1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll - full frame still important?

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Jul 6, 2008.

  1. Damien_Demolder

    Damien_Demolder Well-Known Member

    With the launch of the Nikon D700 the full frame sensor question makes its way to the front of our minds once again. There was a time we all demanded full frame, and reckoned nothing else would do. Is it still as important as it was, or have the improvements in technology left you happy with APS-C? Still like the idea of big viewfinders and wide lenses?

    Go to the Home Page to vote.

    Thanks all

    damien
     
  2. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    After using a D300 for a short time I am convinced that the DX sensor does everything that I ask of it and more. I rarely use very high iso so noise is not a problem on the DX sensor. Also I find that my Sigma 10-20 is wide enough.
    Until recently I wanted a D300 sized camera with a D3 sensor. Now that it is nearly here I have realised that it would not be of benefit to me.
     
  3. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Yup. I think the market proves that full frame is becoming increasingly important as the number of models available increases and the price starts to come down.

    Big bright finders would be worth a lot even if full frame image quality was no better - and it is, both in theory and in practise. Neither is the size & weight penalty significant except for long to very long telephoto lenses.
     
  4. FujiSigmaNolta

    FujiSigmaNolta Well-Known Member

    I am happy with APS-C but I think I would be happier with FF. And I think yes, it is important, anything that goes towards even greater image quality than what we already have (which is already very high) is more than welcome. We photographers are a demanding bunch!
     
  5. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Well I don't know anybody that uses full frame that would revert back to a smaller sensor - and the only people I know who say they don't want it have never tried it. I think the only reason you don't hear so much debate over it these days is simply that the debate is over; however, APS-C provides a perfectly decent level of quality as well, and remains more affordable for many. But for me, there's simply no competition.
     
  6. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    I've never used a camera with a full-frame sensor, so I can't personally quantify it's benefits over the APS-C sensor. However I suspect that although the various reviews cite that it offers advantages over the APS-C format, we may well find that to extract the optimum quality from this, (specifically in relation to wide and ultra-wide lenses) a range of reformulated (Telecentric?) optics using a new larger diameter bayonet mount will be eventually needed.

    I also have the sneaking feeling the main reason a lot of photographers in the past wanted a 35mm format sensor, was so they can use their existing lenses, because they begrudge shelling out their hard-earned cash on new ones!

    The APS-C sensor, evades this thorny issue of a new lens mount, and since the sensor only uses about 3/4 of the Angle of View (AoV) used by the 35mm film format, unwanted artefacts like fringing etc at the edges of the optics FoV do not show up. What would seem to back up this guess of mine, is the fact that it's only been recently that ultra-wide optics have begun to appear for the APS-C format, whilst Olympus have been selling their fast, ultra-wide 7-14mm zoom, (= a 14-28mm on the 35mm format) since 2005.
     
  7. Dave_Cox

    Dave_Cox Well-Known Member

    If FF becomes more affordable, then I'd go for it. APS-C does what I want it to for the moment, but there will come a time when we reach the same stage as we have for compact cameras - too many pixels for the sensor to handle. FF will then become to only option for further development.
     
  8. hech54

    hech54 Well-Known Member

    Nope. Not important to me. See my signature for a simpler explanation.
     
  9. Garry McNamara

    Garry McNamara Well-Known Member

    I was never even tempted to buy a DSLR until it had identical quality and handling to a 35mm SLR and in the same format. If I'd wanted a half frame camera at any point in my life I would have bought one. That said I was never a huge fan of 35mm in the first place.

    Wouldn't buy a back for a medium format that wasn't full frame or a large format back that wasn't full 5x4 either.

    None of this has anything to do with pixels and everything to do with the way a lens behaves - I like the way lenses behave with larger formats and even 35mm was stretching it a bit there.

    The viewfinder was a big issue and I couldn't believe the first few DSLRs - is it just me or is seeing what you're photographing in the viewfinder a bit important? I remember the first time I looked through the viewfinder of an OM1 thinking I was looking into the Tardis. When I looked through a DSLR I thought I'd picked up a Zenit E by mistake.

    You could call me a late adopter.
     
  10. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    I voted Yes...but it was a close call imo. I still feel that FF gives the best chance for the best image quality. I also tend to feel that the wide is still more important to me that telephoto.

    I'm happy with my 40D...but I still want a FF body one day. When that day comes though, there will probably still be a place in my camera bag for the 40D anyway.
     
  11. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Big bright viewfinders on FF? Just a shame about the one on the 5D! I've seen cameras with smaller sensors that have better viewfinder.....but then the smaller sensor was APS-H rather than APS-C.

    For some types of photography I do think bigger formats are better and there are gains in quality to be had but equally I think smaller formats have their uses for smaller subjects. Large format macro doesn't look like very practical for in the field shooting :eek: (although for innanimate objects in the studio......)
     
  12. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    Although my previous posting on here is somewhat negative about the current design of camera bodies using full-frame sensors, I do feel that as a format, it potentially offers photographers who seek a highly portable and versatile system camera which does not sacrifice too much image quality in comparison to that delivered by MF cameras. This remarkable compromise is the main reason behind it's success.

    Personally I find FF digital cameras are just a bit too bulky and heavy for me to feel happy lugging around on a day-to-day basis, which leads me to conclude that the APS-C format will remain with us for many, many more years.
     
  13. Malcolm_Stewart

    Malcolm_Stewart Well-Known Member

    I've voted "Yes".

    My Eos 5D gets chosen automatically unless I'm covering "events" or bird photography, when I'll take my 1D MkIII. (I also have a 30D and a 10D in the cupboard.)

    Visiting Manchester with its Beetham Hilton Tower last Tuesday, there's a mass of shots I wouldn't have been able to get to the high quality I wanted, except with a full frame sensor. I mainly used my EF 50 f1.4 at around f5.6 or f8, and for my style of architectural record, the detail from edge to edge is most gratifying. (I had my EF 24 f2.8 in reserve for wide-angle shots.)
     
  14. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    The benefits of FF for professionals who require the highest image quality are obvious.
    How ever there are down sides... that few FF lenses are anything like telecentric causes problems in the periphery of images. Mostly FF cameras are much larger than APS, and not every one sees that as an advantage in private life.

    I feel we are waiting on the same sort of revolution that the OM1 brought to 35mm film cameras... a reduction in size and weight with out reducing quality and at the same time re setting the standard for viewfinders, and also the need to solvin the telecentric lens/sensor problems.

    For this to happen there will have to be an a revolution in sensor design... most lenses will need to be redesigned...
    ... software will need to be developed to automatically overcome residual problems.

    I can see FF cameras being redesigned with the same considerations given to those problems solved in the 4/3rds system, but somewhat larger in size.
     
  15. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    I said yes for a couple of reasons.

    Firstly, the whole noise thing. The results available at ultra high ISO (6400 and above) are simply amazing, and cannot be matched by film. Yes you can puch Delta 3200 that far, but the results are suitable only for 'art' rather than reality. This ISO flexibility is something I feel I could really take advantage of given a D3/D700 (not a fan of the big Canons).

    Secondly, the lenses. I, like many others, like lenses to behave the same way regardless of whether they are in front of film or sensor.
     
  16. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Must say that the telecentricity issue, whilst theoretically significant, doesn't seem to be much of a problem at present. If/when sensor pixel counts rise again, it might become so.

    As for the size/weight issue - the Canon 40D is very similar in the hand to the 5D, and the Nikon D300 is actually heavier than the 5D - IMHO it would be quite possible to build a full frame camera down to the size and weight of say the Canon 300D. Whether the sort of people who buy FF cameras demand high build standards, or whether there is a yet market for a budget FF camera, are different questions. But, if size & weight were primary factors allowing compromise with image quality, the Olympus three-digit cameras should be dominating the market....

    Personally I've always thought that it's the APS-C/DX size sensor that's threatened in the long term - and see no reason whatsoever to change that prediction.
     
  17. LargeFormat

    LargeFormat Well-Known Member

    Definately important. I've been holding off buying a new camera waiting for the new generation of (I hope) more affordable full frames. Just need to see the Sony now. :rolleyes:
     
  18. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    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? ;)
     
  19. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    I think that the issue of wide and especially ultra-wide lenses is a challenging one for APS-C camera manufacturers, The reason why we are not aware of it, is that they haven't produced any ultra-wides. It certainly looks like Telecentric designed optics offer considerable benefits to the designers of very wide angle lenses.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    These are taken with Olly's f4.o 7-14mm zoom ...
     
  20. LargeFormat

    LargeFormat Well-Known Member

    I agree, although the last time I made such a suggestion I was pilloried.
     

Share This Page