Full frame - not used one but I don't get it

You need to be careful about investing in EFS lenses if there's a likelihood you might go full frame at some stage in the future.

Havin said that unless it's the wider angle of view you're after - check out what you already have against what you covet - you might be pleasantly surprised....

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
 
Unfortunately the 17-50 is my shortest lens, after that its all primes up to the 70-300.

I guess I could sell it and get the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di, but when thats quite a high starting point for the 60D and I'd loose OS and a cracking lens to boot (see here and you'll see what I mean)
 
Nice! My wide lens is the 17-40L which I'm more than happy with despite the fact it's only a moderate wide angle on the 7D. I can't really justify full frame just for the occasions I want the full 9 yards from it, so on those occasions I tend to shoot 35mm.
 
Well, you guys almost had me - I was looking to get a 5D, until I spotted that my beloved Sigma 17-50 was fitted with a somewhat silly EFS style fitting.... grrr!

hehe, I get to quote myself!!

I take it back, you did get me - I've ordered a 5D thats due early next week, as I'm still keeping the crop I'll still be using the Sigma, but my shortest on crop will be the nifty fifty, which I guess comes back to a 35mm equiv?

I may keep an eye out something as good as the Sigma that will work FF, but not just yet as that totally cleared me out and I don;t want to sell any lenses until I have an idea how they are going to work with the 5D.
 
"...so I ask you good people what am I missing about the full frame that makes it worth not only loosing reach but also cost so much more?"

Just to stick my 2 pennies worth in, I've recently moved over to FF and I'm well chuffed. Here is an example from my first outing with a FF (D700), apart from a wee bit of cropping nothing has been changed, straight from the camera...



As mentioned already in this thread there are a ton of posts about FF, with some very useful info in, hence the reason I jumped over:lol: I can't really give too much tech stuff yet as I've only had it a few days and am getting to grips with it but.... well pleased:)
 
Just to throw one more question into the pot. I noticed that pictures from my 5d mkII are a lot more conrasty (nice word ;)) than from my previous camera's Canon 450d. Shadows are darker, highlights are lighter. Even though the 450d I had contrast set for +2 and the 5d mkII contrast is set to 0.

Is this down to the FF vs crop sensor? :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Just to throw one more question into the pot. I noticed that pictures from my 5d mkII are a lot more conrasty (nice word ;)) than from my previous camera Canon 450d. Shadows are darker, highlights are lighter. Even though the 450d I had contrast set for +2 and the 5d mkII is set for contrast 0.

Is this down to the FF vs crop sensor? :thinking:

It's no coincidence that sharpness is actually a measure of contrast...

Have a google of 'MTF Charts' or similar and have a read :)
 
It's more to do with the better dynamic range of the FF sensor.
 
Just an example. Pretty much SOOC. The shadows on the side of the church are very dark indeed

img1759fu.jpg




It's no coincidence that sharpness is actually a measure of contrast...

Have a google of 'MTF Charts' or similar and have a read :)

Thanks, googling now.

It's more to do with the better dynamic range of the FF sensor.

Thanks Jim :thumbs:
 
Ah well, detail in shadows is a direct factor of having a larger sensor and therefore bigger pixels and therefore lower noise and therefore better shadow details.
 
I should probably mention, that I shoot in RAW and have calibrated IPS monitor :)
 
Nawty said:
Is it? JPG dynamic range (and that of most monitors I think?) is limited way below what most camera sensors can capture?

I don't think that's the case.
 
Back
Top