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

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

  1. Progressiveabsolution

    Scott W Guest

    What is your point here?

    Just about everyone would agree that a larger sensor will give a better
    image. But just about everyone will also agree that there are cost to
    using a larger sensor, expense, weight and the size of the camera and

    Are you arguing that a larger sensor does not give a better image or
    are you simply pointing out that there are down sides to using a large

    You would agree I hope that a 4 x 5 camera will produce a better image
    then a 35mm camera. This is a different issue from whether lugging
    around a 4 x 5 camera with worth the effort.

    Scott W, Apr 29, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Progressiveabsolution

    Bryan Olson Guest

    By that logic the best cameras are disposables, the best
    restaurant is MacDonald's, and you-know-who makes the
    best operating systems.

    The issue was image quality. Check it out.
    Bryan Olson, Apr 29, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. The quality of images, billions of which could never have been
    taken with 8x10 view cameras, from 35mm cameras are better than
    the non-existant images. Non-existant images have *zero*

    The idea that smaller sensors has not lead to better cameras,
    and photography, flies in the face of 150 years of history.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 29, 2006
  4. Progressiveabsolution

    Paul Rubin Guest

    The photographic images that most of us see the most often are printed
    text pages made by offset printing. All of those, except for the most
    recent, were done with large format cameras and couldn't have been
    done with small format. Take a look at a 24x36" street map from a gas
    station sometime, with all the tiny labels on all the twisty little
    streets, and wonder how to do something like that with small format.

    These days it's probably generally done with direct computer-to-plate
    output, but until recently it all was done with photography.

    I also don't see any way of getting a digicam photo of a printed page
    to be nearly as sharp as a flatbed scan with the same number of
    pixels. Same difference, sort of.
    Paul Rubin, Apr 29, 2006
  5. : 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.

    Ok let me see if I can state what I think you are asking. If the image
    captured by the two camera bodies include the exact same image and the
    number of pixels that make up the two images is exactly equal, then the
    level of detail available in the two images would be the same. So there
    would be NO difference. The only difference that could be apparent is if
    the actual light sensitive elements on the two chips are different. Since
    newer chips might have a newer technology that MIGHT have some advantage
    in light sensitivity or color accuracy there COULD be a slight difference
    in the resultant images. But this difference would be be due to the
    upgraded technology not specific to the physical dimensions of the sensor
    chip. One possible thought tho, the same number of pixels on a physically
    larger chip could leave more room for more technologically advanced
    sensors. So in this way it could improve the image capture accuracy, but
    the amount of difference apparent and the resultant "worth" would be up to
    the eye of the beholder. I personally think that any difference would be
    so slight (at the current time) that I would have a hard time convincing
    myself that the additional cost is justified for my uses. If you are
    working for National Geographic or hanging wall sized prints in a gallery
    your opinion may be very different. :)

    Of course back in my film days I was very happy with 400 speed print film
    while my father insisted on using nothing faster than ISO 64 slide film
    and frequently used much slower speed film. To each their own. :)


    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
    Randy Berbaum, Apr 29, 2006
  6. Just exactly what I have stated: The idea that 150 years of
    common sense indicates that larger sensors are necessarily
    better is simply untrue. History demonstrates the opposite to
    be the case; and what we have is 150 years of steadily reducing
    the size of the sensor, primarily because that affords the
    photographer more options, versatility and flexibility.
    The statement that I objected to did *not* sayt that images of
    better technical quality can come from larger sensors. That is
    a relatively narrow statement, and which *can* be argued very

    But the statement that larger sensors are simply better in a
    wider perspective is not supported by the claimed 150 years of
    And you will agree that a 4x5 camera will not get nearly the
    effective photography that a smaller sensor can produce. Photo
    journalism during the Korean War, 50+ years ago, proved it.

    E.g., a typical pro-quality DSLR will shoot at 5 frames per
    second. Your chances of using a 4x5 to duplicate results where
    that is significant are none. And of course we could run down a
    lengthy laundry list of other similar features available with
    typical sub-35mm DSLRs and show that there are multiples more
    issues than just a "better image". So granting that a 4x5 *can*
    be used to produce a technically higher quality image simply
    does *not* demonstrate that larger sensors are better.

    Images that cannot be produced by a 4x5 are much better when
    actually done with a smaller sensor.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 29, 2006
  7. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    I think you've so oversimplified the term, "better" that you would do well
    to use a different adjective.
    Mark², Apr 29, 2006
  8. : You would agree I hope that a 4 x 5 camera will produce a better image
    : then a 35mm camera. This is a different issue from whether lugging
    : around a 4 x 5 camera with worth the effort.

    Ah, here is where the discussion breaks down. With film cameras there is a
    definate limit to how many light sensitive crystals per sq inch would be
    practical. So given an equivalent number of crystals per inch (a major
    factor in ISO speed) a larger film frame size has more crystals per image.
    To convert this to digital terms you are comparing a 1mp image to a 10mp
    image. True the larger sensor has room for more light sensitive elements
    but if the sensor chip does not fill the physical dimensions of the larger
    chip to the same density of sensing elements as the smaller chip the size
    alone makes no difference. And the raise in density would be quantified by
    an equivalent rise in megapixels making up the image.

    With film the battle over negative size was roughly equivalent to the
    current battle over the effect of more megapixels. :)


    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
    Randy Berbaum, Apr 29, 2006
  9. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    Ah. So you're comparing 35mm with non-images?
    Now I understand why 35mm wins...because you've reduced the competition to
    A clever approach to argumentation...
    Ya...You've said that a few times now.

    Unfortunately, mere repetition rarely makes a crock into a crown...
    Mark², Apr 29, 2006
  10. Then you have reading comprehension problems. The issue was image quality.

    Some people have been claiming that cropped sensors provide better image
    quality than FF sensors, and _that_ is simply wrong and was the issue under

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 29, 2006
  11. The photographs that *most* people have looked at _today_ were
    taken with 35mm or smaller format cameras. That is true for
    magazine articles, television, newspaper, and home snapshots.

    That has been progressively more true for at least 50 years.
    That is merely the reproduction business though. The images did
    not originate with a camera that used a large sensor.
    Insignificant point though. The sensor in that flatbed scanner is
    how big?
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 29, 2006
  12. Progressiveabsolution

    Don Stauffer Guest

    And any time I know I will be shooting at small apertures (high f/#) I
    lug the tripod along. Hey, tripods today are so much lighter and
    smaller than they used to be it is not a chore anymore!
    Don Stauffer, Apr 29, 2006
  13. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    What weight does a carbon tripod have and how much does such a thing
    cost? By the way, don't forget that even if a tripod is light, you still
    have to set it up, extend the legs etc. and that's a pain in the ass.
    Alfred Molon, Apr 29, 2006
  14. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    Not near so much a pain as it is discovering that your beautiful landscape
    shot is only worth printing at 5x7 due to sharpness issues related to
    hand-shake or DOF problems...all because it wasn't on a tripod.
    Mark², Apr 29, 2006
  15. Progressiveabsolution

    nazanin Guest

    nazanin, Apr 29, 2006
  16. Progressiveabsolution

    nazanin Guest

    nazanin, Apr 29, 2006
  17. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    But that happens perhaps in one shot out of 200-300 (unless you are at
    "high zoom"). And usually in "strategic" locations I shoot at least a
    couple of shots in case a single shot should come out blurred, due to
    camera shake or incorrect focusing of the camera. An extra memory card
    weighs less than a tripod.
    Alfred Molon, Apr 29, 2006
  18. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    DOF can only be acheived by using small apertures (or small prints) and that
    means slower shutter speeds...which, in turn, raises the possibility of
    motion blur or camera motion burl. This definitely doesn't merely apply to
    telephoto, or "high zoom" as you call it. This shot is an example that
    demonstrates this: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/58828940/original

    It was taken at a wide 23mm, a small aperture of f20, and 1/13th of a
    No matter how steady my hands might be, there is no way to acheive critical
    sharpness without a tripod in this case. Everyone seems to have a diferent
    standard for what they consider critically sharp. To me, critically sharp
    in *landscapes* means that enlargement reveals only the limitations of the
    lens optics...rather than my technique. Other factors that are out of our
    control sometimes mean sharpness is tough or impossible (blowing grass,
    trees, etc.).

    If you're not planning to enlarge much, then of course the situational
    definition of "critically sharp" can take on a much lower standard for
    acceptable results.

    I guess there's really no universal definition for sharp images. What I
    throw away might be someone else's keeper, or vice versa.
    Mark², Apr 29, 2006
  19. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Well, F20 isn't even available on a camera like the Olympus 8080, just
    to make an example (smallest aperture is F8). At F8 (and ISO 100) the
    exposure time would have been 1/80s, short enough for a blurless
    handheld shot (even at ISO 50 and 1/40s you would have obtained easily
    avoided camera shake).

    By the way, the exif data says that the camera used was a Canon 10D and
    the ISO 100. You could have gone up to ISO 400, thereby obtaining an
    exposure time of 1/50s, sufficient for a handheld shot without blur.
    Obviously noise levels would have been higher, but still low enough with
    a camera like the 10D.
    Alfred Molon, Apr 30, 2006
  20. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    Why would I want to introduce noise when I have a tripod?
    Again...it just comes down to how intent one is on creating the best image
    Even at 1/50th of a second...while you may not see blur at small print
    sizes, it can become apparent in big enlargements.
    Mark², Apr 30, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.