Why FF?

[martin surovcek]

i am using fixed lenses a lot
there are many reasons, but 50mm is cropped now and tele
yp, i can use 35mm, but there's more distortions than in 50mm...
that's why 50mm is prime

--



Martin Tony Surovcek
icq:140820372
http://www.n3.sk

 

[brianric]

Technically arrogant is more appropriate.

That BS is usually brought by technically ignorant ppl.

I bring it up all the time. I hope you aren't calling me
"technically ignorant" because you'd be wrong.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Greg Pavlov]

--
The only thing we know for sure about Henry Porter is that he will
always stay with the crop format.

The only thing we know for sure is that format differences are
all relative and for many pople their benchmark is the 35 mm
format they grew up with. There is nothing magical about any
format and not one is ideal, when all of the major factors of
quality, utility, familiarity, and cost are considered.

 

[xandxor]

Technically arrogant is more appropriate.

Nice quip; but could we please not let this get personal? (Fat chance, I know!) It is just there are perfectly rational answers to all these questions, and, speaking as someone who does physics for a living, I would argue that ljfinger and vor have the correct conceptual framework.

That BS is usually brought by technically ignorant ppl.

I bring it up all the time. I hope you aren't calling me
"technically ignorant" because you'd be wrong.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[John Sheehy]

I honestly don't understand why so many people want to go FF. OK,
the 5D is a great camera but so is the 30D. What are the true
advantages of FF? WA is of course one factor but WA lenses are
cheap compared to the long tele.

Not good ones.

And remember that on a 1.6x camera
we only use the BEST part of the lenses, the center.

That is not necessarily true. Unless the corner sharpness drops by a factor of more than 1.6 in terms of maximum res at a specific contrast, the lower absolute resolution at the corners does not come into play in the FF. Same goes for CA; it has to be 1.6x stronger in the corners to have a negative effect. For geometrical distortion, your point is more applicable.

Of all the
comparisons I have seen I find it difficult to see any difference
in IQ between the 5D and the 20/30D. Bigger pixels on the sensor
should mean higher S/N ratio.

In theory, the bigger pixels should only reduce shot noise, which is the nosie that depends on signal - absolute shot noise is higher for higher exposure (more photons captured), and realtive noise (N/S) is lower for higher exposures. The limit to dynamic range and shadows, in reality, is dictated by readout (blackframe) noise, which is not directly related to pixel size.

In reality, Canon wastes the big-pixel noise benefit, mostly, by not using the camera's native ISO. The 5D and 1DmkII can capture about 80,000 photons per well, but ISO 100 only digitizes up to about 50,000 (roughly), rather than having an ISO 64 that would use full-well capacity. ISO 50 has reduced DR, and DR is one of the main reasons you'd want to use a lower ISO.

The noise benefit of the FF cameras at the pixel level is slim, however, with a properly matched lens, the greater number of pixels results in finer noise from the persepctive of the entire image, as compared to a 1.6x-crop camera. The higher pixel-to-pixel contrast when resolving the lens also reduces the need for sharpening, which sharpens noise. As soon as your comparison shifts to using the same lens at the same focal length on both types of cameras, then the FF will have a wider FOV, but quality of a 1.6x-crop in the FF compared to the 1.6x-crop cameras will be inferior, as the pixels are then a larger percentage of final image size, so the noise is coarser, and less detail of the subject can be captured.

--
John

 

[Henrik Andersson]

I honestly don't understand why so many people want to go FF.

I do. There is no fast ultra-wide zomms for APS-C, better high ISO performance, higher resolution, better use of the best lenses.

WA is of course one factor but WA lenses are
cheap compared to the long tele.

True but I don't buy the crop bennefit of smaller pixels on smaller sensors. Just use a teleconverter instead or buy a 'slower' (worse F-value) longer lens and increase ISO.

No fast ultra-wide zooms availible for APS-C.

And remember that on a 1.6x camera
we only use the BEST part of the lenses, the center.

I don't agree on this one either. You get more detail out of the lenses when using bigger formats.

Of all the
comparisons I have seen I find it difficult to see any difference
in IQ between the 5D and the 20/30D.

I think the 5D should have been atleast 16MP or 8MP ISO12800 capable. Now they choosed a solution where the 5D have slightly higher resolution and slightly better 'per pixel' high ISO performance, so I can understand that it's hard to see that it's better sometimes when you don't get both bennefits.

Personally I would prefer higher resolution.

Bigger pixels on the sensor
should mean higher S/N ratio. But it s signifiant for most amateurs?
And by the way, why stop at 24x36, why not bigger format?

Th reason 36x24mm is an important sixe is that it's the biggest most convinient format. Fast primes, fast zoom with IS, cheap great zooms (Canon 70-200/F4L etc).

Medium format and, even worse, big format is better but MUCH more expensive and much more trublesome to use.

(who
startet calling medium-format FF? Canon?)

Does Canon say that FF is medium format ?

Bottom line: I think I'll stick to the 1.6X bodies.

Me too. For the price and evolution advantages. But bigger sensor would be better if I could afford them...

( I don't know the reason for this rant, maybe I just have to
convince myself )

As the rest of us ?

I stick with APS-C since I can't afford to swap a 36x24mm sensor based DSLR every 3 years. Since I don't want to pay much for the 1D body (wheather sealing, AF-performance etc) I think I get better image quality for te money with APS-C vs 36x24mm.

For instance now the 400D probably have better or same pure image quality as the 1Ds (11MP). Resolution and high ISO performance is probably the same.

So changing APS-C bodies more often will be better economicly as long as the FF cameras cost as much as the 5D cost.

I will definitely swap to 36x24mm if a high resolution modell is released, optimized for ISO100 with maybe some noise, or price is lowered.

--
Henrik

 

[Volker Hett]

A 16-35/2.8 zoom is no replacement for a 35/1.4.

If you want this, you need FF.

And have a look at the viewfinder, when you're coming from Contax like I do, then the finders in the 2 and 3 digit bodies are just peepholes.
--
I wanted a better viewfinder and now I need more money

 

[gml]

Technically arrogant is more appropriate.

Nice quip; but could we please not let this get personal? (Fat
chance, I know!) It is just there are perfectly rational answers
to all these questions, and, speaking as someone who does physics
for a living, I would argue that ljfinger and vor have the correct
conceptual framework.

Let's say you have 35mm film and 6x4.5 film. What't the perfectly rational answer to the following question: does the bigger film collect more light than the smaller one. And also how is that different for digital sensors.

 

[ggw2000]

wanted a better viewfinder and now I need more money

I agree! I want a bigger/brighter viewfinder too - and I need more money . Gerry

 

[Luke Kukovica]

...as in the case of the Canon line ...I beleive it is a better camera and produces better pictures ...and isn't that what it is about ...BETTER PICTURES

the others have there place also. you could have asked why would someone buy medium format !!

don't forget to visit my pbase site ...that is really why i post comments
http://www.pbase.com/llukee/inbox&page=42