Poll - full frame still important?

[Damien_Demolder]

Big bright viewfinders on FF? Just a shame about the one on the 5D!

Yeh, alright clever Dick. FF cameras apart from the 5D...

[Scphoto]

Not really noticed it being bad. I had a 1D MkIII for a while and didn't see any significant difference.

Still, back to the question. I waited for an affordable (well £1500 - which was affordable for me at the time) FF camera I did look at the 20/30D but found the view finder way too small. I couldn't move away from what I had on my Eos 50E.

I like my wide angles, so I was able to use my existing lenses on the 5D as I used to when using film.

[Benchista]

Not really noticed it being bad.

It isn't - just others are better. It's pretty much on a par with those on film cameras exactly like the 50E.

[daft_biker]

.... clever Dick.....

Who told you about that

[daft_biker]

Not really noticed it being bad.

It isn't - just others are better. It's pretty much on a par with those on film cameras exactly like the 50E.

Which would be fine if it was a 50D but it would have been nice if the 5D viewfinder was at least as good as the 3 (would've been nice if it was as good as the 3 in some other respects too ).

[Garry McNamara]

This is an FF -



It's big and is famous for having a very large piece of glass for a very good view out.

[noangel]

I voted no.

What difference is there between the image you were after on a FF sensor and the same on a smaller one or for that matter film? The image you were after is the achievement. Thats what you have to go with regardless of the cameras limitations.

Regards,

John.

[gollum]

I remember the first time I looked through the viewfinder of an OM1 thinking I was looking into the Tardis.

Ah, now that was a camera

[Clive]

I would like to have voted 'yes' and 'no'. I run a D3 and a D300. For pure image quality, the D300 with a Full Frame lens, like the 24-70/2.8 at low ISO is probably the best you can get. 12 million pixels using the sweet centre crop. However, 12 million pixels on the FF D3 gives me the capability of shooting in available darkness and getting shots I previously had never dreamed of.

[parisian]

Out of interest Clive, would you say that the switchable ISO on the D3 is the major user advantage for you over film capture?
I know you draw great satisfaction from the more challenging photographic situations.

[Clive]

Without a doubt, Peter. I don't hold any special thing about Full Frame digital capture, but it is the ISO capabilities that I love about the D3: I would not have bought one otherwise. I still intend to use film capture, mainly infrared at 35mm but also various films in medium format, but I will be acutely aware of the ISO limitations of film.

[Barney]

Anyway, I thought the D300 v 5D test rather resolved the issue - the oldest, cheapest and worst full frame DSLR* produces better quality than the newest, most expensive and best APS-C DSLR. What else needs to be said?

Hmmm, yes that review. I must say, I've lost my faith in Angela's reviews after that one. Not because of any brand loyalty but simply because either her conclusion contradicted her text or she apparently only judges a camera's worth on the image quality.

As for the FF/cropped debate. Damien can you answer for me? All I need you to do is compare a D300's image with an identical one cropped from a D700. If the D700 matches or excedes the D300 then the key advantage of the APS-C format - the ability to have a greater reach with fast lenses- is no longer an advantage. If I'm as well cropping down from full frame then the added advantage at the wider end of the scale would put me firmly in the full frame camp.

[Benchista]

Hmmm, yes that review. I must say, I've lost my faith in Angela's reviews after that one. Not because of any brand loyalty but simply because either her conclusion contradicted her text or she apparently only judges a camera's worth on the image quality.

So it IS brand loyalty, then, as the logic was clearly spelled out. Maybe you should think of switching to Olympus if you lose faith in someone simply because they don't say what you want to hear?

[Barney]

Hmmm, yes that review. I must say, I've lost my faith in Angela's reviews after that one. Not because of any brand loyalty but simply because either her conclusion contradicted her text or she apparently only judges a camera's worth on the image quality.

So it IS brand loyalty, then, as the logic was clearly spelled out. Maybe you should think of switching to Olympus if you lose faith in someone simply because they don't say what you want to hear?

Not at all Nick, it's merely a question of understanding that reviews are subjective and knowing the reviewer's foilbles allows the reader to weigh up how valuable the review will be to them.

This review had too many inconsistencies for the conclusion to merit any worth. I'll not disappear and get the issue in question to list them all, but one that sticks in the mind was the 5D's AF being rated very poorly in low light while overall the low light IQ helped put the 5D on top of the podium. IQ is not the be all and end all for me, my way of thinking is that you have to get the shot first before you worry about the IQ, therefore if Angela's reviews are so heavily biased towards IQ then they're not much use to me.

[LargeFormat]

IQ is not the be all and end all for me, my way of thinking is that you have to get the shot first before you worry about the IQ, therefore if Angela's reviews are so heavily biased towards IQ then they're not much use to me.

I can understand this point. It really depends what one is doing. I use my 4x5 when IQ is the essence but of course you can't cart it round very easily and it doesn't work too well for action shots . On the other hand my compact slips into my pocket and is there to provide a picture, maybe of lower IQ, at any time. The compromises involved in choosing a camera, either to buy or to take on a particular assignment, are decisions we all have to take individually.

[daft_biker]

Barney, if it makes you feel any better I can see what you are saying....the 5D is far from a great camera in terms of ability to capture action in auto modes and I don't particularly like using it either. But at the end of the day the sensor is a peach and the image quality can kick APS-C cameras into touch.

Saw on another forum some muppet claiming his 40D was better than a 5D and in 40D vs 5D test the 40D should win, basically because it was newer and had to have lower noise and better image quality :carzy: (was a typo but think I'll leave it!)

I'll bet said fanboy has never used a 5D in his life If it wasn't so good at delivering results it would have been upgraded long before now IMO.

[Nod]

Both Dx and Fx have a place - Dx for the extra reach available for any given focal length (and no, a crop from an Fx sensor ISN'T the same - fewer MP) and Fx for the wide angles. When Fx is more affordable, I will probably retire the film bodies which are at the moment my only FF ones!


IMO, image quality IS more important than everything else listed in the reviews. An 18-250 lens may well have a better spec than a 70-200 but which is almost certain to be a "better" lens? Build quality is fairly important - who wants something that's likely to let them down? Handling is less important (IMO) - kit may have its quirks and may be awkward to use but as long as it's useable, it's useable! Performance is (to some extent) an extension of specification and quality - if kit does what it's supposed to (according to the spec sheet) then that aspect of its performance is good; only when something fails to meet its specced capabilities can it fail, while the quality issue (as far as performance goes) is tied in inseperably with IQ.

[beejaybee]

one that sticks in the mind was the 5D's AF being rated very poorly in low light

Hmmm. Setting my 5D to centre point AF, it manages to autofocus on a bright star with e.g. the 70-200mm f/4L IS, and on a fairly faint star (fourth magnitude, e.g. the "Double Double" epsilon Lyrae) with the 400mm f/2.8L IS.

The 40D is definitely no better.

I don't have a lot of direct experience with other marques of DSLR to compare with under these conditions, but I will say that the low light AF performance of either of the abovementioned Canon DSLRs is way, way, way ahead of the Canon G5, which in my experience had extreme difficulties in anything less than good light ... twilight landscapes were more than enough to flummox it, and the alternative of switching to manual focus is a lot more difficult with compacts in general (and the G5 in particular) than it is with DSLRs, even when fitted with lenses without full-time manual focus override.

[Barney]

Both Dx and Fx have a place - Dx for the extra reach available for any given focal length (and no, a crop from an Fx sensor ISN'T the same - fewer MP) and Fx for the wide angles. When Fx is more affordable, I will probably retire the film bodies which are at the moment my only FF ones!

No, a crop on an FX sensor isn't the same, but that doesn't mean that it can't be better. The main advatage of the DX sensor for me is the ability to shoot at the equivilent of 300mm at f/2 or 420mm at f/2.8 especially as I'm often shooting in very low light. Now, if the low light performance of the FX sensor gives me much lower noise I can forgo the resulting loss in MP count if I were to crop to get the same ratio as with a DX sensor.

IMO, image quality IS more important than everything else listed in the reviews.

This is all about opinions, so I'm not going to tell you that you're worng, but my view of this is that image quality only comes into play once many other factors are met. If you haven't got the AF or the view finder isn't bright enough to be able to focus well manually then no matter what image quality you may get, you're image won't be in focus. If you miss a shot because a certain function is hidden away in menus then what good is image quality then?

[daft_biker]

The problem I find with the 5D AF (and 30D and to a lesser extent on the 40D) is that once the AF locks onto something it doesn't want to get moving again....if your action pauses and restarts I find the AF is a bit slow to restart (compared to a 3 which when in continuous AF seems to continue to focus no matter what....you can hear the AF dancing about to try and keep up with even quite minor camera shake on a static subject!).