The religion of full frame

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 … 6 7 end

Archive 2005 · The religion of full frame

MPerdomo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · The religion of full frame

Where do you stand on all this?

I notice in the Canon forum, people are more rabid than ever extolling the virtues of "full frame", as if it's something magical that will somehow make photos better or something.

My position on full frame is that it would be nice to have, but im not going to pay the ridiculous premium over APS, and while I dont have a "full framed" camera, ill just deal with the different format by altering focal lengths i use.

Nov 10, 2005 at 01:43 PM

mpov
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · The religion of full frame

Personally, I don't see a reason for people to have a "stand" on this at all. If it floats your boat to buy a FF camera, then do it.

The most interesting thing about the 5D to me is that it further demonstrates that Canon is clueless about the importance of maintaining lens compatibility. They sell lenses designed for their lower end cameras that cannot be used on their higher end cameras, thus discouraging people with investments in those lenses from upgrading.

Nov 10, 2005 at 01:52 PM

Milkman
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · The religion of full frame

I look at it this way. It's the only thing Canon people have so they are going to think it's wonderful. It's like the emporer(sp) and his new clothes. They can all say they look good when in fact they really have nothing.

Me I'm still trying to figure out what FF actually is.

Nov 10, 2005 at 02:03 PM

Bernie
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · The religion of full frame

Nikon has pretty well demonstrated that 36mm x 24 mm is a non issue and as technology improves it will join the ranks of cassette vs 8 track in the audio wars.

What nobody seems to have mentioned is where pricing logic is headed. Nikon's recent price increases on lenses (prior to the D200 announcement)pretty much told me that they are going the way of printer manufacturers.

HP and others sell printers at cost and earn their keep on cartridges. As there are no supplies to speak of with digital cameras, lenses will be substituted. The low price on the D200 body suggests that they will be selling bodies at or near cost, but make their profits on the lenses.

Nov 10, 2005 at 02:05 PM

molson
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · The religion of full frame

In theory, a 24x36mm sensor in a 35mm-based DSLR is a great idea. Trouble is, I need a full system of lenses, and no full system exists for the 24x36mm sensor. Canon offers a partial system, but they have no useable wide-angle lenses.

The good news for Canon fans is that they are reported to be actively working on a new line of lenses to work with their "full frame" sensors. The bad news is, it will likely entail yet another new, incompatible lens mount system.

Nov 10, 2005 at 02:14 PM

mjmetts
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · The religion of full frame

The big thing about full frame and the 1ds2 in particular is it offers the benefits of medium format film, in a digital body that is a tone cheaper than buying medium format digital.

I don't have a need for that level of quality and print flexibility right now, and it's likely that I won't for a long time.

I really disagree with Milkman though, FF isn't the only thing that Canon has at this point. They also have very good image quality at high ISO. Nikon seems to finally be doing better at this with the D2X, but they still need to work on it more than they are. The D200 is really promising and it seems like Nikon may have finally gotten it together on this one.

Nov 10, 2005 at 03:44 PM

C Jam Blues
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · The religion of full frame

A lot of 1d/1d2 users (including myself) prefer the 1.25x crop over FF. I don't think the FF vs. crop issue will exist in a couple years when sensor tech begins to level out - however, you'd care a lot about FF too if you just spent $3300 on a 5D that for most uses, does the same thing as a $1200 20D (granted, there are some that use thier FF bodies for specific purposes/reasons). I won't even mention the awsome $1700 D200 (oh wait, I just did

)

Also, pixel pitch is starting to become smaller and is therefore outresolving some of the available canon lenses anyway - perhaps canon will start focusing more on sensor quality as opposed to megapixels and hopefully also on the user experience where IMO they've always missed the boat.

FWIW,
-C

P.S. Canon users are not all fan-boys/girls, some of us care about photography.

Nov 10, 2005 at 03:57 PM

Mark Jamison
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · The religion of full frame

MPerdomo wrote:
Where do you stand on all this?

I notice in the Canon forum, people are more rabid than ever extolling the virtues of "full frame", as if it's something magical that will somehow make photos better or something.

My position on full frame is that it would be nice to have, but im not going to pay the ridiculous premium over APS, and while I dont have a "full framed" camera, ill just deal with the different format by altering focal lengths i use.

First off I presume you mean that "Full Frame" is a sensor with the same dimensions as 35mm film.

WIth that presumption, I fall squarely in the camp that says FF is the same as MF or LF, it's just another size to shoot pictures with. It is no better than the APS-C format in the same way that MF is no better than 35mm and LF is no better than MF. All of these formats just provide a means to an end. A way of capturing light.

FF won't magically make your pictures better, and it's not inherently better than an APS-C style sensor. FF mania, with few excpetionsm, is the currently acceptable
form of pixel peeping, nothing more and nothing less.

That said, there is also nothing that makes FF worse than you APS-C sensor.

It's just a different format, that happens to use the same lens mount.

Nov 10, 2005 at 04:10 PM

andylaiphoto
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · The religion of full frame

I had the chance to shoot with a 1DsMII this past weekend and I was imperessed. The DOF with that thing is freakin incredible. I shot with zooms and primes and didn't find vingetting issues at all. Since this is the top dog of DSLRs, the resolution was amazing.

The only thing that bothered me were ergonomics, menu controls, and AF speed.
I don't understand why Canon would make some of the more commonly used controls a two button process, ie you have to use two fingers to hold down buttons while use the scroll wheel at the same time. Maybe that is something that one will get used to over time, but I found it akward. The camera didn't feel as comfortable as a D2X in my hands...the shape just wasn't as welcoming. The AF seemed to be lethargic compared to the D2X also.

Full frame is nice but not a must have...your intended purposes and needs should dictate, not what everybody else is saying.

Nov 10, 2005 at 04:11 PM

David R
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · The religion of full frame

This was discussed previously, but I'll take the opportunity to make my points again, which are:

1. What exactly does full frame mean? I assume that people mean a sensor that's 35mm long, but what exactly about 35mm makes it "full?" If Hasselblad came out with a digital back and new lenses for a 2x2 camera, I assume people would complain that it was not full frame?

2. Using a DX lens on a digital body is what? Hmm, full frame. That's exactly what the camera and lens were designed for. Using a non DX lens on a digital body is still what? Full frame for that camera. The only non full frame camera I can think of is a D2X in crop mode.

3. There's nothing magical about the 35mm size for digital. Yes, the perspective changes, and the DOF at given focal length will be different, but that's all it is - different. People act like 35mm is the Holy Grail of sizes for digital sensors, and I have no idea why. If bigger is better, then then 36mm must be better than 35mm, right? Why not 38mm, why not larger? I DEMAND a 39.5mm sensor - anything else gives pathetic performance, crappy DOF, and it's too hard to go WA.

4. As much as people are clamoring for 35mm sensors, I see a lot of complaining about WA lenses on the Canon forum. So a larger sensor seems to have created some problems for them. Would I sacrifice WA quality for a larger sensor? Well, since I don't have any issues with a smaller sensor, I'll have to say no.

5. There may be some specific cases when a larger sensor is warranted. I haven't found any, but I'm sure some people need a different tool. So that's great, use the best tool for the job. For my photography (and that of most DSLR owners), the current sized sensors are more than adequate, and the technology exceeds my skill level (and theirs).

Nov 10, 2005 at 04:38 PM

ajmichael
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · The religion of full frame

mpov wrote:
Personally, I don't see a reason for people to have a "stand" on this at all. If it floats your boat to buy a FF camera, then do it.

Exactly. If you need it, buy it. If not, don't. But wouldn't it be much nicer round here if people in both the Nikon and Canon camps stopped this ridiculous "my camera is better than yours" nonsense and went out to take some photographs instead?

Nov 10, 2005 at 04:45 PM

papageno
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · The religion of full frame

"Trouble is, I need a full system of lenses, and no full system exists for the 24x36mm sensor."

What planet are you on? Nikon, Canon, Leitz even Perntax and Minolta would beg to disagree........

Nov 10, 2005 at 04:47 PM

macpurity
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · The religion of full frame

The only reason I can come up with for having a full frame DSLR is for capturing wide angle shots. Right now I use my F100 for really wide angles, and that works perfectly fine. If a camera comes down the pike with something that matches the 5.49 micro-meter pixel pitch of the D2x, on a 36x24mm sensor (resulting in a 28Mpixel camera), I'd certainly take a long and hard look at it. Until then, I'll hang onto my F100 and I suspect it'll be a useful camera for a long time to come.

MacP

Nov 10, 2005 at 04:52 PM

onder
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · The religion of full frame

I am thinking this was the time for revolution but people did not noticed that. FULL FRAME is just for old 35mm format. As the old lenses are designed for that so people are expecting the same thing from digital camera.

But digital camera must be a revolution so that must be create new lens standard. As Olympus did for its FOURTHIRDS format.

I am not happy that people are limited to FULLFRAME idea. Full Frame is JUST ANOTHER LIMITATION. We are limited with old lenses. If at that times engineers were delelopped a 70mm instead of 35mm Now they were expecting 70mm Sensors area fro FULL FRAME for their old lenses.

This is that.

Onder Y.

Nov 10, 2005 at 05:03 PM

sl1200mk4
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · The religion of full frame

onder wrote:
I am thinking this was the time for revolution but people did not noticed that. FULL FRAME is just for old 35mm format. As the old lenses are designed for that so people are expecting the same thing from digital camera.

But digital camera must be a revolution so that must be create new lens standard. As Olympus did for its FOURTHIRDS format.

I am not happy that people are limited to FULLFRAME idea. Full Frame is JUST ANOTHER LIMITATION. We are limited with old lenses. If at that times engineers were delelopped a 70mm instead of 35mm Now they were expecting 70mm Sensors area fro FULL FRAME for their old lenses.

This is that.

Onder Y.

Yet 4/3... What an awesome idea...

Nov 10, 2005 at 05:18 PM

onder
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · The religion of full frame

What ?

it is funny ? 4/3 is not good for printing or else.. seems that because everything is designed classical way. I am not saying it is wonderfull or not I did not tried it.

But at least they got the idea of change. Change by Digital.

Nov 10, 2005 at 05:27 PM

sl1200mk4
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · The religion of full frame

FF will be an awesome idea if you have the lens to match it. I am happy with the performance of 24-70 f2.8 L and 70-200 f2.8 L IS & non-IS on FF so far and AFAIK that's the two lenses that I need 98% of the time. So the Canon FF is a viable solution for me at least.

Since Nikon got no FF, many Nikon shooters are very defensive on this subject matter (or wouldn't want to pay the premium even if there is one).

Canon user on the other hand suffers with their mid-entry level DSLR as a result of this. They will probably never see a EF-S 17-55 f2.8, which will be a great match for their 350D/20D. Pretty difficult to pick a good fast normal zoom (unless you got Sigma which got no USM). Canon wants the pro/semi-pro to pay the premium for FF (and get the L lenses that will match it).

At the end no end-user wins...

Nov 10, 2005 at 05:28 PM

sl1200mk4
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · The religion of full frame

onder wrote:
What ?

it is funny ? 4/3 is not good for printing or else.. seems that because everything is designed classical way. I am not saying it is wonderfull or not I did not tried it.

But at least they got the idea of change. Change by Digital.

I have seen amazing wedding shots from the E-1. I have seen 20x30 prints off the 5.5MP E-1. So, it can make decent prints. The AF, Metering and flash system need more work but that has little to do with the 4/3 spec per se.

It is the fact that they can't produce better sensor and cheaper/lighter lenses with their 4/3 system makes me worry. I don't think smaller sensor is the way to go IMHO.

Nov 10, 2005 at 05:32 PM

onder
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · The religion of full frame

I feel that we are making history here. Those ideas are from the early stage of the digital camera ages. By future with NANO Technology I guess the small sensors will be more talented. As an instect eye or an animal eye or an human eye. Those all are have different Format.

So I only would like to pint people that dont be blind with only current format technology.

So I think the big companies off coarse they think profit marge but as the other competitive brands as Olympus or Panasonic might develevop a new revolutionary format.

Anyway..

Nov 10, 2005 at 05:40 PM

sl1200mk4
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · The religion of full frame

onder wrote:
I feel that we are making history here. Those ideas are from the early stage of the digital camera ages. By future with NANO Technology I guess the small sensors will be more talented. As an instect eye or an animal eye or an human eye. Those all are have different Format.

So I only would like to pint people that dont be blind with only current format technology.

So I think the big companies off coarse they think profit marge but as the other competitive brands as Olympus or Panasonic might develevop a new revolutionary format.

Anyway..

Sure eventually we can make chips with nano-tech and what not... But will the 4/3 system still be in the market then? Olympus did abandon their OM system, so they have done it before.

With a smaller sensor, you get more DOF. So, if you need to use lenses that's one aperture faster, then why bother with a smaller sensor in the first place? What is the 4/3 advantage, so far I see none.

Doesn't mean that the 4/3 is not competitive, but 4/3 is not the answer...

Nov 10, 2005 at 06:03 PM

1 2 3 … 6 7 end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 6 7 end