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 … 5 6 7 end

Archive 2005 · The religion of full frame

Milkman
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #1 · The religion of full frame

<
Like I said this thread is a joke.>>

I can't see me making that decision. I like the extra reach I get with the DX style format. I have good wide angles and low noise. Do I miss the viewfinder, slightly, but I've gotten used to it so all is well for me. The other tradeoffs are more than worth it. DOF is just plain silly how much more do you really get.

Nov 14, 2005 at 12:27 AM

sl1200mk4
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #2 · The religion of full frame

MPerdomo wrote:

Nothing wrong with it, but it's not worth the ridiculous premium to me.

Additionally, there are major tradeoffs to shooting FF, ones that I would not be happpy to make, and would definitely increase my unwillingness to pay a stiff premium for the larger chip

Fine... Nobody is saying that Nikon should stop making DX format bodies... You don't like having choices I suppose...

Nov 14, 2005 at 12:43 AM

Doug Quance
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #3 · The religion of full frame

It's only a matter of time before Nikon produces a FF camera.

And when they do, I bet it will be REALLY affordable.

Of course, Canon's offerings will be really affordable, as well.

Nov 14, 2005 at 12:56 AM

sl1200mk4
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #4 · The religion of full frame

Doug Quance wrote:
It's only a matter of time before Nikon produces a FF camera.

And when they do, I bet it will be REALLY affordable.

Of course, Canon's offerings will be really affordable, as well.

I feel the same...

Though I wonder how well the 17-35 f2.8, 28-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 VR will perform on FF. Would be nice to have a Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 optimized for FF digital, too.

Nov 14, 2005 at 01:04 AM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #5 · The religion of full frame

Andrew Gough wrote:
So when Nikon releases a full frame camera, none of you will buy it? Right.....

Like I said this thread is a joke.

I won't buy one, unless I don't have a choice. Hopefully, that won't ever happen. Don't much care what you or anyone else thinks about that either.

If you think that FF is anything more than just another format, I'd say that the joke is on you. There are real "FF" digital formats out there, that probably do better than the 36x24 format, in case you missed them.

http://tinyurl.com/awhxu

Nov 14, 2005 at 02:10 AM

Andrew Gough
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #6 · The religion of full frame

Kerry Pierce wrote:
Andrew Gough wrote:
So when Nikon releases a full frame camera, none of you will buy it? Right.....

Like I said this thread is a joke.

I won't buy one, unless I don't have a choice. Hopefully, that won't ever happen. Don't much care what you or anyone else thinks about that either.

http://tinyurl.com/awhxu

And like I'm going to lug that into the field. mmmm, no 500mm F4 IS in that system. I guess your post really shows what this is all about, the system.

24x36mm is the system that I have been shooting for years, Nikon, Contax and Canon. The lenses are optimized for this format, and until that truth changes, that is what we are talking about.

Frankly, I just don't understand this thread. Some people prefer the differences that FF offers, some don't. I shoot both, when it suites my needs, and I enjoy the flexibility of being able to do so, and I'll bet that when Nikon releases a FF camera (which they will in the not to distant future), a lot of Nikon shooters will do the same thing. I wonder how many "I don't need FF posters" will quitely move to FF, any guesses?

Nov 14, 2005 at 03:00 AM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #7 · The religion of full frame

Andrew Gough wrote:

And like I'm going to lug that into the field. mmmm, no 500mm F4 IS in that system. I guess your post really shows what this is all about, the system.

Well, no, I think it's always been about the 2 formats. Both have the same relative issues/strengths that you can find with comparisons of 35mm to MF. Your example is perfect. No, there probably isn't a 500mm f/4 IS with that system. If there were, it would be extremely expensive.

Now, place that in relation to the current FF vs APS thread. That 500mm f/4 IS is a 750mm f/4 IS on a 20d. Is there a 750 f/4 IS available for your FF format? If so, at what cost?

Frankly, I just don't understand this thread. Some people prefer the differences that FF offers, some don't. I shoot both, when it suites my needs, and I enjoy the flexibility of being able to do so, and I'll bet that when Nikon releases a FF camera (which they will in the not to distant future), a lot of Nikon shooters will do the same thing. I wonder how many "I don't need FF posters" will quitely move to FF, any guesses?

What is your definition of "not too distant future", in years?

Sure, if/when Nikon ever makes a FF, there will be a number of Nikon shooters buying one. Whether or not some of them will move quietly, dunno. Doesn't matter, because it will depend greatly on the costs/benefits of doing so at that time. In 5 or 10 years, it might be relatively cheap, by today's standards, to buy a FF or even both formats.

That doesn't correlate to the topic of today. The reality of today is that it can be extremely expensive to go FF, for very little apparent gain. Why would I even consider going FF for 12mp when I can get 10mp DX and have the benefits of the crop for my telephotos, for a huge cost savings?

That doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy the flexibility of using both formats, as you do. It does mean that I must choose between one of them, because of financial responsibility.

Nov 14, 2005 at 03:30 AM

Pavel
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #8 · The religion of full frame

There is a review of the 5D at steves-digicams up on his site as of today. I've always liked his reviews better, I consider phils to be more personaly biased so I don't trust his much.
The other review is very positive but one thing has to be said.
The pictures tell the story here. And they are good except when they are bad.
When they are bad it's in the corners at near maximum aperture. The corners are visibly vigneted, which isn't much of a bother as it's an easy fix in Photoshop but they are soft and that is imposible to fix. They are so soft that I was shocked by it! I mean even with the 70-200 f2.8! Who would have thought it would be the case with a telephoto lens and to the degree that it exists? The 17-40 I have is a fabulously sharp lens on my 1D ... on the 5D it is horrible at f 4 and bad at even f11.

I have to say that while I love the advantages of the FF sensor in the theory of it - the disadvantages in the digital age are real and for myself outweigh the advantages. No contest. Heck I hate it but that seems to be the reality. The shots don't lie.
I have crossed that 5D off my list as a possible purchase then as of today and need to admit publicaly that you Nikon guys were more right that I was.

I think that Olympus is onto something with their marketing claiming that digital needs redisigned lenses. Especially the part about the light rays needing to hit at straight angles for corner performance. They have a wide lens flange opening for the size of their sensor. The sensor is cropped 2x and that causes the high iso performace to be fairly poor at iso 800 and above but at iso 100-400 the image quality is fantastic and it really shows with their superb wide angle performance.

Nikon has a somewhat larger sensor at 1.5 field of view crop and so you guys get the benefit of sitting somewhere in the middle. I seems that the middle that Nikon has chosen is the optimal place to sit today. Good iso performance, good wide angle performance.... and great body performance.

I have to conclude that FF is great in theory but falls flat in delivering the promise.
Consider my vote changed!

Nov 14, 2005 at 04:32 AM

GSteele
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #9 · The religion of full frame

Damn you Pavel!!! Now I have to go to the emergency room after falling out of my chair and hitting my head on the floor.

Well it wasn't meant to compete against the 1DsMKII, but the edge softness with the 70-200mm is more than I would have expected. The wides angles are not surprising, I think that has been discussed here before about the angle at which the light strikes the sensor on wides vs films grain tolerance about the angle of light.

Nov 14, 2005 at 05:16 AM

Doug Quance
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #10 · The religion of full frame

That was my take as well, Pavel.

Film is so much more forgiving regarding the angle of incidence of the light. To get that performance on a sensor is still the challenge.

Of course, there is a place for FF, IMO.

But I, for one, am not interested in shelling out the big bucks to play.

I do, however, own lenses I can use on that future Nikon FF.

Nov 14, 2005 at 05:18 AM

Andrew Gough
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #11 · The religion of full frame

Kerry Pierce wrote:
Andrew Gough wrote:

And like I'm going to lug that into the field. mmmm, no 500mm F4 IS in that system. I guess your post really shows what this is all about, the system.

Well, no, I think it's always been about the 2 formats. Both have the same relative issues/strengths that you can find with comparisons of 35mm to MF. Your example is perfect. No, there probably isn't a 500mm f/4 IS with that system. If there were, it would be extremely expensive.

Now, place that in relation to the current FF vs APS thread. That 500mm f/4 IS is a 750mm f/4 IS on a 20d. Is there a 750 f/4 IS available for your FF format? If so, at what cost?\

That said, I completely understand your choice. If I where in your shoes, then I would probably make the same choice. Right now the d200 is simply the best bang for the buck in the 10-12mp range, no question.

Frankly, I just don't understand this thread. Some people prefer the differences that FF offers, some don't. I shoot both, when it suites my needs, and I enjoy the flexibility of being able to do so, and I'll bet that when Nikon releases a FF camera (which they will in the not to distant future), a lot of Nikon shooters will do the same thing. I wonder how many "I don't need FF posters" will quitely move to FF, any guesses?

What is your definition of "not too distant future", in years?

Sure, if/when Nikon ever makes a FF, there will be a number of Nikon shooters buying one. Whether or not some of them will move quietly, dunno. Doesn't matter, because it will depend greatly on the costs/benefits of doing so at that time. In 5 or 10 years, it might be relatively cheap, by today's standards, to buy a FF or even both formats.

That doesn't correlate to the topic of today. The reality of today is that it can be extremely expensive to go FF, for very little apparent gain. Why would I even consider going FF for 12mp when I can get 10mp DX and have the benefits of the crop for my telephotos, for a huge cost savings?

That doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy the flexibility of using both formats, as you do. It does mean that I must choose between one of them, because of financial responsibility.

Show me a 16mp crop camera? I routinely print at 38x48" with stunning fidelity. The corner issues that you talk about have been solved, albeit unconventionally. As for a 750/4 I can do that too, thats the point, I can do both - and that is why Nikon will go FF. I can plug my CZ15mm on my 1DS2 and print a 40x60 from no problem, the resolution far exceeds 11-12mp at this size.

All cameras will reach optical limitations as pixel density rises, cropped cameras will get there first.

As I said, both have a place in my bag, and each has its use - thats why I don't really understand this thread. If I was shooting Nikon (And I have in the past) then I would be hoping for a FF soon or a 16-20mp crop with the same high ISO performance of the Canon. For me the camera is a tool, I could not careless who's name is on the front, image quality/performance/mp is what it is about. As I said in my earlier posts, whoever solves the wide issue first at 16+mp will get my business.

That said, if I where in your shoes the the d200 would be the way to go. In the 10-12mp range it is the best bang for the buck - no question.

Nov 14, 2005 at 05:54 AM

jmcfadden
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #12 · The religion of full frame

Pavel

This is All I have said from the beginning, nothing more , you hit the nails on the head. If someone has a bottomless pit of money and can afford exotic 3rd party lenses and can put up with the innanity of stop down metering and manual focus then perhaps the 5D would do. But why bother ? then why compare it to anything else either. My favorite canon has always been the 1Ds but the whole notion of it being inherently better simply because it was FF never rang true to me, and I have resolution to spare, fierce speed, flexability with a HSC mode, AF etc. All for a decent price too

Nov 14, 2005 at 06:22 AM

Pavel
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #13 · The religion of full frame

Gotta say - the proof is in the pudding .... and well, er, um ..... the pudding seems kida lumpy for FF right now. Perhaps one day but not now. By the looks of it though one day seems to be closer for cleaning up the limitations ( noise mainly ) of 1.5x sooner than the maybee of uncompromised FF shooting.

Ok ... so you were right. Along with one or two others. Beginers luck, I figgure, right ?

Uuuum, yummy, yummy humble pie !

Nov 14, 2005 at 06:58 AM

jmcfadden
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #14 · The religion of full frame

it isn't about right or wrong or humble pie even, there Are great reasons to choose these tools based on ones needs, it is when folks who really are techno geek gear heads "heard" that FF was "the bomb" come and defend it over here that gets old

cheers and have a little milk with the pie won't you

Nov 14, 2005 at 07:10 AM

Andrew Gough
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #15 · The religion of full frame

Pavel wrote:
There is a review of the 5D at steves-digicams up on his site as of today. I've always liked his reviews better, I consider phils to be more personaly biased so I don't trust his much.
The other review is very positive but one thing has to be said.
The pictures tell the story here. And they are good except when they are bad.
When they are bad it's in the corners at near maximum aperture. The corners are visibly vigneted, which isn't much of a bother as it's an easy fix in Photoshop but they are soft and that is imposible to fix. They are so soft that I was shocked by it! I mean even with the 70-200 f2.8! Who would have thought it would be the case with a telephoto lens and to the degree that it exists? The 17-40 I have is a fabulously sharp lens on my 1D ... on the 5D it is horrible at f 4 and bad at even f11.

I have to say that while I love the advantages of the FF sensor in the theory of it - the disadvantages in the digital age are real and for myself outweigh the advantages. No contest. Heck I hate it but that seems to be the reality. The shots don't lie.
I have crossed that 5D off my list as a possible purchase then as of today and need to admit publicaly that you Nikon guys were more right that I was.

I think that Olympus is onto something with their marketing claiming that digital needs redisigned lenses. Especially the part about the light rays needing to hit at straight angles for corner performance. They have a wide lens flange opening for the size of their sensor. The sensor is cropped 2x and that causes the high iso performace to be fairly poor at iso 800 and above but at iso 100-400 the image quality is fantastic and it really shows with their superb wide angle performance.

Nikon has a somewhat larger sensor at 1.5 field of view crop and so you guys get the benefit of sitting somewhere in the middle. I seems that the middle that Nikon has chosen is the optimal place to sit today. Good iso performance, good wide angle performance.... and great body performance.

I have to conclude that FF is great in theory but falls flat in delivering the promise.
Consider my vote changed!

I don't think that it is a light ray problem. My Contax wides (especially the 21mm) are sharp all the way into the corners even at F4.0. The drawback is manual focus, stop down metering etc... But the fact remains they are sharp, even the 15mm. So the big question is why? Personally, I thing it comes down to design, manufacturing tolerences and cost.

Canon has a big problem with their wides on FF, of that there can be no doubt. They will have to fix it, I don't think that a new mount would be very well received given the costs associated with current gear. Nikon has yet to face this problem, they will have the same issues when they go FF, unless they come to market with a FF body and a series of new wides - that would be a very smart move on Nikons part.

Nov 14, 2005 at 02:09 PM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #16 · The religion of full frame

Andrew Gough wrote:

Show me a 16mp crop camera? I routinely print at 38x48" with stunning fidelity.

All cameras will reach optical limitations as pixel density rises, cropped cameras will get there first.

As I said, both have a place in my bag, and each has its use - thats why I don't really understand this thread. If I was shooting Nikon (And I have in the past) then I would be hoping for a FF soon or a 16-20mp crop with the same high ISO performance of the Canon. For me the camera is a tool, I could not careless who's name is on the front, image quality/performance/mp is what it is about. As I said in my earlier posts, whoever solves the wide issue first at 16+mp will get my business.

That said, if I where in your shoes the the d200 would be the way to go. In the 10-12mp range it is the best bang for the buck - no question.

No doubt, the higher resolution will remain an advantage with FF. Just as it is with the MF digitals. But, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 16mp+ DX camera before we see a nikon FF. The noise issue will likely continue to improve with technology as well.

I think the reason you don't understand the thread is due to the fact that you're a pro that buys a tool, whatever tool that gets the job done. I do the same thing, but with significant budget constraints. The "religious FF" aspects come from the fanboy/missionary perspective. There are plenty of those, for every camera make.

The constant, "my camera is better than yours because of X", type of thing that is promulgated by these people, besides being foolish and inaccurate, is pretty annoying. Minutia doesn't make the camera and certainly doesn't make the photo.

The facts are pretty simple. The "perfect" camera doesn't exist. No brand or format is "best", because "best" is also determined by a ton of subjective things that comprise a photographer's needs and finances. End of story. Anyone that asserts otherwise is trying to impose his subjective opinion on others as fact, when it clearly is not. One man's trash is another man's treasure. YMMV....

Nov 14, 2005 at 03:02 PM

MPerdomo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #17 · The religion of full frame

Pavel wrote:
Gotta say - the proof is in the pudding .... and well, er, um ..... the pudding seems kida lumpy for FF right now. Perhaps one day but not now. By the looks of it though one day seems to be closer for cleaning up the limitations ( noise mainly ) of 1.5x sooner than the maybee of uncompromised FF shooting.

Ok ... so you were right. Along with one or two others. Beginers luck, I figgure, right ?

Uuuum, yummy, yummy humble pie !

Also, there is the battle between conflicting influences.

Digital SLRs are picking up people who shot Medium Format, and for them, they NEED all the pixels, exotic lenses, etc to do that, and quality is ahead of speed, eas of use, portability, etc.

As someone who leans toward the PJ side of things, I value speed, convenience, speed, and speed and am willing to make quality compromises to facilitate that. I honetly don't want a 10-12MP camera, but think im going to be forced to do that, or buy a D2Hs (but I wont do that if the D2Hs is still priced ridiculously).

I mean, it's great that SLRs based on 35mm bodies are turning out results good enough for the MF guys, but what they want is not always good for what I want.

Nov 14, 2005 at 03:34 PM

Osai
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #18 · The religion of full frame

I'm amazed at how long this thread has become. I have a feeling that we need a Measurebator forum. A place where we can compare specs instead of pictures. Why do I have a feeling that many of the posters haven't even held a FF outside a a photo dealer. How many have really given a thought to the engineering that goes into your equipment? How many know where 35mm came from? Do you know what the original image size was for 35mm? Lens design was based on this original format and continued to develop from there, no wonder there were problems with vignetting and falloff etc. Think about the engineering behind the specs you read, you may find out you're comparing apples to avacados.
I'm not surprised that Mark started this thread, I'm just dismayed that so many fell into it. This subject has been beat to death for months now. I guess my point is.............Why

Nov 14, 2005 at 03:54 PM

Andrew Gough
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #19 · The religion of full frame

Kerry Pierce wrote:
Andrew Gough wrote:

Show me a 16mp crop camera? I routinely print at 38x48" with stunning fidelity.

All cameras will reach optical limitations as pixel density rises, cropped cameras will get there first.

As I said, both have a place in my bag, and each has its use - thats why I don't really understand this thread. If I was shooting Nikon (And I have in the past) then I would be hoping for a FF soon or a 16-20mp crop with the same high ISO performance of the Canon. For me the camera is a tool, I could not careless who's name is on the front, image quality/performance/mp is what it is about. As I said in my earlier posts, whoever solves the wide issue first at 16+mp will get my business.

That said, if I where in your shoes the the d200 would be the way to go. In the 10-12mp range it is the best bang for the buck - no question.

No doubt, the higher resolution will remain an advantage with FF. Just as it is with the MF digitals. But, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 16mp+ DX camera before we see a nikon FF. The noise issue will likely continue to improve with technology as well.

I think the reason you don't understand the thread is due to the fact that you're a pro that buys a tool, whatever tool that gets the job done. I do the same thing, but with significant budget constraints. The "religious FF" aspects come from the fanboy/missionary perspective. There are plenty of those, for every camera make.

The constant, "my camera is better than yours because of X", type of thing that is promulgated by these people, besides being foolish and inaccurate, is pretty annoying. Minutia doesn't make the camera and certainly doesn't make the photo.

The facts are pretty simple. The "perfect" camera doesn't exist. No brand or format is "best", because "best" is also determined by a ton of subjective things that comprise a photographer's needs and finances. End of story. Anyone that asserts otherwise is trying to impose his subjective opinion on others as fact, when it clearly is not. One man's trash is another man's treasure. YMMV....

Kerry,

I completely agree with you. A 16mp DX with great wides & good ISO performance... I would be all over that in a minute. I would love a superlightweight carbon fibre/waterproof body too

my old back ain't what it used to be

The good thing about the carbon body is it would be ok after I dropped it, which happens too often

Price you gotta pay to get the shot!

Nov 14, 2005 at 04:55 PM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #20 · The religion of full frame

Andrew Gough wrote:

I completely agree with you. A 16mp DX with great wides & good ISO performance... I would be all over that in a minute. I would love a superlightweight carbon fibre/waterproof body too

my old back ain't what it used to be

The good thing about the carbon body is it would be ok after I dropped it, which happens too often

Price you gotta pay to get the shot!

I hear ya on the back thing....

Carbon fibre bodies would be very welcome, in this corner.

As to the 16mp APS, that's probably not likely to happen for a while. The 5d threw a wrench in that for the Canon guys and the d2x isn't likely to be replaced soon. I kinda figured that the "30d" would be 12mp, with perhaps a new APS-C body higher up the scale with more MPs, coming perhaps within a year of that, depending on how aggressive Canon wanted to be. The 5d probably limits those possibilities rather severely. Canon would probably take a severe pounding now, if they put out a 12mp 30d.... It will be interesting to see what they do in that area.

A "d3x" with 16mp+, doesn't seem to be likely for 3 years or more, depending on advances in tech, among other things. OTOH, in the relatively near future, a "d2xs" with an improved sensor for noise, etc and other goodies, but remaining at 12mp, wouldn't surprise me.

As a matter of curiousity, I've often wondered why the top cameras don't have 2 bodies, one with and one without the vertical grip. Seems to me that a lot of pros would get by just fine, without the added weight and expense. Am I missing something there?

Nov 14, 2005 at 07:05 PM

1 2 3 … 5 6 7 end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 end