Full Frame (is it that important)

[BJN]

Why is the viewing area tied to full-frame? Can't we get a bigger
viewing area without going to full-frame? As for focusing, I
noticed the 10D I saw at BestBuy also beeped when I was in focus.
That's what we need.

You make a good point, Daniel, but full-frame viewing is just one
of the advantages. As far as beeping, it happens when it focuses
on something, anything. No idea if its focusing on what you want
it to focus on. With manual focusing and a big, clear viewfinder
you're dang sure that if you're in focus and the image is still
soft then it's probably camera shake and not a problem with
intrinsic focusing.

There are advantages to either full frame or a digital APS depending on what your needs are, but the viewfinder issue is purely an inheritance from using film bodies without doing anthing to the viewfinder but masking the image area. A viewfinder designed for the smaller format could be big and bright if it was designed from scratch. If digital APS has any staying power, future cameras would surely be designed for the format, not merely adapted from existing film bodies.

A 12-24 DX Nikkor will tide me over until there are realistic full frame choices, not an $8K massive beast of an SLR from Canon nor a $5K Kodak body with extremely limited performance.

--
BJN

 

[walter matthews]

A critical issue not discussed is the fact that with a full frame detector, you get more area per detector element, with which to detect, measure and quantitatively store a measurement, of light intensity. With some of the "Pro-Sumer" cameras they have already reached the limit of signal to noise level and the only alternative is to increase the size of the field, i.e. eventually full field.

The economic downside of larger fields of detection, is that the cost of the CCD or CMOS or Foveon or any chip for that mater increases exponentially with its size. An increase of the field size on the Fuji CCD from where it is now up to full field will probably cut their yield to less than 10% of what they get today.

In memory and logic circuits, the semimconductor industry has been ruthlessly reducing the feature size while almost as ruthlessly increasing the overall chip size. With light measurement technology, however, unlike with memory and logic circuits, Physics has imposed a limit because when the detector size gets too small, there is not enough light available to register a real light signal against the background signal from random noise.

Just like with Film, you can extrapolate to where it will take us and the quality of the results will follow the same rules and guidelines that Film has followed. When the detector reduction limit has been reached and you have a choice of a detector that is full frame compared to one that is 2/3 frame, you will be getting only 44% of the detector elements that record your image with that 2/3 frame detector-or-camera. (2/3 x 2/3 = .44).

When two images are compared from film, pixels or whatever, the one with 2.25X the number detector elements, will make better looking pictures.

The S2 is wonderful but if they give us a full frame detector and leave the detector size the same as it is on the S2, it would be even wonderfuller.

 

[Polar Bear]

In the olden days (of film), weren't we taught to always slightly crop the sides of the image when taking pictures? And in the darkroom didn't the 35mm enlarger carriers do likewise? So all the 8x10, and 16x20 B&W and Color enlargements that I made never included the entire lateral image. So my conclusion, perhaps full frame isn't as important as the manufacturers maintain it is. My thoughts right or wrong? All coments welcome.

Ted S

 

[Hej]

Less versatility. Why have your options limited?

-Erik

In the olden days (of film), weren't we taught to always slightly crop the sides of the image when taking pictures? And in the darkroom didn't the 35mm enlarger carriers do likewise? So all the 8x10, and 16x20 B&W and Color enlargements that I made never included the entire lateral image. So my conclusion, perhaps full frame isn't as important as the manufacturers maintain it is. My thoughts right or wrong? All coments welcome.

Ted S

--
Find a job you like doing, and you'll never have to work a day in your life.

 

[TedS85150]

Coming from a Hasselblad, I surely can appreciate full frame and
wide angle but what I see is that the CMOS chip is still not
perfected. It is the only chip being used in FF SLR's right now. I
know the 1Ds is performing pretty good but still has considerable
noise above 400ISO and the 14N, well everyone knows that story.
The chip manufacturers must surely be working on what we need. I
think a little more patience will see a new generation of SLR's
with FF, IMO. I'm holding out for the FUJI or Nikon. In the
meantime, the S2 and 17-35 AFS is working just fine for me for semi
wide angle. My 11 yr old son has been using my S2, under my
supervision, and the viewfinder is just natural to him since he has
never looked through a Hassy or 35mm. So who's to say what's good
or bad. Of course, just as soon as he uses a FF, then the ball game
is over.
Matthew

Ted S

 

[Dioni]

Hey Ted,

I though it wasn't, but after the Yellowstone trip I went to with Mahesh and his 1Ds + 16-35mm lens, I saw the light. The difference was so huge I could not believe it. For landscape, it makes a big difference. My 20mm is not a wide angle lens in the S2.

Anyway, I keep saying I prefer the crop most of the times, which I shoot long or medium focal lenghts, but for landscape or when you cannot step back, FF is the way to go. I'd love a FF S3 .

Best,
Dioni
You don't take a photograph, you make it (Ansel Adams)

 

[Dioni]

He, he, I should have read before I did post my other answer to this thread. Mahesh said it all .

Best,
Dioni
You don't take a photograph, you make it (Ansel Adams)

 

[Dioni]

When I go the S2 it had been kind of long time since I did not use my film SLRs, so I did not remeber FF viewfinder. When I looked throught the 1Ds at 16mm, as you say, the ball game was over.´

You easily get used to better, but comming back to worse is really painfull.

Best,
Dioni
You don't take a photograph, you make it (Ansel Adams)

 

[Artichoke]

the advantage of the crop is enormous
1. extreme telephoto much more expensive than extreme wide lenses

2. best part of any lens is the center, so smaller CCD captures the sweetest spot of the lens

3. for CCD edges are critical to manufacture and have been the main failing of the larger sensors ...larger designs are much, much more difficult to pull off with consistent quality ...even the CMOS sensor in the Canon FF has been reported to be troubled about its edges

4. the photosites are sensitive to the angle that light falls upon them and at a larger size this angle becomes more extreme

the advantages of a bigger viewing area and being able to go wide are real, but with a 14mm lens (or with the new 12mm) just how wide do you need

maybe a built in view area magnifier could be incorporated in the next design, though I think this might be problematic with the hybrid system Fuji has been using
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

 

[choilp]

that you proposed to take advantage on the telephoto side, you must love an even smaller CCD inside S3, such as the 7.18x5.32mm 1/1.8" that is used on Nikon Coolpix 4500, e.g., which produces 5MP effective pixels. That will give you even longer telephoto lens effect and the light lands on the CCD even more perpendicular, right? I think my 105mm will become a several hundred mm equivalent telephoto! And uses the even sweeter central part of the lens.

Design and techology will improve, at least I hope so.

LP

the advantage of the crop is enormous
1. extreme telephoto much more expensive than extreme wide lenses
2. best part of any lens is the center, so smaller CCD captures
the sweetest spot of the lens
3. for CCD edges are critical to manufacture and have been the
main failing of the larger sensors ...larger designs are much, much
more difficult to pull off with consistent quality ...even the CMOS
sensor in the Canon FF has been reported to be troubled about its
edges
4. the photosites are sensitive to the angle that light falls upon
them and at a larger size this angle becomes more extreme
the advantages of a bigger viewing area and being able to go wide
are real, but with a 14mm lens (or with the new 12mm) just how wide
do you need
maybe a built in view area magnifier could be incorporated in the
next design, though I think this might be problematic with the
hybrid system Fuji has been using
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

 

[TedS85150]

the advantage of the crop is enormous
1. extreme telephoto much more expensive than extreme wide lenses
2. best part of any lens is the center, so smaller CCD captures
the sweetest spot of the lens
3. for CCD edges are critical to manufacture and have been the
main failing of the larger sensors ...larger designs are much, much
more difficult to pull off with consistent quality ...even the CMOS
sensor in the Canon FF has been reported to be troubled about its
edges
4. the photosites are sensitive to the angle that light falls upon
them and at a larger size this angle becomes more extreme
the advantages of a bigger viewing area and being able to go wide
are real, but with a 14mm lens (or with the new 12mm) just how wide
do you need
maybe a built in view area magnifier could be incorporated in the
next design, though I think this might be problematic with the
hybrid system Fuji has been using
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

Thank you for all your comments:

Ted S

 

[win39]

Mahesh is right. Everyone's lens line up is designed to make sense with full frame 35mm. The most popular lens length is 85-100mm and the least popular is 135mm. Guess what your 90 mm lens becomes on a digital camera.

Another factor no one ever talks about is what a smaller sensor does to your resolution. Lens resolution used to be talked about in terms of lines per mm. Lower resolution medium or large format lenses are fine because they have lots of film. If your 35mm lens is absolutely superb and resolves 100 lines per mm, it will put 3600 lines of detail on a 35mm frame but only 2300 lines on a smaller S2 sensor. You might be able to get more resolution on the sensor, but the lens would have to be completely redesigned for the smaller field and it is doubtful you would get a 50 percent improvement in resolution and it would probably cost more than the 35mm lens.

 

[Ronald Schroeder]

Having shot with both APS and full frame (both film and digital) I feel that a viewfinder matching the sensor size is MUCH more important than the actual sensor size (if the sensor isn't TOO small). The Kodak DCS330 has a slightly smaller sensor than the S2 but the viewfinder was designed for an APS film size. The view thru the DCS330 is much better than any other DSLR with a sub-FF sensor. A viewfinder specifically designed for the sensor size would be even better still.

Too small of a sensor has technical disadvantages. Assuming 35mm film quality as the goal, that quality can be reached with a 1.5x sensor with current technology but due to the wavelength of light, the Four Thirds sensor size is too small.

My ideal digital camera would be with a 1.2x to 1.4x sensor with a viewfinder optomized for the sensor size.

While I am dreaming, make it a removable digital back for the F5 with a matching high magnification replacement viewfinder instead of a digital only camera.

By the way, we use imagers here at work that do exceed film resolution and "noise" for the same size. The sensor technology is here but just not in the consumer or pro market yet.

Ron
Brookhaven National Lab