what's the current need for full frame?

[Al Patterson]

Yes, APS-C won, but there is money to be made in making Full Frame win at a later date, so it'll probably happen.

The consumer technology market is such that there is profit to be made it making your purchases appear old fashioned and obsolete. They've done the megapixel thing, they've done the HD video thing, they've done the "make it look like an old camera" thing. I expect the next technique will be to make Full Frame look as essential high megapixel counts, and APS-C look useless and outdated.

It would be an even more profitable move than the upgrades to high-MP cameras, as they get to sell you new lenses too.

I certainly hope so, then I can buy all those useless cameras for pennies on the dollar.

I love how easily the are manipulated by advertising....😉

 

[GaryLH]

These arguments have been around since 120 was the new darling to 4x5 or 8x10, then came 35mm. There are advantages to any give format, be happy use the one that works for u..

Gary

 

[Godfrey]

Would you be able to explain the reason for this, please? Is it to do with a digital sensor having less tolerance for depth of focus errors than an equivalent frame of 35mm? If the actual proportions of the formats are the same Ie. 36 x 24mm, I would have thought depth of field would be the same, whether a lens was attached to a digital or film camera.
TIA,
Brett

What I've read on this topic in this thread so far seems a lot of imprecise mumbo jumbo. A fizziks explanation.

I shoot Leica M4-2 and M9 side by side with the same lenses, at the same aperture settings. There are times when it looks like the M9 has more depth of field with the same lens at the same f/number and distance, and there are times when the reverse is true.

Why, I say to myself? Well, one reason might be that without grain and the other defects of film images, digital images are cleaner, so images with good clean edges in them tend to look a little sharper. in images taken on films like Tri-X and processed for a strong contrasty image, the grain sometimes makes a slightly blurred image look like it has strong detail, so there's a case of another effect pushing perception.

All I can say is that your mileage may vary. I hardly notice any difference in my work with these two cameras.

G

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . .Choices made for sounds reasons are always just fine.

G

Dear Godfrey,

Fair enough. But it was possible (or even easy) to misread your argument as a conflation of good and poor reasons. I apologize for misreading.

Cheers,

R.

 

[zuiko85]

OT; Godfrey, this is the first time I've seen your Robot. Neat looking little camera!

John R.

 

[Richard G]

PKR what is DOP?


And:

Frank's new avatar was not required to get what he was saying.

 

[dave lackey]

I am not excited or worried about full frame versus other. Who cares? Not me.
I use what I have. Period.

And this is from one who has both the M8 and the M9...and makes excellent photos with either one.

For me, the Leica X1 does exactly what I need. Having used all the Nikon D1 and D2 bodies over the years, I actually appreciated the crop factor and the small file sizes when doing sports and motorsports photography. And the portraits produced by the D2 bodies were excellent. Of course, I did not have a lot of lenses from the film cameras of the past so it was no big deal to me either.

Can't afford a "full frame" digital camera so I keep on truckin'...I am happy.🙂

 

[Pioneer]

For me it has come down to having the camera with me. I have some beautiful cameras that are rarely carried anymore because they are too large to be comfortable. Case in point. I love my Fuji 690, but it is a large camera. Anymore, if I am in the mood to shoot 6x9 I pack one my folders. Far more convenient and the small reduction in IQ is certainly a fair trade off for me.

Most of the time I am carrying my ZI or my SV, the first for black and white and the second for color. For me it is more important to have a camera in my hand when the Decisive Moment (sorry Henri) occurs then to worry about which format may produce the best image.

The rest is habit. I shoot far more film than digital but when I do shoot digital it is either with my Pentax Q or my Leica M9. Again, small, convenient, easy to have with me when I need it.

 

[Al Patterson]

Depth of Poop

My father called that PhD, for piled higher and deeper.

Came after BS for Bull ***, and MS for more ***...

 

[Mystyler]

I'm happy with my prints from 4/3 and don't get worried about the sensor size. If I really want to upsize I can always get out the EC.

 

[Godfrey]

OT; Godfrey, this is the first time I've seen your Robot. Neat looking little camera!

John R.

Thanks!

The Star 50 is a bit industrial looking, the 1941 Robot II is prettier. That tiny Schneider lens on he Star 50 makes it look extra special. 🙂

G

 

[Godfrey]

All this needs to be in the context of print size and ISO required speed.

APS makes very nice 8x12. APS is good to 800/1000 ISO. But this is changing as APS is simply a cutdown FF sensor. But the size limitation on prints is still there, more area = bigger print.

You want a nice portrait lens in APS. You will look far and wide for a 70 mm prime unless you look at Leica.

There be no wide primes either. You are forced to consumer grade zooms.

But for travel, smaller cameras are the cat`s meow. I know one pro who went to europe with a P&S.

My FouthThirds SLR with a 5Mpixel sensor has made some stunning 20x24 inch prints for me, several of which garnered recognition in three different juried exhibitions.

G

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Well, I'll try.

When I first noticed this, when using both Nikon film cameras and a FF DSLR with the same lenses, I called Nikon Pro services. I said that I was seeing about a 1/3 difference in DOF between the digital and the film camera with the same lenses. The reply was - that's about right. If you'll notice, around the time digital sensors became useable, Nikon (and others) dropped the DOF scales on their lenses as they no longer applied when used between media/formats. I'll date this with the Nikon manufactured Kodak 14N, the first popular FF Nikon F mount body (built on an N80 cam).

I have a pal who designs camera sensors, big ones used in oil exploration. He told me that the difference is reasoned by the attack angle of photons interacting with silver halide rocks and photo sites, The silver rocks can accept a photon at any angle, a photo site requires that they hit at 90 deg. Some makers have experimented with pointing sites off angle to more closely emulate film. The loss in site real estate (resolution) was the cost. Now many of the newer lenses are designed to point light rays at 90 deg to the sensor helping with resolution. But the “better ilusion” of depth requires the more friendly acceptance angle of the silver rocks.

As for the difference between FF and APS-C, that’s a function of the lens (formula). A 200mm is a WA at 8x10 and a telephoto at 35mm. The formulas change for coverage but you can’t cheat physics when DOF is measured.

As for Depth of Focus (not Depth of Field) my designer pal said that focus is much more critical with a sensor than with film. He thought that it would be tough to sell digital cameras without AF. While Pros and many advanced amateurs can properly focus a camera, few high end digital camera owners would have sharp photos without the use of AF. Personally, I use AF a fair amount but turn it off when I see AF errors. I find that I can focus critically with a digital camera almost as easily as with a film camera.

Here’s a citation that may help:
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Digital_Lenses_3-26__8236.pdf


Just an observation:
Not very long ago, there were many on this forum that could explain this kind of technical bit much better than I have. I miss reading their posts.

Let me add a picture, PKR:

A sensor has sharper boundaries than a film emulsion, and - as you said - it is also more sensitive to the angle of light entering it.

Roland.

Gentlemen, thanks very much! Appreciated.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[hausen]

I agree with Pioneer, to me it is about the camera you have with you. For me my go to at present is the RX-1 which just happens to be FF. Fits in jacket pocket, briefcase, golf bag and Panniers on my Mbike. Means I have it with me..

 

[Mcary]

If by "working" you mean shooting in the streets of Syria or climbing a 3 kilometer mountain to get commercial landscape, then yes, anything less than a 1d or D3/4 isn't going to cut it. But for simpler stuff I don't see why a crop body can't suffice, as long as it can do high-speed sync and support remote fire.

Don't forget that up until the 1DX the 1D series had a cropped 1.3 sensor.
*1Ds=FF*

Personally I can't think of a single reason why I need FF digital camera or course that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have a FF digital camera like the M240 but that more a question of want rather then need.

 

[gavinlg]

Don't forget that up until the 1DX the 1D series had a cropped 1.3 sensor.
*1Ds=FF*

Personally I can't think of a single reason why I need FF digital camera or course that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have a FF digital camera like the M240 but that more a question of want rather then need.

Not entirely true - the 1ds has had a full frame sensor for 12 years now, the 1d is only now full frame with the X. Big reason for the 5d's popularity with photojournalists was the full frame sensor too. Original one came out 2004ish.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

Well, I worked with a couple of Nikon D2 (1.5 FOV crop) bodies for a while. Nothing faster. Nothing more rugged. Nothing in the Nikon/Nikkor system that I couldn't use.

Agreed. In fact, I posted a comparison series between a Nikon D700 and Pentax K-x. For a landscape style photo, there was no difference in a 16x24 or 20x30 print. For high so, after basic PP in Lightroom, even 1600 iso shots looked the same in print.

Print, is a great equalizer.

 

[shadowfox]

So there are these two newly-released cameras.
One has APS sensor, the other Full-frame.

Price: insignificantly different.
Sensor technology/quality: comparable.
Lens focal length and apertures: equal.
Model (handling, size, and styling): very similar.
OVF/EVF (or LCD for those of you who prefer it): equal.
Menu/Interface: very similar.

Which one would you pick?
That's your answer.

Me? I'd pick the full-frame one in a heartbeat.

 

[willie_901]

So there are these two newly-released cameras.
One has APS sensor, the other Full-frame.

Price: insignificantly different.
Sensor technology/quality: comparable.
Lens focal length and apertures: equal.
Model (handling, size, and styling): very similar.
OVF/EVF (or LCD for those of you who prefer it): equal.
Menu/Interface: very similar.

Which one would you pick?
That's your answer.

Me? I'd pick the full-frame one in a heartbeat.

Of course, if the lens apertures are equal the larger sensor is a huge advantage. Practically all the advantage is canceled if the APC-C lenses are faster.

 

[Aristophanes]

So there are these two newly-released cameras.
One has APS sensor, the other Full-frame.

Price: insignificantly different.
Sensor technology/quality: comparable.
Lens focal length and apertures: equal.
Model (handling, size, and styling): very similar.
OVF/EVF (or LCD for those of you who prefer it): equal.
Menu/Interface: very similar.

Which one would you pick?
That's your answer.

Me? I'd pick the full-frame one in a heartbeat.

This is a falsified comparison from inception.

Look at the diagram in post #104.

Sensors are extremely sensitive electronic devices. They require precise mounting and alignment, which, unavoidably, requires substantial installed physical support and electronics scaled to size of the sensor.

FF sensors require larger physical mounts, battery power, etc.

FF in film was 135 , a standard you could engineer a camera around. Sensors requires scaling the camera up relative in size, sensor to body.

Also, if you want interchangable lenses, the body has to structurally support the lens and make accommodation for things like sensor cleaning. Larger diameter means more support, hence a correspondingly larger body by quite a margin. Big sensor = big glass = big body. Sure, you can pull a Sony, but the equivalent in APS-C is much, smaller, especially the lens (Ricoh GR):

http://camerasize.com/compare/#376,160

The Sony RX-1 is 219% heavier than the GR and has almost 2x the volume, mostly in the glass. We can lament that APS-C is inferior to the old 135 FF standard, but the 50% crop factor has enabled cameras with supporting electronics to be mass and volume almost 1/2 the size. m43 gets even smaller.