Is Full Frame Best?

[Photo-John]

I just put up a new Quick Poll about whether full-frame sensor digital SLRs are better.

Are full frame DSLRs better >>

You can also weigh in here, with more detail on what you think is good or bad about full-frame cameras. If you think full-frame is better, tell us why. And if you don't, tell us why not. If you don't understand the difference, let us explain it to you. Since Nikon has added the full-frame D3 digital SLR to it's lineup, I think this question is more important than ever. Kodak had full-frame DSLRs in the past but right now it's just Canon and Nikon. There are rumors that Sony is working on one. But those are unconfirmed right now.

[jorgemonkey]

I think it depends on the purpose. I love that little extra reach I get with my 70-200 with my D2h's smaller sensor. If I was doing landscapes, or using a fisheye lens I can see where having a FF sensor would be better.

[gahspidy]

Theres no question that there are alot of other factors that go into making a great camera great, besides whether or not it has a full frame sensor. Processing speed, functionality, FPS (frames per second) and now even technical advantages such as 14bit analog to digital conversion ( for me this is a very important factor or option as well and had me in a tough decision between the 40D and the 5D)
The question here is would you prefer a full frame sensor to a smaller sensor. . . I say yes.
Smaller sensors were not developed because the consumer asked for them or because the camera manufacturers thought they were better . . .they were made for cutting costs and size as well.
Canon, one of the few camera manufacturers that make their own sensors was able to put out the first full frame sensor in their top line camera and then years later offer a full frame sensor at a price that was in the range for many more photographers (the 5D) Other manufacturers are following suit.
There is less noise inherently with a full frame sensor as well as the quality of the images rivaling that of medium format, some say. Yes, there are cropped sensor cameras out there capable of incredibly low noise, but this is done through the in camera processing. Technology has advanced to the point where cropped sensor images are incredible.
Please do not try to exclaim that your 300 mm lens is now a 460mm . . .not true, your not gaining a longer zoom but rather losing a wide angle.
If all things were equal in any two cameras, FPS, processing speed, LCD screen size, resolution, look, feel and cost but one was cropped sensor and the other full frame . . .which would you buy?
For me, having that extra bit of image quality and being able to utilize the full viewing area of my lenses make the decision easy for me. I prefer full frame.

[another view]

Asylum Steve made a point that they're different tools for different purposes, and I agree with that. We're in the majority so far - 9 out of 12...

However, given the price of DSLR's to those of us not in the profession (and I guess those that are in the profession), it's not always possible to have both. I do think a pro needs a backup something or other that can stand in when needed but an amateur like me who sells an occasional shot isn't likely to have two DSLR's.

At that point it's just like anything else - evaluate your budget, your wants and your needs against what cameras are on the market. After spending a couple years with a cropped DSLR and a super short lens (10-20mm), I think I'd rather have a full frame and 17-35 but Nikon's offerings are a bit pricey at the moment. I don't lose sleep over it...

[gahspidy]

By the way. I think alot of the different opinions here will be determined by the interpretation of the initial question. Literally, do I think full frame sensors are best? I think there are other things to consider, so in and by itself, no. If all other things were equal, I would prefer having the full frame as opposed to a cropped sensor. YES. This is my feeling on it.

[MB1]

My Hasselblad yields a higher % of usable images than my 5D but I sure take a lot more pix with the 5D. I take even more pix with my Point-n-Shoot. I use my 10D the least but still get perfectly sellable images from it (the thing is great for portraits with the 50mm 1.2).

Different horses for different courses.

[SmartWombat]

The answer is "it depends".

If I want a camera for on-car external mounted video and stills, I'm unlikely to put a 1DmkIIN or 1DSmkII on my car, on a race track, regardless of the quality. Of course since they don't do video part of that is a moot point.

If I want good pictures in low light, then I'll use the full frame 1DSmkII. The reason is simple, bigger pixels have more area to capture the light and so give better results in low light. There's a lot of complicated physics behind that, but basically bigger is better.
Nor more is better, for the same physical size of sensor, less is better because the pixels are bigger.

If I want pictures of cars or wildlife at a distance, and I don't have quite a long enough focal length lens, then I will change over to the 1DmkIIN. Having a smaller sensor means that it's effectively cropping the centre portion out of the image projected by the lens, and it looks like I'm using a longer lens.

If things are happening fast and I want to capture a lot of it, then I need the fastest frames-per-second rate I can get. Which means the 1DmkIIN again.
In high speed burst mode I can just hold down the shutter and hope to get a few frames of action as I pan with the crashing car, or the rapidly vanishing bird.

Of course random bursts are no substitute for careful observation, skill, and pressing the shutter release at just the right moment. In that kind of situation then I'd stick with the 1DSmkII for the higher quality of the image (though it's hard to tell the difference between the two 1D bodies) and higher resolution to allow more cropping.

In tight situations where wide angle is needed I'll use my 20D.
What? Why? I hear a chorus already.
After all it has a smaller sensor and crops the middle of that wide angle image.
It's simple, back when I thought I'd never be able to afford professional bodies I bought the EF-S 10-22 zoom lens. It's still the widest angle lens I own, and even with the 1.6 crop factor of the 20D's small sensor I still keep it around - with the 10-22 almost permanently mounted on the 20D.

So why don't I use the 20D for sport?
Autofocus, in a word.
Having gone back to it from the 1DmkII I can now see just how slow it is when focussing, even though it felt lightning fast compared to my Minolta A1 compact.
I would use it in situations where I need maximum reach with the telephoto lens but there was no need for AF speed, or for working in low light.

But having said all that, does my DSLR travel everywhere with me?
Nope. My pockets are not that big.

I have a LZ-5 compact with a comparatively tiny sensor.
It's not good in low light, it's not fast focussing, it's not fast in burst mode, it doesn't have very wide angle or particularly long zoom.
But it's the camera that's with me always, and I use it when I'm not out taking photographs.
The optical image stabilisation works well. It also does video, so for the in-car video on a race track that's what I use.
But it has no manual control; lots of modes, more modes than I could shake a stick at or even remember I had - like when I was shooting in snow and forgot it had a snow mode.

So I also revert to the Minolta A1 and A2.
They are the same body, same lens, but different sensors - A1 5MP, A2 8MP.
To be honest, the sensor of the A1 is better.
But the higher resolution viewfinder (it's electronic) and rear LCD of the A2 are better.
My favourite would be the A1 sensor in the A2 body.

Well by now you ought to be able to read my mind here.
The A2 has more pixels in the same size sensor. So it's not as good in low light.
Despite being higher resolution it's practically not as good in other areas, with faults when autofocussing, flare on bright subjects, slower writing to the memory card.
But the higher resolution electronic viewfinder means manual focus is more precise, and the menus are more readable without my glasses.

The A1 and A2 are the on-car workhorses, being light enough to fit with only one clamp or sucker mount, having built-in interval timer (2 shots per minute for 1 hour) and manual focus, manual shutter speed, manual aperture, and manual zoom if I want them. The in camera sensor-shifting anti-shake works well, though it can't even out big bumps on the track, or body roll.


As I said before - it depends.

[Franglais]

I can buy 3 D300's for the price of a D3
I can't use the 18-200 VR lens on the D3
I can't slip the D3 into my Slingshot bag for use in towns
I rarely use 1600 ISO and above
The D3 is just too heavy for me

Of course the D3 takes better pictures at high ISO but I don't need it

[MB1]

....I can't use the 18-200 VR lens on the D3....

The D3 works with the Nikon "DX" lenses, it just uses less of the sensor.

[deckcadet]

Yeah, but why pay $5000 for a 5.1mp camera just to use with a jack of all trades (good at everything, great at nothing) lens

My perspective? Yes and no. I believe the full frame D3 has the best output of any DSLR to date, but I don't think that crop sensors are slouches either. Just look at the latest offerings from Canon (40D and 1D Mark III image quality) and Nikon (D40, D40x, and especially the D300).

I go into this a little bit in my forthcoming D300 review. Crop bodies have a number of advantages including more pixels/mm (good when you have one shooting position, one lens, and a choice between identical resolution crop and FF bodies), the crop factor (an advantage on the telephoto side in terms of field of view), and other less commonly noticed features like AF system coverage area.

I currently shoot the FX format (full frame) Nikon D3 as my primary body. I wouldn't if I didn't have the D300 (DX format crop body) to shoot with it at this point. Perhaps when we start seeing 10-12mp DX crop modes in FF bodies with good image quality I would be willing to transition entirely over to FX (a 24-28mp Nikon FX body would have this feature). Even then, though, when shooting in the crop mode, you'd have a viewfinder mask rather than a full VF view. If I were going to shoot DX a significant portion of the time, I think I would rather have a DX only body with a nice big 100% 0.9x or greater magnification viewfinder than a mask out of a 0.76x or less FX format viewfinder.

I think that there is only a best if your style of shooting dictates one above the other conclusively. Even for sports and wildlife shooters this will not always be the case. At this point, I'd be willing to say that for low light shooters, the advantage generally lies with the larger-than- 1.5x set, both FF and intermediate crops (including the 1.3x 1D Mark III in terms of low light high ISO image quality).

[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.

[readingr]

I went for the full frame purely because I mainly take landscapes with the occasional wildlife and portraits so it made more sense to get the larger sensor. I also print large prints.

However it was a very close call between the 40D and the 5D. I would have liked the medium format hasselblad but a bit out of my price range

Roger

[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...

[EOSThree]

I think I am leaning toward a 5D for my upgrade. I have used a 10D since near the end of it's cycle, I recently purchased a 350D because the price was right and it has a compact body. I don't think FF is necessarily better, but maybe different. And like Loupey says if the FF didn't have the price differential, and the aps C didn't have the crop and tighter pixel pitch(although I am not totally convinced tighter pitch is a good thing). Would there even be a question?

[almo]

Well, like most I said it depends. I have not yet been in a situation where I said tomyself, I sure wish this was full farme. With my 18mm lens eqiv. to 27mm on my K10D I can go as wide, if not wider than I ever really need to. The only real benefit I can see to FF DSLRs is the wider focal range, and the ability to cram in more pixels without the drawback of increased pixel density...ie, Canon EOS 1Ds MKIII 21MP. With current technology it would be impossible to get such a high pixel count from an APS sized sesor, at least and still get a decent image.

So unless you need wider angles, or just feel you have need to truly begin to approach the resolution of 35mm film, then FF cameras are really still out of the reach of most people, and in my case, not really all that desierable to begin with. It's like a bought a 1.5x teleconverter with no extra glass to screw up my light and dull my images.

[Photo-John]

It appears that Sony thinks full-frame sensors are a good idea. They just announced a new 24-megapixel, full-frame CMOS sensor. I'm sure we're learn more about it at the PMA tradeshow. For the time being, here is the press release:

Sony 24.81-Megapixel Full-Frame Sensor >>

The annual PMA photography tradeshow officially opens tomorrow morning. But we have a couple of events to attend to day and we'll start posting stories, photos, and video this evening.

2008 PMA Tradeshow Coverage >>

Let us know what you want us to look for!