Yo Photographer
Register for FREE!
Go Back   Photography Forum > General Photography Forums > Photography Talk


Log-in/register to unlock all the member quick-links and features!
Reply
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2


SteveL's Avatar
SteveL
Senior Member
SteveL is offline
SteveL is Male
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dorset
Posts: 984
Comments/Critique welcome
 
13-01-09, 08:32 PM
#11

Re: Full frame vs non full frame

There are a few reasons for choosing FF and not just lens coverage.

1) fewer pohotocells per mm2 which in turn = less noise because the photocells are larger and gather more light than smaller photocells and need less amplification.

2) wide angle lens are really wide angle.

3) and this is only my personal opinion, a good biggun will be beat a good littlun anyday.


Steve
Kit 1
Canon 5D MkII
Canon24-105mm f4L IS USM
Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
Canon 17-40mm f4L USM
Canon 100mm f2.8 USM Macro
Canon 70-200 f4L USM
Canon MT-24EX Macro Flash
Kit 2
Canon 5D, Canon 40D, Canon 20D
Other Kit
View my profile to see my other kit!


     
BlackCloud's Avatar
BlackCloud
Senior Member
BlackCloud is offline
BlackCloud is Male
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Leicestershire, UK
Posts: 2,133
Comments/Critique welcome
 
13-01-09, 08:34 PM
#12

Re: Full frame vs non full frame

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazza View Post
The question is about Full frame cameras against the other DSLRs.

I would like to know what the difference in coverage a full frame camera has using a standard lens against an ordinary DSLR using a wide angle lens. That is subject to taking the same picture obviously.

Also having the ability to "stitch" pictures together surely does away with the need for FF camera anyway.

I would have thought, never having used an FF camera, that there would not have been that much difference. Can somebody help me out here.

Bazza
Bazza, you probably used a full frame camera for years. Full frame is about having a sensor approx. the size of a 35mm negative rather than the smaller DX or APS C size you are used to with digital. It should bring a number of positives, finer quality and tones, less noise... Reason we didn't have them before in digital is mainly cost, larger lenses, require better quality lenses etc. The best way to equate it in your head is like years ago medium format cameras Bronica, Hasselblad etc. were considered to be better quality than 35mm Nikon, Canon etc. because the final prints didn't have to be enlarged so much to get to any given print size. 35mm film was however considered better than the smaller APS or 110 negative and more than adequate for amateur and a lot of professional work, and the cameras were more versatile. Basically most of us using digital are using APS whereas one or two people in the forum are now getting 35mm back again!

Stitching images together isn't a substitute or along the same lines as full frame.

Hope that helps a little.
Kit 1
Nikon D700
Nikon 28-70 f2.8 ED AF-S (The Beast)
Nikon 80-200mm f2.8
Tamron 24-135 SP
Nikon 300mm f4
Nikon 70-300mm VR
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (DX)
Nikon 28-105mm (great walkaround on D700!)
Lensbaby Composer
Nikon 20-35mm f2.8
Nikon SB800
Kit 2
Nikon D300
Nikon 20mm f2.8
Nikon 24mm f2.8
Nikon 28mm f2.8
Nikon 35mm f2
Nikon 50mm f1.4
Nikon 85mm f1.8
Micro-Nikon 60mm f2.8
Micro-Nikon 105mm f2.8
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8


     
WildWalker's Avatar
WildWalker
Senior Member
WildWalker is offline
WildWalker is Male
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Portsmouth, Hants, England
Posts: 622
Comments/Critique welcome You may edit and repost my images but ONLY on this site
 
13-01-09, 08:35 PM
#13

Re: Full frame vs non full frame

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazza View Post
AH that is what I wanted to know, thank you. Now the next question ( being a pain arn't I?) is why bother to go FF then. What is the advantage?

Bazza
Wide angle lenses are expensive, the wider they are, the more expensive they are. A 17mm lens on a FF body gives a similar view to a '10' mm lens on a crop factor body.

So if you wish to get the full length out of your lenses, cheap or expensive, then a FF body will give you that.

A good example could be that if you had a 17mm lens on a crop body, and wanted wider, the cost of a 14mm lens is only slightly less than some cheaper FF bodies (Canon EF 14mm 2.8 L II USM Lens is £1434.99).

Take the Nikkon D700 which is now around £1650, if you bought a new body instead of a new lens, you would get your 17mm, plus the width of all the other lenses in your collection, so it could be argued that going full frame gives you the full value from all your glass.

As for panoramics, they don't always work, you can get luminance problems across each frame, they may not stitch and you have to be very careful how you take them if you want good results.

I am not sure what your line of thought is, obviously you have something you are trying to make your mind up over.

The crop sensor/FF argument is one I though of a few years ago, which is why I never bought any EF-S lenses, now I have a FF body, all my lenses still work, pukker

Alan.
Kit 1
Canon 5D Mk11
EF 85mm F1.2 L
EF 17-40 F4 L
EF 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 L
EF 50mm F1.8
Sigma F2.8 28-70mm
Kit 2
Canon EOS 30D
EF-S 18-55mm
EF 35-105mm
EF 70-300
Other Kit
View my profile to see my other kit!


     
Bazza
Senior Member
Bazza is offline
Bazza is Male
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: east sussex
Posts: 3,484
 
13-01-09, 08:44 PM
#14

Re: Full frame vs non full frame

WW quote " plus the width of all the other lenses in your collection", from what I understand using lenses designed for "c" sensor on a camera ( Nikon for example ), when on a FF camera like the Nikon D700 the camera detect and alters the camera crop back to "c" sensor size. therefore it would mean a complete change of all the lenses to get the full benefit. Don't know enough about Canon etc to pass any comment on.

My mind is going along the thought of which would be the better to get should I wish to upgrade. The Nikon D300 or the D700.

Bazza


     
WildWalker's Avatar
WildWalker
Senior Member
WildWalker is offline
WildWalker is Male
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Portsmouth, Hants, England
Posts: 622
Comments/Critique welcome You may edit and repost my images but ONLY on this site
 
13-01-09, 08:48 PM
#15

Re: Full frame vs non full frame

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazza View Post
WW quote " plus the width of all the other lenses in your collection", from what I understand using lenses designed for "c" sensor on a camera ( Nikon for example ), when on a FF camera like the Nikon D700 the camera detect and alters the camera back to "c" sensor size. therefore it would mean a complete change of all the lenses to get the full benefit. Don't know enough about Canon etc to pass any comment on.

bazza
You are right, I was referring to any standard lenses that a person might have. On Canon, you can not put an EF-S lens on a FF body period. So if someone has a lot of EF-S lenses, going FF will work out expensive. Of course, you can still use your EF-S lenses on your old body.

Can you say what you are investigating? Actually, I meant why?
Kit 1
Canon 5D Mk11
EF 85mm F1.2 L
EF 17-40 F4 L
EF 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 L
EF 50mm F1.8
Sigma F2.8 28-70mm
Kit 2
Canon EOS 30D
EF-S 18-55mm
EF 35-105mm
EF 70-300
Other Kit
View my profile to see my other kit!


     
Bazza
Senior Member
Bazza is offline
Bazza is Male
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: east sussex
Posts: 3,484
 
13-01-09, 09:01 PM
#16

Re: Full frame vs non full frame

WW
its no so much investigation its more curiosity really. Its just that I don't or didn't know enough about FF cameras to justify why people bother to have them. However with the explainations you all have given and patiently explained to someone like myself, I can start to see the some of the advantages, especially with picture quality.
I would still worry about not having the correct lens types to warrant changing everything over, but I DO thank you all for your input.

Forgot to say a Nikon lens will fit on either type camera.

Bazza


     
WildWalker's Avatar
WildWalker
Senior Member
WildWalker is offline
WildWalker is Male
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Portsmouth, Hants, England
Posts: 622
Comments/Critique welcome You may edit and repost my images but ONLY on this site
 
13-01-09, 09:09 PM
#17

Re: Full frame vs non full frame

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazza View Post
WW
its no so much investigation its more curiosity really. Its just that I don't or didn't know enough about FF cameras to justify why people bother to have them. However with the explainations you all have given and patiently explained to someone like myself, I can start to see the some of the advantages, especially with picture quality.
I would still worry about not having the correct lens types to warrant changing everything over, but I DO thank you all for your input.

Forgot to say a Nikon lens will fit on either type camera.

Bazza
No worries Bazza, everyone is on here to help


If you can fit your existing Nikor lenses on a Nikon body the that is even better

It is conceivable that all (or most) of the DSLRs will go FF eventually, especially as the costs come down, why make 2 or 3 sizes of sensor when you can make one?

Alan.
Kit 1
Canon 5D Mk11
EF 85mm F1.2 L
EF 17-40 F4 L
EF 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 L
EF 50mm F1.8
Sigma F2.8 28-70mm
Kit 2
Canon EOS 30D
EF-S 18-55mm
EF 35-105mm
EF 70-300
Other Kit
View my profile to see my other kit!


     
finbar1970's Avatar
finbar1970
Senior Member
finbar1970 is offline
finbar1970 is Male
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Whiston, Merseyside, UK
Posts: 571
 
15-01-09, 08:52 PM
#18

Re: Full frame vs non full frame

wow Manguish thanks for the links to a great site!
Kit 1
Fuji xpro1
35mm f1.4
18m f2
Kit 2
fuji s5 pro
Nikon 50mm f1.8
AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 G
AF-S NIKKOR 55-200mm 1:4-5.6 G
Other Kit
View my profile to see my other kit!


     
Reply
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Top


© Copyright 2008, Yo Photographer   Yo Photographer | Contact Us | Archive | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Top