I think you meant crop factor.Originally Posted by loveko
And well fov, dof, crop factor, all this are basics so...
And as i said earlier i'm not into photographer but atleast i have tried the fullframe camera.
Btw, Let's back to the topic. Any other reason of upgrading from non-full frame to full frame?
canon 50D/ 18-55mm IS/50mm F1.8II/sigma 24-70mm EX GD HSM/Speedlite 580 EX II
Size of viewfinder and ability to use perspective control lenses to their fullest effect.
i know nuts about photography. i got an FF... well... because people said it's good...
the only reason why i will buy a full frame over a crop sensor camera is just so that i can capture wider images. thats all.
well ppl say that full frame sensor camera has better iso performance because the sensor is bigger and hence noise is lesser. but i think thats abt the only advantages of a full frame camera.
i also dunno why ppl rave and rave abt the full frame like its so great... i find that its nothing special frankly.
Wow. I think the guy who post this must have lots of money to buy the 5dm2 n 40d with all the L lenses n stuff. Should have donate it to a potential photographer who can make full use of the camera. Just saying. *PEACE* =)
TS, I find your question rather odd.
Since you have used both, you should be in a good position to tell others instead of asking??
The ISO performance gap has narrowed a lot since the introduction of cameras using the 16mp Sony sensor since last year (namely K5; D7K; A580)
Practically its already a moot point of comparison, esp for normal viewing sizes.
See the comparisons here :
Less DOF for FF - cuts both ways. Macro, birding, other occasions, often you'd want more.
Shallow DOF shots for artistic effect is where less DOF is an advantage with FF
Wider FOV - True only when DSLRs first came out, as lenses then were designed for 35mm film (ie. FF) and were therefore cropped with APS-C sensors. The widest FOC on FF is 12mm. The widest FOV (35mm equivalent) on APS-C is also 12mm (eg. Sigma 8-16mm)
Generally FF lenses are larger to cater for the frame coverage. A proper designed for digital APS-C lens can be smaller.
So portability is a consideration.
The main things going for a FF DSLR are :
1. Larger viewfinder (but often not 100%)
2. Potential better high ISO performance with new sensors (yet to be released to market)
3. The ability to use some lenses (esp. primes) in their 'proper' FOV compared to them being used on a cropped camera for less DOF (eg. use a 50mm as a 50mm at f1.4 as opposed to using it with a equivalent 75mm FOV at f1.4)
Last edited by pinholecam; 9th July 2011 at 06:28 PM.
It's more than just the ISO performance and the more shallow DOF you get. It's the same as why some compact cameras have better image quality than handphone cameras. Those who have tried it, and feel that the difference is huge enough for them to upgrade, would do so.
Landscapes for FF is wider? Nahhhh. With filters, widest on a FF is about 15-16mm. On a CF camera you can get 10mm, sama sama.
Without filters, widest is about 12mm, on CF camera it's 8mm today. Sama sama. This FF is wider thing is just a myth actually.
You do get better (and marginal) IQ advantage. One other point to note is that CF UWA lenses tend to be much better corrected than the FF UWA counterparts. A lot of people using FF have described FF UWA lenses as semi fisheye. THere are naturally a few exceptions such as the Nikon 14-24 , but that's a heavy and ugly and expensive beast.
Another thing to note is that a lot of people have estimated that the production costs of a FF camera are not that much more than a CF camera; but there is deliberate market differentation at work here - FF cameras are just priced that much more to give an appeal of "premium"; they're also designed with a lot more bells and whistles most of the time to add to that impression. Think of how Ferrari can charge that much more when at the end of the day, a Toyota equivalent will never cost that high.
Frankly speaking, to me, today the only advantage is the high ISO performance - and that, in time, will fade, I'd wager. Something that won't change is the DOF control, but frankly speaking, most hobbyists won't need it, and my question always remains - if you want DOF control that much, why not MF?
The A700 native resolution is 4274 x 2848 px, while that for the A900 is 6048 x 4032. He re-sized ( interpolated up) the A700 native output to 6048 X 4032 in order to have the same image size. The photos show the effect of re-sizing the output from an APSC sensor to match that of a FF sensor. Despite using a better lens, the APSC sensor cannot match the FF sensor at 100% viewing, which is very large.
My experience is at A2 size, both sensors will give excellent results. It is only at A1 and above the difference will be seen in the fine details.
1) ISO performance, given the same age of technology and amount of pixel, FF sensor is always better.
2) for the same lens, say a 85mm, DOF and bokeh may be the same either used on a FF or CF, but one has to stand further so at the end of the day its personal preference.
Nikon D700| 70-200mm f/2.8G VR2| 28-70mm f/2.8D| 85mm f/1.8G| 50mm f/1.8G| SB900/SB28| MB-D10
If you never used a crop frame camera to its limits, you will never understand why full frame camera are good. That is probably why you find nothing special about FF cams.
If you don't have the need for it, you will probably not see what it can really do.
Last edited by daredevil123; 10th July 2011 at 08:28 AM.