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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

wow Manguish thanks for the links to a great site!