FF or crop?

[Anyhow]

I agree with ANYHOW.

Everyone would crave to have a FF but not knowing if the benefit of FF actually suits them or not. Personally, my applications uses 2 bodies, True wide angle and low light noise capability will be a FF. For extra focal range, I'll go for a APS-C/DX camera to give me that reach and contineous frame speed.

Anyhow, some of you should just check out this article to make a decision for your equipments

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/gear/cameras/do-you-need-a-full-frame-d-slr.html

Thanks Saomtsaint it was interesting. Heart is willing... pocket is not so sure. Maybe in a mth or 2

Anyhow

 

[charlesleong]

however, if you *need* to be convinced to get a FF, you *don't* *need* a FF.

cant stand humans who always mention like

do not means dont need; come horn, how many of us real need
it's the photographer ; come on, what an insult ,, as if we dont know
do a search; come on, we also learn thru forums

The threadstarter is just merely wanting to ask for opinions about whether FF or crop is suited for his needs, which he has stated in his first post. Your comments doesn't seem to help much.

The comments made by Snoweagle, however, is answering TS's queries.

I'm merely stating that if you don't know why you want it, it's best not to get it. Is there something wrong with that?

coming back to TS's original query: for a landscape and portrait shooter, is FF or crop *more suitable*

The argument goes something like "FF got 17-40 and 16-35 for landscape shots".

My response: "EFS 10-22"

Or "85mm + FF for portrait"

My response: "50 and 85 are equally good portrait lenses on crop"

The point i'm trying to make is that FF is not the be all and end all of DSLR cameras. Yes it's nice to be able to show off your large and bulky equipment, but at the end of the day, for landscape and portrait shots, FF is slightly more suited, but APS-C is by no means useless at these genres of photography.

------------------------

It did sound to me at first that some people will use this thread as a reason/excuse to buy FF, but your bank account must be agreeable in the first place. Don't forget that when you get a 5D or 1D series body, you need to change your whole arsenal of lenses because of the crop factor.

EFS lenses are obviously out.

For EF lenses, whatever you used on your 40D (let's say) will no longer have the same application on your new 5D2 (let's say). Your 17-40 which may have been an excellent walkabout lens on APS-C is now a UWA lens, and your 70-200 has lost some of its effective telephoto range. your 24-105/24-70 which was a medium to far zoom is now a walkabout range.

All these considerations need to be clear, otherwise you'll find that you're putting in more money than you originally intended.

Which is why, unless you're *sure* that you *need* a FF body, you *probably* don't need it.

 

[Garion]

I'm merely stating that if you don't know why you want it, it's best not to get it. Is there something wrong with that?

coming back to TS's original query: for a landscape and portrait shooter, is FF or crop *more suitable*

The argument goes something like "FF got 17-40 and 16-35 for landscape shots".

My response: "EFS 10-22"

Or "85mm + FF for portrait"

My response: "50 and 85 are equally good portrait lenses on crop"

The point i'm trying to make is that FF is not the be all and end all of DSLR cameras. Yes it's nice to be able to show off your large and bulky equipment, but at the end of the day, for landscape and portrait shots, FF is slightly more suited, but APS-C is by no means useless at these genres of photography.

------------------------

It did sound to me at first that some people will use this thread as a reason/excuse to buy FF, but your bank account must be agreeable in the first place. Don't forget that when you get a 5D or 1D series body, you need to change your whole arsenal of lenses because of the crop factor.

EFS lenses are obviously out.

For EF lenses, whatever you used on your 40D (let's say) will no longer have the same application on your new 5D2 (let's say). Your 17-40 which may have been an excellent walkabout lens on APS-C is now a UWA lens, and your 70-200 has lost some of its effective telephoto range. your 24-105/24-70 which was a medium to far zoom is now a walkabout range.

All these considerations need to be clear, otherwise you'll find that you're putting in more money than you originally intended.

Which is why, unless you're *sure* that you *need* a FF body, you *probably* don't need it.

Sound words of advice indeed. :thumbsup: Seems that way too many ppl are rushing into the FF fray, perhaps just because of the hype over the 5D Mk II. But in truth, many of them do not know the true reason why they ditch their crop bodies to go into FF. (other than bragging rights perhaps?)

 

[Shootking]

Originally Posted by charlesleong:
I'm merely stating that if you don't know why you want it, it's best not to get it. Is there something wrong with that?

coming back to TS's original query: for a landscape and portrait shooter, is FF or crop *more suitable*

The argument goes something like "FF got 17-40 and 16-35 for landscape shots".

My response: "EFS 10-22"

Or "85mm + FF for portrait"

My response: "50 and 85 are equally good portrait lenses on crop"

The point i'm trying to make is that FF is not the be all and end all of DSLR cameras. Yes it's nice to be able to show off your large and bulky equipment, but at the end of the day, for landscape and portrait shots, FF is slightly more suited, but APS-C is by no means useless at these genres of photography.

------------------------

It did sound to me at first that some people will use this thread as a reason/excuse to buy FF, but your bank account must be agreeable in the first place. Don't forget that when you get a 5D or 1D series body, you need to change your whole arsenal of lenses because of the crop factor.

EFS lenses are obviously out.

For EF lenses, whatever you used on your 40D (let's say) will no longer have the same application on your new 5D2 (let's say). Your 17-40 which may have been an excellent walkabout lens on APS-C is now a UWA lens, and your 70-200 has lost some of its effective telephoto range. your 24-105/24-70 which was a medium to far zoom is now a walkabout range.

All these considerations need to be clear, otherwise you'll find that you're putting in more money than you originally intended.

Which is why, unless you're *sure* that you *need* a FF body, you *probably* don't need it.


Originally Posted by Garion:
Sound words of advice indeed. :thumbsup: Seems that way too many ppl are rushing into the FF fray, perhaps just because of the hype over the 5D Mk II. But in truth, many of them do not know the true reason why they ditch their crop bodies to go into FF. (other than bragging rights perhaps?)

Why the sudden OT into "excuse to buy FF" and "bragging rights" and etc etc? The TS has stated, he/she shoots mainly landscape and portrait, thus, FF right? Are we assuming? What is the assumption here?

If really landscape and portraits, FF would be an ideal choice. It's not a must buy, but it's ideal.

If really birding and sports, then a fast camera and crop factor will be better and ideal, but not a must, too.

Get the point? I don't understand about all these bragging rights thingy. And as for $$, we don't need to worry for the buyers; they will manage themselves. We're not their financial advisors.

 

[Garion]

Why the sudden OT into "excuse to buy FF" and "bragging rights" and etc etc? The TS has stated, he/she shoots mainly landscape and portrait, thus, FF right? Are we assuming? What is the assumption here?

If really landscape and portraits, FF would be an ideal choice. It's not a must buy, but it's ideal.

If really birding and sports, then a fast camera and crop factor will be better and ideal, but not a must, too.

Get the point? I don't understand about all these bragging rights thingy. And as for $$, we don't need to worry for the buyers; they will manage themselves. We're not their financial advisors.

As charlesleong explained, having a crop factor body doesn't mean that it can't be used to shoot landscapes and/or portraits....there are EF-s and after market lenses available for that. I have seen many great landscape shots produced by crop factor bodies also. So why is it a must to have a FF just for shooting landscapes? If the TS has already invested a whole lineup of lenses (including EF-s) meant for 1.6x crop, he or she would need to revise the whole line-up just to fit into the new full frame format, which would be a costly exercise.

On the topic of bragging rights, well it seems to me that FF is the current "flavour of the month" given the 5D MkII's launch as well as countless 2nd hand 5D bodies appearing on the used market at affordable prices. Perhaps it shouldn't be termed bragging rights, but more of a trend. It doesn't mean that 1.6x crop is inferior to FF...in the end it just boils down to user needs and budget , that is the overriding factor in deciding btw the two formats.

 

[ilihz]

budget issue? buy a crop body, spent another 50$ buy a used eos 500 FULL FRAME body. problem solved.

 

[calebk]

Why the sudden OT into "excuse to buy FF" and "bragging rights" and etc etc? The TS has stated, he/she shoots mainly landscape and portrait, thus, FF right? Are we assuming? What is the assumption here?

If really landscape and portraits, FF would be an ideal choice. It's not a must buy, but it's ideal.

If really birding and sports, then a fast camera and crop factor will be better and ideal, but not a must, too.

Get the point? I don't understand about all these bragging rights thingy. And as for $$, we don't need to worry for the buyers; they will manage themselves. We're not their financial advisors.

I don't see the need in having to get a FF camera just to shoot landscape and portraits, or the fact that you say it's ideal. What is it, really, that a FF camera can do that an APS-C camera is so lame at? I really don't know. You yourself recognised that it's not a must buy.

 

[Shootking]

I don't see the need in having to get a FF camera just to shoot landscape and portraits, or the fact that you say it's ideal. What is it, really, that a FF camera can do that an APS-C camera is so lame at? I really don't know. You yourself recognised that it's not a must buy.

Because FF really can provide the platform to shoot landscape at its widest possibilities. Yes, crop cam can also do the job, but most landscape enthusiasts would look for FF. As of now the widest is 12mm, something even the 10-22 on a crop can't rival.

It sounds like a thread not long ago that FF can also take sports and birding, but crop is definitely more ideal.

Again, it boils down to individuals.

 

[Kit]

I'm using both FF and cropped bodies and believe it or not, I don't even think about the crop when I shooting, just design your composition according to what you see there and then.

 

[Shootking]

I'm using both FF and cropped bodies and believe it or not, I don't even think about the crop when I shooting, just design your composition according to what you see there and then.

Agreed

 

[hazmee]

When you use medium format, you wished it was cheaper. LOL!

 

[charlesleong]

I'm using both FF and cropped bodies and believe it or not, I don't even think about the crop when I shooting, just design your composition according to what you see there and then.

+1

the most important part of the camera is behind the viewfinder.

 

[Stratix]

full frame is for the rich, poor people buy crop.

but of course, if you're the typical from rags to rich kind of cinderalla, please remember not to spend too much on crop lenses.

else you'll really have to end up selling everything.

lol.

 

[ilihz]

+1

the most important part of the camera is behind the viewfinder.

Not too true though.

To artistic sense it is true, even plastic lomo produce good stuff.

But, if your photo is commecial, different story.