# Full frame digital SLRs



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Is this something to get excited about, full-frame digital SLRs like the Canon 5D? Anyone have one? 

It's currently around $2800, but as CMOS chip prices come down, I'm sure full-frame cameras will be around $1000 in a few years.

I hear there are advantages and disadvantages, it's not so clear cut as full frame is better than cropped.


----------



## beauport (Jul 2, 2002)

Probably the two main touted advantages; the focal length of each lens is exactly what you get - no crop factor and more pixels. You can find a 5D at the lower end of 2K if you look around. I have one and find it to be great for my uses. Not sure what the disadvantages are beyond eating up memory at a higher rate, though there may be an argument that you don't get the crop "advantage" at the longer end of lenses of a APS sensor.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

beauport said:


> Not sure what the disadvantages are beyond eating up memory at a higher rate, though there may be an argument that you don't get the crop "advantage" at the longer end of lenses of a APS sensor.


The main one that comes to mind is that with a full frame sensor you're using more of the lens rather than just the center portion of it as with an APS size sensor. A camera with a full frame sensor is not going to be forgiving of mediocre glass.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Cliff said:


> The main one that comes to mind is that with a full frame sensor you're using more of the lens rather than just the center portion of it as with an APS size sensor. A camera with a full frame sensor is not going to be forgiving of mediocre glass.


Yeah, it brings out defects in lenses. I don't remember that being a big issue in the film days though?


----------



## beauport (Jul 2, 2002)

Cliff said:


> The main one that comes to mind is that with a full frame sensor you're using more of the lens rather than just the center portion of it as with an APS size sensor. A camera with a full frame sensor is not going to be forgiving of mediocre glass.


Good point, and mine isn't forgiving of cheap glass. PS can fix the minor sins though.


----------



## jcatral14 (Aug 4, 2003)

Cliff said:


> A camera with a full frame sensor is not going to be forgiving of mediocre glass.


That's true but with the advances in manufacturing techniques and R&D over the years, I would hazard a guess that todays "average" lens is much better than high end lenses from 10-15 years ago. Unless you do this for a living, you won't be missing much. If all else fails, just stop down a couple of f-stops


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

jcatral14 said:


> That's true but with the advances in manufacturing techniques and R&D over the years, I would hazard a guess that todays "average" lens is much better than high end lenses from 10-15 years ago. Unless you do this for a living, you won't be missing much. If all else fails, just stop down a couple of f-stops


The 5D sample photos taken with the 17-40 f4 L that were provided by Canon with the release of that body looked terrible. There was very noticeable vignetting and softness at the corners of the image. That lens is quite decent on bodies with APS sensors.


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

If you're ever considering going full frame, just make sure that you buy glass today for your cropped sensor with that in mind.

Alex


----------



## beauport (Jul 2, 2002)

Cliff said:


> The 5D sample photos taken with the 17-40 f4 L that were provided by Canon with the release of that body looked terrible. There was very noticeable vignetting and softness at the corners of the image. That lens is quite decent on bodies with APS sensors.


I saw those samples and they weren't good. I have a 17-40, and while it displays some vignetting it isn't nearly as bad as the Canon samples were - not sure why they didn't choose a better lens sample for these shots. For what I use my 17-40 for I am rarely shooting wide open and the slight vignetting I get PS fixes easily. This is probably Canon's best, least expensive wide angle. The 14 is expensive and so-so and the 16-35 is also expensive and for me, not all that exciting.


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

beauport said:


> I saw those samples and they weren't good. I have a 17-40, and while it displays some vignetting it isn't nearly as bad as the Canon samples were - not sure why they didn't choose a better lens sample for these shots. For what I use my 17-40 for I am rarely shooting wide open and the slight vignetting I get PS fixes easily. This is probably Canon's best, least expensive wide angle. The 14 is expensive and so-so and the 16-35 is also expensive and for me, not all that exciting.


The 16-35 is next on my lens purchase list. Right now I'm using the 24-105L as my primary walk around.

Alex


----------



## jcatral14 (Aug 4, 2003)

Cliff said:


> The 5D sample photos taken with the 17-40 f4 L that were provided by Canon with the release of that body looked terrible. There was very noticeable vignetting and softness at the corners of the image. That lens is quite decent on bodies with APS sensors.


Hmm, that's puzzling. I haven't been following what's going on with the new technologies. Could it be that the new sensors have finally overtaken film based resolution so that it now exposes flaws not seen before?


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

jcatral14 said:


> Hmm, that's puzzling. I haven't been following what's going on with the new technologies. Could it be that the new sensors have finally overtaken film based resolution so that it now exposes flaws not seen before?


That would be an accurate statement. Thom Hogan made an interesting observation in his review of the D2X:



> But let me tell you something: all this deep ending into detail isn't particularly useful. The D2x, 5D and 1DsMarkII all outperform 35mm film and easily show the differences between good lenses and bad. So unless you're considering a DSLR in substitute of a medium or large format camera, I think any discussion of how much or how well a D2x or 1DsMarkII resolves is simply overkill.




Bjorn Rorslett made some similar comments in his review of the D2X, but his site appears to be unresponsive at the moment so I can't provide a direct quote.


----------



## bwilder10h (Dec 12, 2006)

BahnBaum said:


> If you're ever considering going full frame, just make sure that you buy glass today for your cropped sensor with that in mind.
> 
> Alex


Bingo!


----------



## JDMOTO (Aug 10, 2005)

true focal distance, the bokeh is much better, the size of your viewfinder is way bigger, its much brighter also. Noise is super clean on the 5D with iso 50.


----------



## Richard in NC (Oct 23, 2005)

JDMOTO said:


> true focal distance, the bokeh is much better, the size of your viewfinder is way bigger, its much brighter also. Noise is super clean on the 5D with iso 50.


Bokeh is affected by the lens, not the sensor. If you put a full frame lens on a camera with a smaller sensor, the image is the same but cropped (making it appear zoomed in) and nothing more. I agree with your other possible advantages but cropped sensors have advantages too (zoom effect, smaller lighter weight lenses, and if using full frame lenses they have less vinginetting issues and make use of the best part of the lens).


----------



## JDMOTO (Aug 10, 2005)

Richard in NC said:


> Bokeh is affected by the lens, not the sensor. If you put a full frame lens on a camera with a smaller sensor, the image is the same but cropped (making it appear zoomed in) and nothing more. I agree with your other possible advantages but cropped sensors have advantages too (zoom effect, smaller lighter weight lenses, and if using full frame lenses they have less vinginetting issues and make use of the best part of the lens).


actually your wrong and right. your statement about full frame and cropped bodies is right with the cropped lens and how having a lower ap will give you a much better bokeh since your dof is very small. but it does impact the bokeh of the shot. I'll tell you why. lets use a prime lens. on a full frame camera with a 50mm. The distance you need to have is shorter then it would if you had a 1.6 cropped body since the the 50mm would be a 80mm. Thats means if your trying to frame something with the 50mm your distance will be farther away compared to a ff with 50mm. That is the on thing that will effect the bokeh. So ya the Full Frame will effect the bokeh on the shot.

Im sure a lot of people didn't know that which i can understand because everyone thinks that all you need is a fast glass to get a nice bokeh, but you forgot the distance also matters too which is the other half of the equation. :thumbup:


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

JDMOTO said:


> actually your wrong and right. your statement about full frame and cropped bodies is right with the cropped lens and how having a lower ap will give you a much better bokeh since your dof is very small. but it does impact the bokeh of the shot. I'll tell you why. lets use a prime lens. on a full frame camera with a 50mm. The distance you need to have is shorter then it would if you had a 1.6 cropped body since the the 50mm would be a 80mm. Thats means if your trying to frame something with the 50mm your distance will be farther away compared to a ff with 50mm. That is the on thing that will effect the bokeh. So ya the Full Frame will effect the bokeh on the shot.
> 
> Im sure a lot of people didn't know that which i can understand because everyone thinks that all you need is a fast glass to get a nice bokeh, but you forgot the distance also matters too which is the other half of the equation. :thumbup:


Smaller sensors undoubtedly have an effect on the out of focus areas of an image, although I've mostly seen it discussed empirically on the forums rather than demonstrated photographically. It is probably of more importance to a landscape photographer than a PJ or a wedding photographer. And the landscape guy is probably shooting medium or large format if he's making a living at it, so it's kind of moot for him.


----------



## #5880 (Feb 11, 2006)

Pro's want full frame. Think if you're a pro sports shooter with digital. You don't want to zoom in too far and possibly miss something. With a full frame and high mp you can crop what you want.

It doesn't really affect us, I'm still in the "Spray n Pray" mode myself!


----------



## dumale (Jul 18, 2006)

The latest rumor is that Canon will be announcing its latest line up on Feb 22.

MAYBE with the new announcements SOME prices will drop!:dunno:

There are pro and cons to full frame - it really depends on what your using it for.

heres a site (its a Canon site) that WILL help you and your questions.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

my two pixels


----------



## Penforhire (Dec 17, 2005)

Pros want low noise. Full frame is one big factor in achieving that (larger pixel sites = less noise, all-else-equal). It has no bearing on "missing" anything in the framing versus an APS size sensor.


----------

