Re: Why full-frame?




"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dmn93n$ibi$6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <PCujf.2264$4v.2194@fed1read03>,
> Skip M <shadowcatcher@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>There are two advantages to a "full frame" sensor, one specific to its
>>size,
>>wide angle lenses designed for 35mm film perform as they were designed on
>>a
>>digital, as opposed to some multiple thereof. My 16-35 works the same on
>>my
>>5D as it would on my 1n, as opposed to looking like a 26mm-56mm on my 20D.
>>The other has to do with the actual size of the pixels, larger pixels tend
>>to have better noise characteristics, and, in my opinion, give smoother
>>tonal transitions than smaller pixels. Some argue that smaller pixels
>>give
>>better detail, and that may be true, I'm not sure what I'm seeing is that,
>>or merely the result of subject material.
>
> On a physics note, larger pixels will average over more photons, so I
> would expect less noise from them. Smaller pixels must surely give better
> detail because they mean more dots per square inch. That's lost if you
> get to the point of diffraction smearing out the image, and I have no idea
> what that point is or whether 24mm suffers from it. So, I suppose, use
> larger pixels on a bigger sensor which can hold more of them, and a lens
> or positioning that fills the frame.

Smaller pixels may, indeed, give better detail. But at the expense of tonal
transitions, something I hadn't considered when I got my 5D, but really
appreciate, now.
>
>>And some people are dreaming of sensors larger than 35mm, in medium format
>>cameras, such already exist, with room to "grow!"
>
> Are they really single sensors that size? With pixel sizes small enough
> to compete with MF film? Must be pricey.

Very. MF digital backs are in the $10,000-25,000 range...and 22-39mp. The
sensors aren't fully 6x4.5cm, not to mention larger, but they are larger
than 24x36mm.
>
>>The only limitation to
>>sensor size is the image circle of the lenses in question, lenses designed
>>for 35mm film are pretty maxed out at that sensor size, and the mount
>>sizes,
>>being designed for either that format or for the lenses designed for that
>>format, probably limits any increases there.
>
> If you're willing to lose your film lens investment, I wonder if lenses
> could be made more appropriate for digital. E.g. if sensors are less
> sensitive to light coming at an angle (has that been resolved yet?),
> moving the lens twice as far from the sensor would halve the extreme
> angles.

Considering the grief that Canon got for changing their lens mount, most of
the mfrs. will probably think twice about obsolescing their lens lines in
one fell swoop. People are still moaning about the demise of FD mount
lenses, nearly 20 years later... Minolta didn't take nearly as much heat
when they switched, for some reason.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Canon Response to 5D Dark Corners
    ... different response to angle of incidence than film has. ... is in a real sensor. ... Whether the light comes from a lens, ... Eliminate lens falloff by comparing a shot on film using the same lens. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Full-frame or 1.5 DSLR?
    ... >16.7) FF cameras can resolve subject detail as well as the 20D (or ... >But the lens has to deliver its resolution to the sensor, ... >matter that the sensor has more pixels per mm in the 20D sensor, ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Which digital SLR system?
    ... I recommend you get the camera you like, decent lenses, and learn the zen of ... If you enter digital photography the quality of the lens, ... is not as absolute a value as with film based ... sensor as much or more than what the lens produces on the sensor. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Low cost image sensor
    ... >I have been searching the web for a low cost image sensor. ... read to 0.1mm resolution which actually means a minimum of 200 pixels ... realistically 400 pixels would be better to ensure the resolution. ... Ideally I would like no moving parts, and no lens. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Low cost image sensor
    ... >>I have been searching the web for a low cost image sensor. ... > read to 0.1mm resolution which actually means a minimum of 200 pixels ... > realistically 400 pixels would be better to ensure the resolution. ... Ideally I would like no moving parts, and no lens. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)