Thoughts about full frame

Just read the below article again which always makes me wonder where the formats will eventually end up in the future.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/​sm-oct-24-04.shtml

Interesting article. I tend to agree with him. It really is a matter of resolution and not an issue of full frame or not. If a standard sensor size is established and a family of lenses are available which are designed to make the sensor a "full frame" then the only variable becomes the number of pixels. So, one could achieve the same quality of an existing full frame sensor with an APS sensor which has relatively more pixels than the full frame sensor.

So perhaps Canon should be putting more R&D funding into the EF-S lenses and higher pixel count APS sensors. It is sorta like the Beta vs VHS issue. VHS won out not because it was better, but because it was more available and slightly cheaper. If a standard size of sensor is established, (like standard film sizes) then the costs are minimized and the camera developers can concentrate on better lenses, better noise reduction chips, more features, greater robustness, etc.

JMHO

Well, I don't see any particular indication that the camera makers are going to agree on a standard sensor size. Right now there are 1, 1.3, 1.5 , 1.6, and 2x "crop" values for the DSLR market, and the incomprehensibly-named series of sensor sizes for the P&S world. So, I'd say that which sensor format wins out (if any) is going to be decided by who's willing to re-engineer their whole line to fit the digital sensor formats. Canon, by releasing two new full-frame lenses, obviously thinks that the full frame sensor, for which wide angle lenses are easier to design, will eventually win out among the serious photographers.

It will run and run this one for many years i'm sure.

His friend takes some of his points, but on the hole he disagrees.

Can anyone address how the size of the viewfinder in the new 5D will compare to the view through the current 20D? I looked at DP Review and they talk about a 0.71x viewfinder magnification and a 96% frame coverage but I am not sure what this really means in relation to the 20D. Will the 5D have a better and larger view overall? Comments appreciated.

sgregory

It's interesting to see what Reicman says regrading full frame and the 5D:
http://luminous-landscape.com …cameras/5d-announce.shtml

Olympus invested whooly on the 4/3 system with no apparent success. We all knew it was just a matter of time before Canon and others came out with an 'affordable' FF dslr. How long will it take the others is the question now.

I can't tell you if it will appear that much larger, but it will be brighter that's for sure.

My thoughts exactely... (Regarding the second Luminous Landscape article that is)

My thoughts on the future of sensor formats:

Let's assume that in the next few years that Canon can make a 1.6x sensor with 12MPix that is as low in noise as the current 20D sensor. Therefore presumably they could make a FF sensor with 30MPix that has the same low noise. With processing speed improvements they should be able to handle 30MPix at a decent speed. With storage improvements the new 12GB CF cards will be affordable.

Those on a budget might buy the 12MPix 1.6x body, but many will still be keen on lenses that are capable of being used on the FF body.

Pros will buy the FF body for the fantastic resolution of 30MPix, plus the ability to crop to 12MPix and do everything that the cheaper body can do. Considering the 1D MKII is in a pro body and sells at around $4K then the new 30MPix FF sensor could also be put in a pro body and be sold at around $4K (assuming that the FF sensor has become cheaper to make). If the same camera offered an 18MPix cropped mode for high speed shooting then it could replace both the 1D and 1DS lines.

Canon could also use the 30MPix sensor in a 3D/5D type body and sell it for $2.5K

Let's say that the 20D replacement with the 12MPix sells at about $1.5K and that there is a cheaper rebel model at under $1K with lens.

Sure in this scenario the 12MPix 1.6x cameras could sell well due to the better price, but they fall WAY short of killing the market for the FF cameras.

I think that it is ridiculous to say that a special wide angle lens for 1.6x crop + a 30MPix 1.6x sensor camera could be released and kill the market for the FF camera (the essence of the article). The optical limits will prevent that working well enough. Whatever the limit is on pixel pitch for max resolution without losing sensitivity and dynamic range, the FF cameras can produce higher res images at that particular pixel pitch.

To me the big advantage of a FF camera is the ability to expand the range of the lens. On a 1.6x camera the 100-400 lens gives the view of 160-640, but on a FF camera with the same pixel pitch you get 100-400 at full res and up to 640 with a crop (to the same res as the 1.6x camera). So you get 100-640 from the FF. It sounds even better on the wider zooms - 24-105 becomes 24-168. 28-300 becomes 28-480. I like the idea of an optional crop with a high res FF camera, much better than the mandatory crop on the 1.6x camera. With the 1.6x camera the 24-105 can't produce the equivalent angle of view that 24mm would give on a FF camera, it will only work like a 38mm.

Of course there is also the larger brighter viewfinder that you get with FF.

Why would anyone want to do that? The only advantage would be if you already own a FF body, otherwise you are hefting an awfull lot of unneccesary glass around.
Thats one thing the 4/3 system got right.
The advantage of the 1.6 body's is, they're able to use EF-s lenses. That's why i think FF and 1.6 could exist together, but 1.3 is a gonner: No specific WA lenses, not much 'extra tele' (Yes, it bothers me I now need a 20mm, where a 28 used to suffice, Yes, I would like a '17mm equiv.' Canon lens on my 1D2)
Oh, and why would anyone want a more than 22 Mp sensor on (less than?!?) FF?
There's (almost?) no lens capable of delivering that quality. Most Pro's don't need more than 16 or 22 Mp. Those who do use larger formats like Mamiya, Imacon etc.

The other aspect that should be considered is that the smaller the sensor the cheaper the cost of the glass. It is also easier to construct higher quality lenses for these small sensors. The upshot of this is that assuming the smaller sensors (APS-C or whatever) can deliver sufficent resolution and noise levels, the total system should deliver a higher quality image. We are already seeing this with APS-C cameras using current "full frame" lenses. If anyone is interested there is some evidence of this here: http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk …or%20New%2024-105mm%20f4L

I agreed with what you said.. But I also think that most ppl just buy or need more mp, because many (including Pro's) cant afford camera; lense and other accessories with the larger formats.

I can see this argument, EF-S lenses are blistfullly light and compact compared to "full frame".

However, I don't think they are 1.6X sharper. A little sharper, often in the centre, but not vastly better than EF lenses. Perhaps Canon can do better, perhaps not.

So this is the key thing. Aside from more noise from smaller pixels with a smaller sensor of the same megapixel size, APS-C may be limited by the lenses resolution and of course the difraction limit comes on sooner.

On the other hand, what is good enough for the average punter?

As many have said before we may end up with APS-C digital == film 35mm and full frame digital == film MF. The signs have been there for a while that this pattern is already established.

As far as the 1.3X crop goes I suspect Canon will not make any more of those and will instead consolidate 1.6X and 1X.

So he may be right. Nikon may grab the mass market in 1.5X crop including presumably a lot of pro activity that needs the more compact camera and or the tele reach.

Unless of course in the meantime Canon deveops a full range of EF-S lenses, then it will be able to keep the market it gained from Nikon. I suspect this will be what happens.

It does all go back to Canon's change from the new FD mount to EF. I was well pissed with them at the time to have all my glass orphaned and wished I had got Nikon.

However, when I looked at Canon and Nikon for a DLSR ystem I had to decide they had it right despite being initally biased to Nikon.

Arthur C Clark once said a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistiguishable from magic. I think we'll soon be at the point where digital will be indistiguishable from film. So all the debate about pixels will be pretty much over. If you can do double truck layouts with a 4MP 1D, why do you need 20MP? Getty Images will only accept 50MB files, but they're happy to have them upsized from 8MP originals!

35mm film has been around for 80 years and the format came from two movie frames (18x24) joined together. It's pretty hard to get a new standard accepted, so I'll guess that ff will be around for ages, purely because of the inertia of history. Maybe it's just my age (!) but I've been using the 1.6 factor cameras for a couple of years, and I would love to have affordable ff - mainly because I hate squinting into the viewfinder of the 10D/20D.

On another note, people often talk about the v/f of the bigger chip cameras being larger and brighter. Well, I held up a 1Dm2 to one eye, and a 20D to the other, and the finder images are almost exactly the same size! The 1D is a fraction bigger, but not much. However, it is quite a bit brighter, I guess because it isn't magnified so much. So perhaps this may be the factor that sells the cameras more than the chip size. I suspect the 5D is more a clue to the future than the Oly 4/3 format.

Phil