what's the current need for full frame?

[bigeye]

All of the above, but it's more than IQ.

High-end crop bodies leave off where very good build, unquestionable speed, full system support and decent operation start for FF. You need a FF to get a real working camera - uncompromised tools.

- Charlie

 

[splitimageview]

APS is the new full frame. Just like 35mm was the dominant format back in the day, the conveniences outweighed ultimate technical quality and the smaller format dominated.

If full frame mattered so much, 35mm film would be dominating APS like no tomorrow. 🙂 After all, full frame 35s are a dime a dozen now, even the high end models are essentially free compared to full frame digital bodies. Clearly, it's not all about ultimate technical quality...

 

[YYV_146]

All of the above, but it's more than IQ.

High-end crop bodies leave off where very good build, unquestionable speed, full system support and decent operation start for FF. You need a FF to get a real working camera.

- Charlie

If you REALLY need speed a crop body is usually much faster than all but the most expensive FF bodies. I get 9fps for almost two seconds with a 7d, the same performance on an FF body is in the multi-thousand dollar range. The relativly small mirrorbox also allows for perfect framing, the evf on mirrorless bodies is also 100%. With a 5d you'll have to use live view for critical shots because of the 98% viewfinder.

If by "working" you mean shooting in the streets of Syria or climbing a 3 kilometer mountain to get commercial landscape, then yes, anything less than a 1d or D3/4 isn't going to cut it. But for simpler stuff I don't see why a crop body can't suffice, as long as it can do high-speed sync and support remote fire.

 

[Frontman]

All of the above, but it's more than IQ.

High-end crop bodies leave off where very good build, unquestionable speed, full system support and decent operation start for FF. You need a FF to get a real working camera - uncompromised tools.

- Charlie

This makes me think of the "GSN pics from China" thread in the Yashica forum. The digital "uncompromised tools" could not deal with the harsh climate, so the majority of the photos had to be taken with a $30 Yashica film camera.

It's not about the tools. My grandfather told me that the best mechanic could make a good repair even if he didn't have the proper tool for the job. One of Steichen's best quotes was "the simplest camera is better than the best photographer. "Uncompromised tools" is a marketing quote.

 

[Nikon Bob]

FF is good if you shoot both film and digital cameras having the same lens mount. If you work that way chances are you also have a slew of old film lenses so you get to use them in a way familiar to you regarding expected DOF for a given f stop and envisioned angle of view.

If you are coming into photography with a clean slate, not much invested in gear, going with a smaller sensored camera is not that much of a big deal. That is as long as the sensor size you pick is able to give you the output you want.

I went with a D700 because I was heavily invested in 35mm film and am happy with the output. I added a used D300 for use on my telephoto lenses for animals, air shows and the like. That worked well too.

Personally I don't think FF vs cropped frame is as big a deal as it has been in the past. That is for most people who are not denizens of photography forums or have to do commercial work.

Bob

 

[Godfrey]

When I went to buy a Leica M digital camera, I wanted a camera with imaging characteristics as close to my M4-2 as possible. Changing to a different format would have changed the characteristics quite a lot, so I chose to buy an M9 rather than an M8.

That said, I have never pined for a 35mm format digital camera. It's nice that I could afford the M9, and it does what I wanted. But I've always enjoyed using a variety of different film format cameras, from Minox to 8x10. I have found that even teensy format digital cameras can take great photos, just like Minox cameras can. The trick is to learn a particular format and camera's weaknesses and advantages, work around the weaknesses, and exploit the advantages.

I love 6x6 format, would love a 6x6 format digital camera. That would be Full Format to me. Closest I can get is a Hasselblad CFV-50 digital back for my Hassy 500CM. Um, don't have the $18K to spend at the moment. Never say never...

FourThirds and "APS-C" (16x24 mm) formats both work well for me too. In many ways, I think both have become a sweet spot: sensors up to 16-24 Mpixel resolution with stunning dynamic range and sensitivity are now available that can be used with a wide variety of existing, top notch lenses that also serve well on 24x36 sensors. Cameras from the very light weight and compact to the full bore professional meataxe readily available. Large enough for lots of focus zone control, small enough to render good DoF even with large lens openings for great low-light shooting. Good economies of production make pricing reasonable too.

There's a place for all of this stuff, all the formats, in the visual language worker's toolset. Being dogmatically hooked to one or the other for reasons of long time familiarity and unwillingness to accept change seems like a poor way to go. I enjoy my Ricoh GXR-M with 21, 40, 90 mm lenses ... great kit, capable of a lot. I also enjoy my M9 with 35, 50, 90, 135 lenses, Nikon F with 50, 85, 105 mm, my FourThirds with 11-22, 25, 35, 40, 85 mm lenses, and my Hasselsplatz with 38, 80, 150mm. And I still shoot with my Minox. They all make great photos.

It's all good to me.

G

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . . Being dogmatically hooked to one or the other for reasons of long time familiarity and unwillingness to accept change seems like a poor way to go. I enjoy my Ricoh GXR-M with 21, 40, 90 mm lenses ... great kit, capable of a lot. I also enjoy my M9 with 35, 50, 90, 135 lenses, Nikon F with 50, 85, 105 mm, my FourThirds with 11-22, 25, 35, 40, 85 mm lenses, and my Hasselsplatz with 38, 80, 150mm. And I still shoot with my Minox. They all make great photos.

It's all good to me.

G

Dear Godfrey,

Then again, there are those of us who don't want three different digital systems, and find it far more convenient (and economical) to stick to cross-compatible Leica M-series and Nikon F-series. In fact, the only thing that might persuade me to buy an M typ 240 is that I could then use my Nikon F-fit lenses on it, thereby dropping down to ONE system.

Having three incompatible digital systems seems to me the "poor way to go". I really can't see how I'd get any advantage from Ricoh and Four-Thirds as well as Leica M-mount and Nikon F-mount.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MaxElmar]

Not saying larger formats are always better, but they are always different. Larger formats are about much more than the amount of data or detail in a file, negative, or print. Larger formats are progressively better at conveying a sense of three dimensionality (among other things). That's why the larger formats never really went away even with the relentless march of technology. Larger formats look different then smaller formats. And if you don't care how it looks, it's not a photograph.

 

[Godfrey]

Dear Godfrey,

Then again, there are those of us who don't want three different digital systems, and find it far more convenient (and economical) to stick to cross-compatible Leica M-series and Nikon F-series. In fact, the only thing that might persuade me to buy an M typ 240 is that I could then use my Nikon F-fit lenses on it, thereby dropping down to ONE system.

Having three incompatible digital systems seems to me the "poor way to go". I really can't see how I'd get any advantage from Ricoh and Four-Thirds as well as Leica M-mount and Nikon F-mount.

Cheers,

R.

You haven't tried so of course you can't see how you'd get any advantage from this multiplex kit. ;-)

The Hasselblad and Minox, of course, have their own lenses. I could adapt the Hasselblad lenses to the SLRs and TTL mirrorless cameras if I really wanted to, but I don't.

For the rest, there's a lot of lens sharing. SLR and M-mount lenses adapt to Micro-FourThirds and APS-C mirrorless bodies easily. Nikon F mount adapts to both SLR systems, as well as to M-mount bodies (Ricoh GXR with A12 Camera Mount, all the Leicas). An M(240) would give me TTL viewing and focusing, some time in the future perhaps. Only the electrically dedicated lenses (for Micro-FourThirds, FourThirds, Canon EOS, NEX, Fuji, etc) don't interchange well. I don't own many of them. Three, as a matter of fact: the superb ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5, the excellent and inexpensive ZD35mm f/3.5 Macro, and the very compact ZD 25mm f/2.8, all for FourThirds SLR. They also works beautifully on Micro-FourThirds bodies with the FT->mFT adapter. I don't own any mFT lenses.

Personally, I don't care too much about whether this is economical or not. I do photography because I want to, and I buy what I can afford that intrigues me. What I can't buy I don't regret not having.

Each body in the digital space produces different results. Each format in the film space produces different results. Lenses render per their individual and unique specification. I like working with all of them. For instance, today I'm heading out on my walk with my recently overhauled Robot Star 50 fitted with the very special Schneider 30mm f/5.6 fixed-aperture lens I acquired for it.

The format is 24x24, the dynamics of using this camera with this lens are unique. Can't wait to see what I get out of it!

Some of us enjoy more diversity than others. It's all good.

G

 

[splitimageview]

The market has spoken. APS won. There are of course serious enthusiasts, like most of us here, that offer exceptions to the rule; i.e., demographic outliers. Full frame RF users are indeed outliers, not mainstream, by any measure.

But as Godfrey says, it's all good!

To coin a phrase: "Just shoot it."

 

[zuiko85]

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.

This is not new to digital. For us old timers who ran both Olympus Pen F reflex cameras and also a full frame 35mm syatem, well we got used to it and could (with adapters) switch back and forth as desired.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Some of us enjoy more diversity than others. It's all good. . . G

Dear Godfrey,

Sure. It was just your reference to 'a poor way of doing it' that struck me as odd.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ferider]

When I first noticed this, when using both Nikon film cameras and a FF DSLR with the same lenses, I called Nikon Pro services. I said that I was seeing about a 1/3 difference in DOF between the digital and the film camera with the same lenses. The reply was - that's about right.

Let me add a picture, PKR:

A sensor has sharper boundaries than a film emulsion, and - as you said - it is also more sensitive to the angle of light entering it.

Roland.

 

[gdi]

I am trying to stop allocating time to worry about it. But I used to like the idea of a 50 being a 50, etc.

Now I am trying to get my arms around what a 14" will be using the 5x7 back versus the 8x10 back...

 

[Godfrey]

Dear Godfrey,

Sure. It was just your reference to 'a poor way of doing it' that struck me as odd.

Cheers,

R.

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote a little more carefully, Roger:

There's a place for all of this stuff, all the formats, in the visual language worker's toolset. Being dogmatically hooked to one or the other for reasons of long time familiarity and unwillingness to accept change seems like a poor way to go.

It is choices made dogmatically and for lousy reasons that are a poor way to go. Choices made for sounds reasons are always just fine.

G

 

[thegman]

The market has spoken. APS won. There are of course serious enthusiasts, like most of us here, that offer exceptions to the rule; i.e., demographic outliers. Full frame RF users are indeed outliers, not mainstream, by any measure.

But as Godfrey says, it's all good!

To coin a phrase: "Just shoot it."

Yes, APS-C won, but there is money to be made in making Full Frame win at a later date, so it'll probably happen.

The consumer technology market is such that there is profit to be made it making your purchases appear old fashioned and obsolete. They've done the megapixel thing, they've done the HD video thing, they've done the "make it look like an old camera" thing. I expect the next technique will be to make Full Frame look as essential high megapixel counts, and APS-C look useless and outdated.

It would be an even more profitable move than the upgrades to high-MP cameras, as they get to sell you new lenses too.

 

[raid]

I am not excited or worried about full frame versus other. Who cares? Not me.
I use what I have. Period.

 

[Clint Troy]

Thanks Roland. You should have answered the question, as your knowledge of the subject is very good. I'm just a user trying to better understand my tools.

pkr

Roland's explanation still doesn't explain it. In fact, there's no explanation to it since one same format, film or digital, will show the same fov. It can never be different.
.
The "edge of the silver halide" is also a very bad explanation because, then, DOF would vary from film to film (kodak vs ilford, or regular films vs. T grain films) and especially from different film speeds. No, the grain size has nothing to do with DOF but all to do with speed.

 

[Ronald M]

All this needs to be in the context of print size and ISO required speed.

APS makes very nice 8x12. APS is good to 800/1000 ISO. But this is changing as APS is simply a cutdown FF sensor. But the size limitation on prints is still there, more area = bigger print.

You want a nice portrait lens in APS. You will look far and wide for a 70 mm prime unless you look at Leica.

There be no wide primes either. You are forced to consumer grade zooms.

But for travel, smaller cameras are the cat`s meow. I know one pro who went to europe with a P&S.

 

[Clint Troy]

I won't argue the point Clint, I don't have the time. Enjoy your photography.

I think I've been on this Forum a bit too long.

pkr

You could put all the time in the world and you could not be able to prove the point, anyhow. it's just good old physics.

What makes you think that you have been on the forum a bit too long?