Who really benefits from full-frame??
With the release of the newest crop of full-frame DSLRS', who really benefits from the full-frame besides landscape photographers??
With the mag. factor of the various CCs, I can understand how nature photographers, sports photogs, and paparazzi could love having their 500mm f/4 lens become a 750mm f/4, or their 600mm f/4 becoming a 900mm f/4 lens.....
Does the full-frame give better detail to an image to justify losing the mag factor???
Just curious, because it will be interesting to see how many nature photographers switch to a full-frame DSLR....
Some idle musings on warm and muggy Austin evening...
Mark, an Austin Nikonian!!
See more about your friendly Nikonians team here!
Mark, an Austin Nikonian Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#1. "RE: Who really benefits from full-frame??" | In response to Reply # 0thompson1600 Basic MemberTue 17-Dec-02 02:16 AM
Well it's not really a "mag factor" but more realistically a crop factor. The other thing not mentioned much is the fact that these cameras reduce a lot of lens abberations by utilizing the center of the lens.
I for one am very happy with the d1x and plan on keeping it as long as I kept my f4s. I hear so much about digital being like computers and being outdated. No more than film cameras were outdated by new models and features. The camera will continue to do what it is capable of for years, new models may come out, but that happened in film too.
The 1.5x crop factor is no big deal for me (especially when I get the new wide angle DX lens) and the prints are great. Unless the new breed of digital cameras have superior images up to about 16 x 20 it doesn't matter much. I actually prefer my d1x images to my old f4s at these image sizes. I don't make really big prints usually only up to 8 x 10 and I believe most amateurs don't make larger prints than that very often. So, we'll be back to 2000 d100, 3500 d1h, 4500 d1x or 7-8000 for a new Full Frame. Easy choice for me d1x and it's already here and proven as a performer.
#2. "RE: Who really benefits from full-frame??" | In response to Reply # 0golivar Registered since 18th Feb 2002Tue 17-Dec-02 02:35 AM
Many PJs like to shoot wide angle. But as far as the improved resolution supposedly promised by full frame sensors goes, even the D1H, at 2.74MP, produces images whose resolution usually exceeds that required for newsprint. Also, the bigger sensor will produce pretty large sized files, which might slow down the workflow here and there.
My main lens for shooting stuff for the paper is a 24-70 f2.8. I have the 18-35 f3.5-4.5, but the slow max aperture makes it a pain to use indoors in available light and what not. It would be nice to have an f2.8 lens that is equivalent to 18-35 on the D1 cameras.
please check out my gallery!
#3. "RE: Who really benefits from full-frame??" | In response to Reply # 0BJNicholls Charter MemberTue 17-Dec-02 03:34 AM
If the full frame chip maintains the same pixel density as the cropped chip, all you have to do is crop your image and you'll end up in the same place.
You're a tele guy, but tell me that a full frame high res chip that I could crop and get panoramas equal to those from the Hasselblad Xpan isn't valuable. Stick with your crop if it works for you, but do realize that there are a lot of people who don't rely on monster focal lengths or care about them.
Tell me why having my 18-35 turned into a 27-53 is a good thing. Yes, the 12-24 when it comes out and if it's a decent lens will offer an alternative. But I'd rather have the focal lengths I bought, thanks. My 24-85 doesn't benefit at all by the crop. Those nice fast short tele portrait lenses don't benefit either. The only part of the focal length "spectrum" where anyone is claiming a benefit in in the long tele range. Full frame is for the rest of us.
Also consider this. I know you flirt with getting into 4x5. If a full frame 24x36mm SLR could deliver medium format quality enlargements would this have any value to you? It sure does to me.
#5. "RE: Who really benefits from full-frame??" | In response to Reply # 3AlanC Basic MemberTue 17-Dec-02 03:03 PM
Other points aside, I'm a bit baffled by the following:
>But I'd rather have the focal lengths I bought, thanks.
>My 24-85 doesn't benefit at all by the crop. Those nice
>fast short tele portrait lenses don't benefit either.
The cropping effect alters the point at which you need to change lenses, but if you have the full range of fields of view covered then where's the problem?
The only real issue I can see is if you want the shallower depth of field you get from full frame to isolate your subject.
>The only part of the focal length "spectrum" where anyone
>is claiming a benefit in in the long tele range.
But how about the wide angle range? If you can have a 12-24mm DX zoom to shoot landscapes aren't you going to benefit from the shorter focal length in that more of your scene will be in focus at a given aperture?
#7. "RE: Who really benefits from full-frame??" | In response to Reply # 5BJNicholls Charter MemberWed 18-Dec-02 12:43 AM
I picked the 24-85 to cover a specific range of focal lengths for 35mm film. It's my "one lens" lens, when I can't or won't carry more. This isn't something unique to me or the most popular lenses wouldn't be in the 28-85 range with variations. The problem is that with my S2 I have to carry two lenses, not one, to cover the wide to short tele range. That's why I predict that the next DX lens will be the digital APS equivalent wide to short tele full frame zoom.
I don't have any problem with DOF with 18-35 so I don't see any compelling benefit of the 12-24 range except that it will give me a workable wide angle. On the other hand, since Nikon is tailoring the performance envelope of the DX lens to the smaller image circle, I worry about corner sharpness of the optics, distortion and falloff - considering Nikon is putting low cost and small size at the top of the feature list. We'll hope for the best, as always.
One of the things the 1.5x boosters have touted is that the format crops to the sharpest part the image. I think this is indeed one of the reasons for the exceptional image quality my camera delivers. This won't be a given with DX lenses. Will these lenses be professional caliber or something less? I'm betting less.
#8. "RE: Who really benefits from full-frame??" | In response to Reply # 7AlanC Basic MemberWed 18-Dec-02 05:50 PM
One other thing that clicked immediately after I made that post is, of course, that if you use primes then you'll not be happy with the effect of the 1.5x "multiplier"; as you said in your original post, "Those nice fast short tele portrait lenses don't benefit either."
Chalk that one up to my personal preference for zooms, but then I actually like the effect of my 28-70 becoming a 42-105: it's turned out to be a very useful range and made that lens my firm favourite.
I share the worry about the smaller image circle from the DX lenses cutting the quality we enjoy at the moment, but then it looks like we're in for that anyway with full frame: Phil Askey has now posted his EOS-1Ds review and you can clearly see this as a problem when compared to the D60, even using one of Canon's high end 'L' lenses.
#4. "RE: Who really benefits from full-frame??" | In response to Reply # 0
Everybody will benefit from full frame. Since the pixel sensor is bigger, the quality will be better. Don't let CROP FACTOR fool you. I agree with BJ in the full frame sensor you can still do your crop.
PS. I want to use my 300/2.8 in full frame sensor. Now, it's hard to use it since you have to move awaaay from your subject. Using the 200mm only giving you the 'blur factor' of 200 mm but you step so far like using 300 mm.
it's near Bali, if you don't know where it is
#6. "RE: Who really benefits from full-frame??" | In response to Reply # 4jwb Basic MemberTue 17-Dec-02 06:00 PM
>Since the pixel sensor is bigger, the quality will be better.
pmirror is right on it! That's one of the reasons the D1h at 2.7 MP (?) still makes better images than a coolpix at 3 or 4 MP.
Larger pixels = higher signal-to-noise ratio. A 6MP APS-sized sensor and a 6MP full-frame are not the same quality.