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...

 
 
Neil Ellwood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:33:08 +0200, 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?

Monopod, tree pod camera screw etc. There are more ways to skin a cat........

--
Neil
Delete 'l' to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris in Red Stick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
There's no way a cropped sensor has more distortion, period. WA
distortion is highest at the edge of a FF sensor, which is cropped out
a 1.5 or 1.6 sensor.

Also, there are good 24-70 range lenses available for (Nikon) 1.5
sensors -- like, say the well-regarded 17-55 f2.8 AFS DX, eh?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nikojorj_jaimepaslapub@yahoo.Fr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
> 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?


Then, my answer will be obvious : cameras don't make good images,
whereas photographers do. Period.

Given that, an experienced and more or less fortuned photographer may
prefer a 1DsMkII because of thing stated a few posts ago, mainly lower
noise (ie higher dynamic range) and higher resolution, but only to the
point that a bad craftsman has always bad tools...
Are these conveniences, and the necessary hassle to profit of them (eg
heavy tripod...), worth the few grands? Your call!
But be aware that these grands will only buy you a good tool, and not
image quality in itself!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Alfred Molon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
In article <UKi4g.14928$Qz.4704@fed1read11>, "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...

> 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.


Nothing against tripods, I just don't lug them all the time around with
me. A tripod adds to the bulk, it takes time to set it up for the camera
and so on, so it is better if you are not forced to use it.

Generally speaking, cameras with a smaller sensor allow you to shoot at
wider apertures (wide enough for handheld photography) while still
having enough DOF. Instead large format cameras force you to choose
small apertures if you need DOF, which makes tripods necessary.
--

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

"Chris in Red Stick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> There's no way a cropped sensor has more distortion, period. WA
> distortion is highest at the edge of a FF sensor, which is cropped out
> a 1.5 or 1.6 sensor.
>
> Also, there are good 24-70 range lenses available for (Nikon) 1.5
> sensors -- like, say the well-regarded 17-55 f2.8 AFS DX, eh?


Bad logic. You can't use the same lens for WA shots on the cropped sensor,
so you have to compare the different lenses, e.g. Canon 17-40 vs. Canon
10-22 or the 10-20mm third party lenses to the 17-35mm third party lenses.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
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:
>>"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.


Really? 35mm showed up early on, an until digital, no one made serious use
of anything smaller. In fact, all the smaller formats (half frame, APS,
instamatic) died. Except for Minox which is so bad it's camp. Digital makes
the differences a lot less obvious. But they're still there in the form of
noise and dynamic range.

> Now I suppose you can argue
> that doesn't make them "better", but only for strange
> definitions of "better".


The quality of larger prints goes way down as you move from, say, 8x10 to
6x9 to 35mm.

If you don't give a rats arse about quality prints, then you don't give a
rats arse. But people who understand quality prints know that every format
is a compromise between being small enough to be usable (and actually get
the shot) and the quality of the resultant print. (Or, inversely, that a
given format limits the size of the quality print you can produce.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2006
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <UKi4g.14928$Qz.4704@fed1read11>, "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>
>> 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.

>
> Nothing against tripods, I just don't lug them all the time around
> with me. A tripod adds to the bulk, it takes time to set it up for
> the camera and so on, so it is better if you are not forced to use it.


I don't always have mine either. But when I intend to create an image for
BIG enlargement, I want to capture as much sharpness as I can. I don't have
a full frame DSLR yet, but even with a crop, you need all the sharpness you
can get. It's truly amazing what a difference it makes when you are doing
big prints.

> Generally speaking, cameras with a smaller sensor allow you to shoot
> at wider apertures (wide enough for handheld photography) while still
> having enough DOF. Instead large format cameras force you to choose
> small apertures if you need DOF, which makes tripods necessary.


Right. So...a tripod becomes all the more necessary with full frame and
beyond.

One of the best investments I've made in photo gear was my recent carbon
fiber tripod purchase.
-But NOT because it is more steady...rather simply because it is SO much
lighter that it means I take it along more often. Its no longer such a
chore to haul around. You can have the steadiest tripod on Earth, but if
its too much of a pain to carry, its rather a waste.

I also am a big fan of IS lenses, since it allows for a huge break when not
using a tripod or monopod. For smaller prints, its amazing how helpful it
is. But when you need deeeeep
DOF, like in this shot:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/58828940/original
IS is useless, and its time to break out the tripod.

-MarkČ



 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2006
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "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.

>
> Really? 35mm showed up early on, an until digital, no one made
> serious use of anything smaller. In fact, all the smaller formats
> (half frame, APS, instamatic) died. Except for Minox which is so bad
> it's camp. Digital makes the differences a lot less obvious. But
> they're still there in the form of noise and dynamic range.
>
>> Now I suppose you can argue
>> that doesn't make them "better", but only for strange
>> definitions of "better".


And what would be wrong with that?
It would be basically accurate to make such an argument.

> The quality of larger prints goes way down as you move from, say,
> 8x10 to 6x9 to 35mm.
>
> If you don't give a rats arse about quality prints, then you don't
> give a rats arse. But people who understand quality prints know that
> every format is a compromise between being small enough to be usable
> (and actually get the shot) and the quality of the resultant print.
> (Or, inversely, that a given format limits the size of the quality
> print you can produce.)


Well put.
While I was impressed with how well my recent half-dome image printed at 17"
wide and 25" tall...my positive reaction to the print was felt within the
context of my understanding of the limitations of my capture device. The
print was not anywhere close to what a medium format sensor of similar
construction could have rendered.

MarkČ


 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2006
"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:
>>>"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.

>
>Really? 35mm showed up early on, an until digital, no one made serious use
>of anything smaller. In fact, all the smaller formats (half frame, APS,
>instamatic) died. Except for Minox which is so bad it's camp. Digital makes
>the differences a lot less obvious. But they're still there in the form of
>noise and dynamic range.


So you are saying that today the same sensor size commonly in
use is the same as was the case 150 years ago? or 100? or 50?
or even 25?

Your discussion is *not* supporting your original statement.
The fact is that today there are millions of sensors sold every
year that are smaller than 35mm, and 30 years ago that was not
true... but at that time there were millions of sensors sold
every year that were smaller than 4x5, which was not true 50
years before that...

And before that... well you already do know, despite ignoring
it.

We have 150 years of history showing us that smaller sensors
make better cameras. Not the reverse as you claimed.

>> Now I suppose you can argue
>> that doesn't make them "better", but only for strange
>> definitions of "better".

>
>The quality of larger prints goes way down as you move from, say, 8x10 to
>6x9 to 35mm.


But that alone does *not* justify your statement that cameras
with larger sensors are necessarily better. If they were
better, people *would* be buying them by the millions... and
what they *are* buying by the millions is *smaller* sensors.

>If you don't give a rats arse about quality prints, then you don't give a
>rats arse. But people who understand quality prints know that every format
>is a compromise between being small enough to be usable (and actually get
>the shot) and the quality of the resultant print. (Or, inversely, that a
>given format limits the size of the quality print you can produce.)


So you do all of your work with an 8x10???? Why not 11x14, as
that would be even "better".

Or should we first note that a picture you *can't get* isn't
worth the paper you didn't print it on!

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2006
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> We have 150 years of history showing us that smaller sensors
> make better cameras. Not the reverse as you claimed.


Huh???

>>> Now I suppose you can argue
>>> that doesn't make them "better", but only for strange
>>> definitions of "better".

>>
>> The quality of larger prints goes way down as you move from, say,
>> 8x10 to 6x9 to 35mm.

>
> But that alone does *not* justify your statement that cameras
> with larger sensors are necessarily better. If they were
> better, people *would* be buying them by the millions... and
> what they *are* buying by the millions is *smaller* sensors.


People buy mBILLIONS of McDonalds "burgers" too.
Surely they MUST be teh best burgers... (ugh)

>> If you don't give a rats arse about quality prints, then you don't
>> give a rats arse. But people who understand quality prints know that
>> every format is a compromise between being small enough to be usable
>> (and actually get the shot) and the quality of the resultant print.
>> (Or, inversely, that a given format limits the size of the quality
>> print you can produce.)

>
> So you do all of your work with an 8x10???? Why not 11x14, as
> that would be even "better".
>
> Or should we first note that a picture you *can't get* isn't
> worth the paper you didn't print it on!


Try to see the forest.
That tree seems to be blocking your view a bit.



 
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