I guess you really don't understand the essence of 1.6x crop. :think: The crop is dependent on your camera sensor. Changing a lens out would not disable your crop.
Uh, your 18mm and 200mm example confuses me and makes no sense.
What exactly is the good thing 'bout FF?
- Thread starter kimazuru
- Start date
- Status
I guess you really don't understand the essence of 1.6x crop. :think: The crop is dependent on your camera sensor. Changing a lens out would not disable your crop.
Uh, your 18mm and 200mm example confuses me and makes no sense.
Erm i tot If i'm placing a EF-S 18mm at 450D the picture taken would be appearing as a EF 28.8mm on a 5d2? right? But if i place a EF-S 18 on a 5d2 it would appear as a 18mm picture only.
as for the 18f1.2 and 200f1.2 example. Haha.. that's what i concluded frm ricleo. I mean i got confused and conclude that frm my confused result. haha
ManWearPants
Senior Member
I suspect the pleasing colour that you see has little to do with the fact that it is a FF. It could be that the lens that provide more contrasts or in-camera post processing that gives you better colours. There are few people who can look at a general 4x3 photo and distinguish if it is taken using FF, APS-C, 4/3 or PnS.
For DoF, focal length, cropped factor, aperture, FF vs APS-C, 5DMkII vs 7D, EF vs EF-S. There are loads of information if you do a search. Only after reading will you make this discussion more meaningful.
Another 2 points to note.
1) 5DMkII and 7D are 2 different type of camera. You should see it as what type of photo that you will be taking , ie portrait/landscape/sports/wildlife/indoor events/outdoor events/macro instead of FF vs APS-C
2) 5DMkII accepts only EF lenses. 7D accepts both EF and EF-S lenses. Expect to invest in expensive large and bright lenses to fully optimize the full sensor of FF.
For DoF, focal length, cropped factor, aperture, FF vs APS-C, 5DMkII vs 7D, EF vs EF-S. There are loads of information if you do a search. Only after reading will you make this discussion more meaningful.
Another 2 points to note.
1) 5DMkII and 7D are 2 different type of camera. You should see it as what type of photo that you will be taking , ie portrait/landscape/sports/wildlife/indoor events/outdoor events/macro instead of FF vs APS-C
2) 5DMkII accepts only EF lenses. 7D accepts both EF and EF-S lenses. Expect to invest in expensive large and bright lenses to fully optimize the full sensor of FF.
Last edited:
Allow me to clarify.
Regardless of EF or EF-S, any lens you mount on a 1.6x crop camera will have its FoV affected by the crop. Any lens that you mount on a full frame camera will grant you its full focal length. Now obviously you can't mount an EF-S lens on a full frame camera due to the rear protrusion (unless you modify it). Remember, crop factor is affected by the camera body, not lens.
That out of the way, if you mount a 100mm lens on a 1.6x camera, the FoV you get will be similar to a 160mm lens on a full frame camera, hence the crop factor figure. I hope this is comprehensible to you.
Last edited:
Hi, this is great info for noob. Forgive me for being repeating but just to make sure this knowledge drums into my mind. In short, if you mount 100mm on a 1.6x camera, you get a much longer tele range of 160mm but on a FF, you will only be able to achieve 100mm. Is this correct? :think:
If so, I can understand why people struggle when they switch to FF. :bsmilie:
KY1977
New Member
That is not the reason why ppl go FF. At least it will not be my reason.
Hi, no offence I hope, I know there are tons of reasons why people will upgrade to FF (I hope to know my own reasons for doing so in future too).
I am merely pointing out if a 1.6x crop allows a longer tele zoom, it might be a reason for some who are reluctant to go FF. By thw way, care to share your reason/s?
coffee3in1
Senior Member
There are 4 factors affecting DOF.
1) Aperture of the lens
2) Focus Length of the lens
3) Distance between lens and subject (focus distance)
4) Image circle / Sensor size
KY1977
New Member
Hi, no offence I hope, I know there are tons of reasons why people will upgrade to FF (I hope to know my own reasons for doing so in future too).
I am merely pointing out if a 1.6x crop allows a longer tele zoom, it might be a reason for some who are reluctant to go FF. By thw way, care to share your reason/s?
No offence taken. I would want FF because less noise (esp at high iso) and more detail in picture. Then again, I dun do large print. So I'm still holding onto my crop camera. I'm kinda surprise that the crop factor was mentioned by so many ppl as an important factor to go FF.
engrmariano
Senior Member
...& no need to multiply every focal length by 1.6 to get the FF equivalent of your lens.
Why go full frame?
Why indeed. Why is there 35mm film, 120 medium format, 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 large format?
Be able to print larger, higher image quality, etc... Once you tried to print A1, there is no turning back - you'll need a 5D2, D3x, 1Ds3, A850, A900, etc...
But seriously, 1.6 crops are equivalent to 35mm film already and for a hobbist, I don't see the need to go FF. Croppers can make great pics too you know.
On the other hand, if you are expected to deliver a certain minimum quality to a client, that's a different story. Then cost is irrelevant and can be recovered over a period of time when we charge clients a fee for a job performed. Yes, in this sort of instance, FF is the most cost effective means to an end - quality. Once we go beyond FF, the $ escalates exponentially.
Rich hobbyists, hmmm there's always something for them to spend their money on.
So should you go FF? Sony's A850 is the least expensive option today. With a 24-70 Zeiss, you have a great 'starter' system.
As you have already burned your bridges behind you (selling the 450D), you should go boldly where the bravest have gone before.
Why indeed. Why is there 35mm film, 120 medium format, 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 large format?
Be able to print larger, higher image quality, etc... Once you tried to print A1, there is no turning back - you'll need a 5D2, D3x, 1Ds3, A850, A900, etc...
But seriously, 1.6 crops are equivalent to 35mm film already and for a hobbist, I don't see the need to go FF. Croppers can make great pics too you know.
On the other hand, if you are expected to deliver a certain minimum quality to a client, that's a different story. Then cost is irrelevant and can be recovered over a period of time when we charge clients a fee for a job performed. Yes, in this sort of instance, FF is the most cost effective means to an end - quality. Once we go beyond FF, the $ escalates exponentially.
Rich hobbyists, hmmm there's always something for them to spend their money on.
So should you go FF? Sony's A850 is the least expensive option today. With a 24-70 Zeiss, you have a great 'starter' system.
As you have already burned your bridges behind you (selling the 450D), you should go boldly where the bravest have gone before.
If u have 18-55mm IS, it is USELESS to buy such an 7D body,
u should consider 450D or 500D which is suitables for that lens
Hi, why would you say "useless"? 18-55mm is meant to be a kit lens for all crop bodies (this include 450d, 500D and also 7D). :think:
magicdragon
Member
In "Full Frame" DSLR the sensor is the same size as that of a 35mm film (negative or positive/slide). You get a bigger sensor than other DSLR that use APS-C or four-Thirds sensor sizr (there are other sizes BTW). When you use a FF DSLR you are better able to take advantage of wide angle lenses - for eg a 24mm lens will translate into 38mm (for APS-C sensor size) and 48mm (for four-thirds). Wide angle lenses offer a distinct view of the world as whatever is near the focal plane (sensor or film) will be larger that what's in the background. So a man's face will have a bigger nose, normal eyes and smaller ears (not very flattering to a face but in many instances it can create a dramatic impact. Also the larger the sensor the shallower the DOF at a given focal length (the mm in the lens ie 50mm or 100mm or 24mm etc).
So for eg a 90mm lens is/was considered a standard lens in medium format film cameras while a 50mm lens was considered the standard lens for 35 mm film camers (and today for FF DSLR) but the DOF (the region before and after the focus point) was less in the medium format camera than the 35mm film camera.
You should find out about DOF before buying a FF camera. If you are going to be one of those photographers that think about what he/she want's to say about the subject and then go out and capture it with the tools that you have then I say go for it.
You are shooting in RAW yes? And you are using software to tweak the selected picture to further enhance what is it you want to say in you picture.
Frankly you'll need to be on the verge of pro photography to get a 5D or even a 7D. But if you have the spare cash then by all means.... ;-)
Also do consider you need to spend even more on good lenses.
Hope this helps.
So for eg a 90mm lens is/was considered a standard lens in medium format film cameras while a 50mm lens was considered the standard lens for 35 mm film camers (and today for FF DSLR) but the DOF (the region before and after the focus point) was less in the medium format camera than the 35mm film camera.
You should find out about DOF before buying a FF camera. If you are going to be one of those photographers that think about what he/she want's to say about the subject and then go out and capture it with the tools that you have then I say go for it.
You are shooting in RAW yes? And you are using software to tweak the selected picture to further enhance what is it you want to say in you picture.
Frankly you'll need to be on the verge of pro photography to get a 5D or even a 7D. But if you have the spare cash then by all means.... ;-)
Also do consider you need to spend even more on good lenses.
Hope this helps.
It is truly useless of you to pass such comments. The 18-55 IS is a very capable lens provided you do know how to use it properly.
PrimePhotog
Deregistered
Personally, I think that if you can't tell the difference, don't even bother upgrading. Better camera does not equal better pictures. If you are asking this question, I really don't think you need a new camera. Maybe you should go out and shoot with your camera thoroughly and figure out whether it is the camera that is limiting you from making better pictures or if it's just you. Hope you understand what I mean. 
PrimePhotog
Deregistered
Agree... The 18-55 IS really has quite decent IQ... Just that it is a little slow.
Personally, I think that if you can't tell the difference, don't even bother upgrading. Better camera does not equal better pictures. If you are asking this question, I really don't think you need a new camera. Maybe you should go out and shoot with your camera thoroughly and figure out whether it is the camera that is limiting you from making better pictures or if it's just you. Hope you understand what I mean.
Thanks for the advice but actually i shoot alot.
What i really need is to get a body that can fulfill my needs.
And the main problem with me is that;
- I like natural lighting, don't like using flash at all, unless i dun have a choice, thus i either spam high aperture or high ISO, which in my case i find that spamming high aperture isn't a gd choice at times because some pictures need details.
And my only solution is High ISO, 450D gets alot of disturbance at 1600 ISO and in fact 800 isn't that fantastic already.
Thus i was looking for an answer to my high ISO performance needs, which concludes that FF, with big sensors, allows bigger tolerance for ISO right? =D
Btw, is 50D gd enuff? I was looking thru the reviews of 50D noise control capability and it seems good. Any 50D users happen to be reading this?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
