Why FF?

[RichNY]

I'm having a hard time understanding why people are so excited about the 5D v. 30D- what am I missing aside from the obvious mpix advantage.

I looked at the lens choices:
30D 10-22 5D 17-40L (L lens w/5D)
30D 17-55 IS 5D 24-70L (L lens w/5D, IS with 30D)

On the 30D the 70-200 yields a 112-320 vs 5D 70-200
w/ 1.4x teleconverter 30D yields 156-448 vs 5D 98-280

In terms of focal length the 5D doesn't go any wider, and it is much shorter on the telephoto end.

Is the image quality of a larger FF sensor that superior to crop sensors?

Are people still using their telephoto lenses on crop once they get up to the 70-200 or better range?

[ReF]

hey i don't know why everyone else likes FF but i only want it for the higher MP. i feel the current 8mp comes up a little short in big print when it comes to small details. in wide shots especially where everything is already small i feel the details are really not there. i notice how a lot of landscape shooters still use medium format or at least the 5d. i think the crop factor is awesome for tele, macro, and for cropping out the poor edges. i'm not excited about having to spend more $$$ on non-canon lenses and losing AF just to get some crisp edges at the wide end on FF but what else can you do?

[forno]

i believe the actual diodes in the FF sensors are larger and therefore better for detail and less affected by noise. Dont quote me though

[RichNY]

i believe the actual diodes in the FF sensors are larger and therefore better for detail and less affected by noise. Dont quote me though

Take a look at this page from dpreview http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page12.asp

You'll notice that the EOS 1D Mark II has the same size pixel pitch as the 5D. When Canon came out with the 1Ds Mark II they chose to up the megapixels and decrease the size of the pixel pitch to midway between the 5D and the 20D.

This confuses me because if I am to believe that bigger pixel size is better, why would the 1Ds be going in the other direction? The only thing I can think of is that for a given sensor size there is an 'ideal' pixel size and for 35mm sized sensors the 5D/1D pitches were too large. I'd be really interested to see if the next round of Canon FF cameras all use the 1Ds pixel size.

If this is the case, what would the ideal pixel size be for the 1.6 crop cameras- and will we see a change in the 40D's pixel size or has the 'ideal' already been reached (again going on the assumption that this ideal theory holds any resemblence of reality)

[coldrain]

Weird questions. As you must have noticed, resolution IS important. Not just the size of a photo diode.
And so we will see the resolution increase for quite some time yet. And technology advances will keep the quality up (well, in case of Canon CMOS till now anyway).

Why people want a 5D is simple: image quality. It performs quite a bit better than a D200 or D2x(s) for that matter, photos look quite a bit more "dynamic".

And others, who have a 35mm background, appeciate its focal length consistency.

Of course it is not for everyone, others (like you) like the crop factor of 1.6x sensors.

[cwphoto]

I'm having a hard time understanding why people are so excited about the 5D v. 30D- what am I missing aside from the obvious mpix advantage.

I looked at the lens choices:
30D 10-22 5D 17-40L (L lens w/5D)
30D 17-55 IS 5D 24-70L (L lens w/5D, IS with 30D)

On the 30D the 70-200 yields a 112-320 vs 5D 70-200
w/ 1.4x teleconverter 30D yields 156-448 vs 5D 98-280

In terms of focal length the 5D doesn't go any wider, and it is much shorter on the telephoto end.

Is the image quality of a larger FF sensor that superior to crop sensors?

Are people still using their telephoto lenses on crop once they get up to the 70-200 or better range?

Like film before it, bigger is generally better if image quality is important:
1) For the same MP a FF sensor gives bigger pixels meaning lower noise
2) For the same pixel size a FF sensor gives more pixels meaning greater resolution
3) FF has a better wide-angle story (don't forget the EF 14mm f/2.8 L USM which is unmatched in crop land)
4) A larger selection of legacy lenses that 'make sense'
5) Cropped sensors are more demanding on lens resolving power

I mean the only reason we even have cropped sensors is because larger ones weren't economically or practically viable.

[RichNY]

I have an appointment to visit the Dr. who operated on my eyes on Thursday. I know that there is something wrong with my vision and perhaps that's why I don't see the difference in picture quality between FF and crop.

At what size print do you notice a significant improvement in print quality?

Back to one of my earlier questions then, why did the 1Ds have a drop pixel size?

[coldrain]

You can see the increase in dynamic range in any print size, probably. The difference is subtle, but worthwhile for some.
And the 1Ds has a higher megapixel count 16mp against 12.7mp. Does that not explain why its diodes are also smaller????

And the next 1Ds will have a higher megapixel count. So... smaller diodes.

Want to try to cram 22mp on a APS-C sensor, and on a full frame sensor, and see which one performs better?

[24Peter]

For me, full frame offers a different perspective/feel. More like a film camera's perspective. I love the shallow DOF I get with the 5D and nice blurred backgrounds. Of course you can achieve a lot of that with cropped sensors with the right lens/f-stop combo but it is easier to do with a full frame camera. Wide angle without distortion is also easier with a full frame camera. Finally the viewfinder on the 5D has to be seen to be appreciated. The view is huge and bright.
The images in these two galleries were all taken with a 5D (everything else after April '05 was taken with my XT):
http://imageevent.com/24peter/rosaservin
http://imageevent.com/24peter/kristinscholls
Select an image you like and then go down and choose original and look at the detail in the images. Also check out the shallow DOF in Rosa's studio pics. Then compare to the similar shots taken with the XT like these:
http://imageevent.com/24peter/sarar
http://imageevent.com/24peter/christinamitropoulou
(BTW - most of the outdoor shots in christina's gallery and this gallery http://imageevent.com/24peter/lorenafinato were taken with the Canon 70-300 IS before the lenses were recalled and fixed.)

[RichNY]

You can see the increase in dynamic range in any print size, probably. The difference is subtle, but worthwhile for some.
And the 1Ds has a higher megapixel count 16mp against 12.7mp. Does that not explain why its diodes are also smaller????

And the next 1Ds will have a higher megapixel count. So... smaller diodes.

Want to try to cram 22mp on a APS-C sensor, and on a full frame sensor, and see which one performs better?

Here's something I don't understand-

-I've read bigger pixels are "better" pixels.
-I've also read that higher megapixels really aren't a big thing unless you are making very large prints and that it takes 4x the pixels to give a 2x improvement in resolution.

So going from 12-16mpix is only a 33% increase just like going from 8-10mpix which everyone seemed to feel was not a big deal.

What would be the types of reasons that Canon would go with smaller pixels just to have 33% more of them?

Which yields a better image quality picture- the 1Ds or 5D and why?