What are the advantages of a FF cmos sensor let say compare to a 1.5x crop ccd sensor, other than giving new life to old lense. Does it produce more sharp picture quality for normal printing, let say at max A4 size. Please enlighten me, as i am planning to upgarde my Nikon D70s in near future.
Advantage of Full Frame Sensor
- Thread starter lwt11137
- Start date
- Status
I believe some 1.5x crop sensor have pretty high iso performance as well. Still wonder is it worth upgrading to FF camera and start built up FF lense.
there are advantages,
i think what is more important is that you take note of the disadvantages based on the past, and think whether you really really need it.
whatever it is, fact is fact, FF sensor cameras still cost significantly more than APS-C sensor cameras.
i think what is more important is that you take note of the disadvantages based on the past, and think whether you really really need it.
whatever it is, fact is fact, FF sensor cameras still cost significantly more than APS-C sensor cameras.
that why i started this thread to find out more and get some positive and negative feedback as well, but not just give blank comment.
Hahaha.... you haven't get the usual - 'Google This' or 'Wikipedia That'- comment yet :bsmilie::sweat:
i really dun mind even though not a single input in my thread rather giving blank comment waiting each other times, and i wonder how those so call members knew that those thread starter didn't search through google and wikipedia. I believe the more the merrier for comment and feedback, so as to make decision easlier.
You will love the 35mm format (again); unless you don't missed those days shooting your F4/F3/FM2.
You "get back" what you have been missing since... the same field of view for your existing lenses, the same DOF... plus a big and brighter VF... and for digital, good high ISO control though not every one needs high ISO (good to have) plus better dynamic range.
The trade offs ?
You would probably had to have deeper pockets; lenses that do well in the 35mm film days not not "make it" on digital with regard to IQ. You are going to have to sacrifice and take salad twice a week and cut of a holiday to Europe this year end.
For me, I know what I want.
I hope it helps you a little in taking that next step.
You "get back" what you have been missing since... the same field of view for your existing lenses, the same DOF... plus a big and brighter VF... and for digital, good high ISO control though not every one needs high ISO (good to have) plus better dynamic range.
The trade offs ?
You would probably had to have deeper pockets; lenses that do well in the 35mm film days not not "make it" on digital with regard to IQ. You are going to have to sacrifice and take salad twice a week and cut of a holiday to Europe this year end.
For me, I know what I want.
I hope it helps you a little in taking that next step.
I understand. It's frustrating sometimes.
Since you post in the "Newbie" forum, you should get some feedback. But that's life. We get comments like ... "google it", "if you don't know - you don't need it", "it's the people behind the viewfinder, stupid (as if we don't know about that)"... but that's life... we move on. Even I can be rude at times.
Life is stressful in Singapore. We move on.
Ah! Blue skies on a Sunday morning. If it holds good... perhaps it's an opportunity for some IR shoot around noon.
Good morning
Since you post in the "Newbie" forum, you should get some feedback. But that's life. We get comments like ... "google it", "if you don't know - you don't need it", "it's the people behind the viewfinder, stupid (as if we don't know about that)"... but that's life... we move on. Even I can be rude at times.
Life is stressful in Singapore. We move on.
Ah! Blue skies on a Sunday morning. If it holds good... perhaps it's an opportunity for some IR shoot around noon.
Good morning
it depends on your shooting style and choice of subject
FX is a want and not a need, as least to me
so if i have lots of spare cash, i'll get FX
and since i don't have lots of spare cash
I'll stick to my DX consumer DSLR
and make up for the difference with Skills
btw i just bought a big sweep ticket, keeping my fingers crossed
wish me luck
FX is a want and not a need, as least to me
so if i have lots of spare cash, i'll get FX
and since i don't have lots of spare cash
I'll stick to my DX consumer DSLR
and make up for the difference with Skills
btw i just bought a big sweep ticket, keeping my fingers crossed
wish me luck
To me FF is just to maintain "backward compatibility", namely with the tons of film lenses out there, such as with the long time pros from film days.
(Is there a need always to maintain backward compatibility with DOS? Perhaps only for those who still runs DOS programmes. and some of you here may not have heard about DOS.)
And marketing hype too: position it as more pro and charge more, keep the market confused and befuddled about the advantages if any, and maintain its snob appeal.
The noise issue with smaller sensor is either non existent or soon will be, eg look at D300 noise.
The only real reason for FF is a wider format. So if wide wide pictures are what you do 90% of the time then maybe FF is justified.
And also a possible - and rationale - configuration, is to have an FX with wide angle lenses and a DX body for tele work. This is a valid reason for FX to be in the market. And most pros carry two camera bodies.
But if anyone else wants to buy FX - for whatever reasons, eg to look good - the camera companies more than welcome it certainly.
(Is there a need always to maintain backward compatibility with DOS? Perhaps only for those who still runs DOS programmes. and some of you here may not have heard about DOS.)
And marketing hype too: position it as more pro and charge more, keep the market confused and befuddled about the advantages if any, and maintain its snob appeal.
The noise issue with smaller sensor is either non existent or soon will be, eg look at D300 noise.
The only real reason for FF is a wider format. So if wide wide pictures are what you do 90% of the time then maybe FF is justified.
And also a possible - and rationale - configuration, is to have an FX with wide angle lenses and a DX body for tele work. This is a valid reason for FX to be in the market. And most pros carry two camera bodies.
But if anyone else wants to buy FX - for whatever reasons, eg to look good - the camera companies more than welcome it certainly.
In 5 years time, DX and crop will be relegated to PnS. All DSLR will be FF. Current Canon 5D specs will become entry level DSLR with 12 MP selling for just $999. Plastic body of course. Not too late to start dumping DX and EF-S lenses now. Pro bodies will hit 32 MP.
A new generation of lenses from N (F series) and C (Super L) is being developed to maximise FF. Say goodbye to vignetting. Bring equivalent MF quality in a convenient 35mm DSLR format.
A new generation of lenses from N (F series) and C (Super L) is being developed to maximise FF. Say goodbye to vignetting. Bring equivalent MF quality in a convenient 35mm DSLR format.
support your stand fully :thumbsup::thumbsup:
many professional will be trying to protect their rice bowls too
it has been discussed to death here and elsewhere.
sharpness doesn't just come from the sensor (btw, FF sensor doesn't offer any significant advantage of sharpness over DX). it comes from (among others) your lenses. and FX sensor demands a lot more of the lenses than your DX sensor. do you have the lenses for it?
wat do you shoot most often? u know wat u shoot most often, you know which cam to go for.
other advantage, at least for nikon, is the better (streets better, IMO) hi-ISO performance of the FX sensor over the DX. despite the better EXPEED processor (and the same one on D3) on the d300 compared to the older generations of nikon DX cameras (like its predecessor D200), you put the D300 on ISO3200 (which is its max) pic side-by-side with the D3's ISO3200 (which is not even breaking a sweat for the D3), you will be able to tell the difference in noise levels. dat is the best proof your eyes can see wrt the FX vs DX sensor debate.
yeah i agree too maybe dx sensor cameras would just be the very low grade kind of dslr like the nikon d40?
i totally agree with the comment ...i think is it Singaporean is running out of patience with each other .I understand. It's frustrating sometimes.
Since you post in the "Newbie" forum, you should get some feedback. But that's life. We get comments like ... "google it", "if you don't know - you don't need it", "it's the people behind the viewfinder, stupid (as if we don't know about that)"... but that's life... we move on. Even I can be rude at times.
Life is stressful in Singapore. We move on.
Ah! Blue skies on a Sunday morning. If it holds good... perhaps it's an opportunity for some IR shoot around noon.
Good morning
Common we are toking our hobby ..thing we share the same passion...so be cool and patience ...help each other ...more compliment but of course critique stuff with some manners ...have a great Sunday
5 years + or -
By end of this year, there will be 3 FF camera makers - Canon, Nikon and Sony
By end of next year, mid priced models will feature FF, first generation of proper FF lenses
By end of 2010, the first PnS will feature 4:3rds and DX/Crop
By end of 2011, cheap PnS will be camera phones, market for cheap PnS will cease to exist hence more models with 4:3rds and DX/Crop will appear offering superior image quality to Camera Phones
By end 2012, affordable FF DSLR will appear. DX/Crop and 4:3rds will be entry level models
By 2013 - Canon will offer MF cameras (by buying over exiting MF companies)
The reason for the progress is driven by sensor manufacturing. Canon will no longer hold the monopoly for FF and would want to offer higher grade cameras ie MF 48 x 36mm. :lovegrin:
- Status
Similar threads
