# Full Frame SLRs...why or why not?



## Big (Jul 7, 2009)

What is it about full frame DSLR cameras that make them "professional" over crop sensor cameras?:scratch: I mean, it may be dumb to say but couldn't you just stand a couple feet further back to get more in the shot (in some cases)? I have been using a crop sensor P&S for a few years now and never really considered it to be a problem. I have been looking at the Canon 50D and comparing it to the 5D Mark II. For one, I don't want to wait to save up all that extra money when I can hardly wait to get one as it is. I would be doing mostly landscape (sunrise/sets), wildlife, macro and indoor shooting with low light on occasions. I know a full frame will handle low light better than a crop sensor due to less pixel density per sq. cm (I do my fair share of research!) but what makes it that much better than the 50D especially when the 50D seems to be a better choice for sports or action photography since it shoots 6.3 vs 3.9fps?
Thanks -BIG


----------



## NateS (Jul 7, 2009)

It's not so much the crop factor as the size of the sensor itself.  What makes a DSLR better than a point and shoot?  The main thing (image quality wise) is the much larger sensor.  The same principle applies.....a much bigger sensor is going to capture much more data.  It will have better dynamic range, much better noise at all iso levels (especially high ISO)...a crop sensor will never capture the same high iso performance as full frame.  People are shooting stuff on full frame in the neighborhood of 24,000 iso compared to crop sensors that usually max out at 3200-6400.  Plus a D700 at iso 3200-6400 looks about as clean as a D90 (which itself is good for higher iso) at around 800.

Edit:  I don't know much about Canon's.  All of what I said above was basically comparing a D3/D700 to a D90/D300....as Nikon full frame vs. crop is where my knowledge lies (and ends...lol).


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 7, 2009)

Nothing makes a camera "professional", other than being in the hands of a pro. There are pros out there who will use a crop sensor just to finagle more out of their lenses. I know that when I get a full-frame and start running around with two cameras around my neck when covering events, my 450D (crop) will be my telephoto (the equivalent of 400mm in a package that's lighter than my camera and 17-85? that just rocks), the full frame my wide.

The right camera for the job is, dun dun dun, the right camera for the job. If that is your 50D because it shoots faster than an equivalently priced full-frame, then the 50D is better. Plain and simple.


----------



## epp_b (Jul 7, 2009)

A couple of points off the top of my head:


Insane ISO performance (the D700 is said to be completely noiseless at ISO 200 and still usable at ISO 25600).
You can still go rectilinearly wider than on crop frame.  Sigma makes a 12mm lens that works on full frame.
More depth of field control
Less limited by diffraction at smaller apertures
Focal lengths work how God intended them to   (same as 35mm film)
Being naturally more expensive, they incorporate every advanced feature available.


That being said, a full-frame DSLR is probably overkill for a first DSLR.  I doubt you'll be sorry if you buy a crop-frame DSLR.  Look at the 40D instead of the 50D.  The 50D has sacrificed high-ISO performance for pointless resolution.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 7, 2009)

Full Frame advantage: Build quality / material, weathersealing, additional features, ISO capabilities, the additional bloodflow to your testicles............

Get what you can afford and start shooting sooner rather than later. 

I have two crop sensors and one full frame. If I want to go light, I take the baby. If I am shooting wildlife, I prefer the better crop sensor. For most everything else, I prefer the full frame..... cause I can.


----------



## camz (Jul 7, 2009)

Good point..

well full frame SLR bodies are just more expensive because of the mechanics of it's assembly.  But I don't believe that the word "PRO" automatically correlates full frame.  I know some Pro Sport photographers who use the XXD series bodies because they have the 1.6x zoom factor for better close ups(taking advantage of more zoom)

I think full frame correlates to "PRO" when it comes to shooting people such as events portraits and such(in my opinion atleast).  This is to take advantage of the wide angle zoom/prime lenses that are maximized on full frame bodies.

I personally love the full frame because it gives me an option to pan out when shooting group shots or panoramics.  A friend who shoots sports prefers the 50D over the 1Ds because of the zoom factor(offcourse the IDs shoots 11fps).

I think it depends on your application 

camz
http://simplydashy.blogspot.com


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 7, 2009)

Okay, now that everyone's pointed out the pluses of full-frames, here are some downsides. You get more vignetting. And the corners of an image are a bit softer too. (All things being equal, the only difference being the sensor size.)

And the "more DoF" thing is more of a myth. The tiny, tiny, itsy-bitsy, minuscule difference in DoF is nothing to be concerned with unless you're an engineer writing some sort of technical manual or thesis on camera sensors.


----------



## Big (Jul 7, 2009)

epp_b said:


> That being said, a full-frame DSLR is probably overkill for a first DSLR.  I doubt you'll be sorry if you buy a crop-frame DSLR.  Look at the 40D instead of the 50D.  The 50D has sacrificed high-ISO performance for pointless resolution.


I originally looked at the 40D but I loved the fact that the screen on the 50D had much more clarity (920,000dots vs 230,000). Also loved how the 50D had live view. I know the 40D has it too but I am a fan of not buying something with brand new technology...they usually need kinks worked out. I know you all will laugh at live view but If I am going to get a camera with it, I want it to work well. Either way, I am glad I didn't rush into buying the XSI I originally fell in love with. I held it once for the first time and it got lost in my hands. 
I would also love to buy something and learn how to use it versus, getting a simpler consumer slr and then need to upgrade soon because I am getting more advanced. Just my opinion. Nothing against you XSI users.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 7, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Okay, now that everyone's pointed out the pluses of full-frames, here are some downsides. You get more vignetting. And the corners of an image are a bit softer too. (All things being equal, the only difference being the sensor size.)
> 
> And the "more DoF" thing is more of a myth. The tiny, tiny, itsy-bitsy, minuscule difference in DoF is nothing to be concerned with unless you're an engineer writing some sort of technical manual or thesis on camera sensors.


Your response pertains to lenses, not sensors.


----------



## HeY iTs ScOTtY (Jul 7, 2009)

with all that being said i just want to put it out there that i am willing to trade my d90 with anyone unhappy with their d3. flat out no strings. lol


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jul 7, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> And the "more DoF" thing is more of a myth. The tiny, tiny, itsy-bitsy, minuscule difference in DoF is nothing to be concerned with unless you're an engineer writing some sort of technical manual or thesis on camera sensors.



Shooting crop and full frame sensors side by side, I will tell you that you are absolutely wrong on this point. There is a noticeable difference even between a 1.3x and 1.0x camera. I can shoot side by side comparisons if you really don't believe me.


----------



## Samanax (Jul 7, 2009)

Big said:


> I originally looked at the 40D but I loved the fact that the screen on the 50D had much more clarity (920,000dots vs 230,000). Also loved how the 50D had live view. I know the 40D has it too but I am a fan of not buying something with brand new technology...they usually need kinks worked out. I know you all will laugh at live view but If I am going to get a camera with it, I want it to work well.


Three of my shooting buddies bought the 50D as an upgrade to their previous bodies (one 20D shooter and two 30D shooters) and used it for a short while and all three of them sold their 50D and bought either a 40D, a 5D or a 5D Mk II. I asked them what about the 50D they didn't care for and they all said theu were disappointed with the image quality (noisy at moderate ISO and the dynamic range wasn't what they expected) and they all had dust under the LCD cover (enough to really bug them). Based on what they told me I recently bought a 40D instead of the 50D.





Big said:


> Either way, I am glad I didn't rush into buying the XSI I originally fell in love with. I held it once for the first time and it got lost in my hands.


I know what you mean. I shot with a XTi for a year and a half. When I put the XTi side-by-side with my 40D and my 5D it really looks like a toy. I kept it so I have something small and light to shoot with when I don't want to carry around the bigger bodies. I don't regret shooting with the XTi though, I learned a lot with it.





Big said:


> I would also love to buy something and learn how to use it versus, getting a simpler consumer slr and then need to upgrade soon because I am getting more advanced. Just my opinion. Nothing against you XSI users.


You would still have to learn how to use and shoot with a consumer grade DSLR the same you would with a prosumer DSLR. There are the basics to learn (exposure, understanding light, composition, learning to "see", etc...), learning how to shoot and then developing your own shooting style...this takes years. I heard it takes at least 7 years before you can consider yourself a "good" photographer. A common saying is "Your first 10,000 pictures will be your worst."


----------



## dakkon76 (Jul 8, 2009)

Aside from what's been said, I thought I'd chime in with my $0.02... I'm the kind of guy that has to research the hell out of everything I buy, as most of us on here probably are too, and I like to start with the very best. When deciding on my first DSLR, I knew I wasn't going to drop $4k for a full frame, but I wasn't sure if I wanted to go for a 50D, or the $600 XSi for 1/3 the price.

I finally submitted to the fact that an entry level with a crop (XSi/Digital Rebel in my case) would leave me more money to use toward other gear such as a macro lens and a tripod.

Looking back, I'm happy with my decision... otherwise right now I'd have a camera that cost 2x as much, with a kit lens and nothing else. I still have plenty to learn, and lots more lenses I want to buy... I don't see myself outgrowing the XSi body anytime soon, but if I actually do then I'll know what the hell I'm doing, and I'll be more than happy to shell out the cash for an upgrade


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 8, 2009)

kundalini said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, now that everyone's pointed out the pluses of full-frames, here are some downsides. You get more vignetting. And the corners of an image are a bit softer too. (All things being equal, the only difference being the sensor size.)
> ...



No, it pertains to sensors. I said all things being equal. Take an EF 50mm and slap it on a full-frame as opposed to a crop, and you're going to get more vignetting and softness on the corners than the crop, because the crop is only taking the image from the centre sweet spot of the lens.



tsaraleksi said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > And the "more DoF" thing is more of a myth. The tiny, tiny, itsy-bitsy, minuscule difference in DoF is nothing to be concerned with unless you're an engineer writing some sort of technical manual or thesis on camera sensors.
> ...



Then please, prove me wrong. I've seen side-by-side comparisons of the same lens at same aperture and focus distance but on full-frame and crop bodies and the difference was indeed minuscule. Noticeable, but only because a metre stick was used.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jul 8, 2009)

The same lens at the same aperture and same distance will of course give you the same depth of field on any camera, no matter the sensor size. But that is entirely missing the point, because those this will not give you the same framing. 

The depth of field difference lies in shooting the same subject, with the same lens and the same framing. Because you have to get closer with the same lens to maintain the framing, you're going change the depth of field significantly. (and this is not only true of 1.6x crop to full frame, but point and shoot crop to 1.6x crop, and from 35mm to medium format and so on). 

It's night time here so I'll leave you with this until I can shoot something as a test DoF test

One and a third stops being the difference between f/2.8 and f/4.5, or f/1.2 and f/2. Of course this goes both ways because if you want to get more stuff in focus, it's a disadvantage.


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 8, 2009)

Then our disagreement is one of miscommunication, not misunderstanding.  My comments were specifically referring to DoF, and not to framing. I've heard plenty of people say that DoF is actually changed by the sensor size, when in fact it isn't.

As you said, the difference does go both ways. Hence, my personal opinion is that while this is a difference, sure, it's not something worth quibbling over.


----------



## Big (Jul 8, 2009)

NateS said:


> It's not so much the crop factor as the size of the sensor itself.  What makes a DSLR better than a point and shoot?  The main thing (image quality wise) is the much larger sensor.  The same principle applies.....a much bigger sensor is going to capture much more data.  It will have better dynamic range, much better noise at all iso levels (especially high ISO)...a crop sensor will never capture the same high iso performance as full frame.  People are shooting stuff on full frame in the neighborhood of 24,000 iso compared to crop sensors that usually max out at 3200-6400.  Plus a D700 at iso 3200-6400 looks about as clean as a D90 (which itself is good for higher iso) at around 800.
> 
> Edit:  I don't know much about Canon's.  All of what I said above was basically comparing a D3/D700 to a D90/D300....as Nikon full frame vs. crop is where my knowledge lies (and ends...lol).


This is also something I have been wondering about. Does the ratio change for ISO between point and shoots and DSLRs? What I mean is, for example, I am taking a picture indoors with my p&s of a birthday party, low light, and an ISO of 800 to be able to see the subject. Will ISO 800 be sufficient enough for a DSLR or will I have to raise it to say, 3200 or higher to be equal to an 800 from my p&s? I'm asking because I've seen shots taken at around 12,000 or 24,000 ISO and I would think that it would be completely nothing but noise. Would you need an ISO of 12,800 (highest of the Canon 50D) to be equivilent to an 800 ISO (just for example) of a P&S? I hope I'm not confusing the heck out of people...


----------



## kundalini (Jul 8, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> No, it pertains to sensors. I said all things being equal. Take an EF 50mm and slap it on a full-frame as opposed to a crop, and you're going to get more vignetting and softness on the corners than the crop, because the crop is only taking the image from the centre sweet spot of the lens.


 The sensor only records the light that is passing THROUGH THE LENS.

I don't know Canon nomenclature for their lenses.  Is an EF lens designed for a cropped sensor, much like Nikkor's DX lens?  If so, then all things aren't equal.  Mounting a lens designed for a cropped sensor on a full frame may likely cause issues as you described because that is not how the lens was engineered to be used.  But vignetting, softness at borders and DoF is a product of the lens, not the sensor.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jul 8, 2009)

Big said:


> NateS said:
> 
> 
> > It's not so much the crop factor as the size of the sensor itself.  What makes a DSLR better than a point and shoot?  The main thing (image quality wise) is the much larger sensor.  The same principle applies.....a much bigger sensor is going to capture much more data.  It will have better dynamic range, much better noise at all iso levels (especially high ISO)...a crop sensor will never capture the same high iso performance as full frame.  People are shooting stuff on full frame in the neighborhood of 24,000 iso compared to crop sensors that usually max out at 3200-6400.  Plus a D700 at iso 3200-6400 looks about as clean as a D90 (which itself is good for higher iso) at around 800.
> ...



I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but, within some range (usually 1/2 stop or so, it varies some but not a ton) ISO is a fixed parameter, defined by a an outside standards committee, and it dates to well before the digital era. So 800 is 800 when it comes to light sensitivity. Obviously the noise level are going to vary from camera to camera, just as the amount of grain in a given film varied from camera to camera before the digital era.


----------



## Big (Jul 8, 2009)

kundalini said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know Canon nomenclature for their lenses.  Is an EF lens designed for a cropped sensor, much like Nikkor's DX lens?  If so, then all things aren't equal.  Mounting a lens designed for a cropped sensor on a full frame may likely cause issues as you described because that is not how the lens was engineered to be used.  But vignetting, softness at borders and DoF is a product of the lens, not the sensor.
> ...



MusicaleCA...
From what I see, the majority of the lenses made my Canon are EF. It would make more sense to me to buy an EF over an EF-S because full frame DSLRs are designed for EF lenses. That way if you upgrade from crop to full, you don't have a bunch of useless glass...The advanced entry models like the Canon 50D or entry level Rebels both use EF/EF-s lenses.

kundalini...
Thanks you pretty much answered my question. That's exactly what I was wondering. If I used ISO 800 or 1600 indoors (which has lots of grain) would 800 or 1600 ISO on a DSLR like the 50D be perfect for the job since the DSLR will handle 800 ISO better than my p&s. Looks like I will be all set. That's about the extent of my low light shooting. I just hate grain when I don't want it that's all (which I rarely do)... Maybe someday I will upgrade to a 5D MarkII  but until then the 50D should be good for now. Anything is pretty much better than what I have.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 8, 2009)

Big, It depends on the type of sensor. My D80 has a CCD sensor and I rarely use it above ISO400. My D300 have CMOS sensor and can handle higher ISO's with much more ease even though it is a cropped sensor as well.

I'm sure Canon is probably in the same boat with sensor development, that the older technology is shadowed by the newer sensors.


----------



## UUilliam (Jul 8, 2009)

You will always get grain tbh.. the best way to get rid of it is run it through Noise ninja (photoshop plugin) or resize the image to about 1/3rd the image size then use genuine fractuals to blow it back up


----------



## Big (Jul 8, 2009)

kundalini said:


> Big, It depends on the type of sensor. My D80 has a CCD sensor and I rarely use it above ISO400. My D300 have CMOS sensor and can handle higher ISO's with much more ease even though it is a cropped sensor as well.
> 
> I'm sure Canon is probably in the same boat with sensor development, that the older technology is shadowed by the newer sensors.


My Powershot can't shoot over 200 without noise. It sucks trying to do low light shooting. If I want a noise free shot, then I have to drop the shutter speed and raise the aperture. Then I need to deal with motion. Slow shutter speed=blur motion which I'm sure you know.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 8, 2009)

One thing people overlook...

The OP said "you can always take a few steps back"... sometimes, you CANNOT.  I take lots of pictures of smallish spaces... interiors of buildings... office spaces, bathrooms, etc.  I spend a good part of my life quite literally backed into a corner... a full frame camera gives you more width on an equal focal length lens, and sometimes that is absolutely critical.


----------



## Big (Jul 8, 2009)

manaheim said:


> One thing people overlook...
> 
> The OP said "you can always take a few steps back"... sometimes, you CANNOT.  I take lots of pictures of smallish spaces... interiors of buildings... office spaces, bathrooms, etc.  I spend a good part of my life quite literally backed into a corner... a full frame camera gives you more width on an equal focal length lens, and sometimes that is absolutely critical.


I believe my _exact_ quote was "couldn't you just stand a couple feet further back to get more in the shot (in some cases)?" In some cases meaning not always... If it is a major problem, couldn't you use a wide angle lens (maybe not something as dramatic as a fish eye) with a crop sensor to get the same effect from a full frame? May I add btw...what would you need a camera for in a bathroom??? :scratch: In general, I would figure anything that happens in there is not something most would want to capture.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 8, 2009)

Because when I want noise in my photos, I have to use photoshop to get it.

Perfectly usable ISO 6400:


----------



## Soocom1 (Jul 8, 2009)

I answered this question on another web site years ago, and got royal hell for my answer. Mostly because I pointed out something very, very few people know about or even understand. 
But here is my two cents worth: 
First Build quality of a Pro end camera (with very few exceptions) truly is designed for Pro-End work. 
Think of trying to enter a Honda Accord into NASCAR.  Obviously you won&#8217;t.  The NASCAR cars are designed for racing, the Honda for Day to day.  Ironically the Honda is better built: Why? Try using parts from a NASCAR in a regular car, guess what:  won&#8217;t work. The parts are NOT designed for regular day to day use. They are designed for short, very hard and very heavy use for short races.  Whereas the Honda parts are designed for 100,000 miles or more of regular day to day abuse.  The NASCAR parts will break in about 5000 miles or less. 
Now you have to reverse logic here:  So think that way except opposite for your pro-end Camera&#8230; Its designed for day to day use, where as your consumer grade or even pro-sumer is designed for the regular amateur, and the BBQ where Aunt May and Uncle Fester shows up.  NOT for income generation. BIG difference; (yes I know all the exceptions) 
Second, size DOES matter. This business of crop factor is a funny little system that got created for no other reason than to explain in lay-man&#8217;s terms something few understand.  
In the world of cartography we call it projection. In a 3-diminsional world, you CANNOT re-produce images of 3D objects (x-y-z) in 2D (x-y) without distortion. So you create a way of &#8220;projecting&#8221; the image onto a flat area (film/sensor) where you reduce as much of that distortion as possible. 
 Try the old orange peel trick: (Peel an orange in two and then try to lay it out flat. You get a bulge in the middle. Then peel another one using a grid pattern. That&#8217;s when it&#8217;ll lay out flat, but distorted). The pieces won&#8217;t fit exactly together when laid out flat. 
The same holds true for a camera:  The further away from an object you get, the more distortion takes place. This is where the Depth of Field (DoF) issues comes in. This is true with ALL photography.  A cropped sensor (APS or APS-C) working with a system designed for 35mm (Full Frame) will reduce the image area dramatically. Such reduction in size dramatically increases the distortion.  In Photography it&#8217;s called Perspective distortion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)
 For this reason smaller lenses and shorter distances KILLS your DoF and where your optics come in to play.  Another point here is the Aspect Ratio: 2/3 vs  4/5. Now without going deep into it, it&#8217;s the ratio of height to width.  Strangely enough, the 4/5 system actually reduces the distortion created.  This distortion is measured in a Ratio of Actual image size vs. what is reproduced on film / digital. Consumer grade and pro-sumer cameras do not have as much engineering to reproduce this. Pro end cameras do.  You may not see it, but it is defiantly there. 
In medium format, the reason the image looks sooooooo much better is because not only are you capturing more data (resolution) but also the image distortion is much less because the image area is closer  to a 1:1 size and visual ratio, whereas 35mm with a 50mm non-macro lens is still around a 0.85:1 ratio.  
Third; Optic quality is extremely important here: The problem lies in the fact that the smaller the area, the less data can be reproduced and the harder it becomes for the optics to allow DoF. You literally are squeezing light into a limited space.  Plus the refraction of light creates its own problems with Chromatic Aberrations (CA) et al.  So higher priced and better quality optic really do play a huge role in this, and cannot be understated.  Thus the Canon &#8220;L&#8221; series are DEFINATLY worth the money. Thus &#8220;Pro End&#8221;. 
P.S. the Ef are the Full Frame, the EF-S are the APS lenses&#8230; 
Basically, you get what you pay for.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 8, 2009)

Big said:


> I believe my _exact_ quote was "couldn't you just stand a couple feet further back to get more in the shot (in some cases)?" In some cases meaning not always... If it is a major problem, couldn't you use a wide angle lens (maybe not something as dramatic as a fish eye)with a crop sensor to get the same effect from a full frame?


 
No. In some situations, even the widest angle lens you can get isn't enough... sometimes even a fisheye isn't enough... you need absolutely as much width as you can possibly get... it is fundamentally impossible to get a full shot of a typical bathroom, for example. And this is even keeping in mind that there are lenses available for crop-sensors that are CRAZY wide. Like the Sigma 10-20mm that I use... even _that_ is not wide enough.



Big said:


> May I add btw...what would you need a camera for in a bathroom??? :scratch: In general, I would figure anything that happens in there is not something most would want to capture.


 
Well, in my case... real estate. 

But also consider a skyline... there is a NOTABLE difference between 10mm and 14mm on a skyline shot... and again, you can't always just back up a few steps... one because a skyline is so far away that a few steps won't make much of a difference and two because a few steps could walk you into a building... or a swamp... or just put an obstruction in front of you that you don't want.

So my point here is that there are other cases, and probably plenty of them I just haven't thought of yet. 

By the way, in some cases you can stitch shots together to solve this problem, but that's working around a limitation vs. just being able to line up and expose the image and move on to the next one.


----------



## Dwig (Jul 8, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Then our disagreement is one of miscommunication, not misunderstanding.  My comments were specifically referring to DoF, ...



True, but they are just as silly as me saying that my Toyota Corolla is just as fast as my neighbor's Ferarri; after all they will reach pretty much the same terminal velocity if you drop them from a plane.

When the format changes, the only reasonable comparison is a comparision using lenses yielding the same field of view. Who would care that a long lens on one format yields more or less DOF than a wide lens on another format. You are standing a point X and shooting subject Y; you are interested in the DOF you would get with either of two cameras of different formats. You don't want different pictures so you must compare lenses of proportionally different focal lengths.

When you do the reasonable comparisions that have actual meaning in the real world you will find that the smaller the format the greater the DOF that results from using the same f/stop when you compare lenses that allow you to stand in the same spot (to get the same perspective) and give the same FOV. 

With the common "crop sensor" camera (1.5x-2x crop factor, APS-c through 4/3rds) the difference is modest but real. Neither is better by any stretch of the imagination (those saying one is better have no imagination, period). You get more with the smaller format (better for typical landscapes but worse for portraits and similar) and less with the larger (better for getting out of focus background in portraits but more difficult to get some landscapes sharp foreground and background). You pays your money and makes your choice.


----------



## Big (Jul 8, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Big said:
> 
> 
> > I believe my _exact_ quote was "couldn't you just stand a couple feet further back to get more in the shot (in some cases)?" In some cases meaning not always... If it is a major problem, couldn't you use a wide angle lens (maybe not something as dramatic as a fish eye)with a crop sensor to get the same effect from a full frame?
> ...



I guess we just use the right tool for the job. I have heard that crop sensors are better for telephoto lenses and wildlife photography which is mainly what I will be doing. I figured since a crop sensor is what I have been using and also introduced to, it wouldn't be a big deal getting another crop sensor camera. While I remember, I wanted to ask if you yourself have done any photo stitching with a DSLR. My p&s has the mode built in and I have used it quite a bit but I didn't know how it works with a camera that doesn't specifically have a designated mode for it. Can you do it in Photoshop with regular JPEG images?


Edit: BTW I looked at your site Chris, and you do do some really nice work with real estate. I see what you mean with seeing more in the photo when I looked at the bathroom shots.


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 8, 2009)

kundalini said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > No, it pertains to sensors. I said all things being equal. Take an EF 50mm and slap it on a full-frame as opposed to a crop, and you're going to get more vignetting and softness on the corners than the crop, because the crop is only taking the image from the centre sweet spot of the lens.
> ...



EF lenses are designed for full-frames. EF-S lenses are designed for Canon's crop frames. I know that vignetting and softness at the corners are products of the lens, but my point is that if you use a lens for a full-frame body on a crop body, you're only getting the sweet spot and thus won't get as much of those abberations as the same lens on a full-frame. If it's and EF-S lens, designed for a crop body on a crop body, then the abberations are still there.

Boy, am I ever having trouble communicating effectively in this thread. 

There are a few practical benefits of to consider when looking at lenses designed for crop bodies. They're almost always smaller and lighter than their full-frame equivalent; they simply need less glass to get the same FoV. As an example, my EF-S 55-250mm is effectively the equivalent of an 88-400(!)mm on a full-frame body. And it is very, very light compared to its EF, full-frame equivalents. For some, this can be an important consideration. (If you're running around covering an event and have two cameras around your neck, one telephoto, one wide, do you really want the telephoto to be the size and weight of a baby?  )


----------



## manaheim (Jul 8, 2009)

Big said:


> I guess we just use the right tool for the job. I have heard that crop sensors are better for telephoto lenses and wildlife photography which is mainly what I will be doing. I figured since a crop sensor is what I have been using and also introduced to, it wouldn't be a big deal getting another crop sensor camera. While I remember, I wanted to ask if you yourself have done any photo stitching with a DSLR. My p&s has the mode built in and I have used it quite a bit but I didn't know how it works with a camera that doesn't specifically have a designated mode for it. Can you do it in Photoshop with regular JPEG images?
> 
> 
> Edit: BTW I looked at your site Chris, and you do do some really nice work with real estate. I see what you mean with seeing more in the photo when I looked at the bathroom shots.


 
Thanks! Yeah, bathrooms are the worst, but really any space smaller than 14x14 starts to kind of suck with a crop-sensor cam and the widest lenses available for them today.

On stitching-- I do it in photoshop.

On "crop being better for wildlife" and such... it just boils down to the reverse of what I'm graussing about.  A crop sensor effectively gives you "more zoom", so while it sucks for wide angles, it cranks for a zoomed in shot.


----------



## Big (Jul 8, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Thanks! Yeah, bathrooms are the worst, but really any space smaller than 14x14 starts to kind of suck with a crop-sensor cam and the widest lenses available for them today.
> 
> On stitching-- I do it in photoshop.
> 
> On "crop being better for wildlife" and such... it just boils down to the reverse of what I'm graussing about.  A crop sensor effectively gives you "more zoom", so while it sucks for wide angles, it cranks for a zoomed in shot.


I have had one instance where I wish I had a full frame. I was in my dining room on Thanksgiving and tried to get a shot of the table all set up and couldn't quite get it all in...take a look lol





Sometimes I can get the extra view out of it since I have a vari-angle flip screen on my camera but in this case I was back against a wall with no more room.


----------



## Dwig (Jul 9, 2009)

Big said:


> ....I have had one instance where I wish I had a full frame. I was in my dining room on Thanksgiving...



Not true. The camera used for this shot, a Canon PowerShot A650 IS, simply has no wide angle to speak of. 

At its widest, this camera has the rough equivalent of a 35mm lens on "full frame" or a 23mm on a 1.5x crop sensor (e.g. Nikon DX format). When you consider that your issue is horizontal angle of view and not the diagonal (the dimension used for standard equivalent focal lenght calculations) the equivalences are even less wide at something like 40mm and 27mm, respectively. 

There is no advantage to a "full frame" DSLR over a "crop sensor" DSLR in this respect. Lenses are easily available for either that would provide the substantially wider FOV that you are looking for in this shot. Even the ubiquous "kit" lenses would provide substatially wider FOV than an A650.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 9, 2009)

:banghead:

Larger sensor = wider capabilities on same full-frame lense.

Period.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jul 9, 2009)

The point once again is (I respectfully disagree) that the question isn&#8217;t the compatibility issue of one manufacturer over another, or how much Field of View you get with various lenses. Such an argument can be used to say you can get pro end results from 110 film in an old Kodak Ektra 200. Such an argument is silly. The question is what is the real advantage of Pro end cameras over pro-sumer, and full frame vs. cropped.  Pro end cameras are specifically engineered and built for pro end results. Having owned both ends of the spectrum, I can whole heartily attest to the fact a Pro End Camera is better built in fit and finish over any pro-sumer or consumer end camera along with far better results. The reality is that the area of image capture will always trump one over the in overall image quality based on size and obviously the quality of camera and the skill of the photographer.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jul 9, 2009)

BTW.. not a good idea to mount an EF-S lens to a full frame. The mirror on the Full frame is longer than an APS mirror, and it can hit the EF-S lens because it sits deeper inside the camera. 
Please read this if you want to try:
Canon EF-S lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Big (Jul 9, 2009)

manaheim said:


> :banghead:
> 
> Larger sensor = wider capabilities on same full-frame lense.
> 
> Period.


Poor Chris...


----------



## Big (Jul 9, 2009)

Soocom1 said:


> BTW.. not a good idea to mount an EF-S lens to a full frame. The mirror on the Full frame is longer than an APS mirror, and it can hit the EF-S lens because it sits deeper inside the camera.
> Please read this if you want to try:
> Canon EF-S lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I knew the full frames didn't accept EF-S lenses, that's why I said earlier that it would make more sense to buy EF lenses because the "prosumer" cameras also use EF or EF-S lenses. That way, if you upgrade from a prosumer to a pro camera, you don't have wasted lenses...they will still work for a 5D Mark II for example.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 9, 2009)

Soocom1 said:


> The point once again is (I respectfully disagree) that the question isnt the compatibility issue of one manufacturer over another, or how much Field of View you get with various lenses. Such an argument can be used to say you can get pro end results from 110 film in an old Kodak Ektra 200. Such an argument is silly.


 
Did I miss an announcement somewhere?  Is this National TPF Crazy Day?

Did I eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever say that the field of view was "the" issue?  No.  I said it was something often overlooked... which was followed by a fleet of people saying it was literally not an issue, which IT IS.

See, lots of people had already MENTIONED the stuff about build quality and such, and I felt no need to re-hash it.  I was merely adding an additional FACT which some people felt the need to argue with, which I was simply reinforcing.

AND... (I can't believe I'm actually making this argument) but LOTS of people on here have proven time and again that you CAN get "pro results"  from everything up to and including a pin hole camera made from a JCPenney shoe box.  The operative word here being CAN... not SHOULD.

And you're stepping into everyone's favorite landmine of "just what is professional"? (and no, please GOD do not even attempt to answer that)


I HATE THE INTERNET!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!


----------



## Soocom1 (Jul 9, 2009)

ROFLMOL!!!!! =))  

Ok.. Actually I was speaking of Dwig:
_There is no advantage to a "full frame" DSLR over a "crop sensor" DSLR in this respect. Lenses are easily available for either that would provide the substantially wider FOV that you are looking for in this shot. Even the ubiquous "kit" lenses would provide substatially wider FOV than an A650._ 


Plus I am not saying you&#8217;re not going to get pro end results if you put your heart into it... 
(Sorry I had to say this...) but the original question.... was, and let me repeat verbatim...

_What is it about full frame DSLR cameras that make them "professional" over crop sensor cameras?_
Not a %@$$^ thing. 
So to be very specific&#8230;. The concept of &#8220;Pro end&#8221; is only in the mind of the beholder. How many times have we seen (as you mention) from J.C. Penny shoebox pin holes to 24x36 ULF w/ lenses costing $750,000 to take a pro end photo?    The question alluded to the concept of Full Frame vs. cropped and why the Full frame comes across as Pro? 
It&#8217;s a marketing ploy plain and simple.
But the reality is that the QUALITY of the image will be much higher if the exact same convention is used in whatever size format that is used.  Thus, 35mm trumps APS, 6x7 trumps 35mm, and the Gigapixle project makes us all look low end...
So (and may God forgive me)&#8230;  &#8220;Mine is bigger than yours&#8221; argument is the best way to describe this. 
It boils down to the quality of the items used, and the skill of the photographer. 
But the Internet is our friend!!!!


----------



## Big (Jul 9, 2009)

Oh my god I'm going insane, I never thought it would turn into a battle between people. Sorry guys... I only asked why some people consider full frame to be professional cameras over crop sensor. I personally don't think there is enough of a difference to spend the extra grand or so. If you are truly good, you are able to work with what you got and still turn out some decent pics. I have gotten some amazing shots (in my opinion and also others) from my non-professional point and shoot camera. If you understand the abilities of your camera and you know how to manipulate it in a way to get some good stuff out of it, that in my opinion is a true photographer. That's what it's all about isn't it? Learning how to use our cameras to the best of our abilities and be able to work with what we have whether it be a Nikon, Canon, point and shoot, or even a cheapo from the nearest Walmart. It just confused me that someone considers a Canon 50D to be non professional because of the build quality. To tell you the truth, the 50D has the same build quality as the 5D Mark II as well as the weather sealing (just what I hear anyway).


----------



## manaheim (Jul 9, 2009)

I'm having a bad day at work. Ignore me.


----------



## Dwig (Jul 9, 2009)

Big said:


> ... I only asked why some people consider full frame to be professional cameras over crop sensor. ...



Most make that claim purely to justify their purchase of a full frame body. The sensor size, _in and of itself_, does nothing to make a camera more or less of a "professional" camera. The primary attributes that justify the somewhat inaccurate "pro" label are reliability (#1 priority for a true pro that really earns their livelyhood from the images it produces) and adequate quality for the intended job (not all jobs need the highest resolution or the least high ISO noise). For almost all professional purposes, the better crop sensor cameras deliver the needed image quality and some have the build strength to be reliable and ruged enough for the real work environment.



> I personally don't think there is enough of a difference to spend the extra grand or so...



That's the big choice everyone has to make for themselves. Only they know what the actual use for the camera will be. Only they know whether high ISO performance is an issue in their work (portrait and landscape photographers have little or no need for higher ISOs). Few wedding photographer every print their wedding work large enough to challenge a crop sensor camera.

Large sensors are more expensive, substantially so, than smaller ones. That makes cameras with larger sensors more expensive and thus totally impossible to make competitive in the lower priced end of the market. As a result, the only options for the larger "full frame" sensors today are in the upper portion of the various manufacturer's product lines. Its only this indirect association brought on by cost that causes the current "full frame" sensor offerings to be of better build quality than the popular crop sensor models. Their build quality is, though, no better than that of the crop sensor models in the upper end of the same product lines, either current models or previous generation models replace by larger sensor versions. Buying a "full frame" sensor DSLR currently insures that you get the better build quality, in general, but doesn't mean that no crop sensor model is built equally well.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 9, 2009)

... who actually labelled these camera's as "Professional" anyway ?

I took a look at Canon and  Nikon's website ... they do not use the word "Pro" or "Professional" in any camera model name.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 9, 2009)

Would BadAss have been better description?


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jul 9, 2009)

I think it's fair to say that if you don't know why you would need or want it, then you won't need or want it! It's only when you start bumping up against the limitations of a given format or camera that you should start looking at changing what you're using.


----------



## Big (Jul 9, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> ... who actually labelled these camera's as "Professional" anyway ?
> 
> I took a look at Canon and  Nikon's website ... they do not use the word "Pro" or "Professional" in any camera model name.


If I could remember who, I'd love to tell you. I think it was on TPF though.


----------



## Big (Jul 9, 2009)

I think it's fair to say I finally understand now. I am looking forward to getting a DSLR no matter if it's crop or not. My camera now has only 6x optical zoom and 4x digital which I know is useless. I bought a 3x teleconverter which absolutely sucks. To me, there is a major difference in these 2 images. Guess which one is mine...











I just shake my head in shame when I see shots come out like that that I've done. It definitely lowers my photography self esteem.
I build picture frames out of tree branches and I hope one day to be able to make a sale on some of my work but there is no way I can do that with quality like that while using that teleconverter I have. There's just no substitute for good glass or a good camera.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jul 9, 2009)

Bingo. You now know what I mean. You have found something you don't like about your camera, and an SLR, crop or not, will help you achieve what you're looking for. In fact, if you're looking to do bird photography, the greater pixel density of a 1.6x crop sensor will make life easier, and the money that you save can go towards a telephoto lens, because in order to get an image like you have demonstrated, you'll need to spend on a good long lens, at least 200mm long. If you are really serious about it, look at something like a Canon EF 400/5.6L -- it's a favorite lens with birders because it will get you a great deal of reach, is fairly lightweight, and is pretty inexpensive as far as super-telephotos go. (the 400/5.6 is around $1k, the 400/2.8 is around $7k, to give you an idea. )


----------



## Big (Jul 9, 2009)

tsaraleksi said:


> Bingo. You now know what I mean. You have found something you don't like about your camera, and an SLR, crop or not, will help you achieve what you're looking for. In fact, if you're looking to do bird photography, the greater pixel density of a 1.6x crop sensor will make life easier, and the money that you save can go towards a telephoto lens, because in order to get an image like you have demonstrated, you'll need to spend on a good long lens, at least 200mm long. If you are really serious about it, look at something like a Canon EF 400/5.6L -- it's a favorite lens with birders because it will get you a great deal of reach, is fairly lightweight, and is pretty inexpensive as far as super-telephotos go. (the 400/5.6 is around $1k, the 400/2.8 is around $7k, to give you an idea. )


I like wildlife in general. Actually the biggest reason I was looking at the 50D vs the 5D Mark II was the faster fps which would be a huge advantage for birds or fast moving subjects like deer. When I get settled with a DSLR and some basic but somewhat decent lenses, I would love to look into getting an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM which is somewhere around $1600 from Canon anyway. The wonderful thing about not having a telephoto lens is that when at my camp in Maine, the moose are very photogetic and allow you to take close up shots of them, sometimes from 20 feet away (which is very exciting!)


----------



## FrankLamont (Jul 9, 2009)

You said it yourself in the thread title... 'why not'?


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 10, 2009)

Indeed. For birdies, you're liable to actually want that 1.6x crop factor. That extra reach makes a huge difference. That 400mm lens is going to have a FoV equivalent to 640mm on a crop camera; that's a whole bunch of distance. You'll spend less on glass, and you won't have to lug around such heavy glass too. It's practically a win-win. (I know I mention Scott Bourne wayyyyy too much, but he's a wildlife photog, and has mentioned that he puts a crop body on his lenses sometimes to get more reach out of them; hell, the guy has an 800mm lens&#8212;imagine that baby with a 1.5x crop factor! O.O )

Oh, and with a super-tele on a crop, you'll be able to take a picture of the moose's retina! What fun! :-D


----------



## Big (Jul 10, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Indeed. For birdies, you're liable to actually want that 1.6x crop factor. That extra reach makes a huge difference. That 400mm lens is going to have a FoV equivalent to 640mm on a crop camera; that's a whole bunch of distance. You'll spend less on glass, and you won't have to lug around such heavy glass too. It's practically a win-win. (I know I mention Scott Bourne wayyyyy too much, but he's a wildlife photog, and has mentioned that he puts a crop body on his lenses sometimes to get more reach out of them; hell, the guy has an 800mm lensimagine that baby with a 1.5x crop factor! O.O )
> 
> Oh, and with a super-tele on a crop, you'll be able to take a picture of the moose's retina! What fun! :-D


Thank you so much!! That cleared up a whole lot for me. Plus with the weather sealing the 50D has, it's a plus for outdoor photography.


----------



## FrankLamont (Jul 10, 2009)

...er.... it's only water sealed on battery and memory card compartments.

The 5D (MK I & II) doesn't have weather sealing, either.


----------



## Big (Jul 10, 2009)

FriedChicken said:


> ...er.... it's only water sealed on battery and memory card compartments.
> 
> The 5D (MK I & II) doesn't have weather sealing, either.


Hmm, I'll have to look more into it I guess. Thanks for the info. I don't like to use any camera in the rain or snow anyway...I was actually looking at this for bad weather. I guess it gets pretty good reviews.


----------



## Big (Jul 17, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> ... who actually labelled these camera's as "Professional" anyway ?
> 
> I took a look at Canon and  Nikon's website ... they do not use the word "Pro" or "Professional" in any camera model name.


Hey! I found it! http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-reviews/142483-shall-i-get-canon-50d-5d.html
It is said in the first post that the 5D was a professional camera and the 50D was only semi-professional. I had the link saved in my favorites from way back for reference. Probably not the best source to use as far as basing "pro" or "not pro".


----------

