Full Frame Hype...?

I hate feeling like I'm one of those people that buys into the supposed marketing hype of full frame cameras. I shot with the Olympus E-1 for years and loved it. I now shoot with the Pentax K200D and am liking it as well. Once in a while I read reports on the Canon 5D and now the Nikon D700 and everyone, most everyone anyways, who have converted from APS-C or 4/3rds swears by the image quality of full frame. In theory, having a larger sensor should amount to better images. Having never shot with a full frame camera am I missing out? I loved most of the images I got with my E-1 and love the extra resolution my K200D offers over the E-1, but would I really notice a noticeable difference if I were to shoot with a 5D or D700? For me, image quality is incredibly important. I'm wondering if I'm just used to what I've been getting from my E-1/K200D, but that I would be wowed if I shot with a full frame. Any input is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Full frame either gives you more pixels or more flexibility (i.e. theoretically less noise, greater sensitivity, and greater latitude in f-stops).

What the manufacturer does with the extra space determines what you'll get back. Investing in a 5D right now is probably unwise - if you're looking for top quality, it's too old and soon to be obsoleted. Don't know what the D700 offers to compare it against the very excellent D3... On the other hand, there are a number of APS-C cameras out there delivering stunning images day after day.

If I had the money, I'd buy a D3 today - but only because I want the low-light capability. Or maybe I'd go for a full-frame 24.4MP Sony a900 or not-yet-announced D3X. Heck, if I had the money I'd buy the latest medium-format digital system... But I'd still want an APS-C camera for wildlife because of the extra "magnification" factor.

The differences are visible, but not earth-shattering unless the camera you choose is specifically designed to address your needs.

I use an APS-C camera (Canon 40D) and I know that I'm not missing a thing vis a vis image quality compared to a 'full frame' camera. Instead, I invested the money saved in the best lenses that I could afford, which goes a lot further toward improved image quality than a simple format difference.

I use an APS-C camera (Canon 40D) and I know that I'm not missing a thing vis a vis image quality compared to a 'full frame' camera. Instead, I invested the money saved in the best lenses that I could afford, which goes a lot further toward improved image quality than a simple format difference.

I'm on exactly the same page as John except that I'm still using my beat up XT. If you want cheap full frame, try an EOS film body with some slide film. I picked up an EOS 300 at a flea market 2 weeks ago for $15.

Mel-

A larger sensor will typically mean less noise which can make a big difference in quality depending on conditions and how you shoot. Also the 5D sensor has some of the smallest pixel sites (can't remember the size) of all sensors in the 10-12mp range, which contributes to detail quality. Last, if you're coming from a full-frame film background and want to use your lenses without a magnification factor, especially for wide angle, you'll be more comfortable with a full frame digital.

I think there is a slight edge to the 5D over the aps-c canons but you won't see it until you hit high levels of upressing. The smaller size and magnification factor can be nice advantages for the aps-c.

I'm with Les, I'm waiting to see what follows the 5D before deciding to upgrade my 20D to the 40D or 5DX.

I think everybody, who sells their work either part-time or full-time, and who use a APS-C size sensor or smaller, and even those with a 1.3x sensor factor (1DII,, 1DIIn1,DIII) should stick to those cameras they have for the foreseeable future.

Disclaimer: owner of 5D and 1DsIII, but also still have a 1DII and a 10D.

I haven't used the 1DII for over a year and think I need to sell it, but it's hard to part with a camera that's that good. The 10D will probably be given to my daughter.

I've had an easier time getting great images with the 5D than with my old Rebel XT. There is some leeway afforded in making large prints when the magnification factor (sensor to print size enlargement) is smaller. It was true in the film days, it's true with digital. Is it possible to shoot with a rebel XSi (12.2 MP) and obtain identical results compared to a 5D? Sure. Is it possible every single time? Maybe, maybe not. I've shot with the XT and obtained superlative shots that I could print up to 24 x 36" that look great on my wall. But with the 5D, the proportion of shots that had razor-sharp detail even at 17" wide prints were certainly greater than the XT. Of course, not a fair comparison since the XT is only 8 MP. In my experience, critical focus, tripod use, exposing to the right, and correct post-processing have been more important than the camera I used. That said, the fact that you have to enlarge a 5D capture 1.6x times less than you do an identical MP APS-C image means less egregious display of imperfections.