what's the current need for full frame?

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.)
 
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...
 
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.
 
To borrow an audiophile phrase regarding high resolution recordings -
"There is simply more "there" there"
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Image quality, Image Quality, Image Quality.

...

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...

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)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
Kwesi said:
To borrow an audiophile phrase regarding high resolution recordings -
"There is simply more "there" there"
Click to expand...


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?
 
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...

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...
 
digitalintrigue said:
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?
Click to expand...

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... :)
 
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.
 
sonofdanang said:
The proof for that is the technically excellent picture without content.
Good photographers have always concentrated on content. They extract the best technical performance they can out of the tools that they have. After all, one can always find "better" or "more technically capable" formats/cameras, etc. That's endless.

But without content....
Click to expand...

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%...
 
Image quality and dynamic range.


There is a certian look that full frame has that cant be replicated.
 
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.
 
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
 
digitalintrigue said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom