is there really any reason to go full frame?

dustinpedley · Aug 29, 2009

If I dont need craze high ISO or crazy high MP rates?

I was looking at a 50D vs a 5D MK II

jdevarie · Aug 29, 2009

I have had both and prefer the full frame. Granted my last FF was a 5D and the 1DMK3 beats it down on both speed and features, there is something about he FF that stands out. It all depends on what you do. Moving subjects? lean towards the crop sensor. Portraits, still subjects, you can go either way but will be more delighted with FF.
No correct answer, just my experience.

regards,

jim

Plato · Aug 29, 2009

dustinpedley said:
If I dont need craze high ISO or crazy high MP rates?

I was looking at a 50D vs a 5D MK II

Not unless you're a fashion photographer at the top of your field. The DX format has come a long way. As for me, I'm an experienced amateur and I expect to remain so. I do have a lot of film experience so I'm still learning how to convert my thinking from FX to DX.

Big · Aug 29, 2009

This thread (by me) may be handy for your question...
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...llery/170403-full-frame-slrs-why-why-not.html

Garbz · Aug 31, 2009

dustinpedley said:
If I dont need craze high ISO or crazy high MP rates?

No you don't. And there's even benefit of going DX in your case then. Lenses are smaller, equipment is lighter, and an 18mm lens is the same price as a 24mm lens, but a 200mm lens is far cheaper than a 300mm lens, giving you a cost advantage if you're into long range telephotography.

Go full frame only if you need to. High ISO / ludicrous sizes aside, you can not tell a print from a 50D apart from a 5DMkII.

JerryPH · Aug 31, 2009

dustinpedley said:
If I dont need craze high ISO or crazy high MP rates?

I was looking at a 50D vs a 5D MK II

A 5DmkII *is* full frame and over 24MP... so wouldn't that disclude it immediately from your possible "buy list" based on your2 listed criteria??

A word of advice. YOU need to decide what YOU want. The instant that you leave an important decision such as what are your needs or will (whatever item) fit your needs to someone else, you are guaranteeing a huge case of buyer's remorse.

Don't be lazy, find out YOUR needs are and get the item that fits YOUR needs.

Feel free to do a search... I never ask someone to spend my money for me... I know what I want and I make purchases based on my knowledge of my budget, requirements, desires and needs... NO ONE other than YOU knows this... do do your own homework.

FrankLamont · Aug 31, 2009

Not at all.

It's a tough call, though. Personally, I don't care so much about the wide angle as for the low noise... and yet the 1.6x helps. The cropped sensor/APS-C cameras are also beneficial with fps for a cheap (relative) price.

@ Jerry - mate, that's why he's askin'.

itznfb · Aug 31, 2009

Does anyone think the APS-C sized sensor will die out?
Eventually it will be cheap enough to offer entry level Full Frame sensor. I wouldn't see any reason for companies to continue to produce two lines.

inTempus · Aug 31, 2009

Jerry has nailed it.

You need to decide what you shoot and how you shoot it. There is a thread on here from a new user asking why he struggles to get good shots that are in focus of football games using a 5DMk2. The answer? The 5DMk2 isn't a sport/action photography camera. He has the wrong tool for the job. A 50D or a 1D especially would be the tool he needs.

What do you shoot?

Aye-non Oh-non Imus · Aug 31, 2009

is there really any reason to go full frame?

Yes, immediately after possession, your b0ll0cks increase in circumference. See Bob-------> :biggrin:

You could always pick up a film camera for the FF effect.

Derrel · Aug 31, 2009

There are several reasons to go full frame. The viewfinders of most FF bodies give a larger,clearer viewfinder image which helps in composing every shot taken. A FF sensor is much larger at 864 square millimeters versus 329 square millimeters for a Canon 1.6x APS-C camera. Contrary to popular myth, EF-S lenses of any speed are not really any smaller or lighter than identical speed lenses that will cover FF; look at the 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S--it's big and weighty. And there are NO size savings on telephoto or long zoom lenses. The only small-sensor lnses that save any size or weight are very slow, "kit" lenses.

The biggest reason to go full frame is that the vast majority of Canon and Nikon's lens lineup is designed for use on FF sized imagers. Many lenses do not work well on APS-C. MY favorite example is the 8.5 foot tall field of view to show a six foot tall man and his wife; with FF, using an 85mm lens, you get that field of view from 20 feet. With a 20D-50D Canon, you need to be 34 feel away to get the SAME sized people, in the same height. But, with deep depth of field on the APS-C camera, the background will be very much in-focus with APS-C, while with FF it will be much less in-focus.

fiveoboy01 · Aug 31, 2009

itznfb said:
Does anyone think the APS-C sized sensor will die out?
Eventually it will be cheap enough to offer entry level Full Frame sensor. I wouldn't see any reason for companies to continue to produce two lines.

I don't see DX going away. It's Nikon's cash cow. I'd bet for every FX body out there, there are 30 or more DX bodies. The fact that they are still releasing DX-specific lenses, and the New D300s(with a D400 likely to follow) tells me that they don't plan on discontinuing the DX format anytime soon.

NateWagner · Aug 31, 2009

Derrel said:
Contrary to popular myth, EF-S lenses of any speed are not really any smaller or lighter than identical speed lenses that will cover FF; look at the 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S--it's big and weighty. And there are NO size savings on telephoto or long zoom lenses. The only small-sensor lnses that save any size or weight are very slow, "kit" lenses.

Actually I would disagree with you there. Much/most of the time the EF-S lenses are smaller and lighter than the EF versions. The lens that you pointed out (Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM) is pretty big, but it is built basically like a L series lens and it has IS. The comparison lens for EF is the 24-70L which does not have the IS and yet it is still significantly heavier at 2.7 pounds than the 17-55 EF-s which is 1.5 pounds. Yes the 17-55 is heavy, but it's only about 1/2 the weight of the comparable EF lens.

Similarly I have a sigma 18-50 2.8 (which is their pro level, and definitely not one of the very slow ones) which weighs in at 1 pound. Still has some weight to it, but nothing compared to the pro level EF lenses.

Plato · Aug 31, 2009

fiveoboy01 said:
itznfb said:

Does anyone think the APS-C sized sensor will die out?
Eventually it will be cheap enough to offer entry level Full Frame sensor. I wouldn't see any reason for companies to continue to produce two lines.

Click to expand...

I don't see DX going away. It's Nikon's cash cow. I'd bet for every FX body out there, there are 30 or more DX bodies. The fact that they are still releasing DX-specific lenses, and the New D300s(with a D400 likely to follow) tells me that they don't plan on discontinuing the DX format anytime soon.

You nailed it! Just think, if itznfb is correct (and I hope he is), the D95 due out in 1012 will sell for $200. The bulk of us amateurs will jump at the chance to own several bodies.