Full Frame DSLRs - New Quick Poll

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

Tell us what you think >>

Better than what?

Alright, I'll bite.

I assume you are referring to 35mm full-frame DSLRs.

I'd argue that 4/3 is a full-frame DSLR as well, which changes my perspective of full-frame. Since I own an Olympus, I should clarify that I have shot a few thousand frames on a 5D so I am familiar with the practical differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photo-John

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

Tell us what you think >>

---

Love my 5D, and full frame was main reason for getting it as well. Guess you know what I voted. . .

Thanks for voting guys. Do me a favor and let's discuss it on the DSLR forum. I started a thread specifically for that purpose:

Discuss full-frame digital SLRs >>

I would like to continue the discussion in more detail. I haven't voted yet. But I definitely have opinions on the subject. And it's a current and relevant topic.

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photo-John

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

---

...which makes me particularly qualified to respond... :D

Anyone who believes that either full-frame or partial-frame sensors are better all the time is either ignorant or just plain stubborn. :mad2:

My main body for some time has been a Canon 1DmkII, which is a great camera. Like many, at some point I picked up a 5D, primarily to take advantage of the FF sensor for my fisheye lens.

After a while (if you can believe it), I started using the 5D exclusively, and kept telling myself I needed that full frame. The 1D sat in the bag...

Well, one day I broke the mirror on the 5D, and had to go back to the 1D. Not a bad backup, eh? But it had been so long since I had used it, I kinda freaked as the controls and everything were almost foreign to me.

So I simply sat down, poured through the manual again, and picked up where I had left off.

Thing is, it's like I had snapped out of a dream or a spell or something. IMO the 1D is an much much better camera body. Much faster processing, much faster FPS, much more rugged and durable body, much better feel in my hands.

I had gotten so caught up in the sensor aspect and size, that I forgot about the rest of the camera features, and how important they are to me.

And so far (the 5D isn't repaired yet) I haven't even noticed the difference in sensor size...

Do I think a full frame is better technically...yes. Do we all need it, no.

I wouldn't buy a full frame without the pro body, and the added weight makes it difficult to use all of the time. So it's a difficult question to answer straight.

The camera that Steve has (1Dmk2) was my old camera and it's awesome. I would never trade it for a 5D even if it had a full frame, but I would drop it like a bad habit if I had the 1Dsmk3 or whatever it is today. Steve hit a good point...processing speed is probably one of the most important things, and we overlook it quite often. Remember the Canon 10D and the inordinate amount of time to process the images to the card...ugh.


Today...after being in a car accident and unable to carry a lot of weight I have my Nikon F6 without the grip and a 24mm lens and a Lecia M6. My wife had the D200. I will, one day have a full frame Nikon but right now with my daughter on one arm I have to be super light to capture those special momemts, and I don't need a full frame digital camera for that.

Loren

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by racingpinarello

The camera that Steve has (1Dmk2) was my old camera and it's awesome...

---

LOL! Just to clarify, this camera did actually belong to Loren and I bought it from him.

At a steal, I might add. Can't thank you enough, buddy... :cool:

How you been???

Hey Steve,
I have been really busy, and not with photography. I have been recovering from a herniated disk in my neck from a car accident, plus raising a daughter, and training three black labs it makes for a long day.

Still life has been good and I am enjoying taking photos with my "small" setup while taking Alessandra for walks.

I am glad that Mk2 Canon is getting some use now... I loved the controls on it and the images were very very nice.

It's been awhile since I've been on PR.com. It actually took me awhile to find the forum link. :)

Loren

Loren! Good to see you around, you've been missed.

Thanks Steve...It's good to be back and make a visit. Karen and I just bought a new POS..oh..P&S digital camera so I had to read some reviews.

I am hoping to scan some slides this weekend of Alessandra and her first visit to the beach. We went to Grand Cayman so her first visit was in style.

Missed the Chicago gathering..but hopefully in 2008 I or the family can make it out.

How are things?

Loren

Things are good here - just waiting for spring at this point... I missed the Chicago gathering this year too but ironically was near Asylum Steve's world headquarters so we had a nice long lunch one day.

My dad calls them "Ph D cameras" as in "push here, dummy!". :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by another view

but ironically was near Asylum Steve's world headquarters so we had a nice long lunch one day...

---

Actually, Steve, my official World Headquarters (please remember to use caps, ok?) is located on a barge off the coast of the Cayman Islands.

That's a much better tax haven... :D

Photo-John, I have to agree with MB1 - better than what? It all depends on your needs and the type of photography you do and what you need to print. I went to the 5D because I got tired o f converting to the "1.6 factor" and I needed to know what my lens was doing, but then that is just me. I photograph wildlife and nature, but being near a city, everything is fenced and private (farmland/ranches, unless I go to the mountains) so I often have to shoot from a significant distance, which often means a certain amount of cropping to get the image I want - the 5D is excellent for this because of of its high megapixel image - again it comes down to the type of photography you do and the size of the pictures you have to ( want to ) print. HTH

Cheers,

WesternGuy

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.

Again...do most of us need them? Probably not, but a full frame sensor doesn't have to cram all of those pixels into a smaller DX sensor.

With the DX lenses we don't need full frame for wide angle shots anymore...but if you really needed quality, those larger pixels are awesome.

Loren

i constantly finding myself wishing i had afull frame camera, but when you're shooting sports and all of a sudden your 300mm is essentially a 450mm...hey, that's fine with me!

but the ability to use real wide angles is why I still shoot film from time to time. that and the dynamic range.

I think purely image quality alone, cubic inches will win every time. Sure you gain size with larger sensors but that's the trade off. If you want pure power/image quality, the more room you have to put information on the better I would think. Film is a good example. The larger the negative/transparency, the better the image quality. Of course the larger the camera too. That's the trade off. Check this guy out down here in Naples, He rivals Ansel Adams with his images. The only way to get this type of quality is with the equipment he uses.

http://www.clydebutcher.com/

Yes, for landscape photographers, absolutely. I need wide angle, and non-FF cameras rob my lens width.

This is getting interesting . . .the poll numbers are getting much closer than when it first began.

I do land scape photography, I'm working get a full frame 8 by 10 inch camera or larger :D

But both cost money which I don't have :(

I would gladly have a full frame camera, but when I do action photography the 1.5 lens multiplier is very nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GB1

Yes, for landscape photographers, absolutely. I need wide angle, and non-FF cameras rob my lens width.

---

I don't think that's a legitimate concern anymore. There are plenty of very good super-wide lenses made just for APS-C sensor cameras. Of course, if you already own wide lenses for the 35mm format, then that makes a difference. But it's not like lenses aren't available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freygr

I would gladly have a full frame camera, but when I do action photography the 1.5 lens multiplier is very nice.

---

Exactly - would you rather carry a 70-200 f2.8 or a 300 f2.8? One's more versatile since it's a zoom, smaller, lighter and about a third the price. Obviously a lot of advantages.

Looking at it in terms of dollars and cents, currently full frame DSLR's are a lot more expensive than 1.5x or 1.6x cameras. For $500 I solved that problem with a Sigma 10-20 and there are several other choices as well between that price and $1000 USD. Would it be fair to say that a full frame sensor is about a $2000 adder? My very minor complaint above is that using the 10-20, I have to set it at about 14mm to get the 20mm angle of view I'm used to seeing with a 35mm format (or full frame) SLR.

The wider the lens, the more perspective distortion. Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it makes an uninteresting photograph interesting (but it's best not to overdo it) but it's something to be a bit more careful with. And being a little more careful with composition never really hurt anybody... :)

I do not think that camera size is really an advantage to cropped sensors or a point for them. The 5D is a good example of how a Full Frame sensor camera can be roughly the same size as a cropped sensor DSLR. ( it is very identical in size to the 40D and to Nikons D300) Until the 5D, the other full frame camera was in an all out Pro body which made it quite large. There are cropped sensor DSLRs out in Pro bodies that are larger than the full frame 5D. I do not think that most buyers today of DSLR's are neccessarily looking for a compact piece of gear. For that there are many good quality point and shoots to stuff in your pocket and carry all the time. I owned the Rebel XTi before the 5D and my biggest problem with it was it's small size. It had me pressing wrong buttons and having to take my eye off the viewfinder to see where the exposure compensation button was . . became frustrating at times.
At this point, I think cost is still really the only advantage to having the cropped sensor. (The only reason why it was cropped in the first place) As for reach with telephoto lenses, you could easily crop the image from a full frame sensor and get your reach and still have all the other advantages inherent with the FF.

Well we need to settle this soon because if it's not, there will be a nuclear war between the Full Frame sensors and the 1.5 Frame sensors then life will be like on Planet of the Apes.