Full Frame SLRs...why or why not?

[Big]

What is it about full frame DSLR cameras that make them "professional" over crop sensor cameras?:scratch: I mean, it may be dumb to say but couldn't you just stand a couple feet further back to get more in the shot (in some cases)? I have been using a crop sensor P&S for a few years now and never really considered it to be a problem. I have been looking at the Canon 50D and comparing it to the 5D Mark II. For one, I don't want to wait to save up all that extra money when I can hardly wait to get one as it is. I would be doing mostly landscape (sunrise/sets), wildlife, macro and indoor shooting with low light on occasions. I know a full frame will handle low light better than a crop sensor due to less pixel density per sq. cm (I do my fair share of research!) but what makes it that much better than the 50D especially when the 50D seems to be a better choice for sports or action photography since it shoots 6.3 vs 3.9fps?
Thanks -BIG

 

[NateS]

It's not so much the crop factor as the size of the sensor itself. What makes a DSLR better than a point and shoot? The main thing (image quality wise) is the much larger sensor. The same principle applies.....a much bigger sensor is going to capture much more data. It will have better dynamic range, much better noise at all iso levels (especially high ISO)...a crop sensor will never capture the same high iso performance as full frame. People are shooting stuff on full frame in the neighborhood of 24,000 iso compared to crop sensors that usually max out at 3200-6400. Plus a D700 at iso 3200-6400 looks about as clean as a D90 (which itself is good for higher iso) at around 800.

Edit: I don't know much about Canon's. All of what I said above was basically comparing a D3/D700 to a D90/D300....as Nikon full frame vs. crop is where my knowledge lies (and ends...lol).

 

[musicaleCA]

Nothing makes a camera "professional", other than being in the hands of a pro. There are pros out there who will use a crop sensor just to finagle more out of their lenses. I know that when I get a full-frame and start running around with two cameras around my neck when covering events, my 450D (crop) will be my telephoto (the equivalent of 400mm in a package that's lighter than my camera and 17-85? that just rocks), the full frame my wide.

The right camera for the job is, dun dun dun, the right camera for the job. If that is your 50D because it shoots faster than an equivalently priced full-frame, then the 50D is better. Plain and simple.

 

[epp_b]

A couple of points off the top of my head:

• Insane ISO performance (the D700 is said to be completely noiseless at ISO 200 and still usable at ISO 25600).
• You can still go rectilinearly wider than on crop frame. Sigma makes a 12mm lens that works on full frame.
• More depth of field control
• Less limited by diffraction at smaller apertures
• Focal lengths work how God intended them to (same as 35mm film)
• Being naturally more expensive, they incorporate every advanced feature available.

That being said, a full-frame DSLR is probably overkill for a first DSLR. I doubt you'll be sorry if you buy a crop-frame DSLR. Look at the 40D instead of the 50D. The 50D has sacrificed high-ISO performance for pointless resolution.

 

[kundalini]

Full Frame advantage: Build quality / material, weathersealing, additional features, ISO capabilities, the additional bloodflow to your testicles............

Get what you can afford and start shooting sooner rather than later.

I have two crop sensors and one full frame. If I want to go light, I take the baby. If I am shooting wildlife, I prefer the better crop sensor. For most everything else, I prefer the full frame..... cause I can.

 

[camz]

Good point..

well full frame SLR bodies are just more expensive because of the mechanics of it's assembly. But I don't believe that the word "PRO" automatically correlates full frame. I know some Pro Sport photographers who use the XXD series bodies because they have the 1.6x zoom factor for better close ups(taking advantage of more zoom)

I think full frame correlates to "PRO" when it comes to shooting people such as events portraits and such(in my opinion atleast). This is to take advantage of the wide angle zoom/prime lenses that are maximized on full frame bodies.

I personally love the full frame because it gives me an option to pan out when shooting group shots or panoramics. A friend who shoots sports prefers the 50D over the 1Ds because of the zoom factor(offcourse the IDs shoots 11fps).

I think it depends on your application

camz
http://simplydashy.blogspot.com

 

[musicaleCA]

Okay, now that everyone's pointed out the pluses of full-frames, here are some downsides. You get more vignetting. And the corners of an image are a bit softer too. (All things being equal, the only difference being the sensor size.)

And the "more DoF" thing is more of a myth. The tiny, tiny, itsy-bitsy, minuscule difference in DoF is nothing to be concerned with unless you're an engineer writing some sort of technical manual or thesis on camera sensors.

 

[Big]

That being said, a full-frame DSLR is probably overkill for a first DSLR. I doubt you'll be sorry if you buy a crop-frame DSLR. Look at the 40D instead of the 50D. The 50D has sacrificed high-ISO performance for pointless resolution.

I originally looked at the 40D but I loved the fact that the screen on the 50D had much more clarity (920,000dots vs 230,000). Also loved how the 50D had live view. I know the 40D has it too but I am a fan of not buying something with brand new technology...they usually need kinks worked out. I know you all will laugh at live view but If I am going to get a camera with it, I want it to work well. Either way, I am glad I didn't rush into buying the XSI I originally fell in love with. I held it once for the first time and it got lost in my hands.
I would also love to buy something and learn how to use it versus, getting a simpler consumer slr and then need to upgrade soon because I am getting more advanced. Just my opinion. Nothing against you XSI users.

 

[kundalini]

Okay, now that everyone's pointed out the pluses of full-frames, here are some downsides. You get more vignetting. And the corners of an image are a bit softer too. (All things being equal, the only difference being the sensor size.)

And the "more DoF" thing is more of a myth. The tiny, tiny, itsy-bitsy, minuscule difference in DoF is nothing to be concerned with unless you're an engineer writing some sort of technical manual or thesis on camera sensors.

Your response pertains to lenses, not sensors.

 

[HeY iTs ScOTtY]

with all that being said i just want to put it out there that i am willing to trade my d90 with anyone unhappy with their d3. flat out no strings. lol

 

[tsaraleksi]

And the "more DoF" thing is more of a myth. The tiny, tiny, itsy-bitsy, minuscule difference in DoF is nothing to be concerned with unless you're an engineer writing some sort of technical manual or thesis on camera sensors.

Shooting crop and full frame sensors side by side, I will tell you that you are absolutely wrong on this point. There is a noticeable difference even between a 1.3x and 1.0x camera. I can shoot side by side comparisons if you really don't believe me.

 

[Samanax]

I originally looked at the 40D but I loved the fact that the screen on the 50D had much more clarity (920,000dots vs 230,000). Also loved how the 50D had live view. I know the 40D has it too but I am a fan of not buying something with brand new technology...they usually need kinks worked out. I know you all will laugh at live view but If I am going to get a camera with it, I want it to work well.

Three of my shooting buddies bought the 50D as an upgrade to their previous bodies (one 20D shooter and two 30D shooters) and used it for a short while and all three of them sold their 50D and bought either a 40D, a 5D or a 5D Mk II. I asked them what about the 50D they didn't care for and they all said theu were disappointed with the image quality (noisy at moderate ISO and the dynamic range wasn't what they expected) and they all had dust under the LCD cover (enough to really bug them). Based on what they told me I recently bought a 40D instead of the 50D.

Either way, I am glad I didn't rush into buying the XSI I originally fell in love with. I held it once for the first time and it got lost in my hands.

I know what you mean. I shot with a XTi for a year and a half. When I put the XTi side-by-side with my 40D and my 5D it really looks like a toy. I kept it so I have something small and light to shoot with when I don't want to carry around the bigger bodies. I don't regret shooting with the XTi though, I learned a lot with it.

I would also love to buy something and learn how to use it versus, getting a simpler consumer slr and then need to upgrade soon because I am getting more advanced. Just my opinion. Nothing against you XSI users.

You would still have to learn how to use and shoot with a consumer grade DSLR the same you would with a prosumer DSLR. There are the basics to learn (exposure, understanding light, composition, learning to "see", etc...), learning how to shoot and then developing your own shooting style...this takes years. I heard it takes at least 7 years before you can consider yourself a "good" photographer. A common saying is "Your first 10,000 pictures will be your worst."

 

[dakkon76]

Aside from what's been said, I thought I'd chime in with my $0.02... I'm the kind of guy that has to research the hell out of everything I buy, as most of us on here probably are too, and I like to start with the very best. When deciding on my first DSLR, I knew I wasn't going to drop $4k for a full frame, but I wasn't sure if I wanted to go for a 50D, or the $600 XSi for 1/3 the price.

I finally submitted to the fact that an entry level with a crop (XSi/Digital Rebel in my case) would leave me more money to use toward other gear such as a macro lens and a tripod.

Looking back, I'm happy with my decision... otherwise right now I'd have a camera that cost 2x as much, with a kit lens and nothing else. I still have plenty to learn, and lots more lenses I want to buy... I don't see myself outgrowing the XSi body anytime soon, but if I actually do then I'll know what the hell I'm doing, and I'll be more than happy to shell out the cash for an upgrade

 

[musicaleCA]

Okay, now that everyone's pointed out the pluses of full-frames, here are some downsides. You get more vignetting. And the corners of an image are a bit softer too. (All things being equal, the only difference being the sensor size.)

And the "more DoF" thing is more of a myth. The tiny, tiny, itsy-bitsy, minuscule difference in DoF is nothing to be concerned with unless you're an engineer writing some sort of technical manual or thesis on camera sensors.

Your response pertains to lenses, not sensors.

No, it pertains to sensors. I said all things being equal. Take an EF 50mm and slap it on a full-frame as opposed to a crop, and you're going to get more vignetting and softness on the corners than the crop, because the crop is only taking the image from the centre sweet spot of the lens.

And the "more DoF" thing is more of a myth. The tiny, tiny, itsy-bitsy, minuscule difference in DoF is nothing to be concerned with unless you're an engineer writing some sort of technical manual or thesis on camera sensors.

Shooting crop and full frame sensors side by side, I will tell you that you are absolutely wrong on this point. There is a noticeable difference even between a 1.3x and 1.0x camera. I can shoot side by side comparisons if you really don't believe me.

Then please, prove me wrong. I've seen side-by-side comparisons of the same lens at same aperture and focus distance but on full-frame and crop bodies and the difference was indeed minuscule. Noticeable, but only because a metre stick was used.

 

[tsaraleksi]

The same lens at the same aperture and same distance will of course give you the same depth of field on any camera, no matter the sensor size. But that is entirely missing the point, because those this will not give you the same framing.

The depth of field difference lies in shooting the same subject, with the same lens and the same framing. Because you have to get closer with the same lens to maintain the framing, you're going change the depth of field significantly. (and this is not only true of 1.6x crop to full frame, but point and shoot crop to 1.6x crop, and from 35mm to medium format and so on).

It's night time here so I'll leave you with this until I can shoot something as a test DoF test

One and a third stops being the difference between f/2.8 and f/4.5, or f/1.2 and f/2. Of course this goes both ways because if you want to get more stuff in focus, it's a disadvantage.