http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/8887.html

Anyone going to be buying the new Xsi that is coming out on April 27th?  I want the kit lens.  It's about $70-100 extra for the 18-55 IS kit lens, instead of buying the body alone.  If anyone wants to work out a deal, shoot me a PM.  I don't want to spend $200 on it.  I have a feeling that as soon as all of the Xsi's hit the shelves, these lenses are going to flood ebay and sell for cheap.

I am hearing they are much improved over the older EF-S 18-55 kit lenses.

It's time to spend some of the money I've earned in microstock 

I did that and bought the 5D!  Didn't see the point in upgrading from a 1.6x crop to a 1.6x crop.  Full frame is sooooo much more lovely!

The advantage of having a full frame is undeniable. But the investment is huge when somebody started whit APS-C. From last year I started to buy only full frame compatible lenses, hopefully the only lense I must change now is my Nikon 18-70 for a 24-70 who's priced at around 1800 piece of paper .

The bad thing it's that Nikon didn't produce an affordable FF camera and I will have to wait maybe more than one year before an announcement. My D300 is not that bad so I can wait, but the day I will be able to say "hey I can keep this camera for the next 10 years" it's gone be that less on my shoulder

There is the robustness of the camera itself from physical damage, but there is also the robustness of the shutter.  No matter how much you baby your camera, it will eventually fail.  FF cameras on average (or the step up APS-C models like the 40D) are rated to significantly more shutter cycles than the rebel series, anything between 2x to 6x.  To me this is extremely important.  My Rebel xT is rated to 50,000 cycles.  At the shooting rate that I maintain, it will take me less than a year and a half to hit 50,000 shots with a body.  Just based on this alone, a camera with a longer life shutter is worth that much more to me. (the new 5D replacement is supposed to have a 300000 cycle shutter, compared to just 100000 for the new rebel, this alone makes it worth 3x as much, any other differences notwithstanding). 

With the bigger, more expensive cameras, comes much better exposure metering, and much better focusing, two things that are very important to taking quality high quality shots (it sucks when you take the money shot but come to find out later on the computer that the AF was off a little or the exposure meter missed by a mile and there are overexposed parts).  The viewfinder is brighter on a FF camera, allowing easier shot composition and easier recognition of focus, and the higher end cameras are designed and layed out for people that shoot in manual, and not for people that shoot in auto.  A rebel can be operated manually, but the layout is quite clumsy for it compared to the bigger bodies (I can not tell you how many good shots that I have missed because I hit the timer button at the same time as the aperture button). 

Not to mention a Rebel is essentially useless for stock above 100 ISO, whereas 200 ISO is still quite safe on a FF, even 400, which opens up a lot of shooting possibilities that just aren't there with a Rebel.

And if you put a lot of money into good glass, especially telephoto lenses, they are absolutely ridiculous on a Rebel.  A 70-200 f/2.8 IS looks and feels very, very wrong on a Rebel, the lens is gigantic compared to the little camera, and lenses get much bigger than that (I'd love to see a picture of a Bigma mounted to a Rebel, that would be hilarious).

Quote from: Vonkara on April 10, 2008, 09:39

The advantage of having a full frame is undeniable.

Could you tell me more about that?

Apart from specific needs (robustness) and personal preference, what are the undeniable advantages of a full frame over an APS-C?

Especially when we talk about a quite old full frame model (5D) and a brand  new 450D which get some features the 5D does not have (14bits processing, DIGIC III, Live View, integrated cleaning system).

I know that a 450D may seems like a toy compared with the 5D when you hold it, but is there any advantage in purchasing a $2500 full frame from a picture quality point of view?

I dont' think so, but I'm interested in your opinion.

My opinions.

The selling point for me was the quality.  The 5D produces better quality photos than a 1.6x crop camera.  The sensor is better, the colour reproduction is better.  The noise is quite obviously better - I can now shoot gigs at ISO3200 and still be pleased with the result.

The viewfinder is bigger and brighter allowing more accurate manual focus.  And the depth of field preview is actually useful now!

I can shoot wide angle shots with my 24mm lens too.

My depth of field is shallower with the same lenses than a 1.6x crop.

Lenses didn't come into it for me.  I bought my 5D with only one lens that would fit - the 50mm plastic fantastic.  Since I've added the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8.

I wouldn't use things like liveview, and I don't need sensor cleaning (I've never had a problem with dirty sensors).

Shutter accutatios don't really come into it for me either.  I had my 350D and only fired off 10,000 shots in two years.  And that's shooting burst for football games and things too.

HOLY THREAD HIJACK, BATMAN!

Wow, this little thread has started such a winded debate!  haha

So who here will be buying the 450D but doesnt need the kit lens?  That's what I was originally asking. 

graficallyminded,
Those of us that hold tight to our personal values, hygiene, and good looks, would
appreciate your shaving and looking somewhat presentable before we take your inquiries serious.

Thank you
The MIZ

Bob I recollect a certain photo of a certain someone...

So please refrain from any further personal attacks on my Saturday morning grubbiness, as pictured in my avatar photo.  If it makes you feel better, my face is currently smoother than a baby's bum.

Ok, i'll keep up with the thread hijack because i might actually learn something - should this be moved to a new thread?

I've always just thought of the difference between the full frame and the 1.6 to be no big deal - but after looking at the portrait images on the 'comparator' that Vonkara posted, (comparing the XTi that i have now to the 5D canon), i'm amazed. The question i have i that real what i'm seeing and it is because simply the difference between the sensor size? Are these shot with the same lens???

Most of the faces I shoot with my XTi are much like the image on the left and i'm always wondering why they're not crisp and clear like the image on the right... is it sensor or lens making the difference?

here's a sample from that site
Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch

"Ok, i'll keep up with the thread hijack because i might actually learn something "

OK so let me see if I got this straight maunger. This is all about you now. No consideration
for graficallyminded at all. Seems like sort of a self-centered way to learn.

I understand though.....you got very excited and carried away right? This is understandable
but the courteous thing to do would be acknowledge his inquiry first, and then make a helpful
reply to his question.

The MIZ

Also I think it is horrible that you used this image of this poor women for your personal use



Shame on you!

LOL @ Miz

That woman is in every test shot - how kind of her to pose for such a scientific look at camera and lens quality.  I praise her, and her photographer.

If anyone here sees an EF-S 18-55 IS for around $150, I want it.  Please, someone sell me theirs.

If anyone here sees an EF-S 18-55 IS for around $150, I want it.  Please, someone sell me theirs.

I would not take the 18-55 while it's a fair lens but a standard one. I would look for a 17-85 or even the 17-55 but then you talk about much more paper spent...

here's a sample from that site

Please guys don't look at the poor women... take a look at the wine bottles ones. The lightning is not perfectly the same also but much closer

to add to what waldo4 said..

The advantage that the full frame gives the 5D is less noise.  Because it is a full frame sensor there is a lot more room for all the pixels to fit in.  When the pixels are tightly packed like on a Rebel (with a 1.6x crop factor) or even worse on a point and shoot, the image quality suffers in the form of noise

True but false  

Agree 200% for non-DSLR: noise is horrible, but those camera are aimed at people who most of the time do not even see that there is noise in this blue sky   Manufacturer do not put a lot of (expensive) technology in those models to reduce the noise.

For DSLR, the size of the photosites is not the whole story. The EOS-1Ds Mark III has a 21Mp 36x24mm sensor and the 350D a 8Mp 22x15mm sensor: the "pixels" are almost the same size on both camera, but I guess (hope) that the noise is less present on the brand new $8000 Mark III compared to the 3 years old $500 Rebel.

We also have to take into account other technologies and post-processing aimed at reducing the noise and Canon is strong here.

Some example of High ISO (1600) photos taken with the 450D are available here

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos450d_preview/

and this new camera seems to produce quite good photos even at ISO1600

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/photo.aspx?gallery=canoneos450d_preview&photo=15

In fact, I HATE the noise and it would be probable the only reason for me to spend that much money on a full frame. But I'm not convinced on the true advantage on a full frame here. At least not an advantage which is worth several thousands of dollars.