclusions. A pleasure to make your acquaintance, Scott. Dick</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dick, can we share the pleasure? I am very pleased to have made your acquaintance too.....</p>

<p>I don't have same generation crop and FF cameras otherwise I would post examples re the crop/cropping issue. Now who can I borrow one off? Everyone around my neck of the woods is Nikon.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[mattb1]

<p>Pretty funny thread overall. Not sure why there is an argument really. Stating what areas a FF camera excels in is not the equivalent of saying APC is no good. Personally I want a FF for some of the above arguments, however that is not to say that its the best tool available. I'd rather have a current gen MF system for the same reasons that people like the 35mm FF. Does that mean my 5D II is a bad camera, no it is a great camera. Maybe the best I've ever owned, but that does not mean I'm getting rid of my old XTi. I'm of the same opinion stated in an earlier post, within the same generation of technology larger is better for image quality. Does that mean that everyone should get and be happy with FF, no.</p>

<p>If I needed a fast frame rate, great AF or was concerned about size and cost then my preferences would be different. The APC cameras can take great photos, but for some subjects and situations FF has qualities that I find desirable. Or at least attainable with my budget.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>I've read about the differences in viewfinder size and brightness between APS-C and 35mm equivalent sensor cameras, but never seen the difference. Does anyone have any images which <strong>show the viewfinder difference</strong> between the camera types? Thanks in advance.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Camus,</p>

<p>http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f305/slr-viewfinders-overlooked-feature-main-reason-why-i-would-get-d700-89791.html#post687847</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I use a 1.3 crop, a 1.6 crop, and a full frame, I like them all.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Comments on the thread...</p>

<p>* Regarding wyofoto.com: They applied the same exact sharpening settings to each body. This is less than optimal. With proper sharpening the 50D crops are indistinguishable from the 5D crops at low to mid ISO. The 5D2 still retains an advantage.</p>

<p>* Greg Wachman - <em>One thing no one has mentioned that occurred to me is that an APS-C sensor of the same pixel count as a full frame sensor taxes the same lens at a greater spacial frequency. If I understand MTFs correctly, this not only affects resolution but also larger scale image contrast.</em></p>

<p>You are correct. This is why wyofoto's application of identical sharpening to all bodies handicapped the 50D. With higher density sensors the pixels record at a lower MTF point. But when comparing FF to cropped, the resulting loss of edge sharpness and overall contrast is well within the range of post processing to restore. Give the 50D a little bit more USM, maybe a bit of local contrast enhancement, and it looks every bit as good at low to mid ISO. At high ISO the processing to restore this lost contrast tends to also amplify noise, which just increases the FF noise advantage.</p>

<p>* The flip side of taxing lenses more is that cropped sensors record the sweet center spot of the lens, thereby cutting down on vignetting and generally softer corners. Vignetting is easy to correct in post, but corner softness is not. It can also be easier to produce lenses of certain focal length/max aperture combinations for APS-C. For this reason it can be very pricey to achieve the same overall IQ of a cropped system with certain lenses in a full frame system. Example: matching a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 with a FF system means roughly 3x the cost for the lens, plus the added cost of the FF body. You're not going to get 3x the IQ, if you get any significant improvement at all.</p>

<p>* Color and contrast differences between bodies are easily adjusted away in post.</p>

<p>* The idea that you don't get the "full value" out of a lens on a cropped body is silly. For some lenses you get more value. My $1,200 300 f/4L IS on a cropped body acts like a $6,200 500 f/4L IS on a FF body, only with more DoF, which I want. That said I would feel cheated shooting a 35 f/1.4 on a cropped body.</p>

<p>* Along those lines, you're kidding yourself if you think the APS-C sized center of a lower density full frame sensor will record as much detail as a higher density APS-C sensor. There are real telephoto advantages for cropped bodies with equal MP output to FF bodies.</p>

<p>* I think the latest bodies put to rest the idea that FF is for big prints. There's no practical difference in the maximum print sizes of, say, a 7D vs. a 5D2. 99.99% of prints are not large enough to tax a 40D.</p>

<p>* Having said all of that, there's still one very good reason to go FF: noise. If you routinely make big prints of available light shots at ISO 6400, the 5D2 is your best friend.</p>

<p>This used to be simpler when bodies like the 1Ds and 5D easily out performed their cropped cousins on IQ. It's not so easy now with cameras like the 50D and 7D. Sooner or later Canon will put 7D sensor technology in a FF sensor, resulting in a 30-40 MP FF body. Still, we're at the point of diminishing returns. I don't think the IQ gap will ever be as wide as it was in the beginning. All the other stuff (viewfinder size, lens choices, "feel") is more or less personal preference. Shoot what you want.</p>

[ken schwarz]

<blockquote>

<p>* The idea that you don't get the "full value" out of a lens on a cropped body is silly. For some lenses you get more value. My $1,200 300 f/4L IS on a cropped body acts like a $6,200 500 f/4L IS on a FF body, only with more DoF, which I want. That said I would feel cheated shooting a 35 f/1.4 on a cropped body.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Since I was the author of the "silly" comment, let me clarify. A full-frame lens casts an image circle bigger than the sensor of a crop camera. When you buy one of Canon's expensive full-frame lenses, among other things what you are paying for is quality performance in that portion of the image that gets cut off. I want to get all that bokeh that I paid for! :-) Also, full-frame lenses are much heavier than necessary on a crop camera, which is insult on top of injury, in my opinion.</p>

<p>Although I know that the counter argument is that crop cameras tend to have higher pixel density than full-frame cameras (which itself is the subject of much hand-wringing), you always have the option to crop the image of a full-frame camera and to get exactly the same effect you describe of using the crop camera. (I frequently do this, so I agree it's useful!)</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ken, I think I made the same points to an earlier comment from Ken Papai.</p>

<p>Anybody that believes their 50 1.2L acts like an 80 1.2L on their 50D or that they are getting value for money from it isn't worth arguing with.</p>

<p>Nobody can be naive enough to believe a <em>" $1,200 300 f/4L IS on a cropped body acts like a $6,200 500 f/4L IS on a FF body,"</em> anymore, if it did why would anybody buy FF and a 400, 500, 600 or an 800 lens? Why not extend that logic and put your 300mm onto a P&S and save even more? Because it doesn't work like that, it is not all in the numbers.</p>

<p>A lens is a lens, if you use a FF designed lens on a crop camera you loose functionality not gain it. It is called a crop camera for a reason, it crops!</p>

<p>To this comment "<em>* Along those lines, you're kidding yourself if you think the APS-C sized center of a lower density full frame sensor will record as much detail as a higher density APS-C sensor. There are real telephoto advantages for cropped bodies with equal MP output to FF bodies."</em> all I can say is I know whoever says it or believes it hasn't compared prints from same generation cameras. They also don't understand the physics, more pixels in the same space does not equal more useful detail, particularly in the smaller sensored cameras. Again if you follow that logic the higher density pixels in my G10 P&S should easily out resolve my 1Ds MkIII, I am sure everyone would believe me if I said it doesn't :-)</p>

<p>Crop cameras have their advantages, and uses, I use one. Value for money use of FF lenses and pretending to myself my 300 is really a 480 are not two of them.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I still shoot 35mm film and wanted to be able to change from Digital to film without moving tripod or changing composition by having to deal with 1.6 crop factor. Now I just switch camera with the same lens and I can have the exact same shot same glass everything just different medium.</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>well:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When you buy one of Canon's expensive full-frame lenses, among other things what you are paying for is quality performance in that portion of the image that gets cut off.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True in a sense, but the truth is that a lot of these classic lenses were really stretching their capabilities to cover a full 24x36mm frame. They are frankly much better at covering the 15x22mm since only the best (so-called "sweet spot") part is used. Take the 35mm f/2 and the 50mm f/1.8. On the so-called "full frame" they are still good lenses, but not nearly as good as they are as a "normal" lens and a short telephoto on an APS-C body.<br>

(Look at the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview#canon_ff">Photozone.de tests</a> of these on both APS-C and 35mm-sensor cameras)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>JDM,</p>

<p>You are talking about a $300 and a $100 lens, there are no FF edge issues with the 300 f2.8 IS, the cheapest of the teles at $4,500 plus, and what about the new TS lenses? I know you are interested in them and got a 5D mainly to use your FF Nikon tilt lens on!</p>

<p>Would you really pay $2,700 for a 17 TS to use on your crop camera and pretend it was a 27mm, when you could buy a 24 TS for $2,400? The 17 (and 24) is made for FF and the images it puts out are proving it. Do you really think you would be getting value for money were you to use it on a crop camera? I know you don't, in a previous thread you said it made more sense to buy a FF body and use your Nikon TS lens FF rather than buy a 17 TS to use on your crop camera.</p>

<p>The list of recently upgraded lenses, and the ones that have no real edge issues, just goes on and on, these are the expensive lenses and the ones that most people who buy FF cameras realise they need to use to achieve the potential image quality increases over crop cameras. It is not cheap or easy to get the highest quality out of FF, but to some people it is worth the trouble and expense, to most it is not.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p><em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>You are correct. This is why wyofoto's application of identical sharpening to all bodies handicapped the 50D.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tests like the one you refer to that attempt to compare cameras in a way that no one would ever use them are of limited value. Poor sharpening choices handicap ANY camera, full frame or crop. There is no one "reference" sharpening method or "amount" or anything else.</p>

<p>In the real world - the place where I like to make my photographs - we don't use some boilerplate standard sharpening (or much of anything else) setting without regard to how it affects the image.</p>

<p>I feel that the must useful comparative information about two camera systems might come from having an expert photographer and "post-processor" and printer use his/her best skills to maximize the image quality from each test system and then produce prints in the same size from each sample. While there will be variations from system to system in how this is best done, it is the only approach that actually tells us something useful about how the different systems will stack up.</p>

<p>Two points:</p>

<ol>

<li>You simply cannot get identical photographic performance from two different formats. It isn't possible. </li>

<li>The differences will always be there but they may or may not be significant and/or they may be good/bad for different photographers and types of photography.</li>

</ol>

<p>Dan</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Would you really pay $2,700 for a 17 TS to use on your crop camera and pretend it was a 27mm, when you could buy a 24 TS for $2,400? The 17 (and 24) is made for FF and the images it puts out are proving it. Do you really think you would be getting value for money were you to use it on a crop camera? I know you don't, in a previous thread you said it made more sense to buy a FF body and use your Nikon TS lens FF rather than buy a 17 TS to use on your crop camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not quite what I said. I got the 5D a week before the TS-E 17mm was even announced, and I still don't see that lens actually for sale at any price. If the difference between the TS-E 24 and TS-E 17mm was only $300, I'd sure get the 7D and a TS-E 17mm, starting from where I was then with a good investment in <em>both</em> EF-S and and EF lenses. I don't think I'd do so well moneywise with a 5DmkII and either TS-E lens. I am not made of money, to be sure, although no one has told my college student daughter that, so getting the 5D was more immediately practical, given that the PC-Nikkor was already in my sweaty hands. My situation is a very special case of legacy issues, and certainly does not apply generally.</p>

<p>From previous shift lenses, I would still expect to get a somewhat better 24mm equivalent image from the 17mm on "crop" than from the 24mm on the 35mm sensor, so yes, I would use it on both. I still shoot in both APS-C bodies with my 10-20mm, and telephotos for longer reach. For my 35mm PC-Nikkor I use the 5D and I also use the 5D's own kit lens, the 24-105 L.</p>

<p>I don't think that there are any lenses that are worse for being "cropped", but there are more than a few, including some L lenses, that vignette or need to be stopped down for use on "full-frame" bodies. This is especially so for the older lenses that were originally designed for film. Canon is cleaning up the inventory with new designs, but they are also charging a hefty premium for the improvements.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Nobody can be naive enough to believe a <em>" $1,200 300 f/4L IS on a cropped body acts like a $6,200 500 f/4L IS on a FF body,"</em> anymore,</em></p>

<p>A 7D + 300 f/4L IS ($2,900) is going to be just as effective at sports and wildlife shots as a 5D2 + 500 f/4L IS ($9,100). While DOF will be different, it will actually be to the 7D's advantage for the task. But for all practical purposes either combination will accomplish the same thing with comparable IQ. That's not naive, it's a fact.</p>

<p><em>Why not extend that logic and put your 300mm onto a P&S and save even more?</em></p>

<p>Because an APS-C sensor is reasonably close to a 35mm sensor in noise and dynamic range. A P&S sensor is not.</p>

<p><em>To this comment "<em>* Along those lines, you're kidding yourself if you think the APS-C sized center of a lower density full frame sensor will record as much detail as a higher density APS-C sensor. There are real telephoto advantages for cropped bodies with equal MP output to FF bodies."</em> all I can say is I know whoever says it or believes it hasn't compared prints from same generation cameras. They also don't understand the physics, more pixels in the same space does not equal more useful detail, particularly in the smaller sensored cameras.</em></p>

<p>I think it is you who has not compared prints and who does not understand physics.</p>

<p><em>Again if you follow that logic the higher density pixels in my G10 P&S should easily out resolve my 1Ds MkIII, I am sure everyone would believe me if I said it doesn't :-)</em></p>

<p>If you cropped a section out of your 1Ds image equal in sensor size to the sensor of the G10 the G10 would easily out resolve the crop. Try it sometime.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>It is simply a fact that, all else being equal, a smaller sensor/film cannot resolve the same level of detail when using the same lens. That really isn't the issue.</p>

<p>The issues include whether or not the existing difference is significant in the photographic end product and/or whether other factors cancel out the possible improvement in resolution. (The latter is essentially the core of the "better to shoot crop if you use long lenses" argument.) That discussion can be a worthwhile and interesting one - but claims that APS-C is "equal to" (or, in some strange cases, "better than") a larger format in IQ terms are just off track.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[margus_riimaa]

<p>If all lenses had only diffraction limited softness and ISO would continue to increase image quality as you lower it indefinitely, then following cameras would be identical in terms of image quality, depth of field, resolution, angle of view and other characteristics.<br>

FF 50mm f/5.6 ISO 100<br>

APS-C 35mm f/4 ISO 50<br>

Point and Shoot 8mm f/1 ISO 3</p>

<p>More examples:</p>

<p>FF 50mm f/1.4 ISO 1600<br>

APS-C 35mm f/1 ISO 800<br>

P&S 8mm f/0.3 ISO 50</p>

<p>FF 50mm f/32 ISO 12800<br>

APS-C 35mm f/22 ISO 6400<br>

P&S 8mm f/5.6 ISO 400</p>

<p>But because lenses are softer at larger apertures (therefore 0.5 lenses are not for sale) and ISOs below 100 do not increase image quality accordingly (therefore we can´t choose them from the menu) we need larger sensors to take certain photos.<br>

So you need to switch from APS-C to full frame in the following occastions:<br>

1. You hit ISO 100 often.<br>

2. You complain, that lenses get too soft between f/1.4 and f/4<br>

3. You have f/1.4 lens and it is not enough for your low light ambitions.<br>

4. You would want f/2.0 zooms<br>

5. You want the 8mm or f/1.0 lens, but they aren´t there</p>