Full frame or not?

My full frame film SLRs, complete with prisms and mirrors are still smaller than the A7. So they could make DSLRs a lot smaller. Keeping all the reflecty flappy bits. If they wanted to.
There are so many people who end up leaving their big DSLR at home because of its bulk. Hopefully manufacturers will follow Sony, Panasonic and others to shed some of that bulk.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
My full frame film SLRs, complete with prisms and mirrors are still smaller than the A7. So they could make DSLRs a lot smaller. Keeping all the reflecty flappy bits. If they wanted to.
There are a lot of people who leave their big DSLR at home and use something smaller. And just bring it out on special occasions. Hopefully manufacturers will follow Sony, Panasonic and others to shed some bulk.
Click to expand...
All the electronics required take up a bit more space than a roll of film though. Although they're getting smaller.

Look how far 'inside' the sensor plane is compared to the film plane.
 
The electronics are being miniaturised. Many companies are showing the benefits of this already. This happens all the time as more components are added to a single chip. Expect to see more and more positive side effects from the mobile phone industry affecting cameras.
I think companies just need to want to prioritise compactness. And they could achieve it without compromise.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
The electronics are being miniaturised. Many companies are showing the benefits of this already. This happens all the time as more components are added to a single chip. Expect to see more and more positive side effects from the mobile phone industry affecting cameras.
I think companies just need to want to prioritise compactness. And they could achieve it without compromise.
Click to expand...
I think if you look at the first DSLRs and something like a 1000d you can see they've been prioritising miniaturisation.
 
Expect more. Some companies have that in their culture. Others not.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I used Canon APS-C for years (300D, 10D, 20D) and moved to a 5D.

I found little real difference in image quality at low to mid ISO settings for screen viewing and prints up to and including A3 but the 5D showed a clear lead at the higher ISO's. My cameras were old tech by todays standards but I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true of more recent APS-C v FF comparisons.

My main reasons for moving from APS-C to FF were to get better high ISO performance and also because I wanted to use some of my better lenses on a FF camera so moving over to FF worked for me but one thing (almost) in the negative column was that it took me quite a while to get used to FF shooting and using smaller apertures to get greater depth of field as this led me to using slower shutter speeds and/or higher ISO's.

I'd advise you to think carefully about what you want to achieve and if moving to FF will be of significant benefit. Another question could be would you get more benefit from putting spare money towards better lenses or a holiday to somewhere/something worth photographing :D
Click to expand...

Good answer back on topic.

Original poster has a 400D. Change camera bodies and you'll get a variety of upgrades, I.e higher ISO for the same amount of noise. The newer bodies whether ff or crop you'll notice a big upgrade. But you'll need to check which lenses you have, if you've any extra batteries that won't fit, that sort of stuff.

But really we need to know what you mostly shoot.
 
Phil V said:
The noise issue is correct.

But why do people keep repeating the 'wide angles are wider on FF'? it's b****x. If you have a crop kit and you need a WA lens, you're as well catered for as a FF user, you're just buying different lenses. The widest UWA for FF is the Sigma 12-24, they also do an 8-16 for crop. The std zoom for a FF camera is 24-70, for a crop it's the 17-55 or thereabouts, the 'common' UWA for FF is 16-35, for crop it's 10-22, they're all readily available and they work perfectly.

People would say I was stupid if I said 'if you want your long lenses to be their proper length buy a crop'. They'd start saying stuff like 'the lens isn't any longer, you're just using some of it' etc etc.

Edit: cross posted with Nod.
Click to expand...

I think the honourable member has forgotten canons new EF11-24
 
jonneymendoza said:
Umm. Have u not seen the a7 cameras? Full frame and half the weight and size of various dslr ;)

Mirrorless is the future baby!
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for them to sort the focus out - when they can offer tracking autofocus that will lock on to a diving gannet, flying puffin , or a runnig hare then I'd be tempted (though I might be more tempted to go OMD) until then I'll stay traditional and keep the mirrorless for walking arround
 
big soft moose said:
I'm waiting for them to sort the focus out - when they can offer tracking autofocus that will lock on to a diving gannet, flying puffin , or a runnig hare then I'd be tempted (though I might be more tempted to go OMD) until then I'll stay traditional and keep the mirrorless for walking arround
Click to expand...
The sony a6000 already does all that. Its nearly on par with a D4s/1dx and so beats majority of DSLR period.

All the ingredients are there for mirrorless to overtake DSLR
 
jonneymendoza said:
The sony a6000 already does all that. Its nearly on par with a D4s/1dx and so beats majority of DSLR period.

All the ingredients are there for mirrorless to overtake DSLR
Click to expand...

I'd need to hire one to see for myself as most reviews said otherwise , ie that contrast AF couldnt compete with phase detection on moving subjects - and tbh even if it is as good with the ammount of cash ive tied up in Canon lenses i'd still need a fairly compelling reason to change.

If mirrorless really is the future - rather than a betamax style dead end (betamax was technically better than VHS after all) - i'm sure sooner or later Canon will bring out a mirrrorless option using the EF mount
 
big soft moose said:
I'd need to hire one to see for myself as most reviews said otherwise , ie that contrast AF couldnt compete with phase detection on moving subjects - and tbh even if it is as good with the ammount of cash ive tied up in Canon lenses i'd still need a fairly compelling reason to change.

If mirrorless really is the future - rather than a betamax style dead end (betamax was technically better than VHS after all) - i'm sure sooner or later Canon will bring out a mirrrorless option using the EF mount
Click to expand...
the reason why canikon have not so far is because they have invested far too much on DLSR for them to drop it all and go mirrorless.

They will. Its cheaper to manufacture mirrorless and has the potential to be faster then DSLR in burst mode.

Not to mention how light and compact they are to boot.

give it 5/10 years and i can guarante you the D6/1dZ or whatever will eventually be a mirrorless system :)

embrace the future!!!!!
 
I have seen Tony Northrup's review and he struggled to get focus repeatedly on a subject moving towards him.

I owned one and moved over to DSLR for wildlife after being disappointed with the tracking.

Not sure if any firmware updates have happened since that may have improved it???
 
ianp5a said:
My full frame film SLRs, complete with prisms and mirrors are still smaller than the A7. So they could make DSLRs a lot smaller. Keeping all the reflecty flappy bits. If they wanted to.
There are so many people who end up leaving their big DSLR at home because of its bulk. Hopefully manufacturers will follow Sony, Panasonic and others to shed some of that bulk.
Click to expand...

I find that the biggest difference between my Sony A7 and Panasonic MFT cameras and the old film cameras I had isn't so much the bulk as the weight. My old cameras were just pretty much an empty box but these days they have "works" in them :D I keep my Panasonic LX5 in a 35mm compact camera case but it's quite a bit heavier than the film camera it replaced.
 
Yes both Sony and Panasonic know how to make things compact. However, comparing with SLRs, I just checked and my Olympus OM-2 is 520g. Heavier than the similar sized EM-5 at 425g. Which includes sensor stabilisation gear and battery. And the Sony A7 is a paltry 465g. So the prism and film wind mechanicals might account for it.
  • Oly OM2 = 520g
  • Sony A7 = 465g
  • Oly EM5 = 425g
 
Last edited:
Dave Semmens said:
I have seen Tony Northrup's review and he struggled to get focus repeatedly on a subject moving towards him.

I owned one and moved over to DSLR for wildlife after being disappointed with the tracking.

Not sure if any firmware updates have happened since that may have improved it???
Click to expand...
Interesting. I've seen an read reviews that says it has very good af system
 
Guys, thank you very much for the info and advice. Apologies for taking so long to get back and thank you all as i was out of the country for a period of time, not going to lower my standards by having a go at a member having a go at myself for not getting back in the post, we will just leave it at that.

Dave i was happy with your response on a specific post in this thread. As i beginner i will have to go and do alot more research on some of the things said here which i will, people could say 'why didnt you just do that in the first place'...i could have but then why would i want to be on a photography forum and not ask for advice from people that know what they are talking about?

Having mixed reviews on the topic, i will have to really think if i want to move to it or just upgrade my gear for the D400 i have just now. I know this camera is behind in todays tech but i have never had any problems with it and im happy with the joy i get quality wise

Was asked at the beginning about more info needed on what i want to do with it, at the moment i am a resident photographer in a local night club so alot of low light photography here. I have 2 small kids that are great practice subjects and i enjoy just going for a wonder and taking pictures of anything i think would make a good photo. Dont know if this info would help but at the moment this is where i am at

Again guys i thank you for sending your advice
 
If you're planning to stay with Canon, and your 'low light' is without flash, the 6d would be my recommendation. However, as you're likely to be using flash in a nightclub, then the 7d is the bargain camera at the moment of whatever marque.
 
I've been looking at the 7d, was told by a work mate to go for the 5d mk1 which is why I started the thread about differences on the FF. I like the look of the 7d very much
 
sandychristiephotography said:
I've been looking at the 7d, was told by a work mate to go for the 5d mk1 which is why I started the thread about differences on the FF. I like the look of the 7d very much
Click to expand...
The 7d is a much more capable tool than the 5d, the 5d's IQ is slightly better in some respects. But then if ultimate IQ was the only measure that mattered we'd all be shooting 10x8.
 
sandychristiephotography said:
I've been looking at the 7d, was told by a work mate to go for the 5d mk1 which is why I started the thread about differences on the FF. I like the look of the 7d very much
Click to expand...

the 5D mk1 is a nice enough camera but its old now, the 7Dmk1 and mk2 and the 6D all out perform it (hell so do the 50D, 60D and 70D.. and possibly the newer xxxDs though i wouldnt know aboiut them)

In your shoes i'd go with a 7D (mk 1s are bargainous second hand, mk 2s are very nice but pricey) . If you did want to go full frame i'd save up for a 6D or look out for 5D2s and 5D3s coming up second hand as the 5DS launches
 
Came from film era I only shoot with FF because I'm so used to its focal length, aperture and DoF combination I know what I'm going to get before shooting, 5D has served me extremely well, for what it costs now it's just too good value for money... But that's just me:)
 
I've gone full frame and haven't looked back.
 
simple - if you don't get an FX you will feel that you are loosing out
 
BillN_33 said:
simple - if you don't get an FX you will feel that you are loosing out
Click to expand...

nah , rubbish ... ive got a FX (6D) but to be honest I probably use the crop cameras more ... end of the day a camera is a camera is a camera , and you can take good or bad shots with anything from a micro compact sensor through to 10x8 large format. all formats and models have strengths and weakneses but theres no one which is better than the rest
 
big soft moose said:
nah , rubbish ... ive got a FX (6D) but to be honest I probably use the crop cameras more ... end of the day a camera is a camera is a camera , and you can take good or bad shots with anything from a micro compact sensor through to 10x8 large format. all formats and models have strengths and weakneses but theres no one which is better than the rest
Click to expand...

feel and are ....... are two different things

that's why I take the Sigma DP3M .... sometimes
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
nah , rubbish ... ive got a FX (6D) but to be honest I probably use the crop cameras more ... end of the day a camera is a camera is a camera , and you can take good or bad shots with anything from a micro compact sensor through to 10x8 large format. all formats and models have strengths and weakneses but theres no one which is better than the rest
Click to expand...
Well for me a full frame is better then crops or smaller sensors
 
jonneymendoza said:
Well for me a full frame is better then crops or smaller sensors
Click to expand...

depends what you are doing surely - I doubt any FX camera would be the best thing to put in your pocket to get embarrasing shots on your mates stag do
 
Some great difference of opinions here, to be honest I'm still unsure as to what would suit me best, especially with the low light in the clubs. Will need to do a lot more research on this but all your points have been taken on board
 
sandychristiephotography said:
Some great difference of opinions here, to be honest I'm still unsure as to what would suit me best, especially with the low light in the clubs. Will need to do a lot more research on this but all your points have been taken on board
Click to expand...
As I said in my post, the 'low light in the club' only matters until you break out the flash, so it's about your style.
I love creative flash at wedding receptions but I also love shooting available light.
 
FlyingShrapnel said:
same, the lowlight/high ISO capabilities win it for me. although i think 1.3x is a nice balance between "crop" which are 1.5 or 1.6, and FF. one step forwards or backwards and you are fine, i find it the best of both worlds :D
Click to expand...

I use both a 1dx (full frame) and the 1dkmiii (APS-H or 1.3x) and they both have their merits.

honestly, after using a micro four thirds as a test sample for a few weeks now versus a sony A7R..I really couldnt care less about sensor size anymore. the quality of the lenses used, sensor, and features of the camera are much more important.

unless you are printing monster prints or billboards I really see no real difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top