FF is dead ...

Michael Long said:

Michael Long said:

In theory, Yes. In the real world, No. 4/3 can achieve up to 15mp
resolution at reasonable noise levels. APS can achieve up to 30mp.
And FF up to 60mp.

Click to expand...

How did you arrive at -- or make up -- these numbers?

Click to expand...

I think he's just distressed about manufacturers pushing so far ahead in pixel tech.

Just wonder how many people who already own lenses will be ready to jump ship and get a whole new system, that really hasn't been proven to be that much of an advantage image wise. A lot of theory and supposition, but no real world advantage observed yet.

4/3 may be one of those ideas along the same track that Foveon seems to be on. A fringe idea that can not seem to gain any ground or widely accepted support.

--
http://www.pbase.com/wp12001
Life is too short to waste it complaining.

I think of 4/3 as primarily a step up product from a $1500 2/3" sensor digital camera whose permanently attached lenses is definitely obsolete as soon as the camera is. With four times the sensor area and not much bulkier than the E-20 and Minolta 7 series, a "high end consumer" oriented 4/3 body might be chosen by many of those customers over going to the next stop up of an APS format DSLR: prices should be lower than "APS" (half the sensor area), and out of the gate it will have a more convenient standard lens (equivalent to 28-108mm in 35mm) than is offered for any "APS" DSLR, despite their having been around for some years.

I would not focus on 4/3 as a major alternative for professional use; nor was 35mm for its first decades, but it survived neverthless.

P. S. Full format is not close to dead either: this either/or thinking is crazy, given the huge range of the wants and needs of different photographers.

Michael Long said:

Michael Long said:

In theory, Yes. In the real world, No. 4/3 can achieve up to 15mp
resolution at reasonable noise levels. APS can achieve up to 30mp.
And FF up to 60mp.

Click to expand...

How did you arrive at -- or make up -- these numbers?

Click to expand...

I am not sure about his numbers; they seem to assume 4 micron pixels. I would be more conservative, even though 3.4 micron pixels are satisfing some moderately serious users of high end 2/3" format cameras.

Norm Koren's suggests, in his very informative essay http://www.normankoren.com/digital_cameras.html

that 6 microns is the low limit for decent S/N ratio. However the trend of improving S/N at at given pixel size might take this a bit lower, so let me say 4-6 for decent S/N.

However, diffraction limitation starts to limit resolution at the same f-stop for a given pixel size, around f/6 for 4 microns, and while this may be barely enough DOF for 4/3 format (like f/12 for 35mm) it is not enough for 35mm format, so the design trade off would favor gradually larger minimum pixel size in larger formats (also giving even more dynamic range, as the high end market might demand for the bigger formats).

So maybe upper useful limits will be very roughly

35mm format: 5-8 micron pixel size and 14-35MP with f/7-f/13 diffraction limit

4/3 format: 4-6 micron pixel size, 7-15MP, f/6-f/9 diffraction limit, same DOF as f/12-f/18 in 35mm format.

(Norm Koren explain both diffraction limitation and the relationship between f-stop and DOF for various sensor sizes.)

BJL said:

Michael Long said:

BJL said:

In theory, Yes. In the real world, No. 4/3 can achieve up to 15mp
resolution at reasonable noise levels. APS can achieve up to 30mp.
And FF up to 60mp.

Click to expand...

How did you arrive at -- or make up -- these numbers?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I work with scientific sensors a lot an feel he is on the right page but went too far. For low ISO, that high of MP is ok, but to keep noise down at ISO 800 and higher the more practical limit will be closer to 8MP for 4/3, 15MP for 1.4x and 30MP for FF.

That means 4/3 will not reach the equivalent quality of 100 ISO 35mm film (Not even with perfect lenses) but might equal 200 or 400 ISO film.

It does mean that "APS" sized sensors soon can easily exceed 35mm film results with specifically designed lenses or the better 35mm lenses.

FF 35mm sized sensors of course could also easily exceed film.

To put is simply, CCD technology now exceeds film technology for the same size image in resolution, noise and sensitivity. Over time, current drain, sensitivity and noise will improve, but lower cost will be the primary technology advances in sensors. I'm waiting for a small 8 to 10MP 1.4x or 1.5x DSLR before I totally get away from 35mm film. My Kodak DCS cameras are just too big for snapshots.

Ron Schroeder
Brookhaven National Lab
35mm film: Nikon, Leica and Canon
MF and 4x5 film
Digital: Kodak DCS

Ron Schroeder said:

the more practical limit will be closer to 8MP for 4/3, 15MP for 1.4x and 30MP for FF.

That means 4/3 will not reach the equivalent quality of 100 ISO 35mm film ...

Click to expand...

I can believe these pixels count estimates, but I suppose we are stuck in a twilight zone as far as film to pixel count comparisons of image quality; some people seem to be rating good 6MP images on a par with good ISO 100 slide films, with a balance of having a bit less resolution, but compensated by less "grain": that would let 4/3 get a little bit beyond such films; but maybe the best ISO100 negative films wil still have an edge on 6MP or even 8MP, since they beat transparency films on dynamic range for sure, and on resolution according to some.

For most people, 4/3" format versus 35mm film will probably look close enough to a tie.

if nikon is going to embrace AFS rather than
full frame, it will be their digital Vietnam.

There is always demand for larger sensor, 24x36mm FF should survive but it will be something for high end market only. I guess Nikon has their difficulty to keep up with the race in 35mm FF market because of their out-dated small lens mount. However they make the right move to introduce the DX lenses so they can still be the key player in DSLR. If Canon still does not want to have new lenses for their 1.6x CMOS, they will lose their market share in consumer DSLR market. 4/3 won't be the standard as Nikon & Canon will defintely not going to join it. Digital does not need a standard too as consumer using 1/2.7, 1/1.8, 2/3 sensors all can get their photos printed in regular format. It will be tough for 3rd party lens makers like Sigma in future if the above turned out to be truth!

Walter Freiberger said:

If the Olympus E-system has a positive start (and I believe it
will) and Nikon provides a significant lineup of DX lenses and a
10-12mp DX sized D2 who needs full frame? Who wants to pay $8000
for a transitional product like Canon's 1Ds?

With "significant lens lineup" I mean something like this:

AFS 8/2.8 DX
AFS 10-24/2.8 DX
AFS 16-70/2.8 DX

AFS 12-24/4 DX
AFS 16-70/3.5-4.5 DX

I'd say Nikon has found the best compromise between film and
digital compatibility, the Olympus system is very interesting for
those who don't intend to shoot film. And Canon has somehow lost
track with a loss leader product like the 1Ds and three different
sensor sizes.

All arguments brought up for FF read more like Canon's PR and are
not very convincing to me...

Just some thoughts
Walter

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/donaldchin

I suspect that the FF issue will be resolved when Fuji release their next 35mm SLR based Digital. They are about to go into production of a 52mm X 37mm super CCD (for their new back) and that should give them valuable manufacturing experience with a CCD almost exaxtly twice the size of a 35mm FF sensor. The same pixel pitch would give a 10 MP FF super CCD with a 20 MP output file (with resolution equivalent to a conventional 15 MP chip).

Based on my experience of the S2, I'd say that would be a very powerful photographic tool indeed.
--
Richard C. South Australia

Topic on dpreview forum in the year 2153....

Walter Freiberger is dead ---FF

Rick