Full frame or not.

NOJ75

NOJ75

Suspended / Banned
Messages
760
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

My wife shoots with a 50D but will soon be the proud owner of a shiny new 5DII.
I have noticed some posts where people say they don't like the change to full frame and want to go back to a cropped sensor such as a 7D.

Is there anything that is a massive change from cropped to full frame that causes this displeasure? I thought the upgrade in IQ etc would be a welcomed thing.

Or is it more difficult to shoot full frame?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Regards
 
Portraits, full frame,sports and wildlife cropped frame...........

Going from cropped to full frame with wildlife on a 500mm lens

on a cropped = 750mm with a Nikon. slightly less I think with a Canon 1.6 sensor

But for portraites and weddings the full frame is King.........er ,I believe :D

Sounds double dutch when I read it,:suspect:
but I know what I mean.....:p
 
Last edited:
This is something that confuses me.

Many threads I have read where people say that sticking a 100mm on a crop sensor will give you 150mm (if its a 1.5 crop).

Yet I've seen just as many threads that state it is purely the field of view that changes and that its still 100mm.

Surely it doesn't really make any difference using a crop over a FF for wildlife etc other than cropping the image?
 
Last edited:
for things like wildlife or sports the extra reach of a crop sensor camera will be more of a benefit unless you have the cash to splash on long fast primes which can be prohibitive to a lot of people. the af system on something like a 7d is also far more advanced than the 5d so again for wildlife or sports it would be preferable. the 1d series cameras are the only other canons with a comparable af system and, again, are a lot more expensive than a 7d not to mention a hell of a lot bigger.

i don't do either wildlife or sports so neither of the above issues are of any great importance to me, hence my recent upgrade to a 5d1. i love it to be honest
 
Harvey_nikon said:
This is something that confuses me.

Many threads I have read where people say that sticking a 100mm on a crop sensor will give you 150mm (if its a 1.5 crop).

Yet I've seen just as many threads that state it is purely the field of view that changes and that its still 100mm.

Surely it doesn't really make any difference using a crop over a FF for wildlife etc other than cropping the image?
Click to expand...

But cropping means you are using fewer megapixels, whereas the crop body will be working as it should. Okay if, after cropping, you end up with the same megapixel count as the crop body, but if it's a 12mp FF against a 12mp crop, the crop gets the vote....It's a no-brainer..... :)
 
Last edited:
Harvey_nikon said:
This is something that confuses me.

Many threads I have read where people say that sticking a 100mm on a crop sensor will give you 150mm (if its a 1.5 crop).

Yet I've seen just as many threads that state it is purely the field of view that changes and that its still 100mm.

Surely it doesn't really make any difference using a crop over a FF for wildlife etc other than cropping the image?
Click to expand...

The sensor size makes absolutely no different to the focal length of a lens - to do that you would need to alter the geometry, curvature and/or refractive index of the glass.

It does however change the effective field of view of the lens by the inverse of the crop factor.
 
specialman said:
But cropping means you are using fewer megapixels, whereas the crop body will be working as it should. Okay if, after cropping, you end up with the same megapixel count as the crop body, but if it's a 12mp FF against a 12mp crop, the crop gets the vote....It's a no-brainer..... :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I get the cropping issue due to the image filling more of the sensor on the crop.

My point was more to do with people claiming that a focal length magically lengthens because its now on a crop.
 
I understood that technically speaking you are not changing the focal length by using a 50mm on a crop body compared with a 50mm on a full frame, for example. People that say that a crop sensor doesn't magically lengthen the focal length are correct. However, the field of view provided by a crop sensor (due to the fact it covers less of the outside edge of the lens than a full frame) is the equivalent of having that focal length / 1.6 on a full frame camera. Aren't the 1.6x,1.5x etc factors just a form of measure so that the difference between crop sensor and full frame can be related and understood?

In some ways you could say it 'magically lengthens the focal length' but it's all to do with perspective.

As the others have said it's better to have a 7d for sports/wildlife because of the fact that a 500mm prime will provide you with an EQUIVALENT focal length of 800mm (35mm format), saving you a lit of money...plus the autofocus system is ace.

But yes in answer to the above a 100mm lens on a 7D will effectively give you a 160mm focal length when based on a 35mm, compared with a full frame camera which would obviously be 100mm....it depends entirely on what you intend to shoot....
 
Last edited:
5d mkII and displeasure are 2 words that just dont go, she's gonna love it and so are you :thumbs:
 
Some very interesting reading there. From what I can make out, the 5D2 for portrait (her main use) is going to be perfect and she will get a lot of pleasure from it.

Thanks to all of you who replied. Much appreciated :)
 
jonneymendoza said:
Best of both worlds is it own both bodies
Click to expand...


Yes. I use a 1d mkii for motorsport where the extra reach of its 1.3 crop factor is useful, and more importantly its 8.5 frames a second and a 1ds mkii for landscapes where the frame rate is less important but the wider angle, quality and brighter viewfinder come into their own.
 
Half the reason I bought my 5D when I did was because I wanted a decent sized viewfinder (the 300D that preceded it had a pitifully small tunnel to peep through in comparison).

I can't see why anyone would complain about that* :)


* though it's still not as good as any of my 35mm film bodies' viewfinders.
 
amtaylor said:
It is smaller though than a full frame viewfinder
Click to expand...

Physically smaller or smaller in the sense that the scene you are viewing is not for example 50mm but 80 something mm as it crops the edges of the frame?
 
jonneymendoza said:
Physically smaller or smaller in the sense that the scene you are viewing is not for example 50mm but 80 something mm as it crops the edges of the frame?
Click to expand...

Physically smaller. The size of the sensors are different so the viewfinders are distinctly different in size. The first time I looked through my 5d1 it was so different
 
Cool. I looked and tested out a 5dmk2 and to be honest I did not see much improvement in terms of the viewfinder compares to the 7d. Will test it out again one day .

Also. I can't understand the downsize of having a FF. U can always crops your pic to a 1.6 frame and still maintain high resolution out of it. The 5dmk2 is around 20mp or something like that? When you crop it becomes around 13mp? Give or take

That's still higher then my 400d and still good enough to print a3 size at least? Again correct me if I'm wrong lads?
 
its 8.2 mp I believe but yes still big enough for an a3 print and it would produce a better image cropped than a 400d by a fair bit.
 
Cool so thats good news then. for me FF has no downfalls but crop does have downfalls.

i can see myself moving to FF . if i ever need extra reach on my 70-200 i could always buy a extender that extends to 1.6 i believe like a crop BUT a 18-20mp crop that can be cropped even further if i wish to isolate the subject even more.
 
amtaylor said:
Physically smaller. The size of the sensors are different so the viewfinders are distinctly different in size. The first time I looked through my 5d1 it was so different
Click to expand...

to add to this i was out last night with a band shooting a gig and my girlfriend was tagging along and using my 30d while i was using the 5d1, and when she used the 5d for just 5 minutes she didn't want to give it back. she said the viewfinder was MUCH easier to use, in dark condidtions like that it really comes into its own. but for all round use it makes it a pleasure to use

as much as the 5d series cameras have their faults the benefits more than make up for any shortcomings, and for portrait work they are the go-to bodies in the canon range for a very good reason.

buy one you will both love it
 
We have a 50D and a 5D (mk 1) in our stable, the 50 is the wife's, she keeps trying to nick my 5, now I'm not normally possesive (in fact I let my lad use my 1D and 70/200 L lens whenever he wants), but nobody gets my 5D and tbh I'm just about as possesive of my new 24/70, they really are just "nice".
The 50 is a fine camera, gives great detail (better than the 5) but somehow the 5 pictures just look better, it can only be down to IQ and not just resolution but something indefinable. Your wife may miss the pop-up flash etc of the 50, then again she may not, hope you have an 85 1.8 for portrait work (or even a 135 f2), I can see L (or near quality) glass coming her way :)

The crop factor doesnt really come into it, as has been said a good big one will always beat a good (or even very good) little 'un. Cropping a 5D (mk1) will bring back that reach of the cropper but only if you dont print too big, I would have thought though a 5D (mk2) would narrow that issue even further, AF might be a different thing though, if you try and use a 5 for fast moving sport(s), ok on relatively slow sport though. Wonder what the mk3 will bring us :)
(when it arrives)

Matt
 
The lenses she mainly uses are the 24-105L and the 70-200L both f4. Combine them with the 5 sounds like the IQ will be fantastic. Especially in the studio.
 
Oggy said:
The sensor size makes absolutely no different to the focal length of a lens - to do that you would need to alter the geometry, curvature and/or refractive index of the glass.

It does however change the effective field of view of the lens by the inverse of the crop factor.
Click to expand...

I think most of us know that but we all refer to it the way it is known to the majority, correct or not, the Queen still says "My Husband and I", when it should be "My husband and Me", so what.

In reply to the thread, I use a 60D, and would not go full frame as I want the extra "magnification of 1.5" that the smaller CMOS offers, my 400mm is therefore 600mm, cropped, 1.5 mag or perspective, :thumbs:

I alse prefer the higher FPS rate than the slower 5Ds 3.9, not much of a difference but enough to matter to me.
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
I think most of us know that but we all refer to it the way it is known to the majority, correct or not, the Queen still says "My Husband and I", when it should be "My husband and Me", so what.
Click to expand...

She hasn't used the phrase for years, and grammatically it's correct.
 
If you say so, how about the "to boldly go" when it should be "To go boldly" again who cares, THAT was my point, regarding cropping/1.5 etc.
 
towershot said:
Portraits, full frame,sports and wildlife cropped frame...........

Going from cropped to full frame with wildlife on a 500mm lens

on a cropped = 750mm with a Nikon. slightly less I think with a Canon 1.6 sensor

But for portraites and weddings the full frame is King.........er ,I believe :D

Sounds double dutch when I read it,:suspect:
but I know what I mean.....:p
Click to expand...

What do you think the benifit of FF for portraiture is?
 
DemiLion said:
She hasn't used the phrase for years, and grammatically it's correct.
Click to expand...

Actually both are right in the right place.
My husband and I are pleased to he here.
It is a pleasure for my husband and me to be here.
 
Chris Primadona said:
What do you think the benifit of FF for portraiture is?
Click to expand...
It's a bigger sensor so you can take photos of people with really large heads more easily.


I have decided that if/when I return to DSLRs I'd like to go full-frame, if only to avoid having to do sums when I'm shopping for a new lens to work out how long it's going to be on my camera.
 
Chris Primadona said:
What do you think the benifit of FF for portraiture is?
Click to expand...

Rendition of skin tones. There is a perceived quality crops are claimed not to have.
 
I have to admit I'm starting to get a little torn between a 5 and a 7.
As we have only been doing this for just under a year, maybe it would be best for us to carry on with a 7D for a while before we upgrade further?

Decisions, decisions!!
 
I know it may sound off, but, I wonder how many reading this would love a 7, let alone thinking of "upgrading", can you in all honesty say you use the 7 to IT'S fullest potential

At my age I could easily have purchased a 1D MK 4, why did I chose a 60D, because it suits me 100%, I have no need for another, I do not NEED a Ferrari, I drive the perfect car for me, a Renault Grand Scenic, others drive what nhey need.

Throughout my photographic existence I have seen so many "I have to have the latest to be ahead's".

If you NEED a 5D, 1D, or whatever, or can afford it, go for it, good for you, will it make you a better photographer. I have changed cameras just five times in my life, Praktica Super TL, Nikkormat FTn, Nikon F and EOS10D, and had my 10D not have been stolen I would still have it, that does not make me a poor or bad photographer.

If you will benefit from the better! camera, go for it, just do it for the right reason, or have you considered adding a yet un purchased piece of alternative kit to what you have.
 
Last edited:
Chris Primadona said:
Fair enough. I do see a slight improvement comparing my old 1.6 crop images (Canon 450d) to my 1.3x crop but I don't see any difference in IQ between the 5dmkII files and the 1d files apart from the size when shooting in the studio. :thinking:
Click to expand...

What 1 series do you have? Tbh, I've not noticed it either and think my d7000 easily compares to my D700.
 
JSER said:
I know it may sound off, but, I wonder how many reading this would love a 7, let alone thinking of "upgrading", canm you in all honesty say you use the 7 to IT'S fullest potential
Click to expand...

Probably not the frame rate. But the IQ will certainly be better than the 50 currently used with our L glass. Not only that, but don't we all want the "next best thing" to what we currently have?

My wife an I strive to do better at photography, having the best kit we can afford will only help and not hinder. Nothing wrong with that is there?

Thanks for the comment though :)
 
NOJ75 said:
I have to admit I'm starting to get a little torn between a 5 and a 7.
As we have only been doing this for just under a year, maybe it would be best for us to carry on with a 7D for a while before we upgrade further?

Decisions, decisions!!
Click to expand...

what about a 5d mk1? it will be much cheaper than either the mk2 or 7d, and even though it's an older camera it still takes very good pictures. the build quality is fantastic, i was actually shocked at just how plasticky my 30d felt in comparison! and the viewfinder is a joy to use.

plus, if you decide that it's not the camera for you it can be sold on for very little loss i would imagine.
 
Definitely not. I have ruled out the mark 1. No real defining reason, we just don't want that model :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top