New Canon full frame?

D.P. said:
You are wrong, in film SLRs there was such a thing as a crop sensor, it was called APS-C, funnily enough the same standard that was then used by Pentax, Nikon and Sony to make their APS-C crop cameras. Before digital cameras even existed Film SLRs were tanitioning to a crop format!

Were there any APS SLRs? I know there were compacts and even bridge cameras that used the APS system, but full SLRs?

Raymond Lin said:
I had a APS-C film camera, it came in a cartridge, it was convenient to load but the photo quality are rubbish. It's no where near as good as Fuji Reala or NPH or Velvia.
Click to expand...

Still have my APS camera, an Olympus Centurion, in the cupboard :) If you want old though, my first proper SLR was a Ricoh KR10, circa 1980 - that's how ancient I am :p
Click to expand...
 
Ksanti said:
There's no real use for resolution over a full frame camera with the exception of wall prints. Or ridiculously lazy framing followed by cropping in post but then nobody buying medium format will be that bad at photography. Also sensors getting cheaper doesn't mean glass will get cheaper - medium format glass will always average thousands and thosuands of pounds in costs.

35mm is the sweet spot for shallow depth of field - nothing is fast enough on medium format to give shallower depth of field than you get from an 85 1.2 or similar on 35mm. If it did exist you can be damned sure it would cost well over £10,000.

Also the main argument for APS-C in film days was that film could be smaller. The general market was in no way, shape or form transitioning to it. It was just an option.
Click to expand...

MF is currently a very niche market, that would change if Canon/Nikon got on board. Also expect them to be able to offer faster and cheaper glass.
 
D.P. said:
You are wrong, in film SLRs there was such a thing as a crop sensor, it was called APS-C, funnily enough the same standard that was then used by Pentax, Nikon and Sony to make their APS-C crop cameras. Before digital cameras even existed Film SLRs were tanitioning to a crop format!

Crops sensors will not go anywhere, all major manufactures have heavily invested in it and will continue to develop sensors, lenses and camera bodies.
The 35mm film size was a completely arbitrary size chosen over 100 years ago with a completely different technology and user base in mind. The modern APS-C size was actually chosen for use by film cameras long before digital cameras ever came to the market place.

There are many advantages to the APS-C format and many disadvantages to 35mm FF format, so crop cameras will never go anywhere. Actually, I would tend to say the opposite and that 35mm size is more likely to go extinct. APS-C is a good size for most uses form beginners, prosumers to professionals needing reach or lighter kit for expedition photography. Crop cameras are widely used by professional wildlife photographers acros the world.

35mm frame is actually very small compared to medium format setups and with the reduced price of sensor manufacturing at these large sizes I expect Nikon and Canon to produce medium format cameras for those needing large sensor for resolution or DoF reasons. Pentax has already started the ball rolling. This will of course take a long time because of the large amount of lenses that would be transitioned so don't expect this to happen completely for a couple of decades.
Click to expand...
i want crop to die! ff is superior in many ways plus thereare plenty of EF lenses, cheap ones too like teh nifty fifty. u dont need L lenses for FF bodies.
 
Vertigo1 said:
D.P. said:
You are wrong, in film SLRs there was such a thing as a crop sensor, it was called APS-C, funnily enough the same standard that was then used by Pentax, Nikon and Sony to make their APS-C crop cameras. Before digital cameras even existed Film SLRs were tanitioning to a crop format!

Were there any APS SLRs? I know there were compacts and even bridge cameras that used the APS system, but full SLRs?



Still have my APS camera, an Olympus Centurion, in the cupboard :) If you want old though, my first proper SLR was a Ricoh KR10, circa 1980 - that's how ancient I am :p
Click to expand...


There was a Canon EOS IX, Minolta Vectis, Nikon Pronea amongst others. The main thing stopping APS was simply the arrival of affordable DSLRs and especially cheap digital cameras to take up the consumer market. Fuji and Kodak etc were getting ready to make a large transition to the APS system, if they were a little quicker starting in the end of the 80s and not the end of the 90s then it is likely that all film SLRs would have been APS, it just made so much more sense than carrying on the legacy roll format.
Click to expand...
 
jonneymendoza said:
i want crop to die! ff is superior in many ways plus thereare plenty of EF lenses, cheap ones too like teh nifty fifty. u dont need L lenses for FF bodies.
Click to expand...

I want FF to die! Crop is superior in many ways plus there are plenty of good DX lenses. You don't need FF lenses on a crop body.
 
jonneymendoza said:
a shame the like sof the d800/5d3 wipe the floor of all crop bodies :D

Not even mentioning the d4/1dx ;)
Click to expand...

Not really, and the differences are nothing inherent with the size of the sensor. Going back to the Nikon D300 and D3, the D300 had almost identical AF, metering and performance of the D3 just with a smaller sensor. If Nikon produce a new D300 replacement then it will follow the same way. Heck, even a Nikon D7k is not so different to a D800, and if you really need the reach for wildlife purposes then it makes more sense to bub the crop D7k than the D800 and put the money towards a new lens.

To put it another way, I would much rather have a Nikon D7k crop camera than the Canon 5DMKII. The Metering and AF is much better on the Nikon D7K, the images have a much better DR and colour depth without any nasty banding in the shadows, and the extra pixel density serves me well for wildlife.


The Difference between a FF camera and crop is just over 1 stop, that is all. Nikon/Sony sensors are about 1 stop better than Canon at the moment. To put things another way, a new FF camera with a 24-105 f/4.0 lens merely needs a a crop camera with a 17-55mm f/2.8 to get the same DoF, the same low light ability and noise handling. If you have a Canon crop camera and you want to have more DR for landscape photography a move to a Nikon D7k will gain you more DR than a move to Canon 5DMKIII (yes mk3).
 
D.P. said:
Not really, and the differences are nothing inherent with the size of the sensor. Going back to the Nikon D300 and D3, the D300 had almost identical AF, metering and performance of the D3 just with a smaller sensor. If Nikon produce a new D300 replacement then it will follow the same way. Heck, even a Nikon D7k is not so different to a D800, and if you really need the reach for wildlife purposes then it makes more sense to bub the crop D7k than the D800 and put the money towards a new lens.

To put it another way, I would much rather have a Nikon D7k crop camera than the Canon 5DMKII. The Metering and AF is much better on the Nikon D7K, the images have a much better DR and colour depth without any nasty banding in the shadows, and the extra pixel density serves me well for wildlife.


The Difference between a FF camera and crop is just over 1 stop, that is all. Nikon/Sony sensors are about 1 stop better than Canon at the moment. To put things another way, a new FF camera with a 24-105 f/4.0 lens merely needs a a crop camera with a 17-55mm f/2.8 to get the same DoF, the same low light ability and noise handling. If you have a Canon crop camera and you want to have more DR for landscape photography a move to a Nikon D7k will gain you more DR than a move to Canon 5DMKIII (yes mk3).
Click to expand...



Sorry but the 5d3 has probably the best AF system to date that is widely regarded as better then the d800 mate.

I agree the sony sensors seem great indeed but FF is better then crop when u compare it like for like ie compare same gen and same sensor make.

The d800 sensor is the best sensor. better then any crop sensor you can come up with.

FF offers about 1.5 stop more ISO but it also creates extra bokeh too compared to a crop.

Sorry mate but FF > crop otherwise nikon and canon would both ditch ff. why make ff if its more expensive and inferior?

Also, i do wish i went with Nikon as i would already be sporting a d700/d800 as IMO nikon > canon when it comes to bodies.

Canon 5d3 is a fantastic camera and the one i wished from canon mate
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
Sorry but the 5d3 has probably the best AF system to date that is widely regarded as better then the d800 mate.

I agree the sony sensors seem great indeed but FF is better then crop when u compare it like for like ie compare same gen and same sensor make.

The d800 sensor is the best sensor. better then any crop sensor you can come up with.

FF offers about 1.5 stop more ISO but it also creates extra bokeh too compared to a crop.

Sorry mate but FF > crop otherwise nikon and canon would both ditch ff. why make ff if its more expensive and inferior?


Also, i do wish i went with Nikon as i would already be sporting a d700/d800 as IMO nikon > canon when it comes to bodies.

Canon 5d3 is a fantastic camera and the one i wished from canon mate
Click to expand...



i never said the 5DMK3 has bad AF, its about as good as the D800 etc. However, the Nikon D7K has much better AF and metering than the 5DMK2, and the sensor produces much high DR with less banding, and hence for many people could be considered a better camera.

I agree, if you take identical technology and make a crop and a FF sensor then the FF sensor is inherently going to have a higher resolution and have a larger surface area increasing low light performance when normalised to the same output size. The thing is, that difference is relative small, as I said, using f/2.8 aperture glass on a crop sensor will gain you about the same low light performance as f/4.0 glass on a FF sensor.

My point is that there is almost as much difference between the aging Canon sensors and the new Sony/Nikon sensors as there is between a crop and a FF sensor. The crop D7k camera has more DR than the 5dMK2 or 3 for example.


You also don't understand what Bokeh is. Bokeh does not mean shallow DoF, Bokeh refers to the quality and rendering of the out of focus parts of a scene, especially around highlights. this is a function of the lines design such as aperture shape and design of the glass elements such as the presence of aspherical lenses etc. The Sensor size has absolutely no bearing on the quality of the Bokeh, merely the DoF. The difference in DoF is again about 1 stop, hence my comparison of an f/4.0 lens on a FF camera or f/2.8 lens on a crop camera will give similar DoF. Again, the Bokeh quality is entirely independent of the sensor size.



It is wrong to make a blanket statement that FF is better than crop. Both formats have strengths and weaknesses and have different appropriate uses. Find me a FF camera the same size as a D3200 or even a Nex7.... Show me a FF camera that has he same pixel density and hence pixels/per-feather as the D3200 and Nex7. A 24MP D400 with the D4/D800 focus system will be a bird photographers dream.



As to why Nikon and canon make FF cameras, there are many reasons. But perhaps we should turn this questions around. Why do Olympus and Panasonic had a 2.0x crop format? Why have Nikon come out with a 2.6x crop CX format. Why don't Pentax don't have a FF camera, Sony is in unknown territory if they will make a new one and if they do it certainly not prioritizing FF. Why was a lot of production movies and TV shots with a 16mm format similar to the Nikon J1 sensor size?
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
i never said the 5DMK3 has bad AF, its about as good as the D800 etc. However, the Nikon D7K has much better AF and metering than the 5DMK2.
Click to expand...


I had to stop reading right there and just state this.

The D7000 was released 2 years AFTER the 5Dmk2 (2008) which has a same AF as Mk1, which was released in 2005.

So...erm, no surprises there?

I am willing to bet a camera release 5 years from now will have better AF too.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I had to stop reading right there and just state this.

The D7000 was released 2 years AFTER the 5Dmk2 (2008) which has a same AF as Mk1, which was released in 2005.

So...erm, no surprises there?

I am willing to bet a camera release 5 years from now will have better AF too.
Click to expand...

The dates are irrelevant, the fact is the D7k is a crop camera that offered better AF than the 5DMKII and both were on sale new during the same time period. The same is true for the Canon 7D and the Nikon D300, the D300 was released before the Canon 5DMKII AFAIK and is a great example of a crop body that has many advantages (and of course many disadvantages) over a FF body of the same time period. My point is simply that just because a camera has a FF sensor does not mean it is better for everyone by virtue of its sensor alone.

This is not a dig at Canon in anyway, it has nothing to do with any brand.
 
An Exception said:
Jesus, talk about thread drift! :(
Click to expand...

And on that note. Raymond there's another thread somewhere where I want you to id my bonsai. Ok back to Canon's new FF or the D800 or the crop vs FF or whatever else popped up.

More on topic, I'd been tempted by a 5D3 after seeing the bargain that can be had via import but this entry level FF rumour has got me wondering. Still might bite the bullet and get the 5D3 anyhow as I've been contemplating upgrading from my 20D for a while now.
 
D.P. said:
The dates are irrelevant, the fact is the D7k is a crop camera that offered better AF than the 5DMKII and both were on sale new during the same time period. The same is true for the Canon 7D and the Nikon D300, the D300 was released before the Canon 5DMKII AFAIK and is a great example of a crop body that has many advantages (and of course many disadvantages) over a FF body of the same time period. My point is simply that just because a camera has a FF sensor does not mean it is better for everyone by virtue of its sensor alone.

This is not a dig at Canon in anyway, it has nothing to do with any brand.
Click to expand...

The date is totally relevant!

The 650D now is also on sale, which has a better AF than the 5Dmkii...

Newer and better technology comes out better than the last. If anything, the 5Dii deserve credit for having this long a life cycle and people are still getting great images from it.
 
D.P. said:
Find me a FF camera the same size as a D3200 or even a Nex7.... Show me a FF camera that has he same pixel density and hence pixels/per-feather as the D3200 and Nex7. A 24MP D400 with the D4/D800 focus system will be a bird photographers dream.
Click to expand...

D600 is rumoured to be that sort of size though I'm not convinced that's a good thing - it's not a matter of sensor size it's target market that means the D3200 is smaller than the D800 - the mount is the same size regardless.

D800 pixel density is very similar to crop DSLRs and pixels per feather means nothing unless you're cropping incredibly heavily, but at that point lens sharpness is very unlikely to be holding up at all well.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The date is totally relevant!

The 650D now is also on sale, which has a better AF than the 5Dmkii...

Newer and better technology comes out better than the last. If anything, the 5Dii deserve credit for having this long a life cycle and people are still getting great images from it.
Click to expand...

Has Canon done any upgrades with the sensor yet, or is it still the same actual sensor churned out again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom