Hi,
At this time, at least to my knowledge, Canon is the only company using a "full frame" chip.

Why full frame in the first place?

Good question. It's been tested and proven that the Canon's are no better than the Nikon's. If anything Canon photographers have a tendency to complain about Canon wide angle lenses and some have had Nikon's converted to Canon mount. Before I start a war, I'm referencing numerous threads about this on the PDN forum.

I personally have a Nikon D200 and use the 20mm 2.8 (30mm equivalent) for a normal lens and the 12mm-24mm (18mm-36mm equivalent) for a wide angle and it's a great lens.

I'm not telling you to use Nikon, just to investigate both systems and not let full frame be the deciding factor.

Larry,

No war, but I have a Canon 5D, largely because I had Canon F1's and then Canon EOS for years before digital and a large investment in lenses for the 35mm format. So, cheaper for me to buy the 5D body than a bunch of new lenses for APS-C sensor size. And I would admit some of the Canon wide a angle zooms for full-frame/35mm leave something to be desired. But the 20-35MM f/2.8 I've had for some years is excellent, as good as using single focal length wide angles. Never the less a wide angle shorter than 20mm produces sensor chromatic flare artifacts around the perimeter of the frame with a 5D. No big deal though as the artifacts clean up easily in processing the Raw files.

The bottom line is a full frame allows you to use legacy lenses for 35mm and obtain the same results. In other words good for old dogs that don't like to learn new tricks needlessly.

Quote:
Larry,

No war, but I have a Canon 5D, largely because I had Canon F1's and then Canon EOS for years before digital and a large investment in lenses for the 35mm format. So, cheaper for me to buy the 5D body than a bunch of new lenses for APS-C sensor size. And I would admit some of the Canon wide a angle zooms for full-frame/35mm leave something to be desired. But the 20-35MM f/2.8 I've had for some years is excellent, as good as using single focal length wide angles. Never the less a wide angle shorter than 20mm produces sensor chromatic flare artifacts around the perimeter of the frame with a 5D. No big deal though as the artifacts clean up easily in processing the Raw files.

The bottom line is a full frame allows you to use legacy lenses for 35mm and obtain the same results. In other words good for old dogs that don't like to learn new tricks needlessly.

living in the land of ex wives and too many other vices to count I went the same route as you did. I shot 35mm film with a coulple Pentaxes for eons (and maybe a couple more), but a buddy and I took a plunge and bought a couple Nikons.
Learned rapidly to hate the N-80 about as much as it gets.
The other guy finally sent his to the pawnshop. But I had four or five lenses along with the camera body, and my move was naturally into a Nikon or something that used their lenses. I bought a Fuji S3 body and a Sigma lense (as if I needed another. Now I was happy (well almost happy). Had several nice lenses to go along with the new body. Maybe it's being on the cheap, I don't know but it worked for me.
Still If Pentax had of came out with the 10meg camera 2 years sooner I'd probably have gone that route instead.
As for the other poster's comment about digital being the best thing for him; the jury's still out at my house. I love my 35mm's, but love the convience of the digitals better. But later in life I've discovered the medium format, and it's a whole new ball game. Right now the pictures are nothing to right home about, but it's a brand new learning curve for me. You've got to keep learning thru out life or you become stagnent.
So what will my next camera be? Dave has an idea, as I told him once. I'm really interested in the tilt screen LCDs that are hitting the market (Olympus & Fuji have them
out right now). I probably will never be changing lenses in the one I buy, and It will be for nothing but indoors B&W.
know the post went long, but did it anyway
gary