DSLRUsers.com

I did a search, but could not see whether this has been brought up before.
I was reading, and there seemed to be many unhappy Nikon users who are frustrated that Nikon have not yet released a full frame DSLR.

I read that a larger sensor results in lower noise and higher dynamic range, and also allowing a wider field of view (since there's no crop factor).

Is it for these reasons that the users are dissatisfied?

I had a read of
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... r-size.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essay ... sign.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/colum ... 4-04.shtml

Is it because the users are missing the "back in the film days" view?

I hope this is an acceptable discussion

For me, it was mainly the lower noise at high ISO and that's it. Noise Ninja and other associated NR software wasn't going to cut it especially when I am going to be showing clients the proofs online.

It made me ponder this morning that the only issue with noise is that you can see it when viewing it on the monitor, however when you print it out, it's barely noticeable.

It could be a shift in viewers' focus nowadays that because it's "digital", images are expected to be crisp and noise-less. Back in the days when proofs were presented as prints, no one complained about anything.

Another thing which has probably put more focus on noise images with less noise are stock libraries. A lot of them, if not all, have stated in their conditions that image artefacts such as noise must be minimal.

If you shoot landscapes in sunlight or long exposures at low ISO, it doesn't matter. Higher dynamic range can be worked around with filters or bracketing the shots and using HDR. A wider FOV can be worked around with a WA lens suited for DX/AF-C crops.

However if you have to shoot events at ISO 800 and above, then it's a different story. Not everyone does this...period. I just happen to be one of the wackos who do and who enjoy it

Is Full Frame the only way to solve the high ISO noise? Or are we really talking two different issues?

ATJ - From my understanding, by using FF it's a hardware solution. There are software solutions as well but these may end up making the image lowering its sharpness as an end result.

Is it because the sensor is larger and so can capture more light?

ATJ wrote:Is Full Frame the only way to solve the high ISO noise? Or are we really talking two different issues?

At one level they're separate issues.

FF has optical effects: field of view and depth of field are both affected (DOF because the sensor image is enlarged less for a given print size, not because of the field of view issue directly).

The Canon 5D did set new records in terms of low noise, and this was helped by the size of its pixels. With larger pixels than the FF EOS 1DsMk.II that gave it a headstart, and the later technology in the sensor electronics helped also.
The EOS 30D can produce cleaner images than the D2X (I say _can_, I'm not generalising to say "always does"!) with a sensor of approximately the same size: neither of them are FF. But the 30D's sensor has larger pixels than the D2X's...

adam wrote:I hope this is an acceptable discussion

Certainly is. I had the same question, but hadn't done the research yet. Thanks for raising it.

Don't forget the larger viewfinder. A cheap consumer F80 has a better viewfinder than a D200, and probably is better than a D2X (haven't ever directly compared them).

rooboy wrote:Don't forget the larger viewfinder. A cheap consumer F80 has a better viewfinder than a D200, and probably is better than a D2X (haven't ever directly compared them).

Take a look at F5's VF, you wont take your eyes off it...

I don't get all this FF stuff. I'm more than happy with the quality from my current sensor. And one thing that seems to be glossed over in all the FF discussion is that the old film issue of vignetting and quality drop at the edges caused by THE LENS returns. Put simply - the edges of a lens are where it's at it's worst. Put a FF compatible lens on a DX camera (the most common scenario) and the "bad" part of the lens is cropped out and not used.

As for things like larger viewfinders - does this have anything to do with FF or is it just another design issue?

As has been mentioned in another thread (by Wayne I think): just how many of those asking Nikon to bring out a FF camera would actually buy one?

stubbsy wrote:I don't get all this FF stuff. I'm more than happy with the quality from my current sensor. And one thing that seems to be glossed over in all the FF discussion is that the old film issue of vignetting and quality drop at the edges caused by THE LENS returns. Put simply - the edges of a lens are where it's at it's worst. Put a FF compatible lens on a DX camera (the most common scenario) and the "bad" part of the lens is cropped out and not used.

As for things like larger viewfinders - does this have anything to do with FF or is it just another design issue?

As has been mentioned in another thread (by Wayne I think): just how many of those asking Nikon to bring out a FF camera would actually buy one?

I agree. Can anyone tell the difference when looking at a print or on-screen, whether a beautiful photo has been captured on a FF or DX? (or a point and shoot for that matter).

FF seems to be more of an issue for "boys and their toys" than for photographers focusing on the image. I think the same argument applies to those who focus on MP, and want 12MP feeling their 6MP (or even 4MP) is inferior.

Actually, as I type this, I do not recall a female complaining about FF vs DX, perhaps it is only a problem for the blokes (love to hear a female opinion).

Stubbsy is right. That is why medium format dig with its cropped sensor is the way to go

EDIT: Plus, if Nikon D3 FF is priced at $8K USD retail, and you can get a good dig back for $10K, why would you get the Nikon?

Heath Bennett wrote:Stubbsy is right. That is why medium format dig with its cropped sensor is the way to go

I always thought if they make it to even 645 size then it'll cost you an arm and a leg...

And the 9x9 micron sized pixels on the phase one p25 is great I say.

Grev wrote:

Heath Bennett wrote:Stubbsy is right. That is why medium format dig with its cropped sensor is the way to go

I always thought if they make it to even 645 size then it'll cost you an arm and a leg...

And the 9x9 micron sized pixels on the phase one p25 is great I say.

Well Hasselblad is claiming the worlds first FF MFD... $50K

Oz_Beachside wrote:FF seems to be more of an issue for "boys and their toys" than for photographers focusing on the image. I think the same argument applies to those who focus on MP, and want 12MP feeling their 6MP (or even 4MP) is inferior.

I wouldn't say that. The viewfinder on my 5D feels so much better than the 30D. Given I can see more and focus more easily, I should return better images. It certainly helped the other night. I have tried to get lightning photos before, but struggled setting the shot up in the dark. Sunday night, it felt so much easier, like I could actually see.

Having said all that, I dont ven know if the viewfinder IS bigger, but it certainly feels like it to me.

norbs wrote:The viewfinder on my 5D feels so much better than the 30D.

Same with my D200 vs my D70, it's not a FF vs crop issue.

I tend to think that the brightness of the viewfinder is more important than the relative size.

And Stubbsy's point about DX format eliminating the worst performing area of the lens is very well made.

Back in the day, we had 35mm film, half frame 35 (on the famous Trip for example), 126, remember 110 (tiny negs with a good deal of grain evident even with snapshot sized prints) and so on.

And I think the expression Full Frame is a bit misleading these days. I suppose it is the size for which the stated focal length of a non DX lens is the actual focal length, but the frame on my D200 is plenty full enough for me.

I just want my 85mm F1.4 to be 85mm, not 127.5mm so I can use it closer to my model, rather than being across the other side of the room. Granted I could use my 50mm F1.4, but the 85mm is nicer.

Another benefit with DX over FF is flash sync speeds. I believe that the flash sync speeds on DX can be faster because there's less distance for the curtain to cover.

ATJ wrote:Another benefit with DX over FF is flash sync speeds. I believe that the flash sync speeds on DX can be faster because there's less distance for the curtain to cover.

If this is true then it is frustrating because the MF cameras I have been looking into have 1/500-800 sync speeds, faster than all current gen 35mm style dslrs

Oh... I must be wrong then. I just assumed because the d70 is 1/500 and the Canon FF are only 1/250 it was related to the amount of travel for the curtain. Now I look at the later Nikon DX cameras, they are only 1/250 or 1/200.

I don't really understand all the fuss about FF Vs DX
If we look at film, 35mm can be regarded as "cropped" 120 format (645 etc). This in turn can be regarded as a "cropped" plate camera. And of course, the Minox C is a cropped 35mm. I don't recall any of this fuss about cropping from those days. Each format was regarded as having its own sphere of use. Users simply adapted to each, and if they had multiple formats, they simply looked through the viewfinder to frame and shoot. If you put a 50mm lens on a Pentax SpotmaticF (35mm) you got a "normal". If you put the same lens on a Pentax ES (MF), you got a moderate wide angle view. Or do I have that backwards. Its been a long time.

DX is simply another format. It has advantages and disadvantages like any other. If you want to make a picture, look through the viewfinder, frame and shoot. If you cannot get the framing/focus/quality you want, change the lens, and if you feel it necessary, the camera.

ATJ wrote:Oh... I must be wrong then. I just assumed because the d70 is 1/500 and the Canon FF are only 1/250 it was related to the amount of travel for the curtain. Now I look at the later Nikon DX cameras, they are only 1/250 or 1/200.

No, you're partly right.
Take for example the old EOS D30, which has a sync speed of 1/200s. This was built using a shutter mechanism borrowed from film cameras of the same vintage, and their sync speed was 1/125s. The "crop factor" of the D30 is 1.6, and thus the height of the frame is approx 15mm instead of 24mm (as found on a film camera). Travelling at the same speed, the shutter traverses this distance in 1/1.6x the time. 125 x 1.6 == 200!

The EOS 20D improved this with mechanical changes in the shutter, achieving 1/250s. The EOS 5D managed 1/200s across a "full frame", which isn't bad. Given the above maths I was half-expecting the 30D to have a 1/320s sync speed, but no such luck. Maybe the "40D" will...

The Nikon D70 (and the EOS 1D Mk.I) achieve higher shutter speeds by combining the mechanical shutter with an "electronic shutter" within the CCD sensor (starting/stopping the light capture electronically) while the mechanical shutter is open. Thus 1/500s sync (for both of those bodies). The sensor design in the later Nikon cameras does not allow this, resulting in a sync speed mandated by the mechanical shutter.

As for the MF cameras Heath mentions, it's possible that their shutter mechanisms are a different design with different limitations. For example, in most of the cameras we're used to the shutter is close to the sensor, and thus has to open up "completely". A design with the shutter further towards the lens will result in a smaller area that needs to be opened up (thus the whole frame can be exposed for a shorter fraction of time, and thus the sync speed could be faster). There are probably other design factors as well (including the bigger body allowing the use of bigger springs and dampeners, allowing physically faster shutter curtains than could be fitted in a "35mm" body).

Killakoala wrote:I just want my 85mm F1.4 to be 85mm, not 127.5mm so I can use it closer to my model, rather than being across the other side of the room.

But your 85mm is always 85mm! You're not being "cheated" out of anything! If you've used MF cameras (where a 85mm lens is "normal" for a 6x6 camera, and a 50mm is a wide-angle) you'll be familiar with the way the camera affects how each lens will be used. But it doesn't change the lens per se.

Granted I could use my 50mm F1.4, but the 85mm is nicer.

It certainly sounds like the 50mm is the lens you want to use. The 85mm might be nicer in some ways, but that's a different issue.

If it makes you feel better, I'm slightly missing the cropped sensor as getting used to 50mm on the "FF" is taking awhile. Everything feels so short.

DaveB wrote:

Killakoala wrote:I just want my 85mm F1.4 to be 85mm, not 127.5mm so I can use it closer to my model, rather than being across the other side of the room.

But your 85mm is always 85mm! You're not being "cheated" out of anything!

I agree, sorry Killa. The FOV is different but it is still an 85mm lens.
Perhaps you should have quantified it by saying you wish your 85mm lens kept it's 85mm FOV on the DX sensor.

It is certainly an interesting discussion. I'd imagine the landscape and/or high-ISO users amongst us would be fans of the FF sensor, as it can potentially offer you more, whereas those that live with their 300+ lenses on their DX camera may appreciate the crop-factor coming into play and living with the illusion that their 300mm lens is somewhere closer to 450mm (though in reality it is only the FOV that has changed....not the magnification).

I hope that when Nikon do eventually jump on the FF train (which is inevitable - IMO), that they include an inbuilt DX sensor-crop on the FF, so everyone can have the best of both worlds.

Perhaps with the D4X ???

Aussie Dave wrote:whereas those that live with their 300+ lenses on their DX camera may appreciate the crop-factor coming into play and living with the illusion that their 300mm lens is somewhere closer to 450mm (though in reality it is only the FOV that has changed....not the magnification).

Exactly.

And with a higher resolution FF camera, you suddenly have the best of both worlds: your 24mm lens again becomes a true wide angle lens, and while your 300mm retains its 300mm focal length and FoV, you can still crop the image to perhaps DX sensor size, or perhaps the D2X crop mode size, or maybe even further.

And you always had this option available under film technology too.

For those of you trying to understand the differences in a theoretical sense ... give up; it doesn't work that way. Sorry. That sort of analysis is almost like saying that a PHD camera with 10MP should produce better images than a D70 with 6MP.

But that's precisely why the the D40x has 10MP, but I digress.

Just accept that for some of us, FF35mm is a target that is seen as desirable.

As one who has shot with many different types of cameras, I believe that the larger the original image is (as in the source negative) then the better the potential for higher quality output. This holds true regardless of the medium.

So I like to have the best possible starting point, and then I can do an even better job of screwing it all up.

having read a lot of discussion over the last few days on the lack of a Nikon FF body and disappointment in this not being the case it struck me as really a niche market that a manufacturer like Fuji (or Kodak) could well take advantage of. Both in the past have created Nikon mount dslr bodies aimed more for the 'proffessional' high-end user than the masses. Surely with the continued production of nikon lenses that cater for FF sized senors, these manufacturers could make a worse move than to market a body to provide this capability?

FF is only important to those who really NEED it. For 99% of us it doesn't make a scrap of difference, and is only a discussion point.

Oneputt wrote:FF is only important to those who really NEED it. For 99% of us it doesn't make a scrap of difference, and is only a discussion point.

John ...

While it may not make much difference, I think it's fair to say that it's important to those who, for whatever reason,

WANT

it.

I owned and used a Canon 350D for over a year before upgrading to a 5D.

I went to the 5D because it was the logical next step up from the 350D, for my style of photography. I shoot mainly landscapes and nature, as well as a bit of architecture.

I also owned an EOS3 (35mm film body) for awhile, and really enjoyed wide angle lenses like my 17-40 f/4 on that body.

Of course full frame isn't for everyone, for most sports photographers or nature photographers having the crop factor is a huge advantage - but for me it was not important. Having wider lenses was though.

The big advantages for me personally are:
- My wide lenses are really wide. My long lenses are not as long, but I can crop significantly and still have files large enough for the print sizes I want.
- Higher dynamic range. This was something I only came to realise and appreciate after owning the 5D for awhile, it is noticably better than in the 350D.
- A much better viewfinder. Seriously, the viewfinders on all the cropped bodies are absolutely horrible. They're like looking at a postage stamp at the end of a railway tunnel. If you have used a 35mm film SLR for any length of time you would recognise this immediately.
- And lastly, better high ISO performance. Not a huge concern for me compared to other people...
- Better handling body/ergonomics.

On a side note photography for me is just a hobby so none of this is about "needing" anything, it's just a "want"...

gstark wrote:For those of you trying to understand the differences in a theoretical sense ... give up; it doesn't work that way. Sorry. That sort of analysis is almost like saying that a PHD camera with 10MP should produce better images than a D70 with 6MP.

PHD = this!

What a coincidence!

Trevor,

Where the hell did you find that.

Gold, gold, gold!

gstark wrote:So I like to have the best possible starting point, and then I can do an even better job of screwing it all up.

Good point.

Hence, I'm giving Nikon exactly 3 months to come up with a medium format DSLR. If they don't comply I will switch to Hasselblad. I'm sick of being ignored as a customer!

Cheers
Steffen.

FF v DX. That's not my issue.

All I want is a DSLR that can compare with my F5.

My D2H, which has a very similar build just doesn't cut it.

I want an +12MP FF-DSLR as my next camera.

Also, as a small point. Nikon's best lenses are NOT DX lenses, they are 35mm lenses. (With the exception maybe of the 10.5 FE, which i also own.)

Arguably the best DX lens is the 17-55mm, but the 35mm equivalent, the 17-35 is possibly a little bit better. I don't know as i have never used a 17-55.

There has got to be a point and a reason for that. I don't know what it is, I can only speculate.

My photography, landscapes and portraits, will only benefit from FF.

It was a masterpiece and I just had to have it! The light played errotically over ancient textured surfaces and the tones shone like old leather, the highlights like old port glowed contra jour. An exquisite masterpiece! And the price was a bargain!.....But then......I noticed that something was not quite right......and a closer examination suddenly revealed the horrible truth...."THIS IMAGE WAS NOT MADE WITH A FF DIGITAL CAMERA!" I roared. And so I left the gallery feeling relieved that I had not taken with me a cheap subsitute for a real photograph. Whew! A close call!

Matt, memories came flushing back of a certain member who no longer frequents this forum, hmm... what was his name? lived in leichhardt i believe.

For all those who are unhappy with their DX D2h bodies, I'll be happy to make use of them when you get your FF

phillipb wrote::lol:
Matt, memories came flushing back of a certain member who no longer frequents this forum, hmm... what was his name? lived in leichhardt i believe.

Walter, aka Sheetshooter?

Cheers
Steffen.

I tried the 5D tonight... ah! I wish I didn't! *lust lust lust*.... GAHHHHH!!!
INFECTED! POISONED!
Just a look into that viewfinder and.... INFECTED!
uh! ah! ohrAR!! *rubs hands*.

or maybe I should just get a film camera....

but... wow! the full frame is beautiful, the viewfinder is beautiful.
I shot at ISO3200, the noise level was OK.

ak...!

Aussie Dave wrote: whereas those that live with their 300+ lenses on their DX camera may appreciate the crop-factor coming into play and living with the illusion that their 300mm lens is somewhere closer to 450mm (though in reality it is only the FOV that has changed....not the magnification).

Oh boy. I wish I could get to the bottom of this. I have always thought the line about my 300mm on the 1.6x crop gives me the reach of a 480mm lense is crap. I thought they were still getting 300mm worth of zoom, but just cropping that image.

Is there a definitive explanation somewhere?

norbs wrote:Oh boy. I wish I could get to the bottom of this. I have always thought the line about my 300mm on the 1.6x crop gives me the reach of a 480mm lense is crap. I thought they were still getting 300mm worth of zoom, but just cropping that image.

Is there a definitive explanation somewhere?

What you just said.

gstark wrote:

norbs wrote:Oh boy. I wish I could get to the bottom of this. I have always thought the line about my 300mm on the 1.6x crop gives me the reach of a 480mm lense is crap. I thought they were still getting 300mm worth of zoom, but just cropping that image.

Is there a definitive explanation somewhere?

What you just said.

 LOL Gary.

Fair enough.

Alternatively, from the from page of the site.

http://www.dslrusers.com/files/CropFactor.pdf

Steffen wrote:

phillipb wrote::lol:
Matt, memories came flushing back of a certain member who no longer frequents this forum, hmm... what was his name? lived in leichhardt i believe.

Walter, aka Sheetshooter?

Cheers
Steffen.

Yep, that's him, thanks Steffen