Full frame DSLRs not always a good idea?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

First of all, this all presumes you have to make shots that
(for lack of a suitable telephoto, etc) need cropping.

Popular Photography had an article which basically stated that a
partial-frame sized DSLR (sensor smaller than 35mm film)could be as
effective or more so than a full-frame DSLR under some circumstances.
While wide angle lens characteristics with film are preserved by
having a full-frame DSLR, (you don't have to go out and buy hugely
expensive ultrawide angle lenses to preserve your "normal" wide
angles as you do when you switch from film to a partial-frame DSLR).

But when it comes to telephotos, you could find yourself having to
crop less, owing to the way telephotos "become" longer focal length
lenses when used with a DSLR with a smaller-than-film CCD/CMOS sensor.

So, the net effect is that the high pixel count of the full-frame DSLR
is effectively reduced because of the cropping to the point where you
might actually have fewer pixels for an image than if you'd used a
DSLR with a smaller sensor. The writer produced a spread sheet
showing the effects of having to crop an image produced with a
full-frame DSLR.
Another issue is the physicality of telephoto lenses.
A guy with a light 200mm telephoto and a small-frame DSLR
could produce a similar photo to a fellow with a heavy 300mm
tele and a full-frame DSLR while having to manage considerably less
weight.
But I was thinking that you could take this to extremes. A guy
with a 5 megapixel prosumer and a 12x zoom lens could conceivably
produce a more detailed shot than the people with the DSLRs simply
because he was able to fill more of the frame with the part of
the shot that was needed. At what point do trade-offs (overall image
quality of the camera) = the benefits of not having to crop?

It might be interesting to shoot scenes requiring various crop levels
and see how different cameras peform while using the same focal length
lenses. Could the Rebel XT "beat" the Canon EOS 1Ds on certain shots?
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> Popular Photography [...]

One is tempted to say this is the "Weekly World News" of the
photographic press. However, the WWN is _intended_ to be a joke, while
PP simply _is_ a joke...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:54 -0600, "Sheldon"
<sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:kafk81hj4q7cv6f7mb60gd613p2t25qlha@4ax.com...
>> First of all, this all presumes you have to make shots that
>> (for lack of a suitable telephoto, etc) need cropping.
>>
>> Popular Photography had an article which basically stated that a
>> partial-frame sized DSLR (sensor smaller than 35mm film)could be as
>> effective or more so than a full-frame DSLR under some circumstances.
>> While wide angle lens characteristics with film are preserved by
>> having a full-frame DSLR, (you don't have to go out and buy hugely
>> expensive ultrawide angle lenses to preserve your "normal" wide
>> angles as you do when you switch from film to a partial-frame DSLR).
>>
>> But when it comes to telephotos, you could find yourself having to
>> crop less, owing to the way telephotos "become" longer focal length
>> lenses when used with a DSLR with a smaller-than-film CCD/CMOS sensor.
>>
>> So, the net effect is that the high pixel count of the full-frame DSLR
>> is effectively reduced because of the cropping to the point where you
>> might actually have fewer pixels for an image than if you'd used a
>> DSLR with a smaller sensor. The writer produced a spread sheet
>> showing the effects of having to crop an image produced with a
>> full-frame DSLR.
>> Another issue is the physicality of telephoto lenses.
>> A guy with a light 200mm telephoto and a small-frame DSLR
>> could produce a similar photo to a fellow with a heavy 300mm
>> tele and a full-frame DSLR while having to manage considerably less
>> weight.
>> But I was thinking that you could take this to extremes. A guy
>> with a 5 megapixel prosumer and a 12x zoom lens could conceivably
>> produce a more detailed shot than the people with the DSLRs simply
>> because he was able to fill more of the frame with the part of
>> the shot that was needed. At what point do trade-offs (overall image
>> quality of the camera) = the benefits of not having to crop?
>>
>> It might be interesting to shoot scenes requiring various crop levels
>> and see how different cameras peform while using the same focal length
>> lenses. Could the Rebel XT "beat" the Canon EOS 1Ds on certain shots?
>> -Rich
>
>IMHO I think there's a flaw in these theories. While the facts may be true,
>most "good" photographers will try and frame their photos properly right
>from the start, only cropping to fine tune the photo.
>
>As for the smaller image sensor in many DSLR cameras, this may very well
>become the new standard, or so I've read.
>

In the same issue, they had a guy who photographs NASCAR races. No
way could he always frame his subjects properly, because of the size
of the track, even with a 600mm tele. But then he used a Nikon D1x's
only.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:-OqdnS4MnaR4zRffRVn-pw@comcast.com...
<snip>
> As for the smaller image sensor in many DSLR cameras, this may very well
> become the new standard, or so I've read.
>

If thats the case, then Canon better bring out an EF-S 10-22 f2.8L and an
EF-S 28mm f1.4 prime.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:udml81515vcdkrpjvlb89qgqpes83ke02d@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:54 -0600, "Sheldon"
> <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>news:kafk81hj4q7cv6f7mb60gd613p2t25qlha@4ax.com...
>>> First of all, this all presumes you have to make shots that
>>> (for lack of a suitable telephoto, etc) need cropping.
>>>
>>> Popular Photography had an article which basically stated that a
>>> partial-frame sized DSLR (sensor smaller than 35mm film)could be as
>>> effective or more so than a full-frame DSLR under some circumstances.
>>> While wide angle lens characteristics with film are preserved by
>>> having a full-frame DSLR, (you don't have to go out and buy hugely
>>> expensive ultrawide angle lenses to preserve your "normal" wide
>>> angles as you do when you switch from film to a partial-frame DSLR).
>>>
>>> But when it comes to telephotos, you could find yourself having to
>>> crop less, owing to the way telephotos "become" longer focal length
>>> lenses when used with a DSLR with a smaller-than-film CCD/CMOS sensor.
>>>
>>> So, the net effect is that the high pixel count of the full-frame DSLR
>>> is effectively reduced because of the cropping to the point where you
>>> might actually have fewer pixels for an image than if you'd used a
>>> DSLR with a smaller sensor. The writer produced a spread sheet
>>> showing the effects of having to crop an image produced with a
>>> full-frame DSLR.
>>> Another issue is the physicality of telephoto lenses.
>>> A guy with a light 200mm telephoto and a small-frame DSLR
>>> could produce a similar photo to a fellow with a heavy 300mm
>>> tele and a full-frame DSLR while having to manage considerably less
>>> weight.
>>> But I was thinking that you could take this to extremes. A guy
>>> with a 5 megapixel prosumer and a 12x zoom lens could conceivably
>>> produce a more detailed shot than the people with the DSLRs simply
>>> because he was able to fill more of the frame with the part of
>>> the shot that was needed. At what point do trade-offs (overall image
>>> quality of the camera) = the benefits of not having to crop?
>>>
>>> It might be interesting to shoot scenes requiring various crop levels
>>> and see how different cameras peform while using the same focal length
>>> lenses. Could the Rebel XT "beat" the Canon EOS 1Ds on certain shots?
>>> -Rich
>>
>>IMHO I think there's a flaw in these theories. While the facts may be
>>true,
>>most "good" photographers will try and frame their photos properly right
>>from the start, only cropping to fine tune the photo.
>>
>>As for the smaller image sensor in many DSLR cameras, this may very well
>>become the new standard, or so I've read.
>>
>
> In the same issue, they had a guy who photographs NASCAR races. No
> way could he always frame his subjects properly, because of the size
> of the track, even with a 600mm tele. But then he used a Nikon D1x's
> only.
> -Rich

Hey, the cars are just going around in circles. Gotta be easier than
chasing a two-year-old around the living room. :-)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:u8qn81d9f0l6khctf56itasv5an2tp92k5@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:46:26 GMT, "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> >news:-OqdnS4MnaR4zRffRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> ><snip>
> >> As for the smaller image sensor in many DSLR cameras, this may very
well
> >> become the new standard, or so I've read.
> >>
> >
> >If thats the case, then Canon better bring out an EF-S 10-22 f2.8L and an
> >EF-S 28mm f1.4 prime.
>
> Big question is pricing. Lenses designed to support smaller sensors
> "should" be cheaper at the same given f-ratio as lenses designed to
> support full-frame or 35mm film, but they aren't. Just ask Olympus.
> -Rich
> >

I am saying that this needs to change if Canon honestly plans to stick to
the 1.6x FOVC sensors. Its not the price I am complaining about, its the
fact that I cannot get the combination of a 16-35mm (on a 35mm equiv) and
still have the f2.8 stop. If they offered an EF-S 10-22mm f2.8L I would pay
$1000+ for this lens - I would even pay up to what the 16-35mm f2.8L costs
($1400). The complaint I have is this:

If the only (digital) cameras that are accessible to most people have the
smaller sensor (ie ones that dont cost $8000), then there needs to be a good
selection of ultra-wide and FAST glass. We're talking about buying $1500
bodies and $1000+ lenses. There needs to be an "L" line of EF-S lenses, with
"L" being fast apertures, high quality construction and better image
quality. I will not spend good money ($600+) on f/4 glass with a cheap
plastic construction. There are just a lot of things I cannot do with
apertures smaller than f2.8.

Musty.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 17 May 2005 20:03:04 -0500, Sizer <sizer@nospam.com> wrote:

>In this very specific case of you having only a 200mm lens and really
>needing 400mm zoom and not having have a teleconverter, a smaller frame
>DSLR has an advantage over a equivalent number of megapixels full frame
>DSLR. You effectively get a 1.5x (depending on your frame size)
>teleconverter for free.

No the small frame DSLR doesn't have any advantage here. Just shoot
the same image with the same 200mm lens with each camera.

Both cameras will have the same sized image on their sensor's. But the
full-frame DSLR owner will have a few more pixels around the edge of
the subject to choose their crop.

The smaller frame owner does NOT get a *free* upgrade to a 300mm lens,
all they get is a fixed crop of the same image.

Steve

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steve Gouldstone <nospam@langdaledesigns.co.uk> wrote:

> Both cameras will have the same sized image on their sensor's. But the
> full-frame DSLR owner will have a few more pixels around the edge of
> the subject to choose their crop.
>
> The smaller frame owner does NOT get a *free* upgrade to a 300mm lens,
> all they get is a fixed crop of the same image.

Which is the same thing as using a 300mm lens, at a lower resolution.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in
news:tvRie.90350$AE6.112@tornado.texas.rr.com:

> "Sizer" <sizer@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> full frame for the pros, smaller frame for the enthusiasts.
> Why is that exactly? I am an "enthusiast" and I see 35mm frame DSLR in
> my not so far future (only the $8K price is an issue for me right now,
> not the need). Also, you can bet that there are many pros that cannot
> warrant spending $8K on a body.

Well okay... I was considering spending $8 on a body for hobby work a
little bit beyond mere 'enthusiast'. If I could get a EOS 1Ds Mark II or
D2X without worrying about the cost I'd be there in a flash too! The nice
thing about being a pro there is that you can write the cost off on your
taxes.