Is the Full Frame Sensor Here to Stay?

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/07/is-full-frame-t.html' target='_blank'>http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...ll-frame-t.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"In the wake of the introductions of Nikon's first two "full-frame" (FF) (~35mm sensor size) cameras, to add to Canon's two, the internet is awash in prognostications that "full frame is the coming thing" (or "the whole market is moving that way" or one of several other common phrasings). And that might be true...unless it isn't. It's equally possible that 35mm-size (~24x36mm) sensors will end up as an historically momentary diversion, an evolutionary dead-end; or a constant but smallish niche. In which case(s), full-frame won't have been the coming thing. So which is it? Impossible to tell. I mean literally impossible: the uncertainty is epistemologically absolute. No one knows what the future is going to hold in this regard. That doesn't stop it from being a fascinating question."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1215429803.usr14.jpg" border="1" alt="" /></p><p>Why do <em>I </em>want full frame - well so that the lenses that I buy actually turn out to give me the focal length that I paid for. I am positive that my next camera (most likely the Canon 5D update, unless Canon really screws up on the feature-set) is definitely going to be a full frame. There is also the depth of field argument that the article lays out which is quite tue. I would recommend reading the article, especially the hilarious telephoto lens theory. :-)</p>

[Jason Dunn]

Maybe I'm the odd one here, but I really *like* the 1.5x multiplier that I get with the sensor on my D300. It makes my Tamron 28-300 lens reach all the way to 450mm, which is an awesome amount of zoom without having an awesomely heavy lens. Sure, it would be nice to have my 50mm prime really be 50mm, but to compensate for that I just have to pick up a 28mm. :)

[marlof]

For telelenses, I totally agree with you, Jason. The 2.0 multiplier in my Olympus system makes my 50-200 f2.8-3.5 have a 100-400 field of view in a remarkable small package for such a reach, speed and weather sealing. Especially since I can't remember any need to go over ISO 800 (which is highly usable on my Olympus), I'm happy with my current system. But for everyday usage, I'd like to have an additional full frame small camera, with 28, 50 and 90 small primes. I don't mind if it's a rangefinder or SLR, but I would like it to be small enough to be unobtrusive. And not cost an arm and a leg...

[Jason Dunn]

But for everyday usage, I'd like to have an additional full frame small camera, with 28, 50 and 90 small primes. I don't mind if it's a rangefinder or SLR, but I would like it to be small enough to be unobtrusive. And not cost an arm and a leg...

Yes, I could see how that would be useful...though it seems that pretty much all full-frame sensors come in big, heavy, expensive packages.

[yslee]

Why does it have to be "full-frame"? Honestly this is just amazing techlust based on paper specs. Unless routine enlargements to 16x24 or larger is needed, the premium on full-frame isn't worth it. Heck, if lust for amazing image quality is called for, why not go larger, as what the article mentions? 2nd hand MF systems can be had for decent prices if you know where to look, and they come in even larger sensors.

Someone is going to argue with me over high ISOs, and I'm going to agree on that; if you're making a living from shooting celebs in dimly-lit nightclubs, go ahead. If you aren't, I'd like to say that most low-light situations have crap lighting which makes crap pictures.

Marlof, go bug Olympus for more small primes. I think the E420 with a 14/4 pancake and a 40/2.8 pancake makes a nice combination with the existing 25/2.8 pancake.

And the telephoto lens theory isn't hilarious. Trust me. I've seen people chase superteles, got full-frame, and then went out to get bigger superteles. They don't even print!

[marlof]

Why does it have to be "full-frame"?

For me, it doesn't. There's a reason why I spent that much money on my Olympus E-system setup. :-) Especially with the E-3, I no longer find resolution a problem, and the quality of the files is usually very good. But there are times when you just know that you'll have to meter the light very carefully to get a good print out of your E-system file, and you'd wish you'd have a bit more headroom in your files like you have with the D3 technology.

And yes, I'm really drawn to the E420 pancake and the tiny zooms, even when my type of picture taking makes me wish they'd be weather sealed. That camera isn't much larger than an M series. There are too many times when even aiming a middle-sized E-3 with 25 1.4 at the people makes them behave differently. The E-3 is about as big a camera as I'd like to carry, and a bit too big to be quite honest. In my experience, shooting with a small camera and lens helps in capturing spontanity. For me, the big size (and weight) was/is the main reason in not going for the otherwise excellent 14-35 f2. Even when I'm tempted and tempted again, since I'd love the extra DOF play you get with a constant f2 over my 2.8-4 12-60...

But in the end, my current setup is good enough to help me capture most of the image I'd like to take. And the quality is that good, that I should spend less on gathering more gadgets, and more on just taking pictures. I think that this will improve ones photography a lot more than yet another camera body or lens.

[Jason Dunn]

The E-3 is about as big a camera as I'd like to carry, and a bit too big to be quite honest. In my experience, shooting with a small camera and lens helps in capturing spontanity.

Heh. You cry then if you saw my D300 + battery grip + 24-70 lens...that's one BIG setup.

Here's my camera in "small" mode:

http://photos.jasondunn.com/gallery/5027042_q8a8Z#301828763_PDoz9-A-LB

Here's my camera in "big" mode:

http://photos.jasondunn.com/gallery/5027042_q8a8Z#301828763_PDoz9-A-LB

[yslee]

Now now, Jason, let's not get into a "whose camera is bigger (or smaller)" fight. :p

[marlof]

Heh. You cry then if you saw my D300 + battery grip + 24-70 lens...that's one BIG setup.

Add the necessary lens hood, and it's even worse.

[Jason Dunn]

Add the necessary lens hood, and it's even worse.

Actually, I'm not sure why people think lens hoods are necessary in all situations - I very rarely use mine, and I very, very rarely have any problems with lens flare. I guess if I had more lens flare problems I'd be more inclined to take the hood along...

[marlof]

Actually, I'm not sure why people think lens hoods are necessary in all situations - I very rarely use mine, and I very, very rarely have any problems with lens flare. I guess if I had more lens flare problems I'd be more inclined to take the hood along...

I'm not saying they're necessary in all situations. But lens hoods don't just help with flare, they help with contrast as well due to ambient light. Just take some test shots with a strong light coming in from the side, and shoot with and without the lenshood. Besides flare, take a look at the contrast of the resulting image. Sometimes you hardly notice the difference, but other times you really do. Since a lens hood doesn't hurt image quality, unless you're relying on your pop-up flash, and can really make a difference, my advise would be to use it as much as possible.

[Jason Dunn]

But lens hoods don't just help with flare, they help with contrast as well due to ambient light. Just take some test shots with a strong light coming in from the side, and shoot with and without the lenshood.

Interesting - that's the first I've heard of this, although I admit I've never researched the topic. I'll give it a try the next time I'm shooting!