fullframe or not?

[martin_stucki1]

I am wondering if anybody could provide me with some thoughts about this

question. I am still on FD at the moment but would like to switch to digital.

Now my question is: full-frame or not (I wondered about the 5D or the 30D,

possibly the new 1DMarkIII).

I do not know about the quality of the cameras. For me wide-angle photography

is quite important (eg. 24mm). Now I could mount a prime 24 on a 5D or a 14 on

a 30D.

What do you think about the picture quality? Are there differences between

fullframe and not? and also what do you think about the future? If I invest in

a 14/2.8 and in 5 years everything will be full-frame this lens would be

worthless to me...

thanks for your input and or comments

 

Martin

[lotsawa]

For me, its a question of budget. If I was pro, my decision would be clearly for the FF. But being an amateur, the FF stuff is (still) too expensive for me. For the price of a 5D body alone, I can buy a 400D (or 30D) plus two excellent lenses, the 17-55 IS and the EF-S 10-22 for example. But that's just my personal situation.

 

The main advantage of FF in terms of image quality is the lower noise at higher ISO settings (but we are talking about differences on a high quality level here, no comparison with high sensitive film) and in the case of the 5D slightly higher amount of pixels in comparison with the 400D / 30D. Another advantage is the larger and brighter view finder.

 

The 14/2.8 is in my view not a realistic option of wide-angle on a 30D, since it was built as an ultra wide angle lens for film / FF and is very expensive. In the case you need a fix lens instead of zoom, I think the 5D plus a 24 mm is a much better option. Otherwise, there is an excellent EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 (and in the case of FF, the new 16-35/2.8L Mark II).

[kerry_grim]

A lot of us are in the boat. I use an EOS-3 film body and, for me, 24mm is the ideal wide angle focal length. I have used 17, 20, 24, 28, and 35mm lenses over the years, but my preference always goes to 24mm as the ideal focal length. I do want to go digital, prefer the 5D, but can not afford it. The xti is affordable but the Canon option is the 10-22. My preference would be a 15mm lens for the 1.6 crop lens. I am sure the 10-22 zoom is fine and I would be satisfied with it, but if Canon had a 15mm lens for this body, I would probably buy both tomorrow.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>For me wide-angle photography is quite important</i></p>You want to go full-frame, then. Anything else is just a compromise of some kind or another.

[remco-jan.woldhuis]

You don't need FF for wide angle photography. You only need a wide angle lens. Since

you're on FD now, you'll have to invest in lenses anyway. Given the fact that the fast

majority of DSLR's sold has a APS-C sized sensor, there are some fairly good wide angle

lenses for this size available. For the price differerence between a 30D and 5D you can buy

nice glass.

[aappelphotography]

Just switched from my Eos 30 (film) body to an Eos 30D. No regrets so far. I loved my 17-40L Lens on the Eos 30, but I am now saving for the 10-22mm Canon lens for covering the wide side ...

All in all, 30D + the Canon 10-22mm lens is still cheaper than a 5D, and the 17-40 is a great walkaround lens on the 30D ...

 

As you certainly want to build up an EF-Lens Park, you can buy EF not ef-s lenses if you like, to be on the safe side for FF in the future. BTW, the Sigma 12-20mm is supposed to be great and it is for FF, so you can keep it if you would go FF in some years.

 

My (personal) idea is, that I only need one EF-S lens at the moment, the 10-22mm. I could sell that laaaater in the future with the 30D if FF really drops in the price and keep all my other lenses ...

 

I would certainly vote for the 30D in your situation and save the money to buy EF-Lenses as you do not have any yet!

[saurabh1]

The prices for FF will go down in a couple of a years so if I were you I would invest in lenses with intention of eventually using them on a FF camera.

[J.W. Wall]

What Saurabh said. Good glass is the primary concern for me. The glass has more effect on the image than the body. OTOH, the newly announced 1D III, even at 1.3 crop, is highly lustworthy.... It will be interesting to see the features of Canon's complete new round of cameras as they are announced.

[pgranone]

Personally I chose the 5D due to full-frame, and the high ISO performance with low noise. The ability to isolate subject in depth of field is fantastic with full frame. With 1.6 crops cameras you are using the center portion of lenses and always have too much depth of field.

 

I am not a fan of 1.6 crop cameras for wide angle. You end up using ultra-wide angle just to get a decent wide angle. So you are always fighting distortion, softness in images, and all the gremlins of extreme wide angle lenses.

 

I use a 1.6 crop camera as a backup and it can be useful to extra reach with telephoto lenses. So I find the 1.6 crop useful on the long end, just not for wide angle.

[acurlee]

I own a 30D and if I ever get good, I'll buy a full-frame body. So my lens purchases are EF lenses, that way I can use them if I get to switch. I don't think you would be disappointed with the 30D and you would be able to afford L lenses with the savings. Save the EF-S lens purchases for ones you must have, that way you can upgrade to a full frame body down the line. When you do you will have great lenses to put on it.

[gdanmitchell]

One way to approach this to first ask, "If FF and crop cost the same, which would I pick?"

For the use you describe, I suspect strongly that you would select FF, if nothing else for

the ability to use a greater variety of lenses providing the wide coverage you need.

 

But they don't cost the same. So the question for you is whether the compromises - if that

is how you view them - of crop sensor bodies are reasonable given your finances and

photographic plans.

 

I believe that cameras are going to move in the full frame direction, perhaps a lot within

your 5 year period. Lenses for crop bodies won't exactly be "worthless" at that point,

though you'd possibly have to sell them into a saturated market.

 

If I were in your shoes and could afford it I would probably go full frame.

[anson_ko]

Same as most ppl here, go for the FF digital camera bodies.

[lotsawa]

> I am not a fan of 1.6 crop cameras for wide angle. You end up using ultra-wide angle just to get a decent wide angle. So you are always fighting distortion, softness in images, and all the gremlins of extreme wide angle lenses.<

 

Please listen what photozone.de has to say concerning distortion with the EF-S 10-22:

 

"The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM exhibited a quite impressive performance here and that's not only for an ultra-wide zoom but also in absolute terms - at 10mm there're slight barrel distortions which even out at about 14mm. At 22mm there are marginal pincushion distortions."

 

And concerning resolution:

 

"The lens produced a very good performance in the lab. The center resolution scratches, maybe even exceeds the limits of the 8MP sensor of the EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT). The borders and even the extreme borders are generally good except at 22mm where they're a little soft at wide-open aperture. Stopping down does marginally improve the performance at 10mm and 14mm but at 22mm the border quality can be lifted good levels at f/5.6 and even very good levels at f/8. All-in-all very impressive results here."

 

Verdict:

 

"The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM delivered a very sound performance with a combination of very decent build quality and very good if not impressive optical results. If anything vignetting at wide-open aperture could be better. The center performance is excellent throughout the range with generally good borders. The level of distortions is surprisingly low and CAs are quite well controlled."

 

The performance of the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is even more impressive to me. IMHO good EF-S lenses don't have to fear a comparison with good L-lenses in terms of image quality.

 

As said before, the price of a 30D / 400D plus these two excellent lenses is about the same as that of a 5D body alone.

 

Anyway, if money is not of much concern, I can see no reason why not to buy a fullframe body, except perhaps size and weight.

[brad_ballheimer]

As the owner of both a 1d mkII and 1ds mkII both provide extremely good quality.In some situations i have actually gotten better results from my 1d than my ds.I think it may be due to the fact that in some situations i think the larger pixel size on the sensor allows a better light saturation.I think that before its all said and done there will be a balance struck between resolution and sensor size.The place where additional resolution has been helpful is when i crop. my recomendation to most that are serious to semi pro and want to go cannon 5d is the most bang for the buck i think you can find any where.

[jimstrutz]

Crop frame cameras are far more economical *right now*, and 10mm & 12mm wide zooms for them are common, well priced, and very good. All the full framer nay-sayers ought to check out the crop side of things before saying things like "there are compromises" with crop frame wide lenses. And so far there is nothing comparable to Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 IS for FF. Hopefully that will change in the next few weeks, but it may not. There are good reasons to go FF, but lack of good wide lenses are not one of them.

 

I think Dan Mitchel said it best. Crop frame bodies cost less, but FF bodies provide better quality images - at least in some circumstances. Especially in low light with high ISO, and with extreme magnification or extreme cropping. But the question you have to ask is, "are those advantages worth the cost for me?" It's a personal question that no one else can answer.

 

FF will get cheaper as the years roll on... but so will crop frame cameras. Someday they will get within $1000 of each other, but they are not now, and won't be this year - probably not next year either. Personally, I think it will be a lot more than 5 years before they get to within $500 of each other. The point being, you don't buy digital camera equipment with long term investments in mind. You buy now what you can afford and use now. Buying one or two good EF-S lenses for a crop frame body is not going to change the financial equation in the long run.

 

I doubt there will ever be a 30D class Canon with FF sensor. One can argue that that is what the 5D really is, but it's price says something else, and that won't change. Crop frame cameras will be with us for a long, long time, and demand for EF-S lenses will be the same. So selling good crop frame lenses will always be an option if one decides to upgrade to FF in the future.

[martin_stucki1]

Thank you very much for your input. I think I will definitively go FF now. For the moment I will wait for a few months to see what the new 16-35/2.8MarkII will cost and if reviews on it will be better than on the MarkI. Also the 50/1.4 I will buy now. For the body I will still wait some months as at the moment I do not need one and I can borrow one (although not FF) for a friend. Who knows, in the meantime there might be a new 5D...

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>All the full framer nay-sayers ought to check out the crop side of things before saying things like "there are compromises" with crop frame wide lenses.</i></p>Is there a 10mm f/2.8 option?

[gdanmitchell]

"Is there a 10mm f/2.8 option?"

 

For the crowds of people needing that range, full frame is the better answer. I'm sure that

both of them will be very glad they bought full frame... :-)

 

Dan

 

(Please make sure that your humor detector is fully operational before replying to this post.)

[jimstrutz]

Ha! OK, you got me there M Barbu.

 

Actually, Dan, I used to be one of those two. I had a 14mm lens for film cameras, and while I had a blast with it, I couldn't justify having that much money tied up in a lens I so seldom used, so I put it on eBay. Besides there are two "10mm to something" zooms for Canon crop framers and both have equal angle of coverage, less vignetting, less distortion, and are sharper and less expensive than the lens I was using back in the day. And I wouldn't be surprised to see a 10mm f/2.8 prime lens being offered by Sigma in the not too distant future.

 

I think the future will be interesting though. Canon is the only one offering FF cameras right now, with rumors of Nikon, etc., possibly joining the fray someday. But Canon is selling crop frame cameras at about 50:1 over FF cameras. What's that going to do for their development and availability of FF wide lenses in 5 years? I know everyone says that we'll all be using FF cameras in the next decade, but I'm thinking there is at least an equal possibility we will see it go the other way. Already FF is to crop frame, as medium format was to 35mm 10 years ago. If you remember, we all used to think 35mm was too small, and all the real photographers used MF. MF is still with us, but has steadily declined in sales.

 

Looking at it from an historical point of view, there are a lot more innovations that *permanently* changed the way of things, than there are that only *temporarily* changed them. I really question whether FF is the future of general photography. But this is all philosophy and speculation, and has little to do with Martin choosing FF for now.

[carbon_dragon]

I'd like to be a fly on the wall on the Nikon and Canon engineering departments to see what they're saying about Full Frame. I can't believe Nikon will get much more useful density in it's APS sized sensor. Even if it doesn't matter for 90% of photographers, they must be worried about competing with a 20MP Canon pro model at some point. They're probably not enjoying the price comparison between their D2XS and the 5D right now.