I am deeply poisoned by full frame cameras...

[sinned79]

Actually FF will always be better. CF can get better by the day, but the manufacturers are also improving FF capabilities.

ISO capability aside. As technology advances, FF and CF ISO capabilities will be quite close.

FF will always be FF, CF will always be CF, CF will always lose out due to crop factor (50mm to the crop factor of 50mm x 1.6 for Canon and 50mm x 1.5 for Nikon) while FF is what you see is what u get focal length (50mm will be 50mm) using the same lens (dun talk about lens meants for crop factor) to compare. This is unbeatable, now and forever, unless once day CF is totally phase out and replaced solely by FF. This is one thing CF can never beats or even on par with FF.

using good lens (L lens for example) on FF and CF had its on differences too. On FF, it resolves and maximises the full capability of the L lens while on CF, it only crops the center part of the L lens. But dun be mistaken, sometimes good lenses (L lenses for example) also cause problem on FF, for example, you get quite bad distortion using a 17-40L on a FF as compared to using it on a CF but image quality wise, FF is still better and gives more details. FF outputs more details then CF in photos although you can still use PP to maximises out the details produced by CF photos but FF wise, you can save this extra step.

but saying this FF had it's disadvantages too. When comes to macro and nature (wildlife and/or birding) shoots, CF definitely holds more advantage over FF due to the crop factor. Using a FF on a 200mm lens, u probably had to walk nearer to the lion and risk eated up by the lion but using a CF on a 200mm lens, you can stand further back without the danger of being eaten up.

and lastly, it really depends on what you like to shoot and your budget.

For example:
Landscape, Portraits - No budget? Go FF, you will not regret it. Else CF is still fine.
Macro or Nature (wildlife and/or birding) - No budget? Stay on CF but invest in longer lenses, no point getting FF for this. Else just stay on CF.

 

[allenleonhart]

try using a FF vs a CF at a sporting event like football.

oh BTW, some of the higher end bodies? 1.3 crop factor.

 

[sinned79]

try using a FF vs a CF at a sporting event like football.

oh BTW, some of the higher end bodies? 1.3 crop factor.

u can do this, using 1Ds with a teleconvertor or u can use a 1D without a teleconvertor or you can use a 7D without a teleconvertor all 3 using the same lens. But 5DMKII in this case sure lose out in terms of fps. Even a 40D fps beats 5DMKII in terms of fps.

fps is not determined by FF or CF anyway. It just came with the manufacturer decision, they decide which model should have faster or slower fps.

 

[qystan]

I've used D90 for one whole year now (coupled with 18-105 for about 1 month, with 18-200 for about another 2, and with Tamron 17-50 and Tokina 11-16 ever since.). I think I've found an excellent combination in terms of performance/price ratio. I have been always satisfied with the IQ produced by this last combination (even though straight out of the camera, pictures are a bit soft; after a little sharpening in pp, I was happy.) Also, I've been shooting fairly extensively (and intensively). I go to Paris (as I am living in suburban area of Paris right now) on weekends to make random shots; I've also taken D90 with me for all trips that I've made here in Europe. I am pretty confident in using D90 now, and think that I have digged deep into the capabilities of D90. (The hidden lines here are that I think I am ready to utilize and dig into a higher level equipment. Sorry for my self-boasting. )

This is the case until I seriously examined a few sets of photos produced by full frame cameras (D700 and 5D Mark II). They looked so much cleaner, even at ISO 200... If zoomed in to 100%, the noise level become so apparent (and bothering) on photos produced by D90. Suddenly I feel that D90 cannot record detail to a level that I would deem satisfactory...

However, I also know that I would pay substantial amount if I were to buy a full frame, let alone lenses (which are necessarily the best ones, since otherwise I would be wasting money invested into a full sensor.)

On the other hand, I am still a student... I have to save for the vacuum in between my graduation and my first job... So I am looking for an antidote against my full-frame-syndrome... In other words, I need your help, guys...

Is this real or a major brag in the making?

What us it that's really wanted here? Just buy or there is a real camera shortfall not buy buy buy shortfall that needs to be filled.

Pic taking features. Other than ASM modes, multi fps and IS, there's nothing much else needed for 'pro' photography. FF will matter for v large prints n shallow DOF - u need this? Really? Super fast fps??? Anything faster than 2-3 was enough then, people move faster today than then? Really?

All the other gizmos on the cam are better off done on a pc. HDR is convenient n practically on every new model. But how often do you remember to turn it on. Panorama, art filters, b&w etc are better done on a pc.

But, its yr money, go ahead buy the top model. It's worth the feel good factor.

 

[donut88]

Seriously a good pic does not need to be clean from noise.

If your definition of a good pic is clean, noiseless pic quality, I doubt your level of understanding of photography and your skills.

My definition of a good photographer is someone who can use ANY camera and still can produce good pictures. Noise will not affect his quality.

You can claim u fully utilize your D90, but that's only the mechanical aspect of your skills. Equipment handling skills can be learned easily.

We don't even know your composition skills, your creativity skills, your interaction skills with human subjects, etc.

If you have never have your pictures been selected for exhibitions or assessed by professionals, you can't claim that u have reach that "high" level to use a FF.

 

[allenleonhart]

u can do this, using 1Ds with a teleconvertor or u can use a 1D without a teleconvertor or you can use a 7D without a teleconvertor all 3 using the same lens. But 5DMKII in this case sure lose out in terms of fps. Even a 40D fps beats 5DMKII in terms of fps.

fps is not determined by FF or CF anyway. It just came with the manufacturer decision, they decide which model should have faster or slower fps.

i'm talking abt that extra reach with the 1.3. who said anything abt fps?

 

[sinned79]

i'm talking abt that extra reach with the 1.3. who said anything abt fps?

i am giving extra examples not saying u are talking about fps. fps is also important in sports, don't you agree? it's not just crop factor that is important.

like u cannot just simply use any CF to shoot sports, fps is another consideration as well.

that's why in my earlier example, i never mention sports, cos fps is an important factor too, but i don't want to complicate things to make TS hungry for fps next.

 

[tehzeh]

One thing that cropped sensor cameras will never beat FF - Exclusivity.

I don't see people arguing about how good Leica cameras are, because they aren't exactly good, when compared to the current DSLRs. It's only the shooting experience and the exclusivity (high premium you're paying for) that would just shut everyone up. Likewise, FF cameras have bigger viewfinders and are exclusive and let's not continue the argument about crop factor and all those noise and etc because it is indeed not apparent anymore, when compared to the time when D3 or 5D just came out.

People who are in support of getting a FF would most likely want to comfort themselves by promoting something they have spent huge sum of money on while those who are in support of keeping the cropped sensor camera would most likely be the ones who have taken awesome photographs with only a cropped sensor camera and think that those stuck ups who use FF are no way better than them.

Hehe.

Whatever it is, you got the money, just get whatever you want. If you don't, just make do with whatever you have currently. Bye.

 

[allenleonhart]

i am giving extra examples not saying u are talking about fps. fps is also important in sports, don't you agree? it's not just crop factor that is important.

like u cannot just simply use any CF to shoot sports, fps is another consideration as well.

that's why in my earlier example, i never mention sports, cos fps is an important factor too, but i don't want to complicate things to make TS hungry for fps next.

actually we shld confuse ts more. the more confused he is, the better it gets.

 

[sinned79]

actually we shld confuse ts more. the more confused he is, the better it gets.

evil! lol

 

[sfoto100]

One thing that cropped sensor cameras will never beat FF - Exclusivity.

I don't see people arguing about how good Leica cameras are, because they aren't exactly good, when compared to the current DSLRs. It's only the shooting experience and the exclusivity (high premium you're paying for) that would just shut everyone up. Likewise, FF cameras have bigger viewfinders and are exclusive and let's not continue the argument about crop factor and all those noise and etc because it is indeed not apparent anymore, when compared to the time when D3 or 5D just came out.

People who are in support of getting a FF would most likely want to comfort themselves by promoting something they have spent huge sum of money on while those who are in support of keeping the cropped sensor camera would most likely be the ones who have taken awesome photographs with only a cropped sensor camera and think that those stuck ups who use FF are no way better than them.

Hehe.

Whatever it is, you got the money, just get whatever you want. If you don't, just make do with whatever you have currently. Bye.

hahahaha... i am also trying hard to figure why Leica is so expensive ... anyway i didn't play with one.. but i really doubt one can do professional work like fashion photography, architecture photography with it...

u r right.. there are some who like exclusiveness .. like the apple fans boys.. anything apple is good..

but as for me, i am always a difficult person to convince.. but u raise another FF advantage though, the bigger view finder and larger print (which i don't need, at least for now)...

btw, i just check out the price of pentax 645, and i am so surprised!!!!!!!!!!!! 13,800 sgd for a MF body and a lens!!!! it is for sure the cheapest MF digital camera!!!!! so for FF buyers, please take a look too!

 

[tehzeh]

hahahaha... i am also trying hard to figure why Leica is so expensive ... anyway i didn't play with one.. but i really doubt one can do professional work like fashion photography, architecture photography with it...

u r right.. there are some who like exclusiveness .. like the apple fans boys.. anything apple is good..

but as for me, i am always a difficult person to convince.. but u raise another FF advantage though, the bigger view finder and larger print (which i don't need, at least for now)...

btw, i just check out the price of pentax 645, and i am so surprised!!!!!!!!!!!! 13,800 sgd for a MF body and a lens!!!! it is for sure the cheapest MF digital camera!!!!! so for FF buyers, please take a look too!

I didn't mention larger print. I think printing large only involves megapixels and not the sensor size. Correct me if i am wrong.

 

[sfoto100]

I didn't mention larger print. I think printing large only involves megapixels and not the sensor size. Correct me if i am wrong.

i think i read too fast. yes u r right , it got to do with resolution. my bad

 

[giantcanopy]

btw, i just check out the price of pentax 645, and i am so surprised!!!!!!!!!!!! 13,800 sgd for a MF body and a lens!!!! it is for sure the cheapest MF digital camera!!!!! so for FF buyers, please take a look too!

Strictly speaking, the Pentax 645D sensor is not FF with respect to 645 format. crop factor is around 1.3..

 

[sinned79]

Strictly speaking, the Pentax 645D sensor is not FF with respect to 645 format. crop factor is around 1.3..

u are correct.

 

[muvouser]

Seriously a good pic does not need to be clean from noise.

If your definition of a good pic is clean, noiseless pic quality, I doubt your level of understanding of photography and your skills.

My definition of a good photographer is someone who can use ANY camera and still can produce good pictures. Noise will not affect his quality.

You can claim u fully utilize your D90, but that's only the mechanical aspect of your skills. Equipment handling skills can be learned easily.

We don't even know your composition skills, your creativity skills, your interaction skills with human subjects, etc.

If you have never have your pictures been selected for exhibitions or assessed by professionals, you can't claim that u have reach that "high" level to use a FF.

I think you missed the point here. Nobody here claim only a FF can capture good picture. Rather, the discussion here is that the FF has technical superiority over CF for many shooting conditions (especially low light).

No need to preach about skill and creativity etc ... else someone can come out and say his 9 years canon G2 can also shoot nice picture as evident in the foreign photography magazines we have seen.

 

[Ben Ang]

hahahaha... i am also trying hard to figure why Leica is so expensive ... anyway i didn't play with one.. but i really doubt one can do professional work like fashion photography, architecture photography with it...

quality.

if im not mistaken, leica holds their products to a v v high level of quality. they sensors for the M8 and M9 are even matched to the chip board to provide the best performance. each lens is hand assembled, glass elements are matched to each other to give the best performance. the lenses are designed with the best possible image quality in mind. spaces between elements are optimized rather that averaged out, manufacturing tolerances are kept at a very very strict level. while it seems like extortion, the level of quality is probably unmatched. i do think you sill pay a premium for that little red dot though.

at tehzeh,
while there is some truth in exclusivity, theres no need to think everyone who says fullframe is good is stuck up. many of us actually do use the equipment, have results to show, and have our own reasons to do so. if its not your cup of tea, then so be it. there's no need to put others down.

 

[allenleonhart]

I think you missed the point here. Nobody here claim only a FF can capture good picture. Rather, the discussion here is that the FF has technical superiority over CF for many shooting conditions (especially low light).

No need to preach about skill and creativity etc ... else someone can come out and say his 9 years canon G2 can also shoot nice picture as evident in the foreign photography magazines we have seen.

from TS himself

This is the case until I seriously examined a few sets of photos produced by full frame cameras (D700 and 5D Mark II). They looked so much cleaner, even at ISO 200... If zoomed in to 100%, the noise level become so apparent (and bothering) on photos produced by D90. Suddenly I feel that D90 cannot record detail to a level that I would deem satisfactory...

mm. and we all know that at iso 200, there isnt much visible difference. may i ask how often are u gonna shoot at iso 200 in low light conditions?

we know FF has its advantages. but the problem is whether it reasonable to claim that there is so much perceived "technical superiority", that even at iso 200 it is obvious, as proposed by TS?

remember. the degree of in-camera noise reduction still has to be taken into account. if i were to nitpick further, the algorithms used for FF and the CF might had been different and not a fair comparision. some genius might even be able to hack a CF, use a FF algor on it, and u might see no difference at low ISO.

 

[UncleFai]

from TS himself

mm. and we all know that at iso 200, there isnt much visible difference.

For a FF using a 12-24mm you get 12mm at the max. That's 18mm on a CF. That few mm big diff.

 

[allenleonhart]

For a FF using a 12-24mm you get 12mm at the max. That's 18mm on a CF. That few mm big diff.

for a CF (1.6) using a sigma 10-20mm, tats a 16mm on a FF. tat few mm big diff.

oh there is the efs 10-22mm too. wad do i get on the 10mm max? 16mm view.

Sigma 8-16mm. tats 12mm view...