Full Frame Fallacy?

[Lee Jay]

• THe scaled-up sensor would not cost 4x as much, it would cost

approx 20x as much, because various problems. Because this no
customer pay, the sensor is not 4x more sensitive

It is much more than 4x more expensive, but it is still 4x more sensitive because it's the same sensitivity per unit of area (actually, slightly more).

• The sensitivity is the only advantage. There is no law of physics

that the Dynamic Range of bigger sensors is bigger. This depends on
the capacity of certain elements, and this capacity is theoreticall
independant of sensor surface.

No, well capacity is dependent on surface area and depth. Depth is dependent primarily on materials and manufacturing, so area is the best way to increase well depth.

Despide that there may be other
solutions for the DR problem in the future, like adjusting the ISO
and shutter speed of each pixel.

That would be nice, and it is what your eyes tend to do.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Calico Cat]

(3) There's a hassle factor associated with bigger cameras, which is
why people stopped using 8 x 10 cameras.

And people have settled on the 35mm frame size. It has the best
compromise in quality, performance and portability. There is a
definite point where you can go too small. Oly hasn't got there with
their bodies or lenses, they are about the same size as all the
others but the sensor is much smaller inhibiting the quality. If it
didn't, there wouldn't be constant talk about it on these forums.

This is mostly about people with other brands of DSLRs, who feel buyer's remorse about the superior technology of Olympus (such as dust reduction, telecentric lenses, etc.), attempting to psychologically boost up their own cameras by ragging on Olymus

 

[Rriley]

dont do that, dont risk marking the mirror

put the thing on manual or bulb and shoot a few second exposure with the lens off. Im sure you will be fascinated if its the first time youve seen it

These aren't mine, Joe:

http://www.pbase.com/domotang/image/23234724
http://www.pbase.com/domotang/image/23234976
http://www.pbase.com/domotang/image/23257483

I guess since I can't see the sensor when the mirror is down, and I
see the sensor when the mirror is up when doing a cleaning, that I
never knew that there were shutters that covered the sensor until a
pic is taken in normal use.

Reach into your camera, and flip the mirror up with your finger.
You'll see the shutter curtains (if you go slow, you'll see the
sub-mirror behind the mirror - it sends the image to the AF sensor at
the bottom of the mirror box). When you are in sensor cleaning mode,
the camera flips up the mirror and opens the shutter.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous

 

[Rriley]

(5) Because the 4/3 system was designed with telecentric lenses, it
provides better image quality on a per-square-millimeter basis than
any other DSLR system. Every other system is a retrofit of a digital
sensor into a lens system designed for film.

See above. Like I said, they could apply any 4/3 technology to FF
but it is not currently needed because of the sensor resolution is
not high enough to match lens resolution.

...it's been suggested that the reason for the incredible performance
of the Nikon 14-24 / 2.8 is that it uses a telecentric, or
semi-telecentric design, and that's why it's so large and heavy
compared to the Canon UWAs. But, of course, it's IQ is amazing.

indeed i heard this too
i would say 'near telecentric' but it means almost the same

but its existence raises the question
what about the non telecentric lenses

As the pixel densities of 35mm FF approach those of the smaller
sensor systems, we may find more and more of this in the new 35mm FF
lenses.

--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous

 

[Lee Jay]

dont do that, dont risk marking the mirror
put the thing on manual or bulb and shoot a few second exposure with
the lens off. Im sure you will be fascinated if its the first time
youve seen it

That doesn't work as it opens the shutter too. MLU does, however. It's really easy to do it with your finger without marking up the mirror - plenty of room.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Calico Cat]

Its nice to find a
happy medium and I think people found that out decades ago when they
chose the 35mm frame size because it has the best compromises.

35mm was chosen to conveniently piggyback off of existing movie film, and the 3:2 ratio was a gimmick designed to distinguish it from squarer formats.

Originally, all serious photographers laughed at it because it was too tiny. People only switched to in, en masse, decades later, when the film quality finally improved enough to make 35mm good enough.

35mm also had the advantage of those little sprocket holes, which made it easier to load film over more ancient sprocket-less formats.

APS was introduced shortly before the end of the film-age. The real reason it didn't take off was not because it was too small (it was fine for the typical 4X6 print), but because it cost MORE MONEY to develop.

 

[Rriley]

i think you are omitting a few things here that should probably be
contested

first,
you are supposing the lenses are out resolved by the sensors, yes?

No.

because if you are, that just isnt so
the lenses in 'that' instance then are not the limiting factor you
would have me believe

This "limiting factor" stuff is largely a myth. The final image MTF
is a blend of the sensor's MTF and the lens' MTF.

dont agree there, its entirely possible to outresolve a lens

second,
lets take a look at the usage of those charts
from Luminous Landscape

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml
"Canon's MTF charts are based on theoretical calculations used in the
design of the lens, while some other manufacturers use actually
measurements. There are valid arguments in favour of both methods. Be
aware though that different manufacturers have different measurement
procedures, and therefore while comparing MTF charts between lenses
in the same line is possible, and is in fact very useful in making a
purchasing decision, doing so between different manufacturer's MTF
charts isn't."

That's true. Are Oly's measured or calculated? I'm guessing they
are calculated but I don't know.

no idea, but as i alluded earlier, you would in reality be comparing Oly QC/tolerances v/s Canon. i know what they would think of that here and im persuaded that way

so they are theoretical calculations, not actual figures,
and we shouldnt be comparing across systems

On the other hand, the main point I was making is that they need to
be compared at the right settings, and Oly is honest enough to do
that (using 20 and 60 instead of the 10 and 30 that are the standards
for 35mm lenses). That was my point.

yes i read that just today

from the better respected Photozone.de
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview
Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the
different systems!

I don't respect their tests at all. Most are wrong, all are
misleading since they are systems tests, not lens tests. They'll
only work well on crummy lenses.

third
IF in any event we were to compare those lenses as lenses when they
are a part of a system, why is one of them a 35-100/2 v/s a 70-200/4
wouldnt that advantage the F4 lens against the faster F2 lens?

The f2 lens isn't faster, it's the same. Both have the same
angles-of-view and the same entrance pupil diameters, thus they both
collect the same light from the same scene. The final image DOF,
noise, and diffraction are dependent on the entrance pupil diameter
for a given AOV, not the f-number.

forth
if we forgot about the fact we shouldnt be comparing those lenses as
lenses when they are a part of a system from MTF charts, and that one
is F2 v/s F4 for t'other, lets look at the edge definition on those
MTF charts. Would you agree that the edge definition defined from the
rate of fall on the right of the charts appears better on the Zuiko
examples than the Canon? particularly at higher lpm measurements ?

At the wide end there's a small difference in favor of the
twice-as-expensive and twice-as-heavy Oly lens in the last couple of
mm, at the tele end they are almost the same at those corners. In
the rest of the lens, the smaller, cheaper full-frame lens has the
advantage.

thats likely because tele lenses are by nature more telecentric
do the same thing with your widest angle lens
you should see a significant difference

Lets keep in mind that the larger system FF has a good deal more
sensor to cover, that this allows for more deviations from the
optimum which is in part the reason d'entre of 4/3rds

The only valid reasons for 4/3 to exist are lower cost and size if
you are willing and able to give up speed.

well look i'll refrain from using the usual list of reasons, theres enough of that here already. remains to be said that you should choose your camera/system on the basis of its operating characteristics, led by DoF and featuresuite.
cheap FF cameras wont have features to compare with higher and smaller formats
smaller formats wont have the iso performance of FF cameras, cheap or not

Same thing is true of
compact cameras. For a given fixed level of performance, a
larger-sensor system will usually end up cheaper and smaller, and
more performance will be available if you need it.

a larger sensor system will usually end up cheaper and smaller

im completely lost, thats the most convoluted statement ive heard since we went into iraq

--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous

 

[Jonas B]

take the 5D and E3 out into a rain shower, and see which one
survives. One is a pro quality body, the other is an amateur body
with a big sensor.

A more accurate comparison would be 5D-> E510, in which case there is
a difference in size.

As for the Sony A900 - time will tell. Sony seems to focus more on
specs and less on results, as befits their consumer/P&S roots.

No, it wasn't a fair comparison. That's why I said the systems should'nt be compared. But sometimes it's good to put things into perspective - I can repeatedly read here about people getting their backs hurt just by thinking of the weight of a FF system.

Somehow I don't think everybody stands in the rain forest with super tele lenses all days.

5D: 810g, EF50/1.4: 290g --> 1100g
or
E-510: 490g, Panny 25/1.4: 510g -> 1000g
or
E-3: 810g, Panny 25/1.4: 510g --> 1320g

Above, a comparison for an evening walk. It's a comparison valid for me as it is what I run into when I had sold my 5D. I used an OM 24/2.8 for the wide end. The ZD11-22 didn't even make it into my small bag. OTOH is the ZD 50/2 smaller than the EF 85/1.8 (125g advantage to the ZD50/2). I don't dwelve into light gathering abilities, DOF and IS versus increased ISO here, it is just a practical example.

We are all different and need to check what our own needs are.

From an evening walk:



©Jonas B 2007, 5D, EF50/1.4 and ISO800

And I have now switched bag and use the E-510, Sigma 30/1.4, ZD11-22 and ZD 50/2. When using the small nifty elegant bag I just use the kit lens but it feels a bit limiting.

regards,

--
Jonas

 

[Anton AK]

But I am afraid this comparison becomes important by itself and participant already forgot why they need camera and lenses in first place!
--

 

[Lee Jay]

This "limiting factor" stuff is largely a myth. The final image MTF
is a blend of the sensor's MTF and the lens' MTF.

dont agree there, its entirely possible to outresolve a lens

I didn't say it wasn't, but that's not the point. The final image MTF is based on both the lens and the sensor regardless of which one is more.

1/Riimage^2 = 1/Rlens^2 + 1/Rsecond^2

a larger sensor system will usually end up cheaper and smaller

im completely lost, thats the most convoluted statement ive heard
since we went into iraq

Simple - for the same angle-of-view and aperture (not f-stop - aperture), it's usually easier to make a lens for a larger format than for a smaller format. The 35-100/2 versus the Canon 70-200/4L is my favorite example because they are exactly equivalent. The camera for the 35-100/2 costs less, but the lens costs more. Add a few more lenses like that, and the larger system can easily end up cheaper.

Just compare the 14-35/2 + 35-100/2 (> $4000) versus something similar - the Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 (or 24-85/3.5-4.5) and 70-200/4L (~$800). Add a body for each system, say E-410 for Oly ($500) and 5D for Canon ($2200). $4500 for smaller format versus $3000 for the larger format. It usually turns out this way for a comprehensive lens kit. Not always, and lenses are not always perfectly comparable, but you get the idea.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[marf]

for the whole cam+lens combination this is definately false [nt]

It is much more than 4x more expensive, but it is still 4x more
sensitive because it's the same sensitivity per unit of area
(actually, slightly more).

 

[Ehrik]

Sony will not have an easy time to make its SSS work as effectively
on FF as it does on smaller sensors, due to sensor mass. Maybe they will
settle for a stop less.

I would disagree with this, as in-lens IS moves elements of different
sizes depending on the lens, yet the effectiveness in stops is not
affected.

On the contrary, it varies between lenses and the lens scoring the worst in
PopPhoto's test (worse than all the sensor systems) was the Nikon 80-400
which is the only IS/VR lens I know (and I've looked at quite a few lens
diagrams) that has the VR group in the front end of the lens, and as
usual the elements in the front are big and heavy.

Most designs have the IS group closer to the rear and there they can
be made relatively small.

And another point: With optics you can design the IS such that the IS
unit gives a big correction from a small movement (of course this puts
higher demands on precision). With sensor IS, you need to move the same
speed as the image and that depends on the focal length and the shake,
nothing you can do about it. This is the so called theoretical efficiency
advantage of in-lens systems. If it matters in practise is harder to say.

Anyway, for the above reasons, and because a FF sensor has to move twice
as far to correct for a certain shake than a 4/3rds sensor has, I think it may
be hard to have FF antishake that's as effective as for small sensors. At the
very least, the camera has to be made bigger than otherwise. I'd also expect
more wear on an FF system.

On the other hand, the number and range of images I get that are
"keepers" grows with the IQ of the equipment, and I am more
comfortable to attempt shots I usually would have skipped before.

Personally I get more keepers by having my camera with me in as many
situations as possible.

One thing I really envy about
many of the smaller sensor DSLR systems is that they have in-camera
IS.

Yes, I envy in-body IS too. But when I got my 350D there was no
in-body system that appealed to me.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

"the 14 bit modes of the Canon 40D and Nikon D300
are pretty well a waste of space" -GordonBGood
"In the present generation of technology,
14-bit capture is a marketing ploy." -ejmartin
"You only need 12-bits for base ISO,
and as little as 10 or 9 bits for the highest ISOs." -John Sheehy

 

[Lee Jay]

It is much more than 4x more expensive, but it is still 4x more
sensitive because it's the same sensitivity per unit of area
(actually, slightly more).

?????

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Glenn Smith]

You know it wasn't that long ago with film 35mm was regarded as to small to be a serious professional camera. You had to use 4x5 cameras to be taken seriously. It wasn't until the advantages of a smaller lighter system became apparent was 35mm accepted. 4/3 is like 35mm film in the digital world.

I think the same will hold true with 4/3. One huge advantage is a smaller, lighter bag.
--
Glenn Smith

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take... ~ Wayne Gretzky

 

[Lee Jay]

This is mostly about people with other brands of DSLRs, who feel
buyer's remorse about the superior technology of Olympus (such as
dust reduction, telecentric lenses, etc.), attempting to
psychologically boost up their own cameras by ragging on Olymus

Please tell me how to replace my current 5D kit with an Olympus system:

Olympus body (pic your favorite)
7.5mm, f1.4 fisheye
17.5mm, f0.7
8.5-20/2
12-52.5/2 with optical IS
35-100/1.4 with optical IS
42.5/0.9

How much does that cost, or how much would it cost if it were available?

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[marf]

if you want the same sharpness you must sharpen more with full-frame what increases noise. so no more "4x" advantage ( 4x was according you, i would say:; no more 3x advantage ). reason: fullframe lenses are not scaled-up fourthirds lenses and the fullframe mount is no scaled-up fourthirds mount. they are not as good and so not as sharp in the average. 1-2 exceptions may exists but i dont want to talk about exceptions here.

?????

 

[Ehrik]

... since Panasonic's Leica D OIS lenses can be fitted to
Oly cameras with IS, tests done both ways reveal an advantage to IS
over OIS.

I think that particular lens, the 14-50/2.8-3.5, probably has the least
effective OIS of all (reasonably modern) Panasonic/Leica lenses.
Their non-DSLR lenses are state of the art according to the reviews
on this site, but a DSLR lens needs a retrofocal design so maybe they
had to do it differently, maybe there were patents to work around,
maybe it's the fast f/2.8 aperture or maybe they were just rushed
having to bring something out not too far after announcing their
DSLR entry. I'd expect lens designs to take years, normally.

I've heard indications that the slower version of the 14-50 has
better OIS. It's really a matter of having to test each implementation
as everyone is unique. It's not possible to say "in-lens is better" or
"sensor is better" and expect that to be generally true.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

"the 14 bit modes of the Canon 40D and Nikon D300
are pretty well a waste of space" -GordonBGood
"In the present generation of technology,
14-bit capture is a marketing ploy." -ejmartin
"You only need 12-bits for base ISO,
and as little as 10 or 9 bits for the highest ISOs." -John Sheehy

 

[Glenn Smith]

I used to run a Photo Lab. APS was actually cheaper to process, less film area, and automated handling no negatives to sleeve. However there was a cost to invest in the equipment to process.
--
Glenn Smith

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take... ~ Wayne Gretzky

 

[TrapperJohn]

You'd have a 1DIII. And it's a monster.

I've used a 5D, and loved the shots out of it, once you get used to the dynamics of the larger sensor. The clarity of the shots, especially at higher ISO's, was dazzling. Since what I do tends to emphasize telephoto in good light (nature, landscape, close macro), I prefer the 4/3 approach.

However, comparing the 5D to my old E1 in terms of build quality, there's just no comparison. The 5D felt a bit flimsy and plasticky in comparision, whereas the E1 was as solid as a brick. I also noticed that the Canon lenses weren't nearly as consistent as the ZD glass. Whereas the 11-22, 14-54, and 50-200 work well at any focal length, and work well wide open, the Canon glass was a bit more fussy about aperture and focal length.

Which all gets back to the original statement. Yes, 24x36 will outperform a 4/3 sensor. But we never use just a sensor, we use the entire system. When you compare the entire system and not just the sensor, the difference isn't nearly as clear.

 

[Lee Jay]

if you want the same sharpness you must sharpen more with full-frame
what increases noise. so no more "4x" advantage ( 4x was according
you, i would say:; no more 3x advantage ). reason: fullframe lenses
are not scaled-up fourthirds lenses and the fullframe mount is no
scaled-up fourthirds mount. they are not as good and so not as sharp
in the average. 1-2 exceptions may exists but i dont want to talk
about exceptions here.

As I said above, full-frame lenses only need to be half as sharp as 4/3 lenses for the same final image sharpness.

I don't seem to have trouble getting good detail, even with mid-range retrofocus IS zooms:



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)