Size does make a difference.
Please comment briefly on this issue.
- Log in or register to post comments
I am using a DSLR with an APS-C sensor and frankly find the mulitplication factor such sensors impose on telephoto lenses highly useful.I've regained wide angle capability by purchasing a 12-24 mm zoom and now have a system with a focal length range from 18 to 600 mm.
I shot 35mm with my Olympus OM system and there was never a digital that used them. This freed me to make a choice based entirely on the new technology. I bought into the digital specific lenses of the E system and have been a very happy camper.
There are pros and cons to each type of sensor. The biggest issue for me continues to be cost. The new Canon 5D is predicted to have a street price in excess of $3000. Digital SLR prices need to come down significantly before I will buy one.
I'm actually surprized it's taking so long for full frame to filter down this far. Given the choice, full frame would make or brake a purchase for me. APS-C is great for telephoto, but the higher res full frame image is crop-able to achieve the same affect (with 20D res). It's much easier to take away from than to add on to. All in all, I consider full frame to be a much more versatile format.
Although I am an infant too photography, I don't see the overall benifit to paying $3500 for a slower camera that has a "full frame" sensor. I currently own a 20D and am looking into getting the 1Dn. Now what I think would have really turned the world of photography on its head would have been if Canon put the "full frame" sensor on the 1Dn. Wow 12 meaga pixels and 45/22 burst and 8.5 frames a second.
If I understand this subject correctly, this would mean that a 75-300 zoom would be the same regardless of whether you are using a DSLR or a film SLR - as opposed to having a 1.6 factor, such as with the Canon 20D which converts a 75 -300 mm lens to the equivalent of a 120 - 480 lens. A "full frame" sensor for a DSLR negates the reason for spending mega bucks for DSLR's. An important reason for buying a DSLR is so that you can get away with a smaller focal length and therefore a lighter lens than you would need for a film SLR.
I own Canon. The first to provide (Nikon or Canon)a full frame SLR for under $2000 will get my business. If it is Nikon, I'll wait 4 months to see if Canon acts. If not, I'll sell my gear and switch to Nikon. If Canon, then I'll simply buy the body, and enjoy my lenses.
You can expect that the performance and lens characteristics of the DX format will outway the wide angle and 3200 ISO advantage of the full frame. Same reason why the present digital medium format sales are horible. There is simply no practical advantage unless your printing on huge paper and what percentage of photographers (including pros) do this. Ever look through the finder on a D2X. It is as good or better than any full frame Canon DSLR. The full frame is a "I have it and you dont" marketing item. Kudos to Canon for using it. Go out and try a 12-24 or 10-24 wide angle zoom on a Canon or Nikon DX format system and advise the world what it is that is comprimised.
I presume that a full frame sensor is larger than an APS-C size sensor which would make it less likely to produce noise. In addition wide-angle lenses likely remain as wide as they say they are. On the other hand, the APS-C sensor enables telephoto lenses to be "more telephoto". I conclude that what kinds of shooting you primarily do will influence your decision about what to buy. However, if you love your shooting and want to be able to do the best of all kinds of shooting, you'll want both kinds of cameras and a large inheritance.
As a photographer who uses both film and digital equipment, and uses predominately prime lenses, this was a major factor in my choice of the Kodak DCS Pro 14n. For photographers who use zooms, this will be of less importance, and for those who shoot only digital, it won't even be considered.