To full frame or not to full frame....

[grum]

Thanks again everyone - I'm currently leaning towards a D90 - £540 with cashback at the moment. Seem to go for similar on ebay s/h so I guess I wouldn't lose too much if I end up selling. Bit of a dilemma re DX/FX lenses though - guess I could try and mostly get DX lenses s/h then I wouldn't lose much if I did end up going full frame at some point. According to Ken Rockwell ) ) it's a bit pointless to put FX lenses on a DX body, and vice versa.

Hmmm....

woof woof - what percentage do you reckon you use your DSLR compared to the GF1, just out of interest?

 

[HoppyUK]

<snip>

Anyway, glad we established that a micro four-thirds sensor is in fact smaller than an APS-C sensor.

Yes. Again, my apologies for brain fade

<snip>

That's always the poorest reason not to use an APS-C body. Of course full frame lenses are not wasted on crop sensor cameras. They take advantage of the sweet spot, for starters; there are a lot of lenses, even hallowed Canon Ls, that suffer vignetting and other issues wide open on FF that, of course, you won't get on an APS-C camera. And yes, the focal lengths do behave differently when going from crop to full frame, but they're still very usable, unlike DX/EF-S lenses!

Lenses first, bodies second, grum; the 40D (or D90 for that matter) represents amazing value at the moment, and would get your foot in the door with regards to a well supported SLR system.

I think that is skewed thinking, and out of date. It was certainly true with film cameras, as the camera was just a box to hold the film of your choice, but today the camera is also the film - you have to give both the camera/sensor and also the lens equal consideration.

In my view, passing up the advantages of EF-S and DX lenses because you might go full frame one day is flawed logic. It only applies at the wide end anyway, but to forego the undoubted excellence of, for example EF-S 10-22 and 17-55 2.8 IS, in favour of full frame alternatives like 17-40L or 24-105L is completely missing the point of the smaller format.

It would be different if the cost penalty for switching was prohibitive, but you can sell quality lenses like that on here in a flash and for good prices. I have done just that, and recently sold on both of those wonderful lenses - in the overall scheme of things it didn't cost much (I lost far more on the 40D body) and I enjoyed them while I had them, plus fellow TPers got a couple of bargains.

Thanks again everyone - I'm currently leaning towards a D90 - £540 with cashback at the moment. Seem to go for similar on ebay s/h so I guess I wouldn't lose too much if I end up selling. Bit of a dilemma re DX/FX lenses though - guess I could try and mostly get DX lenses s/h then I wouldn't lose much if I did end up going full frame at some point. According to Ken Rockwell ) ) it's a bit pointless to put FX lenses on a DX body, and vice versa.
Hmmm....

woof woof - what percentage do you reckon you use your DSLR compared to the GF1, just out of interest?

On this occasion, Ken is right!

 

[woof woof]

grum - "woof woof - what percentage do you reckon you use your DSLR compared to the GF1, just out of interest?"

If I'm going out specifically to take pictures by myself or on the odd occasion when I'm with another camera / photo geek, DSLR. If I'm going out with friends or family, GF1 or LX2 depending upon destination and environment. If I'm just shopping or going to work or something I'll have my Ixus in my pocket

 

[david1701]

They may be my preference, but I know guys who can't get on with Nikons and they're better photographers than I could ever hope to be...

thanks rob, thats really sweet

I personally would say 5d classic 28/1.8 85/1.8 and maybe a 50/1.4

5dII if you have more money and want to spend it

I can't do nikon it confuses me, but if you like the feel buy d700

 

[HoppyUK]

thanks rob, thats really sweet

I personally would say 5d classic 28/1.8 85/1.8 and maybe a 50/1.4

5dII if you have more money and want to spend it

I can't do nikon it confuses me, but if you like the feel buy d700

He's not talking about you David

 

[david1701]

He's not talking about you David

w/e haters

 

[Nifkin]

I think that is skewed thinking, and out of date. It was certainly true with film cameras, as the camera was just a box to hold the film of your choice, but today the camera is also the film - you have to give both the camera/sensor and also the lens equal consideration.

In my view, passing up the advantages of EF-S and DX lenses because you might go full frame one day is flawed logic. It only applies at the wide end anyway, but to forego the undoubted excellence of, for example EF-S 10-22 and 17-55 2.8 IS, in favour of full frame alternatives like 17-40L or 24-105L is completely missing the point of the smaller format.

It would be different if the cost penalty for switching was prohibitive, but you can sell quality lenses like that on here in a flash and for good prices. I have done just that, and recently sold on both of those wonderful lenses - in the overall scheme of things it didn't cost much (I lost far more on the 40D body) and I enjoyed them while I had them, plus fellow TPers got a couple of bargains.

Skewed thinking? Not at all; you're not really responding to my main point there. I certainly wouldn't pass up the advantages of a lens like the 17-55, coz I own that very one, amongst others, myself. But I also own ff lenses that I use on a crop sensor; there's far more choice of primes or telephotos, for example, in ff format than in DX/EF-S/DC, which work just as well on both formats, and in some (note the some) respects, better on APS-C.

However, my point wasn't to advocate the use of FF lenses exclusively on a crop sensor to the exclusion of very good DX/EF-S/DC lenses. My point was that FF lenses are far from wasted on an APS-C body, so there's no need to think that you should only use EF-S/DX/DC on a crop body. For one, that could very well make upgrading to FF in the future prohibitively expensive, and, lens selection-wise, if you plump for one format over the other you wouldn't necessarily be getting the best tool for the job.

 

[HoppyUK]

Skewed thinking? Not at all; you're not really responding to my main point there. I certainly wouldn't pass up the advantages of a lens like the 17-55, coz I own that very one, amongst others, myself. But I also own ff lenses that I use on a crop sensor; there's far more choice of primes or telephotos, for example, in ff format than in DX/EF-S/DC, which work just as well on both formats, and in some (note the some) respects, better on APS-C.

However, my point wasn't to advocate the use of FF lenses exclusively on a crop sensor to the exclusion of very good DX/EF-S/DC lenses. My point was that FF lenses are far from wasted on an APS-C body, so there's no need to think that you should only use EF-S/DX/DC on a crop body. For one, that could very well make upgrading to FF in the future prohibitively expensive, and, lens selection-wise, if you plump for one format over the other you wouldn't necessarily be getting the best tool for the job.

Let's be clear then. Though I'm not sure there's actually much to disagree about here

The advantage of crop-specific lenses only exists in shorter focal lengths, as that is only where there is significant optical benefit. Canon for example doesn't make any EF-S lens longer than 60mm (at the short end) - there's no point.

If you want a super-wide, less than 16mm or so, EF-S is your only option.

If you get eg a 17-40L instead of one of the EF-S standard zoom options, with a view to full frame in future, you end up with a beautifully made lens that is short of range, only f/4, and has no IS. Then when you put it on a full frame camera, it springs to life as a completely different (and superb) super-wide, so you have to replace the standard range anyway. It is not 'transferable' in the way some people seem to think, it is not a no-cost option.

In terms of the cost of changing lenses in the move to full frame, I sold my 40D for under £400, a loss of about 50%, and the 5D2 was £1500. Relatively speaking, the couple of hundred quid I lost in selling-on my EF-S lenses wasn't much of a consideration.

 

[david1701]

to nitpick theres the nikkor 12-24 and the ef14 tse and ef15 fishy

 

[boyfalldown]

to nitpick theres the nikkor 12-24 and the ef14 tse and ef15 fishy

to nit pick again the 12-24 is a crop format lens. There is a sigma FF 12-24 and a Nikkor 14-24 FX

 

[david1701]

to nit pick again the 12-24 is a crop format lens. There is a sigma FF 12-24 and a Nikkor 14-24 FX

I fail at nit picking

 

[HoppyUK]

to nitpick theres the nikkor 12-24 and the ef14 tse and ef15 fishy

And as usual, nitpicking misses the point being made (even if it was correct )

 

[david1701]

yeh but it was to mess with you, which is always an amazing point

 

[HoppyUK]

yeh but it was to mess with you, which is always an amazing point

Thanks David I'd never heard of any of those lenses, even the one you got wrong. Or the one for £2k that is such a good cost-saving option

 

[david1701]

Thanks David I'd never heard of any of those lenses, even the one you got wrong. Or the one for £2k that is such a good cost-saving option

I'm just an amazing lens geek

but yeah 5d2 rocks my socks so a 5d classic should be cool

 

[Nifkin]

Hoppy, nit-picking aside The only points I wished to make by posting in this thread were:

• An APS-C camera is still a viable upgrade for a number or reasons from a GF-1
  
• FF lenses are not 'wasted' on an APS-C camera

Now pleeeeease Hop, try to resist the temptation of quoting me again, highlighting (selectively) any of my sentences in bold in order to beat me with them I simply posted in this thread to add my opinions, as above (which can be taken or left), to everybody else's voices. I didn't expect to have everything I had to say pulled to pieces (starting off with accusing me of saying the GF-1 was a compact was an amusing one!)

You say you get professional results with a FF camera, I say you can also get pro results with a crop camera. As you said, there's not much to actually disagree about here

 

[bl0at3r]

As usual people spend far too much time on here pontificating and lusting instead of going outside with their cameras and taking photos :bang:

 

[david1701]

As usual people spend far too much time on here pontificating and lusting instead of going outside with their cameras and taking photos :bang:

to be fair I was pontificating at work

 

[woof woof]

Hmmm.

Full frame or crop? I wonder which is best?

There's only one way to find out...

 

[HoppyUK]

Hoppy, nit-picking aside The only points I wished to make by posting in this thread were:

• An APS-C camera is still a viable upgrade for a number or reasons from a GF-1
  
• FF lenses are not 'wasted' on an APS-C camera

Now pleeeeease Hop, try to resist the temptation of quoting me again, highlighting (selectively) any of my sentences in bold in order to beat me with them I simply posted in this thread to add my opinions, as above (which can be taken or left), to everybody else's voices. I didn't expect to have everything I had to say pulled to pieces (starting off with accusing me of saying the GF-1 was a compact was an amusing one!)

You say you get professional results with a FF camera, I say you can also get pro results with a crop camera. As you said, there's not much to actually disagree about here

Don't take it personally If you express opinions, you should expect folks to disagree with them from time time. I highlight stuff not to try and beat people up, but for easy reference of the context.

I made a mistake in assuming, briefly, that the GF-1 was APS-C and not 4/3rds, which led to some confusion. I apologised for that, and tried to explain.

I also explained why I think that using shorter focal length full frame lenses is not only wasting them on crop cameras, but also not making the most of the advantages of the smaller format.

That's not an opinion, it's a fact, which is why every manufacturer makes format specific lenses. Whether or not other considerations still make FF lenses a worthwhile option for some people, that's entirely up to them. They will, and indeed do, get excellent results but an awareness of the disadvantages can only help that choice. You seem to have ignored them completely.

 

[Nifkin]

Don't take it personally If you express opinions, you should expect folks to disagree with them from time time. I highlight stuff not to try and beat people up, but for easy reference of the context.

I made a mistake in assuming, briefly, that the GF-1 was APS-C and not 4/3rds, which led to some confusion. I apologised for that, and tried to explain.

I also explained why I think that using shorter focal length full frame lenses is not only wasting them on crop cameras, but also not making the most of the advantages of the smaller format.

That's not an opinion, it's a fact, which is why every manufacturer makes format specific lenses. Whether or not other considerations still make FF lenses a worthwhile option for some people, that's entirely up to them. They will, and indeed do, get excellent results but an awareness of the disadvantages can only help that choice. You seem to have ignored them completely.

Ummm, sorry? lol! Surely the question of the advantages or disadvantages of any given lens on an APS-C body, in terms of focal range, maximum aperture and IS (alluding to your example in post #48, which is what I guess you're referring to here), are issues to be decided on the basis of intended usage, which is down to, exactly as you say, personal choice? I really don't think me simply making the (general) point that FF lenses are not wasted on a crop means I've 'ignored completely' any disadvantage a given lens choice may have (bear in mind, and as I've already pointed out, I use - and advocate the use of - both crop and FF lenses on a crop body depending on the given job). So where did that come from??? :shrug:

Anyway, Hop, nothing taken personally, I can assure you! But, with no disrespect, I think you're willfully misinterpreting the general opinions I was expressing (or at least not taking in what I actually said) to create a debate out of not very much, and I really can't be bothered to do all the typing and quoting to point out how. But your point about 'it's not opinion, it's fact' applies to your whole approach to this subject, it seems; countering my very general opinions (which, coz they are very broad opinions, are neither right nor wrong) with what, to your mind, are relevant 'facts'. I'm all up for debate when there is a subject to be argued, but disecting my every utterance when all I was saying was don't write off APS-C as a viable option, and full-frame lenses are not as 'wasted' as you seem to think on crop sensors (remember, you said nothing about short focal length lenses specifically when you brought the subject up in post #20; that apparent shift of position came later), it just appears as if you're trying to win some non-existent argument, or at least are at pains to point out why your opinions are by far superior, heheheh

Anyway, take care

 

[david1701]

I think what he means is you pay for **** loads of glass the sensor can't see

 

[mastertrinity]

for a cheap FF option the sony a900 can be had along with a nice set of lenses (even minolta second hand) and you would be set up for all the photo scenarios you want.

 

[Nifkin]

I think what he means is you pay for **** loads of glass the sensor can't see

Nah; he just likes arguing the toss

 

[trencheel303]

I think what he means is you pay for **** loads of glass the sensor can't see

I don't see what the big deal is about that.

Do Canon have any EF-S telephoto lenses? (And I mean proper teles, not the 55-250 or some s***ey 18-200 POS). I'm pretty sure they don't and for good reason. Just because one uses a crop format doesn't mean they should stray away from lenses intended for 35mm. You get extra reach, and you miss out the worst parts of the lens - the edges - altogether!

It's not even as if APS-C lenses are smaller than 35mm lenses as a rule, either; the 17-55 is marginally larger and heavier than Canon's 17-40!

 

[Chaz Photos]

IMO all the pro-spec Nikons of the ungripped variety (D200/D300/D300s/D700) are streets ahead of the ungripped (40D/50D7D/5D) Canons. handling is very much a case of which ever catches you when you have a play, although I do think Nikons allow users with bigger hands to hold them comfortably.

How can you make such a sweeping statement like this have you used all of them and i not mean just had a play?
It always gets me when people say thing like this

Oh and I was not aware that the d200-700 are pro spec and how a grip makes any different to how it works... Oh hang on Nikons do need it to get the faster FPS i belive

 

[david1701]

How can you make such a sweeping statement like this have you used all of them and i not mean just had a play?
It always gets me when people say thing like this

Oh and I was not aware that the d200-700 are pro spec and how a grip makes any different to how it works... Oh hang on Nikons do need it to get the faster FPS i belive

nikon non d3 bodies have pro series AF a lot lower down the line ditto weathersealing d300>50d for those

the grip for fps thing is a bit meh for me as I rarely need fps

 

[david1701]

I don't see what the big deal is about that.

Do Canon have any EF-S telephoto lenses? (And I mean proper teles, not the 55-250 or some s***ey 18-200 POS). I'm pretty sure they don't and for good reason. Just because one uses a crop format doesn't mean they should stray away from lenses intended for 35mm. You get extra reach, and you miss out the worst parts of the lens - the edges - altogether!

It's not even as if APS-C lenses are smaller than 35mm lenses as a rule, either; the 17-55 is marginally larger and heavier than Canon's 17-40!

that might just be because its longer, f2.8 and has IS

theres more of an angle on wide lenses so its more noticable to see the effect

at 17mm on a 17-55 there is just enough glass to cover the frame, on a 17-40L theres way more glass than necesary which is really expensive, thats why I was saying if ef-s options as good are available they're worth considering, only really a factor for the 17-55IS and canon efs uwa thing

 

[HoppyUK]

I don't see what the big deal is about that.

Do Canon have any EF-S telephoto lenses? (And I mean proper teles, not the 55-250 or some s***ey 18-200 POS). I'm pretty sure they don't and for good reason. Just because one uses a crop format doesn't mean they should stray away from lenses intended for 35mm. You get extra reach, and you miss out the worst parts of the lens - the edges - altogether!

It's not even as if APS-C lenses are smaller than 35mm lenses as a rule, either; the 17-55 is marginally larger and heavier than Canon's 17-40!

The big deal, such as it is, is because the mirror's in the way. Which has a substantial impact on the optical compromises needed to make a short focal length lens that cannot get closer than about 40mm distance from the focal plane.

You have to have an inverted-telephoto design with all the difficulties that go with that. If you then have to make that lens cover the full frame format, you lose out on zoom range, the maximum aperture is reduced, and at the edges sharpness and vignetting are major headaches.

Being released from coverering a full frame sensor area, you are less compromised and can get more range, smaller/lighter/cheaper lenses, and/or lower f/number, better sharpness etc because the sweet spot is still there and just as sweet. For example, 17-55 2.8 would be impossible on full frame - closest you can get is the 16-35L 2.8, and that lens costs £1200; 15-85, 18-200 no chance at all.

These problems don't exist at longer focal lengths, hence no longer EF-S lenses. There's no benefit.

Edit: why are you comparing EF 17-40L f/4 with EF-S 17-55 f/2.8? The equivalent would be 27-88 f/2.8 and we know how big and expensive the current EF 24-70L f/2.8 is!

 

[Chaz Photos]

Canon 40D sensor size - 22.2 x 14.8 mm (3.28 cm²)


One thing you will notice is trying to match the IQ on the GF1+20mm combo with the DSLR+Kit Lens (if that's the route you go). I'd look at the Canon 17-55 f2.8 coupled to the 40D - undoubtedly the best walkabout Canon lens for a crop body - very, very, very sharp but probably still not quite up to the 20mm f1.7 on the panny.

Don't think this is a good comparative you take a zoom lens on a larger sensor and a prime lens on a small sensor. You have put the best lens for sharpness [ a wide prime] with the sensor that will give the greatest dof so it bound to be sharp now try and get a small dof with them both, it will be harder on the GF1

 

[woof woof]

Interesting.

Other companies make longer small sensor only lenses so maybe Canon will one day too? Or maybe they just shouldn't have gone for EF-S and should have just made the sort of small sensor lenses that Sigma, Tamron and Tokina make?

Given the number of 3rd party lenses that seem to pretty much equal or even better EF-S lenses I wonder what the advantage of EF-S is if any?

 

[Chaz Photos]

nikon non d3 bodies have pro series AF a lot lower down the line ditto weathersealing d300>50d for those

the grip for fps thing is a bit meh for me as I rarely need fps

don't think i was quoting you?:shrug: and your replay is not covering my main point

 

[david1701]

because they are streets ahead in almost all aspects (I personally think the 5d2 sensor is one of the best in existance mind).

All those bodies have the af we only get in the 1 series (/7d) and weather sealing we only get in the 1series (/7d) making them viable as pro bodies/backups while the 50d is inferior in every way, the 5d2 can be hit and miss and the 7d is a pretty good effort and has way superior noise handling to a d300 but thats about it

 

[straycat]

keep the gf1 and learn it inside out then buy a D700 with a 50mm f1.4 and learn that inside out [still keep the gf1 as well]

easier to get results with the gf1 than the D700 untill you know what you are doing,dont rush no need.

i left my D700 home and took my LX3 [only had it a day] to one of the darkest venues.
i had better photos than the chap next to me with a gf1 and the others with DSLR.you have to know what your doing.

took it out the next night [this time i was drinking] and kept experimenting.
in well lit venues i can use this withouth flash and get good shots with a gf1 even more so

 

[HoppyUK]

Interesting.

Other companies make longer small sensor only lenses so maybe Canon will one day too? Or maybe they just shouldn't have gone for EF-S and should have just made the sort of small sensor lenses that Sigma, Tamron and Tokina make?

Given the number of 3rd party lenses that seem to pretty much equal or even better EF-S lenses I wonder what the advantage of EF-S is if any?

Canon's EF-S lenses are designed to essentially the same spec as Nikon DX, Sigma DC and other manufacturer's crop format digital lenses.

I don't know of any third party lenses that are better in IQ terms than equivalent Canon EF-S, rather the reverse. But they tend to be cheaper, so better in that sense.

 

[woof woof]

You obviously haven't tried some of the better 3rd party lenses.

For example I swapped my 17-85mm EF-S for the much superior Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. The Canon lens was IMHO and in the opinion of some on line reviewers nothing special and indeed suffered from excessive distortion, at least one review site stated that it distorted more than any lens they'd ever tested.

My point was that EF-S intrudes into the body, other small sensor lenses don't and given that some of them are so good...for example the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, I wonder what advantage the intrusion gives.

PS. I'm sure that there are other examples of 3rd party lenses beating Canon for IQ. There's the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and 17-70mm and don't mention Canon's awful standard kit lens.

 

[trencheel303]

Perhaps that's something to do with the fact that 17-85 is a crap lens...?
I mean, a 2.8 17-50 is gonna be superior to a longer, variable aperture kit zoom - doesn't take einstein to work that out

Hoppy: Interesting points re lenses/format, thank you.

Straycat: Awesome first pic - loving the ISO noise!

 

[woof woof]

It's less than outstanding.

All I'm asking is what advantage EF-S and it's additional intrusion gives when other manufacturers seem to be able to produce lenses that stand comparison without the additional intrusion.

BTW. Nice to see that yet again you completely miss someones point. I'm beginning to see a bit of a pattern to your posts and I'm not the only one. Puzzling indeed.

 

[HoppyUK]

You obviously haven't tried some of the better 3rd party lenses.

For example I swapped my 17-85mm EF-S for the much superior Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. The Canon lens was IMHO and in the opinion of some on line reviewers nothing special and indeed suffered from excessive distortion, at least one review site stated that it distorted more than any lens they'd ever tested.

My point was that EF-S intrudes into the body, other small sensor lenses don't and given that some of them are so good...for example the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, I wonder what advantage the intrusion gives.

PS. I'm sure that there are other examples of 3rd party lenses beating canon for IQ. There's the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and 17-70 and don't mention Canons awful standard kit lens.

Ah, I'm with you now. But I don't think the comparison of the Canon 17-85 with Tamron's 17-50 2.8 is a good one - they're rather different. Canon's 17-55 2.8 is closer, and the Canon is considerably better (and has IS) but then there's a price difference too.

The physical intrusion of Canon EF-S lenses is mechanical rather than optical. I guess Canon would say it's not a disadvantage either, as all these crop format lenses produce a small image circle that is of no use on anything but a crop format camera, even if some of them will physically fit other bodies.

Edit: crossed post. Cheers Trenchers And I think you make a fair point

 

[trencheel303]

It's less than outstanding.

All I'm asking is what advantage EF-S and it's additional intrusion gives when other manufacturers seem to be able to produce lenses that stand comparison without the additional intrusion.

BTW. Nice to see that yet again you completely miss someones point. I'm beginning to see a bit of a pattern to your posts and I'm not the only one. Puzzling indeed.

I didn't miss the point of your post at all. Sure, I didn't address the whole thing but I fail to see how commenting on your comparing of two quite different lenses is 'missing the point'.

See Richard's post above. I suppose you'll tell him he missed the point too? Thought not.