what's the current need for full frame?

sonofdanang said:
You might want to ask long-time Nikon shooter William Albert Allard how he feels about his "...beloved GF-1."
Click to expand...

I understand your point. I am not judging anyone whose camera(s) and lens(es) help them meet their photographic goals.

I sold my G1 years ago because I could no longer tolerate using the RAW files compared to the D200/300 I was using at the time. I doubt a discussion with Mr. Albert will convince me more S/N and dynamic range are irrelevant to my photographic goals.
 
Aristophanes said:
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.
Click to expand...

So I take it you're not going to answer the question?
:)
 
digitalintrigue said:
The market has spoken. APS won. There are of course serious enthusiasts, like most of us here, that offer exceptions to the rule; i.e., demographic outliers. Full frame RF users are indeed outliers, not mainstream, by any measure.

But as Godfrey says, it's all good!

To coin a phrase: "Just shoot it."
Click to expand...

Has the market really spoken or is it still speaking? Lets be honest, the world of digital cameras is very much in flux. Right now it seems that the tiny sensors in smart phones are the winners (based on the market). The traditional P&S digital camera market is eroding quickly leading camera manufacturers to spend more effort catering to enthusiasts. APS might be in the lead right now, but I wonder if in a couple of years we might see DSLRs swing back to full frame and APS sharing the market with 4/3s for ILCs.

--
Bill
 
MarylandBill said:
The traditional P&S digital camera market is eroding quickly leading camera manufacturers to spend more effort catering to enthusiasts. APS might be in the lead right now, but I wonder if in a couple of years we might see DSLRs swing back to full frame and APS sharing the market with 4/3s for ILCs.

--
Bill
Click to expand...




This

10char
 
Why FF? Better low light performance, and my wide lenses are wide again.

Why DX? Whole rig is more compact, lighter weight, and my telephotos are longer.
 
shadowfox said:
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.
Click to expand...

On a standard 12" wafer there will be an approximate theoretical max of 2.3 times as many APS-C sensors as full frame sensors (197 vs 84.) Of course since the wafers are circular the numbers won't be quite that high.

Then there is the matter of yield. A very rough rule of thumb for similar products is the yield goes down by the square of the die size.

An APS-C sensor has an area of ~370 square mm and full frame ~864mm square mm. Using this rough rule of thumb this means the yield of a full frame sensor is about 18% of an APS-C.

Combine these two and a single wafer with 100% yield for APS-C would result in only 15 working full frame sensors. And 100% yield is definitely theoretical.

So a full frame sensor would be about 13 times more expensive than an APS-C.

Of course, the cost of a full frame camera is more than just the cost of the sensor...

An APS-C sensor is going to have to be mighty cheap before "Price: insignificantly different" happens. :)
 
back alley said:
i used to pine for a full frame digital camera...not so much anymore!

the biggest reason was having a lens and using it as the focal length it was born at...not a 40 being a 60 etc...

but then i realized that my 40 still looked great as a 60 and i just learned to visually compensate for the change and carried on using it.

now, with owning a fuji camera and using the 'native' fuji lenses, the 'need' for full frame seems to have completely disappeared for me.
in fact, i started using old manual focus lenses for fun/play! my 100 is now a 150 and i enjoy it.

i get plenty of limited dof with a 35/1.4 lens...
the image quality is fine, detail is there etc.

not sure why i need full frame?
Click to expand...

Joe, this has been a fascinating thread. The opinions are varied and the support for them has largely been excellent.

For me, the bottom line is that I don't need full-frame. I had an X-Pro1 and couldn't get on with the focusing system using the OVF. I detest EVFs. If the Fuji had come out with a coincident rangefinder in the OVF, I'd have never returned to Leica.

I shot Olympus 4/3rds for the better part of ten years professionally; E1s, E3s and E5s. The output was more than adequate for the needs of my clients.

I have an M4-P, an M8 and an M9P. I use the two digital bodies interchangeably. 35mm sensors were the holy grail because they allow 35mm film body owners the convenience to use their lenses at the native focal length. The rest of the 'stuff' they offer is ok, but I've never seen anyone yet who could tell me what camera took which print in a blind test with two prints side-by-side.

I don't think that any of the current crop of sensors are bad or limiting. The features the camera system offers, the ergonomics, and your comfort level using it are far more important than what size sensor it has. After six months and some 5k exposures, the X-Pro1 just didn't work for me and I felt like I had to fight the camera every step of the way for control. The M8/M9 feel natural to me, like I've used them for forty years (which basically I have.)

That, to me, is what's important in a camera system. If you're really comfortable with a camera system, in your case the X-Pro1, then use it to its fullest and don't worry about what anybody else offers. It's just not important. The images are what's important.
 
Its all a compromise

Its all a compromise

Larger format gives you more photons, which all else being equal will give you better image quality.

However, larger format is larger... so a compromise must be reached.

I think a lot of people (myself included) are/were unhappy with digital crop format SLRs, it that the overall package wasn't smaller. Since everything had to clear the mirror box (designed for full frame) the lenses (especially wide angle) weren't practically smaller. Hence, you give up a lot of photons for not much size benefit - especially if you're using prime lenses (compare a nikon 35/2 to the 35/1.8DX, the DX lens is larger - more than would be suggested by the f/2 to f/1.8 change. If it didn't have to clear the mirror box, it could have been made smaller - but I digress)

Once we're no longer talking about crop systems designed to be compatible with older systems (m4/3, Fuji X, etc), we get back to simple choice on the continuum of image quality vs size. And as always, pick where you want to be for your desired output size.

Personally, everything is good enough for me, I rarely print larger than 11 x 16. I've printed nice 8 x 10's from my iPhone, I just like how the leica handles (btw, the M8 package is not smaller than the M9 package, but you give up a lot of photons)

my 2c of course, it's interesting to hear everyone's opinion and choice.

Michael
 
follow up

follow up

Sorry, I forgot to answer the OP's question!

Q: What's the current need for full frame?

A: For an SLR (or any legacy mount such as the M mount) set-up, you capture significantly more photons without much weight penalty. For compacts and mirrorless systems, I'm not sure if there is a need.

Michael
 
Your subconscious is telling you that you need a full frame & you will never be truly satisified until you get a FF digital rangefinder like a M9. My subconscious was telling me I needed a Leica & perhaps one day I will, but like you, right now I'm content shooting my Bessa. ;):)
 
digitalintrigue said:
Using this rough rule of thumb this means the yield of a full frame sensor is about 18% of an APS-C.

Combine these two and a single wafer with 100% yield for APS-C would result in only 15 working full frame sensors.
Click to expand...

You can't combine these numbers - yield is "good chips per wafer", you can't have "chips per wafer" enter that equation twice. Besides, 100% yield would work either way - no flaw is no flaw, no matter how many times you multiply it.

The issues become more transparent when you view yield in numbers: One fatal flaw per wafer will affect one chip per wafer, i.e. brings down the count to 196 vs. 83, ten ideally distributed flaws will make it 187 to 74, fifty make it 147 vs. 44, a hundred make it none vs. 97. For a purely theoretical worst case - in reality flaws are not evenly spread across chips, but are randomly distributed (where you'd expect a two-or-none scenario as often as one flaw each on two adjacent chips) or even tend to cluster (e.g. ten flaws on one chip, none on the nine around it), so that a hundred flaws will probably only reduce the yield to fifty or sixty chips per wafer.
 
sevo said:
You can't combine these numbers - yield is "good chips per wafer", you can't have "chips per wafer" enter that equation twice. Besides, 100% yield would work either way - no flaw is no flaw, no matter how many times you multiply it.
Click to expand...


Without boring people to death on this subject, my math was correct. :) There would only be about 15 working full frame sensors per wafer in my scenario as compared to 197 APS-C sensors, assuming 100% yield of APS-C. Of course, this is a theoretical maximum yield; that doesn't happen in the real world.

In any case, the factor in the illustration is 197 APS sensors to 15 full frame, or a factor of thirteen.

This is how many times more expensive a full frame sensor is over APS-C...again, this is an estimate, by no means is it absolute. Yields could be higher for the full frame, and/or lower for APS-C. Let's say the yield is 90% for APS-C, then the factor would be about 12x.

In any case, APS sensors would have to be very inexpensive indeed for there to be almost no difference in price between an APS camera and a full frame camera, as outlined in the hypothetical post earlier in the thread. Don't forget the sensor is not the only cost difference. Other camera body components will cost more as well, not to mention the lens cost to cover a full frame image circle.
 
michaelwj said:
Larger format gives you more photons, which all else being equal will give you better image quality.

However, larger format is larger... so a compromise must be reached.

I think a lot of people (myself included) are/were unhappy with digital crop format SLRs, it that the overall package wasn't smaller. Since everything had to clear the mirror box (designed for full frame) the lenses (especially wide angle) weren't practically smaller. Hence, you give up a lot of photons for not much size benefit - especially if you're using prime lenses (compare a nikon 35/2 to the 35/1.8DX, the DX lens is larger - more than would be suggested by the f/2 to f/1.8 change. If it didn't have to clear the mirror box, it could have been made smaller - but I digress)

Once we're no longer talking about crop systems designed to be compatible with older systems (m4/3, Fuji X, etc), we get back to simple choice on the continuum of image quality vs size. And as always, pick where you want to be for your desired output size.

Personally, everything is good enough for me, I rarely print larger than 11 x 16. I've printed nice 8 x 10's from my iPhone, I just like how the leica handles (btw, the M8 package is not smaller than the M9 package, but you give up a lot of photons)

my 2c of course, it's interesting to hear everyone's opinion and choice.

Michael
Click to expand...

I take your point. Like you, I was looking forward to smaller lenses for APS, but it never really happened. I would note though, with your example of the nikon 35's above, that the 35mm f1.8 had a built in focus motor which the older lens did not have.
 
i've found i don't need full frame.

recently purchased an M9P, but really wish I hadn't sold my M8.2

in my opinion, the sensor on the M8 produced more crisper images suitable to my taste.

and no one could tell the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom