The advantage of different sensor sizes (continue to "new ways to describe...)

[TeddyD]

Lee Jay wrote in other thread:

"Smaller formats never have an advantage over larger formats. The only time they do is not directly because of format but rather because of pixel size, namely if they have smaller pixels which can help if you are focal length or magnification (as in macro) limited.

The reason to use smaller formats is to get smaller systems via the use of smaller and effectively ("equivalently") slower lenses than are available for larger formats. For example, you can't really get lenses slower than f/5.6 for full-frame by you can get f/11 equivalent lenses for 4/3 which are smaller because of their shorter focal lengths and thus smaller apertures. Smaller formats are also often cheaper but, again, they don't have an image quality advantage.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay"

As you say in the first part there's some advantage for smaller sensors. For that reason I like CX format is good for macro or MFT for long telephoto, however I have no such reason what you mention in the second part becouse I use the same FF lenses in all formats and becouse of that I can use shorter and faster lenses with small sensor compared to FF to get the same picture (as 200mm f/2.8 vs 400mm f/5.6) which in daylight handheld shooting is not a brainer IMHO (reminder for myself "must buy that MFT body" )

It also depends of the subject. If it's a single "simple" object I have no advantage of more than 20Mp but when more detail is desireable or I'm shooting in low light FF with more pixels wins.

Teddy

 

[Max Iso]

I did some research a while back. It kinda explained why equivalently fast lenses on smaller formats are not without tradeoffs. For example, if you took a lens that is FF that is a 50mm f2. The aperture (entrance pupil) is 25mm (50/2=25). For MFT to gather equal light at the same FOV it needs a 25mm f1 (25/1=25). Pretty simple.

But, and this is a big but, the angle of light on the MFT lens is far greater. The lens is having to take a front objective that is similar in size, and bend the light to a smaller focal spread by the time it reaches the sensor (because it's a smaller sensor), and within a shorter distance since it's only 25mm from middle element to sensor. This greater angle isn't without it's cost, which is one reason why the faster any particular lens design is, the harder it is to correct the light.

I believe this is why smaller format lenses that try to be "equivalently" fast cost so damn much. To design them with larger angles of incidence between elements and still keep them optically pleasant simply costs more. I also believe this is what will ultimately limit phones getting faster and faster lenses.

This is what the data i have encountered claimed, perhaps somebody with more engineering knowledge than myself can confirm it.

 

[TeddyD]

I did some research a while back. It kinda explained why equivalently fast lenses on smaller formats are not without tradeoffs. For example, if you took a lens that is FF that is a 50mm f2. The aperture (entrance pupil) is 25mm (50/2=25). For MFT to gather equal light at the same FOV it needs a 25mm f1 (25/1=25). Pretty simple.

But, and this is a big but, the angle of light on the MFT lens is far greater. The lens is having to take a front objective that is similar in size, and bend the light to a smaller focal spread by the time it reaches the sensor (because it's a smaller sensor), and within a shorter distance since it's only 25mm from middle element to sensor. This greater angle isn't without it's cost, which is one reason why the faster any particular lens design is, the harder it is to correct the light.

I believe this is why smaller format lenses that try to be "equivalently" fast cost so damn much. To design them with larger angles of incidence between elements and still keep them optically pleasant simply costs more. I also believe this is what will ultimately limit phones getting faster and faster lenses.

This is what the data i have encountered claimed, perhaps somebody with more engineering knowledge than myself can confirm it.

 

[Mike_PEAT]

I've used more camera formats than most people here, including a process camera that's taller than a person and used sheets of film upto 2 feet x 3 feet in size...there is NO be all and end all of photography formats.

EVERY format has it's benefits AND compromises.

Personally I started with medium format film, then went to 135 format (what people misname as "full frame"), and then down to FourThirds and Micro FourThirds which I still use to this day as MY favorite format.

 

[TeddyD]

I share this sheet here if it rises up more conversation..



Most of the gear in the sheet is something I currently have and use, something I've considered to buy or for comparison.

Grey for comparison

Green focal lengths being kit zooms and alike for "holiday pictures".

Yellow as "good combination"

lighter yellow "why not"

lightest yellow "maybe"

light red "maybe not"

BR Teddy

 

[GodSpeaks]

<snip>
Personally I started with medium format film, then went to 135 format (what people misname as "full frame"),

Hardly misnamed. It is a shorthand for a full 35mm (36x24mm) frame sensor. Everyone knows that FF (full frame) refers to a full sized 35mm sensor and not some other size. Just as DX refers to APS-C, or CX refers to 1". These have become generic terms. Some people do like to niggle though.

The term full frame has been used since at least 2002, when the first full frame 35mm sensored cameras were introduced. It is now a part of our lexicon.

 

[TeddyD]

<snip>

Personally I started with medium format film, then went to 135 format (what people misname as "full frame"),

Hardly misnamed. It is a shorthand for a full 35mm (36x24mm) frame sensor. Everyone knows that FF (full frame) refers to a full sized 35mm sensor and not some other size. Just as DX refers to APS-C, or CX refers to 1". These have become generic terms. Some people do like to niggle though.

The term full frame has been used since at least 2002, when the first full frame 35mm sensored cameras were introduced. It is now a part of our lexicon.

--
The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
- Rayna Butler

Surely it's misnamed but we can live with it. The reason for this lies behind the fact camera manufacturers liked to be "hushhush" with their first generation of digital consumer DSLR's and mostly "forget" to mention the sensors being smaller compared 135 film counterparts. When they finally gor their bigger sensor cameras on the market they all sang outloud about the "full frame" mantra. So we have (again) some marketing executives to thank for this BS. But as I said we can live with it but however lets not forget it's basicly BS.

Teddy

 

[J A C S]

Personally I started with medium format film, then went to 135 format (what people misname as "full frame"),

But "135 format" is not?.

and then down to FourThirds and Micro FourThirds which I still use to this day as MY favorite format.

Terribly misnamed as well.

 

[fishy wishy]

If you want a system with a high depth of field to get everything in focus, then a small sensor system is just right for you. Could be good for holidays and macro.

However when you get to the situation where you need to shoot wide open and collect the maximum amount of light then the small formats fall short.

It's quite simple really.

In real life people have said to me they just won't put up with any more weight than a small mirrorless, and that the quality will be 'good enough' or what they are used to (for older people used to film). They don't say 'more than good enough'. They know it potentially has a deficit.

 

[richarddd]

If you want a system with a high depth of field to get everything in focus, then a small sensor system is just right for you. Could be good for holidays and macro.

However when you get to the situation where you need to shoot wide open and collect the maximum amount of light then the small formats fall short.

It's quite simple really.

Fans of ultrawide might prefer larger format. For example, you could use 10mm lens on a FF. You'd need 5mm on a m43 to get the same angle of view from a single lens. I don't see many m43 5mm lenses.

In real life people have said to me they just won't put up with any more weight than a small mirrorless, and that the quality will be 'good enough' or what they are used to (for older people used to film). They don't say 'more than good enough'. They know it potentially has a deficit.

 

[J A C S]

If you want a system with a high depth of field to get everything in focus, then a small sensor system is just right for you.

Are you saying that shooting landscapes with all those Hasselblad and Phase one cameras is a waste?

 

[Michael Fryd]

If you want a system with a high depth of field to get everything in focus, then a small sensor system is just right for you. Could be good for holidays and macro.

Both large and small sensors are just right for deep depth of field. The advantage of smaller sensors is that they generally are lighter, more convenient, and cost less.

However when you get to the situation where you need to shoot wide open and collect the maximum amount of light then the small formats fall short.

Correct.

It's quite simple really.

In real life people have said to me they just won't put up with any more weight than a small mirrorless, and that the quality will be 'good enough' or what they are used to (for older people used to film). They don't say 'more than good enough'. They know it potentially has a deficit.

if you don't need the shallow depth of field afforded by a larger sensor, then you may not need a larger sensor.

However, there are other reasons why one may want the larger sensor. Some camera manufacturers put their high end features into full frame bodies. If you want the best auto focus, best weather proofing, etc., you may need to buy a full frame body, rather than a crop body.

Consider Canon's DSLR line. Their bottom of the line 24 megapixel Rebel SL2 is capable of producing stunning quality, however it isn't a good choice for shooting birds in flight during a light rain. It's not a question of image quality, but of the bundled features.

 

[TeddyD]

Personally I started with medium format film, then went to 135 format (what people misname as "full frame"),

But "135 format" is not?.

and then down to FourThirds and Micro FourThirds which I still use to this day as MY favorite format.

Terribly misnamed as well.

135 is actually a name for film format, not defined by the picture area though the 24*36 was the most common. It was first developed for film industry thus double sided perforation..

 

[Mr Garibaldi]

I did some research a while back. It kinda explained why equivalently fast lenses on smaller formats are not without tradeoffs. For example, if you took a lens that is FF that is a 50mm f2. The aperture (entrance pupil) is 25mm (50/2=25). For MFT to gather equal light at the same FOV it needs a 25mm f1 (25/1=25). Pretty simple.

This only matters if noise is an issue, as the whole equivalence idea is to make sure smaller format users know their place and stay there.

Where it falls down is when noise isn't an issue, which is most of the time.

 

[Mike_PEAT]

Personally I started with medium format film, then went to 135 format (what people misname as "full frame"),

But "135 format" is not?.

So what do we call medium format "fuller frame" and large format "fullier frame"?

The only time you can really call 135 full frame is relation to half-frame cameras, like the Olympus Pen F film camera which shot half-frames so they got twice as many exposures on a roll of 135:

Half-frame examples are left and right, and standard (full) frame is in the centre.

and then down to FourThirds and Micro FourThirds which I still use to this day as MY favorite format.

Terribly misnamed as well.

How so? The imaging diameter of a Four Thirds sensor is 4/3" and it uses a 4:3 ratio, which has been more used in the home for years over the 3:2 ratio.

 

[J A C S]

Personally I started with medium format film, then went to 135 format (what people misname as "full frame"),

But "135 format" is not?.

So what do we call medium format "fuller frame" and large format "fullier frame"?

I believe we call it medium format and nobody is complaining that it is not quite in the middle.

The only time you can really call 135 full frame is relation to half-frame cameras, like the Olympus Pen F film camera which shot half-frames so they got twice as many exposures on a roll of 135:

Funny that you keep using the misnamed 135mm format again. What part of my FF camera is 135mm long?

Half-frame examples are left and right, and standard (full) frame is in the centre.

and then down to FourThirds and Micro FourThirds which I still use to this day as MY favorite format.

Terribly misnamed as well.

How so? The imaging diameter of a Four Thirds sensor is 4/3"

It is about 1/2 of that because .... 4/3" as a sensor size specification is terribly misnamed as well.

and it uses a 4:3 ratio, which has been more used in the home for years over the 3:2 ratio.

Right, so it is not a sensor size; it is a ratio used in different sizes/formats as well.

 

[David5833]

Personally I started with medium format film, then went to 135 format (what people misname as "full frame"),

But "135 format" is not?.

So what do we call medium format "fuller frame" and large format "fullier frame"?

The only time you can really call 135 full frame is relation to half-frame cameras, like the Olympus Pen F film camera which shot half-frames so they got twice as many exposures on a roll of 135:

Half-frame examples are left and right, and standard (full) frame is in the centre.

and then down to FourThirds and Micro FourThirds which I still use to this day as MY favorite format.

Terribly misnamed as well.

How so? The imaging diameter of a Four Thirds sensor is 4/3" and it uses a 4:3 ratio, which has been more used in the home for years over the 3:2 ratio.

I can appreciate a good nit-pick, and technical terminology SHOULD be unambiguous, but you are fighting a losing battle. Resistance is futile. I notice that even you use the ambiguous terms "medium format" and "large format".

--
https://www.flickr.com/gp/143821723@N06/sRBm53

 

[tbcass]

Personally I started with medium format film, then went to 135 format (what people misname as "full frame"),

It's not misnamed because it's become a standard. It is based on what was the most popular professional/enthusiast film format, 35mm. It was popular because it was the compromise of IQ and portability that most people were drawn to. Sensors that are the same size as the full 35mm film slide or negative originally were called full frame years ago and the name just stuck. I'm sure you know that but I repeat it here to show that FF is not misnamed any more than any name is somehow "wrong". I agree tha calling it 35mm sensor would be more accurate but back then the term FF was used so it wouldn't get confused with 35mm film. It's too late to change it now however.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels

 

[Max Iso]

I did some research a while back. It kinda explained why equivalently fast lenses on smaller formats are not without tradeoffs. For example, if you took a lens that is FF that is a 50mm f2. The aperture (entrance pupil) is 25mm (50/2=25). For MFT to gather equal light at the same FOV it needs a 25mm f1 (25/1=25). Pretty simple.

This only matters if noise is an issue, as the whole equivalence idea is to make sure smaller format users know their place and stay there.

Where it falls down is when noise isn't an issue, which is most of the time.

I have to disagree here. I have raw files from every camera i have owned. I can tell you from my own editing in PS CC, an ISO 64 shot from a D800 can be pushed WAAAAY farther in PP than a GX7's ISO 200 file. Noise on either at the lowest ISOs is good enough for some, but when you process the file, noise tends to show up, or you run into limitations of DR ect.

OOC noise is definitely not the only metric i judge IQ by. And while i am a fan of sarcasm, the 'know their place and stay there' remark makes it sound like a FF user took a wee in your cheerios (by the way you are talking to somebody who has owned 3 MFT cameras). You are saying once you get to a certain noise floor, it's good enough. Good enough for who? People who only use OOC shots? People who only print < 3x5?

I could make the same argument for AF. I could say nobody "needs" the EM1-II bc it's AF is overkill, its 18fps is not needed unless you want to be picky about the shot. To some that is important, to some having 50mp is important, and to some having a noise floor of 45db is important.

It's amazing to see people here criticize somebody for insisting something is objectively better (ie bigger sensors), then see that same person try to set standards for all consumers. My car needs might be different than joe blow down the street, but im not gonna argue with him when he says a Ferrari is a better race car than my Prius. You should read my sig below, it's enlightening.

--
"The truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to it's power or live a lie." - Miyamoto Musashi ????

 

[Camley]

I've used more camera formats than most people here, including a process camera that's taller than a person and used sheets of film upto 2 feet x 3 feet in size...there is NO be all and end all of photography formats.

EVERY format has it's benefits AND compromises.

Yes, as you look at different sensor sizes its mainly a trade off between image quality versus equipment size, although flagship cameras in the Full Frame to m43 range seem to be similarly sized in mirrorless designs to provide good handling capability.

Personally I started with medium format film, then went to 135 format (what people misname as "full frame"), and then down to FourThirds and Micro FourThirds which I still use to this day as MY favorite format.

I followed your path from medium format (quarter plate and 2.25" square) to 35mm but, for digital cameras, I started with APS-C and moved to Full Frame (MY favorite format) for better IQ and cropping capability. I can't understand the concern about the use of the name Full Frame. It's in general use, it's understood by all serious photographers, and makes as much sense as the term m43 for example.