Full size sensor. Is it convenient?

[Molteni Bruno]

Sometimes I read on some messages of this forum that people wish have DSRL with the dimension of sensor like that of films (24x36).

But for my opinion it is not important to have this, the important things is to have a very good resolution (and 6,3 megapixels is a good resolution). Infact Olympus too, in it's new camera, has a small sensor (smaller than that of 300d) without losting any quality in images.

Which are the disavantages to have a sensor smaller?

If we use normal Canon lenses we have the well known magnificator factor (x1.6). Ok we lost something to the wide area, but we have tele more powerful.

The advantages are that lenses made specially for this sensor (EF-S) are cheaper because the have less field area to control, more light and at the same dimension, more bright.

I think that probably we have also some gain in terms od depth of field but I'm not sure.

So I don't desire to have another type of sensor. I desire instead that Canon will make some EF-S lens for the very wide area (under 18 mm).

What do you think about?

Bruno

 

[leiavoia]

i'd rather have the full size sensor since most of what i shoot is in the wide-angle catagory and i rarely if ever shoot long telephoto.

Now, in order to get a decent WA shot that doesn't suffer from some terrible distortion becase it's a fisheye, i need what get's cropped out of the 1.6x with decent WA lens like the 17-40L.

I just bought the 50/1.8. It's very nice but it's too long with 1.6x for many casual uses. I often cannot stand any further back. It would be just fine with a full frame sensor.

If all you shoot is squirrels and ducks, the 1.6x crop is like a blessing from heaven. But for me, on the WA end, it's a frustration.

Also, every EF lens made so far was designed for a normal sensor / film neg size. They were not intended to be used on a reduced size anything, but they do still work. I'd rather be able to pick from the 50 lenses already made than have canon make a few new ones specificaly for 1.6x factor, which may not last as technology progresses anyway.

 

[Mats Neander]

Sometimes I read on some messages of this forum that people wish
have DSRL with the dimension of sensor like that of films (24x36).

But for my opinion it is not important to have this, the important
things is to have a very good resolution (and 6,3 megapixels is a
good resolution). Infact Olympus too, in it's new camera, has a
small sensor (smaller than that of 300d) without losting any
quality in images.

Which are the disavantages to have a sensor smaller?

If we use normal Canon lenses we have the well known magnificator
factor (x1.6). Ok we lost something to the wide area, but we have
tele more powerful.

The advantages are that lenses made specially for this sensor
(EF-S) are cheaper because the have less field area to control,
more light and at the same dimension, more bright.
I think that probably we have also some gain in terms od depth of
field but I'm not sure.

So I don't desire to have another type of sensor. I desire instead
that Canon will make some EF-S lens for the very wide area (under
18 mm).

What do you think about?

Bruno

--
Mats N
http://www.pbase.com/matsinsweden

Seems like quite a number of peolple are OK with no wide end and like the more tele they can posibly get...so for them it´s no need for full frame.

For normal photography (what that is...) it is of course better to have BOTH good teles and wides to choose from...as it is in the film world...

Another factor is of value but seldom discussed:

Most lenses don´t resolve enough on a smaller sensor since the resolution per millimeter ON the sensor will be some 0,65 times less on a "Rebel/300D" sized sensor than on a full frame.

So, cheaper lenses will not be very easy to make very good, so to speak.

In spite of that, the kit lens is pretty good anyway, so Canon may just charge less for it than it may have cost if sold separately(?)

A 28-90 is however not a wide lens at all, a "low cost" and good 12-24 or so would be nice, or why not make it a 15-55 (to give FOV "as" a 24-85)

A EF-S 15-55mm at a price close to the EF 24-85mm should not be too bad...

Mats in Sweden

 

[DRG]

Sometimes I read on some messages of this forum that people wish
have DSRL with the dimension of sensor like that of films (24x36).

But for my opinion it is not important to have this, the important
things is to have a very good resolution (and 6,3 megapixels is a
good resolution). Infact Olympus too, in it's new camera, has a
small sensor (smaller than that of 300d) without losting any
quality in images.

Which are the disavantages to have a sensor smaller?

You will hear many arguments in favor of a larger sensor, including slightly shallower depth of field, wider field of view with existing EF lenses, and, for a given overall resolution, a better match to the resolving power of cheaper lenses.

However, I find this a circular argument that really comes down to people wanting to preserve investment in their existing glass or noticing that lenses in the existing product catalog don't provide a sufficiently wide view with an APS-C sensor.

The problem with the various arguments is that the smaller sensor enables the solution to most of the problems. Yes, a given field of view requires a 1.6x smaller focal length to achieve on an APS-C sensor. However, the same small sensor makes it easier to design such small focal length lenses, particularly when combined with tricks such as greater protrusion into the camera body a la the 18-55mm on the 300D. Not having to create an image that's sharp over a full frame makes the lens design easier. The same thing applies to lens resolution. It's easier to achieve impressive MTF results over a 13mm (half) diagonal (center to corner) compared to a 21mm one. This leaves the depth of field issue. Is the slight difference really enough to justify carrying around larger and heavier glass forever into the future of SLR photography?

Windows was DOS-based for the longest time, retaining code to run legacy software, but imposing limitations that users and programmers had to work around for the longest time.

David

 

[hm]

Which are the disavantages to have a sensor smaller?

• the zoom lenses designed for 35mm now have a somewhat "awkward" range, e.g. a 24-70/2.8 or 28-135 is a somewhat awkward range after the 1.6x is applied
• "standard" zooms generally provide higher image quality than "ultra-wide zooms", but the 1.6x means you need to use the ultra-wide as a substitute for a standard zoom
• there are no actual "ultra-wide" lenses any more
• a full-frame sensor either provides more pixels (higher resolution) or bigger pixels (lower noise, typically)
• to achieve the same shallow depth of field, you need to shoot at an aperture 1 stop wider, which can mean a need for faster lenses or else the need to use wider apertures, which have lower image quality

The advantages of a smaller sensor are:

• cost

It's impossible for a smaller sensor to have technical advantages over a larger sensor, as a larger sensor has a smaller sensor in the middle of it.

Smaller sensors do not give you a "telephoto boost" unless they also happen to be denser. It's sensor density that allows you to use resolution to "boost" your telephoto.
-harry

 

[hm]

... It's easier to achieve impressive MTF
results over a 13mm (half) diagonal (center to corner) compared to
a 21mm one.

The lens designed for the smaller sensor can produce a smaller image circle, but it is now required to produce higher resolution, as the same numer of pixels must be squished into a smaller area. So, ultimately, it's a combination of loosened requirements (smaller image circle) combined with stricter requirements (higher resolution). I'm no lens expert, and I'm not sure what the state of the art is, I don't know whether there's a win here or a loss.

Presenting the larger sensor as a "legacy" issue doesn't seem quite accurate to me. Before there was digital, there was small format (35mm), and a variety of medium and large formats as well. Why did the larger formats exist? There was no legacy to prop them up (quite the opposite, actually). They exist because there are technical reasons why you can capture higher resolution images using a larger area of film, and those issues apply to digital as well. Shrinking the sensor requires either a loss of total pixels, or smaller pixels, and the latter compromises on noise.
-harry

 

[Michael Entin]

Most lenses don´t resolve enough on a smaller sensor since the
resolution per millimeter ON the sensor will be some 0,65 times
less on a "Rebel/300D" sized sensor than on a full frame.

So, cheaper lenses will not be very easy to make very good, so to
speak.

Year, but from other point of view cheap lenses have significant
aberrations at the cornes of image. Smaller sensor makes these
aberrations less visible. So it partially compensates for loss of resolution

The lack of wide angle is a serious limitation of smaller sensor however,
here I absolutely agree.

 

[xenologics]

How do you like the lens? I was thinking about buying it. Is the difference in quality worth it? $100?

Say if i used the 1.8 w/following settings

shutter 1/60
aperture 6.0
focal 50mm

and the kit lens 15-55mm ef-s
shutter 1/60
aperture 6.0
focal 50mm

these two are identical settings just different lens. how would the 2 diferent pictures differ? is there a way you can send me examples? i would love to see real life examples. thanks in advance.

i'd rather have the full size sensor since most of what i shoot
is in the wide-angle catagory and i rarely if ever shoot long
telephoto.

Now, in order to get a decent WA shot that doesn't suffer from some
terrible distortion becase it's a fisheye, i need what get's
cropped out of the 1.6x with decent WA lens like the 17-40L.

I just bought the 50/1.8. It's very nice but it's too long with
1.6x for many casual uses. I often cannot stand any further back.
It would be just fine with a full frame sensor.

If all you shoot is squirrels and ducks, the 1.6x crop is like a
blessing from heaven. But for me, on the WA end, it's a frustration.

Also, every EF lens made so far was designed for a normal sensor /
film neg size. They were not intended to be used on a reduced size
anything, but they do still work. I'd rather be able to pick from
the 50 lenses already made than have canon make a few new ones
specificaly for 1.6x factor, which may not last as technology
progresses anyway.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Bruno,

Which are the disavantages to have a sensor smaller?

1. For the same type of sensor, a smaller sensor may introduce more of a certain component of image noise than a larger sensor. That is however not necessarily the noise component that is controlling.

2. People who think a large depth of field is always worse that a small depth of field (since the only pictures they take are those in which they want the subject well focused and everything in front of it or behind it mystically blurry) are against a smaller sensor since, other factors being equal, it will lead to a greater depth of fleld.

3. It allows the camera to be smaller and thus not so impressive to the girls you run into when you are shooting a concert.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[jim williams105247]

Which are the disavantages to have a sensor smaller?

1. For the same type of sensor, a smaller sensor may introduce more
of a certain component of image noise than a larger sensor. That is
however not necessarily the noise component that is controlling.

2. People who think a large depth of field is always worse that a
small depth of field (since the only pictures they take are those
in which they want the subject well focused and everything in front
of it or behind it mystically blurry) are against a smaller sensor
since, other factors being equal, it will lead to a greater depth
of fleld.

3. It allows the camera to be smaller and thus not so impressive to
the girls you run into when you are shooting a concert.

Best regards,

Doug

The point missed in most of these discussions goes back to the physics of semiconductors. Assuming the same number of pixels the larger sensor will have less problems with things like bleed through between cells, positioning-you are talking very small distances here and some other fascinating technical issues. If I were going to design a sensor, I'd want the largest real estate to work with I could get. Somewhere is a trade off between die yield (size) in manufacturing and cost. I suspicion that the size/cost issue is the big driver for sensor size, not how much sensor area the lens will cover.

Jiml

 

[DRG]

The point missed in most of these discussions goes back to the
physics of semiconductors. Assuming the same number of pixels the
larger sensor will have less problems with things like bleed
through between cells, positioning-you are talking very small
distances here and some other fascinating technical issues. If I
were going to design a sensor, I'd want the largest real estate to
work with I could get. Somewhere is a trade off between die yield
(size) in manufacturing and cost. I suspicion that the size/cost
issue is the big driver for sensor size, not how much sensor area
the lens will cover.

Jiml

Several of these points have been discussed elsewhere in the forum, since this question comes up so often. In this particular thread, the original poster had emphasized the field of view and depth of field issues, so these have dominated the discussion. Other threads have discussed the lower noise and increased dynamic range of sensors will larger pixel area.

However, given the outstanding noise performance of the 6Mpixel APS-C sensor, including in comparison with film, it is still worth asking if the benefits of a larger sensor are worth the increased sensor cost and lens bulk. As you suspect, die yield is, indeed, the major cost factor in sensor production and the current driver of sensor size. Optimized lens design obviously isn't driving anything (except the 4/3 system) since such lenses barely exist at this point and the industry is trying to make use of its existing product catalog of full-frame glass. This doesn't mean that one can't approach the problem from another angle, appreciating the APS-C sensor size for its excellent balance of high image quality as well as its potential to work with lighter, less bulky glass.

David

 

[leiavoia]

How do you like the lens? I was thinking about buying it. Is the
difference in quality worth it? $100?

Say if i used the 1.8 w/following settings

shutter 1/60
aperture 6.0
focal 50mm

and the kit lens 15-55mm ef-s
shutter 1/60
aperture 6.0
focal 50mm

these two are identical settings just different lens. how would
the 2 diferent pictures differ? is there a way you can send me
examples? i would love to see real life examples. thanks in

for $70, it's practically disposable. Yes it's worth it. It doesn't fit every situation and it's not the best lens on earth, but it's more than worth it for the price.

the biggest different between the EF-s and the 1.8 is the overall sharpness. Corners are very good on the 1.8, much less chromatic aberation. You also get larger apertures which is always welcome. My kit lens i was not very happy with. the corners were really bad and it's off to canon for repairs right now so i can't show you a side-by-side. but here's a quick snap from yesturday with the 1.8:

[ 4.1 MB download ]
http://www.orionsector.com/qstuph/testphotos/img_0877.jpg

straight out out of the camera. no sharpening, no curves, no nothing. EXIF data included of course. 1/60th @ f/3.2 handheld. it's very sharp on the focal plane. Also notice the top right corner and the lack of heavy purple fringing, unlike the kit lens.

 

[mr dazzler]

Although you'll probably find it to be a bit better at the same settings than the kit lens, part of the point of the 1.8 is that you have settings which are not available on the kit lens (ie down to f1.8). This makes it very useful for low light situations and for narrow depth of field.

 

[leiavoia]

Although you'll probably find it to be a bit better at the same
settings than the kit lens, part of the point of the 1.8 is that
you have settings which are not available on the kit lens (ie down
to f1.8). This makes it very useful for low light situations and
for narrow depth of field.

That is true. The problem that i've found is that under f/2.8 it starts to really lose it's image quality and gets "ghosts" around visual edges. I'm a sharpness ****, so i freak out when that happens. If i'm indoors and that's all i've got, more power to me. Otherwise, if shooting trees (they can hide but they can't run!) i'll take the overall sharpness and better corners @f/4+ over the kit lens (which i'm not too impressed with - but i may have gotten a lemon)

 

[DannyV]

... It's easier to achieve impressive MTF
results over a 13mm (half) diagonal (center to corner) compared to
a 21mm one.

The lens designed for the smaller sensor can produce a smaller
image circle, but it is now required to produce higher resolution,
as the same numer of pixels must be squished into a smaller area.
So, ultimately, it's a combination of loosened requirements
(smaller image circle) combined with stricter requirements (higher
resolution). I'm no lens expert, and I'm not sure what the state of
the art is, I don't know whether there's a win here or a loss.

Presenting the larger sensor as a "legacy" issue doesn't seem quite
accurate to me. Before there was digital, there was small format
(35mm), and a variety of medium and large formats as well. Why did
the larger formats exist? There was no legacy to prop them up
(quite the opposite, actually). They exist because there are
technical reasons why you can capture higher resolution images
using a larger area of film, and those issues apply to digital as
well. Shrinking the sensor requires either a loss of total pixels,
or smaller pixels, and the latter compromises on noise.

The larger formats still exist and are used, but they are a niche market. In the end people picked the convenience of the smaller format cameras, even though the image quality is not quite as good. I suspect the same thing will happen to digital. When the quality is sufficient that only the connoisseurs can tell the difference, then people will say, why do I need the extra weight, size, and expense? You can already see this happening, Nikon has three (I think) wide angle lenses either released or soon to be released, made for the aps sized sensors, I expect other vendors will follow suit. Of course all this would change rather quickly if Canon were to release a 20D at the same price as the 10D but in full frame. I don't think this is likely for a number of years though, and by then the aps sized sensor will be firmly entrenched. OTOH, I could be completely wrong)

-harry

--
Daniel
http://www.pbase.com/dvogel11

 

[The Big Bad]

You can pack 5 megs of pixels on a small sensor and have 4 megs on a large sensor and the 4meg sensor is going to give better/cleaner results

Look at the Canon 1D, its only 4meg but its pixels are 12 times larger than those on a 5meg point and shoot.

It can get very technical but the overall idea is that bigger pixels can render colors and everything better.

The downside is cost obviously.

Also for EOS users, a larger sensor means their lens will give a wider FOV. Very important to alot of people who dont like that their "wide angle" 17mm lens is really only giving the width of a 28mm "normal" lens

Most EOS users have more money tied up in lens than camera bodies, plus the fact that the lens keep value as they dont undergo technological updates as fast really makes them the factor in why people wouldnt want a whole new lens format with smaller lens. People with no existing lens would but most DSLR users have at least 2 lens

And keep this in mind. My 24-70L zoom, i bought it for $1200 and its worth used at least $1000 even if its a few years old.

A canon D30, what did those cost when they came out ? $2000 ? now those are worth maybe $600 ? Lens keep the value and digital technology drops faster than you can keep up with. Its just the nature of the beast

I think for those reasons your not going to see much of a push by either nikon or canon for smaller format lens.

heck, they should give the cameras away and make money with lens. Its where the profit lies

 

[lhfoo]

Sometimes I read on some messages of this forum that people wish
have DSRL with the dimension of sensor like that of films (24x36).

But for my opinion it is not important to have this, the important
things is to have a very good resolution (and 6,3 megapixels is a
good resolution). Infact Olympus too, in it's new camera, has a
small sensor (smaller than that of 300d) without losting any
quality in images.

Which are the disavantages to have a sensor smaller?

If we use normal Canon lenses we have the well known magnificator
factor (x1.6). Ok we lost something to the wide area, but we have
tele more powerful.

The advantages are that lenses made specially for this sensor
(EF-S) are cheaper because the have less field area to control,
more light and at the same dimension, more bright.
I think that probably we have also some gain in terms od depth of
field but I'm not sure.

So I don't desire to have another type of sensor. I desire instead
that Canon will make some EF-S lens for the very wide area (under
18 mm).

What do you think about?

Bruno

 

[Thomas Nawrath]

To whom it concerns

Maybe, this is a bit off-topic, but this is the very issue:

The composition of the objects in a shot done with a full-sized sensor or 35mm film will never be identical to a shot taken with an aps-sized sensor in a digital slr, when the small sensor is mounted at the same focal distance as the film. The following link provides more details: http://www.marius.org/fom-serve/cache/53.html

Think about what it means to the composition of your pictures. We are all used to our 35mm slr. That's why our shots with the 300d look different.

Furthetmore, I'd like to express my opinion regarding the "noise" in this forum.. It's too high.

Regards, Thomas

 

[hans l]

"Shrinking the sensor requires either a loss of total pixels, or smaller pixels, and the latter compromises on noise."

this is only true for current technology used and only at this point in time. who knows what folks will be able to come up with in 5 or 10 years. could be that a way will be found to reduce the noise in the current ccd/cmos technology at even smaller pixel sizes (how often has it been predicted that the semiconductor industry has hit a roadblock?) or somebody will figure out a completely different way of capturing the images.

companies will produce whatever sells and makes money. nobody (of the folks that make money with it) cares if it's an elegant solution or a kludge. it is def. a compromise, has been and always will be.

hans

 

[Molteni Bruno]

I too prefer shooting with wide-angle lenses but I don't think that if Canon decide to make a lens of (example) 12 mm or less for the smaller sensor, it can do do without making a fisheye lens.

About the 50 mm, think that you have a bright 80 mm that is very good for portraits in ambient light.

When you use the film camera do you use the 50 mm? I alwais said that is not fish and not meat (an italian proverb, I don't know if there is the same in other countries).

How do you pay for a similar lens if you have full size sensor?

Bruno

i'd rather have the full size sensor since most of what i shoot
is in the wide-angle catagory and i rarely if ever shoot long
telephoto.

Now, in order to get a decent WA shot that doesn't suffer from some
terrible distortion becase it's a fisheye, i need what get's
cropped out of the 1.6x with decent WA lens like the 17-40L.

I just bought the 50/1.8. It's very nice but it's too long with
1.6x for many casual uses. I often cannot stand any further back.
It would be just fine with a full frame sensor.

If all you shoot is squirrels and ducks, the 1.6x crop is like a
blessing from heaven. But for me, on the WA end, it's a frustration.

Also, every EF lens made so far was designed for a normal sensor /
film neg size. They were not intended to be used on a reduced size
anything, but they do still work. I'd rather be able to pick from
the 50 lenses already made than have canon make a few new ones
specificaly for 1.6x factor, which may not last as technology
progresses anyway.