Jylppy: I am a big Canon fan and owner of sizable portfolio of their photography equipment. Having said that, I hate to see Canon to do this kind of awfully executed brand marketing campaign rubbish. This is campaign manifests how out of touch corporations can grow with their core customer segments (at least with "DSLR semi-pro segment"). This is marketing "scheisse" done in total isolation of the market place. Canon tries to shield their lack of product execution capability with a fussy marketing wrapper around.
Sigma and Fuji will rock Canon 10-0 with their semi-pro product and marketing approach.
Yes, sad but true. I just bought my 5th Sigma lens alongside my 3 Canon L-zooms and few EF primes. It the sensor tech Canon is behind and their lack of competitive mirrorless offering.
I still like Canon cameras the most since their superb user interface (and Magic Lantern custom firmware). I cannot stand Nikon user interface, Sonys are even worse.
Fuji is definitely interesting, but I would so much to have interchangeability between FF and mirrorless lenses so I rather wait for better EOS-M. Let's see how long...
Hi all angered Canon fans (myself included). The campaign is Canon _corporate_ brand marketing initiative and since Canon is in multiple businesses, such a campaigns are vague considering from single business perspective. The problem is that once everyone saw a post at DPReview, they associated it to Canon's camera/lens business and were expecting some product announcement.
Canon marketing team's grand mistake was to use countdown to launch ... a marketing initiative. That raised expectations. In case they want to do corporate/brand marketing, they should have just launched the campaign without such a expectation-ballooning-countdown.
And if anyone at Canon camera business side is reading this, I am still expecting you to launch semi-pro-focused (APS-C) mirrorless with fantastic EVF and fast AF. Once that is out, I will buy it as my secondary camera. I use it along side my 5DII to cover wider focal length range when traveling.
Make "Fuji X-series" with your superb camera UI.
I am a big Canon fan and owner of sizable portfolio of their photography equipment. Having said that, I hate to see Canon to do this kind of awfully executed brand marketing campaign rubbish. This is campaign manifests how out of touch corporations can grow with their core customer segments (at least with "DSLR semi-pro segment"). This is marketing "scheisse" done in total isolation of the market place. Canon tries to shield their lack of product execution capability with a fussy marketing wrapper around.
Canon Guatemala announcing point-n-shoot macro photo competition?
Jylppy: It is interesting to notice how "mirrorless" (read "smaller sensor") lenses are not any lighter vs. FF lenses if one wants to get the same focal distance and DoF-equivalence.
That's the film-era terminology. No one is making large format digital and even medium format digital is a small niche beyond most people's budgets. I would go and claim that in the context of digital cameras, "small sensor" refers to "sensors smaller that full frame (35mm)" . That is not to say that FF is called "large format" or even "medium format". Only that in digital FF/35mm is anchor point to which other sensor sizes are being compared. There for I regard my term "smaller sensor" as adequate. Language is not invariant, but something that changes over time and context.
Btw. Kecajkerugo, do you happen to shoot with m43 system ?
Thanks. Yeah, I know MLC != "small sensor", but used this wrongish generalization since m43 and APS-C are the most common mirrorless formats.
Btw. Sony FF mirrorless seem to have only smaller aperture lenses available (1/4f zooms, vs. 1/2.8f zooms on FF DSLR).
It is interesting to notice how "mirrorless" (read "smaller sensor") lenses are not any lighter vs. FF lenses if one wants to get the same focal distance and DoF-equivalence.
Le Frog: "Its depth-of-field and light capture costs (it's most directly comparable to a Full Frame 70-200mm F5.6)"
No, no, no, dear DPR, in a telephoto, deep DoF is never ever a cost, it is always a benefit! Who wants (and why would he want) shallow DoF@200mm? And whenever you can use the 35-100 wide open, while, with an APS or FF camera, you would have had to stop down the lens, to get sufficient DoF, there is no light capture cost either.
Please, please, please, do not encourage the trolling of the shallow DoF brigade. Pretty please with a cherry on top and plenty of whipped cream and chocolate fudge?
Well, I am pretty happy owner of 70-200/2.8 lens on FF. I do use it wide open @200mm. Small sensor size and thus lack of shallow DoF keeps me avoiding m43 system. Fuji system looks really interesting (had I extra thousands of dollars somewhere).
So Fuji is "announcing"lenses that will be released after one year. They are playing old catch-up tactic: "soon we will have a competitive lens portfolio". Their definition of "soon" is just quite flexible.
I am really interested of Fujifilm's semi-pro oriented mirrorless offering, but still some wait ahead before the lenses I need will be available... It seems Canon will never wake-up...
guyfawkes: Reading many comments about "equivalence" both here and posted elsewhere, there does seem to me to be one question I'd like to ask: what practical applications are there that one would need to know this?
For example, if one owns a FF sensor dslr, does one really need to know what the so-called equivalence is for DoF for another format? Or turn this around. Would anyone moving from an APS-C system to FF need to know? How on earth would this impact on images they proposed taking?
In my days with film, using anything from sub-min up to 5x4, equivalence never even entered the equation. Photographers simply worked within and knew how to use the tools they used. So why has it assumed a proportion totally out of kilter with its importance now we use digital cameras?
It very much smacks of pseudo science to me.
I have to ask, have you ever shot photos with FF prime lens and 1/1.6f aperture?
I understand that choice of such a wide aperture is not suitable for every photographic situation, but sometimes it is "just right". And that is something you cannot do with m43 since its "1/1.6f" is actually 1/3.2f.
So yes, "equivalence" does have "very practical application in digital imaging".
Mike FL: As far as I can see from all the posts that WHO wrote this article created LOT of confusing.
I do not think there is any confusion, just denial.
Amin Sabet: Relationships between format size, depth of field, angle of view, focal length, etc, are not new or controversial.
What is referred to here and within the forums as "total light equivalence" is intellectually interesting but of more limited practical value. When you consider the vast array of sensor efficiencies we encounter, from films of various makes and speeds to digital sensors of different generations and designs, assumptions about image quality based on total light gathering will often fail to hold up.
What is underemphasized in this article is that for shooting in relatively limited light where shorter exposure times and non-shallow DOF are desired (applies to most street photography for example), there is no inherent image quality advantage to larger formats. On the contrary, smaller sensors tend to be slightly more efficient.
There is no accepted definition of "photographic equivalence", regardless of what this article or loud voices in the forum echo chamber suggest.
Hi Amin, thanks for the links above. There were solid (economical) rationale given by Eric Fossum for smaller, higher volume sensors leading in pixel/sensor technology. It is al about sensor design NRE amortization over higher volumes and exponentially lower manufacturing yields of larger FF sensors.
So I agree with your point that in the specific handheld (short shutter time), low-light, small aperture / large DoF use case smaller sensors have (some) advantage over FF due to their newer/better sensor technology.
Jylppy: Wow! 1000+ comments. What a great article!
I think there is a minor error in the paragraph about diffraction. Diffraction is pixel size, not sensor-size, related. Sensors with smaller pixels (ie. more pixels per area) suffer from diffraction "earlier" with smaller F-number. Usually smaller sensors (i.e. larger crop-factor) use smaller pixels to reach "required" MPx-levels (who would buy 5MPx m4/3rd when FF cameras have 20MPx+? These would have roughly same-sized pixels).
Good read about diffraction at excellent Cambridge in Color site:
And @bobn2, if you find a reference to a source describing diffraction as you see it right, pls share a link. I'll take a look. I am not an Optics expert, but I do have M.Sc. In Engineering Physics.
What I try to say that diffraction is purely an optics-space phenomenon (non-discrete math), where as digital sensors are discrete in the sense that each pixel is capturing photons arriving certain area. So no, diffraction in optics space does not depend on pixel size, and is by no means caused by sensor pixels, but once the photons arrive on sensor and image its being captured the diffraction impact on image quality at pixel-level depends on pixel size since smaller pixel pitch can and will detect lower levels of diffraction. I think we talk about the same thing.
But once I get back from holiday I can check this with colleagues who do design camera systems and hold PhD in Optics...
@bobn2. Could you please cite a reference to back up your claim? I was talking about pixel level diffraction and I find it theoretically impossible for pixel size not to impact on pixel-level diffraction.
Wikipedia entry says the same: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system
Figuring out this in the beginning of my hobbyist-photogapher career was a big "Heureka"-moment for me and the reason I sold off my 4/3 Olympus and bought Canon 5D. Yes, plenty of bulk to carry around, but I finally got the bokeh I was after. Everybody makes their own choices for the reasons important to them, but understanding "Equivalence" is fundamental to not to be fooled by the "F-numbers".
To clarify. Diffraction is an optical phenomenon, but reaching "diffraction limit" (i.e. The F-number at which it is diffraction that reduces the lens resolution) depends on pixels size. With larger pixels, larger "airy discs" will go unnoticed _at pixel-level_.
@Sabet. I think you miss a point here. Certain ISO-number on a given sensor is just a _calibrated_ standard sensitivity. It tells nothing about signal gain-levels in the actual sensor. Since mFT-sensors receive 4x less light vs. FF at the same aperture/shutter speed, it means the mFT-sensor needs to be driven at much higher gain-levels to reac equivalent broghtness and this lifts up signal-to-noise ratio. Without in-depth rationale and industry knowledge, I am not going to buy an argument that mFT-cameras have 4x "better" pixels (i.e. have 4x higher signal to noise ratios) than FF-sensors. Sony has the best pixels/semiconductor technology in business and they make FF-sensors too. Economical reasons might cause some difference since physically large FF-sensors are bloody expensive to manufacture.
Wow! 1000+ comments. What a great article!
Akpinxit: I would really like to see how 409600 ISO , full size still image looks like
I do not think that is the way to assess _still_ image quality under low light conditions. In video one can do noise reduction based on previous frames so the video shutter times do not provide fair comparison to equivalent still image shutter times. One needs to shoot still images and compare those.
There is now question the new Sony will be _awesome_ in low light. Sony leads in sensor technology, the camera has full frame sensor size and very large pixel (since low number of pixels). Sony Alpha 7s is the new Low Lght Beast(tm).
And I shoot Canon, so not a Sony fanboy here. I would be interested to buy a Sony Alpha MLC as a second camera, but I do not have the extra 2-3000€ to spend :-(
And yes, with ~10k€ in Canon camera and lenses, I am curious to see where does this camera system war end to. I think Mirrorless will win over DSLR.