Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

What are the advantages of full frame?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK, let's summazire:

- better chance for shallow DoF even without superfast lenses!
- better chance for low noise in high ISO shots
- better chance to find a superwide angle lens
- you can use the lens with the FoV you are used to, if you are used to it. Wink

I write "better chance" because it's not always the case and APS has caught up recently.

Last edited by LucisPictor on Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:50 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
OK, let's summazire:

- better chance for shallow DoF even with not superfast lenses!
- better chance for low noise in high ISO shots
- better chance to find a superwide angle lens
- you can use the lens with the FoV you are used to, if you are used to it. Wink

I write "better chance" because it's not always the case and APS has caught up recently.


All very true, except that FF will always be ahead (e.g., D4 and EOS-1D X) until material physics, science and engineering comes up something totally new.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sichko, didn't notice that, but you are correct. The relationship *appears* to be truer for Canon cameras. Interestingly, even with Nikon, the ff results still seem to get overall higher scores Shocked


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I heard from this gentleman, http://www.leepetersonphotography.com/main.html# in an old fxguide.com interview about the moon landings, http://www.fxguide.com/therc/the-rc-82-you-cant-change-film-on-the-moon/ that if you have a crop sensor camera such as the 7D / 550D / 1100D one should 'really' only use lenses designed for a crop sensor and not full frame lenses especially old ones designed for 35mm as they don't lay the image down correctly onto the crop sensor.

The reason was something to do with the lens front element shape and parallel rear element in lenses designed for crop sensors which is not the design of lenses for full frame sensors.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i certainly noted this to be true, both good and bad. some lenses, like the zeiss planars, performed much better on my 5d than on crop cam, whilst others, like my retina schneiders performed much better on crop cam than on my 5d.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:50 am    Post subject: Re: What are the advantages of full frame? Reply with quote
jito wrote:
.... I notice that most of the users have full frame cameras.


There are many members here shooting on film/slide thus using full frame camera. On the other hand, I don't think majority of the members here are on full frame digital cameras, at least not yet.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
One thing not explicitly mentioned is that because smaller-than-FF sensors do not use the full intended image projection, it corrects for many corner performance "issues" stemming from design. This includes such things as vignetting, resolution drop-off, and astigmatism. All will be less severe on the crop cam.

I say "issues" because sometimes people really seek out lenses exhibiting these traits. The biotar scheme and it's many derivatives are now famous (or maybe infamous, if you don't like the effect) for a bokeh "swirl." The swirl is nothing more than poorly corrected astigmatism. It becomes more pronounced at the corners. With a crop cam one will still see the effect but it will not be as obvious.

To me it wasn't so much the change in focal length but rather this change in character.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The thing I see as a clear advantage for FF is better high ISO performance - as good as APS-C sensors have got, they are still not able to challenge FF camera models like the D700.

As for the other arguments:
- Shallow DOF - I am fine with the compromise reached in the APS-C format
- Wide angle lenses - I'm fine with the choices I have. And the XPro1 system promises options that have never been seen on FF
- Use of old lenses with intended perspective - I am not looking for that - not sure if I would like the results, plus I made my choices based on APS-C use. This is a personal reason at best, not an objective attribute of the format.

stingOM wrote:

How about larger circle of confusion and hence shallower depth of field on a FF vs say m4/3 or Nikon 1, Pentax Q?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

There is no advantage/disadvantage there. It all depends on what you want to achieve. Shallow DOF can be great for some shots and a PITA for others.

stingOM wrote:

Also, larger sensor (but not too much pixel density) means it is less demanding on the optics itself for sharpness, just like in medium format photography vs 35mm.

Everyone knows how to make sharp optics today, so this is hardly an issue. And if you're on a budget, it sounds weird to go for an expensive FF camera just so you can see some mediocre lenses at their best.

diffid wrote:
I heard from this gentleman, http://www.leepetersonphotography.com/main.html# in an old fxguide.com interview about the moon landings, http://www.fxguide.com/therc/the-rc-82-you-cant-change-film-on-the-moon/ that if you have a crop sensor camera such as the 7D / 550D / 1100D one should 'really' only use lenses designed for a crop sensor and not full frame lenses especially old ones designed for 35mm as they don't lay the image down correctly onto the crop sensor.

The reason was something to do with the lens front element shape and parallel rear element in lenses designed for crop sensors which is not the design of lenses for full frame sensors.

He got it wrong. The format does not matter - FF is as bad as APS-C in this respect. How could it be otherwise - a crop sensor is really just that - a smaller sensor. If the size would matter, then the center part of the FF images would also be affected the same way. What he probably heard or read and then misunderstood is that you want to use lenses designed for digital rather than film - see this article posted recently in another thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml. But this applies to all digital cameras, regardless of format.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
The format does not matter - FF is as bad as APS-C in this respect.


Actually, a small correction - format does matter, but not in a way that is favorable to FF. You just need to look at Leica - their initial digital offerings used cropped sensors because of the issues in making FF sensors work with their existing lens lineup. The M9 sensor does some special tricks with the microlens arrangement to capture light effectively at the edges of the frame.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
In addition to lower pixel density and wide-angles working as they're intended, there are other advantages to FF that I haven't seen mentioned yet.

1) I dupe my slides; I don't scan them anymore. Right now I'm using an EOS crop body (XS, aka 1000D) and I have to use a combination of extention tubes with my 55mm Nikkor and a cobbled together slide holder to do this. The closest I can get with this combination still leaves a small border around the slide image, so there is some overall loss of image pixel count. With an FF camera, I can use a bellows with slide duplicator for an exact 1:1 reproduction.

A Canon 5D II, with its 21 mp 36x24mm sensor delivers 3744 pixels of vertical resolution, corresponding to the 24mm height of the sensor. Because there are 25.4mm in one inch, this translates into 3962 ppi (3744/24x25.4=3962.4), which is virtually identical in resolution to the best Nikon dedicated film scanners, which offer 4000 ppi. Given the prices that these scanners are selling for these days, one can buy a 5D II, a Nikon PB-4/PS-4, and an adapter, and have money left over. Plus, you've got a damned good camera to use, to boot. Like free of charge, if you were thinking about buying a Nikon scanner only.

2) From what I've been able to ascertain, when using MF lenses, the 5D and 5D II (and I'm sure other FF DSLRs of course) will show you in its viewfinder what is actually being seen by the sensor. None of this annoying bit where the focusing screen lies to you about the actual point of focus because of excessive observed depth of field, the way it does with some (most?) APS-C DSLRs. So this means you can actually focus your 50mm f/1.4 wide open without having to worry about using Live View to insure focus accuracy.

Along with my WA lenses behaving the way they're supposed to, these are the main reasons why I want to get an FF camera one day -- hopefully soon.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
One thing that I found is that on FF cameras the viewfinder is much better.

Especially when compared to cheaper consumer models that use a pentamirror instead of pentaprism; there lies a difference as great as night and day (quite literally).

- Much brighter view, making MF in low light easier
- Wider view, not as if one is peering through a keyhole
- Better coverage, so you won't end up with more on the photo than you saw in the viewfinder


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very simple to explain the advantage:

Distagon 15mm on full frame:




Distagon 15mm on APS-C:



PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For me, it means that a 50mm lens looks like a 50mm lens. The crop factor irritates me and it's as simple as that; not DR, not ISO performance, not DOF, not anything at all to do with IQ, just my OCD. Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
As many others have mentioned.

Less wide angle
Less dept of field
More noise and less dynamics

I compensate with my 7-14mm panny (af lens) on the wide side for m43 format Wink

On the other hand, some lenses are sharper in the middle (blury corners). You will then have a advantage with smaller sensors. Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Very simple to explain the advantage:
Distagon 15mm on full frame:
....
Distagon 15mm on APS-C:
....

Laughing very illustrative explanation Orio!


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The big viewfinder is one hell of a good reason, especially when talking about manual focusing.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, did you crop a FF picture to APS-C size to show the crop factor is not in favour of Apsc dslrs ?
What about the IQ ?

It would be very interesting to see the difference between a FF and an APS-C, especially with such a great lens as your Distagon.

I read that APS-C Dslrs are less demanding with optical quality of lenses than Full Frame Dslrs.
Do you confirm ?
If so, would it be an advantage for other formats than FF when using MF lenses ?

Smile


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Olivier wrote:
Orio, did you crop a FF picture to APS-C size to show the crop factor is not in favour of Apsc dslrs ?


yes Wink

Quote:
What about the IQ ?


IQ is always better in a full frame camera, due to the larger sensor area.

Quote:
It would be very interesting to see the difference between a FF and an APS-C, especially with such a great lens as your Distagon.


I can make a comparison if you like.
But I already know the result: the 5D Mark II image will be cleaner.

Quote:
I read that APS-C Dslrs are less demanding with optical quality of lenses than Full Frame Dslrs.
Do you confirm ?
If so, would it be an advantage for other formats than FF when using MF lenses ?


That is not something that depends on the sensor format, if not indirectly.
Lenses have a resolvance power, which is their limit. Sensors do, too.
So the resulting image will always be quality matched to the lowest common denominator, as mathematic professors taught us Laughing
In other words, the resolvance of the image will never be superior to the lower resolvance limit between the camera and the lens.
With most digital cameras (except for the super big ones like the new Nikon D800) lenses' resolvance often exceeds the resolvance of the sensor.
This unless you are using a really junk lens wide open Wink
So generally speaking, and with only a few exceptions, there will be no advantage in using a lower resolution camera with your manual lenses.
On the contrary, the better S/N ratio of full frame cameras will make all lenses look better, including the less resolving lenses.

Of course, sharpness is not only dependant on resolvance. It also depends on acutance (micro-contrast), which is the most important factor in a typical small print format.
Tests have proven that a lens with great resolvance but moderate micro-contrast looks worse in small print photo than a lens with great micro-contrast and moderate resolvance.
This is the reason why most people sharpens like crazy (and some beyond the reasonable) when resizing pictures - they get the thrill of the lens looking better than it actually is Wink
There are lenses - the first example that comes to my mind is that of Macro-Revuenon lenses - that have average resolvance but excellent micro-contrast.
These lenses in small prints usually look better than lenses with high resolvance but moderate micro-contrast (such as some uncoated pre-war lenses).
Of course if you print 70x100 centimeters, brute resolvance begins to make more sense... Wink


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Orio. Very Happy

Orio wrote:
So generally speaking, and with only a few exceptions, there will be no advantage in using a lower resolution camera with your manual lenses.
On the contrary, the better S/N ratio of full frame cameras will make all lenses look better, including the less resolving lenses.

That confirms what I felt looking at my 40D and 5D MkII pictures.
I was surprised by journalists' comments saying that 5D MkII is demanding higher quality lenses because that was not my impression when using my oldies. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Olivier wrote:

I was surprised by journalists' comments saying that 5D MkII is demanding higher quality lenses because that was not my impression when using my oldies. Wink


Probably journalists did refer to the crappiest autofocus lenses that you can find around for 50-100 Euros Wink


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Olivier wrote:

I was surprised by journalists' comments saying that 5D MkII is demanding higher quality lenses because that was not my impression when using my oldies. Wink


Probably journalists did refer to the crappiest autofocus lenses that you can find around for 50-100 Euros Wink

YES ! Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Simply because there's no crop factor for me. And the viewfinder, as well.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't use full frame, but I do use a 1.3x crop (which is closer than my first DSLR). Two reasons, the primary one being a bigger viewfinder, which was enough that I'd have switched just for that reason. Secondarily, I have collected a number of manual focus 24-35mm lenses, but don't have many 14-20mm manual lenses, to get a "wide" angle one needs something in that range on a 1.5x crop. I don't use a lot of super wides, so my existing collection works well enough for me, on a 1.3x crop, and leaves the option of getting one of those Samyang 14mm if I decide to experiment a little.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2