why full frame?

[semordnilap]

I think one of the problems is that, outside of m4/3, there just aren't the lenses there (yet) for aps-c, in terms of fast wides. The new fuji camera is heading in the right direction, but there just need to be 20/1.4 and 17/2 lenses available. For long lenses there's no problem, and no problem using ff glass, but fast wides make the difference.

I think it's changing now, but in order to see more and smaller ff camerars we'll need to wait for improved battery and processor technology as well as a decrease in the sensor price.

 

[FrankS]

As well as the previously mentioned wide angle usage, I personally like limited DOF. Not as a gimmick, but as a creative tool to direct the viewer's attention to what is important in an image.

 

[Rogier]

For me its all about dynamic range, noise and depth of field.

 

[back alley]

i just bought the 40 micro nikkor made expressly for the cropped sensor in my d90...lof of dof!!

for dslrs, nikon seems to be making good and cheaper lenses just for the cropped sensor.

for my rd1, i have the 15 and 21 for my wides...very nice.

 

[splitimageview]

The new fuji camera is heading in the right direction, but there just need to be 20/1.4 and 17/2 lenses available.

Fuji are talking 14/1.4 (!) if that isn't an error, and have announced 18/2.

 

[kanzlr]

that Fuji looks nice, and a dedicated APS-C system can be great, if the sensor performs. Just offer faster lenses and her you DoF!

what I like about the Fuji is while the VF zooms, it still shows more than the frame and has framelines. nice. hopefully the zoom can be overriden. Especially for the 50 I would prefer a wider view.

 

[Mcary]

Fuji are talking 14/1.4 (!) if that isn't an error, and have announced 18/2.

According to an interview I saw with a Kayce Baker it sounds like Fuji hasn't yet decide what aperture that the 14mm lens will be. Sounds like they're trying for F 1.4 but many end-up with a 14mm F-2

 

[splitimageview]

Yes I have seen a couple of interviews where she said 1.4, but I'm skeptical...f/2 sounds more likely.

 

[richardhkirkando]

I'm perfectly happy with the image quality of APS-C sensors. My only issue is with field of view. I shoot a lot of film, and I would much rather have one set of lenses as opposed to two.

 

[al1966]

I am happy using a aps and a µ43 sensor cams, I had a 35mm sized camera and with my style of shooting it made little difference. If I ever buy a large sensor camera again it will either be a lot less money and weight or I want a medium format camera but the cost of those buys an awful lot of film and dev. Besides I have paired down my digital kit, just got bored with it and for me film gives me what I want. The d90 is a great camera though, I got the little 35mm for mine and its a great bargain lens.

 

[randolph45]

Good Glass

Good Glass

I've got some good Canon glass for my 30D,but I would love to buy a nice1Ds full frame to take advantage of my wide stuff.I would carry my 24 mm as standard on my film bodies so I kind of miss that with aps sensors

 

[sepiareverb]

I'm with Rogier on DOF.

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

From experience, I always thought of medium format being used to capture something. 35mm/full-frame to capture what's happening (and the best balance for me in terms of image quality and handling). Though I've shot with APS-C (but not half-frame), the details, the dynamic range, the wide-angle prime options, the depth-of-field control and that extra unexplainable depth and quality has never been there for me. I like have a nice big viewfinder as well. Looking back at old APS-C format files, I never miss it at all, unlike when looking through old negatives and files from larger formats. I will dare to say that I rather move down further to a pocketable digital point-and-shoot, or mobile phone, as another camera option. At least the price, convenient carry, dedicated lens and idiosyncrasies out weigh using an inconvenient format that never met my needs.

 

[chris00nj]

I like FF because of narrower depth of field. While wider lenses on a crop sensor will have the same FOV, the depth of field will be great. Nothing worse than a portrait where the background is in focus.

 

[Spicy]

To be perfectly honest, one of the things that drew me into film photography at first was simply the enormous viewfinder. It's like watching a movie on a computer screen vs. going and seeing one at the theater.

I know that my D90 is a much more capable camera than I am a photographer, but that doesn't stop me from lusting after a D700. Is it silly that I'd spend $1500 to upgrade just for the larger viewfinder? Perhaps, but the other benefits are secondary. Excellent high ISO performance, and better wide-angle lenses. Bokeh is in there somewhere as well.

 

[tic]

I'm happy with aps-c for dslr (in fact I'll probably get a new body this year for the same system), but I do want a FF RF or EVIL for my M-lenses...

 

[noimmunity]

I have some awesome 135 film cameras and a fine CS5000 scanner that gives me a lot of FF fun.

Like the R-D1, I feel the M8 deserves recognition as a digital classic. The 1.33x crop of the M8 hits a kind of sweet spot. Eliminates some of the pesky corner issues associated with wide M lenses on digital (my ZM 21/4.5 makes an awesome 28), yet keeps wides wider than a 1.5x crop sensor (and the ZM 18 is a sweet 24 rather than a 27). IQ is way good enough (for me). No AA and IR filter gives images a distinct look.

No digital FF on the horizon for me.

 

[nobbylon]

Viewfinder (Dslr), Lenses (both Dslr and rangefinder)
I like large viewfinders and my D700 with magnifier is as big as it gets in Slr terms.
Lenses? I want to be able to switch from film to digital and back without fussing about FL. Crop whatever is said is a compromise and one which some people have ended up liking the look of because of a certain sensors characteristics but it is a compromise.
If it wasn't then why the buzz when the M9 arrived? Now we have all these new cameras arriving and I was genuinely excited about the new fuji until I read about 2 things. 1/ electronic manual focus (viewfinder issue) 2/ damn crop factor again
I must admit I'd rather have an M8 if I HAD to have crop but then your into filter issues etc.
The only use for a crop camera as far as I'm concerned is to increase your reach with tele lenses however that brings us back to compromise again. Why not use FF with the FL you actually need. Crop is a price point issue and for Dslr's comes with secondary compromise of smaller finders and lesser DOF control.
We're all here debating about the quality of this over that, which summicron is best? which M can I take on my hols and hammer tent pegs in with? etc etc, yet we still try and talk ourselves into a compromise on crop!
I would like to see everything in my D700, no changes but in the body size of an FM.
A full frame digital rangefinder with a manual R/F, not electronic and reliable as a Nikon or M6, no frills, just a basic M6 digital FF at the same price as an equivalent Dslr.
Crop is compromise and instead of spending a fortune on specially designed lenses to fit with the cropped sensor they should be figuring out how to deliver FF cameras to us. It's obviously cheaper to manufacture lenses than it is to make FF cameras. Simple.

 

[jarski]

am preferring full frame with lenses designed to it, smaller formats likewise. but no mix of FF-lens on APS-C body.

 

[gavinlg]

Full frame is noticeably better in every way IMO.

aps-c is okay IF the lenses are designed for it.