How would you answer this question....

[Wes]

I was talking to someone recently (who shall remain nameless, but suffice it to say that he's well connected in the camera industry) and asked if he had any poop on the upcoming successor to the Nikon D2 series. Basically, he's been sworn to secrecy by Nikon so he couldn't offer much. When I asked if he knew whether or not the next body would be full frame he said that he asked the Nikon rep the same thing. In a nutshell, the Nikon rep said, "Why should we?" The way I interpret this is... what advantage does full frame bring to the table? I could see how it could have an advantage at very wide angles (a 20mm lens would actually function as a 20mm lens), but beyond that what would be the advantage?

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Wes

I was talking to someone recently (who shall remain nameless, but suffice it to say that he's well connected in the camera industry) and asked if he had any poop on the upcoming successor to the Nikon D2 series. Basically, he's been sworn to secrecy by Nikon so he couldn't offer much. When I asked if he knew whether or not the next body would be full frame he said that he asked the Nikon rep the same thing. In a nutshell, the Nikon rep said, "Why should we?" The way I interpret this is... what advantage does full frame bring to the table? I could see how it could have an advantage at very wide angles (a 20mm lens would actually function as a 20mm lens), but beyond that what would be the advantage?

Lovely work with ultra wides and image quality on a par with MF. Go look at LL's comparison of the Canon 1DsMkII to scanned film MF....

Ask him if Nikon would even try that?

[Wes]

Who is "LL"?

Remember - I'm not talking to the Nikon rep; I'm relating the gist of a conversation between someone else and a Nikon rep.

With regards to your comparison, how do you know that the results are due to FF, or if they are due to Canon technology? I'm really more interested in the CCD technology itself rather than the way that Canon or anyone else is using said technology. The simple question is whether or not there is anything inherent in FF technology that makes it superior to sensors that crop.

[picasso]

IMO.... And I think you will get different answers for this and I don't want to argue because I see both sides. The advantages of full frame are:

1. 35mm is 35mm etc... etc.... No having to multiply to figure out lens's etc...

2. Full frame = more real estate to look at. It helps on cropping etc.... There are a lot of times I wish I could put more in the frame than what I can see w/my cropped sensor.

I am sure there are more reasons for it.

The benefits of a cropped sensor are

1. Less expensive

2. It is advantageous for wild life photographers etc... because of the multiplier due to cropped sensor.

I'm sure there are more pros to this as well.

Paul

[picasso]

Just read posts that had been posted since my response.

I have read where the Canon FF sensor's are comparable to medium format. This has come from pro photographers that have used both. If this is true then that in and of itself is an advantage over a cropped sensor. I can't say whether it is the Canon sensor itself or not. I know the 5D has FF and the only camera I have heard about being comparable to MF is the 1d Mark II Canon. The 5D has the same image processor so, I guess it is a function of the sensor. One is 10 MP and the other is 16MP as well.

Paul