Full frame dSLRs for under $3,000

Lori Grunin, Senior Editor January 28, 2009

Size matters, at least in digital cameras. Larger sensors have the potential to deliver better photo quality; they have room for bigger photosites at any given resolution, which means less noise and a broader dynamic range.

Full-frame dSLRs--so named for their sensors, which are the same size as a frame of 35mm film (36mmx24mm)--are larger than the typical APS-H (28.1mmx18.7mm), APS-C (varies, but examples are 22.3mmx14.9mm and 23.6mmx15.8mm) or Four Thirds (18mmx13.5mm) sensors found in other models. But you can get extremely good photos from cameras that use these smaller sensors as well.

So what's the real advantage? Wide angle views. A lens' angle of view--the amount of the scene it covers--is a function of the size of the frame and the focal length of the lens. For a given focal length, the smaller the frame size the narrower the angle of view. That's why we refer to "35mm equivalent" focal lengths when talking about most digital cameras; it's shorthand for "the equivalent angle of view covered by the same focal length lens on a 35mm camera." On a typical dSLR, because of the smaller sensor, you need to multiply the lens' focal length by some factor--usually 1.6x (Canon), 2x (Four Thirds) or 1.5x (everyone else) to find that equivalent focal length.

But it's not just about mentally adjusting your expectations about which lens delivers which views. It's technically more difficult to create a really wide angle lens for a smaller sensor, and even more difficult to create a really good wide angle lens, so in order to shoot truly wide-angle pro-quality photos, or take advantage of your old film-camera lenses the way they were meant to be used, you need at least a full-frame sensor. Of course, this also makes these cameras generally larger and more power hungry than their smaller sensored siblings.

And more expensive. Because they appeal to the enthusiast and professional shooters, manufacturers toss more pro and cutting-edge features into these models, forcing their prices upwards of $2,000. Unless you have an investment in high-quality wide-angle lenses or plan to shoot, say, wider than 20mm-equivalent, you probably don't need a full-frame camera; less expensive models like the Canon EOS 50D, Nikon D300, Olympus E-3 and other good midrange models have plenty of power and deliver the speed and high quality photos most people need.

Here's how the entry-level full-frame models break down:

• The least expensive full-frame model available is the original Canon EOS 5D. Though it's over 3 years old, it still stacks up pretty well. As long as you don't need ultra high resolution (it's only 12.8 megapixels), high ISO sensitivity (it maxes out at ISO 3,200) or great burst shooting, it's a relative bargain. Though Canon's not officially selling it anymore, you can still find it in loads of places, and can probably get some great deals on used models from people upgrading to the Mark II.
• If you've got an investment in Nikon lenses or want the fastest burst shooter in this class, opt for the Nikon D700. It's a great camera, but the 12-megapixel resolution may not cut it for some applications.
• If you need in-body image stabilization or have an investment in Minolta lenses, the Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 is your only choice. It's a good camera and has plenty of pixels, but it's generally slow and not great at high ISO sensitivities, and a bit overpriced for what it delivers.
• If you want the best combination of performance, photo quality and features, the Canon EOS 5D Mark II comes out on top. Yes, it's the only one with video capture, but that aside it's simply a great shooter's camera.

Though you probably can get most of what you need by sticking in $2,000 to $3,000 range, if you need full frame and sports-shooting speed or far more rugged body construction, then you'll need to fork over a lot more dough for the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III or the Nikon D3.

More Resources

Best professional dSLRs,

Digital camera reviews,

Indecent Exposure podcast