How do you know if u need a Full Frame ?

[myattphotoandfotoart39]

<p>Don't know the technical issues on this subject. I have a DX and FX fomat camera. For my applications there is no dicernable difference in image quality. I'd say you might desire full frame but you don't "need" it.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Soe,</p>

<p>The 18-55 can't fit on the 1D series either. EF-S also don't fit the 1.3 crop, so no 10-22 on the 1D Mk anything, which is a real shame.</p>

<p>Hal B,</p>

<p>Yep that's the source of crop camera deeper DOF myth. For the same framing you need a wider lens than a larger sensor which subsequently results in deeper DOF, at the same aperture, as a longer lens.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd say you might desire full frame but you don't "need" it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, Meir. Nobody <em>needs</em> full frame.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<blockquote>

<p>A<em> </em>lens is a lens, it gives exactly the same DOF on whatever body it is fitted to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope. DoF isn't an absolute, it depends on the circle of confusion that is acceptable on the sensor. If, as is usually appropriate, you define that to scale with the sensor (so that it's the same when a fixed-size print of the entire image is made), then DoF does depend on sensor size.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>"Am i wrong in thinking that a FF would ALWAYS serve me better with those subject interests..."</p>

<p>Yes you are wrong. But if you change the word ALWAYS to more OFTEN than not, your sentence would be accurate. The bottom line is that you will not be disappointed going to a full frame camera.</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>You can get terrific images from either format.</p>

<p>Most Canon lenses, especially the ones intended for specialized/professional applications, are designed with FF in mind. You can use them with APS-C cameras, but much of their value is wasted and often their focal lengths are awkward. But, image quality will be fine.</p>

<p>The depth of field/selective focus control is the most dramatic visible difference between the two formats.</p>

<p>Differences in dynamic range and low-light performance can be managed with technique, but with FF you certainly get more to work with.</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Robin,</p>

<p>Way to go to confuse the issue even more :-)</p>

<p>Crop cameras give you no free lunch or tele advantage or added DOF. Same lens, same subject distance, same sized subject enlargement (not the same as the same sized print) then the crop camera image and the ff image are identical.<br>

<em><em><br /> </em> </em><br>

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

 

[rob_oresteen]

<p>Bob Krist is a well known Nat Geo photog that shoots with Nikon D300 and now D300s...FF is nice to have, but a real photographer can make a great image with anything. Not that these are the very best pictures out there, but they were done with a 1953 Kodak Retina w/ a fixed Schneider 50 mm lens.<br>

Foucus by "guess", exposure by "sunny 16" - <a href="<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/roboresteen/sets/72157623140587309/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/roboresteen/sets/72157623140587309/</a>">Kodak Retina 1 w/ Fuji Velvia 50</a><br>

If i can do this with a camera that has no auto focus or meter without a bunch of lights going off, you should be able to get outstanding images with your Rebel. Just use good glass and good light, sun or artificial.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<blockquote>

<p>Way to go to confuse the issue even more :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Scott, I'm sorry if you don't understand the point. If you're happy to define DoF on a crop sensor using the same size circle of confusion as on a FF sensor, that's your problem not mine.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>When in doubt, buy a $25 film body that will accept your lenses and shoot a few rolls, just to find out how your lenses & shots "look" and "feel" at 35mm/FF coverage.</p>

[markonestudios]

Generally speaking, I would invest in glass :) If you get the appropriate focal lengths you should, by and large, accomplish what you need or want, by applying the correct technique. Having said that, to satisfy your own curiosity, rent a FF body with good glass for a week or so. Shoot the same intended subject matter that you mentioned you'd like to. Wherever possible, shoot the same scene/photo with your XSi and with the FF, then you can do your own comparisons. On this forum you're likely to get as many opinions as there are members :) Everyone's experience varies, so create your own experience and make your decisions based on it...

[scott_ferris]

<p>Robin,</p>

<p>I well understand the point.</p>

<p>The confusing bit for some people is that the COC is changed on different formats to replicate an equal print size. That is not at issue. If I take the same image from the same place with the same lens on different cameras the image, though not the framing, is identical. It has the same DOF. If you crop the ff image to match the cropped image you have to reduce the COC to match the one on the crop camera too. It is that simple.</p>

<p>To say <em>" i.e. 50mm f/1.8 on the full frame gives less depth of field than 50mm f/1.8 on the cropped sensor."</em> is wrong.</p>

[hal_b]

<p>Scott: No need to call me out a second time on the SAME QUOTE. I've already been corrected, and once is enough.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Hal,</p>

<p>Sorry not calling you out, it wasn't directed at you, my apologies. Robin seems to be muddying the waters and I wanted to be clear on my point in the hope of reducing any confusion.</p>

<p>The way we end up using lenses differently on different cameras results in different dof characteristics, it can be confusing. And the fact you have to enlarge crop camera images more to get the same print size as ff ones only adds to the confusion.</p>

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

[JDMvW]

<p>Any person asking a question on most forums would be well advised to read everything after the first half dozen replies in a spirit of "sorta interesting". Once the various responders start to quibble with one another over technical points, the charge of "muddying the water" becomes an understatement for the entire thread.</p>

<p>The truth may make us free, but too much truth can lead us into the wilderness.<br>

IMHO, FWIW ;)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>So JDM, we need to bring our wellington boots to the fray..........Good oh, I miss sploshing about in the mud :-)</p>

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

[gurbally_seth]

<p>After selling my 5D I was in a smilar dilemma, but I went with 7D and I think made the right choice. Go with 7D, and you will be buying a much more advanced camera.</p>

[lee_richards2]

<p>No offense but you said you have a 200 f2.0? You have a $6000.00 lens hanging on Canons least expensive consumer camera? Now you want to know whether to go full frame?<br>

Am I the only one who thinks something is amiss here?</p>

<p>You can afford it. Buy whatever you think will make your game better. </p>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Looking at your work, I'd say that you'll be happier with a FF, gaining IQ and wider perspective from your existing lenses. I've got a 7D for wildlife and sports and use the 5D2 for almost everything else.</p>

[yoshio]

<p>Hello</p>

<p>my answer to this is: if you feel you need more shallow depth of field, particularly in wide to normal focal lengths then you need a full frame.</p>

<p>For me there is nothing in smaller formats which looks like an upper body framed portrait with a 50mm at f2. There is nothing in smaller formats which can do this (although a 35mm f1.4 goes close) the lens however will cost you as much as a used 5D from KEH in excellent condition. I personally use a Zuiko 21mm via adaptor on my full frame 35mm and I love it, nothing has the same look in that arena.</p>

<p>If however you photograph always from afar, then I believe you will see no advantages in full frame. Even professionals in that area seem to be wanting the 1.3x crop that the 1D provides</p>

[herma]

<p>Sean, I took the time to look at your pictures and I have to say I am very impressed. You have obvious raw talent in that your pictures are great, but with nice glass, they could be superb. Your pictures have a definite style and you are surely deserving of a nice camera and some nice lenses. Full frame vs cropped has become less of an issue with the new 7d on the market. Just my 2 cents.<br>

Herma</p>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>You know you need a full frame SLR when:</p>

<p>You keep pulling out your 1V HS and a role of film because your 17-40 f4L isn't wide enough</p>

<p>You keep thinking you've gone backwards in camera quality and functionality because you don't have 100% viewfinder coverage</p>

<p>You find the viewfinder to dark in low light situations</p>

<p>All you want is Av, Tv, and M but you've got a tone of other automatic settings to accidentally turn the dial to when your not paying attention</p>

<p>You never use the pop up flash anyway because it casts a shadow with your wide angle making it useless altogether</p>

<p>Really miss the feel of a pro camera</p>