Manual Focus Lenses Forum Index
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch|Quick search    MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Rss feed   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?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Manual Focus Lenses Forum Index -> Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jito



Level 1

Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Posts: 106


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:19 pm    Post subject: What are the advantages of full frame? Reply with quote

Now that I've been visiting this forum quite a bit, I notice that most of the users have full frame cameras.

I bought the canon 1100d because it was the cheapest canon SLR and I figured I wouldn't use any of the features advertised on other models. Indeed, even the selling points of the canon 1100d are pretty irrelevant to me: number of focus points, burst rate, megapixel count, lcd resolution,etc.
I've been taking a ridiculous amount of pictures and to be honest, while I fancy a lot of lenses I don't have, I don't really feel like I could take any advantage of a more expensive camera. In fact, cameras with even smaller sensors (NEX, m43) are start to growing on me.

That said, I see most of the people talking about their full frame cameras in here. What are the real advantages? I guess it differs from person to person, but I am curious about other people's motivations.

I'm guessing the most obvious advantage is the ability to take wider shots. But that can be a disadvantage too if you're after longer shots.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
fuzzywuzzy



Level 3

Joined: 18 Dec 2010
Posts: 1124
Location: Down East, Canada, eh?

Expire: 2013-11-30

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wider shots are a big advantage. Keep a crop body for your telephoto lenses Smile

You can get narrower DOF if that's your thing.

FF bodies often have better noise control at high ISO because of the lower pixel density.

Or so I understand, I did well to scrape together enough cash for the 1000D Razz

edit - the FF cameras are big bucks and have nice features. Faster burst mode, can shoot continuously for longer before filling the buffer, nice controls, rugged bodies etc. These aren't intrinsic to FF, but might easily be a reason to go with the 5D over the Rebel.
_________________
I welcome C&C, editing my pics and reposting them on the forum is fine.
NEX-F3
~~~~~~~~~
CZJ Sonnar 135/4, Biotar 58/2, Pancolar 50/2, Tessar 50/2.8, Flek 35/2.8, Flek 25/4
Super Takumar 135/2.5, 135/3.5, 100/4 bellows, 50/1.4, 28/3.5
Helios 58/2, 3M-5A 500/8, Mir 20M
Vivitar Series 1 70-210 - - - - - - - - Nikkor 200/4
Rikenon 28/2.8 - - - - - - - - Zeiss 50/1.7 Planar
PB 50/2.4, 135/2.8
Yashica 50/1.9, 28/2.8, 135/2.8
Hexanon 28/3.5, 50/1.4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
rbelyell



Level 4

Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 4176
Location: somewhere in the mountains of central NY

Expire: 2014-01-31

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

with new advances in mirrorless cams, IQ: resolution, sharpness, noise control etc, is becoming more and mre similar between FF and 'crop' cams, so unless youre a wedding photographer, or fashion professional etc, FF might not be necessary to achieve really good quality work in varied situations.

to me, the real advantage of FF is that it allows one to use their corp of manual focus legacy lenses at the FL at which they were intended. frankly, nothing annoys me more than taking a great 24mm lens, which i bought to achieve its unique FL perspective, and instead having my crop cam turn it into a very ordinary 35 or 48mm lens. thats not why i bought that particular lens and thats not how i want to use it. its even worse with my favorite FL of 40mm, which i consider 'perfect'. on a crop cam it becomes a 60mm lens which to me is useless because i dont like 50ish lenses. a FF cam allows me to get the angle of view i wanted when i bought a particular lens. the more one is invested in many of these type lenses, the more one wants a FF!
_________________
Sony RX1; Epson RD1; Olympus EPL-5; Hasselblad XPan/45 & 90mm lenses; Zeiss ZM 35/2; Summarit 50/1.5; Elmar-c 90/4; Sankyo Komura 135/2.8, Hektor 135/4.5; Contax T*; Kodak Retina IV/S-K lenses 28, 35, 50, 85, 135 & 200mm; Zeiss Ikon 6x9; Braun Paxina 29 6x6; Photax Boyer Paris 6x6; Mercury 2 35mm; Holga 120 Pano

FOR SALE:
Fuji X100 pristine
RF M mount: Zeiss ZM Biogon 35/2
Pen F: Olympus 60/1.5
Bessa T 101 Anniversary Edition in Navy Blue
Mamiya Six Folder with Zuiko 75/3.5
KONICA TC, TX-X + AR 24/2.8, 57/1.4 & 100/2.8
KODAK RETINA REFLEX SCHNEIDER LENSES: 45/2.8; 135/4; 200/4
M42: Mir 35/2
Adaptall: Tamron SP 28-85 macro
Cameras: Canon IX
PM for more complete descriptions/pix. All in great shape!
_________________________
'buy me a drink, sing me a song,
take me as i come 'cause i can't stay long'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
Attila



Level 4

Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57289
Location: Austria,Hungary

Expire: 2016-11-18

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see only one point which is more less important wide angle, nothing else.
_________________
http://www.filmferrania.it/
------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay

35mm: Konica A4, Konica IIIA, Konica FC-1
MF: Konica Pearl I,II,III 6x4,5 Konica Semi Pearl
Film: Foma,Kodak, Fuji DIY development C41, FOMA LQR
Scan: Epson V500, scanassist (http://www.scanassist.org)
Shutter tester: LCD tester from member vfmoto
Digital: Panasonic G1, Sony Nex-3, Samsung NX100
Lenses: Konica Hexanons,Carl Zeiss,Carl Zeiss Jena,Meyer-Optik,Minolta MD,Yashica ML,Nikon,Olympus OM
DIY E-6,C41 and B&W
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  No rate
Share
poilu



Level 4

Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10281
Location: Greece

Expire: 2015-08-29

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://forum.mflenses.com/faq-for-crop-t31975.html
_________________
T*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
William



Level 2

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 487
Location: London


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't say that a majority of the users have a full frame camera but certainly a sizeable chunk. There are many reasons to own one and if I hadn't just bought my K-5 a few months ago and enjoy it so much I'd be in the market for one now. For using manual focus lenses there are several advantages. As you've mentioned the lenses become wider as they have the field of view that they do on their intended format. This means that you are able to have a useful set of lenses at a far lower cost and higher quality. A 28/50/135 setup of classic primes would make a good walkaround set, provide high quality and be cheap whereas to get the wide end on crop cameras you will have to pay a lot more and get a slow 20mm. Even then it will probably not be hugely better than your kit lens. There's little point going wider than that because it will cost you a small fortune, often more than a modern primes would cost, and the results really won't be great.

Higher end bodies also tend to have far better control layouts than the cheaper ones and build quality and resilience to tough conditions. Viewfinders are a lot better too, especially so with full frame cameras as they are larger and this helps when manually focusing. In terms of image quality you'll get better dynamic range and low light performance, useful if you do night time handheld shooting and even useful with interior lighting. I used to use the 1000D and in good light with a sharp 50mm the results were very good, the main difference between that and my current camera being the resolution of the image. In low light it's quite a different story as it would be a total noise fest at ISO 800 and 1600 whereas with the K5 I can get clean images at 3200 with a little noise reduction. Modern full frame cameras will have similar if not slightly better performance than that.

Also, the NEX cameras actually have a sensor marginally larger than your Canon 1100d.
_________________
K-5, NEX-3, MX, SP-500 and others....

MF: SMC-M: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.7, 75-150/4, 135/3.5
AF: Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, DA-WR 18-55/3.5-5.6, DA 35/2.4, DA 55-300/4-5.8
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger  No rate
Share
Kram



Level 3

Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 1299
Location: Portland, OR


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
I see only one point which is more less important wide angle, nothing else.

+1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  No rate
Share
stingOM



Level 4

Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Posts: 2958
Location: Ireland

Expire: 2012-12-27

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kram wrote:
Attila wrote:
I see only one point which is more less important wide angle, nothing else.

+1


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

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  No rate
Share
Attila



Level 4

Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57289
Location: Austria,Hungary

Expire: 2016-11-18

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never miss shallower depth of field what my digital cameras offer and I also didn't see better ones on full frame (film in my case)
_________________
http://www.filmferrania.it/
------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay

35mm: Konica A4, Konica IIIA, Konica FC-1
MF: Konica Pearl I,II,III 6x4,5 Konica Semi Pearl
Film: Foma,Kodak, Fuji DIY development C41, FOMA LQR
Scan: Epson V500, scanassist (http://www.scanassist.org)
Shutter tester: LCD tester from member vfmoto
Digital: Panasonic G1, Sony Nex-3, Samsung NX100
Lenses: Konica Hexanons,Carl Zeiss,Carl Zeiss Jena,Meyer-Optik,Minolta MD,Yashica ML,Nikon,Olympus OM
DIY E-6,C41 and B&W
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  No rate
Share
Kram



Level 3

Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 1299
Location: Portland, OR


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I could not stand any shallower DOF than I get on my Canon 60D. Especialy with the Cyclops and Rollei HFT 50/1.4 Planar.


Rollei HFT 50/1.4 Planar @ 1.4.


Cyclops.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  No rate
Share
ManualFocus-G



Level 4

Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 6480
Location: United Kingdom

Expire: 2014-11-24

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The key advantages, as several people have already pointed out are:

* Bigger viewfinder (although EVFs are catching up now)
* Better high ISO performance (crop cameras such as the K-5 are improving though)
* Lenses give the intended field of view (useful for wider shots)
* High ISO work is easier as slower shutter speeds can be used (a 50mm lens can be used at 1/50th rather than 1/80th on a crop camera, negated somewhat by stabilisation)
* Dynamic range is often higher (although again, crop cameras are catching up and even overtaking some ff cams)

For me though, there is a difference in the final output which I only see on my full frame 5D. It is a resolution thing I believe and something to do with putting less of a demand on the lens and the larger sensor producing better contrast...check out lens reviews on DXOMark and you'll see the same lens always getting a higher score for resolution on a full frame camera, even if the sensor has less megapixels than the crop camera equivalents.

When all is said and done though, if final images are to be published at 1024x768 on the web, then the camera doesn't matter much anyway Laughing
_________________
Graham - Moderator

Shooting things: Canon EOS 6D, Fuji X-E1 and Olympus E-PL5 with Carl Zeiss T*

See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g and my blog at http://backtothefuturephotography.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
jito



Level 1

Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Posts: 106


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
For me though, there is a difference in the final output which I only see on my full frame 5D. It is a resolution thing I believe and something to do with putting less of a demand on the lens and the larger sensor producing better contrast...check out lens reviews on DXOMark and you'll see the same lens always getting a higher score for resolution on a full frame camera, even if the sensor has less megapixels than the crop camera equivalents.

If we put a lens that is designed for a 35mm expose pane on a crop body, then we're only using a fraction usable glass surfaces. So we're not taking advantage of all the precision put into the lens manufacture process. In other words, full frame cameras can squeeze more resolution from the same glass. That should explain the resolution thing, but the number of lenses designed for crop bodies is increasing at a good rate.
I'm still curious about ISO performance and dynamic range. How are these affected by sensor size?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
visualopsins



Level 4

Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 4062
Location: California

Expire: 2013-01-05

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
http://forum.mflenses.com/faq-for-crop-t31975.html


+100
_________________
like attracts like!

http://tinyurl.com/bgaho3q

Cameras: Canon 5Dc, Spotmatics II, F, ESII

Lenses: S-M-C Fisheye-Takumar 1:4/17, S-M-C Takumars 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, SMC Takumar 1:1.4/50, S-M-C Takumars 1:1.8/85, 1:2.8/105, 1:2.8/120, 1:135/2.5 (II), 1:4/200, 1:4.5/500, Macro-Takumar 50/4 (1:1), & S-M-C Macro-Takumar 100mm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  No rate
Share
sichko



Level 3

Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 2468
Location: South West UK


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManualFocus-G wrote:
...check out lens reviews on DXOMark and you'll see the same lens always getting a higher score for resolution on a full frame camera, even if the sensor has less megapixels than the crop camera equivalents.


There are very many lens-camera combinations on DXOMark. Not all of them show this relationship. For example...

Nikon 50mm AFS 1.4G

Resolution=50 lp/mm on D7000 (Crop sensor, ~16 MPixels)
Resolution=49 lp/mm on D3 (FF sensor, ~12 MPixels)


Nikon 85mm AF 1.4D

Resolution=56 lp/mm on D7000 (Crop sensor, ~16 MPixels)
Resolution=53 lp/mm on D3 (FF sensor, ~12 MPixels)


Nikon 35mm AFS 1.4G

Resolution=46 lp/mm on D7000 (Crop sensor, ~16 MPixels)
Resolution=45 lp/mm on D3 (FF sensor, ~12 MPixels)
_________________
John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
rbelyell



Level 4

Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 4176
Location: somewhere in the mountains of central NY

Expire: 2014-01-31

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jito, ive had and loved a 5d, and it used to be, and i dont know the science behind it, that FF produced noticeably less noise and less clipped highlights/shadows than crop sensor. i believe this is no longer the case, at least to the degree it used to be. for example, my x100 literally blows the doors off my old 5d at 16-3200. its DR is at least as good, and that is with the best zeiss lenses on the 5d.

ive also seen, but not directly experienced, the ricoh gxr m mount, nex 5n&7, samsung nx200, and i'd bet the new fuji x pro1, perform similarly to my x100. now, if you put these up against the 5dmkii or nikon d4, they'd probably lose on both counts, but not by as much as the best crop cams wouldve lost to the old 5dmki 3 or 4 years ago. just my personal observation. the gap is closing! and if you go by price/performance ratio, the gap is gone.

so, imo, the reason to get FF at this point is either because you need that extra 'umph' because youre a pro who works in very demanding situations, or youre motivated to use your heavily invested in legacy glass at their proper FLs. again, only my opinion.
_________________
Sony RX1; Epson RD1; Olympus EPL-5; Hasselblad XPan/45 & 90mm lenses; Zeiss ZM 35/2; Summarit 50/1.5; Elmar-c 90/4; Sankyo Komura 135/2.8, Hektor 135/4.5; Contax T*; Kodak Retina IV/S-K lenses 28, 35, 50, 85, 135 & 200mm; Zeiss Ikon 6x9; Braun Paxina 29 6x6; Photax Boyer Paris 6x6; Mercury 2 35mm; Holga 120 Pano

FOR SALE:
Fuji X100 pristine
RF M mount: Zeiss ZM Biogon 35/2
Pen F: Olympus 60/1.5
Bessa T 101 Anniversary Edition in Navy Blue
Mamiya Six Folder with Zuiko 75/3.5
KONICA TC, TX-X + AR 24/2.8, 57/1.4 & 100/2.8
KODAK RETINA REFLEX SCHNEIDER LENSES: 45/2.8; 135/4; 200/4
M42: Mir 35/2
Adaptall: Tamron SP 28-85 macro
Cameras: Canon IX
PM for more complete descriptions/pix. All in great shape!
_________________________
'buy me a drink, sing me a song,
take me as i come 'cause i can't stay long'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Manual Focus Lenses Forum Index -> Digital SLR Cameras All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group