I am deeply poisoned by full frame cameras...

[jeffrey1188]

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

I think you got it wrong on the Crop Factor for Pentax 645D. The multiplier is 0.78. Its sensor is much larger than that of a FF camera.

 

[pinholecam]

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

FF 35mm is wider is an 'old truth', and is no longer valid.
It was only true when cropped digital sensors came to the market, but the widest lenses were designed for FF 35mm and so were effectively 'cropped' in FOV.
Now, with the specific designed for aps-c lenses, this is no longer true.

The widest on FF is 12mm (12-24mm)
The widest on aps-c is also 12mm (ie. Sigma 8-16mm ).

 

[pinholecam]

I think you got it wrong on the Crop Factor for Pentax 645D. The multiplier is 0.78. Its sensor is much larger than that of a FF camera.

645D sensor is indeed larger than FF 35mm; But it is a cropped 645 format

 

[Ouverture]

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...

Please pardon me first if I sounded harsh as I will be very blunt, straight-forward, practical and true-to-life in my response.

My questions to you will be:

1) Do you all the time look at your photos 100% crop on your screen?

2) Do you make money out from your photography?

3) Do you pay for all your equipment using your own money?

If all your answers are "yes", then I would say go for it and enjoy the upgraded IQ.

If any of your answers are "no", then I would say you are not ready for FF.

Understand from your post that you are still a student, unless you are willing to sacrifice your parents and let them skip a meal daily just to afford your overseas studies and FF crave, then by all means buy all the FF gears you want.

 

[sinned79]

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...

This comparision is not good. Must compare using same lens. Those lens are specifically made for CF and cannot be used on FF. We compare apple and apple not orange and apples right? Like i mention, using same lens, FF is what u see is what u get while CF u only see center crop.

 

[Ben Ang]

btw, to ts, i used a d200 for 5 years, ran it to 125k shutter actuations and only very recently started to find that an upgrade would be necessary and then again it was about 30-50% want. there is more in your d90 to be squeezed out... or perhaps more that you can learn to utilize the performance of the D90. composition/perspective and afew other things come before image quality in making an picture stand out. but if you really are that picky about image quality, swapping to primes would make a much bigger difference than getting lower noise levels.

This comparision is not good. Must compare using same lens. Those lens are specifically made for CF and cannot be used on FF. We compare apple and apple not orange and apples right? Like i mention, using same lens, FF is what u see is what u get while CF u only see center crop.

i think the point he's trying to make is that there's no longer a limitation on the wide end for cropped sensors. which is true. if i shoot DX with sigma's 8-16, i can now get the same ultra wide angle of view as if i shot FX with sigma's 12-24.

 

[tehzeh]

<snip>
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.

If you had read carefully, you would know that I was just trying to provide a balanced viewpoint. I am a full frame user myself and have come from a cropped sensor camera, so to some extent, I could understand the mentality of both parties and I was saying that I could sense some jealousy in some people who are advocating the use of cropped sensor cameras because I only saw them comparing 60D and 5D Mk 2 and not 60D and 1Ds Mk 3. Oh or they might say hohoho 60D and 5D2 are consumer cameras while 60D and 1Ds3 are different.... and who were the ones saying that cameras don't matter?

I have to make it clear that I don't have anything against any of the parties, it's just the minority of the parties that are so extreme in their views.

Cheers.

 

[sinned79]

btw, to ts, i used a d200 for 5 years, ran it to 125k shutter actuations and only very recently started to find that an upgrade would be necessary and then again it was about 30-50% want. there is more in your d90 to be squeezed out... or perhaps more that you can learn to utilize the performance of the D90. composition/perspective and afew other things come before image quality in making an picture stand out. but if you really are that picky about image quality, swapping to primes would make a much bigger difference than getting lower noise levels.

i think the point he's trying to make is that there's no longer a limitation on the wide end for cropped sensors. which is true. if i shoot DX with sigma's 8-16, i can now get the same ultra wide angle of view as if i shot FX with sigma's 12-24.

Yup i know but the point is when u buy lens u will want to buy lenses suitable for both CF and FF cos u nvr know when u will upgrade to FF (even now u have no intention but when u got the money next time u might just be tempted to jump to FF, dats a possibility too) and all those lenses meant for CF cannot be used. In short invest lenses that will suit for the next 10 years, u nvr go wrong investing the right lenses.

 

[Ben Ang]

If you had read carefully, you would know that I was just trying to provide a balanced viewpoint. I am a full frame user myself and have come from a cropped sensor camera, so to some extent, I could understand the mentality of both parties and I was saying that I could sense some jealousy in some people who are advocating the use of cropped sensor cameras because I only saw them comparing 60D and 5D Mk 2 and not 60D and 1Ds Mk 3. Oh or they might say hohoho 60D and 5D2 are consumer cameras while 60D and 1Ds3 are different.... and who were the ones saying that cameras don't matter?

I have to make it clear that I don't have anything against any of the parties, it's just the minority of the parties that are so extreme in their views.

Cheers.

ah... my bad then.. you seemed abit extreme and had me guessing there. no hard feelings.

Yup i know but the point is when u buy lens u will want to buy lenses suitable for both CF and FF cos u nvr know when u will upgrade to FF (even now u have no intention but when u got the money next time u might just be tempted to jump to FF, dats a possibility too) and all those lenses meant for CF cannot be used. In short invest lenses that will suit for the next 10 years, u nvr go wrong investing the right lenses.

10 years is a long time... if you buy second hand chances are you wont loose more than $100 over 3-4 years (the tokina 12-24 still holds its value really well). cheap price to pay for that much usage. i think you can just use what you need and start thinking about fullframe lenses when you decide to go fullframe...

alternatively, use a UWA (17-35/16-35) as your normal zoom lens and carry a film body for proper UWA shots.. which is what i did for about 1.5years..

 

[giantcanopy]

I think you got it wrong on the Crop Factor for Pentax 645D. The multiplier is 0.78. Its sensor is much larger than that of a FF camera.

The term "full frame" has been unfortunately so loosely tagged to be almost synonymous with the 35mm format, when it simply refers to a sensor the same as the format size it represents, be it 35mm or 645 or higher.

Pentax 645D while larger sensor than a Full frame 35mm, is smaller than a Full frame 645 format. An example of a Full frame 645 format will be the Aptus ll digital back. Aptus n Phase digital backs have cheaper cropped sensor 645s like Pentax 645d as well.

 

[FrozenRiver]

Among all threads that I've posted in CS, this is by far the most popular one. Thanks for all the suggestions. These make this thread very informative for people like me. And thanks goes to those confusions , too... I had some good laughs.

Now I am over my FF-syndrome. But please continue the discussion as you will. Thanks again guys.