Full Frame Image Quality, Myth or Reality?

[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.

Yes, it is closely related to Kodak film rollers, emulsifiers, developers, drugstore shelf size, enlargers, canister makers tin cutters, and all sorts of ancient turn of the 19th century photographic innovation. But we are talking about digital cameras here, and it is the 3rd millennium.

And that pesky pi, it's so 5th century BCE.

It's also closely related to optical performance at a human scale of affairs.

 

[Luke Kaven]

I am still not clear on why better FF Picture Quality is a "Fact of Life".

Thanks.

in layman's terms

i do a lot of documentary work shooting extensively with the 40D and then the 7D ,macro etc so crop is great for details all those packed pixels give me a nice sharp look and good enough for publication as they are just bog standard record shots.

but i have also started to dabble in landscapes over the past few years while i get great results with crop there is something lacking i am missing the cleaner tonality and texture i can not get those deeper rich tones, luminance and the ethereal dreamy look of FF no matter what technique or lens i use .

now i can see the difference from just web shots and can pick out FF most of the time by the qualities above now i am not talking direct comparisons with bland test shots but an overall improvement when comparing fine art landscapes en-mass

that improvement is negligible from a documentary perspective and i am happy enough with crop for that aspect of my photography , and if you can not see the differences then your better off sticking with crop too

so folks am i right ?

I am certainly not arguing with you. What is definitely a myth is that some arbitrary, random dimension, 24mm x36mm, results in optimum s/n ratio. That is garbage talk to be quite honest.

That dimension was the best dimension to use to save an old shooter from the late 1990s some money on replacement lenses after he switched to digital. Nothing more.

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

Read Emil Martinec's paper that I linked elsewhere in this thread. It's not as though there isn't a science in it. You won't believe these things with such certainty tomorrow as you do today.

There is a practical design optimum just around 24x36, all things considered -- in terms of overall optical and image quality at given enlargement sizes, ability to gather appropriate amounts of light, size and weight, cost of manufacturing.

I guess I would have to say absurd and pathetic also.

I already get that you hate something. Care to do a little science instead?

 

[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.

Thanks

 

[En Trance]

I am still not clear on why better FF Picture Quality is a "Fact of Life".

Thanks.

in layman's terms

i do a lot of documentary work shooting extensively with the 40D and then the 7D ,macro etc so crop is great for details all those packed pixels give me a nice sharp look and good enough for publication as they are just bog standard record shots.

but i have also started to dabble in landscapes over the past few years while i get great results with crop there is something lacking i am missing the cleaner tonality and texture i can not get those deeper rich tones, luminance and the ethereal dreamy look of FF no matter what technique or lens i use .

now i can see the difference from just web shots and can pick out FF most of the time by the qualities above now i am not talking direct comparisons with bland test shots but an overall improvement when comparing fine art landscapes en-mass

that improvement is negligible from a documentary perspective and i am happy enough with crop for that aspect of my photography , and if you can not see the differences then your better off sticking with crop too

so folks am i right ?

I am certainly not arguing with you. What is definitely a myth is that some arbitrary, random dimension, 24mm x36mm, results in optimum s/n ratio. That is garbage talk to be quite honest.

That dimension was the best dimension to use to save an old shooter from the late 1990s some money on replacement lenses after he switched to digital. Nothing more.

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

Read Emil Martinec's paper that I linked elsewhere in this thread. It's not as though there isn't a science in it. You won't believe these things with such certainty tomorrow as you do today.

There is a practical design optimum just around 24x36, all things considered -- in terms of overall optical and image quality at given enlargement sizes, ability to gather appropriate amounts of light, size and weight, cost of manufacturing.

I guess I would have to say absurd and pathetic also.

I already get that you hate something. Care to do a little science instead?

There is no science associated with a digital sensor designed to be the same size as a film strip. That is like designing an accelerator pedal to be the exact same length as a whip.

 

[En Trance]

I am still not clear on why better FF Picture Quality is a "Fact of Life".

Thanks.

in layman's terms

i do a lot of documentary work shooting extensively with the 40D and then the 7D ,macro etc so crop is great for details all those packed pixels give me a nice sharp look and good enough for publication as they are just bog standard record shots.

but i have also started to dabble in landscapes over the past few years while i get great results with crop there is something lacking i am missing the cleaner tonality and texture i can not get those deeper rich tones, luminance and the ethereal dreamy look of FF no matter what technique or lens i use .

now i can see the difference from just web shots and can pick out FF most of the time by the qualities above now i am not talking direct comparisons with bland test shots but an overall improvement when comparing fine art landscapes en-mass

that improvement is negligible from a documentary perspective and i am happy enough with crop for that aspect of my photography , and if you can not see the differences then your better off sticking with crop too

so folks am i right ?

I am certainly not arguing with you. What is definitely a myth is that some arbitrary, random dimension, 24mm x36mm, results in optimum s/n ratio. That is garbage talk to be quite honest.

That dimension was the best dimension to use to save an old shooter from the late 1990s some money on replacement lenses after he switched to digital. Nothing more.

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

Read Emil Martinec's paper that I linked elsewhere in this thread. It's not as though there isn't a science in it. You won't believe these things with such certainty tomorrow as you do today.

There is a practical design optimum just around 24x36, all things considered -- in terms of overall optical and image quality at given enlargement sizes, ability to gather appropriate amounts of light, size and weight, cost of manufacturing.

I guess I would have to say absurd and pathetic also.

I already get that you hate something. Care to do a little science instead?

There is no Science associated with designing a digital sensor to be the same size as a filmstrip. That is like designing an accelerator pedal to be the exact same length as a whip.

 

[En Trance]

I am still not clear on why better FF Picture Quality is a "Fact of Life".

Thanks.

in layman's terms

i do a lot of documentary work shooting extensively with the 40D and then the 7D ,macro etc so crop is great for details all those packed pixels give me a nice sharp look and good enough for publication as they are just bog standard record shots.

but i have also started to dabble in landscapes over the past few years while i get great results with crop there is something lacking i am missing the cleaner tonality and texture i can not get those deeper rich tones, luminance and the ethereal dreamy look of FF no matter what technique or lens i use .

now i can see the difference from just web shots and can pick out FF most of the time by the qualities above now i am not talking direct comparisons with bland test shots but an overall improvement when comparing fine art landscapes en-mass

that improvement is negligible from a documentary perspective and i am happy enough with crop for that aspect of my photography , and if you can not see the differences then your better off sticking with crop too

so folks am i right ?

I am certainly not arguing with you. What is definitely a myth is that some arbitrary, random dimension, 24mm x36mm, results in optimum s/n ratio. That is garbage talk to be quite honest.

That dimension was the best dimension to use to save an old shooter from the late 1990s some money on replacement lenses after he switched to digital. Nothing more.

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

Read Emil Martinec's paper that I linked elsewhere in this thread. It's not as though there isn't a science in it. You won't believe these things with such certainty tomorrow as you do today.

There is a practical design optimum just around 24x36, all things considered -- in terms of overall optical and image quality at given enlargement sizes, ability to gather appropriate amounts of light, size and weight, cost of manufacturing.

I guess I would have to say absurd and pathetic also.

I already get that you hate something. Care to do a little science instead?

You're not pouring developer into your camera, are you?

 

[En Trance]

The story is that a very large image sensor with the Mystical, Magical size of 35mm film, has Image Quality that is Greatly Enhanced. The assumption is that pixels and voids are optimized for Image Quality.

Is this true? Or are some manufacturer's struggling to keep up with the sensor game and simply marketing their inferior, gigantic, sensor as a benefit, as they claim that Resolution (MP Rating) is not important for Digital Camera Design? (These aren't the Droids that you are looking for!)

Are crop sensors simply aimed at the lens sweet-spot and reaping the benefit of not using the more challenging periphery of the frame?

Please, no questions about the question. (What do you mean by Blue? What planet are you shooting on? When you say 35mm do you mean 35.00 or 35.00001? Because I need to know that before I give my script to the world.)

Interested in your thoughts..., Maybe!

Oh goodie...another "Since I chose a smaller format, the benefits of a larger format must be purely mythical" rationalization thread.

Image quality of FF is better relative to smaller formats because the lenses would have to be much better for the smaller formats in order to keep pace. Specifically:

An APS-C lens needs 150% of the linear resolution of a FF lens, just to keep pace.

A FT/MFT sensor needs 200% of the linear resolution of a FF lens, just to keep pace.

And so on.

Basically, the smaller the sensor, the better the lenses have to be to keep up with the quality achievable with a larger sensor. The smaller format lenses aren't good enough on a relative basis to make up for size difference between FF and the smaller formats, and are not ever going to be, since the cost of such lens quality would make the price unacceptably high.

The "cropped" APS-C format owes its existence to the fact that FF 35mm sensors couldn't be made at affordable prices when digital imaging was a newly developing and immature product, nothing more. If they could have produced 35mm sensors for the same price as APS-C sensors when the first "affordable" DSLRs were introduced, you would have never seen an APS-C format DSLR. There was never any "advantage" to them aside from the small-enough-to-make-the-product-sellable price tag.

Technology will not "solve" the quality differences, because the same "tech" can be (and is) used in 35mm sensors as in APS-C and MFT sensors.

Now before anyone gets wound up, just to be clear...

I am NOT saying you can't take a good image with a smaller format.

I am NOT saying you can't take an excellent image with a smaller format.

I am simply saying that you will get an even better result with the larger format. The format you choose and the related compromises you make as respects image quality level that you accept as "good enough" is up to you. If you're happy with what you chose, be that APS-C, MFT, 1" or a f___ing thumbnail sensor, good for you. Just stop trying to rationalize your decision by suggesting that FF's quality advantage over those smaller formats is "mythical," when it is anything but.

PASSION is a good thing! You win the prize. But Reading is Fundamental. The Myth is that something is superior about 24x36 when in actuality it is merely a coincidence. There is nothing Magical about it.

No, there is most definitely something superior about 24x36 relative to smaller formats, it is no myth.

There is nothing "magical" about APS-C either, and its emergence as a digital format is even more of an "accident" or "coincidence" than the emergence of 35mm as a film format.

The thread digs a little deeper into the mindset of a manufacturer who can not do 24MP and then convinces an industry that Resolution is not an important aspect of Digital Camera Design!

No, this thread is rationalization and trolling by you.

If I am buying MP and someone can put 24 of them in a Half Container and their Competitor can put 22 of them in a Container that is twice as big, at best, and has to charge $twice as much money for that, then I may be led to believe that one manufacturer has his sensor game on point.

Hey - news flash - if MP is all you're buying than somebody already put 41MP in a sensor a fraction of the size of an APS-C camera (in a cell phone cam). So what's better about your APS-C camera sensor - sensor size?! LMAO I guess the argument is only valid for YOUR chosen format.

The half sensor ignores the additional light

And thus is at a distinct image quality disadvantage (noise). Applies only when taking pictures with different DOF though.

that you are claiming for the full sensor and that dirty little half sensor has to be forced to take it down the throat by using a wide angle lens.

Still like its $dirty, $little, $price.

Which has nothing to do with image quality.

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.

ROTFLMAO.

APS-C DSLRs are nothing more than FF cameras with undersized sensors in them. They were designed around existing 35mm lens mounts with existing 35mm register distances. There is absolutely NOTHING "optimzed" about APS-C DSLRs whatsoever.

Think Chevy Camaro with a 4-cylinder engine sitting in the engine bay designed for an 8-cylinder engine.

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.

I'm no troll (that would be you from post numero uno in this thread), just someone who presents you with information that challenges your rationalizations, thereby causing you some apparent distress (that you begged for with this thread right from the start).

Sorry, but I have heard enough of you for this life. Gave you a shot, but just look what you have done with it. I have heard the last from you in bold lettering. Guess I don't need to hear more. Check this out, CLICK!

 

[Marty4650]

Only problem is that all other things are not equal. But I see your point.

If "all other things AREN'T equal," then you question is pointless. And a complete waste of time.

And I am sure you understand why.

 

[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.

 

[Luke Kaven]

I am still not clear on why better FF Picture Quality is a "Fact of Life".

Thanks.

in layman's terms

i do a lot of documentary work shooting extensively with the 40D and then the 7D ,macro etc so crop is great for details all those packed pixels give me a nice sharp look and good enough for publication as they are just bog standard record shots.

but i have also started to dabble in landscapes over the past few years while i get great results with crop there is something lacking i am missing the cleaner tonality and texture i can not get those deeper rich tones, luminance and the ethereal dreamy look of FF no matter what technique or lens i use .

now i can see the difference from just web shots and can pick out FF most of the time by the qualities above now i am not talking direct comparisons with bland test shots but an overall improvement when comparing fine art landscapes en-mass

that improvement is negligible from a documentary perspective and i am happy enough with crop for that aspect of my photography , and if you can not see the differences then your better off sticking with crop too

so folks am i right ?

I am certainly not arguing with you. What is definitely a myth is that some arbitrary, random dimension, 24mm x36mm, results in optimum s/n ratio. That is garbage talk to be quite honest.

That dimension was the best dimension to use to save an old shooter from the late 1990s some money on replacement lenses after he switched to digital. Nothing more.

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

Read Emil Martinec's paper that I linked elsewhere in this thread. It's not as though there isn't a science in it. You won't believe these things with such certainty tomorrow as you do today.

There is a practical design optimum just around 24x36, all things considered -- in terms of overall optical and image quality at given enlargement sizes, ability to gather appropriate amounts of light, size and weight, cost of manufacturing.

I guess I would have to say absurd and pathetic also.

I already get that you hate something. Care to do a little science instead?

There is no science associated with a digital sensor designed to be the same size as a film strip. That is like designing an accelerator pedal to be the exact same length as a whip.

There is also a common cause for making both historic cameras and new cameras using a convergent optimum size that is /approximately/ 35mm. Designers, quite brilliant ones, knew it then; and they know it now.

It didn't hurt that they could still sell their existing optical designs. But that was just a side benefit.

So you favor a smaller sensor size that will be noisier and for which the lenses won't perform as well? What sensor size do you think is optimal and why?

Keep in mind that you've based your arguments so far on a complete misunderstanding of the relative light-gathering and noise characteristics of a sensor at different sizes. What else have you got?

 

[Peter Jonas]

I am still not clear on why better FF Picture Quality is a "Fact of Life".

Thanks.

in layman's terms

i do a lot of documentary work shooting extensively with the 40D and then the 7D ,macro etc so crop is great for details all those packed pixels give me a nice sharp look and good enough for publication as they are just bog standard record shots.

but i have also started to dabble in landscapes over the past few years while i get great results with crop there is something lacking i am missing the cleaner tonality and texture i can not get those deeper rich tones, luminance and the ethereal dreamy look of FF no matter what technique or lens i use .

now i can see the difference from just web shots and can pick out FF most of the time by the qualities above now i am not talking direct comparisons with bland test shots but an overall improvement when comparing fine art landscapes en-mass

that improvement is negligible from a documentary perspective and i am happy enough with crop for that aspect of my photography , and if you can not see the differences then your better off sticking with crop too

so folks am i right ?

I am certainly not arguing with you. What is definitely a myth is that some arbitrary, random dimension, 24mm x36mm, results in optimum s/n ratio. That is garbage talk to be quite honest.

That dimension was the best dimension to use to save an old shooter from the late 1990s some money on replacement lenses after he switched to digital. Nothing more.

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

Read Emil Martinec's paper that I linked elsewhere in this thread. It's not as though there isn't a science in it. You won't believe these things with such certainty tomorrow as you do today.

There is a practical design optimum just around 24x36, all things considered -- in terms of overall optical and image quality at given enlargement sizes, ability to gather appropriate amounts of light, size and weight, cost of manufacturing.

I guess I would have to say absurd and pathetic also.

I already get that you hate something. Care to do a little science instead?

There is no Science associated with designing a digital sensor to be the same size as a filmstrip. That is like designing an accelerator pedal to be the exact same length as a whip.

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.

The discussion is about a larger sensor having a superior signal to noise (S/N) ratio over that of a smaller sensor. We are talking about FF because you chose to start a discussion about quality of FF being a myth.

It is not a myth. FF is better in image S/N ratio than sensors with a smaller size. How big it is, does not matter. What matters is, that it is bigger.

By the same token MF format sensors, which are larger than the FF are superior to FF sensors in that regard. The FF size has been part of the discussion because you made claims in relation to that specific size.

Once again: the science is not in the absolute size,. Nobody claims that. The FF size is simply being a practical size due to historical use.

The science is in saying that as far as image S/N ratio is concerned larger is better. That is the science. And because by definition FF sensors are bigger than the smaller ones, they have a better S/N ratio.

That is what many of us trying to put in different ways in this thread, so it is easier for you to understand. It is not that a bunch of people here are trying to have you on.

Please think about this.

 

[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!

 

[En Trance]

Only problem is that all other things are not equal. But I see your point.

If "all other things AREN'T equal," then you question is pointless. And a complete waste of time.

And I am sure you understand why.

 

[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.

 

[Marty4650]

There is no Science associated with designing a digital sensor to be the same size as a filmstrip. That is like designing an accelerator pedal to be the exact same length as a whip.

It isn't science... it was a business decision.

You could make a digital sensor any size you want to. In the early days, they were made very small, because the fabrication and material cost was so high. When the cost came down, some manufacturers (Canon, Nikon and Sony) wanted to use their EXISTING AF lens designed for film cameras on their new digital cameras.

They had been using these lenses for their smaller APSC sensored cameras, for the very same reason, but since the lenses were designed for a larger negative (or sensor) the perspective was changed. Once they started making "full frame" DSLRs they had lenses that matched the bigger sensor perfectly.

So the "full frame" 36mm x 24mm digital sensor was born.

This was a practical decision because it enabled the use of literally a thousand lenses that were designed for that filmstrip you speak of. Of course, those lenses could be used with sensors smaller than 36mm x 24mm, and they often were, but by matching the sensor size to the negative size the lenses would precisely the same perspective as they had with film.

The manufacturers got an instant lens catalog for their high end digital SLRs by using the lenses they had already designed for 35mm film SLRs. Think about it. Zero cost for R&D.

 

[SkiHound]

What I meant was simply that a larger sensor has a larger surface and therefore gathers more total light. I don't mean more light per cm2 or anything like that. The exposure value is the same. It's like how much water can pass through a pipe. A lot more passes through a 12" pipe than a 6" pipe.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

I hope that cools you off a little.

 

[Morris Sullivan]

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.