Maxwell Render | Official public forum

Hi,

for the photo pros on the forum:

for a long time I've been toying around with the idea of buying a DSLR. I'm very much set for the Canon 40D, I like its extra jog dial and the LCD on the top, and it's fast. I used a friend's low end Nikon D40 and felt it was just too small to handle comfortably (I don't even have big hands, mind you!).

With a tax refund coming through in April (hopefully!) I will be making this step. I won't be able to afford a FF any time soon. I've read again and again how if you're in it for IQ, you will eventually have to go FF.
As far as I am concerned, light sensitivity / noise of the 40D are excellent and lenses that outperform the 10MP are so sh*t expensive that I'd be afraid of tripping when I have one attached.

So how does FF improve IQ significantly? The one thing I'd like is the bigger viewfinder. That aside however, 1.6 crop only impacts wide angle negatively. On the plus side, lenses for digital are smaller, lighter and often cheaper than their FF counterparts. But I can still use FF glass and benefit from reduced vignetting and the lens's centre sharpness.

So my question for you to answer is this:

1. Is full frame inevitable in the long run, and hence,
2. should I only invest in ff glass?

Thanks guys and gals!

a ff sensor with the same amount of pixels as a smaller sensor has larger photosites..thus less noise, better sensitivity and in limits a larger dynamic range.

Hm, yeah. And while I think that for the time being I'll be fine with the 40D in terms of noise and sensitivity, I cannot rule out that I will eventually like to get a camera that's better still. So guess I'll play it safe and only get FF glass... Thanks!

I don't know if FF is so much better in terms of image quality in normal light situations. It strongly depends on the quality of the lens which has to be good as well (= expensive).
It surely has a better noise behavior in low light, but if you're used to the noise by using so much maxwell, you probably won't mind

An other difference: The DOF is stronger with FF.
But FF also has disadvantages like more vignetting for example ...

I'd like to buy a FF camera at some point (maybe in 1 or 2 years a canon 5d markII). Don't really know why. It's because it feels more like a camera of the old days, because the number on the lens really is the focal length.

As someone who has both. I have a Canon 30D and a 5D mark 2 and access to a Canon 1Ds mark 3, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. Full frame gets you that true 35mm size and lets you produce traditional size prints. Mp's are usually higher, which lends to larger prints and more crop area. However they are slower frames per second because they are pushing HUGE files, my 5dm2 has an average RAW file size of 30MB, larger sensors = bigger dirt magnet so if you are out shooting in the elements and do a lot of lens swaping like I do you have to blow your sensor clean more often.

Now if a 40D will suit your needs then by all means go for it. However if you see yourself somewhere down the road going to a FF body, spend your money on regular EF lenses and do not buy EF-S lenses as these are made for crop cameras, while the mount is the same, the bring the first element of the lens closer to the sensor plane to get back the FOV lost by a smaller sensor, on a full frame camera the mirror is bigger and hits this extension on the lens.

crop sensors on canon 40D and 50D are just as good as the big boys of the 5D2 and 1Ds in terms of IQ, its really hard to tell unless you pixel peep in extreme conditions like I do

Check out my flickr stream and see for your self its all 30D and 5d2

Hope this helps

Thanks Jeff and Kami!

Kami, the DOF is what I had heard before as well, but failed to understand why DOF should be more pronounced on an FF as opposed to a cropped sensor. But now I thought about it again and I think the way to look at it is:
Given a fixed lens, e.g. 50mm f/1.4 on both systems, framing the shot on the FF allows you to get closer to the subject. The background will, with respect to the subject, be much further away as far as DOF is concerned, hence it'll blur more.

Jeff, I hadn't thought about the dust issue (there's me hoping the sensor cleaning will work perfectly, haha).

So yeah, 1.6 for now, FF glass and maybe later a Canon FF.

Thanks again!

johann._ wrote:Thanks Jeff and Kami!

Kami, the DOF is what I had heard before as well, but failed to understand why DOF should be more pronounced on an FF as opposed to a cropped sensor. But now I thought about it again and I think the way to look at it is:
Given a fixed lens, e.g. 50mm f/1.4 on both systems, framing the shot on the FF allows you to get closer to the subject. The background will, with respect to the subject, be much further away as far as DOF is concerned, hence it'll blur more.

Jeff, I hadn't thought about the dust issue (there's me hoping the sensor cleaning will work perfectly, haha).

So yeah, 1.6 for now, FF glass and maybe later a Canon FF.

Thanks again!

The DOF being more pronounced on a FF is a direct resultant of seeing the whole image nothing more as a crop camera reduces your FOV you are not getting the edges of the image that is all...

A 50mm is 50mm on either system its the smaller sensor only seeing the center of the image coming through the lens that changes things

Jeff Tamagini wrote:The DOF being more pronounced on a FF is a direct resultant of seeing the whole image nothing more as a crop camera reduces your FOV you are not getting the edges of the image that is all...

A 50mm is 50mm on either system its the smaller sensor only seeing the center of the image coming through the lens that changes things

So there are two ways to look at it then

1. Fixed focal length, fixed distance to subject --> Blur kernel is the same, but more of the blurred background can be seen on the FF. Vice versa, the subject covers less %age area of the image.

2. Fixed focal length, subject framed to cover same area of picture (camera moved closer to subject on FF) --> Background covers same amount of area, but the blur kernel is increased, and perspective changes.

Right?

Depend on your need of course, but as owner of a 40d with some EF-S lenses, i'm very pleased with the results it produces. Solid body, usefull custom settings, fine image quality and indeed only if your a pixel-peeper with a need for huge file sizes, a FF would be better. Have a 17-55 2.8 for general purpose and the stunning 10-22 for interior shots. Just a bit jealous on the video option though.

Just a tip from a noob to you guys before you go on your spending spree.. keep in mind that it's not ALL about the equipment, the photographer is what really matters. With shit behind the wheels you will crash your car anyways even if you have the fastest Ferrari there is, but with a talented driver driving a rusty piece o crap you won't crash no matter how bad the road is and how fast you drive. If you know what i mean.

Sure it's nice to drive a Ferrari, but do you really need one when you drive to the grocerystore around the corner. I doubt it..

/ Max

Maximus3D wrote:Just a tip from a noob to you guys before you go on your spending spree.. keep in mind that it's not ALL about the equipment, the photographer is what really matters. With shit behind the wheels you will crash your car anyways even if you have the fastest Ferrari there is, but with a talented driver driving a rusty piece o crap you won't crash no matter how bad the road is and how fast you drive. If you know what i mean.

Sure it's nice to drive a Ferrari, but do you really need one when you drive to the grocerystore around the corner. I doubt it..

/ Max

Bingo....! Hit the nail right on the head.

Better autofocusing especially in low light situations, better control over ISO range, WB, much bigger viewfinder....there are a lot of other advantages to a FF body. I'd sure like one

Magnus, you are right for sure, an artist will make the best possible use of their tools, and that requires a lot of creativity. Actually sometimes I am overwhelmed by the sheer amount of quality pictures on flickr for example.
I have been digital point & shooting for a long time and one or two years ago got myself a 35mm SLR. It's fun to use (and I appreciate nice soft bokeh you don't get on the P&S) and I do like the thrill of having film developed and then picking it up a couple of days later to see the results. At the same time I've missed a couple of potentially great (imo) shots because I messed up one of the settings without realising. So that's why I want to make the move to a DSLR. It's also more convenient of course...

EADC, I've been looking at the 10-22 as well, and this is the only 'for digital' lens that I currently consider. Though I need to watch my budget Re the video option, this is fairly old and I haven't seen any progress since, but take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlKywUVFJW4 No sound recording of course... I've read a lot of people complaining about the 5Ds not allowing full manual control while in video mode. I'm not looking at doing video for now though, prepared to wait until it's been through a couple of iterations...

that 10-22 is great. I'd have to swap it for a 17-40 if I could ever afford a FF camera