Whats the different from CF and FF?


Jun 22, 2010
111
0
0
#1
Hi,

Planning to upgrade to 7D or 5D. The different in pricing for a FF 5D is quite a lot but the spec not as good or should say fast. Can someone enlighten me what are the advantage of a FF vs CF?
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#2
Hi,

Planning to upgrade to 7D or 5D. The different in pricing for a FF 5D is quite a lot but the spec not as good or should say fast. Can someone enlighten me what are the advantage of a FF vs CF?
Pictures from a FF camera... very low noise, much wider... ooooo so sweeeeet...
 

Jun 22, 2010
111
0
0
#3
With the lens i own now which one is compatable with 5D?

Sigma 18-200
Sigma 50 f1.5
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Tamron 17-55 f2.8

I guess only the 50mm f1.4 is usable huh?
How to see which lens is for FF body?
 

denniskee

Senior Member
Oct 26, 2003
5,468
2
0
bukit batok
Visit site
#5
look at the photos posted by michael49 (scroll down)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/666523

Using different focus length of lens on CF (50mm on 40d) & FF (80mm on 5d) cameras to give similar angle of view without changing camera position, the perspective remains the same, but notice the difference in DOF although both lens aperture is f4, FF camera has shallower DOF.
 

Last edited:

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,518
31
48
Pasir Ris
#6
With the lens i own now which one is compatable with 5D?

Sigma 18-200
Sigma 50 f1.5
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Tamron 17-55 f2.8

I guess only the 50mm f1.4 is usable huh?
How to see which lens is for FF body?
Tamron is only 17-50. But even if you mixed it up with Canon EF-S 17-55 it doesn't matter. Both lenses are designed for cropped sensor cameras. Compatibility of lenses is stated at the manufacturer's website. The differences / advantages / disadvantages between both sensor types is debated since ages. Google for 'full frame advantage' and read, here the first results:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm (always take KRW with a pinch of salt)
http://www.digitalrev.com/en/why-full-frame-sensors---the-power-of-full-frame-3602-article.html
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/fullframe/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-oct-24-04.shtml (yeah, a bit more philosophy.. but the guys just know their things)
What exactly is the reason for your camera upgrade? Don't forget to upgrade also the area behind the viewfinder :)
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#7
With the lens i own now which one is compatable with 5D?

Sigma 18-200
Sigma 50 f1.5
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Tamron 17-55 f2.8

I guess only the 50mm f1.4 is usable huh?
How to see which lens is for FF body?
You just answered your own question.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#9
Pictures from a FF camera... very low noise, much wider... ooooo so sweeeeet...
i think the "much wider" part is disputable.

i do agree that lower noise is an added benefit.

but there are also drawbacks. costs are going to be higher than most people think (they only look at the FF body costs) when you factor in the fact that to maximize potential of the sensor, you will have to do better than the usual consumer grade lens. good FF lens costs money. and that money can add up to much more than the FF cost.

other than that, tendency to be bigger as well. and of course added benefit of viewfinder being much more sweet.
 

wildcat

Senior Member
Sep 8, 2004
3,269
1
38
Bedok
#10
Hi,

Planning to upgrade to 7D or 5D. The different in pricing for a FF 5D is quite a lot but the spec not as good or should say fast. Can someone enlighten me what are the advantage of a FF vs CF?
I would say, if you don't have a reason to go FF, then stick with CF. Don't go looking for reasons if you don't find a need for it. The cost is not just in the camera but also the lens, as FF lens tend to be more expensive while manufacturers tend to make cheaper versions of everything for their more entry level cameras (don't think there's any entry level FF).
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#12
i think the "much wider" part is disputable.

i do agree that lower noise is an added benefit.

but there are also drawbacks. costs are going to be higher than most people think (they only look at the FF body costs) when you factor in the fact that to maximize potential of the sensor, you will have to do better than the usual consumer grade lens. good FF lens costs money. and that money can add up to much more than the FF cost.

other than that, tendency to be bigger as well. and of course added benefit of viewfinder being much more sweet.
Actually, from what I have seen, even on similar "FOV focal length" FF will be able to capture more on top and below. Even when angle of view from left to right is the same, you get a larger top to bottom angle of view. This is due to the difference in aspect ratio between APS-C and full frame sensors.
 

Last edited:

torak

New Member
Sep 4, 2009
678
0
0
#13
Seems like no one mentioned DOF.

At the same fov, the FF will hv nearly 50% shallower dof compared to aps-c sensor.

This is great for portrait shooters and bokeh lovers.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#14
Actually, from what I have seen, even on similar "FOV focal length" FF will be able to capture more on top and below. Even when angle of view from left to right is the same, you get a larger top to bottom angle of view. This is due to the difference in aspect ratio between APS-C and full frame sensors.
ah, i get what you mean.

ff sensor is 4:3? i know aps-c is 3:2.

same explanation as how the lx3 (with variable aspect ratio output) has the "most" coverage in native, i suppose, just that now it's physical?
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#15
ah, i get what you mean.

ff sensor is 4:3? i know aps-c is 3:2.

same explanation as how the lx3 (with variable aspect ratio output) has the "most" coverage in native, i suppose, just that now it's physical?
eh? I thought the FX sensor (for D3, 1Ds, etc) is 36 x 24mm? Isn't that 3:2 aspect ratio? :dunno:
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#16
eh? I thought the FX sensor (for D3, 1Ds, etc) is 36 x 24mm? Isn't that 3:2 aspect ratio? :dunno:
then i don't know what DD123 talking about, then.

i haven't had experience with FF camera files, only FF cameras... play with friend's one. ;)
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#18
the only thing i seemed to come up with was that D3 has 5x4 option. i'm not even sure how that works, though, and D700 does not have that option.

maybe DD123 could elaborate? i have been looking at threads comparing similar effective 35mm focal lengths... DX versus FX, they seem to suggest that say, 10mm on DX will be exactly similar to 15mm on FX.

maybe i'm missing something here.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#19
Same theory actually. U super-impose a cf image on a ff one and u will see that it's wider and taller due to the sensor size :)
yes, but DD123 seems to be suggesting is that:

have 10mm on APS-C format (15mm effective focal length in 35mm terms)
versus 15mm on FX

15mm on FX frame will have MORE in the frame - height wise at that. this is confusing. my understanding has always been that they are exactly the same, after you do the crop factor conversion.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#20
yes, but DD123 seems to be suggesting is that:

have 10mm on APS-C format (15mm effective focal length in 35mm terms)
versus 15mm on FX

15mm on FX frame will have MORE in the frame - height wise at that. this is confusing. my understanding has always been that they are exactly the same, after you do the crop factor conversion.
never mind... on saturday I try to do a comparison with NNB's camera. I shoot at 12mm (widest) and he shoot at 18mm. We post up and see :)
 

Top Bottom