Nando
Well-known
I want to use my existing lenses on a digital body. If I get a cropped sensor, I must get new focal lengths or figure out where to position myself every time I switch from a film body to a digital body and vice versa. This is the main reason why I want a full-frame sensor when (and if) I make the switch over.
flip
良かったね！
+1
My sister wanted a fisheye for her cropped sensor Canon DSLR. While I could find the lens for her, upon hooking it up to a body, I realized her goal was not going to be met with that body.
I suspect that there are some who are not keen on small sensors because they have had certain lenses for some time. They don't want to repurchase ($) even if they could make the mental leap.
For my part, I like to shoot at night and indoors. I prefer the FOV and stability of a 35/1.2 over a 50/1.2 for these purposes.
gavinlg
Veteran
Because images from crop cams don't have the same 'spacial dimensionality' that full frame cam images do. It doesn't just stop there, I would love to have a mamiya ZD instead of my 5d or a full frame 35mm dslr because the images are more 'real' and dimensional with the medium format sensor. A mid level crop cam like the d300 or 60d are the same size as a 5d anyway, so why would you settle for the smaller sensor?
The other thing is that good lenses become different on a crop cam for sure... They don't retain the same look, and are more 'stressed' wide open - esPecially fast ones.
The other thing is that good lenses become different on a crop cam for sure... They don't retain the same look, and are more 'stressed' wide open - esPecially fast ones.
Last edited:
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Different formats in digital have different advantages. I don't have | can't/won't afford a digital M (much less medium format!) so crop-factor sensors for those don't bother me 
(or is that ?).
For digital SLRs I have both APS-C bodies and a full-frame body. In general, but not always, I use zooms on the APS-C bodies and primes on the FF. The long zoom I have for wildlife and, occasionally, sports is used where I often need maximum reach, so the crop sensor can help there. (Pixel density from cropping a FF image, even in a high-end camera I don't have, doesn't match what I get from the APS-C sensor.) If I don't need maximum reach, I'll sometimes use the same lens on the FF camera.
The wide zoom I have that's APS-C only (the Canon EF-S 17-55mm/f2.8 IS) is a wonderful lens and it's specs/performance combination can't be matched by any FF offering - so i use it on my crop-factor cameras.
The prime lenses tend to be used on the FF camera (a 35mm/f2, a 50mm/f1.2 and a 100mm/f2.8 macro, with a 24mm/f2.8 soon to come). Sometimes, I'll "re-purpose" them on an APS-C camera (the 50mm makes a nice "portrait" lens on a crop sensor; sometimes I like the better working distance with the macro on a crop sensor; I expect the 24mm will make a nice light 38mm-ish-equivalent lens on a crop body, which gives a field-of-view I like for "walking around").
Having both formats suits me.
...Mike
(or is that ?). For digital SLRs I have both APS-C bodies and a full-frame body. In general, but not always, I use zooms on the APS-C bodies and primes on the FF. The long zoom I have for wildlife and, occasionally, sports is used where I often need maximum reach, so the crop sensor can help there. (Pixel density from cropping a FF image, even in a high-end camera I don't have, doesn't match what I get from the APS-C sensor.) If I don't need maximum reach, I'll sometimes use the same lens on the FF camera.
The wide zoom I have that's APS-C only (the Canon EF-S 17-55mm/f2.8 IS) is a wonderful lens and it's specs/performance combination can't be matched by any FF offering - so i use it on my crop-factor cameras.
The prime lenses tend to be used on the FF camera (a 35mm/f2, a 50mm/f1.2 and a 100mm/f2.8 macro, with a 24mm/f2.8 soon to come). Sometimes, I'll "re-purpose" them on an APS-C camera (the 50mm makes a nice "portrait" lens on a crop sensor; sometimes I like the better working distance with the macro on a crop sensor; I expect the 24mm will make a nice light 38mm-ish-equivalent lens on a crop body, which gives a field-of-view I like for "walking around").
Having both formats suits me.
...Mike
back alley
IMAGES
as bob michaels sig points out...the answer to most photo questions is...'it depends'...
many answers, most a bit different from each other and all influenced by our past experiences, flexibility and just plain how we see things.
all very interesting and appreciated.
thanks all.
joe
many answers, most a bit different from each other and all influenced by our past experiences, flexibility and just plain how we see things.
all very interesting and appreciated.
thanks all.
joe
Roger Hicks
Veteran
When I shot only film I normally carried two bodies, MP and M2 (or M4-P), one loaded with film and the other with B+W. One was fitted with a 35, the other with a 75, and the lenses were easily swapped. Now I carry two bodies, M9 and MP, one digital (for colour) and the other loaded with B+W. Having the same format (= no change in coverage for a given focal length) is an enormous advantage.
Also, my standard lens for decades has been a 35/1.4. An M9 was near enough comparable in price with the 24 Summilux I was contemplating buying in order to get a fast wide on my M8. Thank God I didn't buy the Summilux, because I'd not have had the money for the M9.
Third, I sometimes use extreme wide-angles. I'd have had to buy a 12 to get the equivalent of a 15 (near enough) on the M8.
In other words, I'd have had to buy at least two new lenses. As it was, when I got the M9, I said to Frances, "I've got my 35mm back!"
The lens I use most on the M8 (and used most on the M8.2) is the 1,5/50 C-Sonnar, 67 mm equivalent. Great combination, great focal length, but limiting.
Cheers,
R.
Also, my standard lens for decades has been a 35/1.4. An M9 was near enough comparable in price with the 24 Summilux I was contemplating buying in order to get a fast wide on my M8. Thank God I didn't buy the Summilux, because I'd not have had the money for the M9.
Third, I sometimes use extreme wide-angles. I'd have had to buy a 12 to get the equivalent of a 15 (near enough) on the M8.
In other words, I'd have had to buy at least two new lenses. As it was, when I got the M9, I said to Frances, "I've got my 35mm back!"
The lens I use most on the M8 (and used most on the M8.2) is the 1,5/50 C-Sonnar, 67 mm equivalent. Great combination, great focal length, but limiting.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
damien.murphy
Damien
Ha ha, you can never account for everything! I imagine the Sonnar makes a lovely portrait lens alright
Having to rejig your lens collection, when moving to shooting on a crop sensor camera is one of my main issues with crop sensor cameras, especially as I can't help feeling that for a large proportion of photographers, crop sensors are only an inbetween option, until full frame sensor cameras become more affordable to become the norm.
I do believe there is a place for crop sensor cameras for sports and wildlife shooters, where the boost in reach is a real boon, though.
Jamie123
Veteran
Other than being used to specific focal lengths I think it's also a matter of shallow DoF for a given field of view with the same lens and the size of the mirror/brightness of the viewfinder.
For me APS-C was never an option as it's just too small. Being used to medium format film I find even my Canon 5DII to have too small of a sensor. I never really shot or shoot 35mm film (other than P&S cameras) so maybe this is why I feel that way.
For me APS-C was never an option as it's just too small. Being used to medium format film I find even my Canon 5DII to have too small of a sensor. I never really shot or shoot 35mm film (other than P&S cameras) so maybe this is why I feel that way.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I agree, and that's how I use mine, but - well - there's always a but. Reach is important - but when and where I don't need the maximum reach I prefer the same lens on my FF body. Except...the autofocus tracking on my APS-C bodies (especially the newer, better one) is better than my FF body. Sometimes that matters, sometimes it doesn't.
Knowing when it is, and isn't, appropriate to use the different formats is a work in progress. Everything in photography is a trade-off. Experience and knowledge can help here (I'm still working on both) but sometimes not obsessing about the details is the best option. Near-enough is not only good enough - often it is better to just get the shot, and worry about how you could have done it better afterwards. Trouble is, I'm much smarter after the event and quite good at second-guessing myself.
Perhaps that's all to the good though. I'd hate to think I couldn't improve - whether in selecting the right tool for the right task or just framing a photograph I like. As long as I can do the latter every once in a while, with the equipment at hand (even the "wrong" equipment), I'll keep going.
...Mike
Last edited:
Lss
Well-known
Even if all other things were equal, the availability of lenses is much better for full frame than cropped sensors. A very modest crop (say 1.1x) would not be much of an issue for me, but the M8's crop is already quite limiting. I cannot afford a 24/1.4, while I have an affordable 35/1.4 I'm happy with. The price of the 24/1.4 is actually so high that buying an M9 would probably be the more sensible choice (if a ton of money suddenly appeared). For all of those who enjoy both film and digital with the same lens system, dealing with a crop factor further complicates lens choice.
Of course, all other things are not equal. Bigger sensor is better. The 35-mm full frame is however a practical compromise between quality and size; unfortunately it is a very expensive one in the Leica land. Even when I think this is the case, I rather use my M8 and R-D1 than a full frame DSLR which I could afford to switch to.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
I'm an bigoted old fogey who just can't get over the death of film ... and the idea of having to make two changes at once is intolerable, if the world can't simply conform to my views and foibles then I shall ignore reality and bumble on in my own way ...
gekopaca
French photographer
1) Because I love (very) wide lenses
2) Because for IQ the right question isn't the sensor's size but the pixel density :
Joe you love the IQ of your R-D1 don't you?
The main reason of the good IQ on R-D1 is there's few and large pixels on that sensor - they're very far from each other.
When there's a lot of little pixels on a small sensor, it produces a lot of artefacts - and raw files are rather not intersting to work with : less dynamic range, less low light capabilities, etc.
So IMHO the best is a FF sensor with not too much pixels… maybe as the M9?
Last edited:
wdeskiew
Member
I think that it is not only mental thing. It is a clearly visible difference between eg. full-frame fifty and a APS-C replacement. I use two APS-C Canon bodies. I'm taking 90% of my pictures with 35/2 lens which stands for a '50'. Pictures are ok but the don't look like from full-frame fifty, they simply look like cropped 35.
The difference is even more visible when I put 28 lens on a half frame Canon - as per the focus length it corresponds to my 45/2 glass from the G1 Contax but it clearly looks like a cropped wide angle.
The difference is even more visible when I put 28 lens on a half frame Canon - as per the focus length it corresponds to my 45/2 glass from the G1 Contax but it clearly looks like a cropped wide angle.
Last edited:
delft
Established
I went full-frame dslr for the wide-angles, but an unexpected bonus was / is the huge improvement in the size of the viewfinder, no more looking through a tunnel.
Dirk
Dirk
MRohlfing
Well-known
I like m4/3 because the crop factor is 2! No need to get out the calculator every time I change lenses
Other than that, I will go FF. Most of my lenses are too old to get used to a sudden change in their apparent focal length and might get galloping schizophrenia.
Besides, I like to play with DOF from time to time.
Other than that, I will go FF. Most of my lenses are too old to get used to a sudden change in their apparent focal length and might get galloping schizophrenia.
Besides, I like to play with DOF from time to time.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Dirk,
That's odd - not you're reaction but mine. I'd been led to believe that the viewfinder of my FF DSLR would make a difference, compared to the "tunnel-vision" of my APS-C cameras. But, as it happens, for me it doesn't except at the margins.
Perhaps that's because I've been spoiled, over decades, by the even better VF of my OM-4s. When I go back and use my OM-4T I'm always amazed by how large and good the viewfinder is. My Canon film and digitals, not so much. I can use my 5D "classic" and my 50D and while, objectively, there's a substantial difference it mostly doesn't register with me. When I tried an Olympus half-frame digital on for size, that did look small and pokey. My Contax G2 gives a view that is, yes, subjectively small and pokey. But within a "good enough" range I'm happy with Canon or Nikon or Pentax APS-C camera viewfinders. And don't see them as significantly different from FF digitals, or the vast majority of "real" 35mm SLR finders.
This must be, I think, mental and personal (which probably makes me, personally, mental). Above a certain size I think "wow"; below I think "pokey; tunnel" but in-between it barely registers. I don't expect others will have the same (um) view of this or, if they do, what counts as "too small" or "wow; big" for them may differ from my thresholds.
...Mike
I've come to terms with the M8's crop... sure, finding a great (and fast) 35mm lens is hard and/or expensive, but outside of that... it's not bad. I actually like the 66.5mm (50mm x 1.33) on my M8.
Mcary
Well-known
Since getting the M8 a few months ago I've been doing a lot of thinking about what if any additional lens to get. On one hand I've been thinking of getting something in the 24-28mm F 2.8-F 4 but on the other hand I'm looking toward selling my CV 15mm and 35mm lens and picking up a used 35mm Summicon or Pre-Asp Summilux as my future plans included getting an M9/FF mount though not for a few years down the road.
huddy
Well-known
I started shooting with a D70. I made due. I now have a D90... still making due. I recently bought an F100 and I don't know how I managed to use the tiny viewfinder of a cropped camera. I've taken lots of good pictures on the D90, but the F100 has opened up new worlds to me with the shallow DOF. One day, I hope that MF will be my big sensored camera, and something like a D700 will serve as my cropped sensor camera.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
This applies to film also. The bigger the film, the more spatial distinction among objects within the image becomes apparent.
Having said that, there is a large portion of the image-type spectrum where the above does not matter even a bit. And for these, cropped sensor works just as well.
Just don't get me going by saying that a pea-sized sensor can substitute a D700 in all situations.