Yes yes yes!!!! Well said!!! +1 FTW!:thumbsup:
Time to go FF???
- Thread starter modenaslim
- Start date
- Status
Agreed.
I have no immediate plans to move up to FF. I take some of my gear in my hiking trips and I cannot imagine myself hiking through those awful routes in Nepal with heavy stuff. :bsmilie: Besides, FF lenses and body are particularly good for certain types of shooting conditions that make up about 15% of what I like to do. It therefore only makes economic sense for me to invest my money on what I shoot 85% of the time and struggle with the rest. :bsmilie: In fact, it's for this very same reason (weight) I refuse to get a 40D (at least I'm consistent :bsmilie
. It's so much heavier and for my style of photography (not into birding or sports), it's totally unnecessary.As I've pointed out above, I am not really into FF.
HOWEVER, I enjoy playing the Devil's Advocate here and defend the godforsaken rights of those who are really into it. Just because it's not your cup of tea does not mean others who love the format are wrong. Otherwise, that will sound like sour grapes from the Nikon camp before the D3 came along. :bsmilie:
I wish to point out that there are those who know their numbers and figures, and who can still take good photos: link The above poster is a strong proponent of FF and he uses his gear to truly demonstrate why the format really works for him. Or this guy here: link
I can assure you those are stuff you simply cannot do with APS-C cameras under the same environment.
On the other hand, I acknowledge there are folks who acquire gear just for the sake of show-off. As an example, I know of folks who purchase the D300 even though they NEVER shoot at 6 fps and have no need for all those fanciful functions or weather-sealing. I was with such folks in an outing and when we reached a particular location, they would ask what lens was most suitable for the occasion (they have the expensive, heavy and new 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 VR etc). It's such a joke: they splurged all the money and have no idea how to use them. Sigh...
Know your needs and purchase accordingly. I guess this is what Kiwi2 is trying to say as well although I prefer to present both sides of the picture (with a little personal bias thrown in... :bsmilie
.Doodah, your examples and illustrations work very well. The examples are beautiful. To be completely honest with everyone here in this thread, I am barely an accomplished photographer. Amateurish at the very best. 
I am just a very easily inspired person and when I see what can be accomplished with certain piece of equipment, my ideas run wild and I feel tempted to get that piece of equipment. I have been see a lot of shots coming out of the 40D which my old Olympus could not accomplish. The low light shots and all, simply amazing. I shoot portraits, still light product and low light stuff a lot and it was no longer able to cut it in face of the fiercer competition from other manufacturers and the newer cameras.
End of day, I am still undecided if I wanna go get a better piece of equipment out there when I don't even know if I can learn enough to maximise it.
I am just a very easily inspired person and when I see what can be accomplished with certain piece of equipment, my ideas run wild and I feel tempted to get that piece of equipment. I have been see a lot of shots coming out of the 40D which my old Olympus could not accomplish. The low light shots and all, simply amazing. I shoot portraits, still light product and low light stuff a lot and it was no longer able to cut it in face of the fiercer competition from other manufacturers and the newer cameras.End of day, I am still undecided if I wanna go get a better piece of equipment out there when I don't even know if I can learn enough to maximise it.
DingDongBell
New Member
It seems like people here who are arguing the case for APS-C do not really understand why FF holds such great attraction. It seems many also do not understand the differences between FF and cropped sensor cameras, e.g. difference in DOF. People who understand will tell you that FF is definitely not just a hype. It's the way it was, some would say, the way it's meant to be.
Along the way, compromises were made, sensors were 'cropped', giving rise to a whole lot of confusion. So those who appreciates FF would not mind paying a little more to get it. Do we NEED it? Probably not. Oh come on, most of us here are hobbyists, so let's not talk about needs vs wants. It just makes the whole discussion rather silly.
Perhaps the following article from Michael could help to give a little perspective. (excerpt below)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5d-announce.shtml
Full Frame Good. Full Frame Bad.
Now, I know that the on-line forum natterers and nay-sayers are going to have a field-day debating the pros and cons of full-frame vs reduced frame. Well, all I can say is – walk a mile in the 5D's shoes and we'll see what you really think.
Anyone that shot film with an SLR prior to digital knows how frustrating looking though the smaller and dimmer viewfinders of most 1.5X and 1.6x digital cameras can be. Looking through the viewfinder of a full-frame camera like the 5D, by comparison, is like taking a whiff of pure oxygen. The image will be big, and bright, and yes, did I mention that it's full frame?
Along the way, compromises were made, sensors were 'cropped', giving rise to a whole lot of confusion. So those who appreciates FF would not mind paying a little more to get it. Do we NEED it? Probably not. Oh come on, most of us here are hobbyists, so let's not talk about needs vs wants. It just makes the whole discussion rather silly.
Perhaps the following article from Michael could help to give a little perspective. (excerpt below)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5d-announce.shtml
Full Frame Good. Full Frame Bad.
Now, I know that the on-line forum natterers and nay-sayers are going to have a field-day debating the pros and cons of full-frame vs reduced frame. Well, all I can say is – walk a mile in the 5D's shoes and we'll see what you really think.
Anyone that shot film with an SLR prior to digital knows how frustrating looking though the smaller and dimmer viewfinders of most 1.5X and 1.6x digital cameras can be. Looking through the viewfinder of a full-frame camera like the 5D, by comparison, is like taking a whiff of pure oxygen. The image will be big, and bright, and yes, did I mention that it's full frame?
Wow... I smell a war coming...
As far as depth of field goes, the difference between four thirds and APS-C is miniscule. But when it comes to sensor quality... hmmm....
alternatve
Senior Member
I have read an article in Amateur Photography on this topic and comparing the Four Thirds range (2x) with Canon's APS-C (1.6x) and Nikon DX (1.5x). Overall the differences were little, but the larger sensor (Canon and Nikon) won over the Four Thirds.
It just makes more sense this way: the larger your sensor, the more it can capture from the surroundings. The problem comes if it being able to capture all the detail it is theoratically able to and whether the technology is there to allow it to process all that detail it captures. However this won't be a problem when comparing a FF camera vs a Crop camera of the same generation and I believe the FF camera will be better, short of saying it'll blow the other out of the water.
Samuel
I think the control of DOF matters to every discerning photographer. Question is really what sort of "premium" do you put on it?
I dunno where you are going but if I read it correctly based on this post, getting shallow DOF seems to be one of the top priorities for you.
I dunno what cam you own but if you are deciding between a 5D or 40D/450D, then perhaps you will want to aim for the 5D, if you budget allows. Or if you can wait, perhaps the next gen of 5D?
I think some people "buay tahan" when suddenly I brought up the topic of why I think APS-C cams rockz over FF cams.
I also buay tahan about all the confused hype over whether one should buy the 5D now, settle for the 40D or wait for the supposed 5D MkII. Hence my posts.
I think the matter has to be understood in its entirety. No one is saying 40D is better than 5D. Or vice versa. If one can point out 5 flaws in the 40D compared to the 5D, I can easily do the same the other way. (Actually in fact I personally think there are more advantages in the 40D than the 5D.)
The problem thus far seems to point to the wonders of FF. Sure, if money is no object, go FF. I would too one day. But nature isn't so simple. Things come with cost and the availability of functions/technology in the cameras, or lack thereof.
With all the hype, some people here and elsewhere in overseas forums seem confused and troubled over what they really need. It seems to me that they got into the whirlwind of going for FF for the sake of it.
Don't forget to factor in the cost! Is it worth to pay the extra? There are some nifty functions in the newer APS-C cams compared to an oldie 5D. Will these functions better serve your needs or does FF really work for you. Think: Ok so now you've got a FF. How does it improve your photography or serve your needs?
One caveat: I am assuming money and wise objectives matter when choosing a cam. Of course, money's yours. If you want to burn your money on a 5D simply cos its price has dropped, no one is stopping you. If you think discussing needs isn't important, then I think there's no point wasting time here arguing FF is better than APS-C for some blah blah reasons. You can burn your cash on anything nice isn't it? Why not consider a 1Ds Mk III? Or add in that $10k Rolex watch in the shopping cart too?
I hope this won't turn out into a flame war. It's good to see some defending strongly why FF is better than APS-C, and vice versa. It means you know what you want. I hope! For those who have fixed budget and are still confused and are overwhelmed by those who claim FF is the way to go, you should re-read some of my postings here.
Put simply, if I ever win a Canon 1Ds Mk III (yeah, how nice huh?!), I'd sell it away, save part of the money, and get an APS-C cam anytime.
As a hobbyist, there is nothing the 5D can do that I can't with the 40D. In fact, I achieved more with the latter. Moreover, I love the kick a** combination of Canon lenses on the 40D that allow me to achieve my objectives in photography.
Do I love FF. Of cos. Would I pay $4k for a brand new FF? No way. $2.6k for an old technology 5D just cos it's FF? Not attractive enough. Perhaps when a brand new FF hits in the region of $2-2.5k, it's worth considering.
Remember, moneys yours. Justification's yours. Ultimately, if you want to listen to some Ah Kow or Tom Dick Harry who favor FF over APS-C cams, sure! On the same note, I hope there are others who find my post useful so that think link be pasted in other forums on why I think the latest APS-C cam is better than a reduced price, old tech 5D.
I also buay tahan about all the confused hype over whether one should buy the 5D now, settle for the 40D or wait for the supposed 5D MkII. Hence my posts.
I think the matter has to be understood in its entirety. No one is saying 40D is better than 5D. Or vice versa. If one can point out 5 flaws in the 40D compared to the 5D, I can easily do the same the other way. (Actually in fact I personally think there are more advantages in the 40D than the 5D.)
The problem thus far seems to point to the wonders of FF. Sure, if money is no object, go FF. I would too one day. But nature isn't so simple. Things come with cost and the availability of functions/technology in the cameras, or lack thereof.
With all the hype, some people here and elsewhere in overseas forums seem confused and troubled over what they really need. It seems to me that they got into the whirlwind of going for FF for the sake of it.
Don't forget to factor in the cost! Is it worth to pay the extra? There are some nifty functions in the newer APS-C cams compared to an oldie 5D. Will these functions better serve your needs or does FF really work for you. Think: Ok so now you've got a FF. How does it improve your photography or serve your needs?
One caveat: I am assuming money and wise objectives matter when choosing a cam. Of course, money's yours. If you want to burn your money on a 5D simply cos its price has dropped, no one is stopping you. If you think discussing needs isn't important, then I think there's no point wasting time here arguing FF is better than APS-C for some blah blah reasons. You can burn your cash on anything nice isn't it? Why not consider a 1Ds Mk III? Or add in that $10k Rolex watch in the shopping cart too?
I hope this won't turn out into a flame war. It's good to see some defending strongly why FF is better than APS-C, and vice versa. It means you know what you want. I hope! For those who have fixed budget and are still confused and are overwhelmed by those who claim FF is the way to go, you should re-read some of my postings here.
Put simply, if I ever win a Canon 1Ds Mk III (yeah, how nice huh?!), I'd sell it away, save part of the money, and get an APS-C cam anytime.
As a hobbyist, there is nothing the 5D can do that I can't with the 40D. In fact, I achieved more with the latter. Moreover, I love the kick a** combination of Canon lenses on the 40D that allow me to achieve my objectives in photography.
Do I love FF. Of cos. Would I pay $4k for a brand new FF? No way. $2.6k for an old technology 5D just cos it's FF? Not attractive enough. Perhaps when a brand new FF hits in the region of $2-2.5k, it's worth considering.
Remember, moneys yours. Justification's yours. Ultimately, if you want to listen to some Ah Kow or Tom Dick Harry who favor FF over APS-C cams, sure! On the same note, I hope there are others who find my post useful so that think link be pasted in other forums on why I think the latest APS-C cam is better than a reduced price, old tech 5D.
Not really. I'm a hobbyist and controlling DOF is an important skill for me, whether I'm using my "cropped sensor" 40D or my past film cams ("FF" of cos).
Whatever premium is to be put with regards to FF cam, only the user can answer.
I don't know if your post is in disagreement with mine but I think we're on similar trains of thoughts.
Basically, if one could have everything, like you said, where money is no object, sure! Get FF 5D, with ALL the L lenses, all the accessories, a studio to go with it. A team of photographers paid a monthly salary to follow you and hold up reflectors for you where-ever you go shooting. And on top of that, get a few 40Ds as standby.
But when money and spending objectively and sanely is an issue, all your points become extremely valid.
Kiwi2, can I have your permission to cut and paste your comments on my site for reference?
hi peek....
not so much disagreement but to elaborate upon your earlier post.
yeah! what you've said is exactly how i feel.
i dunno man... sometimes i feel, those people talk like as if money is no object. Of cos, if that's the case, why the heck would we even argue to get FF cam or cropped sensor type. I probably won't even consider Canon but go for a medium format digital back!
Some people here post links to show how other people think FF is much better than APS-C cam as if their views are universal truth. Seriously, who cares?!! Not me for sure.
The most ridiculous quote I read here is the guy who links the post to some Michael who describes "looking thru FF viewfinder like a taking in a whiff of oxygen". Duh!! The point being....??? Everyone should rush out to get a FF cam so that we could get whiffs of oxygen? That's plain silly.
No wonder so many blur newbies simply wanna buy buy buy the 5D when they read such posts. Advice: Think objectives and needs!!
Yes, like I said, budget is important. otherwise, might as well I post links to pictures taken with a 600mm f/4L lens and say, you can't beat this lens, man. No other lens can produce pictures like the 600mm beauty. How shallow the arguement!
some seem to belittle APS-C cams like as if getting shallow DOF cannot be done with them. Hallo... such cams aren't like compact cams k. There are several situations when I found myself wishing for more DOF with I shoot with the 40D even at not too wide aperture of f/4.
hey peek.... where's your site? Can PM me a link if you don't want to do it here? I'll be glad to allow you to post my comments. Include my nick of course.
I hope I can be linked and counteract lame arguments on the superiority of FF without regards for other factors such as cost, advancement of technology, and lenses available.
I love APS-C cams cos they can use EF-S lenses which FF can't! And I can get f/2.8IS without the ridiculous hefty weight of 24-70mm. And the 24-105mm is only f/4 max.
That's me... why, somebody wanna argue even on this one? Whatever makes me happy, can? It's my needs. What's yours?
not so much disagreement but to elaborate upon your earlier post.
yeah! what you've said is exactly how i feel.
i dunno man... sometimes i feel, those people talk like as if money is no object. Of cos, if that's the case, why the heck would we even argue to get FF cam or cropped sensor type. I probably won't even consider Canon but go for a medium format digital back!
Some people here post links to show how other people think FF is much better than APS-C cam as if their views are universal truth. Seriously, who cares?!! Not me for sure.
The most ridiculous quote I read here is the guy who links the post to some Michael who describes "looking thru FF viewfinder like a taking in a whiff of oxygen". Duh!! The point being....??? Everyone should rush out to get a FF cam so that we could get whiffs of oxygen? That's plain silly.
No wonder so many blur newbies simply wanna buy buy buy the 5D when they read such posts. Advice: Think objectives and needs!!
Yes, like I said, budget is important. otherwise, might as well I post links to pictures taken with a 600mm f/4L lens and say, you can't beat this lens, man. No other lens can produce pictures like the 600mm beauty. How shallow the arguement!
some seem to belittle APS-C cams like as if getting shallow DOF cannot be done with them. Hallo... such cams aren't like compact cams k. There are several situations when I found myself wishing for more DOF with I shoot with the 40D even at not too wide aperture of f/4.
hey peek.... where's your site? Can PM me a link if you don't want to do it here? I'll be glad to allow you to post my comments. Include my nick of course.
I hope I can be linked and counteract lame arguments on the superiority of FF without regards for other factors such as cost, advancement of technology, and lenses available.
I love APS-C cams cos they can use EF-S lenses which FF can't! And I can get f/2.8IS without the ridiculous hefty weight of 24-70mm. And the 24-105mm is only f/4 max.
That's me... why, somebody wanna argue even on this one?
Whatever makes me happy, can? It's my needs. What's yours?I lust for FF, I have a family to support, my boss don't give me enough increment, so I get a EOS3 and shoot film while I wait for toto/promotion/huge price drop on FF DSLR, whichever come first. Of course, I still keep my 30D at the same time.
DingDongBell
New Member
I don't think I can put it any better than Michael...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5d-announce.shtml
"People need to bear in mind the reason that all manufacturers went to APS sized imaging chips in the first place. It wasn't because of any inherent advantage that the smaller sized chips offered, other than that they were significantly less expensive to manufacture. Add to this the ability to use a smaller shutter, smaller prism, and smaller mirror, and the financial advantages to the camera makers were cumulative. The advantages to the photographer were minimal, other than the one big benefit of getting affordable DSLRs. But, because full-frame cameras were either excessively expensive, or nonexistent in an individual maker's lens mount, the emperor's new clothes syndrome came into effect, and some photographers started to believe that there as something inherently advantageous to reduced frame."
So it all boils down to costs and nothing else, all other arguments on which is better would be flawed.
Saying there's nothing a 5D can do that a 40D can't is like saying there's nothing that a Toyota can do that a Lexus can't. Technically correct, but completely missed the point.
On a separate note, there are perhaps a thousand comments around that proclaims, "it's the photographer, not the camera that matters". To that, I'd say, Heck! Just go and use a P&S, you don't need a DSLR.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5d-announce.shtml
"People need to bear in mind the reason that all manufacturers went to APS sized imaging chips in the first place. It wasn't because of any inherent advantage that the smaller sized chips offered, other than that they were significantly less expensive to manufacture. Add to this the ability to use a smaller shutter, smaller prism, and smaller mirror, and the financial advantages to the camera makers were cumulative. The advantages to the photographer were minimal, other than the one big benefit of getting affordable DSLRs. But, because full-frame cameras were either excessively expensive, or nonexistent in an individual maker's lens mount, the emperor's new clothes syndrome came into effect, and some photographers started to believe that there as something inherently advantageous to reduced frame."
So it all boils down to costs and nothing else, all other arguments on which is better would be flawed.
Saying there's nothing a 5D can do that a 40D can't is like saying there's nothing that a Toyota can do that a Lexus can't. Technically correct, but completely missed the point.
On a separate note, there are perhaps a thousand comments around that proclaims, "it's the photographer, not the camera that matters". To that, I'd say, Heck! Just go and use a P&S, you don't need a DSLR.
Michael only presents one part of the argument about FF. Hence, I find it imcomplete. If you can't present it better than him, then it's even worse, my friend.
I also don't advocate "the photographer matters more than the camera" notion. That's a commonly used argument here which presents again, only part of the overall idea of what makes a good picture. Unfortunately, your point about getting pns is totally out of the point. You have thrown a grenade not at the enemy but an open field with no one there!
Let all the restrictions go, as i've been saying here! Read reviews with a pinch of salt.
Ultimately, what do you want to achieve?
There's REALLY nothing a 5D can do that 40D can't. Yup. That's true for me. What point did I miss? Why should I get a 5D then?
I say this for the 100th time, the whole idea of this post is not about FF is better or not better than APS-C cams.
If FF works for you, and you can part the money, go ahead. It's yours. You can do whatever you want with the cam and take whatever pics you want with it.
But I hope to present the other side of the picture (no pun intended) for others who should know that there is a lot of potential and wise purchase to be gotten from APS-C cams.
I've been shooting fervently with Canon film cams for about 5 years before making the switch to digital, starting with the earliest D30. I've seen how the technology has improved and climbed along the way. So I certainly appreciate what FF gives. All I can say is, one has to view the overall picture and understand his or her needs. Arguing FF has blah blah advantages over APS-C cams and hence, one should get FF is shallow and does not present an overall pic.
A better photography advice that I got than the one presented by "Michael" is:
"Ok you've got a neat set of equipent, 5D, 1Ds, L lenses and what not... Now show me your pictures!"
I disagree with that kind of generalisation as well.
I also prefer a P&S to a DSLR much of the time.
Yep, I have PNS and I have (just sold, trying to choose platform now) a DSLR to move to. Most situations when I am in a social environment, I use a PNS. I went hiking with others before and there were girls carrying entire set of SLR equipment, tripod and all. Ended up tired and cramps and had to get others to help them carry. Worth it? Suitable for situation? You judge. So, there is a camera for every occassion and a camera for every purpose. What's your purpose? 
Kiwi2, don't fuss. Seriously, everyone will have their own requirements and needs. FF got their advantages. Crop cuts a good compromise. FF users will have to content with heavy stuff and need to lug equipment and spend a **** load of their salary to maximise their eq. To each their own. If it is just about ONE criteria, all manufacturers need to have only ONE camera.
Kiwi2, I have sent you a PM
Kiwi2, I have sent you a PM
- Status
Similar threads
