Paddy C
Unused film collector
Lenses. (period) (maybe)
Image quality. (with a lot of ifs)
Image quality. (with a lot of ifs)
what's the current need for full frame?
- Thread starter back alley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 129
- Views 12K
It depends on what smaller sensors one is comparing to full frame sensors.
If you compare an RD1 to an M9, of course...it's a huge difference.
If you compare Joe's Fuji to an M9, it's not at all clear. There are many instances where the smaller sensor blows the M9 out of the water (speaking of image quality.)
If you compare an RD1 to an M9, of course...it's a huge difference.
If you compare Joe's Fuji to an M9, it's not at all clear. There are many instances where the smaller sensor blows the M9 out of the water (speaking of image quality.)
benlees
Well-known
I guess you can make a pic from a 36mmx24mm sensor look like sh$t if you really want. Takes a bit more skill to make a pic from your cell phone look like Keith took it with his D700.
I'm fine with APS-C for my digital camera... for now...
I'm fine with APS-C for my digital camera... for now...
FrankS
Registered User
Why bother with Hasselblad, Leica S, and other larger than full frame 135 sensors?
Chris, this question, like my previous one about medium format film, is rhetorical.
Skipjack, thanks for noticing.
Chris, this question, like my previous one about medium format film, is rhetorical.
Skipjack, thanks for noticing.
Kwesi
Well-known
To borrow an audiophile phrase regarding high resolution recordings -
"There is simply more "there" there"
"There is simply more "there" there"
FrankS
Registered User
Succinctly said.
ssmc
Well-known
Agree 100% about image quality, no question about it.
However, as far as cropped digital goes, there is indeed a reason - speed. If you need to shoot action at faster than 6fps in extended bursts, especially if it's at a distance, APS-C is the only game in town unless you're getting paid to do it or have a great deal to spend on a body and lenses. If you're doing it hand-held (like I need to do when shooting high-power rockets in flight) then the cropped solution becomes even more compelling because you only need a lens with 2/3 the FL to get the same image size (assuming the APS-C cam has about the same pixel count as a FF model), making it much easier to track due to the lighter weight of the whole rig (in extreme cases these things can go supersonic in under a second, so you have to be quick!)
One other thing - for travel, there are currently no OEM stabilized standard-range zooms for 135-format digital that are anything like as good as the options for APS-C (the 24-70 Tamron is a possible exception). I don't know why this is so, but all the tests I've seen seem to bear this out. I had great hopes for the new Canon 24-70/4 but it appears to be a bit of a dog at 50mm. Perhaps Sigma will jump in with a new model, given the success of their recent designs. Stabilization is not, as many seem to view it, a crutch - it allows shooting static subjects in low-light conditions (e.g. caves, at around LV3 or below) that would just be impossible otherwise (or at drastically reduced quality).
It all comes back to "horses for courses" - I have a 7D for rockets, caves and museums, a 5DIII when I know I won't need to zoom, and film cameras for B&W, where they continue to rule in that application (IMO)
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. 🙂
When a $1400 Fuji X-E1 can take a photo that embarrasses a $10k M kit...is the $8600 for the extra 'there' worth it?
I guess it depends on one's personal definition of 'not high.' For some, a top quality APS-C camera like one of the Fujis is high...
It really depends on what APS-C sensor is being compared to what full frame sensor, because not all larger sensors are better. This actually is perhaps even more true when comparing state of the art full-frame 24x36 sensors to medium format sensors...just try shooting an MF back at ISO 6400... 🙂
Just like APS-C dominates the marketplace as well as with technology turnover, full frame sensors do that to an even much greater degree over medium format sensors. The size of the MF market is tiny, and the technological advancement is slow, compared to the smaller sensors.
It's not exactly the same situation as with film, where the 'sensor' in a 35mm camera can be absolutely IDENTICAL to the 'sensor' in a medium format camera...
JChrome
Street Worker
I think digitalintrigue was talking about film...
When a $200 Minolta Autocord's sharp 6x6 shot embarrasses the pants off of your $1400 Fuji X-E1... 🙂
Oh, was I? 🙂
I'd like to see that Autocord shot at ISO 6400 enlarged to say 30x30", compared to the X-E1 🙂
Different 'sensors' here, too...
willie_901
Veteran
Joe, Here's the Answer
Joe, Here's the Answer
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/
Joe, Here's the Answer
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
During film days, it was about grain, resolution, and tonal gradations. With digital, the grain and resolution factors are gone. But tonal gradations are still a very valid reason.
YYV_146
Well-known
Because you're using the good 50% of it, not the smeary and dark corners.
Indeed.
There are millions of fine photographs taken over the years with equipment that was lesser than the state of the art at the time. This is what 35mm was all about...medium or large format always trumped it.
But this didn't stop millions of people from taking fine photographs with 35mm.
Similarly APS to full frame digital. The differences between the latest sensors of each of these formats is smaller than it ever was between 35mm film and medium format film. Sure, it's discernable, the question is, is it worth the huge extra cost to get that extra 5%...
koven
Well-known
Image quality and dynamic range.
There is a certian look that full frame has that cant be replicated.
There is a certian look that full frame has that cant be replicated.
Spicy
Well-known
crop sensor camera viewfinders suck compared to FF dSLR ones or normal SLR finders.
that was one of the reasons i ditched my d90 to pick up a d700. i'd been shooting with an FG-20 for a while and when i picked up my d90, it felt like i was looking through a porthole.
that was one of the reasons i ditched my d90 to pick up a d700. i'd been shooting with an FG-20 for a while and when i picked up my d90, it felt like i was looking through a porthole.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Interesting that full frame means 24mm by 36mm.
Some of us know about 48" x 35" cut film... Not that I use it nor do I know any one who uses it these days but someone I know who used them in half sheets has gone digital and is delighted with it. They like the immediacy of digital; meaning they know they got the exposure etc right.
Regards, David
Interesting that full frame means 24mm by 36mm.
Some of us know about 48" x 35" cut film... Not that I use it nor do I know any one who uses it these days but someone I know who used them in half sheets has gone digital and is delighted with it. They like the immediacy of digital; meaning they know they got the exposure etc right.
Regards, David
clayne
shoot film or die
- Local time
- 3:17 AM
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
- Messages
- 763
Any day dude. You seriously believe a medium format negative enlarged to 30x30 on silver gelatin is not going to blow away a digital print?
Enlargement size has jack sh*t to do with the source negative. Experienced darkroom people have that figured out already. Resolution-freaks don't.
Not all about pixels. Not all about resolution.
Similar threads
- Article
