Advantages of Full Frame

[aam1234]

In light of the rumored 5D talk, let me ask your opinion.

One obvious advantage of FF is that wide lenses are really wide.

Are there any other advantages?

Thanks

[booggerg]

Some might say larger individual pixels for lower noise, but that theory has been discontended by the high res 20D sensor...Other than braggin' rights in the locker room. I don't see any other advantages of a FF sensor.

[sdommin]

Just like in 35mm vs. medium format vs. 8X10, a full frame sensor allows you to enlarge less to get a given print size.

[guitarman]

Which is why I'll more than likely end up staying with the 20D. It'd be nice to have more megapixels but more than likely not necessary.

[booggerg]

Just like in 35mm vs. medium format vs. 8X10, a full frame sensor allows you to enlarge less to get a given print size.

that is not entirely true. Sensor size has less to do with enlargement potential than actual resolution it puts out. I'm sure my 20D can enlarge much better than a 1.3x 1D

[CoolToolGuy]

that is not entirely true. Sensor size has less to do with enlargement potential than actual resolution it puts out. I'm sure my 20D can enlarge much better than a 1.3x 1D

The actual statement that sdommin made does not refer to loss of quality, just that the enlargement from a full frame to, say, 8x10 is less than the enlargement from a 20D frame to 8x10. In that context the statement is absolutely true. ;)

Have Fun,

[Joe R]

Pro: Brighter viewfinder, shallower depth of field, lenses are what they're suppposed to be.
Con: Canon wideangle lens quality

[Longwatcher]

Given the same number of pixels (ala the 1DM2 and 20D) with different size photo sites (AKA Pixels) the one with the larger photo sites should everything else being equal provide higher quality pictures. Primarily because the larger photo site will tend to be more accurate in it's recording of the photons thus providing better SNR.

As to enlargement, if they have the same number of pixels they should have equal enlargement capability. The content of the image will have the biggest effect on the ability to enlarge a particular image.

The only true advantage to FF over APS is wide angle lenses. There are some secondaries benefits that are not yet fully apparent, which is maximum resolution will be greater on a FF when it reaches the practical physics limit (we are getting close but not there quite yet). Until then it will have larger photo sites, and as a result of that may be able to achieve higher dynamic range.

All that said my 1DsMkII sensor beats any current APS sensor because I have both more and larger pixels. That is not likely to change until at least the number of pixels equals the FF sensors. And most importantly that allows me to crop almost half the image out and still get better quality/enlargement then either the 1DM2 or the 20D. The best part though is my lenses all work basically like they are supposed to (not counting a touch more vignetting on the very wide angles then seen in film cameras).

Now all of the above said, even my D60 at a measly 6.3MP produced great shots that met my requirement to suplant 35mm film in terms of final output. So unless the next new camera does something you actually need don't worry about your old one. I bought my 1DsMkII because I could afford it and it met all of my requirements at the time, but the 20D and 1DM2 didn't. I know I have a great camera because I am no longer lusting after the next camera. I am however keeping an eye out for a relatively low cost backup replacement that operates closer to my 1DsMkII then my current 10D backup camera. And I am highly unlikely to accept anything but full frame at this point and I could really use one with a significantly faster FPS then 4, but I don't feel a 'need' for a camera for just that.

[MDJAK]

Someone posted as an advantage: Brighter viewfinder.

For those who continue to wonder whether there's an advantage, I invite you to go to your local camera store. BEWARE, though. I warn you of the danger.

Pick up the 1DsMKII. Look -- no GAZE through the viewfinder. It's like looking through a picture window on a bright, sunny day.

Then pick up the 20D (my former camera and a GREAT camera still) and look through the viewfinder. In comparison, it's like when you rip off your sunglasses as you enter a tunnel while driving.

Another eye-opening experience is wide angle. My 17-40 is a whole other animal on my FF than on the 20D.

As far as the crap (misspelling intended) factor, fugghedaboutit. I'll just get a longer lens. You're only getting the field of view, not magnification.

[aam1234]

Someone posted as an advantage: Brighter viewfinder.

For those who continue to wonder whether there's an advantage, I invite you to go to your local camera store. BEWARE, though. I warn you of the danger.

Pick up the 1DsMKII. Look -- no GAZE through the viewfinder. It's like looking through a picture window on a bright, sunny day.

Then pick up the 20D (my former camera and a GREAT camera still) and look through the viewfinder. In comparison, it's like when you rip off your sunglasses as you enter a tunnel while driving.


Waw, didn't know it was that significant.

[aam1234]

Btw, I knew Longwatcher will chime in in subjects related to resolution. He's been working the in that field for many many years. And he is our resident guru when it comes to that subject.

Thanks Longwatcher.

[schmoelzel]

How many here regularly make prints larger than 8 X 10? I always find it interesting when people are concerned with how big a print the MP will allow you to make and these same people only print 4 X 6!! I have a 1D (only 4MP!!) but I regularly get poster prints made for my business. The quality is excellent and with a little careful post-processing, I do not miss the MP I lost when I upgraded from the Drebel. Sorry to go OT but I am always wondering how large a print people really make.......not just dream about!!

[CoolToolGuy]

How many here regularly make prints larger than 8 X 10? I always find it interesting when people are concerned with how big a print the MP will allow you to make and these same people only print 4 X 6!! I have a 1D (only 4MP!!) but I regularly get poster prints made for my business. The quality is excellent and with a little careful post-processing, I do not miss the MP I lost when I upgraded from the Drebel. Sorry to go OT but I am always wondering how large a print people really make.......not just dream about!!

This is sort of like someone who buys a Hummer for its offroad capability when all they want to do is drive across the soccer field to park on the other side. . . :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ssim]

I actually make a significant number of prints larger than 8X10. I have enlarged my 20D and 1DMKII images up to 20X30 and even standing very close they are very very good. As a normal course of action I do alot of 11X14 and 16X20. I've seen some enlargements off of the 1D which is spectacular as well.

I think that this is a mindset thing for alot of photographers. What if I have to do a big print some day. Of course we all know how size matters:rolleyes:

Given that I do mostly wildlife shooting I like the crop factor of my 20D and 1DMKII. It gives me that extra little reach that sometimes will make the difference.

Now if Canon comes out with a FF sensor that offers me the speed of the 1DMKII I may be tempted.

[slin100]

Every time I look through my Canon F-1 with a 50/1.2 lens, it makes me cry. I always get a feeling of detachment whenever I look through my 10D. Looking through a full frame viewfinder, I get much more a sense of involvement. It's that subjective quality that I miss in addition to the brightness.

[schmoelzel]

I actually make a significant number of prints larger than 8X10. I have enlarged my 20D and 1DMKII images up to 20X30 and even standing very close they are very very good. As a normal course of action I do alot of 11X14 and 16X20. I've seen some enlargements off of the 1D which is spectacular as well.

I think that this is a mindset thing for alot of photographers. What if I have to do a big print some day. Of course we all know how size matters:rolleyes:

Given that I do mostly wildlife shooting I like the crop factor of my 20D and 1DMKII. It gives me that extra little reach that sometimes will make the difference.

Now if Canon comes out with a FF sensor that offers me the speed of the 1DMKII I may be tempted.

I think you are one of the rare few who make large prints on a regular basis. My poster size prints in my shop (16 X 20) look great but I also go to a photofinishing place who prints using a light-jet printer. This thing is amazing ( I have a couple that were done with my 3.3MP G1).......but at home I might print out 8 X 10 maximum.

Ok, on topic again......I think the advantages of a full-frame sensor is to all the nature/scenic photogs who really want to include as much into their shot as they can see with their eyes.

[booggerg]

The actual statement that sdommin made does not refer to loss of quality, just that the enlargement from a full frame to, say, 8x10 is less than the enlargement from a 20D frame to 8x10. In that context the statement is absolutely true. ;)

Have Fun,

If taken in the context that a FF will give you a better quality enlargement, then this statement is not accurate. The relatively small size difference between the 1.6 and FF sensor is totally negligible when you're talking about enlargements in the realms of the 8x10 or larger...

[aam1234]

Joe R mentioned shallower depth of field. How much difference there is with say the 20D.

[JeffJensen]

Since the image thru the viewfinder is optical (lenses and mirror) - how would sensor size have any direct impact on the view. I'm sure the viewfinder image could be improved in a camera with the 1.6 by simply changing the optics in the viewfinder. Correct?

[booggerg]

Since the image thru the viewfinder is optical (lenses and mirror) - how would sensor size have any direct impact on the view. I'm sure the viewfinder image could be improved in a camera with the 1.6 by simply changing the optics in the viewfinder. Correct?

I guess you can, but then you'd probably want to etch some guide lines on that FF mirror so that you'll know how the image will be cropped.

But then again, what purpose would that serve?? To see a wide angle of a shot that you will never be able to capture?

[CoolToolGuy]

If taken in the context that a FF will give you a better quality enlargement, then this statement is not accurate. The relatively small size difference between the 1.6 and FF sensor is totally negligible when you're talking about enlargements in the realms of the 8x10 or larger...

Whatever floats your boat. . . ;)

Have Fun,

[Jim_T]

It's not negligable...

The 1Ds full frame sensor produces images that are 4992 pixels wide. This means if you print an image at 300 DPI, you'll get an image that's 16.6 inches wide.

The 1.6X 20D on the other hand creates images that are 3504 pixels wide.. It can only produce 11.6 inch images at 300 DPI..

The 1Ds can produce 300 DPI images that are 5 inches wider than the 20D is capable of.. That's almost half a foot.. That's not a negligable difference.

[cactusclay]

Ahh, to be able to walk around once again, with a fast 35mm lens, instead of a 56mm or a slow zoom. The more I hear of a smallish FF, the more I am interested. I just wish it didn't cost more than what I have now. When I first heard the price, it was NO, NO WAY AM I SPENDING THAT MUCH FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THAT MUCH BETTER. After a couple of days now, I'm starting to think that I may not be able to stop myself. I'll miss the pop up flash though-so handy for those no light low light emergencies.

[booggerg]

It's not negligable...

The 1Ds full frame sensor produces images that are 4992 pixels wide. This means if you print an image at 300 DPI, you'll get an image that's 16.6 inches wide.

The 1.6X 20D on the other hand creates images that are 3504 pixels wide.. It can only produce 11.6 inch images at 300 DPI..

The 1Ds can produce 300 DPI images that are 5 inches wider than the 20D is capable of.. That's almost half a foot.. That's not a negligable difference.

Dude, you have no idea what we're talking about here....
Your 1Ds has 16 megapixel. the 20D has 8 megapixel. Why do you think there's such a difference? You're missng the essence of the difference here...

[roanjohn]

Con: Canon wideangle lens quality

There are Nikon to Canon adaptor in the market.......:lol: :lol:

Ro1

[ed2day]

What is this nonsense about lenses "working like they're supposed to" on full frame. That's just crazy talk. Unless you consider vignetting and edge distortion as something you just can't do without.

I guess I never got the word that EF lenses wouldn't work like they're supposed to on my DReb. Does Canon know this? Time for a recall.

[Persian-Rice]

Note to booggerg about your first post.

The noise : photosite size is not a theory, it's a fact. It has not been discounted in any way by the 20D, which BTW, the 1DMKII was performing similarly long before the 20D was announced.

It's that the signal processing by the camera has been improved, they handle the problem better. But in no way does it discount the fact that smaller photosites don't react as well or are less sensitive to light

[Croasdail]

A high MP sensor - regardless of its size is going to be able to produce larger output at a given output dbi - but this has absolutely nothing to do with its phsyical size necessarily. Right now it is easier to make a highly sensitive FF sensor then it is to engineer the same performance out of a smaller package. But don't be fooled into thinking that is necessarily a hard and fast law that you can't have a small sensor that can perform at the same levels as todays high end sensor. The new highend 64 bit processors from AMD and Intel crush what Sparcs and Alphas could do just a few years ago - and they are in phycically smaller packages. Another example can be found in the Home Theatre products - the performance of the projectors is going threw the roof - at cheaper cost - and the physical size of the projector components are a fraction of the size what they were just 3 years ago. On this one, I am with Booggreg... don't assume you have to have a full size sensor to get great high resolution images... history says it ain't so.

[drisley]

I always hear about the brighter viewfinders of film and FF cameras vs, say, the 20D.
I got to try a film SLR last fall, and I expected a big difference. To be honest, I didn't notice much difference vs my 20D. I guess that just doesn't bother me much.

[aam1234]

Thanks drisley,

It's nice to see a balancing point of view.

[schmoelzel]

As far as viewfinders are concerned, doesn't brightness also have a lot to do with the glass you are using? F1.2 vs F3.5?? I noticed quite a difference in my viewfinder going from a DRebel to the 1D...not just in brightness but in size as well. With the 1D I actually get the shot the way I see it whereas the DRebel I believe has a 90% coverage. Correct me if I'm wrong.........

[drisley]

Scmoelzel, I believe you are 100% right. The larger the aperture on the lens, the brighter the viewfinder as well. Perhaps that is why the film camera I used didn't impress me with it's viewfinder brightness. But the size didn't seem much different either to me. I guess it's the thing some people notice, and others don't.
The 20D is supposed to have a much brighter, and larger viewfinder than the DRebel, but again, I didnt notice much difference when I upgraded. I guess everybody notices different things.

[Hellashot]

You'd get a larger FF viewfinder, but lower pixel density than the 20D or new NIkon 12MP cameras. Unless someone does landscape work, I don't think it will be that popular. The resolution will not be as fine as the cameras I stated above, and as reproted the FPS is far fewer than the 8MP 1D camera that does 8 FPS. I'm sure Canon is discontinuing the 1.3x sensor to streamline production and save costs, but something better for users would have been to merge the professional dSLRs to the FF sensor but move the 20D line to 1.3x but keep the Drebel line as 1.6x giving users a reason to buy a 20D line vs. the Drebel. Just my 2 cents.

[internationalmanofmystery]

Since the image thru the viewfinder is optical (lenses and mirror) - how would sensor size have any direct impact on the view. I'm sure the viewfinder image could be improved in a camera with the 1.6 by simply changing the optics in the viewfinder. Correct?

The 1.6 cameras have much smaller mirrors and viewfinder images. If the viewfinder were expanded to be normal 35mm size, then the brightness would suffer.

This is an underestimated advantage of FF.

[Tom W]

There are Nikon to Canon adaptor in the market.......:lol: :lol:

Ro1

True, but Nikon's wides aren't significantly better.

[Tom W]

Note to booggerg about your first post.

The noise : photosite size is not a theory, it's a fact. It has not been discounted in any way by the 20D, which BTW, the 1DMKII was performing similarly long before the 20D was announced.

It's that the signal processing by the camera has been improved, they handle the problem better. But in no way does it discount the fact that smaller photosites don't react as well or are less sensitive to light

This is true, and one needs to look no further than Nikon's D2x to see how high ISO noise is handled with tiny photosites - with copious amounts of detail-eating software-based noise reduction built into the camera. The D2X is a wonderful camera at lower ISO settings, but as you reach 400 and above, you either put up with a great deal of image noise, or you use the noise reduction feature and lose significant resolving power.

The 20D is a marval in that it retains much detail while shooting low noise, but if you apply that same technology to a sensor with larger photosites, the inherent noise level will be significantly better. Conversely, if you shrink the photosites further, the laws of physics will hamper your ability to produce accurate, low-noise images.

[Tom W]

I always hear about the brighter viewfinders of film and FF cameras vs, say, the 20D.
I got to try a film SLR last fall, and I expected a big difference. To be honest, I didn't notice much difference vs my 20D. I guess that just doesn't bother me much.

That probably depends on the particular film camera.

I've compared the viewfinder of the 1D Mk II to that of my old 10D and to the XT - no comparison. The 1D Mk II can be manually focused with ease, while the other two cannot. I haven't had the opportunity to pick up the 20D, but I understand it is a bit better than the 10D or the XT. But, there's only so much light that can make its way up to the eyepiece when the mirror size is limited by the EF-S mount.

[Tom W]

Joe R mentioned shallower depth of field. How much difference there is with say the 20D.

OK, here's the DOF angle:

If you were to stand in a specific place and take an image of a subject with a 50 mm lens on a 1Ds (full-frame), you would need a lens of 31 mm to take the same equally-framed image from the same place with a 20D or XT. Now, suppose your subject were 10 feet away and you wanted to blur the background a certain amount such that you found yourself shooting at f/2.8 with the FF/50 combination. What aperture would you need to use with the 20D and 31 mm lens to achieve the same level of background blur?

The answer from the online DOF calculator is that you'd need to set your aperture on the 20D/31 to f/1.8 to approximate the same depth-of-field of the FF/50 combination when shooting the same distance.

If you decide to use the same lens on both cameras, you'll have to step back to 16 feet to get the same amount of the subject into the image frame of the 20D that you would get at a distance of 10 feet with the 1Ds. Of course, this is a somewhat different image since your perspective has changed, but if it is still satisfactory, you'll still find that you'll need to shoot at f/1.8 to get the same linear DOF on the 20D as you would with the FF camera shot at f/2.8.

[aam1234]

Hi Tom,

You are using simple math conversion, aren't you. IMO, it doesn't work that way :)

[Tom W]

Hi Tom,

You are using simple math conversion, aren't you. IMO, it doesn't work that way :)

explain....

BTW, here's the equations:

http://www.dofmaster.com/equations.html

[I Simonius]

Someone posted as an advantage: Brighter viewfinder.

For those who continue to wonder whether there's an advantage, I invite you to go to your local camera store. BEWARE, though. I warn you of the danger.

Pick up the 1DsMKII. Look -- no GAZE through the viewfinder. It's like looking through a picture window on a bright, sunny day.

Then pick up the 20D (my former camera and a GREAT camera still) and look through the viewfinder. In comparison, it's like when you rip off your sunglasses as you enter a tunnel while driving.

Another eye-opening experience is wide angle. My 17-40 is a whole other animal on my FF than on the 20D.

As far as the crap (misspelling intended) factor, fugghedaboutit. I'll just get a longer lens. You're only getting the field of view, not magnification.

100% what he said plusI want a FF AND my 1.6, as two bodies are cheraper than twice the lenses. I.e. as soon as I get a FF , not only have I got the FLs I have now but also all the same lenses with completely new FLs. Brilliant!

Anyway I really want my 17-40 to actually do 17 and my 50mm to do 50, ESPECIALLY the 50mm, why Cos it's my favourite walk about FL and unlike the HUGE 17-40 it's far less conspikyoooose :D :D

[I Simonius]

I always hear about the brighter viewfinders of film and FF cameras vs, say, the 20D.
I got to try a film SLR last fall, and I expected a big difference. To be honest, I didn't notice much difference vs my 20D. I guess that just doesn't bother me much.

Hey man there are plenty of grotty film Vfs but also a lot better than the 20d My old F1Ns for example. The film olympus and Leicas (R) have gorgeous VFs , you can almost get in there and pull up a chair, I tell it makes a HUGE difference to the shooting experience

[I Simonius]

How many here regularly make prints larger than 8 X 10? I always find it interesting when people are concerned with how big a print the MP will allow you to make and these same people only print 4 X 6!! I have a 1D (only 4MP!!) but I regularly get poster prints made for my business. The quality is excellent and with a little careful post-processing, I do not miss the MP I lost when I upgraded from the Drebel. Sorry to go OT but I am always wondering how large a print people really make.......not just dream about!!

size- whatever.... but look at those shots - don;t tel me you can't see the difference from a 16MP shot to a 4MP shot. I sure can.

[I Simonius]

Every time I look through my Canon F-1 with a 50/1.2 lens, it makes me cry. I always get a feeling of detachment whenever I look through my 10D. Looking through a full frame viewfinder, I get much more a sense of involvement. It's that subjective quality that I miss in addition to the brightness.

EXACTLY!
:cool: :cool: :cool:
for me the difference is profound!

[drisley]

Since I rarely if ever use manual focus, I'm not going to lose sleep over a bigger viewfinder.
The current 20D viewfinder is more than adequate for me, even in the rare situations I want to try manual focus. But I could see it being a bigger priority for others.
It's not something I would give up big $$ to upgrade to another camera.

[ed2day]

A high MP sensor - regardless of its size is going to be able to produce larger output at a given output dbi - but this has absolutely nothing to do with its phsyical size necessarily. Right now it is easier to make a highly sensitive FF sensor then it is to engineer the same performance out of a smaller package. But don't be fooled into thinking that is necessarily a hard and fast law that you can't have a small sensor that can perform at the same levels as todays high end sensor. The new highend 64 bit processors from AMD and Intel crush what Sparcs and Alphas could do just a few years ago - and they are in phycically smaller packages. Another example can be found in the Home Theatre products - the performance of the projectors is going threw the roof - at cheaper cost - and the physical size of the projector components are a fraction of the size what they were just 3 years ago. On this one, I am with Booggreg... don't assume you have to have a full size sensor to get great high resolution images... history says it ain't so.

I don't agree with your version of history. We are talking about analog properties(noise, sensitivity) and they don't share in the constant scaling of digital technology. (For example, don't expect the 600mm f/4 to shrink to pocket size anytime soon.) There's no substitute for sensor size.

[Croasdail]

600 f4 has nothing to do with how many transitors you can cram on to silcon, and how much you can isolate these senors from "noise", ef, or any other electronic issue that may come up, and how much you can correct in firmware. What part of the history is wrong? How big was the largest CF capacity two years ago, what is it now? I think it is very safe to say in two years we will have a 1.6 factor senor that out performs todays FF sensor... Im not a betting man, but on this one I will put money. If your saying the issue is the A/D conversion - what was the price and size of a dvd player 5 years ago... and what are they now. Today you can buy a DVD player for about a hundred dollars that is a quantum level higher in sophistication and image quality then one manufactured at 5x the price only 3 years ago. Today there are true HD home projectors selling for 2 grand - 4 years ago the same technology was 10 grand and in 4 times the size of the package. Same A/D process going on here - just in reverse. What I will agree with is a full frame sensor uses all the lens, and that is not to be discounted. To be able to use all the light coming in is a huge benifit. But only time will tell the story on this one..... either way were just skimming the top of the iceberg on this one - whe haven't seen anything yet.

[drisley]

All that matters is that people like Don Ellis can take better pictures with his old G2 point and shoot than I can with my 20D. And schmoelzel can take better pictures with a 4mp 1D than most can with a 16mp 1DS MKII. :)

[Croasdail]

Completely agree.....

[electra]

if all the speculation about the new Canon 5D is true, i will probably consider getting it as to have two cameras with me for pro photo shoots. pity about the advertised 3fps. for the price you'd pay, 3fps is a poor addition to the new dslr. yeah, the great thing is the FF.

...brilliant pictures are taken by skilled photographers... you may have the most expensive & complex collection of photo equipment, but that doesn't make you a brilliant photographer if you haven't yet taken brilliant pictures...

...

[Radtech1]

HERE is another FF (I hope) advantage that I look forward to. I do a lot of Monochrome conversions, with a strong push on the red channel. With this I can get the dark skys with high contrast white clouds. The problem is the Red (and Blue) channel is very noisy in that only 1/4 of the photosites are red.

My hope is that with the doubling of megapixels there would be smaller - and therefor less apparent - noise when I push the red.

Rad

PS - I guess Foveon technology is really the answer to this particular problem, though.

[Poco]

600 f4 has nothing to do with how many transitors you can cram on to silcon, and how much you can isolate these senors from "noise", ef, or any other electronic issue that may come up, and how much you can correct in firmware. What part of the history is wrong? How big was the largest CF capacity two years ago, what is it now? I think it is very safe to say in two years we will have a 1.6 factor senor that out performs todays FF sensor... Im not a betting man, but on this one I will put money. If your saying the issue is the A/D conversion - what was the price and size of a dvd player 5 years ago... and what are they now. Today you can buy a DVD player for about a hundred dollars that is a quantum level higher in sophistication and image quality then one manufactured at 5x the price only 3 years ago. Today there are true HD home projectors selling for 2 grand - 4 years ago the same technology was 10 grand and in 4 times the size of the package. Same A/D process going on here - just in reverse. What I will agree with is a full frame sensor uses all the lens, and that is not to be discounted. To be able to use all the light coming in is a huge benifit. But only time will tell the story on this one..... either way were just skimming the top of the iceberg on this one - whe haven't seen anything yet.

True, true, and true, however no matter how amazing a 1.6x crop sensor will be in the future it is hard to argue that a FF could not be 1.6x better at that time. If someone develops technology to put 100 MP in a small sensor you can take that same technology and put 160 MP in a FF sensor (with everything else being equal). It will always have the capacity to be better (I don't consider the time of the electrons traveling the extra distance across the sensor to be sigificant :D).

[I Simonius]

if all the speculation about the new Canon 5D is true, i will probably consider getting it as to have two cameras with me for pro photo shoots. pity about the advertised 3fps. for the price you'd pay, 3fps is a poor addition to the new dslr. yeah, the great thing is the FF.

...brilliant pictures are taken by skilled photographers... you may have the most expensive & complex collection of photo equipment, but that doesn't make you a brilliant photographer if you haven't yet taken brilliant pictures...

...

I would get it if JUST the VF is better. The 20D is like looking throug a keyhole!

[I Simonius]

HERE is another FF (I hope) advantage that I look forward to. I do a lot of Monochrome conversions, with a strong push on the red channel. With this I can get the dark skys with high contrast white clouds. The problem is the Red (and Blue) channel is very noisy in that only 1/4 of the photosites are red.

My hope is that with the doubling of megapixels there would be smaller - and therefor less apparent - noise when I push the red.

Rad

PS - I guess Foveon technology is really the answer to this particular problem, though.

Can you explain how you do your BW conversions _ I have tried but get in a fuddle?

THanks ;)

[martook]

Can you explain how you do your BW conversions _ I have tried but get in a fuddle?

THanks ;)

I do hope you have read the great thread with martin-images. Lots of great information on how to do B&W conversions, by a true master...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=87784

[I Simonius]

I do hope you have read the great thread with martin-images. Lots of great information on how to do B&W conversions, by a true master...



I han't seen that THANKS!! :D :D

[booggerg]

I don't agree with your version of history. We are talking about analog properties(noise, sensitivity) and they don't share in the constant scaling of digital technology. (For example, don't expect the 600mm f/4 to shrink to pocket size anytime soon.) There's no substitute for sensor size.

HIs argument is not about lens technology. His argument is that chip technology follows the Moore's Law equation. You would expect newer chips to perform better than older designs despite the smaller pixels...

[booggerg]

All that matters is that people like Don Ellis can take better pictures with his old G2 point and shoot than I can with my 20D. And schmoelzel can take better pictures with a 4mp 1D than most can with a 16mp 1DS MKII. :)

No it doesn't.. we're arguing merely on a technicality.. FF only gives you so much advantages over a smaller sensor... No $hit that people with real skills can take much better picture on crappier cameras than we can on good cameras, I assume the original poster would know this...

[drisley]

None of that matters, like you said. Only skill matters.
And there really is no point to argue a "technicality" in my opinion.
No matter what anybody else says, I'm sure you will disagree.
I stand by my statement.
Sure having a bigger viewfinder is nicer, and full frame could potentially be better, but is it worth thousands of dollars more? Not in my opinion, and everybody else has to decide for themselves.

HIs argument is not about lens technology. His argument is that chip technology follows the Moore's Law equation. You would expect newer chips to perform better than older designs despite the smaller pixels...
Actually, I wouldn't. There is only so much technology can do vs the laws of physics.

[Croasdail]

Actually, I wouldn't. There is only so much technology can do vs the laws of physics.

In theory I would agree with you, but so far we haven't hit that wall yet - and we are a long way off.

As to will a larger sensor will allways be better then a smaller given the maximum possible density, sure I can buy that one. The other factor that was just lightly touched on is signal path lenght, which should be minor, but also power consumption and heat. As the processing power goes up, so do the requirements to deal with both. Anyway...

[adas]

It was shown that film grain particle diameter equals the 10D pixel diameter, around 7.5 micro-meter, so the 10D equals the 1.6x crop resolution on film, and the 1Ds Mark II has the whole full frame 35mm film resolution.
So those who believe in EF-S, 20D and postcard sized landscapes are probably joking.
I never mount anything shorter than 50mm on my DRebel, it doesn't worth it. I honestly admit that I am not ready to wide FOV on digital, so I still use my old filmSLR for that purpose.

[Lester Wareham]

that is not entirely true. Sensor size has less to do with enlargement potential than actual resolution it puts out. I'm sure my 20D can enlarge much better than a 1.3x 1D


This is not true of the lens performance.
The FF lens image need less magnification meaniing for a given image detail line frequency will have a higher contrast.
For wide angle applications the full frame will need a 1.6X longer lens than the 1.6 crop camera. Wide angle lenses normally are more dificult to design and have worse performance so this adds another advantage.
Against this is needing the FF lens to perform at the edges and not just the centre. However, this will not make up for the other two advantages.
I looked into this point myself comparing 35mm on FF and 20mm on 1.6X crop at http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/resolution.htm#Figure-4.

[ed2day]

600 f4 has nothing to do with how many transitors you can cram on to silcon, and how much you can isolate these senors from "noise", ef, or any other electronic issue that may come up, and how much you can correct in firmware. What part of the history is wrong? How big was the largest CF capacity two years ago, what is it now? I think it is very safe to say in two years we will have a 1.6 factor senor that out performs todays FF sensor... Im not a betting man, but on this one I will put money. If your saying the issue is the A/D conversion - what was the price and size of a dvd player 5 years ago... and what are they now. Today you can buy a DVD player for about a hundred dollars that is a quantum level higher in sophistication and image quality then one manufactured at 5x the price only 3 years ago. Today there are true HD home projectors selling for 2 grand - 4 years ago the same technology was 10 grand and in 4 times the size of the package. Same A/D process going on here - just in reverse. What I will agree with is a full frame sensor uses all the lens, and that is not to be discounted. To be able to use all the light coming in is a huge benifit. But only time will tell the story on this one..... either way were just skimming the top of the iceberg on this one - whe haven't seen anything yet.

That's exactly my point--the size of the 600mm f/4 is not dictated by xsistor density or how much a DVD costs. It's dictated by physics, one factor being the amount of light it must capture. So it is with noise--the more light you capture the lower the noise. It has nothing to do with isolating the sensors from noise. The noise is intrinsic to the device. And the bigger the device (more light) the less the noise. However you have a point that more post processing power can help mitigate the noise, and that certainly scales with Moore's law.

I shouldn't have said I disagree with your version of history, just that particular interpretation of it.

[slin100]

I'm in the camp that says that the bigger the sensor the better. Otherwise, why aren't the 8MP P&S sensors producing comparable quality? Two reasons: signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and diffraction.

LongWatcher already mentioned SNR in a very early post to this thread. This article (http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/) by R.N. Clark details why. It goes on to explain that one path to improving SNR without increasing the sensor size is to improve the quantum efficiency (IOW the fill factor) of the sensor. Unfortunately, the suggestion is that quantum efficiency is already at the limits of what current technology can provide.

Granted, there's always the possibility for a technological breakthrough but it seems that the easiest path to higher performance is by increasing the size of the sensor.

BTW, it's my limited understanding that Moore's law doesn't apply to sensor technology.

[davidfig]

Get the calculator out. simple area calculations.

20D - 25x16mm=400mm/sq at 8mp thats 5 microns per pixel
3500pix/10in = 350dpi.
5D - 36x24mm=854mm/sq at 12.8mp that 6.75 microns per pixel
4280?/10in = over 400dpi

As far as the viewer, larger sensor means larger view. Your view is usually 90 something percent of the actual sensor size.

[lostdoggy]

I think yo guys are barking up the wrong tree here. What dicate the trend of sensor depends on the Marketing of Manufature. Canon and Nion has created strong followes of crop factor induced junkies whowill argue that crop factor is better and it will be he way of the urutre till the cows come home. But the reality is what the manufacture will release and at what price and what feature will dictate what trend will survive. I is my believe that canon having the sole claim to FF sensor on the market right now after the demise of Kodak's offering, they will keep putting out more FF bodies. Nikon/Sony can't be far behind if rumors are being leak out to the public like this. It is Canon's move to nudge Nikon/Sony into bring out their version of thir FF body prematurely. I don't believe that Kodak's withdraw from the market will stay out too long since they have IBM and an Asian Chip Manufacturing Company working on the next generation CMOS sensors. They will only need a body and lens combo to get back into the market. Can it be Leica or maybe Contax???