Do you want a full frame DSLR?
- Thread starter ahbeng
- Start date
- Status
icarus
Senior Member
litefoot said:Depending on the subject you shoot. If you deal with a lot of lines such as architectural subjects a well corrected lens is needed. To me barrel to a certain extend is still manageable, pin cushion will be too crazy for me.
Yo Litefoot, somehow i find people in the canon forum discuss the FF issues more intelligently than other forums :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :thumbsup:
Full Frame == large sweet viewfinder !
I was on film for some time, but the other weekend decided to pick up my DSLR which has been neglected for a while.
Oh boy .... couldn't get used with the small viewfinder, like you are downgrading from a 21" monitor to 14" monitor :bsmilie:
I was on film for some time, but the other weekend decided to pick up my DSLR which has been neglected for a while.
Oh boy .... couldn't get used with the small viewfinder, like you are downgrading from a 21" monitor to 14" monitor :bsmilie:
guess technically anyone can set any dimension and call it full frame
if they insist of course.
yes some insist
when canon calls their 5d full frame it was with a historical and practical perspective
they mean sensor as large as 24x36mm
of course if someone wants to argue that their 1x1mm is "full frame transfer" or whatever terminology, well, tell them they are right.
the point is.
who cares? what they want to call it
they may also be right if they insist that a small X * Y mm is enough to record the MP for your pictures.
they may be right too.
but you know, it is a stunted child argument
the dwarf grows to some height but cannot grow anymore after that
there is a limit to growth (hmm... does this remind me of our S'pore with its limited land size?)
24x36 is practical because many photo hobbyists and pros have invested huge amounts of $ into lenses meant to cover the 24x36 image circle.
some of these cost $$$$ (think leica noctilux or CZ 200 f2 apo)
with the help of adapters, lenses from leica, hasselblad, nikon, contax (carl zeiss) etc
can be used on a digicam SLR
also the EF lenses can be used
this means a huge saving and no need to try out "for digital" lenses with a very small image circle
some may actually be good
but what I mean is if you have a proven 35mm format lens say, a Contax CZ 21mm distagon then now you can use it on the 5d
oh, also with FF the 21mm wide angle does not become 32+mm
if they insist of course.
yes some insist
when canon calls their 5d full frame it was with a historical and practical perspective
they mean sensor as large as 24x36mm
of course if someone wants to argue that their 1x1mm is "full frame transfer" or whatever terminology, well, tell them they are right.
the point is.
who cares? what they want to call it
they may also be right if they insist that a small X * Y mm is enough to record the MP for your pictures.
they may be right too.
but you know, it is a stunted child argument
the dwarf grows to some height but cannot grow anymore after that
there is a limit to growth (hmm... does this remind me of our S'pore with its limited land size?)
24x36 is practical because many photo hobbyists and pros have invested huge amounts of $ into lenses meant to cover the 24x36 image circle.
some of these cost $$$$ (think leica noctilux or CZ 200 f2 apo)
with the help of adapters, lenses from leica, hasselblad, nikon, contax (carl zeiss) etc
can be used on a digicam SLR
also the EF lenses can be used
this means a huge saving and no need to try out "for digital" lenses with a very small image circle
some may actually be good
but what I mean is if you have a proven 35mm format lens say, a Contax CZ 21mm distagon then now you can use it on the 5d
oh, also with FF the 21mm wide angle does not become 32+mm
icarus said:Just go and try one roll of slides with the Sigma 12-24 on your film body and you will know why
Like I have said before, the best lesson is learning through experiencing it personally.
Burn 5-10 rolls of slides on a 24 mm on various subjects. Compare it with images that you have shot with 17mm (close equivalent) on DX/APS Sized. Having to go through that number of rolls will give you the feel of what it is like looking through the viewfinder, composing and working to capture an image.
I believe by then you will be able to appreciate how the size of the sensor impacting on your style of photography.
Seeking advice. I have an EOS 5 (film) and 28-135USM IS. If I wanted a digital equivilent, options are:
1. buy 'cheap' EOS 350D and 17-85 USM IS. However, if in future, FF becomes cheaper and I want to upgrade, I will have to buy not only a new body, but my 17-85EFS would be useless. So total spent, 2 bodies and 1 lens.
2. Buy 5D. Although initially expensive, it already FF, so won't need to upgrade in future, and don't have to buy a new lens either since my old 28-135 works as intended. Total cost: just 1 expensive body.
Thus would it be penny-wise pound-foolish to take option 1? Better to just bite the bullet and buy the 5D?
Any advise? Thanks. Backgound: I'm just a casual shooter, but like FF for better 'background blur' and wide angle.
1. buy 'cheap' EOS 350D and 17-85 USM IS. However, if in future, FF becomes cheaper and I want to upgrade, I will have to buy not only a new body, but my 17-85EFS would be useless. So total spent, 2 bodies and 1 lens.
2. Buy 5D. Although initially expensive, it already FF, so won't need to upgrade in future, and don't have to buy a new lens either since my old 28-135 works as intended. Total cost: just 1 expensive body.
Thus would it be penny-wise pound-foolish to take option 1? Better to just bite the bullet and buy the 5D?
Any advise? Thanks. Backgound: I'm just a casual shooter, but like FF for better 'background blur' and wide angle.
Belle&Sebastain
Senior Member
icarus said:
because other forums are so blinded by brand loyality.
kuoann said:
That's when you have a clean starting point. At least you get to choose. For some it started long ago with film 24x36. So its also good to have the FF choice.
Just to clarify the background blur that you are going for. I was a little confused in the beginning too. I think it is a comparison of 200mm on 1.6x vs 320mm on FF. They get the similar coverage on the plane but the 320mm gives a better out of focus area. I believe this is what it is meant. Please note that bigger plane will not give you different DOF.
Thanks for the replies!litefoot said:
Yes, that is what I meant by better background blur. Nicer for portraits. Sigh, 5D is so much more expensive than my trusty EOS 5. My 5 has a huge bright viewfinder, the ECF works for me, and the builtin flash comes in useful.
I'd wait for something even better/cheaper except that I'm not getting younger, and my young kids are growing up faster than new models are coming out.
Kho King said:pardon my ignorance, but if you can get the widest angle you need/want on a non-full frame DSLR (eg. Nikon D2x with 1.5FOV + 12-24mm lens ~ equivalent to 18-36mm), then why do you bother to have full frame or not?
Forget about the technical thingy (pixel size...noise...etc.), leave that to the manufacturer
Because a 20mm lens pretending to be a 32mm lens is just not the same as using a 35mm lens on a full frame body?
First, u're going to get inherently more distortion with say, a 24mm lens pretending to be a 35mm lens (for Nikon bodies). Secondly, I believe a decent 35mm lens is going to be optically better than any decent 24mm. Thirdly, there's no 24mm f1.4 or f2 lens that is going to give me the same lens speed as a 35mm f2 or f1.4 lens. Even if there is, for example, Canon's 24mm f1.4 lens, it's much bigger (77mm compared to a mere 52mm filter size for a 35 f2 lens) and more expensive.
It's not going wider that is the problem. It's shooting wide with the same optical quality and shooting options that we're used to with full frame bodies. Where is that 16-35mm f2.8 equivalent lens for an APS DSLR? or that 28 f2 equivalent? or 35 f2 equivalent? Instead u get a slew of slow f4 lenses with really bad distortion at the wide end.
The promises of manufactuers, whether Nikon, Canon or Olympus to provide a full set of equivalent lenses on reduced frame cameras hasn't exactly been fully realised. If ever.
We really need to rediscover the classical 24 x 36 format that Barnack invented over 50 years ago with the first Leica handheld camera
kuoann said:
Consider the depreciation of either item. The 5D which is $6300+ , and a 17-85 EF-S which is less than 1K. The 5D will depreciate to less than half its value in 3 years, and even if the lens depreciates to $0, you still wouldn't have lost as much. IMO, just get a cheap digital body and the WA to go along with it. Unless you really need full frame or have really deep pockets, I would avoid for the time being.
Cheers.
- Status
Similar threads
