# Full Frame vs Sub Full frame DSLR



## photoboy15 (Dec 12, 2005)

I was having a discussion with some fellow photographers about DSLR's.  We had a good mix of Nikon and Canon guys so the 2 big guys were represented.  We came to a conclusion that the full frame has the most advantages. The only reasons for a sub frame were if you wanted to use Nikon and the price. I wanted some more opinions from the TPF people.


----------



## Kent Frost (Dec 12, 2005)

I miss getting good wide angle from a full-frame SLR. I mean, you can get good wide angle lenses for the sub-full frames these days, but they're a good price higher than a good wide-angle for a full-framer.

On the other end of the spectrum however is the wonderful gain in telephoto. 

Just gotta weigh each and decide which you'd benefit more from.


----------



## photoboy15 (Dec 12, 2005)

You really are not getting any extra on a telephoto. The lens does not get any longer the images is just cropped.  When people say it is 50 mm lens so its an 85mm on a sub frame sensor is just saying that what it looks like. For example a 50mm looks like a 80mm on a 6x6 camera and a 150mm on 4x5.  That why we came to the conclusion that we did.  The only thing with the lenses would be that you are use more of you prime spot of the lens.


----------



## kfoster (Dec 12, 2005)

Almost all of the newer lenses have been designed for smaller sensors. These newer lenses have extra coatings and correct problems that traditional lenses had with digital sensors. The Full Frame cameras cannot use these lenses therefore they cant take advantage of this newer lens technology. Since Canon is the only one to use a full frame sensor and they only use it on bodies that cost more then $3k only the pros need to worry about this issue. Im not even sure if Canon is sold on the idea because they now also make the 1D Mark IIn that uses a 1.3x sesor. So they now use 3 different sized sesors.

Anyway, maybe by the time Im ready to upgrade my D70 this issue will be more resolved.

K


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Dec 12, 2005)

kfoster said:
			
		

> Almost all of the newer lenses have been designed for smaller sensors. These newer lenses have extra coatings and correct problems that traditional lenses had with digital sensors. The Full Frame cameras cannot use these lenses therefore they cant take advantage of this newer lens technology. Since Canon is the only one to use a full frame sensor and they only use it on bodies that cost more then $3k only the pros need to worry about this issue. Im not even sure if Canon is sold on the idea because they now also make the 1D Mark IIn that uses a 1.3x sesor. So they now use 3 different sized sesors.
> 
> Anyway, maybe by the time Im ready to upgrade my D70 this issue will be more resolved.


Please - "digital" lenses are mostly marketing. Sure, sigma has some coatings on it - but everybody who compared them says that there's no difference between the DG and the old versions.

And all of the newer designs are sup-par optically. Mostly consumer zooms targeted to ignorant masses.

Full frame is better, because:
1) It gives less noise, than APS ceteris baribus
2) You can use wide angle primes with it
3) It matches film nicely
4) FF allows you to get razor thing DOF with slower lenses.
5) makes your member feel larger than it is

Canon is not the only one with full frame. There's also kodak. Maybe someone else, I forgot.


----------



## photoboy15 (Dec 12, 2005)

6) Better resolution 

Ill take my canon "L" lenses over the digital lenses anyday.


----------



## Kent Frost (Dec 12, 2005)

"L" lenses....

Though it's been quite a while since I've shot with an "L" lens, I do really like the non-"L" IS lenses that Canon makes for their EF-S digital bodies. Particularly the 17-85mm.


----------



## photoboy15 (Dec 13, 2005)

I went full frame so I could keep my lenses that Ive used for years. I love my 70-200 2.8, its used for about 70% of my work.  The only thing that I like about my lenses on the sub frame was my 50mm was a good portrait lens.


----------



## Rob (Dec 13, 2005)

Yep, let us not forget boys and girls that it's a crop factor, not a magnification factor. It's a bit confusing to most people that 1.6x doesn't make their 200mm lens into a 320mm, just reduces the effective width of the shot.

Rob


----------



## Kent Frost (Dec 13, 2005)

This is true, however it's a crop that you can't avoid, it's going to be there every single shot. So you might as well treat it like it IS a magnification factor. A 50mm lens on a DRebel does not have the same effect as a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera. Obviously the size of the sensor doesn't change the focal length of the lens, but you will obviously notice the difference between a 200mm lens that acts as a 200mm lens on a 35mm film camera, and a 200mm lens that acts like a 320mm lens on a DRebel.

Think of it in the other direction...comparing medium format to 35mm. Once again, the 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera is just a crop of what a 50mm lens is to a 645 Mamiya.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Dec 13, 2005)

Call the Crop Factor what ever you want. The _*end effect*_ is more telephoto.This can be a plus for photojournalism and sports, but a real draw back shooting landscapes and indoor IMO, must be wanted by a lot of photogs because the Nikon D2X has a 1.5/12mpex size sensor but can be set to 2x/8mpex crop factor nice for shooting across the pitch. It saves editing time.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Dec 13, 2005)

Kent Frost said:
			
		

> Think of it in the other direction...comparing medium format to 35mm. Once again, the 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera is just a crop of what a 50mm lens is to a 645 Mamiya.


No it's not.

A 50mm which fits your nikon won't cover medium fomat. And you won't find a 50/1.4 lens for meduim format. And a lens that covers medium format won't have the same resolution as MF lens, the the tolerances are the same.


----------



## ThatCameraThingy (Dec 13, 2005)

I sure miss the wide angle of full frame DSLR.

But.... I like the fact that i am using the centre sweetspot of the lens and cropping away the softer (normally) edges.

my 2 cents

Hanno


----------



## photoboy15 (Dec 13, 2005)

Jeff Canes said:
			
		

> Call the Crop Factor what ever you want. The end effect is more telephoto. This can be a plus for photojournalism and sports, but a real draw back shooting landscapes and indoor IMO, must be wanted by a lot of photogs because the Nikon D2X has a 1.5/12mpex size sensor but can be set to 2x/8mpex crop factor nice for shooting across the pitch. It saves editing time.


 
No you do not get anymore telephoto, The sensor only records the center of the lens. You are not change the focal length of a lens.


----------

