# Full Frame DSLR with a flip out screen



## greybeard

I'm thinking about pulling the trigger next summer for a new DSLR system.  I was into photography very heavy several years ago to the point of a 4x5 view camera, 2 1/4, and of course 35mm.  I got completely out of it for about 15 years and have just rescently gotten back into it.  I bought a Nikon d5100 with 18-55 for use with my High School Band.  The camera is not mine but belongs to the school though I have full use of it.  I use it for high quality stills as well as video.  One of the features it has is a flip out screen.  I like it because I can shoot waist level like I use to with my 2 1/4.  What I'm wanting is a professional grade (and I'm open to Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, etc.) with a flip out screen.  Are there any?


----------



## davisphotos

I don't know of a full frame camera with that feature. I thought the Sony A900 had it, but it doesn't.


----------



## greybeard

I've been digging and digging too.  Maybe they feel the mechanism needed for a flip out screen would be too delicate for heavy use or something.  My Sony F828 has a hindge between the body and lens so you can easily tilt the screen.  I've gotten so use to using it waist level that I hate to give that up.  Also, just yesterday I was shooting with the camera very close to the floor.  Having that flip out screen made it so much easier to compose and shoot.


----------



## ph0enix

I'm guessing we won't see flip screens on high end cameras any time soon, if ever.  It's a consumer type feature.  I bet most pros wouldn't be interested in it.


----------



## ConradM

Won't the a99 have a flip out screen?


----------



## greybeard

ConradM said:


> Won't the a99 have a flip out screen?


The pictures I've seen show it with a flip out screen but for now the A99 is still "VAPORWARE"


----------



## greybeard

ph0enix said:


> I'm guessing we won't see flip screens on high end cameras any time soon, if ever.  It's a consumer type feature.  I bet most pros wouldn't be interested in it.


I brought this up with my good buddy chuck who is a wedding/portrait photographer for the past 40 years and has used just about everything coming and going.  He said he would love it but, the way Nikon Live View works now with the limited autofocus he doesn't use it.  I agree that with the Nikon, the flip out screen is designed primarily for video and not still.  I prefer to compose this way and If the Sony A99 comes with this feature, I will buy one.  If I can afford it lol.


----------



## MLeeK

That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.


----------



## greybeard

MLeeK said:


> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.


Like I said, it may not be feasible because of durability issues.  I bet Nikon could pull it off though.


----------



## ph0enix

greybeard said:


> ph0enix said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing we won't see flip screens on high end cameras any time soon, if ever.  It's a consumer type feature.  I bet most pros wouldn't be interested in it.
> 
> 
> 
> I brought this up with my good buddy chuck who is a wedding/portrait photographer for the past 40 years and has used just about everything coming and going.  He said he would love it but, the way Nikon Live View works now with the limited autofocus he doesn't use it.  I agree that with the Nikon, the flip out screen is designed primarily for video and not still.  I prefer to compose this way and If the Sony A99 comes with this feature, I will buy one.  If I can afford it lol.
Click to expand...


I have to say, there was at least one time when I wished I had a flip screen on my camera.  It was when I had it on a tripod very close to the ground and was shooting up.  I couldn't get to the viewfinder at all and had to practically lay down in order to be able to see the LCD screen.  Good luck with your quest!


----------



## ConradM

MLeeK said:


> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.


 


greybeard said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it may not be feasible because of durability issues.  I bet Nikon could pull it off though.
Click to expand...


You guys have to remember, people have been using flip out screens for years with video cameras. It's just like anything else, so long as you're careful it isn't an issue.


----------



## ConradM

ph0enix said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph0enix said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing we won't see flip screens on high end cameras any time soon, if ever.  It's a consumer type feature.  I bet most pros wouldn't be interested in it.
> 
> 
> 
> I brought this up with my good buddy chuck who is a wedding/portrait photographer for the past 40 years and has used just about everything coming and going.  He said he would love it but, the way Nikon Live View works now with the limited autofocus he doesn't use it.  I agree that with the Nikon, the flip out screen is designed primarily for video and not still.  I prefer to compose this way and If the Sony A99 comes with this feature, I will buy one.  If I can afford it lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to say, there was at least one time when I wished I had a flip screen on my camera.  It was when I had it on a tripod very close to the ground and was shooting up.  I couldn't get to the viewfinder at all and had to practically lay down in order to be able to see the LCD screen.  Good luck with your quest!
Click to expand...


For me, it's one of the best features of my camera. I use that thing all the time.


----------



## Canuk

MLeeK said:


> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.



I don't know that it is necessarily a recipe for disaster. The screen on my 60D stores like a normal screen and is only vulnerable when flipped out. I only use it flipped out for special shots, but having it is very handy. Low angle and extreme high angle come to mind. I think it can be manufactured so that it would be very durable. To break off the one I have would take some pretty good mishandling, or a drop on a hard surface which would probably break something else anyways.


----------



## ConradM

If I can roll around on a skateboard carrying this a foot off the ground, then you're probably safe holding a DSLR stationary. :mrgreen:


----------



## ph0enix

Canuk said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that it is necessarily a recipe for disaster. The screen on my 60D stores like a normal screen and is only vulnerable when flipped out. I only use it flipped out for special shots, but having it is very handy. Low angle and extreme high angle come to mind. I think it can be manufactured so that it would be very durable. To break off the one I have would take some pretty good mishandling, or a drop on a hard surface which would probably break something else anyways.
Click to expand...


Your 60D may be a nice camera but it is not professional grade (or close to it).  A lot of what makes a pro camera just that is weather resistance and sealing.  I'm not sure how well a 60D or a D5100 would do in a sandstorm while shooting the Dakar rally.  I could see sand getting all stuck in the screen hinge and possibly killing it altogether.


----------



## nickzou

60D is not weather sealed? D7000 is weather sealed...


----------



## mjhoward

MLeeK said:


> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.



Not to mention the limitations and issues with using Live View over an OVF.


----------



## greybeard

I doubt that the mechanical hinge needed would be anymore delicate than the other mechanical components of a pro-level SLR.  Zooming and focusing etc.


----------



## ph0enix

nickzou said:


> 60D is not weather sealed? D7000 is weather sealed...



I doubt that the 60D or the D7000 are nearly as well sealed as the pro grade cameras are.


----------



## greybeard

I think that the there are a lot of us amateurs who don't need extreme weather proofing or ability to be used as a jackhammer that would like a full featured, full frame DSLR with a flip out screen.


----------



## Canuk

ph0enix said:


> Canuk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that it is necessarily a recipe for disaster. The screen on my 60D stores like a normal screen and is only vulnerable when flipped out. I only use it flipped out for special shots, but having it is very handy. Low angle and extreme high angle come to mind. I think it can be manufactured so that it would be very durable. To break off the one I have would take some pretty good mishandling, or a drop on a hard surface which would probably break something else anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your 60D may be a nice camera but it is not professional grade (or close to it).  A lot of what makes a pro camera just that is weather resistance and sealing.  I'm not sure how well a 60D or a D5100 would do in a sandstorm while shooting the Dakar rally.  I could see sand getting all stuck in the screen hinge and possibly killing it altogether.
Click to expand...


Nope its not professional grade, and I never alluded to that or anything close. The only reason for bringing up my model was to bring validity to the point of having first hand experience w/ the swivel screen. I don't really believe that if this option was offered on a pro-grade camera that it would be the same as the one I  have on my 60D. The weather sealing on the 60D is not really that much different than the weather sealing on the 7D, neither one btw is even close to the 1D models. 

I wouldnt hesitate to take my 60D to Dakar to photo the rally, but then if my camera got trashed I was still at Dakar  .


----------



## Canuk

mjhoward said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the limitations and issues with using Live View over an OVF.
Click to expand...


There are advantages to using live view, as well. If equipped several camera's can preview DOF, white balance and histograms before taking the shot. I just read an article about it in a Wildlife Photo mag, sorry can't remember the name and not at home to check, that pointed out several advantages that I hadn't thought about before. Again not saying that live view is the best thing ever, but there are advantages in certain situations.


----------



## ConradM

Canuk said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the limitations and issues with using Live View over an OVF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are advantages to using live view, as well. If equipped several camera's can preview DOF, *white balance and histograms before taking the shot.* I just read an article about it in a Wildlife Photo mag, sorry can't remember the name and not at home to check, that pointed out several advantages that I hadn't thought about before. Again not saying that live view is the best thing ever, but there are advantages in certain situations.
Click to expand...


I never thought of that.

EDIT: So if you don't have live view, how do you check WB? Is that what those cards are for?


----------



## tirediron

Buy a Phase 1 back for your 2 1/4 body?


----------



## greybeard

It may come to that


----------



## mjhoward

Canuk said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the limitations and issues with using Live View over an OVF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are advantages to using live view, as well. If equipped several camera's can preview DOF, white balance and histograms before taking the shot.
Click to expand...


I can preview DOF through my OVF but I agree that it can have its uses.  So far I've only found it advantageous when manual focusing on a stationary subject, particularly for close up and macro.  It's nice being able to zoom in on a particular spot to make sure it is tack sharp.  I've found in nearly useless for any moving subjects though.


----------



## nickzou

ph0enix said:


> nickzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> 60D is not weather sealed? D7000 is weather sealed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that the 60D or the D7000 are nearly as well sealed as the pro grade cameras are.
Click to expand...


That's some interesting speculation. Got anything to back that up? I've seen even non-weather sealed DSLRs take a hell of a beating out in the dust and rain so...


----------



## marvinh

I am hoping the upcoming Nikon D400 or D800 will have an articulating LCD screen.  We'll see.  MarvinH


----------



## nickzou

I mean why the hell not? If you don't like it, just leave it unflipped. My ONLY objection is that if it turns out like the D5100 and all the buttons get remapped. I like the current Nikon button layout. If the articulated screen turns out to be like the D5000's I would be more okay with it.


----------



## TheBiles

The 60D's flip screen drove me crazy. If you want a flimsy little flip screen for video, buy a video camera. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## ph0enix

nickzou said:


> ph0enix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nickzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> 60D is not weather sealed? D7000 is weather sealed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that the 60D or the D7000 are nearly as well sealed as the pro grade cameras are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's some interesting speculation. Got anything to back that up? I've seen even non-weather sealed DSLRs take a hell of a beating out in the dust and rain so...
Click to expand...


I read that somewhere a while ago but I don't remember where now.  Sorry.
High end cameras are built like tanks because they need to be able to take more beating than consumer grade products.


----------



## ph0enix

marvinh said:


> I am hoping the upcoming Nikon D400 or D800 will have an articulating LCD screen.  We'll see.  MarvinH



Not likely on the D800.


----------



## Dao

ph0enix said:


> nickzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph0enix said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that the 60D or the D7000 are nearly as well sealed as the pro grade cameras are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's some interesting speculation. Got anything to back that up? I've seen even non-weather sealed DSLRs take a hell of a beating out in the dust and rain so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read that somewhere a while ago but I don't remember where now.  Sorry.
> High end cameras are built like tanks because they need to be able to take more beating than consumer grade products.
Click to expand...


I do not believe 60D is weather seal.  if yes, it is only a rubber seal for the battery and memory card slot cover.  In Canon, I think 7D or above are weather/dust seal while the 1D series better that other Canons in terms of weather dust.

As for D7000, I do believe it is better then 60D in terms of weather and dust protection.  At least Nikon said "Light and durable magnesium alloy used for top and rear covers.  Connected parts and various points are securely sealed, achieving high  weather-resistant and dust-prevention performance"


----------



## Dao

As for articulating LCD screen.

I prefer to have an camera that has an articulating LCD screen as long as I still have all the buttons I need at the back of the camera.


----------



## Crollo

ConradM said:


> You guys have to remember, people have been using flip out screens for years with video cameras. It's just like anything else, so long as you're careful it isn't an issue.



Yes, get a camera for durability and claim that it's okay the fragile screen broke because you were normally 'careful'.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

I think it is possible for a full frame DSLR with a flip screen, but most likely external, like mounted on hot shoe/plugged in like a GPS device.


----------



## molested_cow

Can't believe we are debating over this again.

IMO the durability concern is not valid because there are tons of examples where flip out screens are used in tough conditions and do well. I personally want a flip out screen regardless what grade of camera it is, provided that the live view feature is more intuitive.


----------



## MTVision

ConradM said:
			
		

> You guys have to remember, people have been using flip out screens for years with video cameras. It's just like anything else, so long as you're careful it isn't an issue.



You don't have to be that careful. I mean who really needs the LCD flipped out all the time? I don't walk around with my LCD flipped out to the side - I either have it closed with the LCD visible or closed without it visible. I could definitely live without the swivel screen but it does come in handy.


----------



## ConradM

Hey I have one of those toughbooks. Those things can handle a 5 foot drop therefor your argument is invalid. :mrgreen:


----------



## greybeard

molested_cow said:


> Can't believe we are debating over this again.
> 
> IMO the durability concern is not valid because there are tons of examples where flip out screens are used in tough conditions and do well. I personally want a flip out screen regardless what grade of camera it is, provided that the live view feature is more intuitive.



Wow!!!! I like the gun   And yes, I have to agree, durability doesn't have to be an issue if done correctly.


----------



## ph0enix

greybeard said:


> molested_cow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't believe we are debating over this again.
> 
> IMO the durability concern is not valid because there are tons of examples where flip out screens are used in tough conditions and do well. I personally want a flip out screen regardless what grade of camera it is, provided that the live view feature is more intuitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!!! I like the gun
Click to expand...


I wonder if takes good photos


----------



## greybeard

ph0enix said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> molested_cow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't believe we are debating over this again.
> 
> IMO the durability concern is not valid because there are tons of examples where flip out screens are used in tough conditions and do well. I personally want a flip out screen regardless what grade of camera it is, provided that the live view feature is more intuitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!!! I like the gun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if takes good photos
Click to expand...

  I wouldn't tell them if it didn't.


----------



## molested_cow

ConradM said:


> Hey I have one of those toughbooks. Those things can handle a 5 foot drop therefor your argument is invalid. :mrgreen:




A cop told me that once he had his tough book on his patrol car roof. He got a emergency call, got into the car and drove off without realizing the laptop on the car. The tough book slide off the car, bounced on the traffic. Someone picked it up and returned it to the police department, and it was working just fine.


----------



## Dao

Awhile back, I went to a trade show and saw the toughbook there at the Panasonic booth.  The guy from Panasonic dropped that tough book, pour some water on it and that let me tried it.  And it still worked.


----------



## ConradM

Dao said:


> Awhile back, I went to a trade show and saw the toughbook there at the Panasonic booth.  The guy from Panasonic dropped that tough book, pour some water on it and that let me tried it.  And it still worked.



Mine fell off a window sill once, bounced off a flower pot, and landed in the snow. :lmao:


----------



## skieur

ConradM said:


> Won't the a99 have a flip out screen?



The A77 has a flipout screen at 24 megapixels and the A99 will have a flip out screen in April 2012.  Popular Photography magazine has indicated that there is no longer any difference in quality between images from crop body cameras and images from full frame cameras.

skieur


----------



## ConradM

skieur said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't the a99 have a flip out screen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The A77 has a flipout screen at 24 megapixels and the A99 will have a flip out screen in April 2012.  Popular Photography magazine has indicated that there is no longer any difference in quality between images from crop body cameras and images from full frame cameras.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


Serious question, what's the benefit of a FF?


----------



## skieur

ConradM said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't the a99 have a flip out screen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The A77 has a flipout screen at 24 megapixels and the A99 will have a flip out screen in April 2012. Popular Photography magazine has indicated that there is no longer any difference in quality between images from crop body cameras and images from full frame cameras.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Serious question, what's the benefit of a FF?
Click to expand...


Well, it was a matter of focal length. A 28mm wide angle lens on a full frame camera would create an image at a focal length of 28mm. A 28mm wide angle lense on a crop body camera would create an image at the focal length of approximately 40mm. The differrence is that the latter image would no longer be wide angle and you would get less in the picture. In other words, crop body cameras did not produce good wide angle images.

What changed is that camera makers started to produce quality 10mm to 20mm wide angle zooms which even on a crop body camera produced wide angle images at 15mm to 30mm in focal length.

So the original advantage of FF cameras was better wide angle photos, but that is no longer the case. The advantage of crop body cameras is the ability to produce a telephoto shot with a lighter, less expensive lens.

So a 300mm telephoto on a FF camera produces an image at 300mm focal length. On a crop body camera you multiply the focal length of the lens by approximately 1.5 which means that a 300mm telephoto lens will produce an image at a focal length of 450mm which would be a much closer photo of the bird or subject in the distance.

Picture noise used to also be less of a problem on a FF camera, than on a crop body camera but that gap has narrowed considerably as well to the point of being unnoticeable.

skieur


----------



## Jimdus

Here I am a noob. 1st night, but I may have an insight. I'm considering a D7000 and almost changed my mind on this feature until I thought: "Could this be an issue with weather / dust proofing?". I don't think a pro would find it offensive. After all, waist level IS a better perspective. The articulated screen is a help with macro, and going the otherway helps with shooting over other people's heads (parades / paparazzi). Even my old Olympus E-10 boasts it!


----------



## nickzou

ConradM said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't the a99 have a flip out screen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The A77 has a flipout screen at 24 megapixels and the A99 will have a flip out screen in April 2012.  Popular Photography magazine has indicated that there is no longer any difference in quality between images from crop body cameras and images from full frame cameras.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Serious question, what's the benefit of a FF?
Click to expand...


First! Skieur can you post your source. Honestly, I would love to believe you. I'm looking forward to the D400 more than the D800 but IQ is always a concern for me. I would love to read this article.

And as to Conrad, IF we assume what Skieur is saying is true than the only real difference is that FF bodies can have wider focal lengths in the grand scheme of things and shallower depth of field. But again, only if this is true. I have a feeling that the D4 will rape my D7000 sideways in terms of IQ.


----------



## trojancast

skieur said:
			
		

> The A77 has a flipout screen at 24 megapixels and the A99 will have a flip out screen in April 2012.  Popular Photography magazine has indicated that there is no longer any difference in quality between images from crop body cameras and images from full frame cameras.
> 
> skieur



Sorry, I'm not buying.  I have both FF and crop body Canon's (5D2 & T3i) and there is no comparison between the two.  T3i is a lovely camera, but cannot hold a candle to the 5D2.  IF Pop Photo made such a statement, it is rubbish.  Maybe theft are talking about on a tiny laptop screen . . .


----------



## nickzou

trojancast said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The A77 has a flipout screen at 24 megapixels and the A99 will have a flip out screen in April 2012.  Popular Photography magazine has indicated that there is no longer any difference in quality between images from crop body cameras and images from full frame cameras.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not buying.  I have both FF and crop body Canon's (5D2 & T3i) and there is no comparison between the two.  T3i is a lovely camera, but cannot hold a candle to the 5D2.  IF Pop Photo made such a statement, it is rubbish.  Maybe theft are talking about on a tiny laptop screen . . .
Click to expand...


I kinda suspect that you are exaggerating to make a point... And I understand and probably would agree with your point... But it still feels like a hyperbole. And I think these hyperboles do more harm than good when it comes to educating people about the actual differences in IQ and optics design.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

skieur said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't the a99 have a flip out screen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The A77 has a flipout screen at 24 megapixels and the A99 will have a flip out screen in April 2012.  Popular Photography magazine has indicated that there is no longer any difference in quality between images from crop body cameras and images from full frame cameras.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


That is partly true but not. This is because the current crop sensor bodies are one generation newer than the full frame sensor bodies. Normally sensor become better by one time every generation, and full frame is supposed to be 1 time better than crop assuming it is made at the same generation. When 1DX and D4 comes out, you'll see that full frame sensors are actually one time better. It more fair to compare two sensors that are made at the same year. Even 1 year can be a big difference to the technology in the sensors.


----------



## greybeard

EchoingWhisper said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't the a99 have a flip out screen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The A77 has a flipout screen at 24 megapixels and the A99 will have a flip out screen in April 2012.  Popular Photography magazine has indicated that there is no longer any difference in quality between images from crop body cameras and images from full frame cameras.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is partly true but not. This is because the current crop sensor bodies are one generation newer than the full frame sensor bodies. Normally sensor become better by one time every generation, and full frame is supposed to be 1 time better than crop assuming it is made at the same generation. When 1DX and D4 comes out, you'll see that full frame sensors are actually one time better. It more fair to compare two sensors that are made at the same year. Even 1 year can be a big difference to the technology in the sensors.
Click to expand...


I understand what one STOP better means but what does one TIME better mean?


----------



## EchoingWhisper

skieur said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The A77 has a flipout screen at 24 megapixels and the A99 will have a flip out screen in April 2012. Popular Photography magazine has indicated that there is no longer any difference in quality between images from crop body cameras and images from full frame cameras.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serious question, what's the benefit of a FF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it was a matter of focal length. A 28mm wide angle lens on a full frame camera would create an image at a focal length of 28mm. A 28mm wide angle lense on a crop body camera would create an image at the focal length of approximately 40mm. The differrence is that the latter image would no longer be wide angle and you would get less in the picture. In other words, crop body cameras did not produce good wide angle images.
> 
> What changed is that camera makers started to produce quality 10mm to 20mm wide angle zooms which even on a crop body camera produced wide angle images at 15mm to 30mm in focal length.
> 
> So the original advantage of FF cameras was better wide angle photos, but that is no longer the case. The advantage of crop body cameras is the ability to produce a telephoto shot with a lighter, less expensive lens.
> 
> So a 300mm telephoto on a FF camera produces an image at 300mm focal length. On a crop body camera you multiply the focal length of the lens by approximately 1.5 which means that a 300mm telephoto lens will produce an image at a focal length of 450mm which would be a much closer photo of the bird or subject in the distance.
> 
> Picture noise used to also be less of a problem on a FF camera, than on a crop body camera but that gap has narrowed considerably as well to the point of being unnoticeable.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


No, they could. Because lenses are generally 1 times smaller in DX (if you don't count AF and VR), you could could make lenses with shorter focal length than possible in FF. If what you say is true, then point and shoot cameras would be all telephoto and no wide angle.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

greybeard said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The A77 has a flipout screen at 24 megapixels and the A99 will have a flip out screen in April 2012.  Popular Photography magazine has indicated that there is no longer any difference in quality between images from crop body cameras and images from full frame cameras.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is partly true but not. This is because the current crop sensor bodies are one generation newer than the full frame sensor bodies. Normally sensor become better by one time every generation, and full frame is supposed to be 1 time better than crop assuming it is made at the same generation. When 1DX and D4 comes out, you'll see that full frame sensors are actually one time better. It more fair to compare two sensors that are made at the same year. Even 1 year can be a big difference to the technology in the sensors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what one STOP better means but what does one TIME better mean?
Click to expand...


One stop and one time means the same. One stop more light = one time more light.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

skieur said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The A77 has a flipout screen at 24 megapixels and the A99 will have a flip out screen in April 2012. Popular Photography magazine has indicated that there is no longer any difference in quality between images from crop body cameras and images from full frame cameras.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serious question, what's the benefit of a FF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it was a matter of focal length. A 28mm wide angle lens on a full frame camera would create an image at a focal length of 28mm. A 28mm wide angle lense on a crop body camera would create an image at the focal length of approximately 40mm. The differrence is that the latter image would no longer be wide angle and you would get less in the picture. In other words, crop body cameras did not produce good wide angle images.
> 
> What changed is that camera makers started to produce quality 10mm to 20mm wide angle zooms which even on a crop body camera produced wide angle images at 15mm to 30mm in focal length.
> 
> So the original advantage of FF cameras was better wide angle photos, but that is no longer the case. The advantage of crop body cameras is the ability to produce a telephoto shot with a lighter, less expensive lens.
> 
> So a 300mm telephoto on a FF camera produces an image at 300mm focal length. On a crop body camera you multiply the focal length of the lens by approximately 1.5 which means that a 300mm telephoto lens will produce an image at a focal length of 450mm which would be a much closer photo of the bird or subject in the distance.
> 
> Picture noise used to also be less of a problem on a FF camera, than on a crop body camera but that gap has narrowed considerably as well to the point of being unnoticeable.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


Optically, full frame is still better. To achieve the same sharpness in FF cameras and DX cameras with the same megapixel, the DX lens needs to be about 1 time sharper than the FF lens. Even if the resolution is the same (same pixel size), FF cameras will get the advantage of having 1 time more pixels, which means you get 1 time more detail, and means it is 1 time sharper than the DX lens again.


----------



## greybeard

EchoingWhisper said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Serious question, what's the benefit of a FF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it was a matter of focal length. A 28mm wide angle lens on a full frame camera would create an image at a focal length of 28mm. A 28mm wide angle lense on a crop body camera would create an image at the focal length of approximately 40mm. The differrence is that the latter image would no longer be wide angle and you would get less in the picture. In other words, crop body cameras did not produce good wide angle images.
> 
> What changed is that camera makers started to produce quality 10mm to 20mm wide angle zooms which even on a crop body camera produced wide angle images at 15mm to 30mm in focal length.
> 
> So the original advantage of FF cameras was better wide angle photos, but that is no longer the case. The advantage of crop body cameras is the ability to produce a telephoto shot with a lighter, less expensive lens.
> 
> So a 300mm telephoto on a FF camera produces an image at 300mm focal length. On a crop body camera you multiply the focal length of the lens by approximately 1.5 which means that a 300mm telephoto lens will produce an image at a focal length of 450mm which would be a much closer photo of the bird or subject in the distance.
> 
> Picture noise used to also be less of a problem on a FF camera, than on a crop body camera but that gap has narrowed considerably as well to the point of being unnoticeable.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Optically, full frame is still better. To achieve the same sharpness in FF cameras and DX cameras with the same megapixel, the DX lens needs to be about 1 time sharper than the FF lens. Even if the resolution is the same (same pixel size), FF cameras will get the advantage of having 1 time more pixels, which means you get 1 time more detail, and means it is 1 time sharper than the DX lens again.
Click to expand...

Unless my understanding of how this all works is totally off, an 8 MP full frame and an 8 MP crop frame image will have the same number of pixels (more or less).  The difference is in the amount of magnification of the lens image and the actual size of each pixel.  As an example, I have a Nikon D5100 crop frame and a Sony F828 (6.6x8.8).  The Sony is roughly 1/4 of a full frame while the Nikon is like 3/4 of a FF.  With the Nikon set to Medium size (roughly 8MP) and the Sony at full size (8MP) and both set to ISO100, there is very little difference in the resulting image.  That is because the Zeiss Vario Sonnar on the Sony is a really outstanding lens and the 18-55 on the Nikon is just so-so.  Where the Sony starts falling apart is when you raise the ISO above 200.  The Sony holds together right up to 6400 where the Sony starts falling apart at anything above 200.  Pixel size is the difference.  Bigger pixels are much better at low light.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

greybeard said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it was a matter of focal length. A 28mm wide angle lens on a full frame camera would create an image at a focal length of 28mm. A 28mm wide angle lense on a crop body camera would create an image at the focal length of approximately 40mm. The differrence is that the latter image would no longer be wide angle and you would get less in the picture. In other words, crop body cameras did not produce good wide angle images.
> 
> What changed is that camera makers started to produce quality 10mm to 20mm wide angle zooms which even on a crop body camera produced wide angle images at 15mm to 30mm in focal length.
> 
> So the original advantage of FF cameras was better wide angle photos, but that is no longer the case. The advantage of crop body cameras is the ability to produce a telephoto shot with a lighter, less expensive lens.
> 
> So a 300mm telephoto on a FF camera produces an image at 300mm focal length. On a crop body camera you multiply the focal length of the lens by approximately 1.5 which means that a 300mm telephoto lens will produce an image at a focal length of 450mm which would be a much closer photo of the bird or subject in the distance.
> 
> Picture noise used to also be less of a problem on a FF camera, than on a crop body camera but that gap has narrowed considerably as well to the point of being unnoticeable.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Optically, full frame is still better. To achieve the same sharpness in FF cameras and DX cameras with the same megapixel, the DX lens needs to be about 1 time sharper than the FF lens. Even if the resolution is the same (same pixel size), FF cameras will get the advantage of having 1 time more pixels, which means you get 1 time more detail, and means it is 1 time sharper than the DX lens again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless my understanding of how this all works is totally off, an 8 MP full frame and an 8 MP crop frame image will have the same number of pixels (more or less).  The difference is in the amount of magnification of the lens image and the actual size of each pixel.  As an example, I have a Nikon D5100 crop frame and a Sony F828 (6.6x8.8).  The Sony is roughly 1/4 of a full frame while the Nikon is like 3/4 of a FF.  With the Nikon set to Medium size (roughly 8MP) and the Sony at full size (8MP) and both set to ISO100, there is very little difference in the resulting image.  That is because the Zeiss Vario Sonnar on the Sony is a really outstanding lens and the 18-55 on the Nikon is just so-so.  Where the Sony starts falling apart is when you raise the ISO above 200.  The Sony holds together right up to 6400 where the Sony starts falling apart at anything above 200.  Pixel size is the difference.  Bigger pixels are much better at low light.
Click to expand...


Yes. But not fully right. It all depends on the lens. DX lenses are generally smaller than FX lenses. If the DX lenses are built to the same size as the FX lenses (not counting AF and VR) then the low light performance will be about the same, but sensors are more complicated than that. 1 time larger sensors doesn't always mean 1 time better light performance.


----------



## greybeard

Yes, I get that too and as sensors get better and better, the differences will become smaller and smaller until the only differences will be on the optical-analog side of it.  When you enlarge crop frame vs full frame, to the same size print, you still have to magnify the optical image from the crop frame 50% more.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Just get a FF and enjoy, no need for debate =)


----------



## greybeard

Which brings me back to my OP, a FF DSLR with a articulated screen.....lol


----------



## Nikon_Josh

skieur said:


> Picture noise used to also be less of a problem on a FF camera, than on a crop body camera but that gap has narrowed considerably as well to the point of being unnoticeable.
> 
> skieur



DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Like this you mean, Skieur??? There is a big difference in noise performance between the three. Admittedly, you may be right about the other aspects of performance. But the A77 has poor high ISO performance, the D7000 has average high ISO performance and the D3S has ridiculously amazing HIGH ISO performance. This test again exposes the flaws in your argument!


----------



## EchoingWhisper

A thing for you to know is that full frame is still better. Nikon regard full frame as pro so all high end equipment are made for full frame, so you have to go full frame. In reality, full frame only have one big up, which is resolution.


----------



## skieur

Nikon_Josh said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Picture noise used to also be less of a problem on a FF camera, than on a crop body camera but that gap has narrowed considerably as well to the point of being unnoticeable.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> Like this you mean, Skieur??? There is a big difference in noise performance between the three. Admittedly, you may be right about the other aspects of performance. But the A77 has poor high ISO performance, the D7000 has average high ISO performance and the D3S has ridiculously amazing HIGH ISO performance. This test again exposes the flaws in your argument!
Click to expand...


From your link:

"Apart from a lower low-light ISO score due to its translucent mirror, the Sony A77 comes very close to matching these full-frame cameras. This demonstrates that even if the full-frame format dominated the high-end market when launched, they have now lost a big part of their advantage."

Note also the so-called difference in score from 78 to 82....Not much difference.

Of course, why not compare photos, you won't see much of a difference and I am not impressed by any of them.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

skieur


----------



## EchoingWhisper

skieur said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Picture noise used to also be less of a problem on a FF camera, than on a crop body camera but that gap has narrowed considerably as well to the point of being unnoticeable.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> Like this you mean, Skieur??? There is a big difference in noise performance between the three. Admittedly, you may be right about the other aspects of performance. But the A77 has poor high ISO performance, the D7000 has average high ISO performance and the D3S has ridiculously amazing HIGH ISO performance. This test again exposes the flaws in your argument!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> "Apart from a lower low-light ISO score due to its translucent mirror, the Sony A77 comes very close to matching these full-frame cameras. This demonstrates that even if the full-frame format dominated the high-end market when launched, they have now lost a big part of their advantage."
> 
> Note also the so-called difference in score from 78 to 82....Not much difference.
> 
> Of course, why not compare photos, you won't see much of a difference and I am not impressed by any of them.
> 
> Imaging Resource "Comparometer"  Digital Camera Image Comparison Page
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


Yep. You're right, a full frame sensor is supposed to be better than crop sensor cameras by 13 points (15 points = 1 stop). Just wait for D4 to come out and see the difference in points. Hoping to see D4 to have 93 points or more (13 points more than D7000), if the points are lower than 93 - it means Nikon's technology in D4's sensor worsened or Nikon simply wasn't able to salvage as much performance from the sensor compared to D7000.


----------



## Boney

> There are advantages to using live view,  as well. If equipped several camera's can preview DOF, white balance  and histograms before taking the shot. I just read an article about it in  a Wildlife Photo mag, sorry can't remember the name and not at home to  check, that pointed out several advantages that I hadn't thought about  before. Again not saying that live view is the best thing ever, but there are advantages in certain situations.



Unfortunately I just found out that neither my D7000 or D800E allows DOFP during Live View!


----------



## MLeeK

OK, why are you bringing back long dead threads?


----------



## cgipson1

Boney said:


> There are advantages to using live view,  as well. If equipped several camera's can preview DOF, white balance  and histograms before taking the shot. I just read an article about it in  a Wildlife Photo mag, sorry can't remember the name and not at home to  check, that pointed out several advantages that I hadn't thought about  before. Again not saying that live view is the best thing ever, but there are advantages in certain situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I just found out that neither my D7000 or D800E allows DOFP during Live View!
Click to expand...


So? It would be so dark, it would be unusable!

and to echo Mlee.... why open Zombie threads?  lol!


----------



## Village Idiot

ph0enix said:


> Canuk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that it is necessarily a recipe for disaster. The screen on my 60D stores like a normal screen and is only vulnerable when flipped out. I only use it flipped out for special shots, but having it is very handy. Low angle and extreme high angle come to mind. I think it can be manufactured so that it would be very durable. To break off the one I have would take some pretty good mishandling, or a drop on a hard surface which would probably break something else anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your 60D may be a nice camera but it is not professional grade (or close to it).  A lot of what makes a pro camera just that is weather resistance and sealing.  I'm not sure how well a 60D or a D5100 would do in a sandstorm while shooting the Dakar rally.  I could see sand getting all stuck in the screen hinge and possibly killing it altogether.
Click to expand...


I'll get to the rest of the thread eventually, and it may already be posted, but the Olympus OM-D is a weather sealed camera with a hinged screen. It can be done.

It could also be useful to a pro. Not all pros shoot the same thing at an easy level where they can see through the viewfinder all the time. Concert photography, car photography, sport photography, etc... You may never using it is you're shooting food or standard portraiture, but that doesn't mean that pros in other fields wouldn't have a use for it.


----------



## skieur

MLeeK said:


> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.



On the cameras that I have, I broke the screen on the only one that was NOT a flip out.

skieur


----------



## table1349

skieur said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the cameras that I have, I broke the screen on the only one that was NOT a flip out.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...

That probably happened from using that old fashioned equipment.


----------



## skieur

Nikon_Josh said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Picture noise used to also be less of a problem on a FF camera, than on a crop body camera but that gap has narrowed considerably as well to the point of being unnoticeable.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> Like this you mean, Skieur??? There is a big difference in noise performance between the three. Admittedly, you may be right about the other aspects of performance. But the A77 has poor high ISO performance, the D7000 has average high ISO performance and the D3S has ridiculously amazing HIGH ISO performance. This test again exposes the flaws in your argument!
Click to expand...


Well, yes and no. If you are just shooting at high ISOs, then yes there is a big difference but then there is also gigantic price difference between the A77 and the D3S...around 5X higher cost for the D3S. At the same time however, the A77 has in-camera methods for reducing noise and using lower ISOs in lowlight conditions. Twilight mode goes to ISO 25,000, for example. With no flipping mirror on the A77, I have seen usable shots at 1 second handheld at ISO 100 in lowlight.

skieur


----------



## skieur

gryphonslair99 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one feature I know I definitely do NOT want on my cameras. IMO it's a recipe for servicing a broken screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the cameras that I have, I broke the screen on the only one that was NOT a flip out.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That probably happened from using that old fashioned equipment.
Click to expand...


No, actually I tried to stuff too much into my camera case.

skieur


----------



## joshuatdlr

greybeard said:


> I'm thinking about pulling the trigger next summer for a new DSLR system.  I was into photography very heavy several years ago to the point of a 4x5 view camera, 2 1/4, and of course 35mm.  I got completely out of it for about 15 years and have just rescently gotten back into it.  I bought a Nikon d5100 with 18-55 for use with my High School Band.  The camera is not mine but belongs to the school though I have full use of it.  I use it for high quality stills as well as video.  One of the features it has is a flip out screen.  I like it because I can shoot waist level like I use to with my 2 1/4.  What I'm wanting is a professional grade (and I'm open to Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, etc.) with a flip out screen.  Are there any?


I heard a rumor that Canon will be releasing the 6D mkII with a flip out screen.


----------



## JohnnyWrench

7 pages and no one mentions the Nikon D750?  It has a flip out screen but for me it's fairly useless.


----------



## astroNikon

JohnnyWrench said:


> 7 pages and no one mentions the Nikon D750?  It has a flip out screen but for me it's fairly useless.


the thread is 4 years old from Sept 2012.
The D750 wasn't around back then (released in Sept 2014), neither was the DX D500.


----------



## JohnnyWrench

astroNikon said:


> JohnnyWrench said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7 pages and no one mentions the Nikon D750?  It has a flip out screen but for me it's fairly useless.
> 
> 
> 
> the thread is 4 years old from Sept 2012.
> The D750 wasn't around back then (released in Sept 2014), neither was the DX D500.
Click to expand...


Ha! No wonder I didn't recognize anyone!


----------



## petrochemist

joshuatdlr said:


> I heard a rumor that Canon will be releasing the 6D mkII with a flip out screen.



Welcome to the forum Joshua, you've managed to pick a very old thread to reply to, but I expect we've all done that when first joining a forum & scanning through the archives.


----------



## greybeard

I can't believe this thread I started back in 2012 is still around.  I'm getting delivery of a D750 w 24-120 tomorrow.  Problem solved.


----------



## goodguy

greybeard said:


> I can't believe this thread I started back in 2012 is still around.  I'm getting delivery of a D750 w 24-120 tomorrow.  Problem solved.


You will LOVE it!!! 
Congrats


----------



## joshuatdlr

JohnnyWrench said:


> 7 pages and no one mentions the Nikon D750?  It has a flip out screen but for me it's fairly useless.


I agree! But, I think he meant fully articulating, the Nikon D750's screen only flips up slightly. I think a game changer for Canon or Nikon would be a 80D or D5500 esque, DSLR with a full frame sensor........... and 4k


----------



## goodguy

joshuatdlr said:


> JohnnyWrench said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7 pages and no one mentions the Nikon D750?  It has a flip out screen but for me it's fairly useless.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree! But, I think he meant fully articulating, the Nikon D750's screen only flips up slightly. I think a game changer for Canon or Nikon would be a 80D or D5500 esque, DSLR with a full frame sensor........... and 4k
Click to expand...

As said before this is a 4 years old thread, no need to get to serious here, let it sink back down to sleep


----------



## greybeard

Actually I'm pretty OK with the articulation of the D750 as it allows for waist level monitoring during video and still photography.


----------



## astroNikon

the d750 screen flips fully UP or DOWN ...
I was just using it for and event and some above shots shooting over crowds with the screen flipped down.
works great.

But for the D5500 (and P7x00) and doing selfies .. that's another matter altogether.


----------



## greybeard

astroNikon said:


> the d750 screen flips fully UP or DOWN ...
> I was just using it for and event and some above shots shooting over crowds with the screen flipped down.
> works great.
> 
> But for the D5500 (and P7x00) and doing selfies .. that's another matter altogether.


As the OP I wanted a screen that would let me do low angle photos and the D750 does that.  As for selfies, I use my cell phone.


----------



## greybeard

I've been using it for a few weeks now and it works better than I expected.  The D750 focuses pretty well in live view and with the flip out screen I can shoot from a low angle with ease.  This shot of my grand daughter at ISO 7200, 38mm and f/4


----------

