Charles Musgrave
Leading Member
Your analysis is incorrect by well-understood cost models used for integrated
circuit cost analysis. Yields are not linear with area.
--
Chasm
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
1.6 crop is ideal. "Full Frame" is an outmoded idea.
- Thread starter Stevencc
- Start date
circuit cost analysis. Yields are not linear with area.
--
Chasm
But at the end of the day....my 5D blows any crop dslr I've ever used....300D, 20D, 400D, as far as image quality, tonal range, sharpness, etc goes.
I will use my 400D over my 5D when I want to use my longer lenses, but for day to day use my 5D gets way more use.
My 200 F2.8 makes a good lens to use for candids at parties on my 5D, on my 300D/20D/400D it would be too tight.
My 24-105, and previously 28-75, are more or less useless on a crop camera.
Different tools for different jobs.
Smaller sensor = more magnification = more demanding on the lens.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen
I will use my 400D over my 5D when I want to use my longer lenses, but for day to day use my 5D gets way more use.
My 200 F2.8 makes a good lens to use for candids at parties on my 5D, on my 300D/20D/400D it would be too tight.
My 24-105, and previously 28-75, are more or less useless on a crop camera.
Different tools for different jobs.
Smaller sensor = more magnification = more demanding on the lens.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen
Charles Musgrave
Leading Member
skrubol wrote:
Good post. People keep making the same correct points you
make here, but most people still don't get the limitations of
quantum mechanics...
quantum efficiencies, etc.
of small numbers (shot noise here) is even worse.
Chasm
Good post. People keep making the same correct points you
make here, but most people still don't get the limitations of
quantum mechanics...
Fill factors aren't one. Photoactive area is actually much smaller.
They only record a fraction of the light because of reflection and
quantum efficiencies, etc.
Especially since only a fraction of photons get recorded so the statistics
of small numbers (shot noise here) is even worse.
--
Chasm
Mike Fried
Senior Member
I have no idea why you would. My point was simply that you could buy a 5D for $2200 "quoted price". Sure it's a "new in box" 5D that someone else bought, sent for the rebate, and decided they had made a mistake, and you get the benefits of not having to do the double rebate chasing and the disadvantage of Canon possibly not honoring the warrantee (although you might have to check your regional laws about that). I don't think the "your name being on the receipt" is a showstopper - if a camera is purchased as a present, Canon isn't going to refuse to warranty it. Now, in the rebate case, maybe they also require that you register the product, etc, etc.
I imagine that well-used 5Ds will drop in price over the next year to the point where it begs the question for many 10D users like myself: "Stay with my 4 year old 10D, buy a new 30D/40D at $1,300, or buy a 1 year old used 5D for $1,500". Perhaps Canon will make it interesting and throw in a newer model between the 1Ds and 5D.
The used 1Ds at $2,400 is tempting. Not only does it have the 35mm "full frame" sensor, but it also has a 45 point AF system. I just wish it had the size/UI of the 5D. They hit the nail on the head for me with the evolution of the Elan series UI. I'm waiting for the 45 point AF and FF sensor to be available with that UI. The 5D is one step closer, but a "3D" with the 45 AF points and f/8 focusing and Elan UI would be my ideal camera.
They keep getting closer to my threshold for a new camera purchase.
-Mike
http://demosaic.blogspot.com
If you could, smaller sensors would be super cool.
Why then, if 35mm sensor is so bad, do we have full size medium format sensors?
golly, must be really ...
--
Gullevek
my pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gullevek/
other: http://www.gullevek.org/gallery/
Why then, if 35mm sensor is so bad, do we have full size medium format sensors?
golly, must be really ...
--
Gullevek
my pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gullevek/
other: http://www.gullevek.org/gallery/
Why do you care? If you are happy with the crop camera....be happy. If someone else wants the full frame what is it to you? Canon sells both....you know why?
Boris
--
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
http://www.pbase.com/borysd
Boris
--
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
http://www.pbase.com/borysd
blackhawk13
Senior Member
--The wavelength of light is fixed; larger sensors yield better sampling, everything else being equal. Diffraction is also an issue for the same reason. You can shrink the sensor, but not the wavelength of light waves.
-the old man down the road-
Dark Matter
Well-known member
I think we all need not a war of megapixels and FF vs crop, we all need really NEW and IMPROVED technology. Our DSLR cameras still lack of dynamic range and sensetivity. I'll be happy if DSLR vendors switch their attention from MP war to revolutionary new way of recording still images. All attempts such as Fuji S3 Pro and S5 Pro, Sigma SD10 and SD14 are welcome. I hope this will be our future. May be nano technology will help in this questions. I dream about something i called Digital Film - array of smart nano sensor, different in size and placement and resembling grain of film. They record light intensity in 3D as real grain of film and transmit their data with appropriate level of precision. Its just a dream. Or may be something resembling our natural way of receiving image in our human eyes. For example - too set of sensors, one - for bright light and other for low light situation.
Stevencc,
Several others have also responded, so I dont want to belabor the point, but there are a couple problems with the 1.5/1.6 crop factor as I see it.
1) Viewfinder. Smaller crop cameras let less light into the viewfinder, and usually have smaller viewfinders. Therefore, looking through a crop viewfinder is like looking through a dim, narrow tunnel. Not the best way to compose your image. Of course it works, look at all the wonderful pictures taken with cropped sensor cameras. But if I had a choice, I'd rather the larger, brighter viewfinder, and so would some others.
2) Sensor. Smaller sensors record less light. Technology won't change this, because any tech that can be applied to the smaller sensor can also be applied to the bigger sensor.
3) Light wavelength. The limiting factor with all camera technology is light itself. New lens technology will enable us to focus light a little better, but not much, and eventually, you are going to hit the limits of diffraction. Have you ever noticed that most small point and shoot cameras don't have an aperture setting beyond f/8? That's because with a sensor that small, and with pixels that small, you actually can't focus the light small enough. You eventually run into the law of physics. Notice also, that the D2(x) from Nikon looses sharpness at anything past f/16. Using f/22 will actually decrease the sharpness of the picture. In contrast, the 1Ds Mk II can use f/22 with no problem. A full frame chip won't hit that diffraction wall until about 24 megapixels or more.
New technology will definitely improve the image quality of cropped sensor sizes, but as I mentioned before, that same tech will be available for use in full-frame sensors.
4) Trained eyes. Some of us are used to shooting with 35mm film. We think in terms of the focal lengths from 35mm. I know when I want a 50mm lens. And I want to see it through a big, bright, viewfinder. Maybe that doesn't seem all that important for some, but it's the reason I'm holding out for a 5D or successor over a cropped, cheaper, lighter camera.
If 1.5/1.6 crop factor works for you, great. However, there are enough people for whom it doesn't work, that 35mm sized, "full-frame" chips will be around for awhile. Besides, the small sensor is not what determines the size of the camera body. Look how small the last Rebel film bodies were. Those were designed around a 35mm "full-frame" imager. Shrinking components will allow smaller, lighter "full-frame" DSLRs. This is a good thing, even for cropped sensor cameras.
Regards and Holiday Wishes,
klinux
Several others have also responded, so I dont want to belabor the point, but there are a couple problems with the 1.5/1.6 crop factor as I see it.
1) Viewfinder. Smaller crop cameras let less light into the viewfinder, and usually have smaller viewfinders. Therefore, looking through a crop viewfinder is like looking through a dim, narrow tunnel. Not the best way to compose your image. Of course it works, look at all the wonderful pictures taken with cropped sensor cameras. But if I had a choice, I'd rather the larger, brighter viewfinder, and so would some others.
2) Sensor. Smaller sensors record less light. Technology won't change this, because any tech that can be applied to the smaller sensor can also be applied to the bigger sensor.
3) Light wavelength. The limiting factor with all camera technology is light itself. New lens technology will enable us to focus light a little better, but not much, and eventually, you are going to hit the limits of diffraction. Have you ever noticed that most small point and shoot cameras don't have an aperture setting beyond f/8? That's because with a sensor that small, and with pixels that small, you actually can't focus the light small enough. You eventually run into the law of physics. Notice also, that the D2(x) from Nikon looses sharpness at anything past f/16. Using f/22 will actually decrease the sharpness of the picture. In contrast, the 1Ds Mk II can use f/22 with no problem. A full frame chip won't hit that diffraction wall until about 24 megapixels or more.
New technology will definitely improve the image quality of cropped sensor sizes, but as I mentioned before, that same tech will be available for use in full-frame sensors.
4) Trained eyes. Some of us are used to shooting with 35mm film. We think in terms of the focal lengths from 35mm. I know when I want a 50mm lens. And I want to see it through a big, bright, viewfinder. Maybe that doesn't seem all that important for some, but it's the reason I'm holding out for a 5D or successor over a cropped, cheaper, lighter camera.
If 1.5/1.6 crop factor works for you, great. However, there are enough people for whom it doesn't work, that 35mm sized, "full-frame" chips will be around for awhile. Besides, the small sensor is not what determines the size of the camera body. Look how small the last Rebel film bodies were. Those were designed around a 35mm "full-frame" imager. Shrinking components will allow smaller, lighter "full-frame" DSLRs. This is a good thing, even for cropped sensor cameras.
Regards and Holiday Wishes,
klinux
Leon Wittwer
Forum Pro
You would still have the noise limitations from photon counting statistics. There is a difference between progress and innovation within the laws of physics and breaking the same laws. Film was with us for a very long time and it only got so good.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm
For people who like that format and the effect it has on lenses which were designed for 135 format, yes. For people who cannot afford the more expensive APS-H or FF models, yes.
I have both: 20D and 5D. I prefer full-frame, as my lenses and provide the fields of view they were designed to provide. Plus, the 5D and 1Ds have a larger sensor and more pixels. Also important is the larger viewfinder.
I personally don't believe that. The R&D that went into a fast, constant-aperture EF-S zoom with IS (ie, 17-55) doesn't suggest APS-C will become obsolete any time soon.
Yes. So what? It's the small format with which people are familiar, and which is more approachable for non-professionals.
It's the standard by which even compact digital cameras are compared in terms of "equivalent focal length". Nobody compares a consumer camera with a Mamiya 645 or a Hassy.
How does this gel with the fact that in recent times Canon introduced the 85/1.2L II, 50/1.2L and 70-200/4L IS, which were all clearly not designed specifically for its EOS cameras with smaller sensors, but can still be used on them?
Yes. I don't see anything wrong with that. Do you?
How is the crop factor convenient? It changes what my lenses see.
The obvious advantage of smaller sensors combined with EF lenses is that the weaker parts of the lens (ie, the corners) are often cropped, so vignetting and softness are largely eliminated. However, some vignetting and corner softness will still be present depending on the lens and aperture used.
Besides, if you want a wide view, those are issues with which you'll need to deal even if you buy a lens designed for smaller sensors.
Time will tell, but I doubt it.
Full-frame sensors are slowly becoming cheaper to produce, as the introduction of the 5D has demonstrated. There's a HUGE price difference between the 5D and the 1Ds in this market, and I expect similar in your market, too.
To its advantage, yes. The EOS/EF system has existed for nearly 20 years. Canon's film SLRs and full-frame DSLRs allow those EF lenses to be used as indeed they were designed to be used.
My 20D and 5D are very similar to each other in size and weight. Obviously the 1-series cameras are very different in every way.
Not particularly helpful; all the smaller sensor does is narrow the FOV of any lens I mount on it. It doesn't magically turn my 300mm lens into a 480mm lens, but provides a similar framing .
And that'll likely happen with sensors, too.
But all of my EF lenses didn't need to be replaced.
Given Canon's R&D of EF-S lenses, APS-C is likely to be around for a while.
Larger sensors too.
J.
Perhaps ironically, Canon did design a new lens system which was only compatible with those cameras (300D/350D/400D/20D/30D).
Of course, all of the EF lenses work on those cameras, but they don't provide the field of view they were designed to provide.
PS: Your post was a good taken on how it is.
J.
F1user
Well-known member
Anybody out there remember ½ Frame 35mm format ??
That's VERY close the the 1.6 DSLR format Canon has. I remember seeing pictures from negative colour film in ½ frame format ( 12 x 18mm) and you would get excellent 8x10 pics from them. I don't believe Canon will get rid of this size anytime soon.
If I couls afford it, I would like one of each ( full sensor model and my 30D)
--
That's VERY close the the 1.6 DSLR format Canon has. I remember seeing pictures from negative colour film in ½ frame format ( 12 x 18mm) and you would get excellent 8x10 pics from them. I don't believe Canon will get rid of this size anytime soon.
If I couls afford it, I would like one of each ( full sensor model and my 30D)
--
A great idea!
I have a 5D and a 400D. I get to use the 400D when I want the higher pixil density on my longer lenses...or my 5D the rest of the time.
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen
I have a 5D and a 400D. I get to use the 400D when I want the higher pixil density on my longer lenses...or my 5D the rest of the time.
--If I couls afford it, I would like one of each ( full sensor model
and my 30D)
--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen
brianric
Veteran Member
If brains were dynamite you wouldn’t be able to blow your nose.
I'm not the one comparing the 17-55/2.8 IS to the 16-35/2.8
The 16-35 is a W/A lens for a 35 MM camera.
The 10-22 is a W/A lens for a crop camera.
The 17-55 is not very wide, nor very long on a crop camera.
Compare the 17-55 to the 24-105 on a FF camera.
Comparison the 16-35 to the 10-22...the 16-35 on a FF camera...the 10-22 on a crop camera.
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen
The 16-35 is a W/A lens for a 35 MM camera.
The 10-22 is a W/A lens for a crop camera.
The 17-55 is not very wide, nor very long on a crop camera.
Compare the 17-55 to the 24-105 on a FF camera.
Comparison the 16-35 to the 10-22...the 16-35 on a FF camera...the 10-22 on a crop camera.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum