Is it the full frame?

[FrankLamont]

Epp-b: not true.

You're close, though. If the crop factor is 2x, then the DOF would be doubled (ie, f/2.4 would look like f/4). Or halved, looking from crop->full frame.

 

[TiCoyote]

Derrel, thank you for the clarification. I appreciate that words without voice on the web can be misconstrued in terms of tone, and I appreciate your impressive knowledge of photography.

 

[Village Idiot]

If your car had an engine 2.3x larger than it currently has, do you suppose you could spot any performance difference at all? what if your bank balance went up by a factor of 2.3x?

I think this is a false analogy. I agree that a full frame is better. But I really want to know how and why. I think you explained that pretty well earlier. But merely being bigger, doesn't necessarily make it better.

I'm with this guy ^^. Your analogy sucks.

No, it's not a false analogy--

Again, the analogy is to a machine, a car,with an ENGINE, 2.3x larger. Not to a human with feet, but a mechanical device with a central component 2.3 times larger. If you want to know why a full frame is better,and why, then you need to learn a lot more about cameras and lenses,and stop disagreeing with people who already understand the difference between the various capture formats. And, sorry, but newer technology and smaller image sensors will *never* outpace larger sensors using the equivalent technology. Larger is always better in terms of delivering HIGH image quality with even the most basic of lenses. This is why a 4x5 inch film transparency shows much finer details than a 35mm small-format transparency.

Yeah, what if my feet were 2.3x larger? Now *that* is a false analogy. I just gave you an example of how larger equates to better imaging performance.

Nissan made the 240sx. It had something like 160hp and 155ft/lb tq in a 2.4 liter 4cylinder.

VW made a 1.8L that put out 180hp and 180ft/lb tq.

Bigger doesn't always mean better performance.

Take something like a D90 and compare it to a hasselblad. The D90 should outperform the hassy in the ISO category. Then again, you don't buy a Hasselblad for concert photography...at least no normal person would.

Cameras are not cars either. They never make a good comparison.

 

[epp_b]

Nissan made the 240sx. It had something like 160hp and 155ft/lb tq in a 2.4 liter 4cylinder.

VW made a 1.8L that put out 180hp and 180ft/lb tq.

That's not even apples and oranges, that's apples and... table saws.

It's not that Nissan couldn't (quite easily) get more power out of it, they just didn't. It's a low-compression engine, which makes it very reliable and capable of being turbocharged without having to make a lot of modifications to keep it reliable. Most people agree that it's capable of about 300hp, with a turbocharger, without having to make any other modifications to keep it reliable.

What's more, a 240sx gives you power half-way through the rev-range, where a dinky 1.8L in a VW will have a stretch until its last 1,000 RPM until you get any usable power.

Bigger doesn't always mean better performance.

I guess you've never heard, "there is no replacement for displacement"

Sure, you can boost a Supra until it has as much power as a Bugatti Veyron, but the Supra will have its doors handed to it at the end of the race, in no small part because the Veyron's engine is over twice the size.

 

[Village Idiot]

Nissan made the 240sx. It had something like 160hp and 155ft/lb tq in a 2.4 liter 4cylinder.

VW made a 1.8L that put out 180hp and 180ft/lb tq.

That's not even apples and oranges, that's apples and... table saws.

It's not that Nissan couldn't (quite easily) get more power out of it, they just didn't. It's a low-compression engine, which makes it very reliable and capable of being turbocharged without having to make a lot of modifications to keep it reliable. Most people agree that it's capable of about 300hp, with a turbocharger, without having to make any other modifications to keep it reliable.

What's more, a 240sx gives you power half-way through the rev-range, where a dinky 1.8L in a VW will have a stretch until its last 1,000 RPM until you get any usable power.

Bigger doesn't always mean better performance.

I guess you've never heard, "there is no replacement for displacement"

Sure, you can boost a Supra until it has as much power as a Bugatti Veyron, but the Supra will have its doors handed to it at the end of the race, in no small part because the Veyron's engine is over twice the size.

Now this is a decent conversation. The 1.8T actually puts out most of it's torque around 2krpm, iirc. For a $400 CPU flash, you can make about 200-210 wheel hp and 250 ft/lb tq. Even the new 2.0T in the new GTI's can get about 230-240 whp and 270 ft/lb.

If you want to talk about displacement though and not FI, what about the 97 4.6 mustang GTs? 215hp and 285ft/lb tq? That was a pathetic engine. I'm pretty sure I could pick out several cars from the late 90's with 6 cylinders that have less displacement but better specs and performance. Bigger is not always better.

 

[epp_b]

Now this is a decent conversation. The 1.8T actually puts out most of it's torque around 2krpm, iirc. For a $400 CPU flash, you can make about 200-210 wheel hp and 250 ft/lb tq.

Darn, wrong engine for me to argue with.

Still, that oughtta be fun in FWD crashing into trees beside the road all the time

If you want to talk about displacement though and not FI, what about the 97 4.6 mustang GTs? 215hp and 285ft/lb tq?

OK, but as soon as you go to the 5.0L, you have instant torque out of nowhere.

 

[NateS]

My mom got me back into photography when she picked up a D90. I started shooting with a D-Rebel.

Recently she switched over to a D700. I'd call her an "Enthusiast." She shoots amateur stuff every weekend, and just got 2 shots in a local paper.

I'm thinking of picking up a Canon 40D. Here's the thing. Mom claims that she gets MUCH better shots from her D700 than from the D90. I think that, considering her level, the only difference in image quality would come from either a better lens or the full frame sensor.

Will a full frame sensor make an appreciable difference in terms of noise reduction? I know there's a whole deal with cropping and focal length. At what point does the full-frame sensor become financially practical (or necessary, or noticeable)?

Yes, it's noticeable... don't believe clowns like Ken Rockwell. Dynamic range is most definitely better. High ISO performance is MUCH better. Corner vignetting can be an issue, though... especially with fast lenses.

I'm an "enthusiast" as well... and I have both a D90 and a D700. The D90 will have to go. My next camera will be full-frame... no question.

What do you mean by "better" when you say "the D700 has better Dynmaic range than the D90"?? The D90 actually has more dynamic range (12.5) than the D700 (12). Head over to DXOmark.com and take a look. I still think the D700 is the better camera in basically every area, but let's keep the facts straight. If you want max dynamic range the S5pro would be the camera for you.

 

[Village Idiot]

Now this is a decent conversation. The 1.8T actually puts out most of it's torque around 2krpm, iirc. For a $400 CPU flash, you can make about 200-210 wheel hp and 250 ft/lb tq.

Darn, wrong engine for me to argue with.

Still, that oughtta be fun in FWD crashing into trees beside the road all the time

If you want to talk about displacement though and not FI, what about the 97 4.6 mustang GTs? 215hp and 285ft/lb tq?

OK, but as soon as you go to the 5.0L, you have instant torque out of nowhere.

The 5.0 and the new 4.8(iirc) are better engines though. My pathfinder has a 3.5 v6 that's nearly 300 hp & 300 ft/lbs tq. That's equal to most base model ford/chevy SUV v8's.

 

[Antithesis]

Now this is a decent conversation. The 1.8T actually puts out most of it's torque around 2krpm, iirc. For a $400 CPU flash, you can make about 200-210 wheel hp and 250 ft/lb tq.

Darn, wrong engine for me to argue with.

Still, that oughtta be fun in FWD crashing into trees beside the road all the time

If you want to talk about displacement though and not FI, what about the 97 4.6 mustang GTs? 215hp and 285ft/lb tq?

OK, but as soon as you go to the 5.0L, you have instant torque out of nowhere.

The 5.0 and the new 4.8(iirc) are better engines though. My pathfinder has a 3.5 v6 that's nearly 300 hp & 300 ft/lbs tq. That's equal to most base model ford/chevy SUV v8's.

And my old 2.0l boxer engine out of my WRX was producing about 330 crank hp and 300 ft/lbs of torque because of bigger turbo/intercooler/fuel injectors and a good tune. It also delivered the torque at about 3k rpm. Or my cousins STi, with a 2.5l, that delivered 350-75ft/lbs of torque at 2.2k rpm. There is a replacement for displacement, and its called forced induction .

Still, can't really compare cars and cameras. But I would still prefer a D300 over a Kodak SLRn or even a 1Ds mk1. Quality over quantity.