Full frame - Do you really need it?

[Cliff. Johnston]

Joe,

About 2 years ago I read a very brief paragraph in a magazine that one of the major players had a "revolutionary" new sensor in R&D. The sensor was said to have better color rendition, better resolution and cost considerably less to manufacture. There was no mention made of the manufacturer. I wonder if it might be Nikon? I also wonder when?? I wonder how much???

Cliff.

Joe,

Point well taken.

I appreciate the limits of my current gear, and I don't push it.
I'll be the first to admit that for the 5-15% of the images that
need a 1Ds (I'm not 100% digital) I go to film.

Film is still perfectly viable. Depending on what you're doing with
it, it's a little more work but it still produces great results. I
think that for someone who has the need for FF that is not
professional, film offers pretty good bang for the buck. Where the
body is extremely important with digital photography, film is less
dependenant on the body relying mostly upon the glass in front of
the film plane (and the nut behind the eyepiece).

Mind you, I will
not hesitate to buy a full frame dSLR someday when I've got nothing
better to do with that amount of spare change (but right now the
wife likes the new house on the lake, wants a new SUV, and I'm
pedaling just as fast as I can). If the 1 Ds is still state of the
art down the road - that's what I'll be buying even though I'm not
really a Canon fan. I'll credit where credit is due.

One thing is for sure, prices will drop! Nikon almost certainly has
something waiting in the wings with a ff sensor. I heard a rumor
(this was from a Canon rep so take it with a grain of salt) that
Nikon will be coming out with a new lens mount (basically a wider
apeture on the mount for higher quality optics). You know they've
got to have something good in the pipeline. They've been asleep at
the wheel for a while now but if Nikon can back up the feature set
of the D2H with good images they'll be well on their way to catch
up (in fact they'll be ahead of Canon as far as the 1D is concerned
in the PJ market).

Great image, by the way. Thanks for posting it. I enjoyed looking
at it.

Thanks! Cheers, Joe

--
'Don't play what's there, play what's not there.' - Miles Davis

--
Cliff. Johnston

 

[Michael Long]

But it's only 2003 and we're not there yet. My point is, a full
frame sensor only makes sense because we're trying to replace this
one bit (i.e. the image sensor) in a system that's based on
something we no longer intent to use.

Sorry, but I intend to use my $10,000 worth of Canon lenses for quite some time. You were doing good up til this point, but the fact remains that there's a huge infrastructure of existing lenses, flashes, and other gear designed around this format.

As such, FF makes perfect sense when you're trying to maximize pixel size AND pixel count in the space available. I could pack 11MP into a 10D-sized chip, but given the same technology, the image quality wouldn't be nearly as good as the FF version.

The 4/3rd system is a good example of how things could be resolved
around the full frame problem in the future - be it that particular
system or not.

As the 4/3 system is untried, untested, and unavailable, it's yet to see if it's going to be able to resolve anything. Given the price of the 300D, they're also going to need to bite the bullet cost-wise in order to compete.

Canon already has with a
re-vamped 24-70mm lens (used to be 28-70).

So? The extra 4mm in no way makes up for a 1.6x crop factor. I suspect the extra 4mm was a bonus that came from a new optical design, and the fact that they needed to design a new weather-sealed replacement for the 28-70 anyway.

 

[Dirk Vermeirre]

Hi Cliff,

I'm using the Fuji S2 Pro and I would hate if they make the S3 full size. First of all I often need very big prints and the quality of the images is that good that you even can use them for billboards (if using good lenses and take care about camera shake). For wide angle users a full frame could be a good thing but for the many tele users it would cost them a fortune or even made a lot of shots impossible to achieve what they can do now with the actual 1.5 factor. I'm wondered about how many people are discussing pixel quality and other things that if you print very large are simply invisible from the normal viewing distance. I have the impression that many don't print that very big and are analysing pixels on the screen, prints are mostly very different from what we see at 72dpi on a screen. It would be usefull to start a thread asking who is using very large formats, starting by for example 70x100 cm or 2 x 3 meters. My Fuji is delevering top quality on these formats and my clients are always very very happy with the results.

On the wide angle side I have no problems as I have the Nikkor 14mm and that covers almost all my needs. When I absolutely need the covering of the 14mm I always could use one of my analog Nikons. IMO there are not that many subjects for using a real 14mm.

On the other side our lenses would degrade in quality if used with full frame as we would use the outside of the glass, the weakest part. Many reviewers are giving 1 point more on a lens used on a 1.5 factor digital camera just for that reason. And on the tele side we would need to buy a donkey to carry all those very heavy lenses that we can't use handheld anymore and the price would be closer to a very chic car or a small house. I am in heaven with the actual situation and quality, I never couldn't reach this level of quality with my analog pictures. And last reason, especially for the wide angle users, is that Nikon started to build new light lenses for the smaller ccd's. If the next models will go full frame I will continue to use my S2's. When in the future full frame would become a lot cheaper I would maybe buy one, especially for using with my 50mm F1.4 and even more for the wonderfull 105 DC f2 Nikkor.
--
With very kind regards,

Dirk

http://www.pbase.com/dievee
http://www.2point8.be

 

[Jay247]

Sorry, but I intend to use my $10,000 worth of Canon lenses for
quite some time. You were doing good up til this point, but the
fact remains that there's a huge infrastructure of existing lenses,
flashes, and other gear designed around this format.

Nothing's forever mate - have a look at the massive arsenal of FD lenses and accessories! I bet that hurt quite a few people, (me included) but I'm afraid we're not buying technology for 10 years anymore.

As the 4/3 system is untried, untested, and unavailable, it's yet
to see if it's going to be able to resolve anything. Given the
price of the 300D, they're also going to need to bite the bullet
cost-wise in order to compete.

As I said, the 4/3rd system is a good example of what might happen to 35mm compatibility in the future, be it this particular system or not. It now IS available, and one huge advantage is that it makes camera equipment smaller and lighter. For many people this is extremely good news - especially press and sports people, for whom resolution isn't everything. And if Sony can cram 8MP on a 2/3in sensor, then I don't really see the piture quality or resolution problem on the 4/3rd front.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of this format! Hell, I want to keep my arsenal of EF lenses as much as you do, and I love my 1Ds. But my point is that we're only having this discussion because we're dealing with a system that is based on 35mm film - which we're all moving away from, hence a huge sensor like that really isn't necessary anymore for future developments.

 

[JamesMor]

FF will provide a seamless experience for people who use both film and digital bodies. This is a good thing.

-JM

Hi Cliff,

I'm using the Fuji S2 Pro and I would hate if they make the S3 full
size. First of all I often need very big prints and the quality of
the images is that good that you even can use them for billboards
(if using good lenses and take care about camera shake). For wide
angle users a full frame could be a good thing but for the many
tele users it would cost them a fortune or even made a lot of shots
impossible to achieve what they can do now with the actual 1.5
factor. I'm wondered about how many people are discussing pixel
quality and other things that if you print very large are simply
invisible from the normal viewing distance. I have the impression
that many don't print that very big and are analysing pixels on the
screen, prints are mostly very different from what we see at 72dpi
on a screen. It would be usefull to start a thread asking who is
using very large formats, starting by for example 70x100 cm or 2 x
3 meters. My Fuji is delevering top quality on these formats and my
clients are always very very happy with the results.
On the wide angle side I have no problems as I have the Nikkor 14mm
and that covers almost all my needs. When I absolutely need the
covering of the 14mm I always could use one of my analog Nikons.
IMO there are not that many subjects for using a real 14mm.
On the other side our lenses would degrade in quality if used with
full frame as we would use the outside of the glass, the weakest
part. Many reviewers are giving 1 point more on a lens used on a
1.5 factor digital camera just for that reason. And on the tele
side we would need to buy a donkey to carry all those very heavy
lenses that we can't use handheld anymore and the price would be
closer to a very chic car or a small house. I am in heaven with the
actual situation and quality, I never couldn't reach this level of
quality with my analog pictures. And last reason, especially for
the wide angle users, is that Nikon started to build new light
lenses for the smaller ccd's. If the next models will go full frame
I will continue to use my S2's. When in the future full frame would
become a lot cheaper I would maybe buy one, especially for using
with my 50mm F1.4 and even more for the wonderfull 105 DC f2 Nikkor.
--
With very kind regards,

Dirk

http://www.pbase.com/dievee
http://www.2point8.be

 

[aaron53665]

Hi Cliff,

I'm using the Fuji S2 Pro and I would hate if they make the S3 full
size. First of all I often need very big prints and the quality of
the images is that good that you even can use them for billboards
(if using good lenses and take care about camera shake). For wide
angle users a full frame could be a good thing but for the many
tele users it would cost them a fortune or even made a lot of shots
impossible to achieve what they can do now with the actual 1.5
factor. I'm wondered about how many people are discussing pixel
quality and other things that if you print very large are simply
invisible from the normal viewing distance. I have the impression
that many don't print that very big and are analysing pixels on the
screen, prints are mostly very different from what we see at 72dpi
on a screen. It would be usefull to start a thread asking who is
using very large formats, starting by for example 70x100 cm or 2 x
3 meters. My Fuji is delevering top quality on these formats and my
clients are always very very happy with the results.
On the wide angle side I have no problems as I have the Nikkor 14mm
and that covers almost all my needs. When I absolutely need the
covering of the 14mm I always could use one of my analog Nikons.
IMO there are not that many subjects for using a real 14mm.
On the other side our lenses would degrade in quality if used with
full frame as we would use the outside of the glass, the weakest
part. Many reviewers are giving 1 point more on a lens used on a
1.5 factor digital camera just for that reason. And on the tele
side we would need to buy a donkey to carry all those very heavy
lenses that we can't use handheld anymore and the price would be
closer to a very chic car or a small house. I am in heaven with the
actual situation and quality, I never couldn't reach this level of
quality with my analog pictures. And last reason, especially for
the wide angle users, is that Nikon started to build new light
lenses for the smaller ccd's. If the next models will go full frame
I will continue to use my S2's. When in the future full frame would
become a lot cheaper I would maybe buy one, especially for using
with my 50mm F1.4 and even more for the wonderfull 105 DC f2 Nikkor.

this has been so talked to death already... but, one more time... you wouldn't lose a single solitary thing, not a pixel. you wouldn't need new lenses if you're happy with what you have. your current lenses can get you the EXACT same photo with the same number of same sized pixels and you don't have to use the edges of the image circle if you don't want to. you'd simply have to crop yourself if and when you felt like it rather then being FORCED into cropping! the image you like so much now would exist within a larger sensor of the same pixel per inch density with the same size pixels & you could enlarge it to the same degree you do now with the same quality.

i just made an illustration, the ratio's, actual numbers and fields of view are not accurate, just roughly drawn and cropped to show the concept. but pretending that unevenly drawn grids i drew were real & pretending the larger "sensor" was 35mm sized then we'd be dealing with sensors of 49 PPI density. pretending that the circular images are image circles at the sensor plane from the same lens, the diagram shows how the smaller sensor simply covers a smaller portion of the image circle, it's not giving your lens more length or further reach. it's throwing the same image circle each time, but the one sensor just captures less of it.

the rectangular images represent enlargements of what each sensor captured with the same degree of enlargement. as you can see the portion of the image on the right, inside the red box, is the same as the entirety of what the other sensor captured & is the exact same size, and they're both 49 PPI captures. so if you wanted to make a bigger enlargement of the close-up of the head only you're working with the exact same material and you've gained nothing in size, focal length, quality, or anything, other then saving yourself the work of having to crop the large sensor image after the fact (and space on your memory card, but that's not an issue we've been talking about)

so you only wanted that close crop anyway, great, you've got it either way. but i, wanting the wider view have lost all that picture info that existed in the image circle on both shots, but was only captured by the larger chip & shows up as the image area outside of the red box in the right hand photo. the smaller sensor is not only a detriment to me who wants that wider view, but contrary to what you believe, it hurts you also if you want the closer image, because, rather then saving you from buying a longer lens, it's preventing you from just moving a few feet closer. if you had the same lens but larger (of equal PPI & quality) sensor you could move closer and fill the frame with what you wanted and have it at better quality & more information then was possible with your old sensor & you could enlarge it to greater degrees @ the same quality standard you previously used, or enlarge it to the same size as before @ higher quality than before.

you could also shoot a little "looser" to allow for more cropping choices later if you wanted, and i could use my wide angles as wide angles and get the view and info i wanted without having to move back which would GREATLY reduce my quality, my interaction with people or the scene, and often wouldn't even be possible in some situations. whereas if you're in a situation where you can't move closer for your telephoto shot then you still haven't lost anything compared to what you could get with the smaller sensor anyway.

 

[Cliff. Johnston]

Dirk,

Glad to hear that you are getting such good results from your S2 - that's one dSLR that I've been looking at too.

Hi Cliff,

I'm using the Fuji S2 Pro and I would hate if they make the S3 full
size. First of all I often need very big prints and the quality of
the images is that good that you even can use them for billboards
(if using good lenses and take care about camera shake). For wide
angle users a full frame could be a good thing but for the many
tele users it would cost them a fortune or even made a lot of shots
impossible to achieve what they can do now with the actual 1.5
factor. I'm wondered about how many people are discussing pixel
quality and other things that if you print very large are simply
invisible from the normal viewing distance. I have the impression
that many don't print that very big and are analysing pixels on the
screen, prints are mostly very different from what we see at 72dpi
on a screen. It would be usefull to start a thread asking who is
using very large formats, starting by for example 70x100 cm or 2 x
3 meters. My Fuji is delevering top quality on these formats and my
clients are always very very happy with the results.

I believe that you have hit the nail squarely on the head here, although I'm not sure what you define as "big prints". I think that most users are probably maxing out at 8x10 most of the time, with 4x6 & 5x7 being the most common. When we get up to 11x14 & 16x20 it is probably more of a special occasion, although I can see portrait photographers pushing these as that's where the $$$'s are.

What size prints are you doing? Subject matter? (If this is sensitive information, please contact me via my personal email address.)

On the wide angle side I have no problems as I have the Nikkor 14mm
and that covers almost all my needs. When I absolutely need the
covering of the 14mm I always could use one of my analog Nikons.
IMO there are not that many subjects for using a real 14mm.
On the other side our lenses would degrade in quality if used with
full frame as we would use the outside of the glass, the weakest
part. ...

This has been one of my thoughts/concerns too. Most of the comments about wanting/needing a wide angle come from users who are doing landscape/architectural work. I think that I'd give some serious consideration to stitching one or more images together for my occasional needs in that area.

With very kind regards,

Dirk

Thanks for your input - well state,

Cliff.

http://www.pbase.com/dievee
http://www.2point8.be

--
Cliff. Johnston

 

[Bill Dewey]

I am a D1H shooter, and absolutely love the "crop factor" or "magnification factor" or whatever you want to call it. What this gives us is the ability to haul around gear that is a bit lighter, and quite a bit less expensive, when going for those "long shots". We 1.5'rs do lose on the wide-angle side, but with the introduction of the 10.5 and 12-24 DX we are in pretty good shape. So, given that, why in the name of heaven would anyone need FF? I asked this question myself to a group of very knowledgable and diverse Nikon DSLR users and I got an education. There is the ability to seamlessly use all lenses with exactly the same results. The FF imager gives you the absolute maximum in resolution and detail, and as **** so very astutely points out, you don't lose a thing cropping to the smaller size, great post ****. It is very hard to argue, for group shots for example, the number of pixels attributed to an individual face. For example, I have a friend who has my old Fuji S1 and I have my D1H. Not much difference in MP's there but when I compare a group shot between my D1H and a D1X, I can resolve more detail on the crop of a single face off the D1X image. Go FF, more MP's, more ability to crop.

And then there is the intangible when it comes to selling product, and that is the perception of the client. In some cases, you just "gotta".

Bottom line for me is that the 1.5x imager makes my life "cheaper", and fits what I like to shoot. I have, however, come down off my high horse of "who needs FF", after understanding many of the other issues. I expect that we will see DSLR's with the two different formats for quite some time, forever I believe. And this is a trend that I particularly like. In a thread in the Nikon SLR Forum, one fellow likens this to the D1X being 35mm, the 1Ds MF, a sentiment that makes a great deal of sense to me.

Hi Cliff,

I'm using the Fuji S2 Pro and I would hate if they make the S3 full
size. First of all I often need very big prints and the quality of
the images is that good that you even can use them for billboards

SNIP

this has been so talked to death already... but, one more time...
you wouldn't lose a single solitary thing, not a pixel. you

SNIP
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com

 

[Lin Evans]

aaron wrote:
Hi Aaron,

This is all absolutely true, but there is one BIG difference. The full frame sensor with equal pixel size and density doesn't exist. If it did, the camera having it would, defacto, have much greater "resolution" than the same ppi reduced field of view sensor along with all that this entails including additional costs, etc.

What we do have presently is a 14n with considerably higher resolution than any six megapixel camera, a 1DS with considerably more resolution than any six megapixel camera, a Contax full frame (now discontinued) six megapixel camera with a full frame sensor and numerous six megapixel cameras with variously 1.3x, 1.5x and 1.6x reduced field of view sensors. We also have the Sigma SD9 with Foveon's processor which uses around 10 megapixel worth of "stacked" photosites to achieve a 3.5 megapixel array with a 1.7x reduced field of view.

The difficulty in not having a sensor available which has equality in terms of pixel count and density within the reduced field of view is that we can only discuss this issue as a "wish list."

In real life, our reduced field of view sensors do exactly what those who love them for the "crop factor" say - they give us the ability to use smaller, lighter lenses and achieve results we can't get with either 35mm film cameras or presently available higer resolution digital cameras. Just for the record, I use the Canon D30, 10D, 1D, 1DS and the Kodak DCS-760. These represent 1.6x, 1.6x, 1.3x, 1.0 and 1.3x respectively.

The results I get with telephoto using my 1.6x reduced field of view sensors exceed by a considerable margin what I can get by cropping a shot made with my EOS-1D to the same field of view. I get the "advantage" of having six megapixels of resolution defining the area within a given field of view which an image taken with my 1DS with the same lens from the same position and cropped to the identical field of view renders a 4.4 megapixel image.

When the day comes that a full frame sensor having identical pixel density that produces a cropped image equal to what my present or any contemporary reduced field of view sensor produces, I'll buy it and toss out all my reduced field of view cameras. Until that happens - and I'm not holding my breath - for telephoto work, I will still realize the considerable telephoto advantage of vesting the entire resolution of the sensor within that reduced field of view.

Best regards,

Lin

http://208.56.82.71

 

[Robert Briggs]

Yes, eventually we need affordable FF DSLR cameras. Remember, its been reported Nikon is getting very high production rates with their new LBCAST sensors so maybe the cost of FF LBCAST sensors isn't as high as it compared to CCD & CMOS. I can then use my FF lenses in the focal ranges I prefer to use them in. Gawd, I hope they come out with an equal to the 28-105 in the DX lens!

ALSO ... go look through a FF film 35mm camera and the viewfinder looks like a medium format size in comparison. Manual focusing is difficult with the current DX size viewfinders. And as we get older it becomes even more of a chore.

But I'm very happy with my D100. For my hobby, photographing drag racing, the 1/180 sync speed is too low for daylight fill flash.

Robert Briggs

Greetings from Sunny Texas,

I posted the following in part as a response on another thread, but
had second thoughts as it really is another distinct topic, so here
it is...

The question should be, "Do you really need a full frame dSLR?"

If one is doing nothing larger than 8x10 images then there is no
real need for a full frame dSLR such as the 1Ds and its
accompanying expense(s) as many other dSLRs on the market will do
the job just as well, if not better. It's only when one goes
considerably larger that the significant differences may become
apparent.

I came across another professional photographer this past week with
about $30,000+ of digital gear (including a Nikon with a Kodak 645N
digital back) doing static images of volleyball players. Overkill?
IMHO, yes. From what I've seen of his work, I can do better with
slightly less than $5,000 worth of gear. I base that comment on
what I've seen of his previous images and his lighting - flat, a
typical studio portrait slam-bam-thank-you-Mam trained p&s'er
(meant to be slightly derogatory). It's more a matter of
egocentricity in many cases. "Need" is often nothing more than a
psychological perception (or neurosis - depending on how strong one
wishes to put it). Of course the dSLR manufacturers do depend upon
those psychological weaknesses of ours to sell their gear - often
it's the name of the game.

If we ever had something akin to the "truth in lending" laws for
advertising dSLRs, we'd probably be in for some big surprises.

Cliff.

--
Cliff. Johnston

 

[aaron53665]

Hi Aaron,
This is all absolutely true, but there is one BIG difference. The
full frame sensor with equal pixel size and density doesn't exist.

The difficulty in not having a sensor available which has equality
in terms of pixel count and density within the reduced field of
view is that we can only discuss this issue as a "wish list."

well, a wish list is how i've approached these debates, for any one given camera it has one level of ppi and quality to it's sensor, so the question, to me anyway, is would i rather have it with the croped size or have an identical, but enlarged, sensor. i opt for the full frame for all the reasons previously mentioned. i think that's the only fair way to look at it since the debate always centers on do we want a smaller or larger sensor in the current dslr types that use our existing lenses. if you start talking about building new designs with new lenses, assuming a small sensor could have enough quality for pro demands, that's a different argument.

with my system, i want the best i can get from it, that means getting all the usable image area my camera/lens can achieve. whatever the best sensor design is, the best size/quality of pixels there is, that's what should be used in a sensor that covers the usable part of the image circle. the 35mm frame size & the lenses designed for it aren't arbitrary as many people claim in these discussions, not totally anyway. however arbitrarily or not the settling on 36x24mm frame was as a standard for the format, the fact is that the lenses have been specifically designed for that size. the lenses are made so that the image circle covers that size frame with usable quality according to accepted standards.

In real life, our reduced field of view sensors do exactly what
those who love them for the "crop factor" say - they give us the
ability to use smaller, lighter lenses and achieve results we can't
get with either 35mm film cameras or presently available higer
resolution digital cameras. Just for the record, I use the Canon
D30, 10D, 1D, 1DS and the Kodak DCS-760. These represent 1.6x,
1.6x, 1.3x, 1.0 and 1.3x respectively.

well since the argument always seems to be about whether people WANT FF or not, present real life isn't the issue to me, the issue is if they can make a sensor as good as they can make it, should they extend the area it covers by adding more of the same pixel wells or not? the answer for me is yes. i find it very hard to believe that you can't either use high quality film or the 1DS, and shooting on the same lens, that you can't get as good or better results in filling the frame to the same field of view as one of the 1.5 or 1.6 crop cameras.

i haven't shot any other dslr than the 10d, nor have i done any head to head test with that against any film yet, so i'm just going by sense memory on film and by what i've heard from others about the 1ds, but if you're right it just means that some combination of the sensor design and the electronics and software/processing of those crop cameras is better then same on the full frame cameras... hard to believe, but if true, then they should use that technology, or whatever is best at the time, to build the next FF sensor.

The results I get with telephoto using my 1.6x reduced field of
view sensors exceed by a considerable margin what I can get by
cropping a shot made with my EOS-1D to the same field of view. I
get the "advantage" of having six megapixels of resolution defining
the area within a given field of view which an image taken with my
1DS with the same lens from the same position and cropped to the
identical field of view renders a 4.4 megapixel image.

well, the 1d is only .3 different and it's older technology. either the processing is that much better on 10d, the pixels are better, or the larger pixels don't actually beat more but smaller pixels like so many people claim they do. you don't mention a comparison between 10d & 1ds though.

When the day comes that a full frame sensor having identical pixel
density that produces a cropped image equal to what my present or
any contemporary reduced field of view sensor produces, I'll buy it
and toss out all my reduced field of view cameras.

well, obviously once they make larger sensors with whatever is the best technology, or as good as what you have now, it will.

Until that
happens - and I'm not holding my breath - for telephoto work, I
will still realize the considerable telephoto advantage of vesting
the entire resolution of the sensor within that reduced field of
view.

well, unless you just don't have any use for wide angle at all i just can't understand that viewpoint. are you telling me that the whole history of telephoto photography is just not up to your standards? the best that canon or nikon big glass has been able to do with either film or a 1ds & whatever FF nikon comes up with, the same images that have filled sports ill, NG, stock catelogs and ad pages for years are simply below your standards now? and this incredible improvement you get with the 6mp 1.6 wondercams, not the pics you get, but the difference in the pics you get compared to those lousy dogs of old with same FOV, is worth not being able to take other pictures AT ALL on the wide end when you need wide @ f2.8 on a zoom?

right now i only have a 20-35 on the wide end, not even a 16 or 17 to 35. i'd have to get a 14 just get close to the 20 end, it would be 22.4, 2.4mm doesn't make any difference at all in a long lens, but at that end it's a noticible difference. and then it's just the one length instead of the zoom range, not versitle enough. a 16-35 only gets me the FOV of 25.6 @ the wide end, and it's a steep investment. eventually i'll get one, but i want it to be what it's supposed to be when i get it!

 

[Lin Evans]

Until that
happens - and I'm not holding my breath - for telephoto work, I
will still realize the considerable telephoto advantage of vesting
the entire resolution of the sensor within that reduced field of
view.

Aaron wrote:
well, unless you just don't have any use for wide angle at all i
just can't understand that viewpoint. are you telling me that the
whole history of telephoto photography is just not up to your
standards? the best that canon or nikon big glass has been able to
do with either film or a 1ds & whatever FF nikon comes up with, the
same images that have filled sports ill, NG, stock catelogs and ad
pages for years are simply below your standards now?

Sports Illustrated photographers all use the EOS-1D now and are very happy to have the 1.3x reduced field of view sensor. This has absolutely nothing to do with my standards or anyone elses - it has to do with the efficiency and convenience of using less glass to accomplish the same results. The savings in energy and convenience are not to be underestimated.

I do lots of wide angle and that's why I use my 1DS, my medium format film and Kodak back. I also do lots of telephoto field work and I absolutely "love" the 10D and 1D for the .6 and .3 telephoto boost I get. As for 35mm fine grain film, I get better telephoto results with my 10D, 50-500 sigma and 100-400L IS with 1.4x extenders than I can get with the same glass and 35mm fine grain film or my 1DS. If I have a situation where I can carry my 600 F4 and 1DS, that works great, but if you have never tried a high altitude (over 12,000 feet) 25 mile trek with a 600mm F4, tripod and head and other necessary peripherals to make it all work, then you have lots of fun in store for you. Hopefully, you are young enough and strong enough to arrive at your destination and still have the energy to get the shots and do the return hike. Believe me, I "much" prefer the 10D or 1D and smaller and much lighter glass to achieve the same ends.

and this
incredible improvement you get with the 6mp 1.6 wondercams, not the
pics you get, but the difference in the pics you get compared to
those lousy dogs of old with same FOV, is worth not being able to
take other pictures AT ALL on the wide end when you need wide @
f2.8 on a zoom?

The "lousy dogs of old" are wonderful with longer, heavier glass and much, much better for most wide angle applications. But in no way are they even remotely as "convenient," and the costs both in economics and in energy make them much more difficult to use in many cases. Sports Illustrated photographers are getting shots with their 1D and 400mm F2.8's which they could simply not do with their 35mm film and 600 F4's. They can move, get on the ground and shoot up, and simply do things with the smaller lighter combinations which would take superhuman strength and endurance with the bigger glass. Talk to them - I have - there isn't a single one of them which would go back to the full frame and big glass at the present stage of technology.

right now i only have a 20-35 on the wide end, not even a 16 or 17
to 35. i'd have to get a 14 just get close to the 20 end, it would
be 22.4, 2.4mm doesn't make any difference at all in a long lens,
but at that end it's a noticible difference. and then it's just the
one length instead of the zoom range, not versitle enough. a 16-35
only gets me the FOV of 25.6 @ the wide end, and it's a steep
investment. eventually i'll get one, but i want it to be what it's
supposed to be when i get it!

So what you are really telling me is that you like shooting wide angle and that you don't lilke the reduced field of view sensor. O.K., that's a valid reason and makes perfect sense. But give me the same consideration on the telephoto end. When I'm shooting telephoto I simply get better results with my 10D and smaller lenses than I do with my 35mm film or 1DS and the same lenses. Because of convenience and the smaller, lighter glass, I can get shots I simply could not do otherwise and for telephoto work I prefer the reduced field of view sensor and the advantages it affords me - it's just that simple

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Dirk Vermeirre]

Dirk,

Glad to hear that you are getting such good results from your S2 -
that's one dSLR that I've been looking at too.

I believe that you have hit the nail squarely on the head here,
although I'm not sure what you define as "big prints". I think
that most users are probably maxing out at 8x10 most of the time,
with 4x6 & 5x7 being the most common. When we get up to 11x14 &
16x20 it is probably more of a special occasion, although I can
see portrait photographers pushing these as that's where the $$$'s
are.

What size prints are you doing? Subject matter? (If this is
sensitive information, please contact me via my personal email
address.)

Several sizes but quite regularly 27.55 x 39 inches and even sometimes 118 x 157 inches.

This has been one of my thoughts/concerns too. Most of the
comments about wanting/needing a wide angle come from users who are
doing landscape/architectural work. I think that I'd give some
serious consideration to stitching one or more images together for
my occasional needs in that area.

Thanks for your input - well state,

Cliff.

http://www.pbase.com/dievee
http://www.2point8.be

--
Cliff. Johnston

--
With very kind regards,

Dirk

http://www.pbase.com/dievee
http://www.2point8.be

 

[Cliff. Johnston]

Lin,

Thanks for the input. I find it very interesting/educational to hear what others are actually experiencing in the field - the ivory tower guys with all of their bantering about physics, theory, etc. gets rather tiresome.

Cliff.

Until that
happens - and I'm not holding my breath - for telephoto work, I
will still realize the considerable telephoto advantage of vesting
the entire resolution of the sensor within that reduced field of
view.

Aaron wrote:
well, unless you just don't have any use for wide angle at all i
just can't understand that viewpoint. are you telling me that the
whole history of telephoto photography is just not up to your
standards? the best that canon or nikon big glass has been able to
do with either film or a 1ds & whatever FF nikon comes up with, the
same images that have filled sports ill, NG, stock catelogs and ad
pages for years are simply below your standards now?

Sports Illustrated photographers all use the EOS-1D now and are
very happy to have the 1.3x reduced field of view sensor. This has
absolutely nothing to do with my standards or anyone elses - it has
to do with the efficiency and convenience of using less glass to
accomplish the same results. The savings in energy and convenience
are not to be underestimated.

I do lots of wide angle and that's why I use my 1DS, my medium
format film and Kodak back. I also do lots of telephoto field work
and I absolutely "love" the 10D and 1D for the .6 and .3 telephoto
boost I get. As for 35mm fine grain film, I get better telephoto
results with my 10D, 50-500 sigma and 100-400L IS with 1.4x
extenders than I can get with the same glass and 35mm fine grain
film or my 1DS. If I have a situation where I can carry my 600 F4
and 1DS, that works great, but if you have never tried a high
altitude (over 12,000 feet) 25 mile trek with a 600mm F4, tripod
and head and other necessary peripherals to make it all work, then
you have lots of fun in store for you. Hopefully, you are young
enough and strong enough to arrive at your destination and still
have the energy to get the shots and do the return hike. Believe
me, I "much" prefer the 10D or 1D and smaller and much lighter
glass to achieve the same ends.

and this
incredible improvement you get with the 6mp 1.6 wondercams, not the
pics you get, but the difference in the pics you get compared to
those lousy dogs of old with same FOV, is worth not being able to
take other pictures AT ALL on the wide end when you need wide @
f2.8 on a zoom?

The "lousy dogs of old" are wonderful with longer, heavier glass
and much, much better for most wide angle applications. But in no
way are they even remotely as "convenient," and the costs both in
economics and in energy make them much more difficult to use in
many cases. Sports Illustrated photographers are getting shots with
their 1D and 400mm F2.8's which they could simply not do with their
35mm film and 600 F4's. They can move, get on the ground and shoot
up, and simply do things with the smaller lighter combinations
which would take superhuman strength and endurance with the bigger
glass. Talk to them - I have - there isn't a single one of them
which would go back to the full frame and big glass at the present
stage of technology.

right now i only have a 20-35 on the wide end, not even a 16 or 17
to 35. i'd have to get a 14 just get close to the 20 end, it would
be 22.4, 2.4mm doesn't make any difference at all in a long lens,
but at that end it's a noticible difference. and then it's just the
one length instead of the zoom range, not versitle enough. a 16-35
only gets me the FOV of 25.6 @ the wide end, and it's a steep
investment. eventually i'll get one, but i want it to be what it's
supposed to be when i get it!

So what you are really telling me is that you like shooting wide
angle and that you don't lilke the reduced field of view sensor.
O.K., that's a valid reason and makes perfect sense. But give me
the same consideration on the telephoto end. When I'm shooting
telephoto I simply get better results with my 10D and smaller
lenses than I do with my 35mm film or 1DS and the same lenses.
Because of convenience and the smaller, lighter glass, I can get
shots I simply could not do otherwise and for telephoto work I
prefer the reduced field of view sensor and the advantages it
affords me - it's just that simple

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

--
Cliff. Johnston

 

[waterskier]

Sports Illustrated photographers all use the EOS-1D now and are
very happy to have the 1.3x reduced field of view sensor. This has
absolutely nothing to do with my standards or anyone elses - it has
to do with the efficiency and convenience of using less glass to
accomplish the same results. The savings in energy and convenience
are not to be underestimated.

When I was trying to rent a 1Ds from one online company recently and I found out that Sports Illustrated had rented that camera for about two and half weeks. I found another source since I certainly wanted a FF camera for my needs.

So I guess even Sports Illustrated found a need for a FF camera for something.....

 

[Dirk Vermeirre]

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for your information and I love how you illustrated it, very clear and clever. But if you must have for example a 12 MP full size and a 12 MP 1.5 factor CCD the crop of the full size would have less pixels and the size would be a lot smaller, or am I wrong on this ? I'm very pixel hungry as I need often very big enlargments and I always prefer not to crop images to have as many information in my image as possible.

With very kind regards,

Dirk

http://www.pbase.com/dievee
http://www.2point8.be

 

[Lin Evans]

Sports Illustrated photographers all use the EOS-1D now and are
very happy to have the 1.3x reduced field of view sensor. This has
absolutely nothing to do with my standards or anyone elses - it has
to do with the efficiency and convenience of using less glass to
accomplish the same results. The savings in energy and convenience
are not to be underestimated.

When I was trying to rent a 1Ds from one online company recently
and I found out that Sports Illustrated had rented that camera for
about two and half weeks. I found another source since I certainly
wanted a FF camera for my needs.

So I guess even Sports Illustrated found a need for a FF camera for
something.....

Yes, Sports Illustrated does not only action shots, but they also do studio and stills and several of their photographers use the 1DS for these shots. They use the 1D exclusively now for action photos, but their "go to" guy, Peter Read Miller, was just interviewed by Christopher Robinson in the premier edition of the new magazine Digital Photo Pro and Peter uses the 10D, 1D and 1DS. Christopher naturally thought that things like fast turnaround, no film and processing costs and easy-to-send images were responsible for SI going all digital. He was totally surprised when Peter said, and I quote, "SI is committed to running the best sports photos in the world. Image quality is what matters. ... "The photographs are just better from the digital camera, particularly the night shots. There's just no comparison to the film."

I would suggest reading the issue for further information - but yes, they do use the 1DS for it's superior resolution for some stills.

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Lin Evans]

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for your information and I love how you illustrated it, very
clear and clever. But if you must have for example a 12 MP full
size and a 12 MP 1.5 factor CCD the crop of the full size would
have less pixels and the size would be a lot smaller, or am I wrong
on this ? I'm very pixel hungry as I need often very big
enlargments and I always prefer not to crop images to have as many
information in my image as possible.

With very kind regards,

Dirk

Hi Dirk,

"IF" the pixel density, well depth, etc., in a full frame camera were identical to the 1.5x field of view crop camera, a crop to 1.5x would indeed from this hypothetical full frame would be identical to the native capture from the 1.5x "crop factor" sensor, but such a sensor doesn't exist presently, and may never exist. If it did, and costs were no object, we could all throw our reduced field of view cameras away and we would be quite happy with the full frame replacement.

Lin

--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Hotwood]

I don't like the little view finders on most DSLRs Full frame would be nice!

Greetings from Sunny Texas,

I posted the following in part as a response on another thread, but
had second thoughts as it really is another distinct topic, so here
it is...

The question should be, "Do you really need a full frame dSLR?"

If one is doing nothing larger than 8x10 images then there is no
real need for a full frame dSLR such as the 1Ds and its
accompanying expense(s) as many other dSLRs on the market will do
the job just as well, if not better. It's only when one goes
considerably larger that the significant differences may become
apparent.

I came across another professional photographer this past week with
about $30,000+ of digital gear (including a Nikon with a Kodak 645N
digital back) doing static images of volleyball players. Overkill?
IMHO, yes. From what I've seen of his work, I can do better with
slightly less than $5,000 worth of gear. I base that comment on
what I've seen of his previous images and his lighting - flat, a
typical studio portrait slam-bam-thank-you-Mam trained p&s'er
(meant to be slightly derogatory). It's more a matter of
egocentricity in many cases. "Need" is often nothing more than a
psychological perception (or neurosis - depending on how strong one
wishes to put it). Of course the dSLR manufacturers do depend upon
those psychological weaknesses of ours to sell their gear - often
it's the name of the game.

If we ever had something akin to the "truth in lending" laws for
advertising dSLRs, we'd probably be in for some big surprises.

Cliff.

--
Cliff. Johnston

 

[aaron53665]

Sports Illustrated photographers all use the EOS-1D now and are
very happy to have the 1.3x reduced field of view sensor. This has
absolutely nothing to do with my standards or anyone elses - it has
to do with the efficiency and convenience of using less glass to
accomplish the same results. The savings in energy and convenience
are not to be underestimated.

i responded to dirk who mentioned the gains he's getting from his crop factor in using particular lenses, i think it's been clear that i've been talking about what is or isn't gained by the crop factor in a single camera. so my point about standards was regarding a trade off between what is lost, and it is truly lost forever, never recorded at all, on the uncaptured part of the image circle, vs. the gain you're claiming in shooting a given subject from the same distance from the same lens, assuming the cropped camera gives you the composition you want, over the same circumstance but having to crop that portion for the same composition. the only comparison to make is between a 1ds and a 10d today, and i'm still not convinced the 10d shot would be so much better.

but even if it is, the standards point is that a frame filling shot of a wide receiver, a models face, or a lion, shot with a 300 2.8, 400 2.8 or 600 f4, either on film or with a 1ds, has always, and will always, be professionally acceptable. it will be good or great or not depending on the host of factors you're well aware of, NONE of which is remotely related to whether or not the image was technically good enough due to limitations imposed by any system other then the 1.6 crop wondercams. if you don't concede that you're not being honest. regardless, as you know, i was talking about a sensor of identical properties, so all arguments are out the window.

I do lots of wide angle and that's why I use my 1DS, my medium
format film and Kodak back. I also do lots of telephoto field work
and I absolutely "love" the 10D and 1D for the .6 and .3 telephoto
boost I get. As for 35mm fine grain film, I get better telephoto
results with my 10D, 50-500 sigma and 100-400L IS with 1.4x
extenders than I can get with the same glass and 35mm fine grain
film or my 1DS.

well, you're kodak back doesn't get you wide angle either. you're talking about using extra systems to make up for what you lose with the cropped sensor. if you have a given set of lenses for your dslr you should be able to take full advantage of all the capabilities of your full arsenal. that's what this has been all about, and a FF sensor of equal quality will get you that, that's basically all i've been saying and you've already acknowledged the obvious truth of that.

pics you get, but the difference in the pics you get compared to
those lousy dogs of old with same FOV, is worth not being able to
take other pictures AT ALL on the wide end when you need wide @
f2.8 on a zoom?

The "lousy dogs of old" are wonderful with longer, heavier glass
and much, much better for most wide angle applications. But in no
way are they even remotely as "convenient," and the costs both in
economics and in energy make them much more difficult to use in
many cases. Sports Illustrated photographers are getting shots with
their 1D and 400mm F2.8's which they could simply not do with their
35mm film and 600 F4's. They can move, get on the ground and shoot
up, and simply do things with the smaller lighter combinations
which would take superhuman strength and endurance with the bigger
glass. Talk to them - I have - there isn't a single one of them
which would go back to the full frame and big glass at the present
stage of technology.

if the sensors are good enough to get what they want by using less glass and a smaller portion of the image circle that's peachy, but if the same sensor was bigger with the same ppi quality they could still shoot with whatever smaller lighter glass they like and still get the same pictures. but they'd also get use of wide angle and more picture info in the long shots which might add important content in some shots unexpectedly, & if not then they crop it out.

So what you are really telling me is that you like shooting wide
angle and that you don't lilke the reduced field of view sensor.
O.K., that's a valid reason and makes perfect sense. But give me
the same consideration on the telephoto end. When I'm shooting
telephoto I simply get better results with my 10D and smaller
lenses than I do with my 35mm film or 1DS and the same lenses.
Because of convenience and the smaller, lighter glass, I can get
shots I simply could not do otherwise and for telephoto work I
prefer the reduced field of view sensor and the advantages it
affords me - it's just that simple

i don't think you need consideration, either cropped sensors will still be made and cost less then FF if that's what you still want, or FF will become cheap enough that you won't care. a few years ago a 2mp dslr cost 28 grand, the still pretty new 1ds has already dropped in price, it won't be that long before a 10d quality chip (if that's really the best quality per square inch which i'm skeptical of) is made full frame at a decent price. then the price of an a 1.6 camera will drop even lower and you can be even happier.