Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions... (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t424968-1-5x-sensors-vs-full-frame-and-other-questions.html)

Progressiveabsolution 04-27-2006 07:07 PM

1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...
 
What exactly does the 1.5X crop do to the image that is produced from
the camera? In other words, does it degrade the quality of the picture
when comparing to a full framed camera body?

What is the essential difference in image quality between a full frame
body and a 1.5-1.6X cropped body?

How much of a difference is there in image quality between the full
frame body and the 1.5-1.6X sensor bodies?

I'm sure this has been answered but hopefully I can get some more info
on this.

Thanks all for your help!


David 04-27-2006 07:55 PM

Re: 1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...
 
Full frame with the same lens will have a shallower depth of field than the
1.6 for the same 'framed' photo. Which is better for isolating the
foreground from the background (out of focus background).

1.6 gives you a longer focal length. So, longer at the telephoto end, but
shorter at the wide angle end (not as wide with the same focal length, but
longer with the same focal length).

1.6 gives you more distortion at the wide angle as a 17mm lens is still 17mm
lens.

Vignetting maybe reduced on a 1.6 as the true edges of the lens is wider
than the sensor (unless a EF-S maybe). Although 17mm EF-S wide open on a
1.6 body can still give vignetting.

Full frame has less noise, so you can shoot at a slower ISO/noise ratio.

Full frame has a better range of 'L' lenses available. There isn't a 24-70
equivelent for 1.6 cropped cameras. However, there isn't a 112-320 'L' lens
for full frame bodies either.

So, what you are asking is should I go for a 30D or a 5D? Full frame is
better than 1.6, if you have plenty of money to spend. Disadvantage is you
don't have such a good focal length at the telephoto end, but if the sensor
has more megapixels, then you can always crop the image afterwards to give
the same result. Also, the 5D lacks in the FPS section.



"Progressiveabsolution" <progressiveabsolution@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146164850.935982.252650@e56g2000cwe.googlegr oups.com...
> What exactly does the 1.5X crop do to the image that is produced from
> the camera? In other words, does it degrade the quality of the picture
> when comparing to a full framed camera body?
>
> What is the essential difference in image quality between a full frame
> body and a 1.5-1.6X cropped body?
>
> How much of a difference is there in image quality between the full
> frame body and the 1.5-1.6X sensor bodies?
>
> I'm sure this has been answered but hopefully I can get some more info
> on this.
>
> Thanks all for your help!
>




railfan 04-27-2006 08:00 PM

Re: 1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...
 

David wrote:
> 1.6 gives you a longer focal length. So, longer at the telephoto end, but
> shorter at the wide angle end (not as wide with the same focal length, but
> longer with the same focal length).


Not really. The digital sensor is 60% as large as a 35mm frame.
Therefore it only sees the middle 60% of a lens' view. It gives the
size of a longer lens, but not the magnification. A 300mm lens on a
digital camera will give the same magnification, but just the 60% of
the image, giving the impression of a longer lens.

>
> 1.6 gives you more distortion at the wide angle as a 17mm lens is still 17mm
> lens.


A digital sensor with a 17mm lens sees only the 60% center of the
image, resulting in the field of view of a 28mm lens. No disortion
here.

B. Boudreau
Canada


David 04-27-2006 08:18 PM

Re: 1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...
 

"railfan" <arailfan@post.com> wrote in message
news:1146168017.401624.166120@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Not really. The digital sensor is 60% as large as a 35mm frame.
> Therefore it only sees the middle 60% of a lens' view. It gives the
> size of a longer lens, but not the magnification. A 300mm lens on a
> digital camera will give the same magnification, but just the 60% of
> the image, giving the impression of a longer lens.


I appologise for not spelling it out, however I did say later 'but if the
sensor
has more megapixels, then you can always crop the image afterwards to give
the same result'.

> A digital sensor with a 17mm lens sees only the 60% center of the
> image, resulting in the field of view of a 28mm lens. No disortion
> here.


Try shooting vertical buildings with a 17mm on a 1.6 sensor.





Joseph Meehan 04-27-2006 08:23 PM

Re: 1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...
 
Progressiveabsolution wrote:
> What exactly does the 1.5X crop do to the image that is produced from
> the camera? In other words, does it degrade the quality of the
> picture when comparing to a full framed camera body?
>
> What is the essential difference in image quality between a full frame
> body and a 1.5-1.6X cropped body?
>
> How much of a difference is there in image quality between the full
> frame body and the 1.5-1.6X sensor bodies?
>
> I'm sure this has been answered but hopefully I can get some more info
> on this.
>
> Thanks all for your help!


It means the sensor is only seeing a portion of the image produced by
the lens that a full size sensor would. It means that to get the same
coverage a lens will need to have a smaller focal length.

The amount of information the sensor can record is more of a factor of
the pixel count than the size. (Note: in some ways the larger sensor can do
better but since there are other factors to consider, I would not worry
about that, just look at comparisons of real images from any lens-camera
combination you are considering.) .

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit



Thomas T. Veldhouse 04-27-2006 08:51 PM

Re: 1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...
 
David <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> Full frame has less noise, so you can shoot at a slower ISO/noise ratio.
>


actually .... " at a higher ISO/noise ratio."

That amounts to you can use higher ISO settings and get less noise than the
smaller sensor cousins.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1


Alfred Molon 04-27-2006 10:13 PM

Re: 1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...
 
In article <yqWdnYl6csCGvMzZnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@pipex.net>, me@privacy.net
says...
> Full frame with the same lens will have a shallower depth of field than the
> 1.6 for the same 'framed' photo. Which is better for isolating the
> foreground from the background (out of focus background).


....and worse when you need a lot of DOF, for instance for landscape or
architectural shots. To get the same DOF with the full frame lens you
will need to stop down the lens and might have to use a higher ISO
resulting higher noise levels.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/

John McWilliams 04-27-2006 10:51 PM

Re: 1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...
 
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <yqWdnYl6csCGvMzZnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@pipex.net>, me@privacy.net
> says...
>> Full frame with the same lens will have a shallower depth of field than the
>> 1.6 for the same 'framed' photo. Which is better for isolating the
>> foreground from the background (out of focus background).

>
> ...and worse when you need a lot of DOF, for instance for landscape or
> architectural shots. To get the same DOF with the full frame lens you
> will need to stop down the lens and might have to use a higher ISO
> resulting higher noise levels.


Yeah, especially when those pesky buildings don't merely sway, but start
to dance around. Note: Always shoot mountains at 1600 iso in case they
erupt, or jump causing blur at 1/2000.

--
John McWilliams

David J. Littleboy 04-27-2006 11:13 PM

Re: 1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...
 
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <yqWdnYl6csCGvMzZnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@pipex.net>, me@privacy.net
>> says...
>>> Full frame with the same lens will have a shallower depth of field than
>>> the
>>> 1.6 for the same 'framed' photo. Which is better for isolating the
>>> foreground from the background (out of focus background).

>>
>> ...and worse when you need a lot of DOF, for instance for landscape or
>> architectural shots. To get the same DOF with the full frame lens you
>> will need to stop down the lens and might have to use a higher ISO
>> resulting higher noise levels.


This isn't true. The noise and the DOF scale in the same way, so at the same
pixel count, same shutter speed, same DOF, the noise is the same. This is
because statistical noise is reduced by sqrt(2) when you double the area of
the pixel, and is also reduced by sqrt(2) when you divide the ISO by 2.

But in real life, ISO 100 at f/16 for a sunny day landscape has a shutter
speed of 1/100, which is plenty either for landscapes or telephoto with IS.
And if you are serious about image quality, you use a tripod. And maybe a
T/S lens.

Also, while the DOF _at the same f stop_ is much wider for small sensor
cameras, the _maximum DOF obtanable with decent sharpness_ is exactly the
same, since the effects of diffraction scale as well.

In real life, 5MP 2/3" dcams had best sharpness at f/5.6 or f/6.3. Pack more
pixels into a smaller sensor and even f/5.6 will be problematic due to
diffraction, so you are stuck shooting at f/4.0.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



Alfred Molon 04-27-2006 11:32 PM

Re: 1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...
 
In article <Mbmdnagrz-JE18zZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
jpmcw@comcast.net says...

> > ...and worse when you need a lot of DOF, for instance for landscape or
> > architectural shots. To get the same DOF with the full frame lens you
> > will need to stop down the lens and might have to use a higher ISO
> > resulting higher noise levels.

>
> Yeah, especially when those pesky buildings don't merely sway, but start
> to dance around. Note: Always shoot mountains at 1600 iso in case they
> erupt, or jump causing blur at 1/2000.


How funny. There might not be enough light for a handheld shot at F16-
F22, both outdoors and especially indoors. Stop down the lens and you
get very quickly exposure times in the range of 1/20s or longer, if it's
not a bright and sunny day.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.