Simplified explaination of "Full Frame" Camera

[Shelby68GT500]

Trying to grasp exactly what is different about a "Full Frame" DSLR camera from what I use. I've got a 50D that I really like (bought it used) and use with several Canon lenses that I've acquired over the years. Have a friend who has a Sony "Full Frame" DSLR that is 24Mp who rants and raves about it. It obviously has a higher resolution 24Mp versus 15Mp, but what other advantages does this camera hold? I doubt that I would change over to Sony as I love my existing Canon lenses. I'm sure that Canon would come out with a "Full Frame" camera as well at some point, if they don't already... Just not sure it would be beneficial for the price. I'm not a professional, but enjoy shooting a lot of wildlife (sometimes thru my 8" telescope), astronomy and normal daily life stuff...

 

[amolitor]

The sensor is physically bigger. Longer, and taller. This has a variety of consequences:

- sometimes the high ISO performance is better (less noise, better pictures in darkness)
- the field of view with any given lens is wider
- shallower depth of field
- you may need to buy more expensive lenses (some lenses, generally cheaper ones, are only good on small, not full-frame, sensors)

 

[cgipson1]

Canon has more full frame cameras than Sony does... as does Nikon.

This really should be in a DSLR Forum.. not the Film forum! lol!

 

[runnah]

This really should be in a DSLR Forum.. not the Film forum! lol!

Yup, considering most film cameras are full frame.

 

[cgipson1]

This really should be in a DSLR Forum.. not the Film forum! lol!

Yup, considering most film cameras are full frame.

True... but the OP mentions a 50D (digital) and a friends DSLR (again, digital)....

 

[runnah]

This really should be in a DSLR Forum.. not the Film forum! lol!

Yup, considering most film cameras are full frame.

True... but the OP mentions a 50D (digital) and a friends DSLR (again, digital)....

I've already moved past what the OP said. I was more commenting on your comment about the poor placement of this thread..

 

[Mully]

The 35mm format was a PITA commercially, because to fit any standard page layout you had to crop off one end. You had to always allow for the crop or put a viewfinder screen in that was already cropped. I am not so sure full frame is going to be such an advantage, unless it is wider as well.

 

[terri]

I agree this discussion is better suited for the Digital Q&A, since the OP expressed interest in DSLR. Thread moved.

 

[KmH]

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-forum/267492-info-those-new-photography.html

Your Canon 50D has an APS-C size, 135 format (35 mm), image sensor. It is approximatley half as big, area wise, as a full frame 36 mm x 24 mm (35 mm), 135 format image sensor.

As noted in the first tutorial link:

The cost of a digital sensor rises dramatically as its area increases. This means that a sensor with twice the area will cost more than twice as much, so you are effectively paying more per unit "sensor real estate" as you move to larger sizes.

Silicon Wafer
(divided into large sensors)

Silicon Wafer
(divided into small sensors)[
​

One can understand this by looking at how manufacturers make their digital sensors. Each sensor is cut from a larger sheet of silicon material called a wafer, which may contain thousands of individual chips. Each wafer is extremely expensive (thousands of dollars), therefore fewer chips per wafer result in a much higher cost per chip. Furthermore, the chance of an irreparable defect (too many hot pixels or otherwise) ending up in a given sensor increases with sensor area, therefore the percentage of usable sensors goes down with increasing sensor area (yield per wafer). Assuming these factors (chips per wafer and yield) are most important, costs increase proportional to the square of sensor area (a sensor 2X as big costs 4X as much). Real-world manufacturing has a more complicated size versus cost relationship, but this gives you an idea of skyrocketing costs.
This is not to say though that certain sized sensors will always be prohibitively expensive; their price may eventually drop, but the relative cost of a larger sensor is likely to remain significantly more expensive (per unit area) when compared to some smaller size.

 

[Shelby68GT500]

All, Thanks for the responses... Sorry about the placement of the original post, I was in that forum and just went brain dead... As far as the lenses go, I've got the standard EFS 18-55mm that came with my 1st gen EOS Rebel (6Mp), a 80-200mm and a 100-400mm Zoom (my favorite). I'm not really in the market right now to upgrade cameras anyway, but my friend with the Sony had told me that using a full frame camera with my telescope (CGEM 800 HD Computerized Telescope [item # 11080]) would provide much better images, even with terrestrial shooting.

 

[Garbz]

Danger danger!

The CGEM800 is a Schmidt-Cassegrain type scope. Typical SCTs have relatively bad field curvature inherent in their optics. The larger your sensor, the more of the edge of the glass in your optics comes into play and the more you'll notice it. Many telescope cameras are the size of 4/3rds sensors or APS-C as the largest and are suited well to SCTs. The other problem is if you use a field flattener to correct the edges you'll also end up with serious vignetting as those telescopes just weren't designed to use a 35mm sensor.

I have a classic C8. I have a full frame camera. I intentionally set my camera only to capture APS-C images because of this issue and even with that setup I still get very slight coma at the edges of the frame.

If you're interested in doing more with astrophotography I suggest investing in a camera which can capture IR and is sensitive in the Ha band rather than a full frame camera. Something like the Canon 60Da.

Also a full frame camera is larger, heavier, they are all metal, so you may also want to check up on the load bearing capacity of your mount.

 

[Big Mike]

should-i-buy-a-full-frame-dslr