Full Frame SLRs...why or why not?

[musicaleCA]

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.

The sensor only records the light that is passing THROUGH THE LENS.

I don't know Canon nomenclature for their lenses. Is an EF lens designed for a cropped sensor, much like Nikkor's DX lens? If so, then all things aren't equal. Mounting a lens designed for a cropped sensor on a full frame may likely cause issues as you described because that is not how the lens was engineered to be used. But vignetting, softness at borders and DoF is a product of the lens, not the sensor.

EF lenses are designed for full-frames. EF-S lenses are designed for Canon's crop frames. I know that vignetting and softness at the corners are products of the lens, but my point is that if you use a lens for a full-frame body on a crop body, you're only getting the sweet spot and thus won't get as much of those abberations as the same lens on a full-frame. If it's and EF-S lens, designed for a crop body on a crop body, then the abberations are still there.

Boy, am I ever having trouble communicating effectively in this thread.

There are a few practical benefits of to consider when looking at lenses designed for crop bodies. They're almost always smaller and lighter than their full-frame equivalent; they simply need less glass to get the same FoV. As an example, my EF-S 55-250mm is effectively the equivalent of an 88-400(!)mm on a full-frame body. And it is very, very light compared to its EF, full-frame equivalents. For some, this can be an important consideration. (If you're running around covering an event and have two cameras around your neck, one telephoto, one wide, do you really want the telephoto to be the size and weight of a baby? )

 

[manaheim]

I guess we just use the right tool for the job. I have heard that crop sensors are better for telephoto lenses and wildlife photography which is mainly what I will be doing. I figured since a crop sensor is what I have been using and also introduced to, it wouldn't be a big deal getting another crop sensor camera. While I remember, I wanted to ask if you yourself have done any photo stitching with a DSLR. My p&s has the mode built in and I have used it quite a bit but I didn't know how it works with a camera that doesn't specifically have a designated mode for it. Can you do it in Photoshop with regular JPEG images?


Edit: BTW I looked at your site Chris, and you do do some really nice work with real estate. I see what you mean with seeing more in the photo when I looked at the bathroom shots.

Thanks! Yeah, bathrooms are the worst, but really any space smaller than 14x14 starts to kind of suck with a crop-sensor cam and the widest lenses available for them today.

On stitching-- I do it in photoshop.

On "crop being better for wildlife" and such... it just boils down to the reverse of what I'm graussing about. A crop sensor effectively gives you "more zoom", so while it sucks for wide angles, it cranks for a zoomed in shot.

 

[Big]

Thanks! Yeah, bathrooms are the worst, but really any space smaller than 14x14 starts to kind of suck with a crop-sensor cam and the widest lenses available for them today.

On stitching-- I do it in photoshop.

On "crop being better for wildlife" and such... it just boils down to the reverse of what I'm graussing about. A crop sensor effectively gives you "more zoom", so while it sucks for wide angles, it cranks for a zoomed in shot.

I have had one instance where I wish I had a full frame. I was in my dining room on Thanksgiving and tried to get a shot of the table all set up and couldn't quite get it all in...take a look lol

Sometimes I can get the extra view out of it since I have a vari-angle flip screen on my camera but in this case I was back against a wall with no more room.

 

[Dwig]

....I have had one instance where I wish I had a full frame. I was in my dining room on Thanksgiving...

Not true. The camera used for this shot, a Canon PowerShot A650 IS, simply has no wide angle to speak of.

At its widest, this camera has the rough equivalent of a 35mm lens on "full frame" or a 23mm on a 1.5x crop sensor (e.g. Nikon DX format). When you consider that your issue is horizontal angle of view and not the diagonal (the dimension used for standard equivalent focal lenght calculations) the equivalences are even less wide at something like 40mm and 27mm, respectively.

There is no advantage to a "full frame" DSLR over a "crop sensor" DSLR in this respect. Lenses are easily available for either that would provide the substantially wider FOV that you are looking for in this shot. Even the ubiquous "kit" lenses would provide substatially wider FOV than an A650.

 

[manaheim]

:banghead:

Larger sensor = wider capabilities on same full-frame lense.

Period.

 

[Soocom1]

The point once again is (I respectfully disagree) that the question isn’t the compatibility issue of one manufacturer over another, or how much Field of View you get with various lenses. Such an argument can be used to say you can get pro end results from 110 film in an old Kodak Ektra 200. Such an argument is silly. The question is what is the real advantage of Pro end cameras over pro-sumer, and full frame vs. cropped. Pro end cameras are specifically engineered and built for pro end results. Having owned both ends of the spectrum, I can whole heartily attest to the fact a Pro End Camera is better built in fit and finish over any pro-sumer or consumer end camera along with far better results. The reality is that the area of image capture will always trump one over the in overall image quality based on size and obviously the quality of camera and the skill of the photographer.

 

[Soocom1]

BTW.. not a good idea to mount an EF-S lens to a full frame. The mirror on the Full frame is longer than an APS mirror, and it can hit the EF-S lens because it sits deeper inside the camera.
Please read this if you want to try:
Canon EF-S lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Big]

:banghead:

Larger sensor = wider capabilities on same full-frame lense.

Period.

Poor Chris...

 

[Big]

BTW.. not a good idea to mount an EF-S lens to a full frame. The mirror on the Full frame is longer than an APS mirror, and it can hit the EF-S lens because it sits deeper inside the camera.
Please read this if you want to try:
Canon EF-S lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I knew the full frames didn't accept EF-S lenses, that's why I said earlier that it would make more sense to buy EF lenses because the "prosumer" cameras also use EF or EF-S lenses. That way, if you upgrade from a prosumer to a pro camera, you don't have wasted lenses...they will still work for a 5D Mark II for example.

 

[manaheim]

The point once again is (I respectfully disagree) that the question isn’t the compatibility issue of one manufacturer over another, or how much Field of View you get with various lenses. Such an argument can be used to say you can get pro end results from 110 film in an old Kodak Ektra 200. Such an argument is silly.

Did I miss an announcement somewhere? Is this National TPF Crazy Day?

Did I eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever say that the field of view was "the" issue? No. I said it was something often overlooked... which was followed by a fleet of people saying it was literally not an issue, which IT IS.

See, lots of people had already MENTIONED the stuff about build quality and such, and I felt no need to re-hash it. I was merely adding an additional FACT which some people felt the need to argue with, which I was simply reinforcing.

AND... (I can't believe I'm actually making this argument) but LOTS of people on here have proven time and again that you CAN get "pro results" from everything up to and including a pin hole camera made from a JCPenney shoe box. The operative word here being CAN... not SHOULD.

And you're stepping into everyone's favorite landmine of "just what is professional"? (and no, please GOD do not even attempt to answer that)


I HATE THE INTERNET!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

 

[Soocom1]

ROFLMOL!!!!! =))

Ok.. Actually I was speaking of Dwig:
There is no advantage to a "full frame" DSLR over a "crop sensor" DSLR in this respect. Lenses are easily available for either that would provide the substantially wider FOV that you are looking for in this shot. Even the ubiquous "kit" lenses would provide substatially wider FOV than an A650.


Plus I am not saying you’re not going to get pro end results if you put your heart into it...
(Sorry I had to say this...) but the original question.... was, and let me repeat verbatim...

What is it about full frame DSLR cameras that make them "professional" over crop sensor cameras?
Not a %@$$^ thing.
So to be very specific…. The concept of “Pro end” is only in the mind of the beholder. How many times have we seen (as you mention) from J.C. Penny shoebox pin holes to 24x36 ULF w/ lenses costing $750,000 to take a pro end photo? The question alluded to the concept of Full Frame vs. cropped and why the Full frame comes across as Pro?
It’s a marketing ploy plain and simple.
But the reality is that the QUALITY of the image will be much higher if the exact same convention is used in whatever size format that is used. Thus, 35mm trumps APS, 6x7 trumps 35mm, and the Gigapixle project makes us all look low end...
So (and may God forgive me)… “Mine is bigger than yours” argument is the best way to describe this.
It boils down to the quality of the items used, and the skill of the photographer.
But the Internet is our friend!!!!

 

[Big]

Oh my god I'm going insane, I never thought it would turn into a battle between people. Sorry guys... I only asked why some people consider full frame to be professional cameras over crop sensor. I personally don't think there is enough of a difference to spend the extra grand or so. If you are truly good, you are able to work with what you got and still turn out some decent pics. I have gotten some amazing shots (in my opinion and also others) from my non-professional point and shoot camera. If you understand the abilities of your camera and you know how to manipulate it in a way to get some good stuff out of it, that in my opinion is a true photographer. That's what it's all about isn't it? Learning how to use our cameras to the best of our abilities and be able to work with what we have whether it be a Nikon, Canon, point and shoot, or even a cheapo from the nearest Walmart. It just confused me that someone considers a Canon 50D to be non professional because of the build quality. To tell you the truth, the 50D has the same build quality as the 5D Mark II as well as the weather sealing (just what I hear anyway).

 

[manaheim]

I'm having a bad day at work. Ignore me.

 

[Dwig]

... I only asked why some people consider full frame to be professional cameras over crop sensor. ...

Most make that claim purely to justify their purchase of a full frame body. The sensor size, in and of itself, does nothing to make a camera more or less of a "professional" camera. The primary attributes that justify the somewhat inaccurate "pro" label are reliability (#1 priority for a true pro that really earns their livelyhood from the images it produces) and adequate quality for the intended job (not all jobs need the highest resolution or the least high ISO noise). For almost all professional purposes, the better crop sensor cameras deliver the needed image quality and some have the build strength to be reliable and ruged enough for the real work environment.

I personally don't think there is enough of a difference to spend the extra grand or so...

That's the big choice everyone has to make for themselves. Only they know what the actual use for the camera will be. Only they know whether high ISO performance is an issue in their work (portrait and landscape photographers have little or no need for higher ISOs). Few wedding photographer every print their wedding work large enough to challenge a crop sensor camera.

Large sensors are more expensive, substantially so, than smaller ones. That makes cameras with larger sensors more expensive and thus totally impossible to make competitive in the lower priced end of the market. As a result, the only options for the larger "full frame" sensors today are in the upper portion of the various manufacturer's product lines. Its only this indirect association brought on by cost that causes the current "full frame" sensor offerings to be of better build quality than the popular crop sensor models. Their build quality is, though, no better than that of the crop sensor models in the upper end of the same product lines, either current models or previous generation models replace by larger sensor versions. Buying a "full frame" sensor DSLR currently insures that you get the better build quality, in general, but doesn't mean that no crop sensor model is built equally well.

 

[dxqcanada]

... who actually labelled these camera's as "Professional" anyway ?

I took a look at Canon and Nikon's website ... they do not use the word "Pro" or "Professional" in any camera model name.