Is Full Frame Best?

[Dstrickland]

Okay, I'll weigh in. Purely on the meat of the question, is full frame better than anything smaller, regardless of ratio or whatever, I'd say that cubic inches always wins. Anything you can do to the smaller sensor to improve image quality, you could do to the larger one. I know I'm being simplistic but it works in hot rodding cars and film cameras so why not camera sensors?

But then again, I'm MAD!

[Loupey]

I think it really only boils down to two things: 1) price and 2) image quality – generally mutually opposing factors but both crucially important to most people. So it’s always going to be a compromise.

As for price, if there wasn’t such a steep price difference, would there be much of a question?

As for image quality, if a cropped section of a FF image (corresponding to the area of an APS-C sensor) yields the same image quality when printed to the same size, would this be a question either? I thought long and hard between the 40D and the 5D when I purchased the 40D a month ago. With a pixel-per-square millimeter density of 30,700 (on the 40D) verses the 14,960 (on the 5D), I have to think that I can get better “resolution” out of the 40D. More noise perhaps, but higher resolution between the two models.

For me, I use telephotos and macro set ups almost exclusively so a fast, APS-C sensored body made a better choice at a price that I can accept as a depreciating asset.

Like cars and trucks, you can pay a premium to have the best most lavish make and model with all the amenities; or you can pay a fraction of that to get what will get you from here to there. There is no “one model fits all”.

[photophorous]

This question is just like asking whether medium format is better than 35mm. It depends on what you're doing, because just like all other areas of photography, there is compromise in either choice.

I would like a full frame digital rangefinder for wide angle lenses, low light sensitivity, and shallow DOF. But, if I was a nature or sports photographer, I might want the smaller sensor for better reach.

I like that we have lots of choices in cameras.

[another view]

This question is just like asking whether medium format is better than 35mm.

Yeah, I guess it is. With those choices, the smaller formats (even comparing large format to medium to 35mm) are faster to work with, and some times that's important. The larger the piece of film, the more options for cropping or large prints. Of course there's more to it than that but I'd say that's the basics.

Backing up a second, what are the real advantages of a digital sensor that is smaller in size than 24x36mm? I can come up with two. First off, price. Comparing cameras of similar frame rates, etc the smaller sensor will be less expensive. I'd say lenses are about equal; you'll get a boost with your long lenses but will need to buy a lens that truly is wide in this format (we all know focal lengths are focal lengths, only the perspective changes, right?). The other one is that maybe the photographer can get by carrying smaller and lighter gear. For example, a 70-200 f2.8 instead of a 300 f2.8, but I'll bet the people that actually benefit from this are few and far between.

If we take money out of the equation, I'd love to have a full frame camera. But for me it is part of the equation and for me I really can't call life with a D200 much of a problem. I just have to be extra careful with my Sigma 10-20. A Nikon 14-24 would be a little wider on a full-frame D3 and have a little less perspective distortion but I doubt it's really that much of a real-life problem. Harrison could verify that...