what's the current need for full frame?

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
11:40 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
i used to pine for a full frame digital camera...not so much anymore!

the biggest reason was having a lens and using it as the focal length it was born at...not a 40 being a 60 etc...

but then i realized that my 40 still looked great as a 60 and i just learned to visually compensate for the change and carried on using it.

now, with owning a fuji camera and using the 'native' fuji lenses, the 'need' for full frame seems to have completely disappeared for me.
in fact, i started using old manual focus lenses for fun/play! my 100 is now a 150 and i enjoy it.

i get plenty of limited dof with a 35/1.4 lens...
the image quality is fine, detail is there etc.

not sure why i need full frame?
 
(1) Habit. Your old film lenses give you the angle of view you expect.

(2) Wide-angles, especially fast wide-angles.

(3) Cross-compatibility e.g between M9 and MP.

Cheers,

R.
 
Cut and paste from a different forum thread which I tried to express my current feelings on te subject. This was in a Zeiss thread for Fuji and Nex lens info so that is reason for Fuji and Nex reference in the cut and paste.

For me right now, I am happy enough w/ apsc size sensor.

Gary

--------------- cut and paste---------------

So what is benefit for full frame vs. cost vs apsc

For me, I can only think of the following feature that ff brings
- better dof
-- never shot razor narrow dof, but u now have speedbooster adapter
- ff lens focal length - a 50 is a 50
-- used to be on my big list, but over the years this one is not as important any longer.. But again speedbooster. But this solution currently for slr lenses only
-- native Fuji or Nex ff lenses are going to be additional expense
- better dynamic range
- better high iso
-- I am happy w/ good iso up to 3200 which Fuji has been able to provide

Given that the possible higher cost of just the body (Sony rumor site saying it could be between 3-4k for the body) plus re-investment for new lenses, I don't c that there will be a lot of people who would go this route IMHO.. But if the price is below 2k for the body, then I can c more people going ff... I would be tempt myself..

Only time will tell...

Gary
 
Last edited:
WTF? I go away for a day and everybody has a new face?

FF for me is keeping my lenses as I know them, and having a file big enough to print the size I like a final print to be at without having to do a lot of upsizing.
 
Roger Hicks said:
(1) Habit. Your old film lenses give you the angle of view you expect.

(2) Wide-angles, especially fast wide-angles.

(3) Cross-compatibility e.g between M9 and MP.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Same here. 50 mm on an M3 is 50 mm on an M9. But Joe glad you found what works for you.
 
You are using 100% of the lens that you pay for rather than just 50%.
Why pay say $2000 for a lens, then only use $1000 of it?
 
FrankS said:
What's the purpose of medium format cameras when 135 cameras exist?
Click to expand...

Image quality, Image Quality, Image Quality.

There is no comparison; even 645 blows 35mm out of the water. In fact, 645 from a cheap Mamiya 645 or Bronica ETRS blows away images shot with Leica lenses costing thousands.

I bought a Mamiya 6 recently. I have not touched my Leicas, at all, since then. The thing that kept me from shooting everything in medium format was the incredible weight of my Hasselblad, which made it impossible for me to carry everywhere, and the fact I do not have the strength in my arms and wrists to handhold it without shaking badly. The Mamiya 6 solved all those issues, and it has sharper lenses than the Hassy!

In digital, I see absolutely zero purpose to crop-frame cameras. The cost of fullframe is not high anymore, and no matter how good small sensors get, bigger ones will ALWAYS give better quality, just like with film.
 
Until you've actually used a camera with a full frame sensor it's a thin argument to say it's all about lenses IMO. The flexibility of files from a full frame sensor is phenominal. I don't have any warm fuzzy feelings for my D700 but every time I work on the raw files from the camera I'm blown away by what I can do with them.
 
Keith said:
Until you've actually used a camera with a full frame sensor it's a thin argument to say it's all about lenses IMO. The flexibility of files from a full frame sensor is phenominal. I don't have any warm fuzzy feelings for my D700 but every time I work on the raw files from the camera I'm blown away by what I can do with them.
Click to expand...

+1. Those full-frame files are rich in data and very flexible to work with. It just gives you more options in post.
 
Keith said:
Until you've actually used a camera with a full frame sensor it's a thin argument to say it's all about lenses IMO. The flexibility of files from a full frame sensor is phenominal. I don't have any warm fuzzy feelings for my D700 but every time I work on the raw files from the camera I'm blown away by what I can do with them.
Click to expand...

That is actually a very interesting point. Is it because of the dynamic range that is in the raw file for example?

Gary
 
GaryLH said:
That is actually a very interesting point. Is it because of the dynamic range that is in the raw file for example?

Gary
Click to expand...

I don't think dynamic range is it...since D700 has less dynamic range (at least by DXO mark sensor comparison) than most newer digicams. However, I agree that D700 files had something "extra" that worked well for post processing. I find similarity in the file to those of RD1 but at a lower resolution.

However, since I am no longer shooting events (other than by request - aka for fun) I saw no need to have a full frame digital. As a result, I sold my D700 and 80-200 2.8 just last week.

Right now, medium format film and dp2m (and a few other cams) are keeping me busy :D
 
FF means I can choose from the many great 35mm lenses and use them at the 35mm FOV, which is my favorite. There are some good 28mm lenses, but they tend to be slower and more costly according to speed.
 
I sometimes feel the same way, but once I look at the files my M9 produces (even with it's "older" sensor!) compared to a new cropped CMOS file, the sometimes subtle, sometimes glaring differences, tell me that bigger sensors are better.

There's just a smoother tone overall from bigger sensors
 
I don't know, but I just got a D800 for work and it feels like I don't have to write with my left hand anymore. (I'm right handed.) I'm home again.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Image quality, Image Quality, Image Quality.

There is no comparison; even 645 blows 35mm out of the water. In fact, 645 from a cheap Mamiya 645 or Bronica ETRS blows away images shot with Leica lenses costing thousands.

I bought a Mamiya 6 recently. I have not touched my Leicas, at all, since then. The thing that kept me from shooting everything in medium format was the incredible weight of my Hasselblad, which made it impossible for me to carry everywhere, and the fact I do not have the strength in my arms and wrists to handhold it without shaking badly. The Mamiya 6 solved all those issues, and it has sharper lenses than the Hassy!

In digital, I see absolutely zero purpose to crop-frame cameras. The cost of fullframe is not high anymore, and no matter how good small sensors get, bigger ones will ALWAYS give better quality, just like with film.
Click to expand...

"Image quality" is a broad term. Larger film or sensor provides more graphic detail but not necessarily an image more pleasurable to look at. It seems to me that other factors almost always outweigh graphic details (subject matter, tonal richness, etc.). I'm sure the quantity of data provided by full-frame sensors or large pieces of film can be useful for some particular purposes, but certainly don't add more "image quality" all by themselves.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
In digital, I see absolutely zero purpose to crop-frame cameras. The cost of fullframe is not high anymore, and no matter how good small sensors get, bigger ones will ALWAYS give better quality, just like with film.
Click to expand...

Well, I was with you until here. The Sigma DP2 Merrill has outperformed the full frame cameras I've owned at low ISO... vs. M9, 5d MKII, D700. 20x30" prints. Probably a different story when compared to the D800 though.
 
With the newer sensors, you have more useful high ISO. Not always necessary, but it would be nice to have at times. From what I understand on a crop sensor camera, not only does the field of view change for a given lens, but depth of field changes. An f2.8 lens acts like (approximately) a f4 as far as DoF is concerned. Of course it is still a f2.8 as far as light gathering capability.
 
I'm with backalley here.

If you ask me, people can't even use the most out of their lenses so who cares if a 35 becomes a 50? Besides, they wouldn't even be able to tell, in a blind test, if the lens they use is actually a 35 on a cropped sensor or a 50 on ff.

Strip the exif and voila(!) you also stripped their knowledge. Just watch their conceptions vanish like smoke in the sky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom