Roger Hicks
Veteran
Eminently true. But equally, the phrase 'full frame' is meaningless except in the context of, well, full frame -- normally taken to mean 24x36mm.None of these are relevant of course, with lenses that are natively 'full frame' for APS-C such as with Joe's Fuji kit, which has fast normals, and fast wide angles (both of which are superb lenses, easily in the Leica/Zeiss league.) And there is no M9 or MP so no compatibility needs.
Cheers,
R.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Yes, but the inverse is not necessarily true. There are upper limits to an enlargement that make higher resolution source material (regardless whether bigger film/sensor sizes or finer grain/higher pixel density) a requirement for bigger enlargements. If you don't raise the viewing distance proportionally, that is. The latter lets billboards get away with medium format where high detail mural size exhibition prints may need more than the resolution of smaller large format sizes.
Kent
Finally at home...
I agree to most of what has been said here.
There were two main reasons for my yeaning for an EOS 5D some years ago:
1. The chance to use really wide lenses. (I had a Tokina 12-24 for my 40D, but the Sigma 15-30 on the 5D is considerably wider.)
2. The chance to use my "old" manual lenses with the same image angle they were meant for.
Meanwhile, my 5D mainly lives in my cabinet. Because:
1. You get all the focal lenghts for APS in excellent quality.
2. The old lenses are also very good on APS and you get used to the changed FoV pretty fast.
There were two main reasons for my yeaning for an EOS 5D some years ago:
1. The chance to use really wide lenses. (I had a Tokina 12-24 for my 40D, but the Sigma 15-30 on the 5D is considerably wider.)
2. The chance to use my "old" manual lenses with the same image angle they were meant for.
Meanwhile, my 5D mainly lives in my cabinet. Because:
1. You get all the focal lenghts for APS in excellent quality.
2. The old lenses are also very good on APS and you get used to the changed FoV pretty fast.
Would you be able to explain the reason for this, please? Is it to do with a digital sensor having less tolerance for depth of focus errors than an equivalent frame of 35mm? If the actual proportions of the formats are the same Ie. 36 x 24mm, I would have thought depth of field would be the same, whether a lens was attached to a digital or film camera.
TIA,
Brett
Aristophanes
Well-known
Can you tell on your LCD monitor? IQ, DR, and all that?
Always the limiting factor.
Anything digital can be replicated. That's the whole point.
thegman
Veteran
I think when we're hobbyist, as most of us here are, there is no *need*, only *want*. Some people need full frame, or for that matter medium format (film or digital) for a look they want to get, or a resolution the client demands.
Some companies make stuff for the passion of it, I doubt Ilford makes black and white film in custom ULF sizes for the exorbitant profits and sky-high sales figures. 99% of companies make stuff for money though, and the only reason companies like Sony, Nikon and Canon are making full frame cameras to sell to hobbyists is to make us think we need them, and make crop factor cameras look old hat and rubbish.
That said, as hobbyists, the idea of using lenses for their intended focal length, the 'look' of larger formats, and the plain old pleasure of having something new and high tech may be all part of the hobby.
I'll predict that entire industry will phase out APS-C sensors in enthusiast cameras soon enough though, as making the most popular enthusiast format seem obsolete will be very profitable in new sales.
Some companies make stuff for the passion of it, I doubt Ilford makes black and white film in custom ULF sizes for the exorbitant profits and sky-high sales figures. 99% of companies make stuff for money though, and the only reason companies like Sony, Nikon and Canon are making full frame cameras to sell to hobbyists is to make us think we need them, and make crop factor cameras look old hat and rubbish.
That said, as hobbyists, the idea of using lenses for their intended focal length, the 'look' of larger formats, and the plain old pleasure of having something new and high tech may be all part of the hobby.
I'll predict that entire industry will phase out APS-C sensors in enthusiast cameras soon enough though, as making the most popular enthusiast format seem obsolete will be very profitable in new sales.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Not due to any magic difference between film and sensors, nor by specification - at any rate I haven't yet run into any book or official document that defined a smaller CoC requirement for 24x36 FF than for 24x36 film. But in practice, higher resolution digital sensors exceed the resolution of film, and are accordingly often used for applications that once were a domain of medium format or small large formats, so many practically use them at a smaller CoC than standardized.
FWIW, this is also true of APS-C size sensors - where these fill the role of 24x36 film, you won't be able to get away with APS or 110 film CoC definitions.
Murchu
Well-known
The use of full lenses at the intended field of view and purpose they were designed for, is the only draw for me. Everything else is a wash for me.
daveleo
what?
I personally don't need a FF digital camera to make the 8x10
prints I want.
There may be technical reasons that make FF "better" than APS,
for one reason or another, but today'a APS gear is not limiting me in any way.
prints I want.
There may be technical reasons that make FF "better" than APS,
for one reason or another, but today'a APS gear is not limiting me in any way.
thegman
Veteran
Isn't that like saying "In practice, motorcycles are faster than cars". Certainly, most stuff you see on the web shows digital out-resolving film, but if you look, you'll find stuff showing the opposite:
http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html
Of course, digital will pull away dramatically as the ISO goes up, but that is a limitation of film. In the same way digital is limited by the size of the sensor, whereas film can just be cut to the size you want.
I agree that in most cases, comparing the same sensor/film area, you'll likely get more resolution out of digital in 90% of cases. But by doing that, you're binding film to limitations that it does not actually have.
L Collins
Well-known
Excellent. You've summed up my thoughts much better than I possibly could.
gavinlg
Veteran
Image quality. If I could use a pentax 645d or a leica S2 I would, because their bigger sensors are simply better.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I've had some FF cameras. For my purposes, and through much trial and error, I find the Fuji X-Pro1 at 16mb has enough horsepower for my purposes. The system is lighter to carry and transport than the FF equivilant and it lacks some of the troubling bad points of my last FF camera (D600).
I think full frame is still useful for comparing equivilant focal lengths of lenses. With all the formats now existing it's nice to have a standard reference.
I think full frame is still useful for comparing equivilant focal lengths of lenses. With all the formats now existing it's nice to have a standard reference.
Larger sensors are not always better. This is a false generality. It has to do with the fact that the technological advances in sensor semiconductors moves at a far more rapid pace with APS because the market volume is far larger. For the same reason, Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel a few years ago...market share drove technological advancement...they were getting left behind in the CPU wars as the Intel production was far larger. Now, they use the exact same semiconductors so they are on the same playing field and winning in other areas...
It's like saying "more expensive sports cars are always faster." It depends on which specific sensors (or cars) are being compared.
As far as viewfinders in DSLRs go, yes, "in general" a viewfinder in a 24x36 sensor camera is a lot nicer than those in crop DSLRs. This doesn't apply with the Fujis of course.
It's like saying "more expensive sports cars are always faster." It depends on which specific sensors (or cars) are being compared.
As far as viewfinders in DSLRs go, yes, "in general" a viewfinder in a 24x36 sensor camera is a lot nicer than those in crop DSLRs. This doesn't apply with the Fujis of course.
dave lackey
Veteran
I am not sure why anyone thinks about anything gear-wise anymore. For the past few years, I subscribe to the wisdom from Thorsten Overgaard regarding gear....Use the camera you love! Simple.
Michael Markey
Veteran
YYV_146
Well-known
Sensor technology is always developing. It's tough to say this, but the dynamic range of the latest APS-C sensors far outstrip the M9's ancient CCD. You get a bit of extra "tonality", but when it comes to tortuous post-processing, the difference is quite apparent.
One of the reasons older APS-C camera could not compete with FFs was because Canon and Nikon didn't take the former market seriously enough. Canon has been using the same sensor from the 550D to the new 700d, over a period of (oops)4 years. During that period it refreshed its FF line twice, and the 5DMKIII is vastly better than the 5DMKI in almost every way. But now Sony and Fuji have GREAT APS-C sensors (NEX6, Xpro1), so except DOF and FOV, there really isn't much reason to go full frame. I shoot everything with my NEX-7, assignments, when I work for the university paper, scenery, indoors stills using lighting sets...and it hasn't failed me yet. Will I pay $3k for a FF NEX? Maybe, but after I buy all the glass I want.
One of the reasons older APS-C camera could not compete with FFs was because Canon and Nikon didn't take the former market seriously enough. Canon has been using the same sensor from the 550D to the new 700d, over a period of (oops)4 years. During that period it refreshed its FF line twice, and the 5DMKIII is vastly better than the 5DMKI in almost every way. But now Sony and Fuji have GREAT APS-C sensors (NEX6, Xpro1), so except DOF and FOV, there really isn't much reason to go full frame. I shoot everything with my NEX-7, assignments, when I work for the university paper, scenery, indoors stills using lighting sets...and it hasn't failed me yet. Will I pay $3k for a FF NEX? Maybe, but after I buy all the glass I want.
That doesn't work for me, Dave, I love far too many of them.
dave lackey
Veteran
