Why I do not like non full frame DSLR's...a personal view..

..or in other words, why I would only buy and use a full frame DSLR.

Much talk here and other places about the various merits and de-merits of APS and FF sensor cameras. Most of the talk is about pixels, RAW, Jpeg and other technical points largely to do with image quality. Also much talk about the possibility of new FF models, but no camera maker has, as yet bitten the bullet and challenged Canon.

Let me firstly say that I have a Pentax istD, but only use it for web work, when I want to shoot 'serious' work, I always use my film cameras...why?

Well, putting aside any image considerations, there are two large reasons why I do not like smaller sensor cameras, either APS or four thirds or any other.

1. I place huge importance on a large clear and bright viewfinder. I really do not get along with the tiny pokey view through APS sized viewfinders..yes I know the Pentax ones are bright, but I do not care..they are simply too small for my liking.

2. I shoot manual focus prime lenses, often as wide as 18/20mm. I do not like zooms and detest autofocus..for these reasons I want full frame for my own personal reasons and the way I work. Smaller sensors just have too many compromises and issues here to satisfy me.

So, until someone comes up with a digital SLR with the same big view as my film cameras, with at least a 92-93% coverage, with at least 0.8x magnification AND is easily compatible with MF super wide lenses, then I am staying with dear old crumbly, obsolete silver halide..

cheers Steve.M.

I take your point with number 1. But I can't see the relevance of point 2, except perhaps that the Pentax DA 14mm is equivalent to 21mm on film. Would a 12mm prime be acceptable?

G

hey guys...
you'll notice that I avoided feeding the troll in the other thread...
I believe that a good photographer can take any peice of equipment from any brand and push it to it's limits and get the best images possible.
of course we all have preferences, and our own styles.
I equate it to motorcyles.
when some guy on a new 1200 cc sportbike pulls up to me on my old sportbike, I don't need him to tell me that his bikes got better brakes, lighter weight, better handling, when he asks me if I want to go....
I size him up, if he's a good hundred pounds heavier than me and his bikes a good hundred pounds lighter than mine...if his tires arent worn edge to edge, does it matter if his bike can lean farther than mine? if he says his bike does 300 kph, and his brakes don't look scorched, so what? when I say my bike does 260, I mean the needle on the dial blows past the number 260 more often than I care to admit....
camera's no different...image that counts.

Hi G,

The relevance of my point 2 is that with an APS camera, I have little or no choice of manual focus ultra wide primes, but with full frame, I have plenty of choice...

cheers Steve.

maybee troll was a harsh coice of words. I apologize. I think sometimes a person makes a post just to start an argument and get a reaction. I am guilty of doing so mysef on occasion, and should not resort to name calling.

Hi,

" I think sometimes a person makes a post just to start an argument and get a reaction"

no..not guilty.

The purpose of the original post I made was to highlight the point that some people choose to use or in my case not use either FF or APS cameras for other reasons than the so often mentioned ones..

cheers Steve.

Hi Steve,

Have to say that I'm with you in much of what you have to say... If I am to get closer to retiring my film SLR's it will be with a full frame DSLR. Like your good self I'm a huge fan of wide angle lenses and wide views in general. To a certain extent it was the purchase of my istD that pushed me even further in this direction. I picked up one of the Sigma 12-24 lenses to gain what I'd lost with the 1.5x mag factor and have found it getting more use on my film SLR than the istD!

However, as with anything it's horses for courses - I've tended to use the D for mainly action stuff when the 1.5x factor is a real help with tele lenses, plus the bonus of being able to rattle off more shots without worrying about cost. When I have a little more time to think it's always the film cameras, 645 and 35mm, that come out to play.

Each has it's place with my photography... be nice though to be able to cut it down to just one kitbag in the not too distant future!

Will

...but for 99% of us a APS sized sensor is big enough. Just because of that reason I don't think Pentax will come with a full-frame sensor (I hate that name because the APS-C is allso a full-frame sensor, but the frame is smaller...).

Just a thought, which manufacturer has a 35mm image sensor and has manual prime lenses which work on it?

actually steve, I never meant you, I was reffering to someone else in another thread, sorry if I confused you on that, no offence intended.

I think probably only Kodak, who used Nikon lenses, but the camera is discontinued and not that good for general use anyway.

Not sure about the contax, but again I hear the results were not very good.

Hi,

Don..no problem, just a little confusion.

Will..you kind of made my point..you had to buy a current AF ultrawide zoom to get a really wide view with an APS sensor..but I do not like AF or zooms, which is one reason I want FF or nothing.

Golf.."Just a thought, which manufacturer has a 35mm image sensor and has manual prime lenses which work on it?"

Technically only the Kodak, but as John has said, they are very poor. On the other hand, many Canon 5D users are buying adaptors and using Contax/Zeiss, Leica R, OM Zuiko and many other older mf lenses. This for me is currently the way I would have to go, but you do get limited useability with adaptors.

The best hope for me, is that Nikon make a FF DSLR, then I have Nikon AI & AIS, Zeiss ZF and Voigtlander SL lenses to use...lovely.

John..you have been mis-informed about the Contax N digital. It has the potential to give stunning images, but needs to be used in a specific way by an experienced user and many are not, so it has had mixed reviews. There are very specific improvements that can be made to it, which Contax themselves were unaware of. For many Contax users it is still held in very high regard and still fetches £2000-3000 for mint ones.

Images from the Contax N DSLR when processed correctly, still stand comparison with almost any current DSLR and in some ways it has not even yet been bettered.

Cheers Steve.M.

could always get yourself an EOS 5D and a Pentax K lens adaptor

nice sensible discussion, rational arguments.

I like it!!

Steve, from what I have been reading it seems that Nikon stated that they will continue with the APS-C sensors. They said this in reaction to the Canon FF camera's.

Hiya Golf,

Yep I know what Nikon apparently said some time ago..thing is though, at the end of the day Nikon are just a big business..and do you believe all that is said by big companies...I certainly do not.

Bear in mind that just a few weeks ago Leica were saying there was nothing wrong with their new M8...and within a week or two they are recalling them all due to three distinct defects..

..don't believe what big companies say..it is often just to suit some particular agenda they have at any given time. There are heavy rumours within people close to Nikon that they have several working prototypes of full frame DSLR's. Indeed I would be shocked if they did not have..

cheers Steve.