Full Frame Advantge ?

[kunaldaswani]

Can someone please explain to me the advantage of a full frame dSLR. I cant seem to find any answers other than the lenses being true.

Is there a huge difference in image quailty, more/quicker focus points, etc while comparing the 5D to the 40D.

I kinda like the crop factor which gives me lenses more zoom. So can you please tell me why the 5D would be better than the 40D.

[Nicole]

It would be better with the ultra-wide angle lenses... That 10mm lens actually becomes a 10mm lens instead of a 16mm.

[Nobie]

Yep, if you use more telephoto then it works in your favor. I favor wide angles though so my 16mm rectilinear fisheye is really a 24mm...not cool.

[kunaldaswani]

Thank you for your replies. I get that wide angle will be wide. But that does not appeal to me at all. I want to know if there is any other advantage.

So why the 5D over the 40D? Thanks

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by Nicole

It would be better with the ultra-wide angle lenses... That 10mm lens actually becomes a 10mm lens instead of a 16mm.

I don't think there are any 10mm full frame lenses though.

Also, bigger sensor = bigger pixels = better image quality (less noise)

It all depends on what you want to do, it may just be that full frame isn't right for you.

[Nobie]

You could learn a lot of these answers over at Ken Rockwell's site, here is a section specifically on the full frame advantage as well as links comparing the very two cameras you keep asking about.

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

[Jamesc359]

It's more than just the effect it has on the lens. The biggest and probably the most noticeable difference is the effect it has on noise and image quality.

To put it simply, the larger the sensor, the more light it's able to collect. That means a full frame camera doesn't have to amplify the signal as much. That results in a lot less noise.

Image quality is enhanced not only because of the cleaner image, but because the camera doesn't have to perform as much noise reduction on the image. That means an even cleaner and clearer image.

So, yeah there's a lot more to it than just the crop factor.

[WooD]

Originally Posted by kunaldaswani

Thank you for your replies. I get that wide angle will be wide. But that does not appeal to me at all. I want to know if there is any other advantage.

So why the 5D over the 40D? Thanks

Because you already have a 400D which has the crop factor to use as a back up for the 5D. Best of both worlds.

[inkista]

Image size always makes a difference in the quality. Just as in film where medium format beats the pants of 35mm film, and large format wipes the floor with medium format, a full-frame sensor will beat a crop-body every time.

You have higher resolution, because you have a larger number of pixels over a larger surface. Those pixels are also large enough that they perform well at high isos, so better high-iso noise performance. The detail is greater, the angle is wider, the viewfinder is bigger and brighter, the depth of field can be narrower. There's a visual smoothness to bokeh and colors and a sharpness that a crop body at its lower resolution and smaller sensor can't quite replicate. Think of the difference between a 1/2" compact digital sensor's image quality vs. a crop-body dSLR. The go and check out how much bigger a full frame sensor is than an APS-C-sized one. A few years ago, the Luminous Landscape website conducted a comparison of the 1Ds against medium format film. The 1Ds won.

And the majority of lenses are still designed for a full frame of 35mm film. They work well enough on crop-bodies, but they're tailored for the full frame and are optimized for the working distance between the image plane and the back element of the lens, not the closer one that crop bodies use. It's not just that a wide-angle lens is properly a wide-angle, it's also that it's being used at exactly the same distances for which it was designed. Lenses can behave differently between crop bodies and full frame bodies, both in how they autofocus and in their image quality.

[kunaldaswani]

Originally Posted by inkista

Image size always makes a difference in the quality. Just as in film where medium format beats the pants of 35mm film, and large format wipes the floor with medium format, a full-frame sensor will beat a crop-body every time.

You have higher resolution, because you have a larger number of pixels over a larger surface. Those pixels are also large enough that they perform well at high isos, so better high-iso noise performance. The detail is greater, the angle is wider, the viewfinder is bigger and brighter, the depth of field can be narrower. There's a visual smoothness to bokeh and colors and a sharpness that a crop body at its lower resolution and smaller sensor can't quite replicate. Think of the difference between a 1/2" compact digital sensor's image quality vs. a crop-body dSLR. The go and check out how much bigger a full frame sensor is than an APS-C-sized one. A few years ago, the Luminous Landscape website conducted a comparison of the 1Ds against medium format film. The 1Ds won.

And the majority of lenses are still designed for a full frame of 35mm film. They work well enough on crop-bodies, but they're tailored for the full frame and are optimized for the working distance between the image plane and the back element of the lens, not the closer one that crop bodies use. It's not just that a wide-angle lens is properly a wide-angle, it's also that it's being used at exactly the same distances for which it was designed. Lenses can behave differently between crop bodies and full frame bodies, both in how they autofocus and in their image quality.

Thank you all for your answers.

I especially like to thank inkista for you detailed answers, once again you hit the nail on the head and i now understand the advantage of full frame. Thanks!