Full frame cameras - what are positives

[gendarmee]

Nikon D3.
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25434/D3.html

There ARE no others,
unless you have the cash for:
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/

Kodak used to make full frame (35mm format) DSLR cameras. You could get it with either a Nikon or Canon lens mount. They were well before Canon did it...but it just didn't fly.

Besides the 5D...Canon has the 1Ds, 1Ds mk II & the 1Ds mk III...all full frame.
The 1D mk II, 1D mk II N and 1D mk III have a crop factor of 1.3...so they are bigger than the 40D & Rebels but not quite full frame.

Side by Side

Wow. I think i was getting overly optimistic.
I'd stick to a D300 or a 40D then!
I stretched my budget to twice the limit already, don't think I can stretch it any more, even too buy myself a used D2H/1d, I can forget the D3 and forget about the medium format cams

I have a 60's film 'blad though, can look at it and feast my eyes & be happy.

 

[Socrates]

Wow. I think i was getting overly optimistic.
I'd stick to a D300 or a 40D then!
I stretched my budget to twice the limit already, don't think I can stretch it any more, even too buy myself a used D2H/1d, I can forget the D3 and forget about the medium format cams

I have a 60's film 'blad though, can look at it and feast my eyes & be happy.

I made that point in post #2 of this thread.

 

[Warhawk]

I have the Canon 40D, my dad has the EOS 5D.

We both use the same lens (24-70mm) and one of the differences is that the 5D has a wider angle than the 40D, because of the full frame sensor.

Each lens that you use on the 40D has to be multiplied by 1.6 to have its actual zoom, so on my dads 5D, the lens is a 24-70mm, but on my 40D, its actually a 38.4-112mm lens.

If i were you, i would wait for the improvement on the 5D to come out, because in my opinion, the 5D takes better photos than the 40D.

 

[gendarmee]

I made that point in post #2 of this thread.

And it just hit me, and hit me hard.

 

[Socrates]

I have the Canon 40D, my dad has the EOS 5D.

We both use the same lens (24-70mm) and one of the differences is that the 5D has a wider angle than the 40D, because of the full frame sensor.

Each lens that you use on the 40D has to be multiplied by 1.6 to have its actual zoom, so on my dads 5D, the lens is a 24-70mm, but on my 40D, its actually a 38.4-112mm lens.

If i were you, i would wait for the improvement on the 5D to come out, because in my opinion, the 5D takes better photos than the 40D.

No, it's "actually" a 24-70 but it has the same FoV as a 38-112 on an FX camera. Focal length is focal length is focal length. Field of View is related to a combination of focal length and film/sensor physical size.

 

[Socrates]

And it just hit me, and hit me hard.

Actually, when you consider inflation, it's not all that bad. I bought the first Pentax Spotmatic with 50mm f/1.4 lens (I think it was the first in the industry with multicoating). The Spotmatic was advertised as the "world's first automatic SLR" because there was no need to manually stop down the lens when taking a picture. I paid US$300 in 1964 dollars. In the same year, I bought a brand new 1964 Chevy Chevelle convertible for $2450. It was loaded (it had a radio).

 

[Warhawk]

No, it's "actually" a 24-70 but it has the same FoV as a 38-112 on an FX camera. Focal length is focal length is focal length. Field of View is related to a combination of focal length and film/sensor physical size.

you know what I ment :greenpbl:

 

[gendarmee]

Actually, when you consider inflation, it's not all that bad. I bought the first Pentax Spotmatic with 50mm f/1.4 lens (I think it was the first in the industry with multicoating). The Spotmatic was advertised as the "world's first automatic SLR" because there was no need to manually stop down the lens when taking a picture. I paid US$300 in 1964 dollars. In the same year, I bought a brand new 1964 Chevy Chevelle convertible for $2450. It was loaded (it had a radio).

Dad some thing similar about the film hassel'blad, says that it cost a small fortune back in the days, when he was doing a photography course, but some thing newer, technically better came about on regular basis.

Sigma launched a P&S with a 20.7 x 13.8 mm sensor, wonder how quickly that would become a standard.

 

[Big Mike]

Sigma launched a P&S with a 20.7 x 13.8 mm sensor, wonder how quickly that would become a standard.

That's sort of a tough market. It almost seems like a waste to buy a camera with a decent sensor...but a built-in lens. I believe Sony was the first to do this, with their R1. Leica also has the M8, a digital rangefinder with a good sized sensor...but it's more expensive than most DSLR cameras.

More important than the size of Sigma's sensor...is the type. It's a FOVEON sensor, which is completely different technology than CCD or CMOS. Others have dabbled with them...but I'm not sure they compare well with what Canon & Nikon are using.

 

[Mystwalker]

Awesome!! Thanks for explaining how full frames work :thumbup:

Now I just need Canon to stick a bigger sensor on one of their xxD models. Can only hope recent advancements by Nikon and Sony will light a fire under the powers that be at Canon.

Wouldn't mass producing one super size sensor make more sense then making 3 different ones like Canon doing today? They probably can't justify charging someone $5K for a camera, but what they lose in pro camera sales, they will make up in qty PLUS lens.

1Ds models are :hail: ... but need to win lottery to justify the cost on those guys - OUCH!

 

[Big Mike]

Many people have thought that Canon would eventually abandon the APS-C sized sensor (XXD & Rebels) and go to cheaper full frame cameras. However, that would make all of their EF-S lenses obsolete. That might be good for them, because many people would have to buy new lenses...but it would really piss people off as well.
Canon probably lost quite a few customers in 1988 when they switched to AF SLR cameras and EF lenses...making their old manual focus FD lenses obsolete.

Also, APS-C sensors are now good enough for 95% of photographers...so they don't need to switch their lower level cameras. And even as it gets cheaper to make larger sensors...it gets even cheap to make the mid sized ones.

Plus, having different sensor sizes helps to define the market segments. As it is now, Canon has maybe 5 different levels of DSLR cameras...that's probably better for them than consolidating then into one or two levels.

 

[gendarmee]

That's sort of a tough market. It almost seems like a waste to buy a camera with a decent sensor...but a built-in lens. I believe Sony was the first to do this, with their R1. Leica also has the M8, a digital rangefinder with a good sized sensor...but it's more expensive than most DSLR cameras.

More important than the size of Sigma's sensor...is the type. It's a FOVEON sensor, which is completely different technology than CCD or CMOS. Others have dabbled with them...but I'm not sure they compare well with what Canon & Nikon are using.

Yea, true.
I though, if it could be incorporated into one cam , the prosumer P&S's would eventually have that kind of sensor and also get the price of that technology down..
One draw back of the Sigma is that it doesnt have the portrait, land scape, ect modes thats any p&s cam has and costs 579$
here are some pics-http://www.dpreview.com/news/0802/08020301sigmadp1gallery.asp

 

[Big Mike]

One draw back of the Sigma is that it doesnt have the portrait, land scape, ect modes thats any p&s cam has

Are you kidding? Those modes just make people stupider by taking away the need to think. I wish more cameras would get rid of them. Especially DSLR cameras.

 

[Socrates]

Many people have thought that Canon would eventually abandon the APS-CCanon probably lost quite a few customers in 1988 when they switched to AF SLR cameras and EF lenses...making their old manual focus FD lenses obsolete.

That was when I switched from Canon to Nikon. Previously, I switched from Pentax to Canon when Pentax dropped their screw-mount. In both cases, I needed a full complement of new lenses so it was easy (expensive but easy) to compare benefits of the entire camera system without being financially locked into one brand.

Also, APS-C sensors are now good enough for 95% of photographers...so they don't need to switch their lower level cameras. And even as it gets cheaper to make larger sensors...it gets even cheap to make the mid sized ones.

Yes, although I still miss the 24X36 frame.

 

[Socrates]

Are you kidding? Those modes just make people stupider by taking away the need to think. I wish more cameras would get rid of them. Especially DSLR cameras.

Usually I would agree but I was unpacking my D80 last fall while on my way to watch my son run in the Philadelphia marathon. I didn't have time to learn the nuances of the camera so I put it the Sports PhD mode. Shots came out pretty good. Of course, I haven't used any of those modes since then.

Also, the low-end DSLRs are frequently used as high quality P&S cameras, with only one lens, possibly 18-55.