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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Progressiveabsolution, Apr 27, 2006.

  1. 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!
     
    Progressiveabsolution, Apr 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Progressiveabsolution

    David Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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, Apr 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Progressiveabsolution

    railfan Guest

    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
     
    railfan, Apr 27, 2006
    #3
  4. Progressiveabsolution

    David Guest

    "railfan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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.
     
    David, Apr 27, 2006
    #4
  5. 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
     
    Joseph Meehan, Apr 27, 2006
    #5
  6. David <> 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
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Apr 27, 2006
    #6
  7. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>,
    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/
     
    Alfred Molon, Apr 27, 2006
    #7
  8. Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > 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
     
    John McWilliams, Apr 27, 2006
    #8
  9. > Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >> 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
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 28, 2006
    #9
  10. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>,
    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/
     
    Alfred Molon, Apr 28, 2006
    #10
  11. Progressiveabsolution

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Progressiveabsolution wrote:
    > What exactly does the 1.5X crop do to the image that is produced from
    > the camera?


    Exactly that; no more, no less: it capture a smaller part of
    the lens' image circle, by a factor of 1.5, both horizontally
    and vertically. In terms of area, it captures the center-most
    44.4% of what a 35mm full-frame sensor would capture (39%
    for a 1.6X crop-factor).

    Other effects often attributed to the crop are fictions of
    convenience. They are actually caused by other changes made
    to compensate for capturing the smaller field of view. For
    example, in order to put the same scene in the smaller frame,
    we would use a shorter focal length, by the same factor of
    1.5. To make a print of the same size from the smaller sensor,
    we necessarily apply more enlargement (from capture to print),
    by that same factor.

    A lens that has a focal length of 50mm on a full-frame
    body will still have a focal length of 50mm on a 1.5X-crop
    body. The 1.5X-crop body will simply capture a smaller part
    of the image formed by the lens.

    > 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?


    Those questions are too general to admit an exact answer.
    For one thing there are several full-frame bodies and many
    1.5-1.6X-crop bodies. Fortunately there are many comparisons
    and examples available on-line.

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


    Yes, and some of the many answers on this issue have even
    been correct.


    --
    --Bryan
     
    Bryan Olson, Apr 28, 2006
    #11
  12. Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > 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.


    Hah! I knew you'd be dour.

    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.

    Or did you merely forget to mention hand held in the post I replied to
    prior to this?

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Apr 28, 2006
    #12
  13. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    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!


    The lens still projects a full-frame image...its just that the sensor only
    sees the middle portion of it due to the sensor's size being smaller than
    the full-frame projection. Think of it as a slide projector projecting a 6
    foot wide image onto a 5 foot wide screen. The projected image stays the
    same...you're just not catching all of it on the screen.

    Because of this, image quality is not changed at all...rather, you are
    simply (in effect), utilizing all your sensor's pixels on the "sweet spot"
    of your lens. Some see this as an advantage due to decreased vignetting and
    the use of only the sharpest portion of the lens. Others who want wide
    angle may not like losing the wide angle of view they are used to...
     
    Mark², Apr 28, 2006
    #13
  14. "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    > 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!

    >
    > The lens still projects a full-frame image...its just that the sensor only
    > sees the middle portion of it due to the sensor's size being smaller than
    > the full-frame projection. Think of it as a slide projector projecting a
    > 6 foot wide image onto a 5 foot wide screen. The projected image stays
    > the same...you're just not catching all of it on the screen.
    >
    > Because of this, image quality is not changed at all...rather, you are
    > simply (in effect), utilizing all your sensor's pixels on the "sweet spot"
    > of your lens.


    Ah, but you are enlarging the sweet spot 1.5x times more. So the question
    becomes: is the center section of a 35mm lens really 1.5x times better than
    the whole area of a 50mm lens.

    Since the 35mm lens is designed to cover 24x36, it's a much wider angle lens
    than the 24x36 50mm lens, and is going to have _worse_ performance, not 1.5x
    better performance. Even comparing a point, say, 10mm off axis on the 35mm
    lens with a point 15mm off axis on the 50mm lens.

    > Some see this as an advantage due to decreased vignetting and the use of
    > only the sharpest portion of the lens. Others who want wide angle may not
    > like losing the wide angle of view they are used to...


    The decreased vignetting _wide open_ comes at the cost of reduced
    resolution/contrast. It's really hard to make wide angle lenses, and for
    lenses with an 80mm or wider FOV, cropped cameras with legacy lenses are a
    bad idea.

    The good news is that this effect doesn't apply to telephotos. But
    telephotos (other than cheap consumer zooms) don't have a sweet spot,
    leaving you with the 1.5x greater enlargement penalty. Oops.

    The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
    photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 28, 2006
    #14
  15. Progressiveabsolution

    Skip M Guest

    "Progressiveabsolution" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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!
    >

    Here's the most graphic example I could find of the difference between a
    1.6x crop camera and a full 35mm frame:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page12.asp

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Apr 28, 2006
    #15
  16. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >> 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!

    >>
    >> The lens still projects a full-frame image...its just that the
    >> sensor only sees the middle portion of it due to the sensor's size
    >> being smaller than the full-frame projection. Think of it as a
    >> slide projector projecting a 6 foot wide image onto a 5 foot wide
    >> screen. The projected image stays the same...you're just not
    >> catching all of it on the screen. Because of this, image quality is not
    >> changed at all...rather, you
    >> are simply (in effect), utilizing all your sensor's pixels on the
    >> "sweet spot" of your lens.

    >
    > Ah, but you are enlarging the sweet spot 1.5x times more. So the
    > question becomes: is the center section of a 35mm lens really 1.5x
    > times better than the whole area of a 50mm lens.


    By "image quality," I was referring to the image cast on the sensor. The
    degree to which one chooses to enlarge that will determine the extent to
    which its flaws become visible...right?

    You could also say that you are enlarging any flaw by 1.5x.

    > Since the 35mm lens is designed to cover 24x36, it's a much wider
    > angle lens than the 24x36 50mm lens, and is going to have _worse_
    > performance, not 1.5x better performance.


    If I implied otherwise, I didn't mean to.

    >Even comparing a point,
    > say, 10mm off axis on the 35mm lens with a point 15mm off axis on the
    > 50mm lens.
    >> Some see this as an advantage due to decreased vignetting and the
    >> use of only the sharpest portion of the lens. Others who want wide
    >> angle may not like losing the wide angle of view they are used to...

    >
    > The decreased vignetting _wide open_ comes at the cost of reduced
    > resolution/contrast. It's really hard to make wide angle lenses, and
    > for lenses with an 80mm or wider FOV, cropped cameras with legacy
    > lenses are a bad idea.
    >
    > The good news is that this effect doesn't apply to telephotos. But
    > telephotos (other than cheap consumer zooms) don't have a sweet spot,
    > leaving you with the 1.5x greater enlargement penalty. Oops.
    >
    > The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
    > photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.


    Don't interpret my post as proposing any such assertion as to necessitate
    your last sentence, there...
    ;)
    I'm very close to lightening my wallet on the 5D...

    -Mark²
     
    Mark², Apr 28, 2006
    #16
  17. "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>>
    >>> The lens still projects a full-frame image...its just that the
    >>> sensor only sees the middle portion of it due to the sensor's size
    >>> being smaller than the full-frame projection. Think of it as a
    >>> slide projector projecting a 6 foot wide image onto a 5 foot wide
    >>> screen. The projected image stays the same...you're just not
    >>> catching all of it on the screen. Because of this, image quality is not
    >>> changed at all...rather, you
    >>> are simply (in effect), utilizing all your sensor's pixels on the
    >>> "sweet spot" of your lens.

    >>
    >> Ah, but you are enlarging the sweet spot 1.5x times more. So the
    >> question becomes: is the center section of a 35mm lens really 1.5x
    >> times better than the whole area of a 50mm lens.

    >
    > By "image quality," I was referring to the image cast on the sensor. The
    > degree to which one chooses to enlarge that will determine the extent to
    > which its flaws become visible...right?


    Yes. But I generally assume that one is making the same size prints from
    both APS-C and FF. Although I don't consider APS-C adequate for 13x19<g>.

    > You could also say that you are enlarging any flaw by 1.5x.


    Exactly.

    >> Since the 35mm lens is designed to cover 24x36, it's a much wider
    >> angle lens than the 24x36 50mm lens, and is going to have _worse_
    >> performance, not 1.5x better performance.

    >
    > If I implied otherwise, I didn't mean to.


    I was more arguing with the "sweet spot" theory in general than anything you
    said in particular.

    >>Even comparing a point,
    >> say, 10mm off axis on the 35mm lens with a point 15mm off axis on the
    >> 50mm lens.
    >>> Some see this as an advantage due to decreased vignetting and the
    >>> use of only the sharpest portion of the lens. Others who want wide
    >>> angle may not like losing the wide angle of view they are used to...

    >>
    >> The decreased vignetting _wide open_ comes at the cost of reduced
    >> resolution/contrast. It's really hard to make wide angle lenses, and
    >> for lenses with an 80mm or wider FOV, cropped cameras with legacy
    >> lenses are a bad idea.
    >>
    >> The good news is that this effect doesn't apply to telephotos. But
    >> telephotos (other than cheap consumer zooms) don't have a sweet spot,
    >> leaving you with the 1.5x greater enlargement penalty. Oops.
    >>
    >> The idea that a smaller sensor is better flies against 150 years of
    >> photographic common sense, and is simply nuts.

    >
    > Don't interpret my post as proposing any such assertion as to necessitate
    > your last sentence, there...
    > ;)


    You made the mistake of using the term "sweet spot" without explicitly
    criticizing it, which is like waving a red flag in front of a bull...

    > I'm very close to lightening my wallet on the 5D...


    You'd better hurry. My pet dSLR theory is that the beasts have an 18 month
    product cycle, and if one isn't interested in early-adopter pain and
    problems, then 6 months after introduction is optimal. If you wait 12
    months, then the next great thing will be announced almost immediately.

    By the way, don't I still owe you dinner? If you're going to be in the
    Boston area June 5 to 11, you could collect. (But aren't you one of the West
    Coast crown???)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 28, 2006
    #17
  18. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:

    >> Don't interpret my post as proposing any such assertion as to
    >> necessitate your last sentence, there...
    >> ;)

    >
    > You made the mistake of using the term "sweet spot" without explicitly
    > criticizing it, which is like waving a red flag in front of a bull...


    Ya...I should have known better. Your techno-speak definitely out-shines
    anything I have the patience (or math/physics background) to build a
    sentence around...... ;)

    >> I'm very close to lightening my wallet on the 5D...

    >
    > You'd better hurry. My pet dSLR theory is that the beasts have an 18
    > month product cycle, and if one isn't interested in early-adopter
    > pain and problems, then 6 months after introduction is optimal. If
    > you wait 12 months, then the next great thing will be announced
    > almost immediately.
    > By the way, don't I still owe you dinner? If you're going to be in the
    > Boston area June 5 to 11, you could collect. (But aren't you one of
    > the West Coast crown???)


    Yes you do, as a matter of fact!
    I'll be stuck on the west coast in June...but I'm thinking maybe I should
    hold off on collection...and instead wait until I win a few more bets...so I
    can COMBINE them into a plane ticket to Japan...where you'll be obligated to
    provide the original dinner...and...grand tour of the island. :)
    --I'm thinking that should take in the neighborhood of 50 bets won.
    At the rate we bet...I should reach Japan in approximately 50 years.
    By that time, we'll both have scant few teeth, and likely little interest in
    dinner that requires chewing.
    On second thought...I think I'll take that dinner now, thanks!
    See ya in Boston!
    ;)

     
    Mark², Apr 28, 2006
    #18
  19. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>,
    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?
    --

    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/
     
    Alfred Molon, Apr 28, 2006
    #19
  20. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > 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.
     
    Mark², Apr 28, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. R2D2

    4/3 vs APS vs 35mm Full Frame Sensors

    R2D2, Feb 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    8,285
    John Navas
    Feb 20, 2004
  2. Bay Area Dave

    What is holding back full size sensors? Just marketing?

    Bay Area Dave, May 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    68
    Views:
    1,305
    bagal
    Jun 6, 2004
  3. David J. Littleboy

    Full-frame sensors can't do wide angle - NOT!

    David J. Littleboy, Sep 22, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    63
    Views:
    1,340
    David Littlewood
    Sep 28, 2005
  4. W (winhag)

    Vignetting on 'full frame' sensors vs. 35mm film test?

    W (winhag), Nov 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    920
    Lorem Ipsum
    Nov 15, 2005
  5. nospam

    Re: Full colour sensors

    nospam, Feb 9, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    96
    nospam
    Feb 9, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page