Damien Demolder
(Tharg the Mighty)
06/07/2008 00:03
Poll - full frame still important?

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

Learning
(Ethelred the Ill-Named)
06/07/2008 00:39
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.

beejaybee
(Marvin)
06/07/2008 00:52
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

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?


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.

FujiSigmaNolta
(I can pan!)
06/07/2008 00:56
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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!

Benchista
(Wich Tyler)
06/07/2008 01:10
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.

Footloose
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
06/07/2008 02:12
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.

Dave_Cox
(old'n'grumpy)
06/07/2008 07:36
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.

hech54
(addict)
06/07/2008 07:44
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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

Garry McNamara
(Snr Tutor/Bongo Banjo)
06/07/2008 08:32
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.

sjaszczak
(A Real Gentleman)
06/07/2008 08:49
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.

daft_biker
(Action Man!)
06/07/2008 09:02
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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 (although for innanimate objects in the studio......)

Footloose
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
06/07/2008 10:32
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.

Malcolm_Stewart
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
06/07/2008 10:55
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.)

Terrywoodenpic
(A whiff of silicon...)
06/07/2008 11:32
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.

Zou
(Pooh-Bah)
06/07/2008 12:08
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.

beejaybee
(Marvin)
06/07/2008 12:51
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

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.



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.

LargeFormat
(old hand)
06/07/2008 14:49
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.

Benchista
(Wich Tyler)
06/07/2008 15:51
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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?

Footloose
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
06/07/2008 16:05
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.





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

LargeFormat
(old hand)
06/07/2008 16:35
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

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.


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

Damien Demolder
(Tharg the Mighty)
06/07/2008 17:57
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

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
(Little Fruitbat)
06/07/2008 18:41
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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
(Wich Tyler)
06/07/2008 18:51
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

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
(Action Man!)
06/07/2008 20:12
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:



.... clever Dick.....



Who told you about that

daft_biker
(Action Man!)
06/07/2008 20:14
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

Quote:

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
(Snr Tutor/Bongo Banjo)
06/07/2008 20:52
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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
(journeyman)
06/07/2008 21:30
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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
(enthusiast)
06/07/2008 22:56
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:




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

TarquinBiscuit
(Sometimes I feel like screaming)
07/07/2008 08:49
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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
(Over the hill and far away...)
07/07/2008 09:29
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.

TarquinBiscuit
(Sometimes I feel like screaming)
07/07/2008 09:47
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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.

NorthernNikon
(Bulls Hitter)
07/07/2008 10:18
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

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
(Wich Tyler)
07/07/2008 10:34
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

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?

NorthernNikon
(Bulls Hitter)
07/07/2008 10:57
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

Quote:

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
(old hand)
07/07/2008 11:23
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

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
(Action Man!)
07/07/2008 11:37
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
07/07/2008 11:37
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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
(Marvin)
07/07/2008 11:49
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

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.

NorthernNikon
(Bulls Hitter)
07/07/2008 11:59
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

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.


Quote:

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?

beejaybee
(Marvin)
07/07/2008 12:03
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

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!)


Got both. The 5D wins hands down on everything except:

sensor cleaner - the 40D has this and in my experience it works reasonably well;

live view - if this bothers you - in my experience it's less useful for precise focusing than the type S precision screen plus angle viewfinder.

But the standard focusing screen as supplied with the 40D is too coarse to allow for manual focusing. The standard screen supplied with the 5D is better but I think it's just because the viewfinder magnification is less.

The 5D vf is, IMO, good (though less so than the Oly OM1); the 40D vf is usable rather than good.

I've simply never used burst mode so the 5D is plenty fast enough for me.

The 40D is much more convenient when used with long tele lenses but this is a matter of size/weight/cost of the lenses traded off against image quality. And this to me is the numb of the APS-C/FF debate. When used with "normal" lenses (wide, standard or shirt to medium tele) there isn't even a significant saving in size & weight, though it may well be true that the FF cameras require better (therefore more expensive) lenses to realize the benefit of better image quality.

NorthernNikon
(Bulls Hitter)
07/07/2008 12:04
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

Hmmm.



You're missing the point. You're experieces are irrelevent, it's the experiences of the reviewer which matter and how they then use these experiences in conclusion. I have no truck with what Angela says within the body of the review, it's the fact that the conclusions from within the review don't hold with the overall conclusion.

daft_biker
(Action Man!)
07/07/2008 12:02
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

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!).

Nod
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
07/07/2008 12:08
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

If you miss a shot because a certain function is hidden away in menus then what good is image quality then?





If the image is carp quality then is it worth having? (Unless you're shooting for Heat or the like, in which case a tiny crop seems to be what they're after!)

What functions that tend to be changed fairly often are hidden deep in the menu system? Isn't a struggle to find things in the menu more of a familiarity problem than a failing of the camera?

NorthernNikon
(Bulls Hitter)
07/07/2008 12:17
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Two points, firstly the fact is that all three cameras on test had perfectly good image quality and noe of them could be described a carp. And secondly, yes, even if the image quality is carp the image could quite easily be worth keeping. Think of any iconic image and ask yourself whether it is iconic because of the iamge quality or because of another reason.

If image quality was the be all and end all, would we be all shooting large format film and scanning it in?

Benchista
(Wich Tyler)
07/07/2008 12:20
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

Quote:

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.



Asolutely. I've said it before and I'll say it again, anyone who slavishly follows any review without interpreting what it means for themselves deserves to make the wrong decision. Of course the conclusion may not be based on what's important to you - however, that doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong, simply that you have a different set of priorities.

Nod
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
07/07/2008 12:20
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Second question still needs an answer. Unless the feature/option that needs changing stops you actually shooting, ANY image you capture is worth having (by your argument).

Convenience and portability are rather important too. While I would love to shoot 10x8, I don't think I could carry the kit with me - and I simply don't have the space for D let alone P here - even for 35mm, let alone larger formats!

daft_biker
(Action Man!)
07/07/2008 12:22
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

The 5D vf is, IMO, good (though less so than the Oly OM1); the 40D vf is usable rather than good.




Have you used other APS-C viewfinders? The one on the 30D was usable but I think the one on the 40D is pretty good and find I can manually focus with reasonable accurancy (I've yet to try the precision screen as I've not felt the need). The viewfinder on the 300D was poor.

El Sid
(Going potty)
07/07/2008 12:53
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Based on the question asked I've voted no. If you were to ask whether FF was desirable then the answer would be yes...

When out with my digiboxes alone then I'm more than happy with them but if I have a film camera then I do find the larger viewfinders of the 35mm format generally more pleasant to use. I guess I'd also like my wide angle primes to stay wide angle regardless of capture system...

As far as image quality goes then having no experience of FF output I can only say that I am generally satisfied with what I can achieve from my D30 & 20D when coupled with a competent lens.

NorthernNikon
(Bulls Hitter)
07/07/2008 13:00
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

Second question still needs an answer. Unless the feature/option that needs changing stops you actually shooting, ANY image you capture is worth having (by your argument).



That's quite clearly not what I'm saying, just as you're clearly not saying that any image with a sufficiently high image quality is worth keeping regardless of other qualities.

As for what features may lie buried in menus, as a Nikon user most features are easy to come by but it's a gripe I've often read in reviews of other cameras.

beejaybee
(Marvin)
07/07/2008 13:43
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

You're experieces are irrelevent, it's the experiences of the reviewer which matter


Why are we bothering to discuss this then?

Personally I value the opinion of a user with considerable experience of both cameras over that of a reviewer, however reputable, who has the cameras for a day or two.

LargeFormat
(old hand)
07/07/2008 14:57
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

If image quality was the be all and end all, would we be all shooting large format film and scanning it in?


I thought I already said that.

barney britton
(AP Technical Writer)
07/07/2008 15:38
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

Telecentric designed optics offer considerable benefits to the designers of very wide angle lenses.



Hi everyone, I thought it might be useful if I posted very quickly about telecentric lenses, because there is a lot of confusion about what is and isn't telecentric, and what it means.

True telecentricity is a quality that is not displayed by lenses designed for pictorial photography. Even if it could be, it wouldn't be desirable. A telecentric lens renders all of the light falling on the imager at 90 degrees to the imager's surface. Only optics designed for microscopy are truly telecentric, and even then, only some.

Lenses designed for the 4/3 mount are not telecentric, but they *approach* telecentricity, especially at longer focal lengths because the size of the sensor is smaller, and as such, light rays hit the imager at *closer* to 90 degrees across the frame. Remember that Sigma makes lenses in the 4/3 fit, but they're the same optical makeup as equivalent models for other mounts, so there is no magic formula - only the mounts are different. All manufacturers, not just the 4/3 guys, are producing lenses that deliver a less acute light path from the rear element now than they were, because of the demands of the digital medium.

barney britton
(AP Technical Writer)
07/07/2008 15:46
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

Personally I value the opinion of a user with considerable experience of both cameras over that of a reviewer, however reputable, who has the cameras for a day or two.



Just to set your mind at rest, at AP at least, we use the cameras for a while longer than that before we file a review

beejaybee
(Marvin)
07/07/2008 16:42
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

A telecentric lens renders all of the light falling on the imager at 90 degrees to the imager's surface. Only optics designed for microscopy are truly telecentric, and even then, only some.



If all the rays of light hitting the sensor arrive at right angles to it, then the lens must have an infinite focal length and/or a focal ratio of f/infinity. Such a lens would be somewhat useless.

However, the condition is approximately met by a number of lenses, including old-fashioned "long tom" lenses (long focus but not strictly telephoto, because of the lack of the negative rear element group) operating at around f/8 - in fact these are a great deal more "telecentric" than the Zuiko lenses designed for the Olympus E system.

It is absolutely impossible to design an f/2 lens in which all the rays of light hitting the sensor approach it at an angle steeper than 60 degrees, because of the convergence of the bundle. This is completely independent of the diameter, position or shape of the rear element of the lens.

barney britton
(AP Technical Writer)
07/07/2008 16:48
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

I wonder if this is necessarily true? For light to strike a sensor at 90 degrees, it only has to leave the *rear element* in this state. Light could arrive at the front element of the lens at whatever angle, and the lens could still be termed telecentric (for photographic purposes) if the light rays could be directed so that they existed the rear element at 90 degrees to the imaging plane.

It's very interesting, and I wonder whether Olympus has ever regretted using the word 'telecentric' in its publicity material for the E-series!

Garry McNamara
(Snr Tutor/Bongo Banjo)
07/07/2008 16:54
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

While you're on Barney can you confirm if lenses over 200mm are phalocentric?

I know in reality these lenses are rarely over 150mm but you know how people exagerate - I think it's what lead to the term 'magnification factor'.

Nod
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
07/07/2008 16:55
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Phallocentricity and crop factor? Makes my eyes water just thinking about it!

beejaybee
(Marvin)
07/07/2008 17:05
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

I wonder if this is necessarily true? For light to strike a sensor at 90 degrees, it only has to leave the *rear element* in this state.


Yes - but the rays arriving at a given point on the sensor surface are a conical converging bundle coming through different bits of glass!

I thought Olympus's claim was that their designs allowed the angle at which the cone axis meets the sensor to be (close to) 90 degrees everywhere on the sensor surface. Which is different. But anyhow it's still true that a "long tom" design - or an apochromatic telescope objective lens, which is more or less the same thing - meets the design criterion quite well.

NorthernNikon
(Bulls Hitter)
07/07/2008 17:14
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

While you're on Barney can you confirm if lenses over 200mm are phalocentric?



And how does that relate to throat diameter?

Nod
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
07/07/2008 18:25
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Fl8?

zuiko
(Olympian...)
07/07/2008 18:59
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:



It's very interesting, and I wonder whether Olympus has ever regretted using the word 'telecentric' in its publicity material for the E-series!




No


see here

daft_biker
(Action Man!)
07/07/2008 19:33
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

I see the Oly compact on that link passed the 1.5m drop test.....so has my Casio compact...twice (once at a reasonable speed too!)

zuiko
(Olympian...)
07/07/2008 20:14
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

I was thinking about the SW1030 but read varied reviews on it, some not very complimentary. I wanted it for snorkelling

David

daft_biker
(Action Man!)
07/07/2008 20:52
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

An Oly review that wasn't complimentary?.....how dare they

(but aye, have looked at SW-somethings with interest myself)

deddard
(journeyman)
08/07/2008 08:27
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

I think it is of great importance for several reasons - the low light capability and the wide angle capabilities are probably the biggest that come to mind.
It's never been easy creating wide angle lenses for smaller format cameras, and FF will hopefully allow landscape photographers to get better shots than on APSC.
The light gathering capabilities is something else - pushing APS C sensors up in ISO is ok, but a bigger sensor makes a lot of sense.

I haven't tried a ff yet - I anticipated they would be affordable within a couple of years, so haven't even got a pro level DSLR yet (using a D60) - but I do think I would still get a d300 as well as d700. The magnification factor would be useful without carrying too monstrous a lens!

The one rule I've decided to follow is not to buy APS-C lenses. I got the two which came in the kit, but my only other lens is a full frame Sigma 180 Macro, and any further lenses will be FF as well.
Apart from giving extra clarity on APS-C, it means they will be there for use on the FF.
Anyone going into DSLR photography now should consider this route - it is more expensive in the short term, but cheaper in the long run

Footloose
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
08/07/2008 10:26
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

So, you'll be buying (when they undoubtedly do appear!) the designed for digital FF lenses, or just using the 'Old' 35mm ones?
I'm sorry if people are cheesed off with me going on about the likelihood of manufacturers completely redesigning their optics, but I'm darn sure this is going to happen...

It occurs to me, that Minolta has probably the least to lose and possibly the most to gain from bringing out a completely new range of digital optics for their FF camera/s, maybe even with a new mount ... It might annoy some die-hard Minolta users, but doing so on their first FF model, would be a very logical move.

Nod
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
08/07/2008 11:41
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

I was thinking about the SW1030 but read varied reviews on it, some not very complimentary. I wanted it for snorkelling

David




That's exactly why I bought my 770SW. NOT because of the varied reviews but because it's so robust and waterproof. Having argued in favour of IQ as being the most important criterion over features in earlier posts, I admit 100% that in this case, I went for features over IQ!!! My excuse is that it was (at the time) the only camera that met my needs - pocketable, sweatproof and snorkellable with, even if IQ isn't perfect - especially at higher ISOs.

Hotblack
(Dead Horse Flogger)
08/07/2008 11:41
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

I've voted yes. The larger photosites and sensor size and increased quality are important IMO.

Iloca
(Unregistered at user's request)
08/07/2008 11:43
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

I think it is of great importance for several reasons - the low light capability and the wide angle capabilities are probably the biggest that come to mind.




I'm not sure that wide angle capability is an issue, AFAIK Canon's widest current FF lens is the EF 14mm f2.8L USM.

Nikon have the FX compatible 14mm f/2.8D ED AF NIKKOR

You can get the same angle of view on the smaller formats.

Benchista
(Wich Tyler)
08/07/2008 11:50
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

You can't get 12mm equivalent on any smaller format, though, which you can on FF with the Sigma 12-24.

alanS
(Dr Dust)
08/07/2008 12:23
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

"You can get the same angle of view on the smaller formats."

Well, my 12-24 is in effect 19-38mm on my 20D. To get a real 12mm I'd have to use a 8mm and I don't know of too many non fish eye 8mm's I could use.

beejaybee
(Marvin)
08/07/2008 12:29
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

So, you'll be buying (when they undoubtedly do appear!) the designed for digital FF lenses, or just using the 'Old' 35mm ones?
I'm sorry if people are cheesed off with me going on about the likelihood of manufacturers completely redesigning their optics, but I'm darn sure this is going to happen...



We're already seeing Canon releasing "Mk II" versions of some of their lenses ...

I'm not cheesed off, in fact I'd go further: I'm on record as saying that at some point the manufacturers are going to have to upgrade the existing mount (bigger throat) if they're going to get optimum performance from FF sensors as the pixel count grows. In fact, the cynical part of me says they're only waiting for us to "invest" enough before making our existing kit obsolete.

Iloca
(Unregistered at user's request)
08/07/2008 12:45
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Alan, Nick, fair enough, I hadn't considered 3rd party lenses but to be honest there's no reason why you couldn't have an 8mm non fish eye, after all Olympus have the 7-14mm. Granted thats effectively 14-28 but if you can make a non-fisheye lens with an FL of 7mm for 4/3rds you can make it for APS-C where it would be approx 10mm effective.

The point is that the fact that it isn't available isn't as a result of the actual size of the sensor it's simply that it hasn't been made.

beejaybee
(Marvin)
08/07/2008 13:19
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

if you can make a non-fisheye lens with an FL of 7mm for 4/3rds you can make it for APS-C where it would be approx 10mm effective.

The point is that the fact that it isn't available isn't as a result of the actual size of the sensor it's simply that it hasn't been made.


What about the Sigma 10-20? It's not exactly obscure; there must be thousands of references to it in there forums alone.

Iloca
(Unregistered at user's request)
08/07/2008 13:35
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

It's not a FF lens so using it on an APS-C it's effectively 15mm.

The point I'm getting at is that people claim and have done since the introduction of APS-C DSLR's that you need FF for wide angle capability. Clearly thats nonsense, if manufacturers wanted to produce a lens for APS-C that equalled the widest available for FF then they could do it. If you can make a non-fisheye lens with an actual FL of 7mm for a 4/3rds camera then you can make it for an APS-C one where it will give the same angle of view as a Full Frame camera with a 10mm lens.

Reduced Pixel density and the resulting improvment in high ISO performance is where Full Frame has the advantage as long as you don't use the increased area of the Full Frame sensor to cram in an ever increasing amount of pixels.

beejaybee
(Marvin)
08/07/2008 14:02
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

(Sigma 10-20mm) is not a FF lens so using it on an APS-C it's effectively 15mm.



And the Oly 7-14mm is effectively 14-28mm.

Quote:

The point I'm getting at is that people claim and have done since the introduction of APS-C DSLR's that you need FF for wide angle capability. Clearly thats nonsense,


Indeed it is. But there are far more lenses available which will cover say 20mm (effective) on FF cameras than on APS-C cameras. The range of APS-C/DX only wide angle lenses is increasing but still hasn't caught up.

Fact of the matter is, the mount flange to focal plane distance dictates that a short focus Canon EOS / Nikon AF / whatever fitting lens needs to have a strong retrofocal design. Which means the rear element needs to be exceptionally large in order to illuminate the sensor properly. Which the "traditional" mounts can't do with cropped sensors ... they "get away with it" for FF lenses because the amount of retrofocus reduction required is not as great. OTOH the four thirds mount has a generous sized hole suitable for accommodating large rear elements (and a slightly reduced flange to focal plance distance as well).

Short effective focal lengths favour larger sensors just as long effective focal lengths favour smaller sensors, and for exactly the same reason. Though there's no doubt that the "telephoto effect" is very much more significant.

Iloca
(Unregistered at user's request)
08/07/2008 14:29
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Out of curiosity what is the widest generally available lens that has been produced for 35mm cameras?

I'm sure I've read that it's 12mm.

Benchista
(Wich Tyler)
08/07/2008 14:38
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Not counting fisheyes, 12mm - the Sigma 12-24 and the Voigtlander 12mm.

Oh, and the reason people said you needed full frame for wideangles was no more nor less than availability, not capability - it's really not that long ago that there simply weren't any wideangle lenses for smaller formats.

Iloca
(Unregistered at user's request)
08/07/2008 14:53
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

Quote:

Not counting fisheyes, 12mm - the Sigma 12-24 and the Voigtlander 12mm.

Oh, and the reason people said you needed full frame for wideangles was no more nor less than availability, not capability - it's really not that long ago that there simply weren't any wideangle lenses for smaller formats.



Absolutely, I wouldn't disagree with that at all. However that they weren't available wasn't due to the fact that they couldn't be made for anything other than a 35mm sized sensor. That you can now get 15mm effective for APS-C and 14mm effective for 4/3rds largely negates the argument to the hypothetical, we're talking about the difference in angle of view between 12mm, 14mm and 15mm. I don't know what the difference is in actual degrees though. I think 12mm is about 120deg and 15mm about 110deg.

alanS
(Dr Dust)
08/07/2008 15:14
Re: Poll - full frame still important?

There's a 7-14mm Olympus lens but it's listed as being over £1K. That's a lot more than the Sigma 12-24.