full frame

Laudrup said:
In the Leica case you have a larger sensor and much better lenses than a full frame DSLR. If the sensor was significantly larger the lenses would be far more difficult to make and more expensive. I'd take a Hasselblad or S2 over a D800 any day in the same way I'd take a D800 over a crop or MFT.
Click to expand...

Larger sensor, yes but not much. Better lenses? Probably not. There have been some very good side by side tests that show there's not much in it.

Yes, you could take a Hasselblad or Leica S over a D800, but...

For most things, most of the time, you wouldn't see any significant upside in image quality. And neither would your clients. It would be poor at high ISO. The lens range covers barely more than the basics and you wouldn't be shooting much sport, or wildlife or anything else much beyond the studio or landscape. Last but not least, you'd be paying several tens of thousands just for a camera and a couple of lenses.

Hardly surprising they're not flying off the shelves. When a pro needs one for a particular job, they hire. The future's not bright :(
 
Pookeyhead said:
Not really. I never thought about what the 35mm equivalent was. I never thought, "what lens will give me the same effect as a 24mm on my Nikon".
Click to expand...

Same here. I just think 35mm film - standard lens 50mm, 6x6, standard lens 80mm, 5x4 - standard lens 150mm and work the rest out from there. i.e. around 0.75 x standard is wide angle, 2 x standard is moderately long, etc.

I don't try to convert them to 35mm equivalents, I just know what they do with the format they are on.

No reason not to do the same with with an APS size sensor using about 32mm as a standard length.

Nod said:
35mm equivalence is the easiest and most common point of reference.
Click to expand...

Only if that is the only other format you have used - which I suppose it is for many people so it is a valid point.

I think it's funny that some of Fujifilm's cameras with manual zoom controls have the focal length in 35mm equivalent marked on the barrel instead of the actual focal length.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Larger sensor, yes but not much. Better lenses? Probably not. There have been some very good side by side tests that show there's not much in it.

Yes, you could take a Hasselblad or Leica S over a D800, but...

For most things, most of the time, you wouldn't see any significant upside in image quality. And neither would your clients. It would be poor at high ISO. The lens range covers barely more than the basics and you wouldn't be shooting much sport, or wildlife or anything else much beyond the studio or landscape. Last but not least, you'd be paying several tens of thousands just for a camera and a couple of lenses.

Hardly surprising they're not flying off the shelves. When a pro needs one for a particular job, they hire. The future's not bright :(
Click to expand...

The Leica S lenses are well ahead of Canon and Nikon. Top Leica R glass I'd take ahead of any Canon or Nikon glass too. A Hasselblad or S2 would be at home in a studio/fashion/ or controlled location environment where 10,000 ISO isn't required. I wouldn't be shooting sports with my D800, it's too slow. There will always be a market for digital medium format for those that require a higher quality.
 
You can see the Hasselblad files are just better, it's going to have the edge though with the bigger sensor etc.
 
essexash said:
Ive been thinking about this just about every day for the last week or so. I just weighed my D800 and 2 lenses, something id want to take on walks with me. It came in at 2.5kg, 6lb in old money. Thats nuts. Finally we're starting to see compact bodies appear with ff sensors and about time too. I think if they stuck a devent viewfinder on this and it came in under 2k that would be awsome. But its a start, roll on 2014, the other big boys must be thinking of FF mirrorless as well.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't think that FF really offers that much of an advantage these days, and I say that as a FF camera owner and someone who'll probably buy a FF compact one day :bang: Maybe because I have more money than sense. Personally I think that for prints up to bigger than most will ever print the very latest MFT and APS-C compacts are perfectly good enough and most people will struggle to tell the difference between smaller system and FF shots, if they don't know which is which.
 
Steve Smith said:
Only if that is the only other format you have used - which I suppose it is for many people so it is a valid point.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I reckon most people new to photography in the past few years haven't actually shot with either 35mm film or a 35mm sized sensor... yet still use 35mm as a reference point... which seems odd to me.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I disagree. I reckon most people new to photography in the past few years haven't actually shot with either 35mm film or a 35mm sized sensor... yet still use 35mm as a reference point... which seems odd to me.
Click to expand...

I think there's two things here, and I think you're confusing them, at least you seem to have done so when reading some of my posts.

Firstly people use FF lens focal lengths as a ref point, and secondly people use FF as a ref point when talking about aspects of image quality and that's certainly something which has been done in this thread.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I disagree. I reckon most people new to photography in the past few years haven't actually shot with either 35mm film or a 35mm sized sensor... yet still use 35mm as a reference point... which seems odd to me.
Click to expand...

But we need some kind of reference point to compare formats, and calculate how the same lenses work on different cameras, ie crop factor. With film, we never needed that.

It doesn't really matter what it is, so long as it's constant, but full-frame works for me and is certainly better than anything else, warts an' all. Photography is full of strange terms that have had their true meanings distorted, we just have to get on with it.

Like APS-C, hardly anyone knows what that stands for, and if they do, they should know that what we call APS-C is actually quite a bit smaller than true APS-C. Medium format is another one, a term bandied about and generally abused by some manufactuers because it has associations of high quality. But look at the actual dimensions and it's nowhere near medium format.
 
HoppyUK said:
But we need some kind of reference point to compare formats, and calculate how the same lenses work on different cameras, ie crop factor. With film, we never needed that.
Click to expand...

It actually causes more confusion. How many times have you seen new photographers on here thinking a 50mm is a standard lens when they own a D3200? So.. yeah.. a very helpful system overall :)
 
Steve, it's not just Fuji - my old Minolta (yup, straight Minolta, not Konica-Minolta) DiMage 5 has the FLs marked on the barrel in 35mm equivalence terms.

Pookey, that's why I always try to put 35mm EQ or similar when refering to FLs.
 
i just brought a 5x4 field camera, one of the first things i asked was, whats the lens equivalent on FF. Of course you need to know what field of view youre going to get. Its no good me blindily sticking a 150mm lens on there if it wont give me the wide view that i want. In fact it wont and i probably want to get a 90mm from somewhere now. So it was very relevant to me. Not sure why it wouldnt be to someone else.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It actually causes more confusion. How many times have you seen new photographers on here thinking a 50mm is a standard lens when they own a D3200? So.. yeah.. a very helpful system overall :)
Click to expand...

Agree it sometimes causes confusion, but causes more confusion that what? There is no easy answer.

Today you can use the same lens on FF, APS-C 1.6x, 1.5x, 4/3rds, and even Nikon 1 at 2.7x too, with very different results. That's the problem, and we need some way of comparing them.
 
derrycity said:
WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE OF A FULL FRAME CAMERA I HAVE A 40D AND THINKING OF A UPGRADE .
Click to expand...

I went from a 40D to a 5D2 and there is a significant increase in IQ at all ISO levels.

downsides are file sizes are larger, field of view is different for a given focal length, battery was different, cheaper lenses have optical limitations, I had to sell all my gear to buy it :lol: I'd never go back to APS-C ever again at the current tech levels
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top