why full frame?

[back alley]

i see full frame sensors and aps-c sensors as different formats...like 35mm is a different format from 120.

is 120 'better' than 35mm...to me, yes.

is full frame 'better' than aps-c...to me...i think so (i have never shot with a ff sensor)

so? can a person be satisfied with an aps-c sensor for life...i think so.

i have shot 120 and loved it but went back to 35mm and was quite happy.

i now shoot with an rd1 and a d90...both aps-c sensors and am happy...can i live without a ff sensor...i'm pretty sure i can.

 

[johannielscom]

Dear Joe,

of course you can. It takes a little math to figure out what the FOV of your lens will be on a <FF sensor but hey, we're from the generations that learned to multiply without a calculator so what's the trouble 😉

For any film lover a MF camera can deliver the same quality a FF sensor can, and with more fun too.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Especially with a rangefinder or electric viewfinder, I don't understand why someone would want the expense and bulk of a full-frame system now that the smaller sensors are more than capable?

It's not like an SLR where the sensor size impacts the viewing quality.

As nice as the $7000 M9 surely is, a $2000 APS-sized sensor body makes a lot more practical sense.

 

[kanzlr]

I moved "down" from a Nikon D700 as my primary camera to a Pentax K5 and now a GXR M Mount.

And I am very happy 🙂

The only thing that FX brings is: a big viewfinder on DSLRs
Shallower DoF for same perspective and f-stop.

On the D700 I liked to shoot portraits at f4, for example, with the 105.
a 50/2 and 90/2.8 are plenty on short DoF on APS-C for me. Even 35/1.4 is.

 

[segedi]

It's a bit harder to do some wideangle stuff, but my wallet seems to like APS-C. And as a photogrpaher, I like the GXR with M mount.

 

[benlees]

APS would suit me fine! Nothing more to add except some admiration for Frank's avatar.

 

[Nikon Bob]

FF really only matters if you have legacy lenses kicking around and want to use them at their original angle of view. Well, at least that was it for me and I did not want to buy any DX only glass. The size penalty thing for FF over apsc is kind of a myth too. The M9 is virtually the same size as previous Ms and the new Fuji X-Pro 1 is virtually the same size as the M9.

Yea, apsc is merely a different format. I am considering a different system and it will be apsc. With a different system in a different format legacy lenses are no issue. At this point in time could be content with an apsc system. No I am not getting rid of my D700 but may dump my Leica stuff.

Bob

 

[user237428934]

Two years ago I had the Canon 40D (crop). Then a reasonable priced 5D (FF) came along and I was a bit shocked: much sharper, a lot more fine details, a different look with the same 50mm lens. The 40D had to go. Don't know if it's still such a difference with more modern crop DSLRs.

 

[bensyverson]

I reject the notion that FF cameras need to be physically large. The XA and Epic are full frame cameras.

If the cost of FF sensors ever come down, we may see some very interesting compact cameras.

 

[Pete B]

I like the perspective of larger lenses (everything is relatively foreshortened including with wide angles). I'd rather have 16 mega-large-pixels spread over a large sensor than 16 mega-small-pixels squeezed onto a smaller sensor.
Still, I can always live with APS-C and continue to scan med format.
Pete

 

[shadowfox]

For digital, I'm happy with m4/3rd.
If I want full frame, I'll use my 8x10, that will give me a negative that is a frame-full 😀

 

[rbelyell]

for IQ, crop cams have caught up with FF for all but the most difficult professional purposes. for general public, no issue. for AF crowd, no issue. but for this bunch of legacy lens users, definitely an issue, and that is FL! this is the crwd that can spend gazzillions on the perfect 24, or 40 street lens, or fast 'go anywhere' 50. and you guys are all ok with turning those into 'franken-lenses'? i know that when i spend hundreds on a 24mm, i dont want an 'ordinary' 35 or an even more ordinary 48. i dont want my 'perfect' 40 turned into a useless 60. i dont want to give up WA photography. this is the insidious sin of crop cams. theyre taking our FLs away and we're not even putting up a fight! ):

 

[celluloidprop]

Full-frame mattered/matters because available lenses were designed for 24x36 - if you're a 35mm lens fan, your options in APS-C were extremely limited in Canon/Nikon/etc. or on the M8. (Matters still for all the people invested in full-frame lenses)

The compact systems change that game, IMO - they're either being designed around or offering appropriately-sized and specced prime lenses.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I'd like a FF sensor to be able to use my 15 & 28 just like I use them on film cameras, but I don't care at all about image quality... I'd happily buy a 3MP B&W only digital camera without screen if I can use my LTM and M lenses with manual focus and no shutter lag.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

A lot of the smaller sensors now have really high pixel counts, like 14-16-18 mp. I dont think that lenses most people can afford have the resolution for such high pixel counts on such small sensors. In my experience, two sensors of the same MP count, the fullframe one gives sharper images.

 

[NickTrop]

APS-C - two advantages. Smaller cameras (excluding the M9), less expensive cameras. FF digitals are for pro's - big honkin zoom, umbrellas, lights - that is, "event shooting" or studio stuff. Nice to shoot at ISO 6400 or whatever, but a clean 1600 is good for most ambient light situation. In good light, low ISO, I don't think there is much in the way of observable IQ differences between the two.

To me, APS-C is the price/performance sweet spot in digital.

 

[back alley]

for IQ, crop cams have caught up with FF for all but the most difficult professional purposes. for general public, no issue. for AF crowd, no issue. but for this bunch of legacy lens users, definitely an issue, and that is FL! this is the crwd that can spend gazzillions on the perfect 24, or 40 street lens, or fast 'go anywhere' 50. and you guys are all ok with turning those into 'franken-lenses'? i know that when i spend hundreds on a 24mm, i dont want an 'ordinary' 35 or an even more ordinary 48. i dont want my 'perfect' 40 turned into a useless 60. i dont want to give up WA photography. this is the insidious sin of crop cams. theyre taking our FLs away and we're not even putting up a fight! ):

i love a good 40mm lens...on my digital crop factor cameras...a 40 turns into a 60...as it turns out i love the 60 too!!
in fact, i just bought a 40/2.8 micro nikkor for my d90!

 

[kanzlr]

lenses designed for APS-C are usually smaller, too.
full frame in compact cameras will stay a dream till they figure out a sensor that doesn't vomit in the corners as soon as light rays do not hit it at a straight 90° angle.

look what Fuji did to make it work well for APS-C in a compact format. Look at what Leica has to do to make it work at least reasonably well with at least most lenses on 135.

 

[FrankS]

The 35m format is the smallest that will satisfy me. Tried half frame, no thanks.

 

[Rob-F]

I like full frame because I'm a wide-angle guy. But I do seem to accept the 1.33 crop factor on my M8.2. With the 21mm, I can at least get a 28mm equivalent. If I need wider than that, I can take the D700 instead, I guess. I have lenses as wide as 15mm for it. Maybe I should buy the 15mm for the M8.2 so I can have a 20mm equivalent.