Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...

Reply
Thread Tools

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

 
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
MarkČ wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>
>>
>>> Ah, architecture shots in some schools are outdoors, vs. "interior"
>>> shots. Landscapes do tend to the out of doors, world wide. For all
>>> three types just mentioned, I often use a tripod regardless of
>>> shutter speed required.

>>
>> Even outdoors there might not be enough light for handheld shots at
>> F16 or F22. Not everybody lugs around a tripod all the time, do you?

>
> Most folks serious enough to buy full frame DSLRs are serious enough
> to use a tripod for landscapes.
> If you don't care to use a tripod, there is a very good chance that
> you won't be making very good use of full frame resolutions. At that
> resolution, you need every bit of lens/steadiness sharpness you can
> muster. Otherwise, you may as well not bother...unless the only care
> is a wide angle of view.


"You" was meant generically, Alfred. -Not picking on YOU.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nikojorj_jaimepaslapub@yahoo.Fr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
Progressiveabsolution wrote:
> What exactly does the 1.5X crop do to the image that is produced from
> the camera?


It crops as you could do with scissors (on the prints, not on the
sensor, btw).



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


The essential and practical difference is the crop, changing the field
of view of the lenses.

More exactly, there are 2 consequences of the crop :
1) It narrows field of view without modifying depth of field,
2) It enlarges the central part of the image that has better
resolution, making it (optically speaking) a neutral operation at first
order.

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


It depends also on the sensors and bodies, not only on the crop factor
itself...
But as the FF sensor is bigger, it can either have the same count of
bigger pixels (more dynamic range and less noise, that may be something
like 1.5x higher ISO with same noise) or have more pixels of the same
size (1.5x more resolution... if the lens matches it of course).
That gives an edge to the FF sensor, and may then justify its (much
more than 1.5x) higher cost.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
>photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.


Which is obviously the reason that 8x10 view cameras have always
so damned popular.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Berbaum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
: Progressiveabsolution wrote:
: > What exactly does the 1.5X crop do to the image that is produced from
: > the camera?

: It crops as you could do with scissors (on the prints, not on the
: sensor, btw).

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

: The essential and practical difference is the crop, changing the field
: of view of the lenses.

: More exactly, there are 2 consequences of the crop :
: 1) It narrows field of view without modifying depth of field,
: 2) It enlarges the central part of the image that has better
: resolution, making it (optically speaking) a neutral operation at first
: order.

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

: It depends also on the sensors and bodies, not only on the crop factor
: itself...
: But as the FF sensor is bigger, it can either have the same count of
: bigger pixels (more dynamic range and less noise, that may be something
: like 1.5x higher ISO with same noise) or have more pixels of the same
: size (1.5x more resolution... if the lens matches it of course).
: That gives an edge to the FF sensor, and may then justify its (much
: more than 1.5x) higher cost.

I agree with your assessment. First "Quality" of an image depends on so
many factors (lens, accuracy of mechanicals in lens, accuracy of
mechanicals in camera, number and placement of light sensing elements on
the sensor, etc) that the physical size of the sensor is very low on the
list. A sensor that is 2 ft by 3 ft with 12 rows of 16 light sensing
elements will only be able to resolve a detail that is at least the size
of a single light sensitive element. While a sensor with much smaller
physical dimensions but with 1 million sensing elements will be able to
resolve details that are down to 1 millionth of the image (the size of one
light sensitive element).

It is true that it is much easier to focus an image on a large sensor
array. Also a lens that is supposed to focus an image on a huge sensor can
be easier to make and of less expensive materials than one that has to
work on microscopic levels (to a point), but until we are comparing a 1mp
sensor that is 1' square vs a 1mp sensor that is 1/4" square this is not
the major factor in "quality".

If an image of a black square on a white wall is projected on a sensor
such that the outer edge of the black square exactly aligns with the
outer edge of the sensor it makes no difference if the sensor array is
3/4" wide or 2' wide. The only difference that the different sensor
dimensions (but the same number of pixels) affords is that the optics and
mechanicals have to adjust to reflect the different sensor size. True, if
I am composing my shot purely by math I will have to adjust the focal
length to a new set of numbers. But since most of the time I compose my
shots by looking through the viewfinder and moving my body placement and
zoom to achieve the composition I desire. It rarely makes any strong
difference what the actual number on the lens says as long as I get the
composition I am desiring. Mostly I use the focal length numbers as
general guides when choosing what range I am looking for (I don't reach
for a multi hundred focal length lens when I am trying to take an image of
the family sitting around the Thanksgiving table). Other than requiring
my lens selection to have more low numbers than I used to have with film,
it really makes little difference to the vast majority of my shots if my
lens is set to 50mm for film or 33mm for digital. I get the same resultant
image, and that's what I am trying for. IMHO

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> 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.


Or just use a tripod and get no additional noise.

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
>
>> Ah, architecture shots in some schools are outdoors, vs. "interior"
>> shots. Landscapes do tend to the out of doors, world wide. For all three
>> types just mentioned, I often use a tripod regardless of shutter speed
>> required.

>
> Even outdoors there might not be enough light for handheld shots at F16
> or F22. Not everybody lugs around a tripod all the time, do you?


Absolutely! In any scenario that I can, it will be with me. There are always
exceptions, and I suppose that is where a VR or IS lens becomes useful.

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006

"Floyd L. Davidson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
>>photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.

>
> Which is obviously the reason that 8x10 view cameras have always
> so damned popular.


They've always been popular. Among people who appreciate/have use for that
level of image quality. It's not for everyone, since the convenience of
smaller formats makes them, well, more convenient. At a cost in image
quality.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>
>>
>>> Ah, architecture shots in some schools are outdoors, vs. "interior"
>>> shots. Landscapes do tend to the out of doors, world wide. For all three
>>> types just mentioned, I often use a tripod regardless of shutter speed
>>> required.

>> Even outdoors there might not be enough light for handheld shots at F16
>> or F22. Not everybody lugs around a tripod all the time, do you?

>
> Absolutely! In any scenario that I can, it will be with me. There are always
> exceptions, and I suppose that is where a VR or IS lens becomes useful.
>

Let's put it this way: If I'm shooting at dusk or dawn and it's a
landscape, I'll "lug" a tripod. If it's midday and I am serious about
the shot, I'll use one.

Besides, in lower light situations, I wouldn't stop down anywhere near
that much. Why would you, smilin' Alf?

--
John McWilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Progressiveabsolution
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
Thanks everyone for your contributions. I should have stated the
obvious. When dealing with image quality alone, given the same
photographer using the exact same equipment on his/her D30 vs.
D5/1DSMKII, will there be any reason aside from the cropping factor of
view to have the full framed body over the 1.6X D30 body? Lets take
two images where we are shooting a 50mm 1.8 on each Canon body. Both
photos are developed with similar care that they are taken. One is
obviously showing a lot more of the view than the other. But is the
one showing a lot more of the view than the other also showing a better
image (i.e. more resolution/detail/"dimensionality"/etc.)? What I am
trying to figure out is why one camera would produce a better image
than the other camera. What specifically is it that would give the
full framed body an edge over the others? There must be more to it if
someone is willing to shell out $7000 for the 1DSMKII.

I've looked at a lot of images and to my eyes the digital all looks the
same. I think there may be a little more quality with the full bodies
as the images seem to have a little more dimensionality and less
flatness of plane/space, but they all look quite similar. I wish I had
some images in front of me to be able to see the difference which is
why I am asking others what they see and when/why/how they see it.

Thanks again. This has been a very helpful thread and the users here
are very good.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
>>>photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.

>>
>> Which is obviously the reason that 8x10 view cameras have always
>> so damned popular.

>
>They've always been popular. Among people who appreciate/have use for that
>level of image quality. It's not for everyone, since the convenience of
>smaller formats makes them, well, more convenient. At a cost in image
>quality.


Oh, yes they are very *popular*, and the market is several
millions a year too, unlike those useless SLR cameras with a
smaller image size and nothing else to offer.

I assume you enjoy other fantancies, but that one is good
enough for now.

They are many things, none of which come close to being what we
might describe as "popular".

However... What we *do* have 150 years of common sense
demonstrating is a steady progression from larger to smaller
image sensors *because* as the size gets smaller the versatility
and flexibility of the photographic process grows at a rate
closer to geometric than to linear. Now I suppose you can argue
that doesn't make them "better", but only for strange
definitions of "better".

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vignetting on 'full frame' sensors vs. 35mm film test? W (winhag) Digital Photography 7 11-15-2005 03:40 PM
Full-frame sensors can't do wide angle - NOT! David J. Littleboy Digital Photography 63 09-28-2005 06:24 PM
target form field in iframe w/in frame from other frame starman7@hotmail.com Javascript 2 05-27-2005 10:25 AM
What is holding back full size sensors? Just marketing? Bay Area Dave Digital Photography 68 06-06-2004 07:20 PM
4/3 vs APS vs 35mm Full Frame Sensors R2D2 Digital Photography 51 02-20-2004 06:18 PM



Advertisments