Originally posted by Wulifou Hi,
sorry if this is a recurrent question, but could someone please help a beginner understanding following hot topic :
FF seems to cause alot of passionate posts, as far as I read partly because of Pentax announcement not to follow the current ff trend (or at least not immediatly)
Pentax is not following the FF trend just because they are just unable to get a ticket for the FF train!
Quote: But I haven't found so far some clear explanation why FF should be so much better (or worse).
As far as I understand it, following things change :
No problem, I reply point by point as follows:-
Quote: a) you loose the x1.5 crop factor. That's great for those with FA wide lenses and sucks for those who are into wildlife and sports.
Yes, generally speaking.
Quote: b) you cannot use your DA lenses anymore. If that is true, than it's definitely a bad point.
Yes, a DA lens, which has a smaller projected image circle, practically is not usable on a FF DSLR body, just see my this recent experiment:-
RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: DA 18-55 on Full Frame
But, it is not a "bad point", not even "definitely. Definitely, it is a very important point, instead, for all those users who own and use their old film glass. Do note that film glass on small sensor cropped factor APS-C 1.5X DSLRs is just a bad idea, even for tele-photography as resolution is lost optically.
Quote: c) You gain a lot of MP and resolution but suck at higher ISO (Sony 900) OR
Nope. This is not correct. DPR found that the noise performance of the A900 is worse at ISO 800 just for that particular body, not in general case - just because the pixel density is too high and thus physical pixel pitch size is too small (it has 24.6MP!). So, same case applies for APS-C 1.5X DSLRs when the pixel count just at 12MP (not even more! AS APS-C is just of 42.4% of the area of a FF sensor and so does the physical size of a pixel for receiving light if the pixel count is the same)
Quote: d) You keep around 15MP and go up to amazing ISO performance (Nikon 700)
Ditto. The noise performance at 15MP for a FF camera is amazing with good details and resolution retained even at high ISO without the expense of more noise. Same have never happened so far for APS-C DSLRs. Even though when technologies advance in future for an APS-C DSLRs to have acceptable performance at 15MP, by that time a FF DSLR at 30MP will have the same image quality then. So, the FF will always WIN![/QUOTE]
Quote: I get the resolution/ISO part, but is there something else that initiated the FF development ? Apparently, there is a great demand for FF, but I honestly don't see what difference it will make. Does someone have experience with Full Frame cameras he/she could share ? thx a lot
There are still other differences you haven't noticed yet, I think. For example, FF DSLRs have more freedom on choosing shallower DoF and have better 3d feel. FF DSLRs are more efficient and optically optimised than those APS-C DSLRs which designed based on a cropped 135 film SLR form factor. In fact, the APS-C DSLRs which kept the
back focus register distance are the worst thing to do as the lens and body made is not much smaller and lighter but actually the light received is only at 42% (which is the case of Pentax DA lenses).
For what FF photos look difference in IQ and 3d feel, judge yourself for my "junky" sample photos in the below link, if interested:-
RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Sample Photos of Full Frame Fisheye and 43 Limited on 5D