Reading mode: Light Dark

How? The new sensor, Fuji claims, is capable of delivering resolution of the same qua

Go to last post
hellocrowley said:
Do you understand that the amount of light gathered on a FF sensor through f4.5 is equal to that on an APSC sensor through f2.8? So when stopping down to achieve the same DOF, the FF camera does not receive less light than the APSC camera.
Click to expand...
Exactly ! A full frame sensor has 33% less DOF than APS-C but receives 136% more light.

APS-C crop factor is 1.5 so it has 50% more DOF than a FF sensor and receives 42% of its light.

When you stop down a lens by 1 stop you gain approximatively 1.45 X more DOF.

So at equivalent DOF, the FF sensor receives about 16% more light than an APS-C sensor.
 
If I look at the X-Trans array for Green especially - I assume there are many big sqare ares of Green in the whole sensor (4 green pixels often). May a disadvantage regarding color fidelity. Also I like the idea of sensors without AA filtering - since using a Leica M8... :)
 
New sensor? Revolutionary?
We have seen many "revolutionary" Fuji sensors over the past few years.
Remember just one, 3 years ago: the Super CCD EXR.

This sensor used a new color filter array layout that allowed for binning (combining) of pixels of the same color. This sensor was used in the F200EXR, F70EXR and F80EXR Fuji compacts.

Fuji likes to invent new layouts, but is it each time revolutionary, in the sense that the innovation changes almost everything?

Looking at the X1 full scale samples provided so far, I am not as impressed as I was with the simple Jpeg output of the X100.

Maybe it is linked to the reasons given so far: poor images from the beginning because they were taken by incompetent photographers.

Maybe not. On one of the pictures I see very ugly noise at 1.600 Iso whereas at that sensitivity the X100 produces splendid pictures. Plus I don't see the "film" look of the X100 output.
I hope that I am wrong and that the X1 will be even better than the X100.
But I have some doubts.
 
Anadrol said:
hellocrowley said:
Do you understand that the amount of light gathered on a FF sensor through f4.5 is equal to that on an APSC sensor through f2.8? So when stopping down to achieve the same DOF, the FF camera does not receive less light than the APSC camera.
Click to expand...
Exactly ! A full frame sensor has 33% less DOF than APS-C but receives 136% more light.

APS-C crop factor is 1.5 so it has 50% more DOF than a FF sensor and receives 42% of its light.

When you stop down a lens by 1 stop you gain approximatively 1.45 X more DOF.

So at equivalent DOF, the FF sensor receives about 16% more light than an APS-C sensor.
Click to expand...
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Try comparing shutter speeds when metering a grey card. To match DOF, I'll be at f2.8 with the 7D and f4.5 with my D700. The metering will reflect the difference and show that the D700 requires about 1.5 stops slower shutter speed or higher iso.
 
hellocrowley said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
Frida said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
Peter G said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
No...it doesn't give you DOF "control"....it gives you shallower DOF opportunity. If you want a deeper DOF, then FF isn;t the way to go. In low light, I can shoot at f2.8 while a FF user needs f4.5. That means I can be at iso 3200 on the crop body....and the FF user would need 8000 or 10,000 iso.
Click to expand...
More opportunity is more control.

There are F2.8 lenses for FF as well. If you are shooting F2.8 because you need the light on APS, you wouldn't begrudge a little loss in DOF for more light on FF either.
Click to expand...
I know there are f2.8 lenses for FF as well....but then you're DOF is too shallow. My DOF with f2.8 on an APS-C camera is like f4.5 on a FF. If I need the deeper DOF, then the FF user needs to up the iso....and then the FF high iso advantage vanishes.
Click to expand...
2.8 isn't too shallow for loads of folks on FF. There are lots of wedding photographers who shoot wide open on FF at 2.8 or less (e.g., 1.8, 1.4, even 1.2) all the time.
Click to expand...
I'm a wedding photographer. I use primes all the time. But when I have a zoom, I prefer the f2.8 with IS as opposed to an F4 for example. There's more to life than just having shots with a 10cm area in focus.

My reason for bringing this up is that a lot of FF shooters go on and on about the shallow DOF of FF....but when someone mentions the deeper DOF of with a crop camera....they try to just blow it off. Well....it's an issue. Like I said....I can be at 3200 iso apposed to 10,000iso.
Click to expand...
Do you understand that the amount of light gathered on a FF sensor through f4.5 is equal to that on an APSC sensor through f2.8? So when stopping down to achieve the same DOF, the FF camera does not receive less light than the APSC camera.
Click to expand...
It appears it's you who doesn't understand the differences. I've heard this excuse before. I set my 7D and D700 on tripods. I set the 7D at f2.8 and matched the FOV with the D700. In order to obtain the same DOF, I set the D700 at f4.5. Now, according to you, the shutter speeds would be the same. Of course, in the real world, they are not. The shutter speed on the D700 had to be 1.5 stops slower at the same iso.

Really....have a basic understanding of this and try it yourself before you post like an authority in a topic in which you obviously have little knowledge. I hate wasting time explaining basic fundamentals.
 
Light gathering capability isn't only governed by sensor area. It's also affected by quantum efficiency and read noise. Now, if the new Fuji sensor is twice as efficient as the 5DII, then it can gather as much light as the 5DII. And keep in mind that they didn't specify what FF quality it matches. Even the Nikon 1 series matches the Kodak DCS-14n FF cameras for light gathering capability.

As for DOF, for that you need faster lenses. But the lenses do not need to cast as large a image circle due to the smaller sensor.
Peter G said:
Fuji likes to make exaggerated claims about their sensors (like those "12MP" honeycombs, that were 6MP). This looks like more of the same.

The only real advantage they have (according to their claims) is that they can run without an AA filter.

That does not give it light gathering capability of a full frame sensor, which is the main difference you get with a full frame sensor. Also doesn't give Shallow DOF, which is the other main difference with big sensors.

In fact they will likely still have aliasing issues despite their claims (even Foveon has aliasing issues) and they have even less color resolution than Bayer.

This looks more like they will be aiming for a more B&W + broad color hints. Meaning no high frequency color information, so they won't have errant sharp Red or Blue pixels, but they will likely more readily bleed and muddy colors together.

But it could still be a nice sharp looking image. I look forward to seeing the real world tradeoffs of this change.
Click to expand...
 
I'm sorry, but it is you who don't seem to understand what's discussed here. How much light hitting the sensor is governed by the aperture, which controls the intensity of any given area, and size of the sensor which gives the total area of light gathered. A 7D at F/2.8 has a bit over twice the light intensity as a D700 at F/4.5, but the D700 has a bit over twice the area compared to the 7D. So when looking at total light gathered, intensity x area, they're about equal.

Now, for you to get the same exposure, you need to up the ISO on the FF camera. But as the FF camera has gathered the same amount of light, the noise will be similar if the cameras are built around the same technology. A good example of this is the 1DIIIs compared to the D30. Both share very, very similar if not the same technology, yet due to the larger sensor the 1DIIIs is over twice as clean at the same ISO. So, even if you shoot at the same DOF with differing ISOs, there won't be a difference in noise.
Faintandfuzzy said:
It appears it's you who doesn't understand the differences. I've heard this excuse before. I set my 7D and D700 on tripods. I set the 7D at f2.8 and matched the FOV with the D700. In order to obtain the same DOF, I set the D700 at f4.5. Now, according to you, the shutter speeds would be the same. Of course, in the real world, they are not. The shutter speed on the D700 had to be 1.5 stops slower at the same iso.

Really....have a basic understanding of this and try it yourself before you post like an authority in a topic in which you obviously have little knowledge. I hate wasting time explaining basic fundamentals.
Click to expand...
 
Walter K said:
If I look at the X-Trans array for Green especially - I assume there are many big sqare ares of Green in the whole sensor (4 green pixels often). May a disadvantage regarding color fidelity.
Click to expand...
Well.. it depends. When I suggested the same pattern here last summer it was also because a Bayer pattern needs a block of 4x2 (and in practice 4x4 for downsampling) pixels to guarantee more than a single sample of each color. This pattern does the same with 3x3: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=38889859

Note that even a 3x3 block that overlaps the entire 2x2 green area will always contain two samples of red, two samples of blue and 5 of green. It's a pretty flexible pattern as long as you don't demand absolute perfection in every input pixel (then forget CFA).

"the new filter changes the rules of digital photography"
Please, Fujifilm, don't make me blush ;)
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Try comparing shutter speeds when metering a grey card. To match DOF, I'll be at f2.8 with the 7D and f4.5 with my D700. The metering will reflect the difference and show that the D700 requires about 1.5 stops slower shutter speed or higher iso.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does work this way, or provide us a better calculation.

If you see a difference in the actual use of 2 cameras, it's because their sensor is not using the same technology, or the same surface/pixels ratio.
 
so you confirm my ideas...FF its totally useless if you will use a F4 lens !!!

why carry that wheight...why OLD technology...(mirror...like 100 years ago...still a mirror....totally useless...)

and wich other advantages?? a sony NEX5 APS-C has more dynamic range then a 5D MII (and a LOT)

the dynamic range of 5DMII is like the panasonic G3 and gh2 (4 x times smaller sensor...)

other advantage? carry a 1kg lens like 35mm 1.4 that its razor sharp only at f8?? buy a 50mm 1.4 that it look blurred at 1.4 at f2 ...??

a m43 lens like leica 25mm 1.4 its razor sharp at 1.4...and you can have a deep DOF...as i repeat a big advantage for many photojournalist...
Peter G said:
A lot will own something like an EF 24-105 F4 IS for a 5DII.

That full frame will give them nice DOF control and the big sensor also helps with it's great light gathering power.

Since when (especially here) has full frame only been about mega pixel counts.

My only point was there is much more to Full Frame than megapixels, and in fact that isn't the point at all, for most people, since you can get APS sensors with similar or even greater MP counts.
ZZ9 said:
sorry but why in this forums some people has a so narrow view of the world that can continue for 20 years to repeat like parrots the same things...

did you ever think that for some kind of photographer,i.e. photojournalist who shoot in low light night having a Shallow DOF is a problem? do you think that shoting an event in the night with a leica 50mm f0.95 on a FF is a bonus??without anything in focus exept 10cm...???
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
agree 100%...but in this forums its hard to understand.....

Sosua awrote:
Sosua said:
No mirror vibration

No AA filter blurring

Optimized lenses

Looking at the detail the Ricoh GXR M module delivers with Leica lenses from 12mp (better than the NEX 5N with a very light AA filtered 16mp), 21 mp or so would not be too much of a stretch for this chip and a high quality image pipeline.

And the M9 with 18mp appears to do just as well as the D3X with 24mp.

Its marketing of course, but it will be closer to 5D2 rez than D7000 rez, for sure.
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz
Click to expand...
 
I believe if the new sensor in the xPro1 produces equal IQ as the X100, it will be a marketing success. If the IQ is better, that is great. Right now all marketing claims are hype. Once production cameras are available and independently reviewed, we will learn whether the hype is confirmed. Personally I hope Fuji's claims are justified.

--
Howard
http://www.photo.net/photos/howardfuhrman
 
howardfuhrman said:
I believe if the new sensor in the xPro1 produces equal IQ as the X100, it will be a marketing success.
Click to expand...
I predict otherwise. I believe the sensor (combined with quality lenses) would need to significantly surpass the X100 image quality for the X Pro1 system to be a marketing success. That sensor is about five years old now.

A $1,200 X100 requires no follow-up purchases, however, the X Pro1 calls for well over double that price from potential buyers (once you consider purchase of multiple lenses). The retro design seems to target older photographers - who probably already have a considerable investment in another system which will be less than fully compatible. Leica lens owners may buy into it as their lenses will be compatible from the start with the available coupler. With a potential adapter in the future(?) Nikon and Canon shooters will lose autofocus, and probably more...
howardfuhrman said:
If the IQ is better, that is great. Right now all marketing claims are hype. Once production cameras are available and independently reviewed, we will learn whether the hype is confirmed. Personally I hope Fuji's claims are justified.
Click to expand...
I'm with you here. I'd like to see the system succeed and grow.

--
Desmond Murray
http://www.KelownaPhotographer.com
I shoot to thrill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top