why full frame?

[BobYIL]

Whether we like it or not the trend is toward the APS-C format.

OOF rendering (bokeh): Two Summiluxes; one is the 25mm DG for m43 and the other one Summilux 50/1.4 Asph. Which one do you think has smoother bokeh?

Hi-ISO: Just a couple years ago low-res FF sensors (like the one on the D3) were regarded as the only way to ISO 6400. Today even sub-APS-C size Canon G1X can deliver the same.

Size considerations lead the manufacturers toward shrinking the dimensions of the cameras. Fast AF considerations lead the lens designers toward using lighter and smaller lens elements. Larger aperture requirements are easier to satisfy with smaller circle of illuminations. AF lenses need to be compact inspite of having motors... These are hard to be satisfied by the FF format.

I am inclined to believe the major sensor manufacturers like Sony and Canon have concentrated their R&D departments more on the APS-C size than the FF ones. According to Dr. Fossum (the inventor of the CMOS sensor) we should expect sub-micron sensor technology in the next five years which would lead to perhaps 500MP on the FF format. With the Nex-7 in sight, we might start speculating about over-30MP APS-C sensors by the Photokina 2012.

Just my two cents...

 

[Spicy]

but who cares about megapixels? anything above 16 is unnecessary, anything above 24 is overkill. How many of us are making billboards? Hell, I rarely even print anything.

low-light stuff is more important. the first obstacle in photography is getting the picture. the second goal is making it pretty. who cares if you can look at all the detail you want in a room too dark to photograph?

you have more available choice in the exposure triangle. more megapixels does nothing in that regard.

 

[David Hughes]

but who cares about megapixels? anything above 16 is unnecessary, anything above 24 is overkill. How many of us are making billboards? Hell, I rarely even print anything.

low-light stuff is more important. the first obstacle in photography is getting the picture. the second goal is making it pretty. who cares if you can look at all the detail you want in a dark room?

you have more available choice in the exposure triangle. more megapixels does nothing in that regard.

Hi,

I seem to remember a lot of respected camera makers going on and on about 5 megapixel cameras and saying that 3 mp gave you A4 prints and 5 would give you A3. But that was a long, long time ago.

Out of curiosity I've made a set of A3+ prints at 1½, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 mp's and I ask people to say which is which. No one ever guesses correctly for the 1½, 2 and 3.

FWIW, I think the subject is most important, then the lens and software plus printer.

Regards, David

PS Knowing how daft things are I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover someone using a Leaf back on a MF camera for ebay photo's. What's worse are the people who can't see that a flea market digital camera for about £2 or so will turn out perfectly good pictures for ebay. And you can get more than your money back by selling the 32MB Smart Media card in them...

 

[Mcary]

Why more mega-pixels? Simple it sales camera and its seems based on what we've seen over the past 5 years that its a lot easier and cheaper to increase the MPs on a sensor then doing something like increasing the dramatic range to by say another 2-3 stops.

Beside that if you told most of the buying public that camera A with 12MP is better then camera B with 18 MP because it has 2 extra stops of dramatic range you just get a glazed over look and a reply of "But my fiend said more MP are better.

 

[David Hughes]

... Beside that if you told most of the buying public that camera A with 12MP is better then camera B with 18 MP because it has 2 extra stops of dramatic range you just get a glazed over look and a reply of "But my fiend said more MP are better.

With fiends like that around...

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

I wish serious photographers would stop calling little negatives like 1" by 1½" full frame when it's very small by any standards. Last time I checked (spoke to someone using it) the largest cut film you could buy commercially was 48" x 35" and I think larger is available but only used by one or two people and then sold direct by the makers.

But then a lot of people say "macro" when they mean fairly close-up and only old physicists start muttering to themselves, so what can we do?

Regards, David

 

[ferider]

In my mind a FF sensor only matters for using "legacy" ( = film ) lenses, and because format has an impact on DOF.

I will be perfectly happy with my first digital camera, the X-Pro1 and its native lenses optimized for the camera's sensor. Remember, the camera will do all kind of things digitally in-camera (vignetting and distortion correction, for example) - "RAW" format does not exist anymore 🙂 Also, the first lenses released with the X-Pro 1 are fast enough for me not to worry about the DOF aspect. For "serious" photography I have no interest in adapting legacy FF lenses to a crop sensor. Using a fast and compact cine or half format lens might be fun, though.

I am planning on using an M adaptor on the Fuji, but only to work on classic lenses. Tired of shooting test films 🙂

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[Speedfreak]

i see full frame sensors and aps-c sensors as different formats...like 35mm is a different format from 120.

is 120 'better' than 35mm...to me, yes.

is full frame 'better' than aps-c...to me...i think so (i have never shot with a ff sensor)

so? can a person be satisfied with an aps-c sensor for life...i think so.

i have shot 120 and loved it but went back to 35mm and was quite happy.

i now shoot with an rd1 and a d90...both aps-c sensors and am happy...can i live without a ff sensor...i'm pretty sure i can.

There is a certain look to lenses from 28 to 50mm on 135 ("full frame") than cant be replicated in smaller formats.

I have seen beautiful work done with a Ricoh GR compact (28mm full frame). Perspective and depth of field simply match perfectly. The same picture taken on an 18mm lens on 1.5 crop just doesnt have the same impact.

 

[Spleenrippa]

I wish serious photographers would stop calling little negatives like 1" by 1½" full frame when it's very small by any standards. Last time I checked (spoke to someone using it) the largest cut film you could buy commercially was 48" x 35" and I think larger is available but only used by one or two people and then sold direct by the makers.

But then a lot of people say "macro" when they mean fairly close-up and only old physicists start muttering to themselves, so what can we do?

Regards, David

If that bugs you, daily life must be quite difficult 😛
On topic: Recently, I had been considering the move from a D300s to a D700/800 and decided to stay where I'm at. This means that I have lenses for both 'FX' (my F5) and 'DX', but for the limited amount of digital work I do I can handle having a few semi-useful/crop lenses in the stable.

 

[Speedfreak]

which would lead to perhaps 500MP on the FF format.

500 megapixels? This would probably be way beyond the resolution capability of any current optical glass.

 

[bigeye]

Bigger is always better in sensors/film, how much you need is personal.

I want to use my existing wides and the reduced Dof from shorter focal lengths are significant to me. Cropper sensors are pretty good, though. I'm still not sure the RD-1 has been surpassed.

In no rush; I'm fine with my obsolete gear.

Joe: the only significant range limits on the D90 that I see are with high-contrast, mid-day shots. I'd like to hear what you think. I peg ours to 200 iso.

.

 

[sepiareverb]

To be perfectly honest, one of the things that drew me into film photography at first was simply the enormous viewfinder. It's like watching a movie on a computer screen vs. going and seeing one at the theater.

These days movies look much better on my own TV or computer than they do in the pathetic low end digital projection theaters around here.

 

[kanzlr]

There is a certain look to lenses from 28 to 50mm on 135 ("full frame") than cant be replicated in smaller formats.

I have seen beautiful work done with a Ricoh GR compact (28mm full frame). Perspective and depth of field simply match perfectly. The same picture taken on an 18mm lens on 1.5 crop just doesnt have the same impact.

if it was a stop faster, it would...

those of you who think that 135 has a different (better) look than APS-C must have never cropped their prints they got in the dark room, otherwise they wouldn't have liked the look anymore. Thats all an APS-C sensor does. No magic involved.

 

[user237428934]

if it was a stop faster, it would...

those of you who think that 135 has a different (better) look than APS-C must have never cropped their prints they got in the dark room, otherwise they wouldn't have liked the look anymore. Thats all an APS-C sensor does. No magic involved.

Yes? Did you compare this? The difference is definitely beyond just cropping something away. Ok, you might not notice this if you only use your lenses at f11 or so.

 

[bobbyrab]

if it was a stop faster, it would...

those of you who think that 135 has a different (better) look than APS-C must have never cropped their prints they got in the dark room, otherwise they wouldn't have liked the look anymore. Thats all an APS-C sensor does. No magic involved.

I always feel I'm cheating if I crop so rarely do, but yes, I do think 35mm quality drops off quite quickly when cropped, probably more than an equivalent digital crop.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I am going to go with bigger being better, in general here. In my film work, that gradually took me to 8x10 with all the format pit-stops along the way. If I could have a MF back for my Hassie's at the price of a used D3, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I love the files from the D3 and the M9. I like having the full range of wide-angle lenses available. And I like how a 50 and 35 look on a FF sensor. Folks talk about "crop-factor" like the laws of physics have been repealed, but the relationship between near and far objects, the drop off of your focus zone etc. are primarily determined by the lens. Before we get into a long thread about how DOF actually is film or sensor-size dependent, let me just say, "I don't care." A 35 mm lens on a 1.5 crop sensor just doesn't do it for me, when a 35mm lens is what I want to use.

 

[nobbylon]

I am going to go with bigger being better, in general here. In my film work, that gradually took me to 8x10 with all the format pit-stops along the way. If I could have a MF back for my Hassie's at the price of a used D3, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I love the files from the D3 and the M9. I like having the full range of wide-angle lenses available. And I like how a 50 and 35 look on a FF sensor. Folks talk about "crop-factor" like the laws of physics have been repealed, but the relationship between near and far objects, the drop off of your focus zone etc. are primarily determined by the lens. Before we get into a long thread about how DOF actually is film or sensor-size dependent, let me just say, "I don't care." A 35 mm lens on a 1.5 crop sensor just doesn't do it for me, when a 35mm lens is what I want to use.

well said.

 

[willie_901]

For a given generation of sensor technology, the information content of data recorded with a large sensor area is always higher than that with a smaller sensor area. More information content means less uncertainty in the data and who would not want to start with an image with the least amount of uncertainty?

The information content most important to imaging is the signal-to-noise ratio. The SNR obviously determines the image quality as ISO increases. Less attention is paid to the importance of SNR on dynamic range. Who doesn't want more dynamic range? The physics of sensor area and image quality are discussed in detail here .

When there is an abundance of light (a scene without shadow regions), sensor area is not so important because there is a lot of signal (information) The SNR is inherently very high (so the uncertainty is negligible). The opposite holds when a scene has both well-lit and shadow regions. A smaller sensor area means less SNR and the image fidelity for either the well-lit or the shadow regions (or both) suffers. Of course scenes where the light level is uniformly low (such as a basketball court where you need fast shutter speeds and small aperture openings) will always benefit from a large sensor area.

The sensor area best suited to a needs of a photographer is a grand compromise of price, performance and convenience. The APS-C sensor format in 2012 can perform as well as 135 (24mm X 36mm) format sensors from 5 to 6 years ago. The same holds true for the m4/3 format compared to earlier generations APS-C sensors.

After a year of experimentation with m4/3, APS-C and 135 format cameras, I found the APS-C sensor performance was the best compromise for the majority of my non-commercial work. The 135 format sensor was better suited for my commercial work. At least 90% of my photography income is from images recorded at ISO 800 with focal lengths of 20 to 24 mm. In this work the dynamic range is critical. The camera I carry daily is has an APS-C sensor and the ISO I use varies from 200 to 3200. While the m4/3 format sensor area did not deliver the results I needed, I can see how that sensor area would be the best compromise for others.

 

[noimmunity]

The APS-C sensor format in 2012 can perform as well as 135 (24mm X 36mm) format sensors from 5 to 6 years ago.

If information recently released related to the new APS-C sensor in the Fuji X-Pro1 is viable, the sensor in that camera beats FF sensors from 3-4 years ago (Nikon D700 and Canon 5DMkII).

I appreciate very much your comments about "best compromise".

 

[BobYIL]

The information content most important to imaging is the signal-to-noise ratio. The SNR obviously determines the image quality as ISO increases. Less attention is paid to the importance of SNR on dynamic range. Who doesn't want more dynamic range? The physics of sensor area and image quality are discussed in detail here .

When there is an abundance of light (a scene without shadow regions), sensor area is not so important because there is a lot of signal (information) The SNR is inherently very high (so the uncertainty is negligible). The opposite holds when a scene has both well-lit and shadow regions. A smaller sensor area means less SNR and the image fidelity for either the well-lit or the shadow regions (or both) suffers. Of course scenes where the light level is uniformly low (such as a basketball court where you need fast shutter speeds and small aperture openings) will always benefit from a large sensor area...

Agree with the above comments however the last two years have changed these tremendously; in just two short years... The parameters defining the ratio of maximum light intensity measurable at the saturation point of pixel to minimum light intensity measurable right above the read-out noise are not related directly to the pixel size anymore. So do not wonder of why (or how) the sensor/A/D converter on the Pentax K-5 delivering higher Dynamic Range than the Nikon D3x or PhaseOne IQ180... Forget about comparing the known merits of the CCD- against the CMOS-sensors...

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_landscape

IMHO, we are on the brinks of a new era where APS-C size sensor would become the new standard for what Leica had initiated way back in 1925. And regarding to the technology what Dr. Fossum has predicted (in my previous post) I think it is readily available, in Sony's as well as Canon's plants. For example:

The 16MP 1/2.3" Exmor R CMOS sensor of Sony DSC-HX100V measures 4.62 x 6.16 = 28.46sq.mm. The APS-C sensor is 15.7 x 23.7 = 372.09sq.mm, meaning: Assuming the same processes and technology it's possible to squeeze into the APS-C sensor 372.09 / 28.46 x 16 = 209MP!

Let's prepare ourselves also for over 14 Evs dynamic ranges from the APS-C format in this year or latest in 2013.

Regards,

Bob