1.6 cropping

[kram]

Just some random questions:

a. In the canon SLR range, which cameras do not have the 1.6 cropping?

b. Was the 1.6 higher on any previous models of digital SLRs. The reason for that question is does it give any indication of when we could expect a rebel equivalent without the 1.6 cropping?

c. Assumng more people shoot tele than wide, isnt the 1.6 an advantage? Or are there clear disadvantages?

[hmhm]

The Canon 1Ds and its successor had/has a sensor the same size as a frame of 35mm film. In the parlance, we'd call this "full frame", and thus a 1.0 crop.

Historically, the 1D and its successor had/have 1.3x sensors. All the other Canons in the past few years have been 1.6 (D30, D60, 10D, 20D, 300D, 350D).

Check out the "timeline" here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/timeline.asp

Sensors haven't really been "growing over time" in any appreciably quick way. The problem is that the cost of a sensor depends very directly on its size. While chips have steadily increased in density over the years, the economics of large die sizes hasn't changed much, and isn't likely to any time soon.

There are no technical advantages to a smaller sensor in terms of image quality, they are just cheaper to manufacture. It doesn't matter whether you tend to shoot wide angle or tele, a smaller sensor doesn't buy you anything when compared to a larger sensor made up of "the same stuff".
-harry

[MTalley]

Also, the smaller the sensor (or the smaller the film format, for that matter), the greater the depth of field for any given aperature. My old point and shoot, with a 1/1.8" sensor had decent (not great) bokeh only if you put the background elements way behind the subject and zoomed in to the subject from 50' away, even at a pretty decent (for a P/S camera) f/3.1.

[rent]

if everything else (lens focal length, aperture, focusing distance and final print size)being equal, smaller sensor size gives more shallow depth of field.

you cannot directly compare a lens on a p&s and a SLR lens. the focal lengths are way different, hence the perceived greater DOF.

there had been a huge thread on this topic: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69993

-alex

Also, the smaller the sensor (or the smaller the film format, for that matter), the greater the depth of field for any given aperature. My old point and shoot, with a 1/1.8" sensor had decent (not great) bokeh only if you put the background elements way behind the subject and zoomed in to the subject from 50' away, even at a pretty decent (for a P/S camera) f/3.1.

[Curtis N]

Rentboi, you're confusing people. You say one thing, then post a quote in the same message that says the opposite. I'm sure it was an honest mistake.

Rather than try to explain it, I recommend this article:
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/

There are pros and cons to smaller (than 35mm) sensors, but my guess is that the pros use cameras with full-fame sensors. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[tim]

if everything else (lens focal length, aperture, focusing distance and final print size)being equal, smaller sensor size gives more shallow depth of field.

This is either incorrect or misleading, depending on how you look at it. In general, a smaller sensor means more depth of field. It's a complex subject that I don't fully understand, once you get into the mathematics of circles on confusion I lose interest and go take some photos.

[rent]

hi curtis, thanks for the link, it surely clarifies things. i'd suggest we post this link as a sticky for all those who contemplates with the x-factor.

side note: i was only referring to an earlier thread to show the heated debate on this issue. i don't believe a final consensus was reached in that thread. however i don't think what i posted in that thread contradicts what i say here either.

-alex

[rent]

tim, i definately agree about the "go take some photos" part! :D -alex

This is either incorrect or misleading, depending on how you look at it. In general, a smaller sensor means more depth of field. It's a complex subject that I don't fully understand, once you get into the mathematics of circles on confusion I lose interest and go take some photos.

[ed2day]

This subject always opens up a can of worms. I think the reason is because people can argue two opposing view points and both be right--it always depends on assumptions you make about sensor pixel size/density which of course are never mentioned when making sweeping statements. But I will make one sweeping statement: a smaller sensor size cannot magically transform a shorter focal length lens into a longer one; it can be made to look very similar optically, but there's always a tradeoff such as decreased resolution or increased noise(again, depending on sensor design).

[Curtis N]

a smaller sensor size cannot magically transform a shorter focal length lens into a longer one;
True, which is why it's referred to as a "crop factor" and not a "lens-lengthening factor."

[slin100]

This subject always opens up a can of worms. I think the reason is because people can argue two opposing view points and both be right--it always depends on assumptions you make about sensor pixel size/density which of course are never mentioned when making sweeping statements.
Yes, it is a can of worms. But go look at the article referenced by Curtis N. I'll repeat the link here.
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/

If you are not interested in the nitty gritty, at least look at the top of the article where it states 5 important facts. Once you read them, it becomes clear how two people can almost paradoxically take opposing view points and both be right. It's usually because each person is asserting a different fact out of the 5 possible.

For example, rentboi just asserted fact #2 in the article. The one most people are generally interested in, which is preserving FOV, is fact #1. The people who claim that sensor size doesn't affect DOF use fact #3 as proof. What these people don't realize is that fact #3 is not mutually exclusive of the other 4 facts.