Need your opinion: DX/APS-C versus full frame DSLR's

[H.E. Pennypacker]

FWIW, I wasn't offended by the post that has managed to derail this thread. I understand Karrie's point, which I think is this: for cookie cutter snapshots, in most cases a P&S will give you just as good of results as a DSLR, without the extra size and weight. For the most part, I agree with this - on my last trip to WDW, I didn't take my Nikon, I took my little Lumix TZ3, and got some really great shots. I also got some really bad shots that probably would have been better if I had used my DSLR.

So... getting back on topic - Master Mason mentioned that the 5D is a bit "long in the tooth." Any idea when an updated 5D, or a similarly priced, full frame replacement to the 5D might be coming out?

 

[Master Mason]

My guess is after the the new year, typically they release new cameras twice a year not sure the exact months though

 

[Anewman]

So... getting back on topic - Master Mason mentioned that the 5D is a bit "long in the tooth." Any idea when an updated 5D, or a similarly priced, full frame replacement to the 5D might be coming out?

Canons Release history has shown a pattern of updating models on a 18 month cycle, but that is not set in stone or else the 5d replacement would have arrived 6 months ago.

 

[Master Mason]

Canons Release history has shown a pattern of updating models on a 18 month cycle, but that is not set in stone or else the 5d replacement would have arrived 6 months ago.

True, but with the release of the new 1 series full frame I personally expect it to follow in the next release of new cameras

not sure if it is good or bad that I don't have a spare 8 grand laying around for that one though, looks pretty nice

 

[Geoff_M]

Personally, unless I was primarily concerned with landscape photography, I would have zero interest in a "full-frame" dSLR. You can argue all you want about how photo site size impacts image quality, but sensor technology improvements seems to be same trajectory as CPU development in the 1990's. I remember people poo-poo'ing the D2x before it was launched that, because so many photo sites had been crammed into the APS-sized sensor that the image quality couldn't possibly be worth a hoot. While not the greatest camera since sliced bread, it's performance seemed to exceed a lot of the nay-sayers predictions.

My advice to you is to wait for a full set of images and some independent reviews to come out on the D300 and see if it's to your liking. While the D3 is getting most of the photo media attention right now, a lot of people think that the D300 may be a scene stealer based on price/performance.

 

[SharonLowe]

Getting in a bit late on this discussion - boy has it been a wild one

Anway, I shoot with a full frame Canon 1DsMkII; I love it for my professional work and use it for fun too. But, it is a bear to lug around WDW or most other places. There are times I think to myself that I wish I had a much lighter camera. But, the 5D is much lighter (lots of it due to using a smaller and lighter battery) and it is a wonderful camera (with a pretty short battery life).

Is a full frame worth the move from Nikon to Canon? I doubt it. First, as others have said, the 5D is due for a replacement. No idea when because they will want to get in those $8k orders in before offering a less expensive alternative. Plus, the 5D is still quite a bit more than the D300 and you will need a whole new set of lenses, which will be expensive. Full frame cameras are not at all forgiving on lens quality so you will have to get L lenses to do it justice, preferably primes. Use the money you save and get the widest good lens Nikon has and a panoramic head so you can take those really wide angle shots you want.

As for depth of field, I get that knowing how to use the aperture of my lenses, no matter the size of my sensor....

 

[Karrie Davis]

Anewman - my son is now 4 and he can read but it was not him who read it. It was my 12 year old niece who is staying with me while my baby sister goes through medical treatments to hopefully save her life. My children should have been said as "the minors living in my home who are under the age of of reading email that have cuss words or things like f%*& you you stupid B %&@#" - and no I will NOT post that email as it was the worst of 2 I got. The other was more about me being a jerk and a snob and that they would never do business with me and that my posting lost me lots of business. They were both uncalled for. Why don't you just leave me alone now - I have said sorry and fully explained where I was coming from. Sorry I have not updated my sons age or that I have other minors living in my home. My 12 year old niece is on this forum a lot too, she and my nephew are going us on our upcoming trip this winter since they are now under my roof......

Thanks every one else for understanding what I was trying to say.

I would appreciate no more emails and no more posting picking me apart.

 

[Groucho]

FWIW, I wasn't offended by the post that has managed to derail this thread. I understand Karrie's point, which I think is this: for cookie cutter snapshots, in most cases a P&S will give you just as good of results as a DSLR, without the extra size and weight.

I wouldn't even go that far, Disney parks are challenging to shoot and test the limits of PnS cameras all the time. (Just look at how many new visitors pop in with complaints about their camera being too slow, or making pictures that are too noisy, or too blurry, or both...)

For me, it's all about the sensor. Until PnS cameras start having sensors that aren't as outlandishly tiny as they are, I'd going to continue to suggest that people who want better quality should go to a DSLR. If they don't want to learn the in-and-outs, fine - keep it on Auto or the scene modes, but you'll definitely get much sharper photos. (I did a comparo a few months ago of WDW shots with my 6mp DSLR and my wife's and sister's 6mp PnSs with some examples.)

Now that I've said that - about depth of field and specifically bokeh, shouldn't that be the same on a full-frame vs a APS-sensor DSLR? The non-digital lenses are putting exactly the same image onto the sensor as you'd get on a full-frame, the only difference is that the edges don't hit the sensor and are effectively cropped - so the bokeh (and everything else about the image) ought to be exactly the same?

Back on the original topic, the advantages of full-frame are obvious, a bigger sensor can mean greater sharpness and detail and 35mm lenses will retain the correct 35mm focal lengths (ie, a 16mm fisheye will show 180'), the downsides are that you don't get the extra "effective" zoom of the crop factor, the body will be bigger and heavier, there's no full-frame offering in-body image stabilization yet, and you won't want to use the smaller/lighter/(sometimes)cheaper digital-only lenses due to vignetting.

For a photographer not shooting things that'll be shown at poster-size, I doubt there's any real need for full-frame at this point. Heck, even Canon's $6,800 Mark 3 uses an APS sensor.

 

[Master Mason]

Now that I've said that - about depth of field and specifically bokeh, shouldn't that be the same on a full-frame vs a APS-sensor DSLR? The non-digital lenses are putting exactly the same image onto the sensor as you'd get on a full-frame, the only difference is that the edges don't hit the sensor and are effectively cropped - so the bokeh (and everything else about the image) ought to be exactly the same?

Groucho, the answer is no, a full frame will be better, just as medium format film was better than 35mm. It has something to do with "circle of confusion" but other than the fact that it exists, I haven't taken the time to understand it.

For a photographer not shooting things that'll be shown at poster-size, I doubt there's any real need for full-frame at this point. Heck, even Canon's $6,800 Mark 3 uses an APS sensor.

actuall the aps sensor is about 4500, the full frame new mark III runs about 8K.

 

[Groucho]

Groucho, the answer is no, a full frame will be better, just as medium format film was better than 35mm. It has something to do with "circle of confusion" but other than the fact that it exists, I haven't taken the time to understand it.

That darn circle of confusion still confuses me, I haven't taken the time to understand it either. I thought that the difference came from different sensors combined with lenses designed for those sensors. It just doesn't make sense to me that the same lens mounted on a full-frame vs an APS camera will produce a different image, assuming that the sensors are basically working the same and have similar pixels-per-square-inch.

actuall the aps sensor is about 4500, the full frame new mark III runs about 8K.

I was going by the price at Beach... $6,795 if I remember right. Regardless, that's certainly a "pro" camera that is still using APS, and it definitely costs a good chunk more than the 5d, at either number.

 

[boBQuincy]

The Circle of Confusion is an arbitrary thing, sometimes defined as what would look acceptably sharp on a print (or a monitor). It has to do with the degree of enlargement so even though the lens absolutely does project the exact same image on a sensor no matter what the size of the sensor, the COC changes depending on the size of the sensor.

Since the degree of enlargement depends on the size of the sensor, APS would have to be enlarged more than full-frame and so would have a smaller circle of confusion. Full-frame is not really better, it just allows more enlargement before the COC causes apparent unsharpness. On a small enough print there would be no apparent difference, just like on our 800x600 online images there is no real COC difference between APS, FF, and probably P&S sensors.

 

[Geoff_M]

To further illustrate that a FF sensor is not inherently "better" than an APS-sized one, look at Bjørn Rørslett tests comparing the then new Nikon D2x 12 MP "APS" dSLR against the Canon 1Ds Mk II 16(!) MP "FF" camera. See: Link

The smaller-sized lower pixel-count camera, in Bjørn's tests, produced images that held their own, or where even better in some cases, against the camera with the "full-frame" sensor.

 

[Master Mason]

never mind...looked at it wrong

 

[Anewman]

Anewman - my son is now 4 and he can read...

I would address this in PM but do not want to be mistakenly accused of sending hateful messages.

I never mentioned his age and I am not saying he CAN NOT read just that it was awfully young to read EMAIL... but now I am just trying to figure out how your son turned 4 if he turned 2 1/2 years old on August 2nd 2006.

My husband was not sure if we should go this year because our son might me a tad shy of the 40 inch mark too. I got the unofficial guide to Disney and realized how MUCH there is to still do. We went last year as well and did not realize all the great rides without the book, we missed so much that we WILL NOT miss this year We will be there in November and my son is 38 1/2 inches with out shoes but he will be 2 ½ on august 2nd so I am pretty sure he will grow

I did not know about your niece and nephew since your recent posts about getting a house for your December trip specifically mentioned that only your family of 3 were going.


There was not need for any profanity laced emails period, regardless of kids reading them or not. But there is no need to make it seem more dramatic than it actually is either, because in the end it can take all credibility down and then some might even doubt the existence of the alleged emails.