Full Frame SLRs...why or why not?

What is it about full frame DSLR cameras that make them "professional" over crop sensor cameras? I mean, it may be dumb to say but couldn't you just stand a couple feet further back to get more in the shot (in some cases)? I have been using a crop sensor for awhile now and never really considered it to be a problem. I have been looking at the Canon 50D and comparing it to the 5D Mark II. For one, I don't want to wait to save up all that extra money when I can hardly wait to get one as it is.

It's not so much the crop factor as the size of the sensor itself. What makes a DSLR better than a point and shoot? The main thing (image quality wise) is the much larger sensor. The same principle applies.....a much bigger sensor is going to capture much more data. It will have better dynamic range, much better noise at all iso levels (especially high ISO)...a crop sensor will never capture the same high iso performance as full frame.

Like all things photographic, you'll know yourself if and when you NEED one. That includes lenses, flashes, tripods and etc. Their advantage is the low light ability, or in Canon's case, more MP. Plus, it affects the field of view of your lenses, but if you've never used a full frame film camera that doesn't matter.

Also, you should probably invest in good glass before upgrading a camera body. Makes no sense to put a "kit" lens on an expensive body.

Matthew

PS Spin's additional points are valid as well. It's a big step up from APS-C sensor cameras, but you need to upgrade everything else to go with it, including possibly a new PC (or more RAM) to handle larger files.

MLKstudios wrote: Like all things photographic, you'll know yourself if and when you NEED one. That includes lenses, flashes, tripods and etc. Their advantage is the low light ability, or in Canon's case, more MP. It also affects the field of view of your lenses, but if you've never used a full frame film camera it doesn't matter.

Also, you should probably invest in good glass before upgrading a camera body. Makes no sense to put a "kit" lens on an expensive body.

Matthew

just remember if you are getting quality photographs now with a crop sensor then why worry, you now know the benefits and can decide in your own good time when to make the move.[/color]

We are taught that bigger is better: cameras, lenses, cars, boobs, sandwiches, etc....

Sometimes bigger is better. Most of the time it just depends on the real world situation. When Henri Cartier-Bresson switched to a small format tourist's camera (Leica) his professional peers scoffed. "That's no camera for real photographers!" they said. He ignored them, and went on to be called the father of modern photojournalism.

The larger sensors are more expensive to produce so the manufacturers put them in cameras with more expensive feature sets (i.e. "professional"). At some point the cost of making the larger sensors will come down, and maybe 35mm will go back to being the small format standard. We are starting to see some medium format digital camera prices dip into the range of the upper end 35mm DSLRS.

For any given sensor or film technology image quality can probably be improved by making the area bigger just because it allows for more photoreceptors or more silver grains. The question is whether the image quality improvement is worth the cost and gear size increase. We could all be getting ultimate quality shooting 16"x20" cameras, or even 8"x10", but they are too much of a pain in the butt and too expensive for most folks. Several times smaller film formats were introduced: half frame, 110, APS.... These were popular among folks who rarely printed larger than 4x6-ish.

I think that the bigger is always better mentality is wrong both in format size and megapixel count. For some photographers it is the right choice, but not for everyone. I started out using 8mp APS-C and now use 21mp 35mm. In my photographs it's easy to see the difference at high ISOs, and almost impossible at low ISOs. Looking at work from friends with more recent APS-C DSLRs even their high ISO stuff looks darn close to my 35mm camera.

Just worry about what works for you. IMO you'll probably take better photos with cheap gear that allows you to spend the savings on inspiring activities, than spending all your money collecting fancy cameras.