Full Frame Image Quality, Myth or Reality?

[En Trance]

This debate is not about any specific size of sensor or imaging area. The 24x36mm size is indeed arbitrary. The absolute size has nothing to do with this discussion.

We're generally in agreement, except I'd say that the 35mm size approximates a design optimum, taking many factors into account. It isn't entirely arbitrary.

35mm was a "design optimum" if you want to call it that, for a movie film camera. 36x24 millimeters is a design optimum based on film stock that was already available yet intended to be used in the other orientation and a different sized image.

So it's almost accurate to say that it's arbitrary because they chose it because of the film stock that was already in use. If there were no 35mm film there is no reason to think that digital cameras today would have ever had exactly 36x24 millimeter sensors.

You are not getting it. Even if it was optimized after discussions with Jesus Christ, it has absolutely nothing to do with the design of digital cameras.

Canon would like to have a standard size so as not to expose their inferior sensor design. The FF Sensor allure is simply Canon's attempt to tie Sony's hands behind their backs. Canon are actually terrified of just how small the next round of Sony sensors may be, or how many MPs are on the next generation FF Sony sensor. I can't wait!

Leave the camera design to Sony, K?

 

[Luke Kaven]

A digital camera, lens, sensor combination that is optimized by design has much more merit than a sensor size that is designed to maintain use of some old film photographers lens collection.

You would be the troll who is making an unwanted appearance on my thread. Guess I will give you a pass since you appear to be hyper excitable. Maybe a shot of scotch will help you. Its Friday, have one on me.

The reason that sensor size was chosen in the very first place was because it was an optical design optimum with practical advantages. Give or take a millimeter or two.

This is first-year engineering stuff. You should not be so self-certain.

You need to consider "Digital Revolution" again. If you don't think that the design equations have significantly changed, then I certainly can't help with that.

What does "digital revolution" mean to your argument? What do you think I should be considering. Tell me where the design equations have changed in this regard.

One more time. If you do not recognize significant change in design variables as one moves away from film based camera design, to digital camera design, then I can't help with that.

Let me try. Developer, Stopper, Water Bath, Dryer. Then we go to the enlarger. Can't wait to see the pictures!

So you list the obvious things we both know, none of which pertain to the question.

Is your claim that there is a new design optimum? Great. Just tell us what it is.

It is no longer "It". It is not "35mm film". Are you saying that Sony did not optimize its a77 design with its crop sensor? Are you saying that Canon did not optimize its FF 5dIII design around that gigantic sensor?

Why don't you try to tell me how an old film camera was optimized around storage media, power battery life, FPS, s/n ratio, max ISO, sensor size, buffer size, and processing speed.

You're asking the wrong questions, so as to presuppose an answer. Of course no old film camera was ever designed with a consideration of technology that didn't yet exist. However, many things are invariant in design considerations in both film and digital:

The 35mm form factor was designed around a near-optimum combination of (1) size for a receptor surface and ability to record sufficient photons with high fidelity, (2) optical design sweet spots, (3) ability to gather light sufficient for everyday situations at reasonable shutter speeds, (4) mechanical design, manufacturing, reliability, and usability considerations, (5) ability to produce very good enlargements for publication or presentation, and last but not least (6) human usability factors.

You began here by claiming that the full frame sensor had no noise advantages over crop cameras. Do you still believe that? If you still believe that, there's no point in reading the next paragraph until you get straightened out on the basic math.

My questions for you:

What sensor size do you believe to be the optimum for a digital camera?

What range of sensor sizes do you believe ought to be made?

 

[Luke Kaven]

This debate is not about any specific size of sensor or imaging area. The 24x36mm size is indeed arbitrary. The absolute size has nothing to do with this discussion.

We're generally in agreement, except I'd say that the 35mm size approximates a design optimum, taking many factors into account. It isn't entirely arbitrary.

35mm was a "design optimum" if you want to call it that, for a movie film camera. 36x24 millimeters is a design optimum based on film stock that was already available yet intended to be used in the other orientation and a different sized image.

So it's almost accurate to say that it's arbitrary because they chose it because of the film stock that was already in use. If there were no 35mm film there is no reason to think that digital cameras today would have ever had exactly 36x24 millimeter sensors.

As we know, super-35 frames are a little over 16x24mm. The reason motion picture cameras can get away with that is because of the rapid serial presentation of frames, which disguises noise. As you also know, 16mm does not look that good.

For the still camera, a larger format was needed. Most photography was done on medium format roll film in those days. But those formats were unwieldy. The 35mm camera produced an image on negative or positive that, in its highest quality, was perfectly acceptable for magazine format, newspaper format, medium sized gallery enlargements, slide projection.

A number of factors converged. Size of film and ability to gather sufficient photons without an unacceptable amount of noise. Optical, mechanical, and cost considerations of lens design. Size and cost of camera and materials needed to make it. And yes, considerations of available film stock.

But even if the film stock had not been available, there is -- somewhere in the middle -- a good set of design compromises that optimize many considerations for a sensor format all at once. In the digital age, most of these considerations, except for the film stock, still hold.

Do you have a better size format to propose as a good design optimum? It might not be exactly 24x36mm, but I'll bet you it will be pretty close, give or take a couple of millimeters.

 

[Spotted Cow]

After having gone through all the posts so far, I think the OP's mistake was posting this as a question when obviously he should have posted it as a statement. After having read all the OP's posts, there was no question there to beging with.

 

[AmbleYonder]

The idea that any sensor with 24 x 36 dimension has lower noise than any crop sensor is totally absurd.

sony SLT -A77 is reported to have high noise issues "clumpy and large" tests show even noisier than the 7D .....gulp.......... and i thought i had the noisiest crop on the block

but don't worry if you shoot your models under controlled conditions and optimum lighting i am sure you can handle it

.....and I think thats what this constant denial to except FF as a superior medium is all about .

i have a simple fix for that , its your own standards of IQ that matters forget FF as it make no difference to your photography does it ?

 

[Luke Kaven]

The idea that any sensor with 24 x 36 dimension has lower noise than any crop sensor is totally absurd.

Every full-frame camera made today has greater dynamic range and lower noise than an "ideal APS-C" sensor. An "ideal" sensor is one with 100% quantum efficiency, and zero read noise.

 

[En Trance]

A digital camera, lens, sensor combination that is optimized by design has much more merit than a sensor size that is designed to maintain use of some old film photographers lens collection.

You would be the troll who is making an unwanted appearance on my thread. Guess I will give you a pass since you appear to be hyper excitable. Maybe a shot of scotch will help you. Its Friday, have one on me.

The reason that sensor size was chosen in the very first place was because it was an optical design optimum with practical advantages. Give or take a millimeter or two.

This is first-year engineering stuff. You should not be so self-certain.

You need to consider "Digital Revolution" again. If you don't think that the design equations have significantly changed, then I certainly can't help with that.

What does "digital revolution" mean to your argument? What do you think I should be considering. Tell me where the design equations have changed in this regard.

One more time. If you do not recognize significant change in design variables as one moves away from film based camera design, to digital camera design, then I can't help with that.

Let me try. Developer, Stopper, Water Bath, Dryer. Then we go to the enlarger. Can't wait to see the pictures!

So you list the obvious things we both know, none of which pertain to the question.

Is your claim that there is a new design optimum? Great. Just tell us what it is.

It is no longer "It". It is not "35mm film". Are you saying that Sony did not optimize its a77 design with its crop sensor? Are you saying that Canon did not optimize its FF 5dIII design around that gigantic sensor?

Why don't you try to tell me how an old film camera was optimized around storage media, power battery life, FPS, s/n ratio, max ISO, sensor size, buffer size, and processing speed.

You're asking the wrong questions, so as to presuppose an answer. Of course no old film camera was ever designed with a consideration of technology that didn't yet exist. However, many things are invariant in design considerations in both film and digital:

The 35mm form factor was designed around a near-optimum combination of (1) size for a receptor surface and ability to record sufficient photons with high fidelity, (2) optical design sweet spots, (3) ability to gather light sufficient for everyday situations at reasonable shutter speeds, (4) mechanical design, manufacturing, reliability, and usability considerations, (5) ability to produce very good enlargements for publication or presentation, and last but not least (6) human usability factors.

You began here by claiming that the full frame sensor had no noise advantages over crop cameras. Do you still believe that? If you still believe that, there's no point in reading the next paragraph until you get straightened out on the basic math.

My questions for you:

What sensor size do you believe to be the optimum for a digital camera?

What range of sensor sizes do you believe ought to be made?

No sir. I asked the right question. Now you are answering your own silly question about digital design and it is clear that your film camera did not use any of today's design parameters. What is still not answered is why you think one comes up with 35mm again and for an electronic sensor.

 

[Luke Kaven]

A digital camera, lens, sensor combination that is optimized by design has much more merit than a sensor size that is designed to maintain use of some old film photographers lens collection.

You would be the troll who is making an unwanted appearance on my thread. Guess I will give you a pass since you appear to be hyper excitable. Maybe a shot of scotch will help you. Its Friday, have one on me.

The reason that sensor size was chosen in the very first place was because it was an optical design optimum with practical advantages. Give or take a millimeter or two.

This is first-year engineering stuff. You should not be so self-certain.

You need to consider "Digital Revolution" again. If you don't think that the design equations have significantly changed, then I certainly can't help with that.

What does "digital revolution" mean to your argument? What do you think I should be considering. Tell me where the design equations have changed in this regard.

One more time. If you do not recognize significant change in design variables as one moves away from film based camera design, to digital camera design, then I can't help with that.

Let me try. Developer, Stopper, Water Bath, Dryer. Then we go to the enlarger. Can't wait to see the pictures!

So you list the obvious things we both know, none of which pertain to the question.

Is your claim that there is a new design optimum? Great. Just tell us what it is.

It is no longer "It". It is not "35mm film". Are you saying that Sony did not optimize its a77 design with its crop sensor? Are you saying that Canon did not optimize its FF 5dIII design around that gigantic sensor?

Why don't you try to tell me how an old film camera was optimized around storage media, power battery life, FPS, s/n ratio, max ISO, sensor size, buffer size, and processing speed.

You're asking the wrong questions, so as to presuppose an answer. Of course no old film camera was ever designed with a consideration of technology that didn't yet exist. However, many things are invariant in design considerations in both film and digital:

The 35mm form factor was designed around a near-optimum combination of (1) size for a receptor surface and ability to record sufficient photons with high fidelity, (2) optical design sweet spots, (3) ability to gather light sufficient for everyday situations at reasonable shutter speeds, (4) mechanical design, manufacturing, reliability, and usability considerations, (5) ability to produce very good enlargements for publication or presentation, and last but not least (6) human usability factors.

You began here by claiming that the full frame sensor had no noise advantages over crop cameras. Do you still believe that? If you still believe that, there's no point in reading the next paragraph until you get straightened out on the basic math.

My questions for you:

What sensor size do you believe to be the optimum for a digital camera?

What range of sensor sizes do you believe ought to be made?

No sir. I asked the right question. Now you are answering your own silly question about digital design and it is clear that your film camera did not use any of today's design parameters. What is still not answered is why you think one comes up with 35mm again and for an electronic sensor.

I asked you what you would come up with as the optimal design format for a digital camera. Do you have no proposal?

 

[AmbleYonder]

No sir. I asked the right question. Now you are answering your own silly question about digital design and it is clear that your film camera did not use any of today's design parameters. What is still not answered is why you think one comes up with 35mm again and for an electronic sensor.

I asked you what you would come up with as the optimal design format for a digital camera. Do you have no proposal?

,its a rather large straw man as its not on the market so he can not use it anyway , i have a sneaky suspicion they wont be hiring him to design it either

 

[En Trance]

A digital camera, lens, sensor combination that is optimized by design has much more merit than a sensor size that is designed to maintain use of some old film photographers lens collection.

You would be the troll who is making an unwanted appearance on my thread. Guess I will give you a pass since you appear to be hyper excitable. Maybe a shot of scotch will help you. Its Friday, have one on me.

The reason that sensor size was chosen in the very first place was because it was an optical design optimum with practical advantages. Give or take a millimeter or two.

This is first-year engineering stuff. You should not be so self-certain.

You need to consider "Digital Revolution" again. If you don't think that the design equations have significantly changed, then I certainly can't help with that.

What does "digital revolution" mean to your argument? What do you think I should be considering. Tell me where the design equations have changed in this regard.

One more time. If you do not recognize significant change in design variables as one moves away from film based camera design, to digital camera design, then I can't help with that.

Let me try. Developer, Stopper, Water Bath, Dryer. Then we go to the enlarger. Can't wait to see the pictures!

So you list the obvious things we both know, none of which pertain to the question.

Is your claim that there is a new design optimum? Great. Just tell us what it is.

It is no longer "It". It is not "35mm film". Are you saying that Sony did not optimize its a77 design with its crop sensor? Are you saying that Canon did not optimize its FF 5dIII design around that gigantic sensor?

Why don't you try to tell me how an old film camera was optimized around storage media, power battery life, FPS, s/n ratio, max ISO, sensor size, buffer size, and processing speed.

You're asking the wrong questions, so as to presuppose an answer. Of course no old film camera was ever designed with a consideration of technology that didn't yet exist. However, many things are invariant in design considerations in both film and digital:

The 35mm form factor was designed around a near-optimum combination of (1) size for a receptor surface and ability to record sufficient photons with high fidelity, (2) optical design sweet spots, (3) ability to gather light sufficient for everyday situations at reasonable shutter speeds, (4) mechanical design, manufacturing, reliability, and usability considerations, (5) ability to produce very good enlargements for publication or presentation, and last but not least (6) human usability factors.

You began here by claiming that the full frame sensor had no noise advantages over crop cameras. Do you still believe that? If you still believe that, there's no point in reading the next paragraph until you get straightened out on the basic math.

My questions for you:

What sensor size do you believe to be the optimum for a digital camera?

What range of sensor sizes do you believe ought to be made?

No sir. I asked the right question. Now you are answering your own silly question about digital design and it is clear that your film camera did not use any of today's design parameters. What is still not answered is why you think one comes up with 35mm again and for an electronic sensor.

I asked you what you would come up with as the optimal design format for a digital camera. Do you have no proposal?

You need to stay on topic or start your own thread and stop trolling mine. FULL FRAME MYTH, OK?

 

[En Trance]

No sir. I asked the right question. Now you are answering your own silly question about digital design and it is clear that your film camera did not use any of today's design parameters. What is still not answered is why you think one comes up with 35mm again and for an electronic sensor.

I asked you what you would come up with as the optimal design format for a digital camera. Do you have no proposal?

,its a rather large straw man as its not on the market so he can not use it anyway , i have a sneaky suspicion they wont be hiring him to design it either

In a very short period of time you will surely find that the basis for the design of EVERY Digital Camera will be a Sony Sensor. Yes I own one and I will be buying the 40+MP Beta version as soon as it is available! Bet on that.

Maybe you will be able to afford 18MP from Canon?

 

[Luke Kaven]

A digital camera, lens, sensor combination that is optimized by design has much more merit than a sensor size that is designed to maintain use of some old film photographers lens collection.

You would be the troll who is making an unwanted appearance on my thread. Guess I will give you a pass since you appear to be hyper excitable. Maybe a shot of scotch will help you. Its Friday, have one on me.

The reason that sensor size was chosen in the very first place was because it was an optical design optimum with practical advantages. Give or take a millimeter or two.

This is first-year engineering stuff. You should not be so self-certain.

You need to consider "Digital Revolution" again. If you don't think that the design equations have significantly changed, then I certainly can't help with that.

What does "digital revolution" mean to your argument? What do you think I should be considering. Tell me where the design equations have changed in this regard.

One more time. If you do not recognize significant change in design variables as one moves away from film based camera design, to digital camera design, then I can't help with that.

Let me try. Developer, Stopper, Water Bath, Dryer. Then we go to the enlarger. Can't wait to see the pictures!

So you list the obvious things we both know, none of which pertain to the question.

Is your claim that there is a new design optimum? Great. Just tell us what it is.

It is no longer "It". It is not "35mm film". Are you saying that Sony did not optimize its a77 design with its crop sensor? Are you saying that Canon did not optimize its FF 5dIII design around that gigantic sensor?

Why don't you try to tell me how an old film camera was optimized around storage media, power battery life, FPS, s/n ratio, max ISO, sensor size, buffer size, and processing speed.

You're asking the wrong questions, so as to presuppose an answer. Of course no old film camera was ever designed with a consideration of technology that didn't yet exist. However, many things are invariant in design considerations in both film and digital:

The 35mm form factor was designed around a near-optimum combination of (1) size for a receptor surface and ability to record sufficient photons with high fidelity, (2) optical design sweet spots, (3) ability to gather light sufficient for everyday situations at reasonable shutter speeds, (4) mechanical design, manufacturing, reliability, and usability considerations, (5) ability to produce very good enlargements for publication or presentation, and last but not least (6) human usability factors.

You began here by claiming that the full frame sensor had no noise advantages over crop cameras. Do you still believe that? If you still believe that, there's no point in reading the next paragraph until you get straightened out on the basic math.

My questions for you:

What sensor size do you believe to be the optimum for a digital camera?

What range of sensor sizes do you believe ought to be made?

No sir. I asked the right question. Now you are answering your own silly question about digital design and it is clear that your film camera did not use any of today's design parameters. What is still not answered is why you think one comes up with 35mm again and for an electronic sensor.

I asked you what you would come up with as the optimal design format for a digital camera. Do you have no proposal?

You need to stay on topic or start your own thread and stop trolling mine. FULL FRAME MYTH, OK?

We took care of the "myth" part in minutes. Turns out it was your myth. Every full-frame camera manufactured today has lower noise than even the idea APS-C sensor (100% QC, zero noise).

So what's left? You persist in calling the 35mm form factor "absurd", "pathetic". So here's your choice. What is the right form factor? Give us what you think the camera should be.

 

[AmbleYonder]

You need to stay on topic or start your own thread and stop trolling mine. FULL FRAME MYTH, OK?

the fact is your opinion is a completely fabricated myth . you even got a crop shooter siding with the FFs and you have simply skipped over the reality with straw-man arguments, what your doing is trying to bash a large square peg into a small round hole with your forehead and its never going to fit however hard you bash......i suggest you give it up and enjoy the IQ your happy with

 

[hfjacinto]

I can only talk from my experience, full frame is better for image quality/ noise/ dynamic range compared to the 4/3 system of the Olympus. Not saying it's all sensor, heck one of my lens cost more than the whole 3 lens setup of the Olympus system. So lens are better. But going full frame I would never go back. Never it's that much better for what I use it for, so the only myth I know is that smaller sensors are better.

 

[AmbleYonder]

No sir. I asked the right question. Now you are answering your own silly question about digital design and it is clear that your film camera did not use any of today's design parameters. What is still not answered is why you think one comes up with 35mm again and for an electronic sensor.

I asked you what you would come up with as the optimal design format for a digital camera. Do you have no proposal?

,its a rather large straw man as its not on the market so he can not use it anyway , i have a sneaky suspicion they wont be hiring him to design it either

In a very short period of time you will surely find that the basis for the design of EVERY Digital Camera will be a Sony Sensor. Yes I own one and I will be buying the 40+MP Beta version as soon as it is available! Bet on that.

Maybe you will be able to afford 18MP from Canon?

i already have 18mp thank you very much if i want more the canon 50mp is out in march thats FF in case you were wondering

 

[En Trance]

You need to stay on topic or start your own thread and stop trolling mine. FULL FRAME MYTH, OK?

the fact is your opinion is a completely fabricated myth . you even got a crop shooter siding with the FFs and you have simply skipped over the reality with straw-man arguments, what your doing is trying to bash a large square peg into a small round hole with your forehead and its never going to fit however hard you bash......i suggest you give it up and enjoy the IQ your happy with

But you will be shooting with a Sony Sensor very soon and I pray that they use a superior size than the last size film that some farm photographer used in the 1990s.

 

[En Trance]

No sir. I asked the right question. Now you are answering your own silly question about digital design and it is clear that your film camera did not use any of today's design parameters. What is still not answered is why you think one comes up with 35mm again and for an electronic sensor.

I asked you what you would come up with as the optimal design format for a digital camera. Do you have no proposal?

,its a rather large straw man as its not on the market so he can not use it anyway , i have a sneaky suspicion they wont be hiring him to design it either

In a very short period of time you will surely find that the basis for the design of EVERY Digital Camera will be a Sony Sensor. Yes I own one and I will be buying the 40+MP Beta version as soon as it is available! Bet on that.

Maybe you will be able to afford 18MP from Canon?

i already have 18mp thank you very much if i want more the canon 50mp is out in march thats FF in case you were wondering

Surely you are not going to continue as a Comedian. I have heard too many bad jokes from you already.

 

[AmbleYonder]

You need to stay on topic or start your own thread and stop trolling mine. FULL FRAME MYTH, OK?

the fact is your opinion is a completely fabricated myth . you even got a crop shooter siding with the FFs and you have simply skipped over the reality with straw-man arguments, what your doing is trying to bash a large square peg into a small round hole with your forehead and its never going to fit however hard you bash......i suggest you give it up and enjoy the IQ your happy with

But you will be shooting with a Sony Sensor very soon and I pray that they use a superior size than the last size film that some farm photographer used in the 1990s.

....yawn

was the farmer using one of these ?http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/

 

[Luke Kaven]

You need to stay on topic or start your own thread and stop trolling mine. FULL FRAME MYTH, OK?

the fact is your opinion is a completely fabricated myth . you even got a crop shooter siding with the FFs and you have simply skipped over the reality with straw-man arguments, what your doing is trying to bash a large square peg into a small round hole with your forehead and its never going to fit however hard you bash......i suggest you give it up and enjoy the IQ your happy with

But you will be shooting with a Sony Sensor very soon and I pray that they use a superior size than the last size film that some farm photographer used in the 1990s.

And what size would this "superior size" be?

 

[AmbleYonder]

No sir. I asked the right question. Now you are answering your own silly question about digital design and it is clear that your film camera did not use any of today's design parameters. What is still not answered is why you think one comes up with 35mm again and for an electronic sensor.

I asked you what you would come up with as the optimal design format for a digital camera. Do you have no proposal?

,its a rather large straw man as its not on the market so he can not use it anyway , i have a sneaky suspicion they wont be hiring him to design it either

In a very short period of time you will surely find that the basis for the design of EVERY Digital Camera will be a Sony Sensor. Yes I own one and I will be buying the 40+MP Beta version as soon as it is available! Bet on that.

Maybe you will be able to afford 18MP from Canon?

i already have 18mp thank you very much if i want more the canon 50mp is out in march thats FF in case you were wondering

Surely you are not going to continue as a Comedian. I have heard too many bad jokes from you already.

LOL your title was the biggest JOKE