full censor vs a crop sensor is their a $1500.00 difference

[Derrel]

Here's a good example of the kind of gorgeous, shallow depth of field, lovely color images that full-frame Nikon 12 MP cameras and Nikon's 12-24 24-70 and 70-200 zoom lenses create. Perhaps two of the world's best candid, photojournalistic wedding shooters, a man,and his grown daughter, turn out wedding after wedding with full-frame Nikons and three of the absolute best modern zoom lenses, all of which demonstrate the superiority of full-frame d-slr's over crop-body cameras.

Menin

 

[kundalini]

Genius, so let me get this straight....you dump +$2000K into a camera body with high rez and high megapixels and then essentially crop it with a DX lens because the mount fits? Canon didn't bother doing that, because most Canon shooters aren't morons.:lmao:

It's an option we are afforded. Which means you upgrade the glass at a slower pace, allowing you time for researsh for the next correct lens, but still being able shoot with something. No doubt, Canon doesn't like you as much.

 

[Derrel]

Sorry GooniesNeverSayDie, but it is possible to shoot the D3,D3s,or D3x with, say, the DX 35mm f/1.8 AF-S lens using those bodies' built-in 4:5 (you know 4 to 5, or 8x10 inch enlargement...) framing options, and pretty much fill up almost the entire 4 to 5 aspect ratio at almost full megapixel count. AS WELL AS using the camera in DX crop mode with DX lenses,at reduced pixel capture size. With some of the other Nikon's like the D2x, for example, you get a 1.5x APS-C framing at 5 frames per second in normal operation, and then at the press of a programmable function button (one of two, actually, including the dedicated FUNC. button you can press with the camera held up to your eye with your unoccupied middle finger, you press the FUNC. button and if it is programmed to High-Speed Crop mode, the camera instantly shifts to 8.2 frames per second firing rate at 5.8 megapixel capture and 2.0x Field of view crop factor, which means you can use your 200mm f/2 as a 400mm angle of view lens, or use your 300/2.8 as a 600mm f/2.8 lens.

Please, don't even TRY to defend Canon's idiotic EF-S or EF SHORT back-focus engineering....it is a deliberate effort to screw over their customers...Nikon engineered a way around the issue with a bnetter solution, AND more features, like a body that offers users multiple capture aspect ratios using either FX or DX lenses....Sorry goonies, but the morons are Canon engineers...but then again, Canon has never had problems screwing over its existing users by introducing a new lens mount!!!

 

[o hey tyler]

That's funny Derell. For having such a weak AF system, I get a lot of shots in focus. Must be a fluke. Or maybe I just know how to use my camera? Yeah, that's probably it.

 

[jaomul]

I dont care about brand, I shoot with a crop camera (quite a good one I think). To the OP, judging by photographs i have seen printed (not on a screen at 400% crop blah) FF cameras seem to give better quality prints. This is of course subject to the photographers ability. Friends that have both and are pro photograhers will use their FF most opportunities, using the crop cameras as back ups or for leisurly shooting.

The drawback of FF seems to be the cost and size of gear, and also unless you put lots of money in (possibly lots more than 1500),they seem to be slower relative to cropped sensors due to size of files used etc, (not always I know some brands dont really do the mega pixel race as much as others) but if out and out picture quality is what you require, bigger sensor seems better, but crop cameras give a lot for the smaller outlay. I think you have to be a good photographer to get the benefit of a FF camera also. (I personally probably couldnt do any better with one than the camera I have)

 

[usayit]

Derrel, why must every Canon thread degrade into your rants?

Really?

A simple, I don't like Canon will suffice.... Or how about just links to your previous posts (there's enough to search on).

Let the Canon folk enjoy their cameras and equipment without having to endure your rants. Last time I check, this wasn't the TheNikonForum. Any Canon guy should be able to start a thread without your attempts to degrade it to a "Nikon vs Canon" thread... correction a "Canon sucks thread".


Its well past childish... now. Judging from your avatar, you are way too old er.. mature for this.



I feel like I'm stuck watching reruns on a crappy channel.

 

[Overread36]

.Sorry goonies, but the morons are Canon marketing department...but then again, Canon has never had problems screwing over its existing users by introducing a new lens mount!!!

I corrected your mistake
Also don't Nikon mess up their shooters with that whole AF motor thing? I think Big Mike said it - Canon found a way to annoy everyone in 198something when they shifted to the EF mount -and Nikon found a way to annoy everyone till today with the AF motors thingy

 

[manaheim]

So going back to the original question...

Purchases in camera gear are always about capability, diminishing returns and budget. Generally speaking, any device that costs more in the world of cameras, is going to be more capable (and I include quality in capability).

The thing to understand is that to get a relatively small increase in capability over any given level, you are going to get very quickly into exponential cost increases for a relatively small gain. For example... compare an Nikkor 80-200 2.8 to a Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR2. In some respects, essentially the same lens... both excellent quality... nearly identical focusing length... both constant 2.8 aperture. However, the VR2 focuses faster, has the latest VR and has slightly better optical quality (I would say noticably so, but the 80-200 2.8 is still excellent). Difference in price? $1000 vs $2500. 2.5x the cost.

The last, but arguably most important bit is budget... assuming you want to have good gear, you essentially need to spend as much as you are willing to spend to get it. Does this mean you blow your entire wad on one lens or one camera? Not necessarily. In OP's case, sounds like if you went out and spent ALL your money on a FF camera, you'd be hosed because none of your lenses would handle it. You have to decide how much money you have available, both now and in the future, and come up with a budget plan that gets you there.

For example, I shoot Nikon. I have a D300 and at one point I had about $3K available in my photography fund. I had ONE full frame lens... a 24-70 2.8... but really wanted a full frame camera. I figured "Well, If I bought a D700 now, I really would only have ONE lens to use it with, and that lens would effectively become a wide angle one, making it generally a bit less useful than it is to me now... so probably the smart thing for me to do is to purchase the 70-200 2.8 VR2 now, then save up and wait for the D800 to hit... then I will have two VERY good FF lenses and one very nice FF camera to go with it." That was essentially my budget/purchase plan, and I am basically now just waiting for the D800 to hit.

All of these things are very personal decisions that you need to make for yourself, but in the end... again... more money generally means better gear, so in the end if you're serious about this then you're going to want to try to sink some real money into it because it does make a difference.

 

[ausemmao]

FF gets you twice the SNR at a given sensor tech, because of hysics:. Subtracting losses due to sensor area covered by ADCs and readout hardware, you will get a stop or so extra high ISO.

You get a bit less apparent depth of field due to the reduced magnification, and lens performance varies (often more vignetting and worse corner sharpness, but better overall resolution) again hysics:

That's basically it from a sensor perspective. The bodies they're housed in may get you more (though in the case of a D300/probable D400, it isn't much and will likely be even less). How much it's worth depends on how much you have and what you need. For me, it isn't and likely won't be until I'm a fat cat with my own caribbean island (I may be exaggerating slightly). But a 70-200 was. For someone else, a 70-200 means nothing, where the FF stuff is what they want.

Others may justify their purchases with 'FF magic' or some other tripe. Let them, it makes them happy. Doesn't make it true though.

The 5D II has terrible autofocus compared to the D700, fine. But if you don't need the complex autofocus, that's a lot of useless hardware. On the other hand, the 5dII gets you gobs of resolution. If you don't need that, it's a lot of useless hardware.

Some people get themselves emotionally invested in the technology and equipment rather than output, some exclusively in output, some mix both. Understand yourself and where you fall along that line, you will be much happier for it. FWIW, I mix both. I'm an engineering nerd, but I like pretty things :mrgreen:

 

[manaheim]

FF gets you twice the SNR at a given sensor tech, because of hysics:. Subtracting losses due to sensor area covered by ADCs and readout hardware, you will get a stop or so extra high ISO.

You get a bit less apparent depth of field due to the reduced magnification, and lens performance varies (often more vignetting and worse corner sharpness, but better overall resolution) again hysics:

That's basically it from a sensor perspective. The bodies they're housed in may get you more (though in the case of a D300/probable D400, it isn't much and will likely be even less). How much it's worth depends on how much you have and what you need. For me, it isn't and likely won't be until I'm a fat cat with my own caribbean island (I may be exaggerating slightly). But a 70-200 was. For someone else, a 70-200 means nothing, where the FF stuff is what they want.

Others may justify their purchases with 'FF magic' or some other tripe. Let them, it makes them happy. Doesn't make it true though.

The 5D II has terrible autofocus compared to the D700, fine. But if you don't need the complex autofocus, that's a lot of useless hardware. On the other hand, the 5dII gets you gobs of resolution. If you don't need that, it's a lot of useless hardware.

Some people get themselves emotionally invested in the technology and equipment rather than output, some exclusively in output, some mix both. Understand yourself and where you fall along that line, you will be much happier for it. FWIW, I mix both. I'm an engineering nerd, but I like pretty things :mrgreen:

'

You're forgetting better color representation, generally better high ISO performance, etc.

 

[ausemmao]

FF gets you twice the SNR at a given sensor tech, because of hysics:. Subtracting losses due to sensor area covered by ADCs and readout hardware, you will get a stop or so extra high ISO.

You get a bit less apparent depth of field due to the reduced magnification, and lens performance varies (often more vignetting and worse corner sharpness, but better overall resolution) again hysics:

That's basically it from a sensor perspective. The bodies they're housed in may get you more (though in the case of a D300/probable D400, it isn't much and will likely be even less). How much it's worth depends on how much you have and what you need. For me, it isn't and likely won't be until I'm a fat cat with my own caribbean island (I may be exaggerating slightly). But a 70-200 was. For someone else, a 70-200 means nothing, where the FF stuff is what they want.

Others may justify their purchases with 'FF magic' or some other tripe. Let them, it makes them happy. Doesn't make it true though.

The 5D II has terrible autofocus compared to the D700, fine. But if you don't need the complex autofocus, that's a lot of useless hardware. On the other hand, the 5dII gets you gobs of resolution. If you don't need that, it's a lot of useless hardware.

Some people get themselves emotionally invested in the technology and equipment rather than output, some exclusively in output, some mix both. Understand yourself and where you fall along that line, you will be much happier for it. FWIW, I mix both. I'm an engineering nerd, but I like pretty things :mrgreen:

'

You're forgetting better color representation, generally better high ISO performance, etc.

Does nobody read a post around here? :meh:

FF gets you twice the SNR at a given sensor tech, because of hysics:. Subtracting losses due to sensor area covered by ADCs and readout hardware, you will get a stop or so extra high ISO.

Better colour representation isn't a function of the size of the sensor, except inasmuch as SNR is improved. This is one of the wonderful things about signal processing and optics - there are some things that are esoteric and weird, but most things aren't. Sadly most people wouldn't know what impulse responses or deconvolution actually are so misinformation reigns supreme.

You will not be able to tell whether a properly shot and presented image is from a full frame or crop sensor unless it specifically invokes one of the main differences, and even then you often wouldn't be able to tell.

That of course is notwithstanding the minor detail that if your first thought on seeing a given image is "what" rather than "why" or "how", the photographer has failed, in my opinion.

What would be in that 'etc'?

 

[RumDaddy]

WOW DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA. Sorry I have no time for it. Thank you Mr. Canon hater for hijacking my thread. Before someone gets the idea to poke fun at me for my lack of photography know how. Keep in mind this is a beginners photography forum. FYI! The original topic was whats the benefit to a FF camera over a cropped sensor camera? Not Canon vs Nikon.

 

[jritz]

To the OP. Honestly if you have to ask this question, I believe that you have no reason to go full frame. If you knew the pros and cons of each format, knew what you wanted to shoot, and had the money to spend, you would have already gone FF. Just do your research and either save your money for the big boy toys, or just go with the crop which will still suit you fine.

 

[molested_cow]

If you really want to experience full frame and learn the basics, there's no better route than to pick up a 35mm SLR instead.

 

[Derrel]

That's funny Derell. For having such a weak AF system, I get a lot of shots in focus. Must be a fluke. Or maybe I just know how to use my camera? Yeah, that's probably it.

Yeah, it can focus--in the CENTER of the frame....but can you place an AF bracket on the EDGE of the frame, and get a focus lock-on of a motorcycle, or track runner, or bird located 1/3 of the way off to the edge of the frame....uh, sorry, but no, you cannot, because there are no AF brackets at the edges of the frame. The 5D and 5D-II borrowed the AF diamond pattern of the old Canon 20D, a 1.6x body...it's such a cheap body that the AF array is from a crop-frame camera!!! The 5DF series is a FINE sensor, paired with a $389 EOS Elan type body!!! Do you not understand that??? THat is following the "old model" of digital SLR building that FujiFilm used to use, and that Kodak used, and that Nikon used in the early D100 days: take a CHEAP, consumer film camera's parts, and add digital components to it.

Again, you're comparing what you have and know to something you do NOT own, and are not familiar with. Why don't you tell us what it feels like to drive a Formula 1 race car at 190 MPH? Why don't you tell us what it is like to fly an F-15 fighter jet? I am sure you have driven a car. And probably flown in an aircraft. But are you familiar, truly familiar, with what top-level equipment is capable of? Again, no, you are just talking out of your ass. Have another bong hit.