Full size sensor. Is it convenient?

[RATPhoto]

I want it for the following reasons:

1) DOF differences - there is less DOF with a fullsize sensor which is generally good for regular photography.

2) Higher potential resolution without increases in sensor noise.

3) Better wide angle coverage

4) Dust becomes less significant

--
If you are a new user chances are good your question is answered in the FAQ at:
http://www.marius.org/eos300dfaq.php

For a small gallery of my photographs, see:
http://ratphoto.home.comcast.net/
See my profile for my equipment

 

[Molteni Bruno]

It is not compulsory to make cheap lens for the small sensor.
Canon could make more expensive lenses for this type of sensor.
Olympus lenses are not cheap and seems (I have not test it) working good.

You haven't lack of wide angle if anon make lenses for this!

Bruno

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.

 

[Molteni Bruno]

Yes, of course a full-frame sensor provides higher

resolution (like in the film world 6x6 is better than 35mm) but do you need more resolution? I think that Rebel has enough resolution for compete with film cameras and also have very few noise also at higher ISO rates.

Bruno

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

 

[Molteni Bruno]

You are absolutely right!

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

 

[Molteni Bruno]

1) Regular photography? What is this. I cannot doing regular photo with my Rebel? :-(
2) How much resolution do you need?
3) Hope Canon will made other EF-S lens for wide-angles
4) Dust .. you can clean with photoshop.

;-) Bruno

I want it for the following reasons:

1) DOF differences - there is less DOF with a fullsize sensor which
is generally good for regular photography.

2) Higher potential resolution without increases in sensor noise.

3) Better wide angle coverage

4) Dust becomes less significant

--
If you are a new user chances are good your question is answered in
the FAQ at:
http://www.marius.org/eos300dfaq.php

For a small gallery of my photographs, see:
http://ratphoto.home.comcast.net/
See my profile for my equipment

 

[Tom K.182709]

There are many debates [all compelling] on the advantages of different pick-up sizes, and I thought Oly made a great case for 4/3s.

Whatever pick-up size the industry decides on, there has to be a full range of lenses. Right now, there's staggering range of lenses is for the 35mm pickup size - OVER 75 YEARS' WORTH. We know have an excellent full frame dSLR (the 1Ds) so now they have to get the cost down. My first Marantz CD burner was over $2000 in 1995 and the blanks were $15 each. My most recent CD purchase cost $40 and blanks are now 20 cents! Full frame dSLRs will be common place, sooner than most people think.

Smaller pick-up sizes have obvious creative advantages...significant improvements in DOF and every dSLR shooter just got a telephoto boost. Digital P&S users can't believe how sharp their JPEGs are...no suprise as they have more DOF than 35mm film.

On to the future...

In, say, 5 years you'll be able to buy a $500 full frame dSLR body. Spend more to get more megapixels or better build. With your $500 body you can get a $100 plastic lens, or a $2000 super quality model - all based around a COMMON pick-up size. Obviously, a pro will want a 14mp pick-up with a $2000 lens, while I may pick a $300 lens on a $500 body for recording the events of my family. BUT, with a universal size you can mix and match. Oly's 4/3's format is fighting 75 years of support for another format. Would your rather pick from 6 lenses, or 600?

If you look further into this, think of how much quality they'll be able to get out of the fully realized 35mm pick up size. I predict better image quality than medium format film cameras of old - WITH THE INCREDIBLE RANGE OF LENSES.

We've been reading a lot of post about Nikon's rumoured F6 - a hybrid camera that can shoot 35mm film, or (with a changed back) can shoot a variety of different digital resolutions. Again, it's about mixing and matching.

If the focal length conversion isn't a hassle to you, consider yourself lucky. To anyone who collects lenses (particularly those under 100mm), it's a royal inconvience. But, I just remember that slow & expensive CD burner and know EVERYTHING digital gets much better, VERY quickly. Bring on the afforable ff dSLR - I'm ready, and waiting.

 

[DRG]

"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.

Even at this point in time, the source of most noise in a well-exposed image is photon arrival and detection statistics. Noise stemming from the sensor itself, such as thermal generation, is typically much smaller. Given this, we can conclude that the only way to reduce noise is to accumulate more photos per pixel on any given exposure. This can be accomplished in four ways.

Given that dark current doesn't dominate, we can strike shutter speed off the list for typical expose lengths (long time exposures excluded).

Next, we can increase the number of photos per unit area per unit time striking the sensor. This is determined by the F-stop number. Since we are focused on sensor improvements and not on lenses, let's assume the same lens across all experiments and thus a fixed F-stop. So, we can cross this off the list.

This brings us to two aspects of the sensor. We can increase accumulated photon-generated charge by increasing the pixel area, and thus intercepting more photons per unit time (recall that photons per unit area per unit time is fixed by the fixed F-stop). Or, we can increase the total amount of charge that the pixel can hold before saturating. This last option, however, requires increasing the exposure, since only a certain number of photons per unit time are reaching the pixel. The result is a sensor with a lower ISO rating.

So, unless a new sensor technology allows the easy construction of lenses with very low F-stop number, the two choices are increased pixel area or a high-dynamic range sensor with low ISO. These boil down from the assumption that photon statistics are limiting noise, independent of sensor technology.

David

 

[Mats Neander]

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.

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

Cheaper full frame coverage lenses are of course giving only their middle part of image to a sensor of 300D size, correct.And that part use to be better tha at the edges, out of the 300D sensors coverage.

But a cheap "EF-S" coverage lens fex will possibly be "cheap performing", and only cover the smaller area and thus from its cheapness may well give worse performance at the edges of that area, not definatley but possibly.

I have the existing Canon kit lens, and it´s pretty good all over its coverage, but not at its best at full opening at the edges.

NOW, to the interesting part, which you did not note or undestand:

Assuming that the final image asked from a camera is the same size on print, fex an A3 copy, from a 300D and from a analog SLR or from fex a 1Ds, then the lens used on the 300D would HAVE TO be sharper PER MILLIMETER on the sensor.

An image of fex a fence at a hundred feet away, will be imaged on a much smaller area on the 300D and the 300D will of course have to be resolving MORE lines per mm to give the same quality on the final print as the full framed sensor´s image, if printed out to same size, in this case an A3.

This rests on using fex a 18mm lens on the 300D and a 28mm lens on the 1Ds, so the same "amount", or better, length, of the fence turns out on the respective print.

To make that possible the 300D would have to have roughly the double number of pixels (=same as the 1Ds), AND the lens for the 300D would have to resolve better per millimeter to make the image as detailed as the 1Ds image.

I think I explained better this time, but the issue is so seldom even touched at that it makes it unusual for most people to think in these terms.

In the hard reality, for most uses, though, the mid- to high quality lenses designed for full frame do give enough resolution to give perceptably equally good images if not enlarged way too much...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In medium format (film) it´s the norm that many lenses have slightly lower resolution per millimeter on the film, than 35mm format lenses (of the better types) and still the medium format gives sharper more resolved images because:

The negative is far larger making less enlargement necessary, resulting in sharper images with smaller grain, since the number of grain/particles are far higher on the medium format negative.

Better color rendition comes as a freebie, and if you think of a 300D as a "35mm format" and a 1Ds as a "medium format" you can take this reasoning backwards so to speak, and then it gets more obvious I think...

Mats

 

[hm]

Yes, of course a full-frame sensor provides higher
resolution (like in the film world 6x6 is better than 35mm) but do
you need more resolution? I think that Rebel has enough resolution
for compete with film cameras and also have very few noise also at
higher ISO rates.

If you consider what you have today to be "good enough", then of course you don't need anything more. But our perception of "need" is often dependent on what's available, just as you say "as good as film". By the same token, if film was better, you might perceive the need for a better digital camera (as your camera was no longer better than film).

Any way, my 6MP needs to be upsampled even to make an 8x10 print, and that's with 2/3 of the data in the image being "made up" (i.e. interpolated) by the camera itself.

As long as I don't have enough pixels to make an 11x14 without any upsampling or interpolation and with a 2x crop in post-processing (for when my subject outdistances my lens), I'll refrain from declaring that I have no need for more.
-harry

 

[RATPhoto]

First I have to emphasize this is why I want a full frame camera. If you don't, that is fine. Requirements differ. But my reasons are legitimate.

1) Regular photography? What is this. I cannot doing regular photo
with my Rebel? :-(

I simply meant that there are many times where less DOF is a good thing. A full frame camera gives less DOF.

2) How much resolution do you need?

As much as I can get while keeping noise down. Full frame has the advantage here.

3) Hope Canon will made other EF-S lens for wide-angles

They might but I wouldn't count on it, and if they do for a really wide equivalent like 17mm, the optical quality would almost certainly be horrible.

4) Dust .. you can clean with photoshop.

Be my guest. Personally I dusted way to many photos taken with my old slide scanner that didn't have digital ice. I'm happy to say I replaced that scanner. Dusting isn't my idea of a good time and anything that minimizes this problem is good by me.

;-) Bruno

I want it for the following reasons:

1) DOF differences - there is less DOF with a fullsize sensor which
is generally good for regular photography.

2) Higher potential resolution without increases in sensor noise.

3) Better wide angle coverage

4) Dust becomes less significant

--
If you are a new user chances are good your question is answered in
the FAQ at:
http://www.marius.org/eos300dfaq.php

For a small gallery of my photographs, see:
http://ratphoto.home.comcast.net/
See my profile for my equipment

--
If you are a new user chances are good your question is answered in the FAQ at:
http://www.marius.org/eos300dfaq.php

For a small gallery of my photographs, see:
http://ratphoto.home.comcast.net/
See my profile for my equipment

 

[Michael Entin]

But a cheap "EF-S" coverage lens fex will possibly be "cheap
performing", and only cover the smaller area and thus from its
cheapness may well give worse performance at the edges of that
area, not definatley but possibly.

Now you are comparing apples to oranges. I was talking about EF lens,
how they perform on small sensor and large one.

NOW, to the interesting part, which you did not note or undestand:
Assuming that the final image asked from a camera is the same size
on print, fex an A3 copy, from a 300D and from a analog SLR or from
fex a 1Ds, then the lens used on the 300D would HAVE TO be sharper
PER MILLIMETER on the sensor.

I did note and understand this. I absolutely agree.

Yes, the EF lens for 300D would have to be sharper per millemeter
of the focal plane. But it does not have to be that sharp at edges
of large sensor (which is often more serious problem). So we lose
something and gain something.

In reality nothing of this matters, since what we really gain is ability
to buy a good DSRL camera for less than 1000 bucks - thanks to
the smaller sensor (still much bigger than sensor of point-n-shoot
camera). Good deal for me. I can spend more money buying good
lenses with higher resolution.

300D + 3 good (L) lenses is still cheaper than 1Ds + 3 less good lenses

 

[Molteni Bruno]

Rebel photos have this pixel dimension: 3072x2048

If you print at 300 dpi you will have 10,240x6,827(inches) print (26,010x17,340 centimeters).
This is good for fill an A4 paper (without using any interpolation).
I have an A4 printer so normally I don't need more resolution.

But if sometimes I need to enlarge a part of images, yes, I have to interpolate it, but I remember when I made my photos in black-camera (analogic) and I enlarged photos more than 18x24 centimeters I alwais had problem of resolution and grain.

Bruno

Yes, of course a full-frame sensor provides higher
resolution (like in the film world 6x6 is better than 35mm) but do
you need more resolution? I think that Rebel has enough resolution
for compete with film cameras and also have very few noise also at
higher ISO rates.

If you consider what you have today to be "good enough", then of
course you don't need anything more. But our perception of "need"
is often dependent on what's available, just as you say "as good as
film". By the same token, if film was better, you might perceive
the need for a better digital camera (as your camera was no longer
better than film).

Any way, my 6MP needs to be upsampled even to make an 8x10 print,
and that's with 2/3 of the data in the image being "made up" (i.e.
interpolated) by the camera itself.

As long as I don't have enough pixels to make an 11x14 without any
upsampling or interpolation and with a 2x crop in post-processing
(for when my subject outdistances my lens), I'll refrain from
declaring that I have no need for more.
-harry

 

[Mats Neander]

But a cheap "EF-S" coverage lens fex will possibly be "cheap
performing", and only cover the smaller area and thus from its
cheapness may well give worse performance at the edges of that
area, not definatley but possibly.

Now you are comparing apples to oranges. I was talking about EF lens,
how they perform on small sensor and large one.

NOW, to the interesting part, which you did not note or undestand:
Assuming that the final image asked from a camera is the same size
on print, fex an A3 copy, from a 300D and from a analog SLR or from
fex a 1Ds, then the lens used on the 300D would HAVE TO be sharper
PER MILLIMETER on the sensor.

I did note and understand this. I absolutely agree.

Yes, the EF lens for 300D would have to be sharper per millemeter
of the focal plane. But it does not have to be that sharp at edges
of large sensor (which is often more serious problem). So we lose
something and gain something.

In reality nothing of this matters, since what we really gain is
ability
to buy a good DSRL camera for less than 1000 bucks - thanks to
the smaller sensor (still much bigger than sensor of point-n-shoot
camera). Good deal for me. I can spend more money buying good
lenses with higher resolution.

300D + 3 good (L) lenses is still cheaper than 1Ds + 3 less good
lenses

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