full frame....

[fallia]

trying to educate myself (searched some other forums, didn't find much)...basicaly what does it mean?....i have a nikon d3100 i understand its "not" a full frame....the term seems to apply to lenses as well....i'm assuming part of my image is cut off (seems to be compensated for with the viewfinder - i dont seem to notice it) ...just want a clarrification

in addition i'm renting some equipment to shoot next week. i'm going to shoot some buildings i'm getting a good tilt shift lens, flash with diffusing attachment, and a remote for the shutter....maybe a wide angle and a lensbaby....any other sort of unusual lenses, attachments anyone would recommend i get while i'm ordering?

[i speak in math]

Originally Posted by fallia

trying to educate myself (searched some other forums, didn't find much)...basicaly what does it mean?....i have a nikon d3100 i understand its "not" a full frame....the term seems to apply to lenses as well....i'm assuming part of my image is cut off (seems to be compensated for with the viewfinder - i dont seem to notice it) ...just want a clarrification

in addition i'm renting some equipment to shoot next week. i'm going to shoot some buildings i'm getting a good tilt shift lens, flash with diffusing attachment, and a remote for the shutter....maybe a wide angle and a lensbaby....any other sort of unusual lenses, attachments anyone would recommend i get while i'm ordering?

Most DSLR's use a smaller APS-C sensor which is smaller than the 35mm Film from older SLR film cameras. They were cheaper and more easy to make. This allowed cheaper DSLR cameras to be made. Full frame DSLR's have a sensor the same size as 35mm film. They are more expensive and harder to make. They typically have larger sensor wells and are able to "soak" up more light for better image quality.

With the smaller sensor, lens makers were able to make smaller lenses that projected an image circle that fit that sensor size. But using that lens on a film camera or on a full frame DSLR would result in a dark circle around the edges, because the projected light circle wasn't large enough for the full size sensor.

So if you have a full frame sensor camera, you need lenses that can project an image circle to fill that frame.

[fallia]

appreciate you being thorough

[blackfin]

full frame cameras also produce a much higher quality image, your camera is fine for general amateur stuff

~B

[i speak in math]

Originally Posted by blackfin

full frame cameras also produce a much higher quality image, your camera is fine for general amateur stuff

~B

Not really, some have less high ISO noise (D3s, 5DmII). But the current best sensor for dynamic range is the Pentax K-5 / Nikon D7000 sensor, beating out many FF and even medium format sensors.

The main advantages are better high ISO noise, more resolution (larger prints), wider field of view, and shallower depth of field. Some might list ergonomics or camera features in there, but many APS-C sensor cameras have the same features in smaller lighter packages.

[fallia]

these comments are helpful, i'm trying to get up to speed with this (use to shoot film years ago, cannon AE-1 and mammiya C-33)....i'm working on a portfolio and have been luck to get some recent work included in a book, my plan is to start photographing architecture (renting equipment tis week for that) and i sense i'll need to start moving up in regards to bodies, light and lenses soon....thanks again

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by i speak in math

Not really, some have less high ISO noise (D3s, 5DmII). But the current best sensor for dynamic range is the Pentax K-5 / Nikon D7000 sensor, beating out many FF and even medium format sensors.

The main advantages are better high ISO noise, more resolution (larger prints), wider field of view, and shallower depth of field. Some might list ergonomics or camera features in there, but many APS-C sensor cameras have the same features in smaller lighter packages.

Not really a fair fight.. The d7000 was released last year, the D700 was released 2 years before.. I'd say their image quality was about the same. If you compare the image quality of the d700 with that of a cropped sensor released about the same time, the D90 for example, the D700 wins hands down.. The replacement full frame body is due to be released in the next month or two.. I'm hoping it will use the technology from the d7000 to give us the same pixel density, offering 24 megapixels on an affordable full frame sensor.. The fight is firmly back in the full frame sensors court.

[i speak in math]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

Not really a fair fight.. The d7000 was released last year, the D700 was released 2 years before.. I'd say their image quality was about the same. If you compare the image quality of the d700 with that of a cropped sensor released about the same time, the D90 for example, the D700 wins hands down.. The replacement full frame body is due to be released in the next month or two.. I'm hoping it will use the technology from the d7000 to give us the same pixel density, offering 24 megapixels on an affordable full frame sensor.. The fight is firmly back in the full frame sensors court.

But then after that, the new APS-C sensors technology will come out and it will take over 1st again. And then after that...

I'm just calling it as it is now.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by i speak in math

I'm just calling it as it is now.

Give it a month. Or less.

[fallia]

where do you notice it ? the differences in image quality...again my only point of reference is film....old film....i shot 35 and could tell the difference between that and my 2 and a quarter...had a friend ( filmaker and photographer) that shot with 8x10...i could see the huge difference between my dinky ass 8x10 prints and his 32x40 prints....when your looking at a small print, digital image or larger image....where can you tell which is technically finer, richer?