Larger sensor just a luxury?

[EchoingWhisper]

Isn't a larger sensor just a luxury? I can only name a larger sensor's benefit - more resolution. A different perspective is debatable - whether it's better or not. Depth of field and low light ability is almost the same, given that the lens is the same size and sensor design is the same (same megapixels). Almost all camera companies only put professional features in their larger cameras now. Is there other benefit for a larger sensor?

[TPF Sponsor]

[Kerbouchard]

It's one of those cases where if you have to ask, then it shouldn't matter to you.

Either way, you missed one of the primary advantages; lower noise.

[SCraig]

Generally speaking larger sensors mean larger pixels on the sensor, which generally means that the signal strength of each pixel on the sensor has a higher signal to noise ratio. This translates, roughly, to larger sensors means lower noise. Given the exceptionally good noise rejection performance that some manufacturers are getting from smaller, high-density sensors these days, and the fact that even the full-format sensors are getting much higher densities, the line between the two is getting blurred though.

[Overread]

A large sensor gives a different angle of view when using the same lenses and comparing to a crop sensor. This can be a big difference when you're working indoors and want to use something like a 50mm for portrait work, rather than having to use a 35mm and suffer distortion problems (parts of the shot closer to the camera being enlarged).

You also get depth of field advantages - around one stop less is possible with the fullframe as compared to the 1.5/6 crop sensor camera bodies.

Points have also been made regarding the pixels size and density and advantages with cleaner high ISOs.


Also remember the whole of the DSLR is a luxury. Heck the ownership of a camera in itself isn't a necessity

[o hey tyler]

Isn't a larger sensor just a luxury? I can only name a larger sensor's benefit - more resolution. A different perspective is debatable - whether it's better or not. Depth of field and low light ability is almost the same, given that the lens is the same size and sensor design is the same (same megapixels). Almost all camera companies only put professional features in their larger cameras now. Is there other benefit for a larger sensor?

At longer focal lengths you also have more background control with a full frame camera.

If you frame a shot with a full frame camera at 135mm @ f/2 you'll have a DoF of .79 feet, if you were to frame the shot EXACTLY the same with an APS-C camera you would need to move away from the subject farther. Thus increasing the DoF at the same aperture/focal length giving you (to my eyes) a noticeable difference in background control.

This is an extreme example, but if you think about it, sense will make itself.

[SCraig]

A large sensor gives a different angle of view when using the same lenses and comparing to a crop sensor. This can be a big difference when you're working indoors and want to use something like a 50mm for portrait work, rather than having to use a 35mm and suffer distortion problems (parts of the shot closer to the camera being enlarged). ...

Agreed, however that same logic can be viewed as a deficit in other areas of photography. For example, when shooting birds the effective focal length increase of 150% is a big benefit.

[Overread]

A large sensor gives a different angle of view when using the same lenses and comparing to a crop sensor. This can be a big difference when you're working indoors and want to use something like a 50mm for portrait work, rather than having to use a 35mm and suffer distortion problems (parts of the shot closer to the camera being enlarged). ...

Agreed, however that same logic can be viewed as a deficit in other areas of photography. For example, when shooting birds the effective focal length increase of 150% is a big benefit.

Exactly - which is partly why I love my 7D (along with its fantastic AF).

Although I should point out that the 7D also has a luxury sensor in it, big and expensive if I compared it to a bridge camera.

[EchoingWhisper]

I think you guys missed my point at my fourth sentence. Given that the lens is the same size (not including VR and AF), you get the same amount of light no matter how large of a sensor it hits as long as they have the same amount of pixels. A f/2.8 APS-C lens is smaller than a f/2.8 full frame lens. A f/2.0 APS-C lens will provide about the amount of light as a f/2.8 full frame lens. (APS-C is about 1 time smaller than a full frame sensor, so it gets 1 time less light at the same f stop). So the SNR of *should* be the same. I said should cause' I don't know if a larger sensor will have better SNR even if they get the same amount of light.

And depth of field should also be the same. At the same focal length, you get to get about 1 time closer to the subject using a full frame camera compared to APS-C cameras, which gives you about 1 stop less depth of field. But that depth of field difference could be removed if both the full frame lens and APS-C lens are the same size since the APS-C lens is f/2.0, you get back your 1 stop loss of depth of field by using a larger aperture.

The only difference I see from a full frame compared to APS-C other than resolution is depth of field distribution, distortion and foreground size in relative to background size (perspective).

Please correct me if you find me wrong.

[SCraig]

I think you guys missed my point at my fourth sentence. Given that the lens is the same size (not including VR and AF), you get the same amount of light no matter how large of a sensor it hits as long as they have the same amount of pixels. A f/2.8 APS-C lens is smaller than a f/2.8 full frame lens. A f/2.0 APS-C lens will provide about the amount of light as a f/2.8 full frame lens. (APS-C is about 1 time smaller than a full frame sensor, so it gets 1 time less light at the same f stop). So the SNR of *should* be the same. I said should cause' I don't know if a larger sensor will have better SNR even if they get the same amount of light.

Not true. A full-frame sensor is 36mm x 24mm in size, or 864 square mm. An APS-C sensor is 25.1mm x 16.7mm or 419.7 square mm (varies with manufacturer). Assuming that both sensors have, for example, 10 megapixels it's obvious that each pixel on the APS-C sensor is going to be physically smaller by about 50%. Since each pixel is a light sensor, the larger each individual pixel the more photons will hit it during the exposure. More photons hitting the pixel means a higher voltage for that particular pixel when compared to the same pixel of an APS-C sensor. It we make the assumption that the electronic noise level will be consistent between the two sensors (I don't know whether that's a valid assumption or not) then the voltage for each pixel on the FX sensor is going to be higher than the voltage of each pixel of the APS-C sensor yielding a higher signal to noise ratio. That ratio is what's important since the higher the ratio the easier it is to filter out the noise.

[EchoingWhisper]

I think you guys missed my point at my fourth sentence. Given that the lens is the same size (not including VR and AF), you get the same amount of light no matter how large of a sensor it hits as long as they have the same amount of pixels. A f/2.8 APS-C lens is smaller than a f/2.8 full frame lens. A f/2.0 APS-C lens will provide about the amount of light as a f/2.8 full frame lens. (APS-C is about 1 time smaller than a full frame sensor, so it gets 1 time less light at the same f stop). So the SNR of *should* be the same. I said should cause' I don't know if a larger sensor will have better SNR even if they get the same amount of light.

Not true. A full-frame sensor is 36mm x 24mm in size, or 864 square mm. An APS-C sensor is 25.1mm x 16.7mm or 419.7 square mm (varies with manufacturer). Assuming that both sensors have, for example, 10 megapixels it's obvious that each pixel on the APS-C sensor is going to be physically smaller by about 50%. Since each pixel is a light sensor, the larger each individual pixel the more photons will hit it during the exposure. More photons hitting the pixel means a higher voltage for that particular pixel when compared to the same pixel of an APS-C sensor. It we make the assumption that the electronic noise level will be consistent between the two sensors (I don't know whether that's a valid assumption or not) then the voltage for each pixel on the FX sensor is going to be higher than the voltage of each pixel of the APS-C sensor yielding a higher signal to noise ratio. That ratio is what's important since the higher the ratio the easier it is to filter out the noise.

Given that both of the lens are the same size, both will get. Since APS-C sensors' pixel are denser, the light that falls on it is also denser, given that the lens are the same size as full frame. Light in the lens in full frame is spread out more so photons will be more spread out and less dense. Not sure if I'm right too.

If I am right, full frame cameras' only benefit is resolution. A larger sensor also mean a more expensive sensor and also a larger body and a more expensive body. Whether a larger body is good or not, I'd say bodies larger than the current full frame camera bodies are too big to be comfortable, at least for me.

[SCraig]

Given that both of the lens are the same size, both will get. Since APS-C sensors' pixel are denser, the light that falls on it is also denser, given that the lens are the same size as full frame. Light in the lens in full frame is spread out more so photons will be more spread out and less dense. Not sure if I'm right too.

If I am right, full frame cameras' only benefit is resolution. A larger sensor also mean a more expensive sensor and also a larger body and a more expensive body. Whether a larger body is good or not, I'd say bodies larger than the current full frame camera bodies are too big to be comfortable, at least for me.

I'm sure you have seen the diagrams that show a full-frame sensor with a crop-sensor indicated inside it (if not look Here). The full-frame sensor effectively receives ALL of the light from the lens however the crop-sensor does not. The crop-sensor camera only receives the middle 50% to 60% of the light transmitted through the lens.

[EchoingWhisper]

Given that both of the lens are the same size, both will get. Since APS-C sensors' pixel are denser, the light that falls on it is also denser, given that the lens are the same size as full frame. Light in the lens in full frame is spread out more so photons will be more spread out and less dense. Not sure if I'm right too.

If I am right, full frame cameras' only benefit is resolution. A larger sensor also mean a more expensive sensor and also a larger body and a more expensive body. Whether a larger body is good or not, I'd say bodies larger than the current full frame camera bodies are too big to be comfortable, at least for me.

I'm sure you have seen the diagrams that show a full-frame sensor with a crop-sensor indicated inside it (if not look Here). The full-frame sensor effectively receives ALL of the light from the lens however the crop-sensor does not. The crop-sensor camera only receives the middle 50% to 60% of the light transmitted through the lens.

That only applies if both are the same lens. If the APS-C lens is made to transmit the same amount of light as the full frame lens while covering only APS-C will be 1 f stop higher than the full frame sensor even though that they get the same amount of light.

[slackercruster]

Depends on what your doing with it?

If you make big prints, go with a big sensor. (In general.)

Nowadays 'almost' all cams can take a decent photo for viewing on the 'puter.

Here is a shot taken with a cheap Walmart $75 PS Kodak cam... shot at a measly mp setting of 1.1mp.

[jake337]

You say large sensor, yet your talking about 35mm. When I hear large sensor I think medium format and large format. I'm not sure about the advantages, but I can tell you what I personally like about portraits produced with medium/large format sensors. You get a wider FOV, with longer focal lengths. People look their best at longer focal lengths, and with medium/large format you can use very long focal lengths in smaller spaces.

[Helen B]

You say large sensor, yet your talking about 35mm. When I hear large sensor I think medium format and large format. I'm not sure about the advantages, but I can tell you what I personally like about portraits produced with medium/large format sensors. You get a wider FOV, with longer focal lengths. People look their best at longer focal lengths, and with medium/large format you can use very long focal lengths in smaller spaces.

I always thought that it was the camera-subject distance that mattered with portraits, not the focal length of the lens itself.