Time to go FF???

[peekarwe]

There is a very interesting article here posted by a certain Scott Meyer about 40D vs 5D, effectively APS-C vs FF -> http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00N53f

In summary, he asked : "Which camera has better image quality?

I dont care about live preview or the LCD screen or any other bells and whistles. I just want to hear from people that own both cameras to give there honest opinion on the image quality on each camera and tell me which one is they think is better. "

He has kindly removed ALL consideration from the equation. Don't care about live preview, LCD screen, other bells and whistles... he only wanted to know about ONE thing. Image Quality.

Again, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, same lens and all, the answer seems to be obviously in favour of the 5D. I mean, Canon didn't price the camera at 2 times the price for nothing.

But, we know, there are other compromises which needs to be considered. Which is what the article lacked. So, when I said that the article was interesting, I didn't mean it in a positive way.

 

[DingDongBell]

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.

Honestly, I did not bother to read through all your lengthy posts in this thread. From the bits I've read, you were trying to explain why you thought APS-C rocks, and why you don't need FF?

The reason why I quoted Michael is because he's an extremely experienced professional photographer with all kinds of cameras, and he speaks from his rich experience. He wasn't even making an argument, he was stating facts. He knows what he's talking about as oppose to an intellectual analysis.

Just in case you think I'm a FF snob, I'm not. I've used Canon film cameras longer than you had, and I too went digital on the D30. I've shot extensively using 1.6x and 1.3x cameras before biting the bullet and spending $3.6k on the 5D. Today, I still use both my 20D and my 5D. Am I rich? No I'm not. Do I really need 5D? No I probably don't. Do I regret spending my hard-earned $$ on 5D? Not at all! It was painful initially and it wasn't an easy decision, but I have been really enjoying my 5D ever since. I can't say the same for my other cameras, I always felt they were somewhat a compromise.

5D is not just great because it's FF, but because of its superb image quality even at high ISO, light weight, small form factor and the fantastic battery life. Most importantly, I can see much better. This is what Michael meant when he said "looking thru FF viewfinder is like a taking in a whiff of oxygen". Apparently you didn't understand what he's talking about, thus finding the comment ridiculous.

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.

No one is disputing this point you're making. As I understand, the TS is asking if it's the right time to go FF, not a detailed analysis of whether it's a right decision to go FF.


And to the TS' question on whether it's time to go FF?
Yes, at $2.2k for a 2nd hand, I think it's a fantastic opportunity to do so. 5D is still a great camera that can last you a long long time, beyond 5D mkII, mkIII, etc... No compromises.

 

[peekarwe]

Amazing thread... didn't expect this to turn out to be a FF vs APS-C. Let's concede that there are benefits to BOTH formats and there is a camera for every situation.

 

[doodah]

Again, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, same lens and all, the answer seems to be obviously in favour of the 5D. I mean, Canon didn't price the camera at 2 times the price for nothing.

I understand FF sensors have lower yield per wafer than APS-C ones, and that's the reason for the higher cost.

 

[ST1100]

For example, an f/4.5 lens on FF has the same depth of field as f/2.8 on APS-C for the same focal length, scene and composition. Or an f/1.4 lens on FF has the same DOF as f/0.87 (obviously does not exist) on APS-C.

i've done my time on the FF/APS debate over the years, so i'm not stepping into this one. Just wanna point out that the figures above are wrong. You do not get the equivalent f-numbers by multiplying 1.6. The sensor-to-print enlargement factor is changed by 1.6, you'd need to reverse engineer the DOF equations (which are long and complicated) to get the equivalent f-numbers.

In any case, how does one get "the same focal length, scene and composition" for FF and APS? Kinda impossible right?

 

[grantyale]

i've done my time on the FF/APS debate over the years, so i'm not stepping into this one. Just wanna point out that the figures above are wrong. You do not get the equivalent f-numbers by multiplying 1.6. The sensor-to-print enlargement factor is changed by 1.6, you'd need to reverse engineer the DOF equations (which are long and complicated) to get the equivalent f-numbers.

In any case, how does one get "the same focal length, scene and composition" for FF and APS? Kinda impossible right?

That part can't be exact - but multiplying the f-number by 1.6 makes a good enough approximation especially when the distance of subject is not too close.

 

[doodah]

You do not get the equivalent f-numbers by multiplying 1.6.

Not exact, but pretty close.

In any case, how does one get "the same focal length, scene and composition" for FF and APS? Kinda impossible right?

Maybe I should be more careful with my language. I mean identical scene with equivalent field of view and focal length. More info here

 

[Doughnuts]

i've done my time on the FF/APS debate over the years, so i'm not stepping into this one. Just wanna point out that the figures above are wrong. You do not get the equivalent f-numbers by multiplying 1.6. The sensor-to-print enlargement factor is changed by 1.6, you'd need to reverse engineer the DOF equations (which are long and complicated) to get the equivalent f-numbers.

In any case, how does one get "the same focal length, scene and composition" for FF and APS? Kinda impossible right?

Is there a conversion table anyone? or a formula?

 

[doodah]

Is there a conversion table anyone? or a formula?

Here you go: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

 

[Doughnuts]

Here you go: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Hi doodah, thanks a million! great tool for the confused.

 

[sloth]

Does it really matter?

Some people see a certain magic in full frame. I acquired my 5D in a time of the 20D - when the 5D's high ISO performance, viewfinder brightness, and lens availability stomped the 20D. I appreciate having a TRUE 24mm FOV on the wide end of my 24-105. No IS, USM, f/4L lens is available for APS-C that can do this yet, even if you forget about the L part (L ain't everything I know). So buy FF if you want to.

Then again the 40D is also a tremendously capable camera. 6.5fps and certain custom functions make it tremendously useful. I have shot some of my best landscape work ever on a 40D. I liked the 40D.. I have one - and a 5D. I don't find that they are mutually exclusive. I use them for their respective strengths.

On top of that I shoot medium format in both 645 and 6x6. There is a certain awe to holding a Velvia 100 transparency with the massive 6x6 frame on it. Size absolutely does matter. On an entry level, $300 MF scanner, I can pull a SHARP 30 megapixels out of a 6x6 RVP100 or RDP3 slide.

Really, it's whatever makes you happy.

 

[calebk]

Does it really matter?

Some people see a certain magic in full frame. I acquired my 5D in a time of the 20D - when the 5D's high ISO performance, viewfinder brightness, and lens availability stomped the 20D. I appreciate having a TRUE 24mm FOV on the wide end of my 24-105. No IS, USM, f/4L lens is available for APS-C that can do this yet, even if you forget about the L part (L ain't everything I know). So buy FF if you want to.

Then again the 40D is also a tremendously capable camera. 6.5fps and certain custom functions make it tremendously useful. I have shot some of my best landscape work ever on a 40D. I liked the 40D.. I have one - and a 5D. I don't find that they are mutually exclusive. I use them for their respective strengths.

On top of that I shoot medium format in both 645 and 6x6. There is a certain awe to holding a Velvia 100 transparency with the massive 6x6 frame on it. Size absolutely does matter. On an entry level, $300 MF scanner, I can pull a SHARP 30 megapixels out of a 6x6 RVP100 or RDP3 slide.

Really, it's whatever makes you happy.

I can see you are really happy with all the gear that you have. :bsmilie:

Really, you do have a point; as hobbyists, we are not really pressured into delivering quality photos. It's just really doing what you enjoy doing.

 

[kiwi2]

Ding Dong Bell,

You don't bother to read my entire posts? I don't know whether you are lying or making this statement to suggest that my discusisons are not worth reading.

whatever.. I think that's where the misunderstanding arises.

If you read carefully, my post started cos I want to caution newbies or those confused about what they really need or want photography to do for them. It is along the way that I express my own opinion that I prefer APS-C cams compared to FF. Anything wrong here?

(I've handled a 5D a few times. I weighed my needs. I've checked ont the features that 40D have but which 5D doesn't. I evaluated my shooting style. I studied both camera specs and prices. Final decision: 40D.)

There are countless out there who express FF is better than APS-C. I'm merely presenting another viewpoint. What's your problem? Can't take it cos you are a 5D owner rite? then accept it that there are people like me out there who prefer an APS-C cams and are in no way inferior.

But if you read carefully, I never mentioned blatantly one is better than another for EVERYONE.

Hence, my stand about knowing one's needs in making a decision if FF is right for you.

It seems to me that a fair portion plunges into buying the 5D simply cos its price has dropped. Simiarly, people sometimes ask, Should I get the 50mm f/1.2 or 85 f/1.2? Not that some of us don't want to help, but you know, sometimes such questions show a hint that the person has $ and dunno where to burn it on.

what's the point of quoting Michael or any Ah Kow here to show the prowess of the 5D? you think I or many here don't know what FF or 5D can do? This is not an academic thesis. Have a view of your own, man. What's your intention to quote what others are saying? To back yourself up that FF is better than APS-C? If that is your thinking, then it's so wrong.

As I've said many times, it all depends on what one is looking for. As peekarwe alluded to an article, if you strip away everything and simply ask, which one gives the best image quality without the "bells and whistles"? then of course, you have (unfairly) narrowed down to the best lenses like the L's and FF cams. (With the introduction of 40D, it gives the 5D a run for its money.)

But if one is wise enough, there are a few essential questions to ask, such as, Is it worth paying the extra money? How much of a diff are you talking about? How does FF improve my photography? What is the true meaning of photography?

And sorry, if you are talking about wanting the very best in image quality, Canon would not even be of consideration, if you know what I mean.

I still maintain, if you like the 5D, so be it. Up to you. No one is saying "Buy cropped sensor cams. FF is not worth it." I didn't say that, at least.

As I suspected, you are a 5D owner. From your arugments, it seems you are trying to defend your ownership of the cam. Defend from what?

And the part on you spending $ etc? Seriously, I don't care. Neither does anyone. It's your money. Whatever works for you.

Please lah, don't have to explain about the Viewfinder thingy. you think I don't know? Why are you repeating and going about in circles again?

And what about the RIGHT TIME and RIGHT DECISION argument are you bring up? Whether this is the right time to get a 5D or not -- Does it not translate to making THE right decision eventually? You are playing with words and arguing for the sake of it I think.

I think this post has gone out of control.

In short, Ok ok, you got your 5D. You happy. That's your business. Not mine.

Since you haven't gotten what I'm trying to say throughout my posts, it's this: Everyone should buy whatever he or she is looking to achieve. Exception: If you have tons of money and don't mind spending, then it doesn't matter. You can by whatever you want.

Now go out and shoot!
Phew...I'm outta this thread.

 

[chopper]

Most importantly, I can see much better. This is what Michael meant when he said "looking thru FF viewfinder is like a taking in a whiff of oxygen". Apparently you didn't understand what he's talking about, thus finding the comment ridiculous.

I had been using film SLR before moving into D60, and now still with my 30D, and I really have to agree with DingDongBell statement here. When I got my EOS3, and look through the view finder, it struck me on how much more details I can see through the view finder. I simply got used to the tunnel effect of the crop DSLR view finder and forgot the difference, until I see it again.

So, bottom line is, it's definitely true that the FF view finder is much better, just try it to see the difference.

 

[ditikolon]

I had been using film SLR before moving into D60, and now still with my 30D, and I really have to agree with DingDongBell statement here. When I got my EOS3, and look through the view finder, it struck me on how much more details I can see through the view finder. I simply got used to the tunnel effect of the crop DSLR view finder and forgot the difference, until I see it again.

So, bottom line is, it's definitely true that the FF view finder is much better, just try it to see the difference.

Here's my humble two cents.

After having to suffer with the cramped viewfinders of consumer crop sensor cameras the moment I stepped into the DSLR world (I used to shoot film and MF until it got too troublesome)... I am no longer buying EF-S lenses. I don't believe in the future of APS-C because one day, putting FF sensors into consumer DSLRS will be an affordable enough normality.

And because of this belief, I don't want to have to sell off a whole ton of EF-S lenses which won't work on my FF body.

I'm no bird shooter, so I am really waiting for the day my 50mm lens finally behaves like a NORMAL lens, and my lovely 24mm as a nice wideangle. And I will sell my EF-S 55-250IS for the 70-200 f/2.8 that I've always wanted to buy, but always hated (starting at 70mm) on a crop body.

I'm not saying that crop sensors are bad... it's just that I've always had the personal belief that digital SLRs should behave in the same way as film SLRs do, or rather, did - take great pictures with the help of technology - without losing too much of dynamic range, perspective that film has to offer. Nowadays we can take great pictures with our APS-C digital cameras without having to strictly watch the number of exposures. But I definitely lament losing the same perspective that my EF lenses used to have with my film bodies... as well as the BIG, BIG viewfinder.

 

[peekarwe]

I don't believe in the future of APS-C because one day, putting FF sensors into consumer DSLRS will be an affordable enough normality.

This is a very very good point that you have... But I dunno... even if it's cheap to do so.. .does it mean they *will* do so? I mean... not everyone wants to lug around 5kg of equipment and lenses with them ya? Unless, of course, FF and lenses and mirrors, viewfinders mechanism in the full frame can come down in size? Which, then... will compromise the size of the frame... hmmmm...

 

[Doughnuts]

Here's my humble two cents.

After having to suffer with the cramped viewfinders of consumer crop sensor cameras the moment I stepped into the DSLR world (I used to shoot film and MF until it got too troublesome)... I am no longer buying EF-S lenses. I don't believe in the future of APS-C because one day, putting FF sensors into consumer DSLRS will be an affordable enough normality.

And because of this belief, I don't want to have to sell off a whole ton of EF-S lenses which won't work on my FF body.

I'm no bird shooter, so I am really waiting for the day my 50mm lens finally behaves like a NORMAL lens, and my lovely 24mm as a nice wideangle. And I will sell my EF-S 55-250IS for the 70-200 f/2.8 that I've always wanted to buy, but always hated (starting at 70mm) on a crop body.


I'm not saying that crop sensors are bad... it's just that I've always had the personal belief that digital SLRs should behave in the same way as film SLRs do, or rather, did - take great pictures with the help of technology - without losing too much of dynamic range, perspective that film has to offer. Nowadays we can take great pictures with our APS-C digital cameras without having to strictly watch the number of exposures. But I definitely lament losing the same perspective that my EF lenses used to have with my film bodies... as well as the BIG, BIG viewfinder.

Don't think it will happen that quickly dude, and what makes you think that when APS-C cams get chopped and FF's become cheap.. that FF sensors and their like will remain the same? In that future, FF cams can give 20mega pixels, HD video recording and only at the size of your palm, this will render all your L lens extinct as well.
Think 10 years ago L lens didn't have USM and cost a bomb then. 5 years down the road maybe lens no longer needed, all using 60 mega pixels then edit scenes via super CPU calculations, 1 shot only needed.

 

[adamadam]

I finally got a FF camera today... WOW!

 

[silverarrow]

With today's pace of technology, FF sensor will be made affordable to all entry level Dslr soon..........look at the LCD display technology, a 42 inch LCD tv costs around $22000 when it was first launch 5 years ago, today you can get it for slightly more than $2000 ish.

I believed that they already had the technology to make FF sensor economically now, but hold them back to reap max profit potential to make their development worth the while.

If these were to happens, then the 1D series may have 50 mega pixel sensor then....haha.

Have read somewhere that every 18 month or so, the silicon wafer size strink by half its' own size (or double its content with the same size area), there is actually a term or word for these, but just slipped out of my mind now... and it's holding these truth since 1973 in the ic world.

I may be wrong now, but not for long when all these is a reality in near future....

Cheers to technology and to FF, here we come.....

 

[adamadam]

I bought a pack of 24 sensor replacements