Full Frame Digital - Worth it?

jmooney

jmooney

Guy with a camera
Local time
2:52 PM
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
343
Hi All,

I'm thinking of pulling the trigger on a full frame DSLR and I'm wondering if the extra cost is worth it. Here's my situation:

I love shooting film (especially MF) but it's just not a practical possibility right now. I know there are a million and one ways to do it but I've looked at the realities of my personal situation with regards to time, space, etc and it pains me to admit it but I just can't deal with film right now.

Is the quality from FF that much better than APS sized sensors? 11X17 would be my largest print with average being closer 8X10. I have an Epson 2880 printer and my shooting is split between kids/family stuff, portraits, and B&W fine art.

I shoot primes mostly (can't get away from my Leica roots :) ) I currently have a 35/2 and an 85/1.8 which can handle just about everything I come across. I could exchange them for equivalent FL's for APC but I do lose the F2 with the 35 because NO ONE MAKES A &%&#(ing FAST 35 EQUIV. PRIME FOR APC DSLR!!! (sorry pet peeve).

High ISO is also a concern because I don't like to use flash.

Any thoughts or advice would be much appreciated. I can't say I'm thrilled 100% for going this route but it's this or my photography would have to be seriously curtailed or halted and that is not an option.

Thanks,

Jim
 
You don't say what manufacturer you are looking at. If your lenses are Canon EOS mount, why not look at a 5D classic - they can be had for about $1,100 in good condition and the picture quality is outstanding. I own both a FF (5Dc) and a APC camera (7D) and for non wildlife shots I always chose the FF.
 
Ooops forgot to mention that....the 5D Classic is the one I'm looking at and those lenses are Canon EF. I'm a pretty dyed in the wool Nikon Fanboy and the D700 looks awesome but I just can't justify the $2300 price tag. I'm not a pro or anything, this is a passion but my family enjoys living indoors and wearing shoes so there is a practical limit. :)
 
Jim,

I was recently shooting with Canon 5D MarkII on a semi-assignment. No way the micro 4/3 or APS cameras to deliver the say image quality - IF you need that many pixels (we did at that point) However if you are fine with what you can get today in the ~ 15 Mpix class is very good and light years ahead what my old APS-C Minolta 7D can do.

The best you can do is to check the FULL SIZE samples at the dpreview.com - they have them for many cameras. Just go ahead a have a few from different cameras printed in the size that you need.

However with 11x17" you should do fine with APS-C cameras. The image with FX 20+ Mpix might have a slightly better detail, but I think the difference would be marginal at that size and much more influenced by the technique and lenses. Many people rave anyhow about their super sharp 20x30" prints from 10 Mpix (not me though) cameras.

I would say - get some decent body like Nikon D90 or Canon 50D and spend some more on lenses. These cameras are also smaller that the FX ones (which I find too large for a ... well ... 35mm caneras :D )

_____
Purely technical point - if you are an absolute detail junkie (or pixel peeper) than you actually need to scale DOWN your digital capture by about 30% to account for the image detail lost in the Bayer interpolation and then print what is left at 360 dpi. Otherwise printing the native "pixel per pixel" in 360 spi yields prints full of details. This means that you need around 8 Mpix for a 10x8" print.
 
I'd get myself a Fuji S5 Pro and spend some money on a nice Nikkor 35/1.4 AIs and be done with it. That kit can handle 11x17 easily.
 
Based upon many images I have seen taken with the Canon 5D I would say that the quality is on par with MF film.

If I had a collection of EF lenses I would buy one, but I don't. I have a collection of FD lenses which are still looking for a FF digital body!!
 
I'm a Canon EOS shooter as well. If you're not satisfied with your images, spend the money on lenses first. You'll need them anyway even if you do get the the FF sensor. A 5D won't give you what you want without L class lenses. I'm pretty happy with my 1D Mk II and 24-70 but I wonder about getting a 5D too. I don't print past 11x14 though so it's really just gear lust frankly. Since I shoot some sports I'll just move up to a 1D Mk III instead.

Chris
 
My experience is with the Nikon series. I recently upgraded from a D300 to the D700. It is a wonderful thing. Makes my 70-200 so much more practical.
Love the high ISO performance.
I'm really happy to have at least one of my digital cameras full frame. And it was much easier to go that route with the D700 than it would be to change from the M8.2 to the M9.
 
I can only speak about FF Nikon and can say the D700 was worth it for me. I had a collection of older lenses that I wanted to use at their native FLs and did not like the squinty VFs of the cropped DSLRs. The D700 will do 11x17 easily as will the D300/D90 from what I have seen. You don't have a big investment of heritage glass so you have a clean slate to chose either cropped of FF. If you go cropped then there are not that many primes to chose from if you want to replica the 35 and 85 FOV that FF gave you. If your EF Canon lenses fit the Canon 5D then a used one of those would seem like a natural.

Bob
 
ampguy said:
a ~ 25mm x 16mm sensor in a modern camera, will outresolve any consumer film medium available.
Click to expand...

Well, a 6x7 transparency scanned at 2400 spi gives you 30+ Mpix without Bayer interpolation. And 2400 spi is only 50 lines per mm so neither film nor should not be limiting the resolution. With APS-C you need cca 100 lines per mm from the lens to get a sharp 15 Mpix. So I am not sure that an APS-C sensor can out-resolve the MF so easily. Sure - results look differently from both.

... But that is just an opinion of mine (and not a war starter).
 
Last edited:
that's a fine opinion

that's a fine opinion

Have you considered diffraction and colors?

Do you agree that more megapixels does not necessarily mean more resolution?

Matus said:
Well, a 6x7 transparency scanned at 2400 spi gives you 30+ Mpix without Bayer interpolation. And 2400 spi is only 50 lines per mm so neither film nor should not be limiting the resolution. With APS-C you need cca 100 lines per mm from the lens to get a sharp 15 Mpix. So I am not sure that an APS-C sensor can out-resolve the MF so easily. Sure - results look differently from both.

... But that is just an opinion of mine (and not a war starter).
Click to expand...
 
I had a Canon 5D with 50/1.4 & 85/1.8 and it gave me beautiful pictures. I sold it because I found it too bulky for my taste, but there was something to the images. Cannot describe it, but I have not seen any better from the newer cameras. I think the old 5D is actually a classic. If only the fast L primes were not so expensive.
 
A 5D 'classic' is about the best value dslr you can buy at the moment. I just sold mine, but it was a backup to a 1Ds3. It will produce prints at the sizes you are considering that will please you endlessly. It is far more capable in low light than you will believe from the internet buzz around the Nikons and has nice colour as well (just don't leave Lightrom/ACR onm the adobe default!)

FWIW I have 24 by 16 prints from the 5D that are excellent, although that is larger than I usually go.

Mike
 
ampguy said:
a ~ 25mm x 16mm sensor in a modern camera, will outresolve any consumer film medium available.
Click to expand...


Not so sure about that. I recently ran a tripod mounted test of 1Ds3 against Mamiya 7 and Kodak Ektar. Mamiya 80mm lens, canon with a Zeiss 35/2 focused using live view and film scanned on a nikon 9000. In a big print (just over 22 by 27 inches) the Mamiya was clearly resolving more and appeared sharper, though the digital colour is easier to manage.

Really it's horses for courses. I really like using the Mamiya and am very pleased with the results I'm getting, but there is some stuff the canon just does better (or even can do that the Mamiya can't). Also, it's (obviuosly) not all about resolution, whatever canon's latest advert may say.

Mike
 
ok

ok

but where and how were the comparison prints made?

sojournerphoto said:
Not so sure about that. I recently ran a tripod mounted test of 1Ds3 against Mamiya 7 and Kodak Ektar. Mamiya 80mm lens, canon with a Zeiss 35/2 focused using live view and film scanned on a nikon 9000. In a big print (just over 22 by 27 inches) the Mamiya was clearly resolving more and appeared sharper, though the digital colour is easier to manage.

Really it's horses for courses. I really like using the Mamiya and am very pleased with the results I'm getting, but there is some stuff the canon just does better (or even can do that the Mamiya can't). Also, it's (obviuosly) not all about resolution, whatever canon's latest advert may say.

Mike
Click to expand...
 
chrispiper said:
I'm a Canon EOS shooter as well. If you're not satisfied with your images, spend the money on lenses first. You'll need them anyway even if you do get the the FF sensor. A 5D won't give you what you want without L class lenses. I'm pretty happy with my 1D Mk II and 24-70 but I wonder about getting a 5D too. I don't print past 11x14 though so it's really just gear lust frankly. Since I shoot some sports I'll just move up to a 1D Mk III instead.

Chris
Click to expand...

It's not an issue of satisfaction with my images. Right now the issue is I need to commit fully to a digital system and I think the 5D Classic is the way to go but I wanted to see what others have to say.

As far as the lenses are you saying that it's a waste to get a 5D without L glass? I'd be using EF primes only on it. Are those not good enough to show through the difference in FF sensor?

Jim
 
Doesn't the 5D have an AA filter over the sensor? It's probably not as sharp as an M8 original, nor as good for IR use ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom