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

[JClishe]

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.

FINALLY. This was the first thing that came to mind after reading the original post. If you're debating a $1500 upgrade and you don't even know what benefits it will bring, than you have no valid reason to upgrade.

 

[Derrel]

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.

And this is where a large,large majority of younger people in their 20's, and many digital newcomers have zero experience; they have never,ever,ever, owned a full-frame camera...they have ZERO experience with anything except what they own now, today, which is typically either a beginner-level, or a consumer-level, crop-body d-slr. People whose tastes and budgets run to Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and Burger King are everywhere, trying to convince others that PBR and BK are just great!! Fine beer, and a great 'restaurant'. Snort.

molested_cow, you are one of very FEW people here who has just recently made the transition from 35mm film slr and DIRECTLY to the Nikon D700 full frame as your first d-slr, so your experiences are vastly different than those who are shooting say, a Rebel XSi or a Nikon D3000. Your experience is very atypical of most serious enthusiasts, many of us whom had to go through multiple generations of APS-C-ONLY cameras before getting a digital full-frame camera. And yet, here we see multitudes of people who have never,ever owned, never even shot a SINGLE picture with a 24x36mm capture area, trying to appear to be authority figures on cameras. Laughable.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I realize that the DX option is just another feature to sell camera but my point still stands. Its an idiotic reason to choose a Nikon over a Canon. Thats like buying a Ferrari with 4 spare "donut" tires on it to save up for pirellis. Everyone with any sense knows that in that case you would upgrade glass first. If you don't know that, then you have no business buying a professional camera anyway. This is idiotic to buy a camera that can out resolve your glass, when buying great glass first can maximize the lower resolution of whatever camera you currently have. Sure there can be some special situations like if your only requirement was to gain better high iso noise handling for low light shooting, but these would not be a majority case to warrant this being treated as such a great and amazing feature to sway the majority of consumers in their purchase.

 

[Village Idiot]

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.

FINALLY. This was the first thing that came to mind after reading the original post. If you're debating a $1500 upgrade and you don't even know what benefits it will bring, than you have no valid reason to upgrade.

It's their money. They should be able to do whatever they want with it. No one needs a 60" Plasma TV, but that's not stopping people from buying them.

 

[JClishe]

IMHO, if you're making money off of your images then it's definitely worth the investment because your reputation will be on the line (at least on the technical part). You want the pictures to have the best quality possible, full frame body and top of the line lenses. So to me, it is not worth it as I don't make money off of my images enough to justify the price difference in lenses and body.

I don't agree with this. Based on your reasoning, a 1Ds Mark III would be worth the $2000 investment over the 1D Mark IV if you plan to make money off the images. There are plenty of sports photographers that make plenty of money off their images that would argue your reasoning.

You're making far too broad of a generalization. Bodies must be chosen based the photographers intended usage Vs technical specifications of the body Vs available budget. A full frame body will not always win, even if budget is unlimited.

 

[JClishe]

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.

FINALLY. This was the first thing that came to mind after reading the original post. If you're debating a $1500 upgrade and you don't even know what benefits it will bring, than you have no valid reason to upgrade.

It's their money. They should be able to do whatever they want with it. No one needs a 60" Plasma TV, but that's not stopping people from buying them.

No one needs a 60" Plasma, but everyone knows why they want one. The OP doesn't even seem to be able to articulate why he wants to spend $1500.

 

[Derrel]

Here is another question that might help frame this current question. "Pocket Wizards? Are they really worth $350 when cheap, Chinese-made triggers are available for $40?" Look at the number of posts from frantic photography enthusiasts, perplexed, disappointed, and worried because their cheap triggers do NOT WORK right, or work only some of the time, or constantly go to sleep and need to be awakened by manually going around to each trigger and pressing a button, etc,etc.

Professional-level, top-grade equipment brings with it attributes that low-end, and even middle of the road gear simply cannot bring with it.

 

[Vtec44]

IMHO, if you're making money off of your images then it's definitely worth the investment because your reputation will be on the line (at least on the technical part). You want the pictures to have the best quality possible, full frame body and top of the line lenses. So to me, it is not worth it as I don't make money off of my images enough to justify the price difference in lenses and body.

I don't agree with this. Based on your reasoning, a 1Ds Mark III would be worth the $2000 investment over the 1D Mark IV if you plan to make money off the images. There are plenty of sports photographers that make plenty of money off their images that would argue your reasoning.

You're making far too broad of a generalization. Bodies must be chosen based the photographers intended usage Vs technical specifications of the body Vs available budget. A full frame body will not always win, even if budget is unlimited.

I think you read my reasoning wrong. lol

 

[ausemmao]

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.

The D3s has an AF module straight out of a crop camera as well, with a different CPU. Does that make it terrible?

The 5D has shortcomings, yes. That doesn't make it not worth its cost. It has a substandard AF system, but what does that matter if all you need is the centre point?

 

[manaheim]

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.

Totally disagree. If he/she has the money, and wants better gear, then they should go for it. You don't have to appreciate the power of what you have to justify purchasing it.

 

[manaheim]

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.

FINALLY. This was the first thing that came to mind after reading the original post. If you're debating a $1500 upgrade and you don't even know what benefits it will bring, than you have no valid reason to upgrade.

It's their money. They should be able to do whatever they want with it. No one needs a 60" Plasma TV, but that's not stopping people from buying them.

oops, should have read the next page. A couple of folks said this and I coulda just "liked" it. Ah well.

 

[JClishe]

IMHO, if you're making money off of your images then it's definitely worth the investment because your reputation will be on the line (at least on the technical part). You want the pictures to have the best quality possible, full frame body and top of the line lenses. So to me, it is not worth it as I don't make money off of my images enough to justify the price difference in lenses and body.

I don't agree with this. Based on your reasoning, a 1Ds Mark III would be worth the $2000 investment over the 1D Mark IV if you plan to make money off the images. There are plenty of sports photographers that make plenty of money off their images that would argue your reasoning.

You're making far too broad of a generalization. Bodies must be chosen based the photographers intended usage Vs technical specifications of the body Vs available budget. A full frame body will not always win, even if budget is unlimited.

I think you read my reasoning wrong. lol

I read what you wrote.

 

[KmH]

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

Not at all.

In 1987 Canon, in one fell swoop, obsoleted everything they had made before they launched their EOS (Electro-Optical System). EOS eliminated not only a focus motor in the camera body, but also the motor that actuated the lens aperture. EOS eliminated all mechanical links between the camera and the lens.

Nikon eliminated the focus motor in entry-level bodies to make them more compact and appealling to women. The D40 was the first Nikon without a in-the-body focus motor. Nikon had been producing lenses with focus motors in them for some time before the D40 was introduced, so Nikon had a decent selection of AF-S and AF-I lenses for D40 buyers. In other words, Nikon didn't **** on their current, already established customer base, like Canon has done repeatedly over a 40 year period.

Remarkably, Canon introduced another new lens mount in 2003, the EF-S, that is not compatible with all their DSLR camera bodies. Nikon introduced the F-mount it still uses today, in 1959. Since then Canon has had - the R-mount, the FL mount (4/64), the FD-mount (3/71), the EF-mount in 1987, and the EF-S mount in 2003.

Canon design is driven by what works for their marketing department. Nikon design is driven by what works for photographers.

 

[Vtec44]

I don't agree with this. Based on your reasoning, a 1Ds Mark III would be worth the $2000 investment over the 1D Mark IV if you plan to make money off the images. There are plenty of sports photographers that make plenty of money off their images that would argue your reasoning.

You're making far too broad of a generalization. Bodies must be chosen based the photographers intended usage Vs technical specifications of the body Vs available budget. A full frame body will not always win, even if budget is unlimited.

I think you read my reasoning wrong. lol

I read what you wrote.

That's why I said you read it wrong, not that you didn't read it. lol

 

[Overread36]

And this is where a large,large majority of younger people in their 20's, and many digital newcomers have zero experience; they have never,ever,ever, owned a full-frame camera...they have ZERO experience with anything except what they own now, today, which is typically either a beginner-level, or a consumer-level, crop-body d-slr. People whose tastes and budgets run to Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and Burger King are everywhere, trying to convince others that PBR and BK are just great!! Fine beer, and a great 'restaurant'. Snort.

*wonders if this self same argument works if one swaps cropsensor for fullframe and medium format for fullframe in the wordings. Esp considering that many older weddings were done with medium format gear as well as many other venues*

Canon design is driven by what works for their marketing department. Nikon design is driven by what works for photographers.

Can't argue against that - Canon does seem to pay too much mind to their marketing and not as much to their market when it comes to development - esp with their technology segmentation (ie why does the 7D not have any manual audio recording control and why does the 5DM2 not have better AF ).
Oh and they, technically, have one more mount release between the EF and EFS - 1999 the MPE mount (basically the EF mount but with no AF motors)