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?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


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.