Digital Slr - Full Frame Or Cropped Sensor?

[Nordlys]

This month will see the first full-frame dSLR from Nikon camp to hit the market, ending Canon's domination of full-size frame digital SLR. I expect more full-frame sensor cameras to be released into the market, not only from Canon and Nikon but from other makes too (e.g. Sony). EOS 5D has proven to be a huge success for Canon, and this segment of the market is sure to lead the dSLR market in the years to come.

So I bought 5D. I was using film SLR already and had Canon's EF lenses (though I changed most of my lenses after buying 5D) so I didn't want to settle for anything less than full-size sensor. I've been waiting for a camera like 5D to be released while watching and drooling new models like 10D and 20D (back then) come and go (though I might have bought 30D if 5D wasn't released). I bought it only 4 months after its release when it was still expensive but I never regretted the decision. It was worth every penny and I wish I had it sooner.

What is/was your choice?

Edited November 29, 2007 by Nordlys

[astral]

I started with the Canon EOS 600 back in 1989, I think it was one of the first EOS models

after my Olympus OM-10 and OM-4 kit was stolen from my car.

The EOS is a full frame film camera.

That served me well and is still operational, though I rarely use it.

I had invested in a few lenses and a flash gun, so that influenced my decision to stay with Canon.

Back in 2004 I looked at the Canon 300D but settled on the more solidly built 10D.

It had the features I needed and suited my budget.

I enjoyed using it and the liberation that digital provides.

I also liked the pop up flash, saving the need to carry the big flash gun all the time.

I would class my self as a keen amateur taking a lot of travel photos

Two months back I upgraded to the new Canon 40D.

It fixes all the little niggles that were part of the 10D

I have considered the Canon 5D with its full frame, but the additional cost, weight and lack of builtin flash deterred me.

Full frame or cropped frame? Well the shorter focal length lenses with the cropped frame can create

perspective and depth of field problems, but nothing I do not feel able to cope with.

The compact design of lenses for the cropped format is a benefit.

I now have a EF-S 10-22mm lens which is wonderful for tight situations.

The equivalent full frame EF 17-40 is quite a bit more bulky, though it does have a fixed aperture of F4.

I do not regret the change to the smaller format.

[hughden]

I had the 300D and then the 30D. The 5D was a very tempting alternative to the 30D, but at the time it was very expensive, and as I shoot sports, the 5D did not shoot sufficient frames per second (too much data to stuff through the buffer). But it does take gorgeous images and, now it has dropped in price, it must be one of the great bargain DSLRs, especially compared to the other full frame options from Canon and Nikon which are mega-expensive in comparison.

I have recently upgraded to the 1D Mark 3 which gives fantastic image quality and ten frames a second on a 1.3 crop sensor; this sensor size seems to provide a good compromise of speed, image quality and price, and I don't have to worry vignetting issues which some lenses give on a full size sensor.

[Firefoxx]

I think that if I were to be taking pictures for a living and earing a *lot* from those pictures, I would go full frame. That way all the added costs of full frame would be justified. The extra weight would be justified. The extra bulk would be justified. The extra attention would be justified.

But I'm not, so I'm sticking to cropped. Truthfully, I once considered switching (when I had the funds). But when I did the math and thought about all the hassle I'd have to go through, I abandoned the idea and got a HD camcorder instead.

Canon has shown that they are dedicated to full frame by constantly releasing amazing EF-S lenses and bodies (like the 40D) for the cropped sensor. The sheer number of 300D, 350D, and 400D's is staggering (really, they're about as prolific as a lot of P&S's), so there is indeed a user base for cropped sensors.

Nikon also has a big investment in cropped. They've only released one full frame DSLR, so if they ignore their huge cropped-sensor user base (which includes many, many pros), they're going to anger a lot of people.

[NordicMan]

I've been using Nikon and was more familiar with that than Canon. I bought a Nikon D80. My main concern was the initial lack of wide angle lenses for cropped sensors, but after Nikon released the 12-24mm, and 3rd party manufacturers released their version, this was no longer a showstopper for me.

No doubt full frame can produce better quality images... but medium format can produce even better images again. The crop sensor was a sensible balance between cost (including a selection of lenses), portability and image quality for me.

Even though the cost of full frame cameras may come down in the next few yeqars (e.g. Nikon D3), the full-frame lenses will continue to be significantly more expensive than DX/cropped frame.

If in the future I am to to ditch my cropped system, I will consider the jump up to medium format instead (cost being the key consideration).

[NordicMan]

I want one of these... except my wife would kill me if I spent that kind of money

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-Mamiya-ZD-22-Meg...1QQcmdZViewItem

[Nordlys]

I was at the Photo Fair in Bangkok last month and had the opportunity to touch and made a few shot with just-released Nikon D3. Frankly I was shocked to find how D3 felt like such an accomplished dSLR and how it overwhelmed EOS 5D in every aspect. I felt my 5D was so cheap holding it after having held D3 in hands. I'm quite tempted to change my entire EOS system for Nikon, although that's not likely to happen any time soon. At least not until I see the 5D Mk2. It just felt so right including the pricing (185,000 Baht). I didn't feel so thrilled holding EOS 1Ds Mk3.

Edited January 1, 2008 by Nordlys

[canuckamuck]

I was a Nikon guy, I had a nice kit of Nikon lenses and accessories, but they wouldn't make a full frame DSLR, and the digital Canons of the day made Nikon look like amateur hour. So I was forced to sell it all and get a whole new system. It is not likely I would consider returning to Nikon anytime soon.

Nikon is late to the party and will have to win back a lot of jilted lovers.

[Nordlys]

Then I suggest you don't take a look at Nikon D3.

[NordicMan]

I think whether a D3 is currently the ultimate digital photographic tool depends on what you are shooting. Certainly if you are into sports or many forms of news photography.

But if your style is mostly studio and landscapes, a medium format digital camera will produce much better results. They are more expensive and bulkier though. PhaseOne and Hasselblad backs has been priced in the realms of professionals and lotto millionaires only, but with Mamiya's recent ZD backs and ZD camera, it is finally within reach of amateurs with cash to spare.

E.g. Mamiya zd camera finally available at less than £5000 / $10,000, ZD back at £3500/$7000, zd AFD-II kit (camera, back, lens) also at £5,000

And prices will of course drop...

[SamsSauce1949]

My take on the debate relating to the pros and cons of full-frame (35mm film size) and cropped (APS-C) is that whilst one does get a much larger sensor with 35mm, until we also see optics specifically designed for digital sensors of this size, they are not going to deliver images of comparable quality to those of optics specifically tailored for APS-C sized sensors. I suspect many people seeking the larger format size, want this because they can use the lenses they already own, rather than suffer the expense of replacing their existing optics.

Unfortunately, because these lenses are NOT Telecentric designs, (The rear element has to be of considerably larger diameter, or/and the light strikes the sensor at a much less acute angle) optics designed for 35mm film will be subject to 'fringing' problems. Whilst this issue has less impact on optics longer than 50mm, the problem becomes increasingly more of a problem on wide and especially ultra-wide optics.

Regarding the APS-C format, up until very recently, trying to find very wide and ultra-wide optics has been a bit like tracking down the Holy Grail or unbiased Politician ... These optics seem to be very difficult to compute. However, there is a solution to this problem, but it involves using a digital sensor size which so far not been mentioned ... Olympus's 4/3rds format! I have sitting in front of me, an Olympus E-1, (soon to be upgraded to an E-3) on which I have attached the Zukio f4.0 7-14mm zoom. This lump of a lens, offers on it's widest setting, 114 degrees of coverage, with minimal barrelling, 1.5 f-stops of exposure variation across the frame, but I'm sorry to say, it's purchase has resulted in a mangled bank-balance!

So far, only one optic better's it's extreme angle of view, and that is a prime rather than a zoom; I am referring to Voightlander's f5.6 12mm Heliar, which only fits 35mm rangefinder cameras. Astounding as this is, it does exhibit one failing, which is that you need to fit on it a Schott Heliopan filter, to correct out the 3 f-stops of exposure variation across the frame, (Not too big a problem with B&W film, which has a lot of exposure latitude, but a nightmare exposure-wise with colour!) which effectively reduces the maximum apeture to f16.

Of course the 4/3rds system does have it's failings because of noise showing up when using the 400ASA and faster settings, but nothing that the use of a tripod cannot rectify, but this is a small penalty to pay for the resulting images.

This sample image was taken at 7mm setting hand-held without flash.

[astral]

.......until we also see optics specifically designed for digital sensors of this size, they are not going to deliver images of comparable quality to those of optics specifically tailored for APS-C sized sensors. I suspect many people seeking the larger format size, want this because they can use the lenses they already own, rather than suffer the expense of replacing their existing optics.

Unfortunately, because these lenses are NOT Telecentric designs, (The rear element has to be of considerably larger diameter, or/and the light strikes the sensor at a much less acute angle) optics designed for 35mm film will be subject to 'fringing' problems. Whilst this issue has less impact on optics longer than 50mm, the problem becomes increasingly more of a problem on wide and especially ultra-wide optics.

Canon does have a number of EF-S lenses, particularly the 10-22mm and 18-85mm which are specifically designed

for the smaller format, and by all accounts they perform well.

Full size EF lenses also fit on the Canon 400D and 40D and the earlier models as well,

so your concerns seem to be unfounded.

[SamsSauce1949]

Yes, there are many lenses designed specifically for APS-C sized sensors, but what I was saying is that I am not aware of any optics specifically optimised for the 35mm DSLR format. Maybe these lenses will appear in time, but I also suspect that over a period of time, it will be realised that the lens-mount diameter will need to be be significantly enlarged, so that the rays exiting the rear element, strike the sensor in a more parallel manner than existing 35mm lenses designed for film. I have even heard of people gaining imaging improvements by attaching lenses designed for the 6x6cm format, (Hassleblad and maybe Bronica) via adaptors onto 35mm bodies.

[kdvsn]

Yes, there are many lenses designed specifically for APS-C sized sensors, but what I was saying is that I am not aware of any optics specifically optimised for the 35mm DSLR format. Maybe these lenses will appear in time, but I also suspect that over a period of time, it will be realised that the lens-mount diameter will need to be be significantly enlarged, so that the rays exiting the rear element, strike the sensor in a more parallel manner than existing 35mm lenses designed for film. I have even heard of people gaining imaging improvements by attaching lenses designed for the 6x6cm format, (Hassleblad and maybe Bronica) via adaptors onto 35mm bodies.

Nikon's 14-24 mm f/2.8 lens, announced concurrently with the D3, probably qualifies as being a lens optimized for 35mm DSLR format. However early reviews of the D3 seem to say that the camera does quite well with a variety of Nikon lenses which had a good reputation during the pre-digital era as well.

Edited January 7, 2008 by kdvsn

[The Vulcan]

Very good analysis "Samssauce1949" - and I just LOVE the shot you attached.

A pro friend of mind in the UK invested in the adaptation to utilise his Hasselblad lenses on his Canon 5D. His tests showed that inasmuch as there was indeed a "marginal" improvement in image quality, it was not obvious enough to justify the outlay.

No doubt though that the full frame manufacturers will eventually release specific lenses (at great cost) to address the current shortcomings.

[Kees5]

>Canon does have a number of EF-S lenses, particularly the 10-22mm and 18-85mm which are specifically designed

for the smaller format, and by all accounts they perform well.<

I bought the 20D with the 17-85 when it came out, and at teh time was quite happy. Since then upgraded to the 5D and prime lenses, 24mm/1.4 and 50mm/1.4

The difference in quality is stunning, the prime lenses combined with the full frame beat the pants off the 20d with slow zoom lens.

As in terms of no flash on the 5D, you don't need it, the 5D produces acceptable 1600 ISO exposures, and a fast lens lets you take pix at lightlevels previously impossible. Besides, on camera direct flash is usually ugly and flat lighting.

[The Vulcan]

..................Besides, on camera direct flash is usually ugly and flat lighting.

I have to disagree with this. The use of flash is not merely to illuminate the subject. It's invaluable when you need to lift the shadows from a portrait, essential for saturation, and comes into its own when freezing action. It brings a photograph to life. Sure, you can indeed take pics at previously impossible light levels, and in a lot of cases I agree that flash "might" kill the atmosphere, but to write it off is wrong.

Have you ever wondered why press photographers habitually use flash in bright sunshine?

Fill-in-flash is an art. Flash control is a near science, but when mastered it will bring new perspectives to your photography. In fact, my advise to any young photographer is that which was given to me as a boy; If you want to improve your photography, get a flash gun.

I spent 23 years as an F1 photographer and I guess some 90% of my images were shot with flash.

[astral]

I bought the 20D with the 17-85 when it came out, and at teh time was quite happy. Since then upgraded to the 5D and prime lenses, 24mm/1.4 and 50mm/1.4

Comparing primes with a zoom is like comparing apples and oranges.

If you shoot at predictable subjects/sites, then primes are definitely the best,

that is why professionals use them,

but for the amateur a zoom generally represents a reasonable and cost effective compromise.

On the flash side I agree with The Vulcan.

Fill in flash can make or break a photo.

Even if you have a point and shoot, my recommendation would be leave the flash on all the time!!

It will not hurt and, you will probably be pleasantly surprised.

[Nordlys]

..................Besides, on camera direct flash is usually ugly and flat lighting.

I have to disagree with this. The use of flash is not merely to illuminate the subject. It's invaluable when you need to lift the shadows from a portrait, essential for saturation, and comes into its own when freezing action. It brings a photograph to life. Sure, you can indeed take pics at previously impossible light levels, and in a lot of cases I agree that flash "might" kill the atmosphere, but to write it off is wrong.

Have you ever wondered why press photographers habitually use flash in bright sunshine?

Fill-in-flash is an art. Flash control is a near science, but when mastered it will bring new perspectives to your photography. In fact, my advise to any young photographer is that which was given to me as a boy; If you want to improve your photography, get a flash gun.

I agree with all of that. But I also agree with Kees5 that on-camera direct flash is ugly and flat lighting in conditions where there's little available light, be it a clip-on flash or built-in, especially with dSLR for some reason I haven't figured out why.

I spent 23 years as an F1 photographer and I guess some 90% of my images were shot with flash.

Why on earth do you need a flash to shoot Formula 1 cars?

You probably need a flash with huge guide number whatever the purpose of using flash in shooting F1 cars in daylight given you have to maintain safe distance from the racing circuit, unless you were shooting it at close range from the pit.

If you shoot at predictable subjects/sites, then primes are definitely the best,

that is why professionals use them,

but for the amateur a zoom generally represents a reasonable and cost effective compromise.

I think that depends. I've read in a magazine review article that my EF24-70mm F2.8L at 50mm focal length fares much better than EF50mm F1.4 prime (even at F2.8 - the maximum aperture for EF24-70mm), although I can't speak from my first hand experience as I never owned the latter (but you can argue compare L lens with L).

BTW anybody knows any good diffuser for flash that you'd recommend?

I've tried a few, never really satisfied with them.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Nordlys

[The Vulcan]

..................Besides, on camera direct flash is usually ugly and flat lighting.

I have to disagree with this. The use of flash is not merely to illuminate the subject. It's invaluable when you need to lift the shadows from a portrait, essential for saturation, and comes into its own when freezing action. It brings a photograph to life. Sure, you can indeed take pics at previously impossible light levels, and in a lot of cases I agree that flash "might" kill the atmosphere, but to write it off is wrong.

Have you ever wondered why press photographers habitually use flash in bright sunshine?

Fill-in-flash is an art. Flash control is a near science, but when mastered it will bring new perspectives to your photography. In fact, my advise to any young photographer is that which was given to me as a boy; If you want to improve your photography, get a flash gun.

I agree with all of that. But I also agree with Kees5 that on-camera direct flash is ugly and flat lighting in conditions where there's little available light, be it a clip-on flash or built-in - especially with dSLR for some reason I haven't figured out why.

I spent 23 years as an F1 photographer and I guess some 90% of my images were shot with flash.

Why on earth do you need a flash to shoot Formula 1 cars?

You probably need a flash with huge guide number whatever the purpose of using flash in shooting F1 cars in daylight given you have to maintain safe distance from the racing circuit unless you were shooting it at close range from the pit.

If you shoot at predictable subjects/sites, then primes are definitely the best,

that is why professionals use them,

but for the amateur a zoom generally represents a reasonable and cost effective compromise.

I think that depends. I've read in a magazine review article that my EF24-70mm F2.8L at 50mm focal length fares much better than EF50mm F1.4 prime (even at F2.8 - the maximum aperture for EF24-70mm), although I can't speak from my first hand experience as I never owned the latter (but you can argue compare L lens with L).

BTW anybody knows any good diffuser for flash that you'd recommend?

[The Vulcan]

The sun doesn't (didn't) always shine on race day! And when it did, it wasn't always conveniently positioned to light the cars.

A Metz CT-60 would cover a hel_l of a range and we were a lot closure than you'd imagine.

The pits were seldom illuminated

The starting grid inevitably saw the drivers shielded by protective brollies

Drivers don baseball caps for the presentation casting a "nice" shadow across their faces

Celebrities present at the circuit constituted portraits (no face shadows please)

Saturation, saturation and saturation. Magazines DEMAND saturation.

etc etc.

The other 10% or so was the race action - no need for flash

[Nordlys]

Unfortunately, because these lenses are NOT Telecentric designs, (The rear element has to be of considerably larger diameter, or/and the light strikes the sensor at a much less acute angle) optics designed for 35mm film will be subject to 'fringing' problems. Whilst this issue has less impact on optics longer than 50mm, the problem becomes increasingly more of a problem on wide and especially ultra-wide optics.

Very valid point. But I think telecentricity issue is overstated.

And so does the author of the Luminous Landscape website.

Here's an interesting article that's worth a read.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/L...rspective.shtml

Yes, there are many lenses designed specifically for APS-C sized sensors, but what I was saying is that I am not aware of any optics specifically optimised for the 35mm DSLR format. Maybe these lenses will appear in time, but I also suspect that over a period of time, it will be realised that the lens-mount diameter will need to be be significantly enlarged, so that the rays exiting the rear element, strike the sensor in a more parallel manner than existing 35mm lenses designed for film. I have even heard of people gaining imaging improvements by attaching lenses designed for the 6x6cm format, (Hassleblad and maybe Bronica) via adaptors onto 35mm bodies.

Nikon's 14-24 mm f/2.8 lens, announced concurrently with the D3, probably qualifies as being a lens optimized for 35mm DSLR format.

Definitely yes. And so are quite a few wide angle lenses from Canon line-up, e.g. EF16-35mm F2.8L II USM, EF17-40mm F4L USM, EF35mm F1.4L USM, and most recently, EF14mm F2.8L II USM (there could be more, but those are the wide lenses from Canon that I'm aware that addressed the problem pointed out by SamsSauce1949).

Just look at the sample photos (in original size) of EF14mm F2.8L II USM in the link below, an extreme wide angle lens (just short of fisheye) mounted on full-frame sensor dSLR (EOS 5D). Very little barrel distortion, extremely sharp edge to edges and no noticeable vignetting or diffraction/aberration even at F14 (acute incident light)!

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/lens_rev...12/05/7491.html

I think Olympus was too premature in deciding to adopt 4/3 format.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Nordlys

[Golden Nugget]

I bought the 20D with the 17-85 when it came out, and at teh time was quite happy. Since then upgraded to the 5D and prime lenses, 24mm/1.4 and 50mm/1.4

How sharp is the 24L at wide open? How far do you need to step down to get super sharp images? Does the 5D/24L combination focus fast at wide open in low-light conditions? I'm considering either the 35L or the 24L. I'd prefer the 24L, but the 35L reviews are far superior.

[PadThaiGuy]

Besides, on camera direct flash is usually ugly and flat lighting.

Fill flash can save the day.

[The Vulcan]

Besides, on camera direct flash is usually ugly and flat lighting.

Fill flash can save the day.

That's a very nice shot of a very pretty girl.

[Nordlys]

Nikon has just released their version of EOS 5D.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond700/

[The Vulcan]

As usual too late and too expensive

The 5D humiliates it - the 5D mk11 will murder it!

[RAZZELL]

As usual too late and too expensive

The 5D humiliates it - the 5D mk11 will murder it!

Like the D3 murders the Mark 3?

RAZZ

P.S Canon Shooter.