Reading mode: Light Dark

D2X must be FF

Go to last post
Even someone who isn't a physics major (Are you?) knows about the 1.5 factor on DX cameras. If you have a 300 on a FF camera, the image will appear the same as on film. On a DX camera it will be like it's a 450. THAT is the way it is. An 80mm on my Hassy gives the same ANGLE OF VIEW as a 50mm on my film Nikon. And a 300 2.8 on a FF gives a different perspective than on a DX. Yes technically it is still a 300, but it gives EXACTLY the same telephoto view as a 450 on a film or FF camera. Wouldn't you agree that the 300 2.8 is a lot lighter and smaller than a 400 2.8?
Steven Noyes said:
But as for DX telephotos being lighter. Only by a gram or so. A
300mm f2.8 size and weight is controlled by the fact that it is a
300mm f2.8. If it was DX or 35mm FF makes absolutely no difference.

Steven
wjansen said:
One very obvious advantage of the DX format is that the system can
be made smaller and lighter. Also my 300 becomes a 450 and still
has the same speed. I suppose they could make DX telephotos that
are smaller but would lack the advantage of the 1.5 factor.
Everything else being the same, I'll take smaller and lighter 98%
of the time.
Click to expand...
--
---
New and Updated!!!
Spring 2004: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/spring_2004
Mosaics: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/high_res_mosaics
Click to expand...
 
An APS sized sensor (D100, D2H, etc) is 42% of a full frame. It's as if you're cropping 42% of the center of a full frame image. If you have a 15 MP full frame camera and crop 42% of the middle of a shot taken with a 300mm lens (to get your 1.5 crop factor) you end up with a 6.3 MP image with the 450mm equivalent.

There's no advantage to smaller sensors if you can crop an equivalent number of pixels from a FF sensor (as is the case when we reach 15 MP).

Joe
wjansen said:
Steven Noyes said:
But as for DX telephotos being lighter. Only by a gram or so. A
300mm f2.8 size and weight is controlled by the fact that it is a
300mm f2.8. If it was DX or 35mm FF makes absolutely no difference.

Steven
wjansen said:
One very obvious advantage of the DX format is that the system can
be made smaller and lighter. Also my 300 becomes a 450 and still
has the same speed. I suppose they could make DX telephotos that
are smaller but would lack the advantage of the 1.5 factor.
Everything else being the same, I'll take smaller and lighter 98%
of the time.
Click to expand...
--
---
New and Updated!!!
Spring 2004: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/spring_2004
Mosaics: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/high_res_mosaics
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Joe Marques said:
There's no advantage to smaller sensors if you can crop an
equivalent number of pixels from a FF sensor (as is the case when
we reach 15 MP).
Click to expand...
I don't think you get my point. The advantage I'm talking about is the smaller size and weight. I suppose I could crop the middle of my Hasselblad images down to 35mm size and get the telephoto effect. But I don't want to lug around the Hassy. And if I want to get the 450mm perspective (35mm equivilent) on a DX camara, I don't need a 450mm lens, do I? A 300 will give me the same angle and be a lot less size and weight.
 
wjansen said:
Joe Marques said:
There's no advantage to smaller sensors if you can crop an
equivalent number of pixels from a FF sensor (as is the case when
we reach 15 MP).
Click to expand...
I don't think you get my point. The advantage I'm talking about is
the smaller size and weight. I suppose I could crop the middle of
my Hasselblad images down to 35mm size and get the telephoto
effect. But I don't want to lug around the Hassy. And if I want
to get the 450mm perspective (35mm equivilent) on a DX camara, I
don't need a 450mm lens, do I? A 300 will give me the same angle
and be a lot less size and weight.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you don't get my point. :)

A APS camera (D2H) or a full frame camera (D3x maybe?) + 300mm lens will be the same weight (unless a larger sensor will somehow mysteriously increase weight?).

My point is that if the Nikon D3x hypothetically is Full Frame and 15 MP you can use a smaller 300mm lens, crop the middle and get your 450mm shot at 6 MP, just as you did with the smaller sensor camera, and with one great advantage - FULL FRAME for REAL wide angle.

There's no reason to keep sensors smaller if we can control noise (cost decline is automatic with this technology). Noise is the great unknown and the ONLY reason small sensors may exist in the future.

Joe
 
Give it up. If you want full frame look else where. Nikon is committed the DX for a while, at least a few years.

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
http://www.pbase.com/greggebhardt
 
A 300mm f2.8 on a FF camera is the same lens as on a DX Camera. They are both 300mm f2.8 lenses. It is just that the DX camera through out half of the image. Even if the 300mm f2.8 was made to fill only a DX image circle, it would be the same size and weight (to with a gram or so).

If you are interested in getting the most out ouf you telephotos, than the pixel pitch is substantially more important than the sensor size. As a result, the FF 1Ds has better reach than the 1.6X D30. Why? because the 1Ds has smaller pixels.

As for perspective changing as you move from FF to DX with the smae lens? No, perspective is solely dependent on viewer location in relation to the subject. Only your feet change perspective. Nothing else. The lens is simply responsible to representing that perspective. Now, you might claim that because you went from FFF to DX, you had to back up to keep the subject the same size... But then you moved your feet.

Also, your thought that a 300mm f2.8 on a DX would give the same exact view as a 450mm f2.8 (what a beast that would be) on a FF camera is wrong as well. The FF camera would have much less DOF.

Steven
wjansen said:
Even someone who isn't a physics major (Are you?) knows about the
1.5 factor on DX cameras. If you have a 300 on a FF camera, the
image will appear the same as on film. On a DX camera it will be
like it's a 450. THAT is the way it is. An 80mm on my Hassy gives
the same ANGLE OF VIEW as a 50mm on my film Nikon. And a 300 2.8
on a FF gives a different perspective than on a DX. Yes
technically it is still a 300, but it gives EXACTLY the same
telephoto view as a 450 on a film or FF camera. Wouldn't you agree
that the 300 2.8 is a lot lighter and smaller than a 400 2.8?
Click to expand...
--
---
New and Updated!!!
Spring 2004: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/spring_2004
Mosaics: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/high_res_mosaics
 
I agree. I'm a big Nikon fan and abhor Canon, but I don't get all this APS size sensors are better for wildlife/telephoto-oriented photography argument used to justify the company's cost-saving direction.

A 300mm lens does not change in focal length on a cropped sensor, only delivers a cropped image. Period. Some may argue that if a six megapixel cropped sensor uses all six megapixels to resolve the middle 42% of the image captured by the lens that you can blow that photo up much more successfully than a full frame six megapixel shot of the same subject, taken at the same focal length. The problem is that a larger sensor (aka. full frame) also allows for more resolving power in the form of increased photosites. So as you already stated, a fifteen megapixel sensor will give you the same resolution, only with more user-driven cropping choices, instead of the limits imposed by the sensor.

Now, maybe I'm not getting something. So to those who really think that there's an advantage to a cropped sensor when shooting telephoto lenses, please explain to me in coherent terms your reasoning. It makes no sense. Larger sensors increase resolution and make cropping to standard photo frame sizes that much easier, as composition of the subject can be less tight and restrictively controlled during initial acquisition.

--
Regards,
James Bostwick
 
Smaller sensors ALREADY exist, and they are doing quite fine. You're assuming I WANT a FF sensor so I would actually have to carry a 450 to get that perspective rather than a smaller DX where I could get the same perspective and speed with a much lighter 300. By your reasoning we should be shooting MF and cropping down! Right now noise is an issue with smaller sensors, but technology will solve that problem. In fact noise has plagued some of the FF sensors too--Kodak. And Canon has aquitted itself quite nicely re noise on the D10. Remember I'm talking PERSPECTIVE here--it changes when you change format size. A 300 on a DX has the same perspective as a 450 on FF. So for a given perspective, the DX is the smaller, lighter way to go. You also seem to forget the cost of producing larger sensors is prohibitive. And the possibility of VR in the body is much better with a smaller sensor than a larger one.
Joe Marques said:
Sorry but you don't get my point. :)

A APS camera (D2H) or a full frame camera (D3x maybe?) + 300mm lens
will be the same weight (unless a larger sensor will somehow
mysteriously increase weight?).

My point is that if the Nikon D3x hypothetically is Full Frame and
15 MP you can use a smaller 300mm lens, crop the middle and get
your 450mm shot at 6 MP, just as you did with the smaller sensor
camera, and with one great advantage - FULL FRAME for REAL wide
angle.

There's no reason to keep sensors smaller if we can control noise
(cost decline is automatic with this technology). Noise is the
great unknown and the ONLY reason small sensors may exist in the
future.

Joe
Click to expand...
 
Do you understand angle of view and how that pertains to lenses? Would you agree the angle of view equivalent on a FF lens is not the same as on a DX lens? Why do you think people who do telephoto work are happy with DX but people with wide angle are not? I'm not a dolt. I know a 300 is a 300 is a 300 is a 300 is a 300..........

As important as focal length is the format you're using. My 80mm Zeiss for my Hassy is a big lens compared to an 80mm for my Nikon. They're both 80s but oh so different.
Steven Noyes said:
If you are interested in getting the most out ouf you telephotos,
than the pixel pitch is substantially more important than the
sensor size. As a result, the FF 1Ds has better reach than the
1.6X D30. Why? because the 1Ds has smaller pixels.

As for perspective changing as you move from FF to DX with the smae
lens? No, perspective is solely dependent on viewer location in
relation to the subject. Only your feet change perspective.
Nothing else. The lens is simply responsible to representing that
perspective. Now, you might claim that because you went from FFF
to DX, you had to back up to keep the subject the same size... But
then you moved your feet.

Also, your thought that a 300mm f2.8 on a DX would give the same
exact view as a 450mm f2.8 (what a beast that would be) on a FF
camera is wrong as well. The FF camera would have much less DOF.

Steven
wjansen said:
Even someone who isn't a physics major (Are you?) knows about the
1.5 factor on DX cameras. If you have a 300 on a FF camera, the
image will appear the same as on film. On a DX camera it will be
like it's a 450. THAT is the way it is. An 80mm on my Hassy gives
the same ANGLE OF VIEW as a 50mm on my film Nikon. And a 300 2.8
on a FF gives a different perspective than on a DX. Yes
technically it is still a 300, but it gives EXACTLY the same
telephoto view as a 450 on a film or FF camera. Wouldn't you agree
that the 300 2.8 is a lot lighter and smaller than a 400 2.8?
Click to expand...
--
---
New and Updated!!!
Spring 2004: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/spring_2004
Mosaics: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/high_res_mosaics
Click to expand...
 
I agree. There will be a lot of angry people with DX lens. but.. Nikon did change their flash compatibilities for their digicams

TTL
D-TTL
I-TTL

so you never know...

Former owner of
sb 26 -sold
sb 28DX and sb 50DX - both sold
waiting for sb 600
Greg Gebhardt said:
Give it up. If you want full frame look else where. Nikon is
committed the DX for a while, at least a few years.

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
http://www.pbase.com/greggebhardt
Click to expand...
--
http://www.minkim.com
 
Sorry, but it's clear you don't understand my post. I'll try one more time since it's good practice explaining dSLR concepts.

First, understand this - I'm NEVER referring to an actual 450mm lens - I'm ALWAYS referring to a 300mm lens. Secondly, full frame sensors already exist and are doing quite fine TOO (1Ds & Kodak SLR/n).

There is NO difference between a small sensor camera and full frame camera regarding lens perspective as MOUNTED (forgetting sensor size). A 300mm lens is always 300mm LONG. The ONLY difference is CROP FACTOR. A small sensor MISSES information that the lens delivers by spilling light OFF the edges of the sensor (light that a FF sensor would capture - are you starting to see my point?).

As a result a small sensor camera (D100, D70, D2H, D1x, etc.) is said to have a CROP FACTOR of 1.5. That means the FOV of the 300mm lens is the same as 450mm due to CROPPING (nothing else). Now, please follow this carefully - shooting with a 300mm lens on a small sensor is the SAME THING AS SHOOTING 300mm ON A FULL FRAME SENSOR and CROPPING the middle. Read that again - it's the WHOLE POINT.

I'll say it again - a 300mm on a FULL FRAME is 450mm IF you CROP the APS sized center and enlarge. No difference at all other than number of pixels cropped. So when we have 15 MP sensors (probably next year for Canon) the center crop will be 6 MP and you will get 6 MP @ 450mm OR 15MP @ 300mm. You'll have a CHOICE by cropping from 15 MP down to 6 MP or even 4 MP at 600mm if you prefer (estimate since I don't care to do more math). You can crop ANY amount off of 15 MP to get tighter FOV or the LOOK of a more powerful telephoto lens without the WEIGHT of a larger lens (ALWAYS USING A 300mm).

Example: the 1Ds is an 11 MP full frame sensor camera (no heavier or more bulky than a small sensor camera since the sensor size doesn't affect camera size). If you use a 300mm lens on a 1Ds AND CROP the middle 42% you get a 4.5 MP image that looks like it was shot with a 450mm lens (the same image as a 300mm lens on a D2H/D100/D70 , etc.).

As for sensor cost - irrelevant to my point. Economies of scale will make high rez full-frame sensors commoditized in 5-10 years and they'll cost pennies on the dollar.

I'll say it one last time for emphasis - when 15 MP sensors are affordable there is NO point in shooting APS sized sensors since you can USE A SMALLER LENS (300mm) and by simply cropping out the center in an APS size crop you will have a 6 MP image which equals the D100 and most other modern dSLR's from 2004.

The PRIMARY advantage of APS sized sensors today is COST which is not a long-term issue with technology (I paid $300 for a 30 Mhz processor 10 years ago and paid LESS for a 3 Ghz processor last year).

Joe

PS - Canon has done nothing special with noise other than use in camera NR. I prefer Nikon's sharpness (D2H) and apply my own NR in post processing.
wjansen said:
Smaller sensors ALREADY exist, and they are doing quite fine.
You're assuming I WANT a FF sensor so I would actually have to
carry a 450 to get that perspective rather than a smaller DX where
I could get the same perspective and speed with a much lighter 300.
By your reasoning we should be shooting MF and cropping down!
Right now noise is an issue with smaller sensors, but technology
will solve that problem. In fact noise has plagued some of the FF
sensors too--Kodak. And Canon has aquitted itself quite nicely re
noise on the D10. Remember I'm talking PERSPECTIVE here--it
changes when you change format size. A 300 on a DX has the same
perspective as a 450 on FF. So for a given perspective, the DX is
the smaller, lighter way to go. You also seem to forget the cost
of producing larger sensors is prohibitive. And the possibility of
VR in the body is much better with a smaller sensor than a larger
one.
Click to expand...
 
35 mm body:

Sensor 1 - full frame (24x36mm)
Sensor 2 - APS sized (16x24mm or 42% full frame - all Nikon dSLR's)

Mount a 300mm lens on each and this is the result:

Sensor 1 - 300mm FOV (field of view). If you CROP the final image by taking the 16x24mm center you have 450mm FOV (same as APS sized image).

Sensor 2 - 450mm FOV only since lens is wasting info outside frame of sensor.

Medium Format body (Mimaya 645):

Sensor 1 - full frame (60x45mm)
Sensor 2 - 42% cropped sensor as in 35mm example (40x30mm).

Mount an 80mm lens on each and this is the result:

Sensor 1 - 80mm FOV. If you CROP the final image and take the 40x30mm center portion you have 120mm FOV (same as hypothetical smaller MF sensor).

Sensor 2 - 120mm FOV only since lens is wasting info outside frame of sensor.

There is NO difference - it's ONLY CROPPING. Do you get it yet? :)

Joe
wjansen said:
Do you understand angle of view and how that pertains to lenses?
Would you agree the angle of view equivalent on a FF lens is not
the same as on a DX lens? Why do you think people who do telephoto
work are happy with DX but people with wide angle are not? I'm not
a dolt. I know a 300 is a 300 is a 300 is a 300 is a 300..........

As important as focal length is the format you're using. My 80mm
Zeiss for my Hassy is a big lens compared to an 80mm for my Nikon.
They're both 80s but oh so different.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure where you are going with this but you're not going to convince me that I "need" at 35mm sized sensor.

Each size has its own strengths and weaknesses. The only thing that doesn't change is the focal length and the perspective. Focal length is obviously a factor of the glass used. And perspective is a factor of how far away you are standing from the subject.

The angle of view changes as the sensor size changes. The angle of view of my D2H is full frame to me. ie: When I look though the view finder, I get 100% of what I see on the image. Since I take the image based on what I view through the view finder, I do not care whether this is a crop compared to a 35mm camera or a 4x5 camera or a 6x7 camera or that if I crop it, I can get what a 4/3 camera can. All I care is that I captured what I was viewing when I took the image.

Also, DOF varies since DOF is a mathematical formula based on perceived sharpness of the image when enlarged a set amount. For exactly the same angle of view, the DOF increases as the sensor size decreases. That's because the focal length needed to obtain a particular angle of view decreases. When the focal length at a set distance decreases, the DOF increases. This means that practically speaking, if you intend to get a LOT of the image in focus, the small sensor has a big advantage over a bigger one. If your intention is to get little in focus, the larger sensor has the advantage.

Given this advantage of a smaller sensor, it is easier to take a landscape with a smaller sensor. This assumes that you have the glass needed to obtain the correct angle of view needed. It also has an advantage in macro work as you need less magnification to get the same image. Less magnification means more DOF and more in focus in the image. It also might mean less light needed since a wider aperture might be able to be used.

At the same time, a larger sensor can isolate the subject easier since more focal length is needed to take the image and the more focal length you use, the narrower the DOF become.

As for cropping every image from 35mm size down to DX size, that I'd rather not do. I'd rather take the image as I saw it through my view finder. I'd also rather not buy at 16 mp camera simply to use 6 mp of it. I'd rather buy a 16 mp camera and use all 16 mp of it. Whether that sensor is a 35mm sized sensor or an APS size sensor. In fact, if it was a 4/3 sized sensor, I'd still be interested in it since as long as I can find the right glass, I get a huge advantage in DOF for landscape and macro work with it. If I need to isolate and I can't find the glass, then I'll buy a camera and glass combination that allows me to.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m
Joe Marques said:
There is NO difference between a small sensor camera and full frame
camera regarding lens perspective as MOUNTED (forgetting sensor
size). A 300mm lens is always 300mm LONG. The ONLY difference is
CROP FACTOR. A small sensor MISSES information that the lens
delivers by spilling light OFF the edges of the sensor (light that
a FF sensor would capture - are you starting to see my point?).

As a result a small sensor camera (D100, D70, D2H, D1x, etc.) is
said to have a CROP FACTOR of 1.5. That means the FOV of the
300mm lens is the same as 450mm due to CROPPING (nothing else).
Now, please follow this carefully - shooting with a 300mm lens on a
small sensor is the SAME THING AS SHOOTING 300mm ON A FULL
FRAME SENSOR and CROPPING the middle. Read that again - it's the
WHOLE POINT.

I'll say it again - a 300mm on a FULL FRAME is 450mm IF you CROP
the APS sized center and enlarge. No difference at all other than
number of pixels cropped. So when we have 15 MP sensors (probably
next year for Canon) the center crop will be 6 MP and you will get
6 MP @ 450mm OR 15MP @ 300mm. You'll have a CHOICE by cropping
from 15 MP down to 6 MP or even 4 MP at 600mm if you prefer
(estimate since I don't care to do more math). You can crop ANY
amount off of 15 MP to get tighter FOV or the LOOK of a more
powerful telephoto lens without the WEIGHT of a larger lens (ALWAYS
USING A 300mm).
Click to expand...
 
Joe Marques said:
First, understand this - I'm NEVER referring to an actual 450mm
lens - I'm ALWAYS referring to a 300mm lens. Secondly, full frame
sensors already exist and are doing quite fine TOO (1Ds & Kodak
SLR/n).

There is NO difference between a small sensor camera and full frame
camera regarding lens perspective as MOUNTED (forgetting sensor
size). A 300mm lens is always 300mm LONG. The ONLY difference is
CROP FACTOR. A small sensor MISSES information that the lens
delivers by spilling light OFF the edges of the sensor (light that
a FF sensor would capture - are you starting to see my point?).

As a result a small sensor camera (D100, D70, D2H, D1x, etc.) is
said to have a CROP FACTOR of 1.5. That means the FOV of the 300mm
lens is the same as 450mm due to CROPPING (nothing else). Now,
please follow this carefully - shooting with a 300mm lens on a
small sensor is the SAME THING AS SHOOTING 300mm ON A FULL FRAME
SENSOR and CROPPING the middle. Read that again - it's the WHOLE
POINT.

I'll say it again - a 300mm on a FULL FRAME is 450mm IF you CROP
the APS sized center and enlarge. No difference at all other than
number of pixels cropped. So when we have 15 MP sensors (probably
next year for Canon) the center crop will be 6 MP and you will get
6 MP @ 450mm OR 15MP @ 300mm. You'll have a CHOICE by cropping
from 15 MP down to 6 MP or even 4 MP at 600mm if you prefer
(estimate since I don't care to do more math). You can crop ANY
amount off of 15 MP to get tighter FOV or the LOOK of a more
powerful telephoto lens without the WEIGHT of a larger lens (ALWAYS
USING A 300mm).

Example: the 1Ds is an 11 MP full frame sensor camera (no heavier
or more bulky than a small sensor camera since the sensor size
doesn't affect camera size). If you use a 300mm lens on a 1Ds AND
CROP the middle 42% you get a 4.5 MP image that looks like it was
shot with a 450mm lens (the same image as a 300mm lens on a
D2H/D100/D70 , etc.).

As for sensor cost - irrelevant to my point. Economies of scale
will make high rez full-frame sensors commoditized in 5-10 years
and they'll cost pennies on the dollar.

I'll say it one last time for emphasis - when 15 MP sensors are
affordable there is NO point in shooting APS sized sensors since
you can USE A SMALLER LENS (300mm) and by simply cropping out the
center in an APS size crop you will have a 6 MP image which equals
the D100 and most other modern dSLR's from 2004.

The PRIMARY advantage of APS sized sensors today is COST which is
not a long-term issue with technology (I paid $300 for a 30 Mhz
processor 10 years ago and paid LESS for a 3 Ghz processor last
year).

Joe

PS - Canon has done nothing special with noise other than use in
camera NR. I prefer Nikon's sharpness (D2H) and apply my own NR in
post processing.
wjansen said:
Smaller sensors ALREADY exist, and they are doing quite fine.
You're assuming I WANT a FF sensor so I would actually have to
carry a 450 to get that perspective rather than a smaller DX where
I could get the same perspective and speed with a much lighter 300.
By your reasoning we should be shooting MF and cropping down!
Right now noise is an issue with smaller sensors, but technology
will solve that problem. In fact noise has plagued some of the FF
sensors too--Kodak. And Canon has aquitted itself quite nicely re
noise on the D10. Remember I'm talking PERSPECTIVE here--it
changes when you change format size. A 300 on a DX has the same
perspective as a 450 on FF. So for a given perspective, the DX is
the smaller, lighter way to go.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You're leaving out a major drawback of the crop factor: image control.

One of the main reasons people spend thousands for bulky 300mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 lenses -- rather than less for lighter, cheaper 100-300 f5.6 zooms and 600mm f8 mirror lenses -- is to be able to ISOLATE THE SUBJECT. A 300mm f2.8 with a 1.5x crop DOES NOT provide the shallow DOF that a (theoretical -- none are presently made) 450 f2.8 lens would provide. It provides the CROPPED IMAGE provided by the 300mm f2.8.

Sub-35mm sensors are NOT a good substitute for ff sensors. When the price for ff starts dropping, many more people will be buying 'em.
 
Anthony Medici said:
I'm not sure where you are going with this but you're not going to
convince me that I "need" at 35mm sized sensor.
Click to expand...
Tony, it's pretty clear where I'm going. I'm correcting the guys misconception of FOV - nothing more (I'm certainly not advocating FF just realizing that it's probably inevitable ). You seem to want to debate the merits of FF which is not the purpose of my post. :)

My point is purely technical regarding crop factor (not DOF). 300mm=450mm FOV on APS sensor and the "advantage" of this crop factor goes away at 15 MP FF (which is 6 MP cropped).
Anthony Medici said:
Each size has its own strengths and weaknesses. The only thing that
doesn't change is the focal length and the perspective. Focal
length is obviously a factor of the glass used. And perspective is
a factor of how far away you are standing from the subject.
Click to expand...
Agrred.
Anthony Medici said:
The angle of view changes as the sensor size changes. The angle of
view of my D2H is full frame to me. ie: When I look though the view
finder, I get 100% of what I see on the image. Since I take the
image based on what I view through the view finder, I do not care
whether this is a crop compared to a 35mm camera or a 4x5 camera or
a 6x7 camera or that if I crop it, I can get what a 4/3 camera can.
All I care is that I captured what I was viewing when I took the
image.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I always considered my D2H "full frame" since that's what I see as well. My crop comparisons where to prove a point NOT make a case for FF.
Anthony Medici said:
Also, DOF varies since DOF is a mathematical formula based on
perceived sharpness of the image when enlarged a set amount. For
exactly the same angle of view, the DOF increases as the sensor
size decreases. That's because the focal length needed to obtain a
particular angle of view decreases. When the focal length at a set
distance decreases, the DOF increases. This means that practically
speaking, if you intend to get a LOT of the image in focus, the
small sensor has a big advantage over a bigger one. If your
intention is to get little in focus, the larger sensor has the
advantage.
Click to expand...
So stop down the lens on the FF camera and get back DOF (at the cost of shutter speed which IS/VR lenses help counter). You make a reasonable point but I don't find it a critical difference.
Anthony Medici said:
Given this advantage of a smaller sensor, it is easier to take a
landscape with a smaller sensor. This assumes that you have the
glass needed to obtain the correct angle of view needed. It also
has an advantage in macro work as you need less magnification to
get the same image. Less magnification means more DOF and more in
focus in the image. It also might mean less light needed since a
wider aperture might be able to be used.
Click to expand...
There's no landscape advantage to small sensor IMO. When I shoot landscape I get all the DOF I need regardless of sensor size (infinity doesn't change) and much rather prefer wider FOV.

Not too concerned with macro as well since 1:1 is enough for me.
Anthony Medici said:
At the same time, a larger sensor can isolate the subject easier
since more focal length is needed to take the image and the more
focal length you use, the narrower the DOF become.

As for cropping every image from 35mm size down to DX size, that
I'd rather not do. I'd rather take the image as I saw it through my
view finder. I'd also rather not buy at 16 mp camera simply to use
6 mp of it. I'd rather buy a 16 mp camera and use all 16 mp of it.
Whether that sensor is a 35mm sized sensor or an APS size sensor.
In fact, if it was a 4/3 sized sensor, I'd still be interested in
it since as long as I can find the right glass, I get a huge
advantage in DOF for landscape and macro work with it. If I need to
isolate and I can't find the glass, then I'll buy a camera and
glass combination that allows me to.
Click to expand...
Who's to say you'll need to "crop" manually? There's no reason why the viewfinder cannot have an electronic APS sized frame superimposed that you move around with a control pad to crop each shot "electronically" and 2 versions of the image our transferred to your computer - 1 full frame and 1 cropped.

BTW, I'd rather have more MP and use all of 'em too. :) Remember, my whole point was about correcting this guys misunderstanding of APS focal length "advantage" via crop factor. The "advantage" of ZOOM (300=450mm) disappears at 15 MP FF.

Joe
 








--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m
f2zoom said:
You're leaving out a major drawback of the crop factor: image control.
One of the main reasons people spend thousands for bulky 300mm f2.8
and 600mm f4 lenses -- rather than less for lighter, cheaper
100-300 f5.6 zooms and 600mm f8 mirror lenses -- is to be able to
ISOLATE THE SUBJECT. A 300mm f2.8 with a 1.5x crop DOES NOT
provide the shallow DOF that a (theoretical -- none are presently made)
450 f2.8 lens would provide. It provides the CROPPED IMAGE provided
by the 300mm f2.8.
Sub-35mm sensors are NOT a good substitute for ff sensors. When the
price for ff starts dropping, many more people will be buying 'em.
Click to expand...
 
All non full frame sensors use a part of the lenses image circle, which on most lenses (bar DX) is optimised for full frame 35mm.

Every lens has a maximum resolving power, but you have to enlarge the image 50% more with an APS-sized chip, just as if you were blowing up the central part of a 35mm frame. Aberrations and lack of critical sharpness will be more apparent.

Some nikkors are sharper than others, and there are preferred ones for DSLRS, like the 85/1.4 and 70-200. However, put any of them on a DCS 14 (or D3x,,,?) at its 6mp setting and make a 12x18 inch print you'll see that the shot is substantially sharper than a matching one on a D-series Nikon because you aren't stretching the lenses optical capabilities so much. The 24-120 illustrates this perfectly.

Shaun
Joe Marques said:
First, understand this - I'm NEVER referring to an actual 450mm
lens - I'm ALWAYS referring to a 300mm lens. Secondly, full frame
sensors already exist and are doing quite fine TOO (1Ds & Kodak
SLR/n).

There is NO difference between a small sensor camera and full frame
camera regarding lens perspective as MOUNTED (forgetting sensor
size). A 300mm lens is always 300mm LONG. The ONLY difference is
CROP FACTOR. A small sensor MISSES information that the lens
delivers by spilling light OFF the edges of the sensor (light that
a FF sensor would capture - are you starting to see my point?).

As a result a small sensor camera (D100, D70, D2H, D1x, etc.) is
said to have a CROP FACTOR of 1.5. That means the FOV of the 300mm
lens is the same as 450mm due to CROPPING (nothing else). Now,
please follow this carefully - shooting with a 300mm lens on a
small sensor is the SAME THING AS SHOOTING 300mm ON A FULL FRAME
SENSOR and CROPPING the middle. Read that again - it's the WHOLE
POINT.

I'll say it again - a 300mm on a FULL FRAME is 450mm IF you CROP
the APS sized center and enlarge. No difference at all other than
number of pixels cropped. So when we have 15 MP sensors (probably
next year for Canon) the center crop will be 6 MP and you will get
6 MP @ 450mm OR 15MP @ 300mm. You'll have a CHOICE by cropping
from 15 MP down to 6 MP or even 4 MP at 600mm if you prefer
(estimate since I don't care to do more math). You can crop ANY
amount off of 15 MP to get tighter FOV or the LOOK of a more
powerful telephoto lens without the WEIGHT of a larger lens (ALWAYS
USING A 300mm).

Example: the 1Ds is an 11 MP full frame sensor camera (no heavier
or more bulky than a small sensor camera since the sensor size
doesn't affect camera size). If you use a 300mm lens on a 1Ds AND
CROP the middle 42% you get a 4.5 MP image that looks like it was
shot with a 450mm lens (the same image as a 300mm lens on a
D2H/D100/D70 , etc.).

As for sensor cost - irrelevant to my point. Economies of scale
will make high rez full-frame sensors commoditized in 5-10 years
and they'll cost pennies on the dollar.

I'll say it one last time for emphasis - when 15 MP sensors are
affordable there is NO point in shooting APS sized sensors since
you can USE A SMALLER LENS (300mm) and by simply cropping out the
center in an APS size crop you will have a 6 MP image which equals
the D100 and most other modern dSLR's from 2004.

The PRIMARY advantage of APS sized sensors today is COST which is
not a long-term issue with technology (I paid $300 for a 30 Mhz
processor 10 years ago and paid LESS for a 3 Ghz processor last
year).

Joe

PS - Canon has done nothing special with noise other than use in
camera NR. I prefer Nikon's sharpness (D2H) and apply my own NR in
post processing.
wjansen said:
Smaller sensors ALREADY exist, and they are doing quite fine.
You're assuming I WANT a FF sensor so I would actually have to
carry a 450 to get that perspective rather than a smaller DX where
I could get the same perspective and speed with a much lighter 300.
By your reasoning we should be shooting MF and cropping down!
Right now noise is an issue with smaller sensors, but technology
will solve that problem. In fact noise has plagued some of the FF
sensors too--Kodak. And Canon has aquitted itself quite nicely re
noise on the D10. Remember I'm talking PERSPECTIVE here--it
changes when you change format size. A 300 on a DX has the same
perspective as a 450 on FF. So for a given perspective, the DX is
the smaller, lighter way to go. You also seem to forget the cost
of producing larger sensors is prohibitive. And the possibility of
VR in the body is much better with a smaller sensor than a larger
one.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Shaun
 
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