Are we heading back to full frame digital?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by DeanB, Feb 23, 2007.

  1. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    Canon seems to have a mix of 1.5x, 1.3x and full frame sensors now,
    and their push seems to be towards the FF. Is this a pattern that
    other companies are going towards? Do people here prefer the 35mm
    sensor size?
     
    DeanB, Feb 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "DeanB" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Canon seems to have a mix of 1.5x,


    You mean 1.6x (lens factor).


    > 1.3x and full frame sensors now,
    > and their push seems to be towards the FF. Is this a pattern that
    > other companies are going towards? Do people here prefer the 35mm
    > sensor size?


    Not me. All Nikon dSLRs have a 1.5x lens factor and I'm perfectly happy with
    that sensor size. There is much speculation that Nikon may eventually
    produce a camera with a full frame sensor too, but even if they do I think
    it's extremely unlikely it will ever challenge the present DX sensor size in
    popularity.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Feb 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "DeanB" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Canon seems to have a mix of 1.5x, 1.3x and full frame sensors now,
    > and their push seems to be towards the FF. Is this a pattern that
    > other companies are going towards? Do people here prefer the 35mm
    > sensor size?


    So far, Canon (well, and Leica) is the only manufacturer to have a sensor
    larger than ~1.5 crop. A few early stone-age,
    cost-as-much-as-a-Mercedes-Benz digital SLRs excepted.

    The rest of the world seems to be well and truly stuck in APS crop-land for
    the time being. It's all up to the sensor manufacturers really - if they
    don't make it, nobody can build cameras around it...

    You should also remember that the cost of a sensor rises exponentially with
    price. A sensor twice the size will be far, far, far more than twice as
    expensive to make. Don't expect to see FF digital sensors in anything but
    flagship models for quite a few years yet. The least expensive FF camera at
    the moment is the Canon 5D and it is anything but cheap - and the camera
    body on it isn't any better than a 20D. The sensor must account for the
    greater part of the production cost.

    FF as such? I like it. The non-digital-crop lenses have much more sensible
    zoom ranges now :) And you get your shallow DOF back when you need it. Nice.
    You won't find me going back to an APS-crop body.
     
    Ståle Sannerud, Feb 23, 2007
    #3
  4. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    On Feb 23, 11:03 am, "Ståle Sannerud" <>
    wrote:
    > "DeanB" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > Canon seems to have a mix of 1.5x, 1.3x and full frame sensors now,
    > > and their push seems to be towards the FF. Is this a pattern that
    > > other companies are going towards? Do people here prefer the 35mm
    > > sensor size?

    >
    > So far, Canon (well, and Leica) is the only manufacturer to have a sensor
    > larger than ~1.5 crop. A few early stone-age,
    > cost-as-much-as-a-Mercedes-Benz digital SLRs excepted.
    >
    > The rest of the world seems to be well and truly stuck in APS crop-land for
    > the time being. It's all up to the sensor manufacturers really - if they
    > don't make it, nobody can build cameras around it...
    >
    > You should also remember that the cost of a sensor rises exponentially with
    > price. A sensor twice the size will be far, far, far more than twice as
    > expensive to make. Don't expect to see FF digital sensors in anything but
    > flagship models for quite a few years yet. The least expensive FF camera at
    > the moment is the Canon 5D and it is anything but cheap - and the camera
    > body on it isn't any better than a 20D. The sensor must account for the
    > greater part of the production cost.
    >
    > FF as such? I like it. The non-digital-crop lenses have much more sensible
    > zoom ranges now :) And you get your shallow DOF back when you need it. Nice.
    > You won't find me going back to an APS-crop body.





    > You should also remember that the cost of a sensor rises exponentially with

    price.
    Really? isn't that always 1:1? :)

    I don't understand why its cheaper to make a 4MP sensor 24mm across
    rather than 35mm across? Why should that be? Smaller is usually MORE
    expensive.
     
    DeanB, Feb 23, 2007
    #4
  5. DeanB wrote:
    > Canon seems to have a mix of 1.5x, 1.3x and full frame sensors now,
    > and their push seems to be towards the FF. Is this a pattern that
    > other companies are going towards? Do people here prefer the 35mm
    > sensor size?


    It's all over the map. I think full-frame sensors will end up playing
    the role medium-format film cameras used to play (and with similar prices).

    People who use telephotos a lot kinda like the 1.5x and 1.6x cameras, it
    gives them free extra reach. People who use wideangle a lot aren't so
    pleased; but buying one lens like the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 gets me most of
    what I had with my 17mm f/3.5 lens on film, and I still get the benefits
    at the long end.

    You say "push seems to be towards the FF", but only Canon is currently
    doing anything with that. And Contax and Kodak *did*, earlier on, and
    got driven out of the DSLR market. I don't see a "push".
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 23, 2007
    #5
  6. DeanB

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On 23 Feb 2007 08:08:41 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "DeanB"
    <> wrote:


    >I don't understand why its cheaper to make a 4MP sensor 24mm across
    >rather than 35mm across? Why should that be? Smaller is usually MORE
    >expensive.


    Because the chips are cut from circular wafers of the base silicon
    material. The bigger the chip the less per wafer. So the process costs
    are spread over a smaller number of chips.
    -
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf, Feb 23, 2007
    #6
  7. DeanB

    W Guest

    All chips are produced on circular wafers containing some number of
    chips depending on the chip size. The wafers can be cut into a number
    of chips depending on the size of the chip. All wafers have defects.
    Say a wafer had one defect. The defect would make one of the chips on
    the wafer not useable. If the chip was small enough that a hundred fit
    on the wafer, they yield would be 99%. Now say the chip was large
    enough that only two fit on a wafer. Assuming one defect per wafer,
    the defect would land on one or the other of the two chips on the
    wafer. The yield drops to 50%. This is not a realistic example, but it
    explains why bigger chips are more expensive, it not because of the
    silicon cost, it is because of the silicon cost and the yield factor.
    Throw a number of defects onto a wafer and very large chips and the
    yield will go way down.

    On Feb 23, 11:08 am, "DeanB" <> wrote:
    > On Feb 23, 11:03 am, "Ståle Sannerud" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > "DeanB" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >news:...

    >
    > > > Canon seems to have a mix of 1.5x, 1.3x and full frame sensors now,
    > > > and their push seems to be towards the FF. Is this a pattern that
    > > > other companies are going towards? Do people here prefer the 35mm
    > > > sensor size?

    >
    > > So far, Canon (well, and Leica) is the only manufacturer to have a sensor
    > > larger than ~1.5 crop. A few early stone-age,
    > > cost-as-much-as-a-Mercedes-Benz digital SLRs excepted.

    >
    > > The rest of the world seems to be well and truly stuck in APS crop-land for
    > > the time being. It's all up to the sensor manufacturers really - if they
    > > don't make it, nobody can build cameras around it...

    >
    > > You should also remember that the cost of a sensor rises exponentially with
    > > price. A sensor twice the size will be far, far, far more than twice as
    > > expensive to make. Don't expect to see FF digital sensors in anything but
    > > flagship models for quite a few years yet. The least expensive FF camera at
    > > the moment is the Canon 5D and it is anything but cheap - and the camera
    > > body on it isn't any better than a 20D. The sensor must account for the
    > > greater part of the production cost.

    >
    > > FF as such? I like it. The non-digital-crop lenses have much more sensible
    > > zoom ranges now :) And you get your shallow DOF back when you need it. Nice.
    > > You won't find me going back to an APS-crop body.
    > > You should also remember that the cost of a sensor rises exponentially with

    >
    > price.
    > Really? isn't that always 1:1? :)
    >
    > I don't understand why its cheaper to make a 4MP sensor 24mm across
    > rather than 35mm across? Why should that be? Smaller is usually MORE
    > expensive.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -
     
    W, Feb 23, 2007
    #7
  8. "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:45df1355$0$44191$...
    > DeanB wrote:
    >> Canon seems to have a mix of 1.5x, 1.3x and full frame sensors now,
    >> and their push seems to be towards the FF. Is this a pattern that
    >> other companies are going towards? Do people here prefer the 35mm
    >> sensor size?

    >
    > It's all over the map. I think full-frame sensors will end up playing the
    > role medium-format film cameras used to play (and with similar prices).


    That's exactly what I think too.


    >
    > People who use telephotos a lot kinda like the 1.5x and 1.6x cameras, it
    > gives them free extra reach. People who use wideangle a lot aren't so
    > pleased; but buying one lens like the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 gets me most of
    > what I had with my 17mm f/3.5 lens on film, and I still get the benefits
    > at the long end.


    I recently bought that Tokina 12-24 myself, and between that and the Nikon
    10.5 fisheye I'm all set as far as ultrawide goes -- especially since the
    10.5 converts to rectilinear very well in Nikon Capture.


    >
    > You say "push seems to be towards the FF", but only Canon is currently
    > doing anything with that. And Contax and Kodak *did*, earlier on, and got
    > driven out of the DSLR market. I don't see a "push".


    I don't either. When and if such a push develops, I'll be one of the 99% who
    ignore it.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Feb 23, 2007
    #8
  9. DeanB

    C J Campbell Guest

    On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:37:35 -0800, DeanB wrote
    (in article <>):

    > Canon seems to have a mix of 1.5x, 1.3x and full frame sensors now,
    > and their push seems to be towards the FF. Is this a pattern that
    > other companies are going towards? Do people here prefer the 35mm
    > sensor size?
    >


    What push? Their latest model, the one they call their flagship model, is an
    APS-H sensor. You're imagining things.

    People like 35mm sensors because they don't want to buy new wide angle
    lenses. Apparently, they like the vignetting and lack of sharpness of
    ultra-wide photography.

    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
     
    C J Campbell, Feb 23, 2007
    #9
  10. DeanB

    jdear64 Guest

    On Feb 23, 8:16 am, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > DeanB wrote:
    > > Canon seems to have a mix of 1.5x, 1.3x and full frame sensors now,
    > > and their push seems to be towards the FF. Is this a pattern that
    > > other companies are going towards? Do people here prefer the 35mm
    > > sensor size?

    >
    > It's all over the map. I think full-frame sensors will end up
    > playing the role medium-format film cameras used to play (and with
    > similar prices).
    >
    > People who use telephotos a lot kinda like the 1.5x and 1.6x
    > cameras, it gives them free extra reach.


    If the pixel size is the same for the full frame sensor, you get no
    "free extra reach" with the 1.6x sensor, just a crop. The 1D mk3 has
    the same pixel size as the 1Ds mk2, so the 1.3x sensor of the 1D mk3
    gets you no extra reach over the 1Ds Mk2. And the 30D only gets you
    1.125x more reach over the 1Ds mk2.
     
    jdear64, Feb 23, 2007
    #10
  11. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    David Dyer-Bennet
    <>], who wrote in article <45df1355$0$44191$>:
    > It's all over the map. I think full-frame sensors will end up playing
    > the role medium-format film cameras used to play (and with similar prices).


    Eventually, it is clear that FF is going to replace LF film,
    quality-wise. 4/3" is going to replace MF. Even today, cheap P&S
    2/3" cameras perform (in many/most repects) better than FF film.

    On the other hand, this is going to be accompanied by a change of
    PERCEPTION. What was considered acceptable "technical" quality of a
    shot 10 years ago will not be considered so now.

    So if 10 years ago people-with-minimal-photographic-experience would
    consider technical quality of (artistically good) 35mm shot adequate,
    today, AFAIK, this plank is moving closer to a MF film shot. So in
    this way I agree with your prediction....

    Yours,
    Ilya
     
    Ilya Zakharevich, Feb 23, 2007
    #11
  12. DeanB

    J. Clarke Guest

    On 23 Feb 2007 08:08:41 -0800, "DeanB" <> wrote:

    >On Feb 23, 11:03 am, "Ståle Sannerud" <>
    >wrote:
    >> "DeanB" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> > Canon seems to have a mix of 1.5x, 1.3x and full frame sensors now,
    >> > and their push seems to be towards the FF. Is this a pattern that
    >> > other companies are going towards? Do people here prefer the 35mm
    >> > sensor size?

    >>
    >> So far, Canon (well, and Leica) is the only manufacturer to have a sensor
    >> larger than ~1.5 crop. A few early stone-age,
    >> cost-as-much-as-a-Mercedes-Benz digital SLRs excepted.
    >>
    >> The rest of the world seems to be well and truly stuck in APS crop-land for
    >> the time being. It's all up to the sensor manufacturers really - if they
    >> don't make it, nobody can build cameras around it...
    >>
    >> You should also remember that the cost of a sensor rises exponentially with
    >> price. A sensor twice the size will be far, far, far more than twice as
    >> expensive to make. Don't expect to see FF digital sensors in anything but
    >> flagship models for quite a few years yet. The least expensive FF camera at
    >> the moment is the Canon 5D and it is anything but cheap - and the camera
    >> body on it isn't any better than a 20D. The sensor must account for the
    >> greater part of the production cost.
    >>
    >> FF as such? I like it. The non-digital-crop lenses have much more sensible
    >> zoom ranges now :) And you get your shallow DOF back when you need it. Nice.
    >> You won't find me going back to an APS-crop body.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> You should also remember that the cost of a sensor rises exponentially with

    >price.
    >Really? isn't that always 1:1? :)
    >
    >I don't understand why its cheaper to make a 4MP sensor 24mm across
    >rather than 35mm across? Why should that be? Smaller is usually MORE
    >expensive.


    Doubling the dimensions quadruples the area, and cuts the yield down
    accordingly.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 23, 2007
    #12
  13. "jdear64" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > If the pixel size is the same for the full frame sensor, you get no
    > "free extra reach" with the 1.6x sensor, just a crop.


    I'd say "free extra reach" is possibly not the best description, but I can
    see the appeal of the smaller sensor for a sports shooter who can get a
    tightly framed shot with a 200mm lens when they would have needed a 300mm
    lens to get the same shot on their film body. The film shooter could of
    course crop in post processing to get the same "tight" shot, but I'm sure
    most people prefer to frame in the viewfinder rather than relying on
    cropping in software (or in the darkroom).

    cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk
     
    Adrian Boliston, Feb 23, 2007
    #13
  14. "jdear64" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Feb 23, 8:16 am, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> DeanB wrote:
    >> > Canon seems to have a mix of 1.5x, 1.3x and full frame sensors now,
    >> > and their push seems to be towards the FF. Is this a pattern that
    >> > other companies are going towards? Do people here prefer the 35mm
    >> > sensor size?

    >>
    >> It's all over the map. I think full-frame sensors will end up
    >> playing the role medium-format film cameras used to play (and with
    >> similar prices).
    >>
    >> People who use telephotos a lot kinda like the 1.5x and 1.6x
    >> cameras, it gives them free extra reach.

    >
    > If the pixel size is the same for the full frame sensor, you get no
    > "free extra reach" with the 1.6x sensor,


    Of course you do. The 70-300mm lens on my Nikons becomes a 105-450mm lens in
    35mm equivalency, which is the standard. If that's not extra reach, I wonder
    what extra reach might look like.


    > just a crop.


    Nothing is cropped. This is using the full 15.6 x 23.7 sensor in its
    entirety.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Feb 23, 2007
    #14
  15. "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Doubling the dimensions quadruples the area, and cuts the yield down
    > accordingly.


    Also a single flaw in the silicon would mean 4x the wastage as well
     
    Adrian Boliston, Feb 23, 2007
    #15
  16. "C J Campbell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:37:35 -0800, DeanB wrote
    > (in article <>):
    >
    >> Canon seems to have a mix of 1.5x, 1.3x and full frame sensors now,
    >> and their push seems to be towards the FF. Is this a pattern that
    >> other companies are going towards? Do people here prefer the 35mm
    >> sensor size?
    >>

    >
    > What push? Their latest model, the one they call their flagship model, is
    > an
    > APS-H sensor.


    Yet another misnomer. The APS-H format is *widescreen*, 16:9 aspect ratio.
    That's where the "H" comes from -- HDTV. What Canon "flagship model" has a
    16:9 sensor?

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Feb 23, 2007
    #16
  17. DeanB

    Paul Rubin Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> writes:
    > People who use telephotos a lot kinda like the 1.5x and 1.6x cameras,
    > it gives them free extra reach. People who use wideangle a lot aren't
    > so pleased; but buying one lens like the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 gets me
    > most of what I had with my 17mm f/3.5 lens on film, and I still get
    > the benefits at the long end.


    But these days a film shooter would use a 17-35/2.8, which is a stop
    faster than that 12-24. There is no 12-24/2.8 and I think it might be
    because of the difficulty of making such short lenses of that speed
    at that imaging distance.

    > You say "push seems to be towards the FF", but only Canon is currently
    > doing anything with that. And Contax and Kodak *did*, earlier on, and
    > got driven out of the DSLR market. I don't see a "push".


    That was not from a lack of market response, it was that Contax and
    Kodak were not technologically up to the task at the time. Things
    have hopefully progressed since then. Look at LCD monitors and how
    expensive large ones used to be compared with now. The same thing is
    going on.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 23, 2007
    #17
  18. DeanB

    jdear64 Guest

    On Feb 23, 10:30 am, "Adrian Boliston" <> wrote:
    > "jdear64" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > If the pixel size is the same for the full frame sensor, you get no
    > > "free extra reach" with the 1.6x sensor, just a crop.

    >
    > I'd say "free extra reach" is possibly not the best description, but I can
    > see the appeal of the smaller sensor for a sports shooter who can get a
    > tightly framed shot with a 200mm lens when they would have needed a 300mm
    > lens to get the same shot on their film body. The film shooter could of
    > course crop in post processing to get the same "tight" shot, but I'm sure
    > most people prefer to frame in the viewfinder rather than relying on
    > cropping in software (or in the darkroom).
    >
    > cheers adrianwww.boliston.co.uk


    I think it's a lot easier to crop afterwards to compose a shot than
    doing it in camera, for fast moving sports. Cropping's easy as long
    as you have enough megapixels.
     
    jdear64, Feb 23, 2007
    #18
  19. DeanB

    C J Campbell Guest

    On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:43:57 -0800, Neil Harrington wrote
    (in article <>):

    >
    > "C J Campbell" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:37:35 -0800, DeanB wrote
    >> (in article <>):
    >>
    >>> Canon seems to have a mix of 1.5x, 1.3x and full frame sensors now,
    >>> and their push seems to be towards the FF. Is this a pattern that
    >>> other companies are going towards? Do people here prefer the 35mm
    >>> sensor size?
    >>>

    >>
    >> What push? Their latest model, the one they call their flagship model, is
    >> an
    >> APS-H sensor.

    >
    > Yet another misnomer. The APS-H format is *widescreen*, 16:9 aspect ratio.
    > That's where the "H" comes from -- HDTV. What Canon "flagship model" has a
    > 16:9 sensor?
    >
    > Neil
    >
    >


    Canon's website introduces their new 'flagship,' as they call it: the 1D Mark
    III. If they say it is their flagship, then I guess it is.

    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
     
    C J Campbell, Feb 23, 2007
    #19
  20. DeanB

    J. Clarke Guest

    On 23 Feb 2007 10:57:17 -0800, "jdear64" <> wrote:

    >On Feb 23, 10:30 am, "Adrian Boliston" <> wrote:
    >> "jdear64" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> > If the pixel size is the same for the full frame sensor, you get no
    >> > "free extra reach" with the 1.6x sensor, just a crop.

    >>
    >> I'd say "free extra reach" is possibly not the best description, but I can
    >> see the appeal of the smaller sensor for a sports shooter who can get a
    >> tightly framed shot with a 200mm lens when they would have needed a 300mm
    >> lens to get the same shot on their film body. The film shooter could of
    >> course crop in post processing to get the same "tight" shot, but I'm sure
    >> most people prefer to frame in the viewfinder rather than relying on
    >> cropping in software (or in the darkroom).
    >>
    >> cheers adrianwww.boliston.co.uk

    >
    >I think it's a lot easier to crop afterwards to compose a shot than
    >doing it in camera, for fast moving sports. Cropping's easy as long
    >as you have enough megapixels.


    In the real world though are you going to crop in post or are you
    going to use a longer lens to begin with?
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 23, 2007
    #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. Allan
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    946
    Tim V.
    May 1, 2006
  2. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    443
    Allan
    Apr 23, 2006
  3. wylbur37
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,240
    Jukka Aho
    Nov 6, 2006
  4. NJ
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    2,750
  5. jwagner
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    459
    jwagner
    May 29, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page