Full Frame Advantage?

[Suhit Gupta]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

"If you just want to make great photos of things that matter, don't worry about this baloney and get whatever you find convenient. I use my D40 and its kit lens or my 18-200mm VR 90% of the time for my photos that matter. In the few rare cases that something will sit around and wait for me, I'll pull out my klunky Canon 5D or 4x5" view camera. I haven't had my 4x5" fired up in over a year, but I use my D40 daily, and even when my D3 arrives, I expect that I'll still use the D40 most of the time. The D40 is easier and more fun since it's so light. The only way to see any of these pixel differences is when you've already got a flawless shot, and then only when printed really big and you're looking too closely. Don't start counting pixels until you can make the right pixels. I was an idiot and wasted my first 15-20 years of shooting worrying about the wrong things, like resolution instead of color. This is why I so strongly caution you not to get caught up in this foolishness. This article, like many of mine, deals with minor technical issues."

Maybe I should have titled this post "More Expensive Cameras Take Better Pictures" because I find that full frame is usually only available for a premium, no matter what category of cameras you are considering. There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that the Canon 5D's of the world take better pictures, even with inferior supporting hardware. But it is nice to read this article that lays out why and with arguments for both sides. Of course, this doesn't mean that we should rush to throw out our non-full frame cameras but it is worth remembering that lenses are very expensive and you may want to go with a slightly cheaper setup but invest more in the body.

[Suhit Gupta]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

"If you just want to make great photos of things that matter, don't worry about this baloney and get whatever you find convenient. I use my D40 and its kit lens or my 18-200mm VR 90% of the time for my photos that matter. In the few rare cases that something will sit around and wait for me, I'll pull out my klunky Canon 5D or 4x5" view camera. I haven't had my 4x5" fired up in over a year, but I use my D40 daily, and even when my D3 arrives, I expect that I'll still use the D40 most of the time. The D40 is easier and more fun since it's so light. The only way to see any of these pixel differences is when you've already got a flawless shot, and then only when printed really big and you're looking too closely. Don't start counting pixels until you can make the right pixels. I was an idiot and wasted my first 15-20 years of shooting worrying about the wrong things, like resolution instead of color. This is why I so strongly caution you not to get caught up in this foolishness. This article, like many of mine, deals with minor technical issues."

Maybe I should have titled this post "More Expensive Cameras Take Better Pictures" because I find that full frame is usually only available for a premium, no matter what category of cameras you are considering. There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that the Canon 5D's of the world take better pictures, even with inferior supporting hardware. But it is nice to read this article that lays out why and with arguments for both sides. Of course, this doesn't mean that we should rush to throw out our non-full frame cameras but it is worth remembering that lenses are very expensive and you may want to go with a slightly cheaper setup but invest more in the body.

[jeffd]

Originally Posted by Suhit Gupta

"More Expensive Cameras Take Better Pictures"

yea thats usualy covers it. I pretty much got started with digital photography (that is, my first digital camera that I bought) was canons Powershot A40. Its 2 megapixles was about half the norm but the quality and color in the picture exceeded most 4MP cameras. I am using canons S3 now, its quite a new battle when you get into really high resolutions when even good cameras still exhibit noise and fringe that you gotta fight with.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by jeffd

I am using canons S3 now, its quite a new battle when you get into really high resolutions when even good cameras still exhibit noise and fringe that you gotta fight with.

All P&S cameras, the S3 included, will take noisy pictures compared to even the most basic DSLR on the market. If you worry about such things, then DSLR is your only real option.

[Jason Dunn]

Ken Rockwell sure knows how to write articles that inspire commentary!

This article was interesting, but I don't know how much stock I'd really place in it.
Comparing a D200 to a 5D is pretty ridiculous - the 5D costs twice as much (give or take), but more importantly, it uses a CMOS sensor while the D200 uses a CCD sensor. I did some quick tests yesterday comparing my D200 to my D300, using the same lens, and exactly the same settings, and the difference between the two at ISO 1600 is very apparent (in favour of the D300).

So, as Suhit says, more expensive cameras take better pictures.

[yslee]

Ken Rockwell is a bit like Michael Moore. Agreeable premise, terrible arguments. He's lead people around before, and once posted some absolute nonsense and took it down without a word on why. Therefore pardon me if I don't find his arguments convincing or trustworthy.

In this case he's arguing that lenses cannot resolve as well on to high-density sensors. He may have a point, but the difference in processing, imager type, and potential bias (like I said, I no longer trust him), it's hard to say if it matters as much. Add to the fact that most of us don't even have a proper tripod and head...