Practical Discussion on Full Frame Sensors

[Alpha]

I think this is a classic case of Nietzschean ressentement

 

[Garbz]

ksmattfish I know that the equipment has little to do with the quality of the camera. I live by that constantly, in this case though I am talking on a purely technical basis, not is a full frame sensor better than APS for photography in general.

darich this is exactly what I am talking about. Your arguement is not valid at all. There are plenty of cameras better than the 5D which are not full frame. The 1DMkII and 1DMkIII is an example. The Nikon D2X is another. There are plenty of test images on the net from each. And it is just as expected too. They are top of the line cameras, with top of the line prices too.

My D200 is also much better than the D70. But it still has the same sensor. Your sentiments that the 5D is better simply because of the fact that the sensor is a few mm larger is what is false.

 

[Alex_B]

I always hear "camera A is better than camera B" in this discussion ... define better? Each camera has strong and weak points. It purely depends on your preferences, it depends what you need your camera for.

So from that you can decide which camera is better for you.

If you do architectural photography alot, or landscapes, then a full 35mm sensor is a clear advantage since things do get wide. For sports and wildlife slightly smaller sensors are fine. If you want to get the same magnification on 35mm, you have to spend a lot of money on long telephoto lenses.

Every choice is a compromise. Even a 1Ds Mark II would be a problematic compromise for me since it is just not slim enough and too heavy for my outdoor hiking.

 

[Mike_E]

Anybody know the difference between a framing hammer and a trim hammer?

 

[skieur]

Every choice is a compromise. Even a 1Ds Mark II would be a problematic compromise for me since it is just not slim enough and too heavy for my outdoor hiking.

Yes, one element that has been neglected is that full sensor DSLRs with full size lenses are even larger and heavier than 35 mm camera and lens combos. That size factor does not contribute to unobtrusive street, journalistic, or even public relations photography. In churches too, smaller camera\sensor\lens combos mean that you are less likely to get hassled.

skieur

 

[Garbz]

That's where Leica's come in handy

I should really define "better" as I have used it to purely mean the final quality of the image. Of course certain cameras can't be suited to certain jobs, but it is an interesting thought now to consider certain sensors being suitable for certain types of photography. It is true crop factor can be an advantage too. It's one thing I like the most about using a camera with APS, but it can be argued that to crop the centre can be done in film too.

Mike a framing hammer is simply a trim hammer laying next to a corpse with someone else's fingerprints on it

 

[sabbath999]

While I totally agree about not totally committing long term to the APS only lenses, I kind of draw the line a bit on lenses that I am going to use TODAY to take literally thousands of pictures... like the Nikon 18-200 that I have... it already has, in the three months I have owned it, over 22,000 shots on it... at a rate of 100K shots a year, in 5 years that thing is going to be pretty well trashed anyway, or so I figure.

 

[ksmattfish]

...I am talking on a purely technical basis...

I own and use a couple of Canon 20D's and a Canon 5D, so I can compare those, but have little or no experience with most other DSLRs. As far as I understand the photoreceptor size and density of the 20D sensor and 5D sensor are the same, with the 5D being larger in area. In general I consider the 20D to produce photographic print quality slightly superior to 35mm film. It seems to me that the photographic print quality of the 5D is very similar to 6x4.5cm film.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Yes, one element that has been neglected is that full sensor DSLRs with full size lenses are even larger and heavier than 35 mm camera and lens combos.

What?

This is incorrect. The 5D is the same size as a the Canon EOS 3, it's 35mm film equivalent.

The 5D is also almost exactly the same size as the 30D, and smaller than the 1DsMIII, each of which has slightly smaller sensors.

Just to clarify.

 

[Garbz]

ksmattfish that puts the nail in the coffin of that argument

 

[Stretch Armstrong]

ksmattfish that puts the nail in the coffin of that argument

I agree Garbz. I found myself becoming aroused while reading his description of the 5d. I may have issues.:er:

 

[usayit]

In my opinion, fmw's post pretty much said it all.... crop factor and how it affects the apparent focal length. I could care less otherwise just as long as the image quality is high (which I've been told pixel density plays more of a role than size of sensor).

Those digital lovers who also love landscape and wide angles are rightfully holding their breath for someone (Pentax?) to release an affordable MF camera. I'm holding my breath too....

 

[Iron Flatline]

Me too, btw. The 39mb Hassy-back is a little pricy.

 

[darich]

Personally, i feel the shots from my 5D are far superior to the shots from my 20D. I mentioned the lenses so that no one could argue they were the cause or reason.
Until you've seen a good shot on a 5D it's difficult to explain but the shot looks layered and looks like it has depth. The 20D is a great camera and while the shots were excellent, i feel the 5D is superior.
It's a larger step in quality from my 20D to my 5D than it is from my 4mp Canon A85 to the 20D - So i know it's not the resolution.

darich this is exactly what I am talking about. Your arguement is not valid at all. There are plenty of cameras better than the 5D which are not full frame. The 1DMkII and 1DMkIII is an example. The Nikon D2X is another. There are plenty of test images on the net from each. And it is just as expected too. They are top of the line cameras, with top of the line prices too.

My D200 is also much better than the D70. But it still has the same sensor. Your sentiments that the 5D is better simply because of the fact that the sensor is a few mm larger is what is false.

I'd be interested to know how you get better images from a 1.6FOV sensor in the 1DMKII and only 8mp. And the 1DMKIII with a 1.6FOV sensor and 10mp.
The nikon may well produce better images but at twice the price with the same resolution and a cropped FOV sensor? It seems that the 5D is better value in my opinion.

I realise that better is very open and as someone suggested full frame is better for landscape while cropped FOV sensors may be favoured for wildlife.
I also realise that 1D MKII may be better for a sports photographer with 10fps comapred to the 5D 3fps.

But going purely on image quality, i doubt a smaller sensor with lower resolution could produce a higher quality image than the 5D as you're suggesting.

I originally said that the 5D produces images that have depth similar to slides that the 20D cannot match....maybe ksmattfish put it better in his post.

 

[ksmattfish]

I find that if I crop a 5D photo to 20D resolution, and compare it to a 20D photo of the same subject, shot on the same settings, both from raw, composed to match, etc... that they look almost identical. I've seen charts that show the 5D has slightly less noise than the 20D, but I can't see it with my own eyes on screen at 100% or print.

If I compare the same sized prints made from full res, high ISO shots from both camera, the bigger 5D file definately comes across cleaner. That said I'm still blown away by the 20D's quality at ISO 1600; a properly exposed raw file, with a bit of color noise reduction looks better to me than what I can get with Fuji NPH 400 35mm, which was my favorite, higher speed, color film.

More resolution is always nice. With the 20D I get nervous if I have to crop too much; the 5D gives me a lot more room to crop. The bigger, brighter viewfinder is wonderful.

Other things that I love about the 5D over the 20D are the bigger LCD screen, and much, much better flash ETTL, but I think those are 30D upgrades too.

Cons of the 5D vs the 20D: all my memory cards and hard drives store a lot less photos, my computer runs slower, and that big LCD screen eats batteries much faster. I still shoot with the 20D quite a bit, because it's a lot more economical, particularly if I'm pretty sure the photo will never be printed larger than 8"x12" (and that's a pretty good percentage of the photos I'm likely to be taking with a DSLR). Also the flash sync on the 20D is 1/250th vs. 1/200th on the 5D. Not a huge deal, particularly with the H-sync feature of Canon flashes, but if my mid-1980's Nikon FM2n can have 1/250th sync, why not my fancy smancy 2006 Canon 5D?