What's the big deal with full frame?

Ari Freund · 06-30-2009, 05:11 AM

I'd like to hear an explanation why full frame is a big deal (or even desirable). As I understand it, there are two aspects to FF. The first is that the same lens on FF will give a wider field of view than on conventional digital. So? If you want a wider FOV switch to a wider angle lens, or take a step back. If not possible, then tough, but by the same token if you have a FF camera and want the narrower FOV, you'll have to change lenses or move in. They're different, but why would FF be considered better?

The second aspect is pixel density. Given that you are going to shoot the exact same scene, and both cameras have the same pixel density, the FF sensor will contain 2.25 times more pixels (assuming a crop factor of 1.5) than the conventional digital one. So you'll be able to enlarge 1.5 times more (for the same print quality). But all that means is that you want more pixels. Instead of saying "I want FF" just say "I want twice the pixels."

So what am I missing here?

alexcam · 06-30-2009, 05:26 AM

If the sensors are the same amount of megapixels, the FF will be able to gather more light due to the larger size pixels. This leads to less noise/better performance at higher ISO. At least this is how I understand it.

Mike Cash · 06-30-2009, 05:26 AM

FULL FRAME

and · 06-30-2009, 05:32 AM

You have much to learn young apprentice.

however you should not ask this question here because:

1. This has been done before, over. and over. and over. and over.
2. Although not completely similar, this question will, like going into an open forum asking "nikon or canon, which is the most 1337?" you wont get a clear conclusion as some prefer one over the other and its very likely that the two sides will attack each other.

what you ask for is reasonable, but I dont think I have ever seen one complete objective listing of advantages and disadvantages to each approach, normally it is a biased comparison and the advantages of the format that the writer doesnt like are downplayed or forgotten.

*pingflood* · 06-30-2009, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by alexcam

If the sensors are the same amount of megapixels, the FF will be able to gather more light due to the larger size pixels. This leads to less noise/better performance at higher ISO. At least this is how I understand it.

And also better performance in shadow areas since the bigger sensors gather more photons there.

attack11 · 06-30-2009, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Ari Freund

I'd like to hear an explanation why full frame is a big deal (or even desirable). As I understand it, there are two aspects to FF. The first is that the same lens on FF will give a wider field of view than on conventional digital. So? If you want a wider FOV switch to a wider angle lens, or take a step back. If not possible, then tough, but by the same token if you have a FF camera and want the narrower FOV, you'll have to change lenses or move in. They're different, but why would FF be considered better?

The second aspect is pixel density. Given that you are going to shoot the exact same scene, and both cameras have the same pixel density, the FF sensor will contain 2.25 times more pixels (assuming a crop factor of 1.5) than the conventional digital one. So you'll be able to enlarge 1.5 times more (for the same print quality). But all that means is that you want more pixels. Instead of saying "I want FF" just say "I want twice the pixels."

So what am I missing here?

there's 2 main reasons beyond fov/composition...

1. 2 stop performance gain.
2. lens resolution

the fa50mm for example, really really sucks at f1.4 on a crop body. the mtf scores are in the horrible range until f2.0, but on a full frame it'd perform much better. the catch 22 of this is as ff bodies approach the resolving limit of the glass, poor performance becomes more obvious.

*Wheatfield* · 06-30-2009, 07:12 AM

Also, full frame cameras don't have the tunnelvision viewfinders that small sensor cameras have.

attack11 · 06-30-2009, 07:34 AM

that's the primary reason i'll be upgrading to a k7d. i want that 100% coverage in the vf even if it's still an aps-c sensor.

ManuH · 06-30-2009, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by attack11

1. 2 stop performance gain.

Theorically it's only 1-1/3 stop.

attack11 · 06-30-2009, 07:43 AM

firmware makes up for the rest. iso6400 out of a 5dmkii or d700 looks about the same as iso1600 outta my pentax.

real world performance depends on a lot of dynamic variables; like the sr system from pentax is 2-3 stops in theory but i can hand hold my 135mm at 1/10 np.

*redpigeons* · 06-30-2009, 08:24 AM

Nothing is like seeing

There is a great thread here in the forum where someone compared Pentax lenses on 35mm (k1000 I think) Vs a crop frame .

I will try to look for it later

*raymeedc* · 06-30-2009, 09:42 AM

For me a major consideration would be the ability to use my old Takumar primes at their intended focal lengths. I'm more interested in obtaining the proper wide angle view from my short focal length lenses than I am the reach I would lose with longer lenses at Full Frame. For that extra reach, I could always revert to another body, thereby realizing the benefits of both types.

stevebrot · 06-30-2009, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by and

You have much to learn young apprentice.

however you should not ask this question here because:

1. This has been done before, over. and over. and over. and over.
2. Although not completely similar, this question will, like going into an open forum asking "nikon or canon, which is the most 1337?" you wont get a clear conclusion as some prefer one over the other and its very likely that the two sides will attack each other.

what you ask for is reasonable, but I dont think I have ever seen one complete objective listing of advantages and disadvantages to each approach, normally it is a biased comparison and the advantages of the format that the writer doesnt like are downplayed or forgotten.

Thanks for posting this! You beat me to it!

Steve

(Really would like FF...someday...)

Cosmo · 06-30-2009, 09:54 AM

People don't use FF camera to gain a wider angle of view, there are lenses that give the same angle of view for both FF and aps-c cameras.

The main advantage is image quality, bigger sensor, more detail can be captured.FF kicks aps-c's ass, and medium format kicks FF's ass....

Shallower depth of field at the same angle of view, which I think is one of the most important factors.

Kguru · 06-30-2009, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

People don't use FF camera to gain a wider angle of view, there are lenses that give the same angle of view for both FF and aps-c cameras.

I do like to get an affordable FF to gain wider FOV with 31/1.8
On APS-C the DA21 is not the same with its f/3.2