In the past months, I might have fallen head over heel for a full-frame camera, but I probably won't now, even if I had the money. Fortunately for users, there are a few ultra WA lenses on the market that would work quite nicely even on a 1.6X crop camera. On the other end of the spectrum, the crop factor does amazing things to telephoto lenses. Instead of forking over big bucks for a 600mm prime, I can instead settle for a 100-400mm zoom. Although it's a slower lens, it provides similarly good reach and at a fraction of the price.
Do you want a full frame DSLR?
- Thread starter ahbeng
- Start date
- Status
Ok, see the image below. Basically what this says is that a 1.6x crop does NOT make a 400mm lens into a 640mm. What it does is to show the same Field Of View (FOV) as a 640 would on a FF sensor.
So, this then begs the question, why not just get a FF camera (putting costr aside for the moment) a 400mm lens and then crop the image. Well, simply put this would mean you have the same image (as using a 400 on a 1.6x sensor), but at a lower resolution, e.g. lets compare a 20D and a 5D both with a 400mm lens - i.e. same focal length but different FOV, in this scenario the 20D image would be 8.2MP the equivalent crop from the 5D would only be about 5MP (IIRC - somebody else do the math).
Read this --> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm
So, this then begs the question, why not just get a FF camera (putting costr aside for the moment) a 400mm lens and then crop the image. Well, simply put this would mean you have the same image (as using a 400 on a 1.6x sensor), but at a lower resolution, e.g. lets compare a 20D and a 5D both with a 400mm lens - i.e. same focal length but different FOV, in this scenario the 20D image would be 8.2MP the equivalent crop from the 5D would only be about 5MP (IIRC - somebody else do the math).
Read this --> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm
cyber_m0nkey said:Ok, see the image below. Basically what this says is that a 1.6x crop does NOT make a 400mm lens into a 640mm. What it does is to show the same Field Of View (FOV) as a 640 would on a FF sensor.
So, this then begs the question, why not just get a FF camera (putting costr aside for the moment) a 400mm lens and then crop the image. Well, simply put this would mean you have the same image (as using a 400 on a 1.6x sensor), but at a lower resolution, e.g. lets compare a 20D and a 5D both with a 400mm lens - i.e. same focal length but different FOV, in this scenario the 20D image would be 8.2MP the equivalent crop from the 5D would only be about 5MP (IIRC - somebody else do the math).
Read this --> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm
Well put and explained. I understand the crop factor does not make a lens a longer one, but it will give the impression that it has a longer reach. The degree of bokeh and perspective compression is not the same, as I understand it to be.
If I read it correctly, that means we'd be getting a lower resolution image from a 5D if we want to get the same field of view on a 20D with the same lens. If that's the case, then I don't really find it worth the extra cost.
Another thing that worries me about FF cameras is their tendency to reveal lens flaws, especially with regards to light fall-off and border sharpness (or lack thereof in this case). The 1.6X crop cameras are actually arguably more efficient in this sense, because they utilize the sweet spot of each lens.
For a simple-minded person like myself who just desires more 'reach' from a lens, such cameras also effectively have a 1.6X TC built in and result in no loss of sharpness or a slower f-stop.
Exactly!
That's why I too will not be going for a FF in the near future, but I have convinced myself that 1.3x is a happy medium, so now I'm looking for a 1DMKII
. I like wide angle, and the smaller the crop factor the wider the FOV, so a 16mm becomes 20mm (@ 1.3) and 25mm (@1.6), BIG difference.
The only thing at the moment for which I would even consider a FF is so I can get a full circle from my 180 degree FE, but that's not enough justification, so I'll just keep my film camera for the purpose.
That's why I too will not be going for a FF in the near future, but I have convinced myself that 1.3x is a happy medium, so now I'm looking for a 1DMKII
. I like wide angle, and the smaller the crop factor the wider the FOV, so a 16mm becomes 20mm (@ 1.3) and 25mm (@1.6), BIG difference.The only thing at the moment for which I would even consider a FF is so I can get a full circle from my 180 degree FE, but that's not enough justification, so I'll just keep my film camera for the purpose.
fWord said:
icarus said:
This is a definite issue for existing users with SLR lenses. However, for a user jumping into the DSLR realm for the first time, they have the ability to choose the cheaper 1.6X crop cameras and still be able to get lenses that will give them the framing that they want.
There's no doubt though, that something like a 24-105mm L on a full-frame would be quite a pleasure to use. On a 1.6X crop DSLR, the EF-S 17-85mm will also achieve a good walkaround range though, but not without its own problems such as distortion and CA.
cyber_m0nkey said:Exactly!
That's why I too will not be going for a FF in the near future, but I have convinced myself that 1.3x is a happy medium, so now I'm looking for a 1DMKII
The only thing at the moment for which I would even consider a FF is so I can get a full circle from my 180 degree FE, but that's not enough justification, so I'll just keep my film camera for the purpose.
Or, if you wish, it's also possible to get the Tokina 12-24mm and get something around 19mm at the wide end on a 1.6X crop. Or go for the EF-S 10-22mm for a whopping wide, true 16mm!
In the end, most of us mortals don't have so much money to throw onto a hobby. Unless we were already printing money, or were doing photography as a profession and facing some very picky editors, there is probably no need to go for full-frame together with all the expensive guns.
Paul_Yeo said:
At that point, things will certainly start to look attractive.
However, the difference between a $2000 FF + 16-35mm f/2.8L will still be significantly more than a 350D + EF-S 10-22mm. Image quality on a FF will trump that on a crop camera, but it would come down to a cost-benefit analysis...whether we need the added quality or not. Magazine editors will probably demand that from their photographers.user111 said:
Personally, it's a pretty inefficient way of spending money if one were to get an expensive 16-35mm only to have it become a very modest street zoom at 28-70mm. 1.6X crop cameras are biased towards telephoto, and I kinda like it for this reason, even though I'm not exactly skewed towards either WA or tele work at this time.
cyber_m0nkey said:
Hmm it depends. with a smaller sensor, the projected image circle can be smaller with a smaller lens to sensor distance. so hence smaller lenses. the image quality hangs in balance between:
a. ability of the lens to render images clearly.
b. ability of the sensor to record the images clearly.
for fullframe, as you've mentioned, the projected image is bigger. as of now, the companies have made lens with quality adequate for producing good images with this larger projected image.
for smaller sensors, the projected image is smaller (with all the digital lenses available), hence to ensure the light transmitted is pure and clear, a better lens quality is required.
of course, if the fullframe is given a better quality lens, the image quality will definitely be better!
EUGSEOW said:
That'll be sad. Of course, opinions are set to change with time. But for now, I really like the 1.6X crop factor.
But when the time comes that cheap, very high resolution FFs come out, I could potentially crop down to the equivalent of a 1.6X FOV camera without worrying about loss of too much quality.
fWord said:
That's right, if you can't appreciate the bokeh and perspective of FF, then FF is probably not for you.
fWord said:
sometimes, it is not just the resolution, but also the amount of details that the sensor can capture. Lower pixel density = bigger photosite = less noise, more contrast, more sensitivity, more details.
eg. the 4MP 1D can capture more details than a 6MP 10D (I used to own both of them). Simiarly, I have used both 20D and 1DMKII, but the 1D MKII can capture more details than 20D, even both are 8MP. You got to experience yourself to notice the different.
fWord said:
sometimes, dark corners is better than no corners. I am not sure how often you will need the corners to be tack sharp, since your subject will be around the center anyway. Unless you use your camera like a photocopier? Anyway, if you dont like the corners, you can easily crop it away later, but the reverse is not possible once your sensor cropped it for you.
btw, using FF lens and on 1.6x camera is kinda waste of $$, since there are already cheaper EF-S alternatives for you. but note that if you use EF-S on 1.6x camera, you are not going to utilise only the sweet spot of the lens, because EF-S lens already has a smaller imaging circle at the first place...
fWord said:
true...everyone have different shooting style, sports/bird shooter will probably prefer 1.6x crop while landscape/portraits shooter will probably want full frame. Isn't it great that Canon offer both format to suits everyone needs? For me, I choose 1.3x, it is a sweet spot for me, my next upgrade will be a FF, but only if they put in high-speed crop mode like the d2x.
Wai said:
The 'sweet spot' theory probably explains why someone at another forum encourages people to buy FF lenses even for a crop body. As you mentioned, using an EF-S lens on a 1.6X crop body might actually still reveal flaws since the image circle is very much reduced.
It's interesting that you mention about corner image quality as well, since it's definitely true that important subject matter will hardly ever be at the extreme corner of a photo. But it's still considered a criteria by those who actively pixel-peep to find out which lens gives great performance across the frame and to pick out lenses that offer 'value for the money'. I'm no pixel-peeper however. The fact that I'm so happy with my kit lens probably proves that. :sweatsm: Personally, I am just happy that my subpar lenses don't vignette on my cheaper 350D, whereas they might seriously reveal it on a FF camera.
The high-speed mode that they put on the D2X is a brilliant idea...in the world where people rely on photography for a living, making the shot means everything, and the versatility will help a photog achieve just that.
- Status
Similar threads
