Do You Need a Full Frame DSLR ?

Petteri has posted an interesting article discussing wheather you need a full frame Digital SLR ( Canon EOS 5D ) or not. In conclusion he wrote:

“A full-frame camera is more satisfying to shoot and, when handled right, produces even better image quality than an APS-C camera. Whether these advantages outweigh the negatives, especially when considering the much higher cost of both the camera body and the better glass it needs to feed it, is a different question. For some people, the expense and inconvenience of a Hasselblad is worth the improvement in image quality and the satisfaction of using an enormous viewfinder and a camera system engineered to incredible levels of precision. For most, it’s not. Unfortunately, a 35 mm based digital SLR isn’t a Hasselblad, but in terms of image quality, shooting satisfaction, and to a degree price, it stands in the same relationship to APS-C digital as medium-format stands to 35 mm film. Like 35 mm film, APS-C digital is significantly more convenient, easier to shoot, and less expensive than full-frame digital. So, if you’re standing on the fence and wondering what it is you’re missing out on, the answer for most people would be “a luxury.” Full-frame is in no sense of the word a necessity for the vast majority of purposes and photographers, and the ones who really do require it won’t need to read this piece of pontification to know that they do. But if you can afford it and are prepared to go the extra mile when it comes to shooting technique and choice of glass, it is immensely satisfying. It would take a lot to tempt me back to APS-C.”

Read “To Full Frame or Not To Full Frame” article by Petteri

6 Responses to “Do You Need a Full Frame DSLR ?”

  1. Great information was wondering and still wondering till now if i really need a full frame DSLR camera.

    Am now still considering to buy one..but i really need to think and think about it..

  2. nike milder says:

    Well, If you can afford one go for it. But a camera is nothing without a good quality lens and a good photographer behind the VF.

  3. Nike: means have to buy good lens also?

  4. hi says:

    If you have ask… whether you need it or not… IT SUCKS! shouldn’t have to ask! it should be available… otherwise you’re just settling… and you’re paying thousands of dollars on a camera!! why should you even have to decide what to give up?

    stupid companies for making it difficult…

  5. DrRex says:

    If the photos you’re getting are good enough without a full-frame DSLR, then there is no point going for a full-frame DSLR. Full-frame units basically come with a host of upgraded functions which you may or may not need, but definitely hikes up the price by a whole lot.

    Investing in better quality lens is a better option before investing in a better body. When the camera body does not do your lens justice in term of quality results, then it’s probably time to consider upgrading the body.

    Try out full frame unit first with your current lens and compare the quality you get with your non-full frame unit. If the difference is worth the additional money, then I’d suggest by all means get a full-frame unit.

  6. Geoff says:

    Great review,

    So Canon or Nikon it is then. Atari amiga, Conservative labour and… uh well, so on.

    My needs are Weddings and Wildlife photography, although lots of forums suggest a 50D or retired D200 my heart says 5d mkII, III or Nikon D300,D3 but my budget says go second hand.

    So as you can rather gather I’m no nearer a choice as I just can’t see the woodpecker for the trees.


Leave a Reply