Poll: is 'full frame' for DSLRs a must-have feature?

[Ian]

Here's a simple poll for you... how tempting is a full frame DSLR for you? Is it worth the significant extra cost?

[Bob Ross]

Hi Ian,
I am one of the "not sures" and as you know I am one of the quarter-frame gang. We are reaching a point where image quality for our usual work/play in digital has arrived at what some of had with film. In a way the FF bunch are like the medium format film sector. More megapixels give us enlargability, when we want it or need it. Bigger pixel size gives us digital file quality and flexibility. Larger formats give us bigger equipment and better wide angle availability. And, technology is constantly lessening the gains of these advantages.
For me and the size prints that I usually make, the larger format doesn't seem to offer much gain in image quality. For my aging framework, the extra weight and larger package doen't offer much incentive either. On the other hand, I do love lots of pudgy pixels, to play with.
Bob

[Josh Bear]

Hi

As a 5d owner full frame has been fantastic for me. I upgraded fromthe 20D and was concerned that I wouldn't notice the difference, but I was very wrong to be concerned.

The quality of the files from a 5d are superb and it is not just the extra megapixels instead it is the larger pixels that give the pictures a smoothness. In addition for landscapes the FF comes into its own.

There are downsides, the major one being the need for good quality glass, which is expensive and heavy to carry.

Would I buy FF again (for example the rumoured 5dII) yes!

best regards

Josh

[jds9000]

I'd love a 5D, but the extra cost was just that bit too much.
I could have held out for the replacement to come out, and then got one cheaper,
but I was impatient and couldn't wait !!, so I bought the 40D instead, and have
been pleasantly surprised by the images that it takes.

So I'm pretty happy with my 'crop', but a full frame would be nice

Jay

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Ian

Here's a simple poll for you... how tempting is a full frame DSLR for you? Is it worth the significant extra cost?

Certainly not a "must have" but very desirable.
If or not the extra cost is worth it, that comes down to the individual.
I personally would pay the extra, if I had the extra to pay, as it was I upgraded my Canon 10D to a 40D. Two friends of mine own 5D's and there is no denying the quality, I was particularly impressed with skin tone when converted to B/W on portrait's.

Patrick

[coupekid]

no idea!
never used a full frame, so for me I wouldnt know.

I would gues its one of those things that you would miss if you already have it, then didnt.........or Sky+ syndrome if you like!

[Atlasman]

I find the full frame to be useful with ultra fast glass--to get an extra stop of subject isolation.

Up until now, I used the 5D for covering indoor sporting events--cleaner 1600 ISO performance.

But I suspect as technology marches on, the full-frame could become like the medium format--a shrinking market segment.

[Autumn]

I hardly dare say it, but "I don't know what a full frame is."

[Rodbender]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I hardly dare say it, but "I don't know what a full frame is."

Like it's twice as big as a half frame Sorry Autumn, it's a digital sensor the same size as a 35mm film negative.

[Pol]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I hardly dare say it, but "I don't know what a full frame is."

As Rod said, the full frame sensor is equivalent to 35mm film.

That means there's no crop factor, as there would be with the APS-C sensors. So a 35mm lens used on a full frame camera would take the frame at 35mm focal length. The same lens used with APS-C sensors would take the frame at approx 35mm x 1.4 (ie approx 50mm). That's why you often see '35mm eqivalent' written in articles.

True 'Crop factor' is a bit more technical and complicated to explain than that but that's the simple, straightforward explanation.

Both shots would be at 35mm but the shot from the APS-C camera would appear to be closer because it's a 'crop' of what a full frame 35mm sensor would see

Hope that makes sense.

Pol

[ash]

This is a good question!
For a while now Ive been pondering the upgrade to a d300, which would leave my d200 as an excellent backup aswell as the unesesary change of lenses!
However when the d700 was released as you can imagine I got a bit more excited But then realised the cost
For the price of a d700 I could get 2 d300's, or a d300 & the 70-200 vr lens!
What a conundrum
I can understand Josh's point of view with the image quality and because he has had a 5d for a while obviously he is not going to go back, but at what image size is this quality realistically noticed? I dont no.

The main reason why I got excited at the d700 was the low noise capability which is apparently as good as the d3 as its the same sensor. I personally hate using flash.

But then I tried to think well how much low light work do I actually do and would it be worth it, top and bottom the answer was.........NO

Im sure all us nikon user's would love to go out and buy a d3 if we had the money, and the d700 was a compromise in price, but Im still not sure its worth the expense for a semi pro user.
Saying all this, its only just been released and by crimbo it will be well below the 1500 pound mark, maybe Ill have another look then, untill then I think a d300 is my next purchase simply to give myself a backup camera which I need.

cheers
Ash.

[Autumn]

Thanks Pol and Rod. I had often wondered.

As you can tell I am not that serious a photographer. I often wonder what you are all talking about with your different lenses.

I think I will just stick with my point and shoot cameras. I do have a wide angle and a telephoto lens for my G3, but I hardly ever use them.

I am very fond of the G3 and the Fuji S9500 merely because of their pre-viewing screens and they both tilt so I can very easily get low angle shots. Also the Fuji has the 300 mm built in zoom lens which works for me most of the time.

[Pol]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Thanks Pol and Rod. I had often wondered.

As you can tell I am not that serious a photographer. I often wonder what you are all talking about with your different lenses.

I think I will just stick with my point and shoot cameras. I do have a wide angle and a telephoto lens for my G3, but I hardly ever use them.

I am very fond of the G3 and the Fuji S9500 merely because of their pre-viewing screens and they both tilt so I can very easily get low angle shots. Also the Fuji has the 300 mm built in zoom lens which works for me most of the time.

Like you, I don't consider myself to be a serious photographer.

The main thing is that peeps should just enjoy their hobby and it doesn't matter what kit they choose to use, especially if it is just a hobby.

Pol

[himmelblau]

Two links from Ken Rockwell's website which compares sharpness and ISO 3,200 on the Nikon D3 D700 and D300 cameras that might help people come to a decision:

First; sharpness
Second; ISO 3,200

Going by Ken Rockwell's reviews and images on his site, as a Nikon user, if I were upgrading I would hold off until after the new year and go for a D700.

Brian

[ash]

I like ken's review's sometimes they make me chuckle though

Like this one comparing the d200 and d300

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d30...ight/index.htm


both camera's on completely different setting's, but he did admit his mistake!
Also I don't no what anybody else thinks but the d200 look's better upto iso 800 must be biased untill I get a d300

And when they do these comparison's why do they always take a minute crop of the image, I no its to see the noise and imperfections, but come on, realistically how many people print pics off sooooooo big to show sooooo much detail? If you print them off at all, I would say I bet 90% of pics people take on their digital camera's stay on the pc and never see print! In which case the pic is resized for your monitor for viewing anyway, and never see the grain and poor quality.


Ahhhhhhhhh thats better, rant over feel better now!