Full Frame Sensor. Who really needs it?

[Belmondo]

It seems the 24 X 36 sensor (full-frame) has become the holy grail of digital SLR owners. I can’t count the number of times it has been openly wished-for, coveted, or otherwise lusted after in this forum by D30, D60, 10D, and Drebel owners. I’ve even jumped on that same bandwagon myself on occasion.

Being an otherwise contented 10D owner myself, I started doing some serious thinking about whether or not I’d really be better off with a 1Ds (or some heretofore unknown future model) because of the full-frame sensor, and I came to the conclusion that I probably wouldn’t be. The big issue is the 1.6 ‘multiplication factor,’ and how it somehow diminishes the performance of EF lenses by only using the center portions of the optics and ‘wasting’ the rest.

I decided to take a hypothetical situation wherein a photo is taken with a 10D using a given lens (say 50mm for conversation purposes). The same picture is then taken from the same position using a full-frame camera. We all understand that the FF camera is going to produce an image with roughly .6 times greater field-of-vision. If we then crop that image so that the resulting view is the same as the 10D photo, we actually end up with a lower resolution image---approximately 4.5 megapixels vs. 6.3 with the 10D.

In short, when using the same lens on both bodies, the FF camera will produce a higher resolution photo in total, but the 10D will produce a higher resolution image for the portion of the same scene that it captures.

Admittedly, if the same photo is shot with a FF camera using an 80mm lens, the resulting image will be the same but with higher resolution. Unless extremely large enlargements are deemed desirable, however, the 6.3 megapixel image will usually suffice. At worst, it means I just have to be a little more careful about planning my shots.

Anyway, my glass is definitely half full.

[Tom W]

It seems the 24 X 36 sensor (full-frame) has become the holy grail of digital SLR owners. I can’t count the number of times it has been openly wished-for, coveted, or otherwise lusted after in this forum by D30, D60, 10D, and Drebel owners. I’ve even jumped on that same bandwagon myself on occasion.

Being an otherwise contented 10D owner myself, I started doing some serious thinking about whether or not I’d really be better off with a 1Ds (or some heretofore unknown future model) because of the full-frame sensor, and I came to the conclusion that I probably wouldn’t be. The big issue is the 1.6 ‘multiplication factor,’ and how it somehow diminishes the performance of EF lenses by only using the center portions of the optics and ‘wasting’ the rest.

I decided to take a hypothetical situation wherein a photo is taken with a 10D using a given lens (say 50mm for conversation purposes). The same picture is then taken from the same position using a full-frame camera. We all understand that the FF camera is going to produce an image with roughly .6 times greater field-of-vision. If we then crop that image so that the resulting view is the same as the 10D photo, we actually end up with a lower resolution image---approximately 4.5 megapixels vs. 6.3 with the 10D.

In short, when using the same lens on both bodies, the FF camera will produce a higher resolution photo in total, but the 10D will produce a higher resolution image for the portion of the same scene that it captures.

Admittedly, if the same photo is shot with a FF camera using an 80mm lens, the resulting image will be the same but with higher resolution. Unless extremely large enlargements are deemed desirable, however, the 6.3 megapixel image will usually suffice. At worst, it means I just have to be a little more careful about planning my shots.

This was the issue that kept me waiting so long to go to a DSLR - Not so much that the sensor only uses part of the lens (and the best part of it, generally) but that I'd have more choices at the wide end and that I'd have more room to crop with more pixels.

I never did the math, but from what you're saying, the pixel density is higher on the 6.3 sensor than it is on the 1Ds. So cropping to match the 10D-sized sensor would result in a smaller picture, pixel-wise.

I finally decided, (OK, I was influenced when an act of God broke the latch on the film door on my Elan, 4 weeks before my sister's wedding) that I'd get the 10D based on everything I saw here and elsewhere on the net. Its a fine camera. I'm sure that some day, full-sized sensors will be much less expensive and equal-to or exceed the pixel density of the 10D, but I'm not going to wait forever.

Anyway, my glass is definitely half full.
[/i]

Ahhh, but the part of the glass that you are using is the best part! :P

Besides, all my glass is empty. I'm all lens and no camera (except for the FT). Elan is on its way to KEH and 10D is on its way from B&H.

[CoolToolGuy]

For me, it's not about the density, but the angle of view and the dollars (marks, yen, euros, whatever) it takes to get there on the wide side.

I love what a 24mm lens can provide in the 35mm film world. The 84 degree AOV is great when you can use it. But to get there with a 1.6 crop factor, you need a 15mm lens. The cost is significant. Just to keep it in the family, let's just consider Canon lenses, and I'll use B&H as the reference. The 24mm 2.8 is $279.95 (without the rebate, but if want it you better hurry!), and the 14mm 2.8 is $1799.95. Move up the line a little bit, and it doesn't get much better - the 35mm 2.0 is $229.95 and the 20mm 2.8 that it would take to get close to the same AOV in the crop factor world is $419.95. So I am anxious for a reduced crop factor (even 1.3) to get my wide angle lenses back.

On the other hand, the crop factor gives you more telephoto for your money (in a manner of speaking).

So, I am hoping the crop factor is reduced in the cameras that will be announced in February.

Have Fun
Rick

[cc10d]

Not only that, the best telephoto multiplier is one that does not distort or cost you light loss. That is what we det with the 10D 1.6 factor. My 100-400 is effctively 160-640 5.6. Now where cold I afford or find such a lense that I can handhold?

Chuck

[DaveG]

Not only that, the best telephoto multiplier is one that does not distort or cost you light loss. That is what we det with the 10D 1.6 factor. My 100-400 is effctively 160-640 5.6. Now where cold I afford or find such a lense that I can handhold?

Chuck

All that you are doing with the 10D is cropping. Put your 100-400 on an Elan II and crop the 10D's sized CMOS out of the neg and you will get the 160-640 mm focal length back.

You could always crop, but one of the first rules in photography is to fill the frame, and the bigger the frame you start with, the more detail will be recorded.

So to answer the first question: Me, and as soon as possible.

[BrettD]

If we then crop that image so that the resulting view is the same as the 10D photo, we actually end up with a lower resolution image---approximately 4.5 megapixels vs. 6.3 with the 10D.

I seems to me that you are arguing not for a cropped sensor (the 10D) but for a higher pixel density in general.

If the "heretofore unknown future model" has a full frame and 20MP the cropped image would contain more resolution than the 10D (and we'd probably all be moaning that L lenses arn't good enough!)

However I think Canon have decided that the 10D's pixel density is about the ideal trade-off between resolution / noise / and the resolving power of most lenses. So given that, I would always go the full-frame model for the wide angle option.

Brett D

[Jim Larson]

Well, I hear the points.

I think the full frame crowd is a bit snobbish. (of course, I am a lens snob: Bring on the "L"s! )

The biggest hit IMHO regarding the crop factor is the loss of depth of field. (ie, my 50mm portrait lens has more DOF than my 80 did on film camera). This hurts portrait taking.

Yes, if you are a wide angle guro, then you have a problem because wide glass is expensive glass. Personally, I expected to lust for wide end, but cheaped out and got the 24/2.8 instead of a 17-40/4L. I found that 24 is plenty wide enough for me. :) I am happy :).

The issue with full frame is cost and pixels. The 1D has higher image quality but lower resolution than the 10D because the pixels are bigger, but are of lower density. I can't afford that quality. And I am not sure I can see it either (I am sure others can => I have not tried too hard)

I am sure 10 years from now, a 1.6 crop sensor will produce quality that will blow the 1DS away. And have higher resolution.

The feature I want the most from the 1D and 1Ds is the AF system and brighter viewfinder. :) => but PMA is coming!!!

[hmhm]

Yeah, the 300D and 10D have higher pixel density than the 1Ds. This isn't a limitation of full-frame, it's a limitation of one particular full-frame camera. When I dream of full-frame, I dream of a 16MP full-frame. This 24 x 36 sensor has a 10D sensor in the middle of it.

High pixel density is useful only when you're forced to crop because you've already exceeded your lens budget (i.e. you've already put on the biggest telephoto lens you can afford), and you need to crop to buy yourself some more reach. The 10D can do this better than the 1Ds. But build a 16MP full-frame (i.e. one with the density of the 10D), and the full-frame camera always wins, except when your credit card bill arrives.
-harry

[Belmondo]

I seems to me that you are arguing not for a cropped sensor (the 10D) but for a higher pixel density in general-----------However I think Canon have decided that the 10D's pixel density is about the ideal trade-off between resolution / noise / and the resolving power of most lenses. So given that, I would always go the full-frame model for the wide angle option.

Brett D

No argument, Brett. I'm only saying that given the current level of performance from my 10D, I'm feeling no great pressure to migrate to a camera just because it might have a full-frame sensor, even considering the enhanced wide-angle capabilities. To be sure, no one will be happier than I when my 17-40 will give me a true 17mm image instead of 27mm. That consideration by itself, however, is not sufficient to make me at all anxious to replace my 10D.

[Tom W]

No argument, Brett. I'm only saying that given the current level of performance from my 10D, I'm feeling no great pressure to migrate to a camera just because it might have a full-frame sensor, even considering the enhanced wide-angle capabilities. To be sure, no one will be happier than I when my 17-40 will give me a true 17mm image instead of 27mm. That consideration by itself, however, is not sufficient to make me at all anxious to replace my 10D.

That's about where I am - I'll enjoy the 10D for several years while I wait for things to settle down. And if I get anxious, I have an entire refrigerator door bin filled with "full frame" sensors - called film. :)

There will always be an advantage to larger sensor size, just as medium and large format share an advantage over 35 mm. It boils down to what things cost and what people are willing to pay for diminishing returns.

[MarkH]

I am sure that it must be possible to create a big 10D sensor, low noise to ISO1600 with 16MP.

Now if 6MP is enough then you could crop the photos to give a 1.6x cropping factor. Thus the 28-135 would be able to give a 6MP image from 28mm (Downsampled) to 216mm (cropped). This is FANTASTIC! So then the 100-400 would become 100-640, BRILLIANT!

I'll happily use my 10D for at least 4 more years, then I'll buy the new 24MPix FF Sensor Canon for $1500 and I'll be able to produce images from 6MPix upwards with up to 2x cropping factor. A 70-200 f2.8 could be used as a 70-400 f2.8 at 6MPix or more, SWEET!

Who the hell wouldn't want that!

:P

[CyberDyneSystems]

If you crop the 1Ds down to 10D size to get that 1.6X "crop factro" what is left is only 4.3 million pixels to blow up and get th same result from your telephotos... hmmmmm

I never thought of it that way. (I assumed that the 10D's sensor was larger.... in realtion to a 35mm...)

well I have to say I am perfectly happy with the 17mm on the 10D,. I don't see needing any wider for anything.

Tom, .. what you are suggesting is exactly what Olympus is working on. (it is a shame they are missing the boat and defeating there own argumant by pricing there gear so high :( )

One of the early posts I put on this forum was my certainty that the 35mm form factor would soon be history in DSLRs (I figured 10 years at the time,. now I think it will be much longer) With increased pixel density,.. soon we may have 600mm lenses that are smaller than the 200mm f/2.8... and cost no more than a 200mm as well. Everything can be made samller,. and thus cost less. This IS the way that digital will take us in the future,. Olympus is waaay ahead of the curve,. to far ahead,. and will suffer for it probably,. but what they are doing is exactly what DSLRs will look like in 10-15 years.

[nosquare2003]

I prefer full frame as my personal preference though:

Firstly, I like a bigger view finder screen.

Secondly, I'm comfortable with the focal length in terms of film SLR. It seems a bit weird for me to regard a 50mm as a 80mm lens after cropping factor. Have you picked up a small compact digicam with a focal length of 7mm?

Thirdly, most current lenses are designed for "full frame". It would be a waste of glass for 1.6x crop. Canon perhaps will develop more EF-s lenses for 1.6x "standard". But most of us have already got enough good glasses and we won't replace them with EF-s lenses.

On the contrary, who doesn't want a full frame digital SLR?

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,

My 2 cents ;D.

I have no problem with the crop/magnification factor.
I hardley ever need more than my 28mm setting on my lens.

The advantages are however greater for me, I shoot a lot with zoom, and the 1.6x factor gives me a headstart. Also the middle section of a lens is alway's better than the sides so the cropfactor also here as a big advantage.

Problem is the way the light hit's the sensor, but this is solved with the use of for example the Di lenses from Tamron.

20MP full frame would be wonderfull however, but most of the time I would just crop more away, and I'm afraid there is only one option than for me, invest in even bigger lenses ;D.

I have 50x75 CM prints hanging on my wall from the 10D and they are razorsharp and very detailed, I have no need what so ever to go any bigger so the 10D for the moment is what I will keep on using.

Offcourse there is some improvement possible, but I'm not in the same position as with all my other digicams before the 10D from which I had several annoyances.

Greetings,
Frank

[RichardtheSane]

Well, wouldn't we all love a 1Ds :)
For me I look towards the 1.3 crop factor as being the best solution for my needs. Sure I don't get the telephoto reach of 1.6, but it is a good compromise between wide and tele.
And the 1D is still a nice piece of kit, and probably to be replaced soon.... :D

[Jim Larson]

Just to repeat myself:

The big deal about sensor crop (IMHO) is depth of field control.

Have any of you tried wide open shots with a digicam (equipped with a 7mm lens. . .)? Even wide open, with a camera that sports a "2.8 aperture", there is virtually no background blur. :shock:

The problem with shooting a portrait with a 50/1.8, compared to a 80/1.8 is that the 50mm will have a DOF of 10 inches, while the 80 will have a DOF of 6 inches.

If you are the type that is happy with shooting 80mm at F5.6 (19" DOF), then this is not a big deal. If you are like me, and are buying 2.8 primes because the a F4L zoom is a tad out of reach and a 2.8L zoom is unthinkable, then there is a concern!

So why do I put up with 1.6 crop sensor? Because like the 2.8L zoom, a full frame camera (or even a 1.3 crop camera) is a tad out of reach. :roll:

[Jim Larson]

Just to repeat myself:

GAH! Editing error! Post deleted. . .. . :oops: :oops: :oops:

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,

I use a f2.8 zoom and normal lens but find the background blur perfect, I most of the time can't even shoot on 2.8 because my subject (often birds) will not be complety in focus.

Greetings,
Frank

[Tom W]

Just to repeat myself:

The big deal about sensor crop (IMHO) is depth of field control.

Have any of you tried wide open shots with a digicam (equipped with a 7mm lens. . .)? Even wide open, with a camera that sports a "2.8 aperture", there is virtually no background blur. :shock:

The problem with shooting a portrait with a 50/1.8, compared to a 80/1.8 is that the 50mm will have a DOF of 10 inches, while the 80 will have a DOF of 6 inches.

If you are the type that is happy with shooting 80mm at F5.6 (19" DOF), then this is not a big deal. If you are like me, and are buying 2.8 primes because the a F4L zoom is a tad out of reach and a 2.8L zoom is unthinkable, then there is a concern!

So why do I put up with 1.6 crop sensor? Because like the 2.8L zoom, a full frame camera (or even a 1.3 crop camera) is a tad out of reach. :roll:

And you did repeat yourself. :twisted:

Seriously, that is one of the weaknesses of the smaller lens - only in macro will my S-400 apply any appreciable amount of background blur. On the other hand, its weak flash has given me a little success in making the background dark enough to blend into insignificance.

5 or so years down the road, the price of the full-sized sensor will be considerably lower. But I still worry if the full-sized sensor might acheive the same popularity as the medium format camera shares today. Its clearly a better setup optically, but will people be willing to pay for it when they can get "good enough" for much less?

[hodad66]

For me, long is great. I miss a truly wide, quality lens but to get 560mm reach out of a 350mm is great! Can't wait to get a 500--- I'll be in heaven 8)

[iwatkins]

FF sensor ? Asked me a few weeks ago and I would bite your hand off for one for landscape photography, i.e. wide.

I now have the Sigma 12-24 and that is wide enough on the 10D. Plenty wide 8)

So, unless the replacement camera from Canon has something else I can't live without, I won't be upgrading to it just for a FF sensor or increased number of pixels as I find 6.3Mp is also plenty.

Cheers

Ian

[Phil Hall]

I went from a D30 to a 1D and now a 1Ds. For wide angle and normal shots the !Ds gives so much more picture. I think I still prefer the 1D for long telephoto shots >400 mm. Full frame chips are the way of the future, so embrace them.

[CoolToolGuy]

Full frame chips are the way of the future, so embrace them.

Precisely. Canon will not ignore all the development time and effort that it took to come up all of those lenses that cover a 24x36 frame. The crop factor will disappear as the price of producing the technology drops. In the meantime, they may arrive there in steps, which also works for their lens sales. If they went from 1.6 to full frame, it would be a big jump all at once (the Canon users would need lenses on both ends - to satisfy the wide angle folks with a cheaper way to get the AOV, and telephotos to give the telephoto folks back their reach. And that sort of a jump may send sales to Sigma/Tamron/whoever. But if they make a stop at 1.3, they might cause a different run on the glass. The 1.3 route may actually get Canon more lens sales in the long run.

Isn't speculation fun?
Have Fun
Rick 8)

[AndrewEllinas]

i have made all my lens purchasing decisions based upon the realisation that i will have them a lot longer than i will have my 10D.

full frame and higher resolution will come and i'm not self deluding enough to believe that i won't upgrade.

my other SLR is an Olympus OM4 which i have had for nearly 20 years. its pretty mechanical and, because of this, i expect it to last for another 20 years at least. i do not believe that digital cameras will have such longevity.

the 10D will be replaced, full frame and 10/11 mega pixels and greater will become the norm.

it's a camera manufacturers dream - i mean Olypmus can't be too pleased that in all the years i've had my OM4 that they've not come out with something to tempt me to change it - but as they say Canon can!

[hmhm]

I think I still prefer the 1D for long telephoto shots >400 mm.

If you do the "cropping" yourself, the 1Ds has a 6.5MP 1.3x crop sensor in the middle of its full-frame 11MP sensor.
-harry

[Phil Hall]

I think I still prefer the 1D for long telephoto shots >400 mm.

If you do the "cropping" yourself, the 1Ds has a 6.5MP 1.3x crop sensor in the middle of its full-frame 11MP sensor.
-harry

That is true but it will take a while to get used to it. The pixels on the 1D and 1Ds are also larger than the 10D.