Can someone explain to me about this Full Sensor stuff?

[2WheelPhoto]

If you are worried about the loss of focal length, crop your image.

Agreed, and another option I enjoy is for a backup body use a cropper.

 

[SCraig]

If you are worried about the loss of focal length, crop your image.

It's not the same thing. Take two 10mp cameras, one with an FX sensor and one with a DX sensor. The DX sensor camera is going give a tighter field of view because of the crop yet that cropped field of view will contain the same number of pixels as the FX camera with a wider field of view. Another way of looking at it is that an image from an FX-sensor camera, when cropped to match the image of a DX-sensor camera of equal sensor pixel count, will have a lower resolution.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

If you are worried about the loss of focal length, crop your image.

It's not the same thing. Take two 10mp cameras, one with an FX sensor and one with a DX sensor. The DX sensor camera is going give a tighter field of view because of the crop yet that cropped field of view will contain the same number of pixels as the FX camera with a wider field of view. Another way of looking at it is that an image from an FX-sensor camera, when cropped to match the image of a DX-sensor camera of equal sensor pixel count, will have a lower resolution.

In anyway, it is actually the same, you can't compare cameras with different pixel sizes, in every way they are different, if you want resolution, buy a higher-res camera, or resize it in Photoshop, since most of the time you have more MP than you need. Lenses are normally the one that limits your resolution.

 

[o hey tyler]

If you are worried about the loss of focal length, crop your image.

It's not the same thing. Take two 10mp cameras, one with an FX sensor and one with a DX sensor. The DX sensor camera is going give a tighter field of view because of the crop yet that cropped field of view will contain the same number of pixels as the FX camera with a wider field of view. Another way of looking at it is that an image from an FX-sensor camera, when cropped to match the image of a DX-sensor camera of equal sensor pixel count, will have a lower resolution.

In anyway, it is actually the same, you can't compare cameras with different pixel sizes, in every way they are different, if you want resolution, buy a higher-res camera, or resize it in Photoshop, since most of the time you have more MP than you need. Lenses are normally the one that limits your resolution.

No, it isn't the same.

He's not comparing cameras with different pixels sizes, he's comparing APS-C and Full Frame sensors with the same resolution. Lenses don't limit your resolution at all. By cropping a 10mp full frame photo to the same FoV as a crop frame photo, you're cropping out pixels, which brings down the resolution.

 

[Derrel]

In NIkon, a full-frame camera is a professionally-capable camera, with TOP-line autofocusing, metering, and build quality and speed of sub-systems. Nikon makes the D700, D3s, and D3x. Prices are from $2700 to $7500, last time I checked...and with those prices, Nikon's own Nikon Professional Services classifications, and real-world considerations, FUll-frame or "FX NIkon" bodies are professionally-capable cameras. Few in number of models.

Canon makes the 5D Mark II, also about $2,700. Not a very "professional" type of body, with a very middle-of-the-road set of body and autofocusing capabilities, but a VERY high-resolution, high-quality sensor and beautiful image quality. Canon also makes a true, professional flagship, the 1Ds series body, with the little s commonly thought of as standing for "studio"....but it's very field-capable too! Expensive, and rock-solid.



Sony's A850 and A900 full-frame cameras are very traditionally styled, well-made, solid, good-viewfindered lower-priced FF bodies. These two share the same sensel, or light-sensitive part, of the sensor used in the Nikon D3x, so both Sony cameras have a 24.7 MP sensor. The electronics and AA filter and such however, are not nearly as sophisticated as those in the D3x, and so the Sony cam's have much poorer High-ISO performance than the D3x has. Last price I saw, the A850 was $1875, a low,low price for a FF 24.7 MP d-slr.

Full-frame d-slr cameras are not really as much a concept as a finite number of ACTUAL CAMERAS, with REAL LIMITATIONS, and real, not imagined, strengths.

 

[480sparky68 67]

Focusing, metering, system speed have nothing to do with full/crop sensor comparisons.

This is like saying a Porsche goes faster than a Kia because of it's leather interior.

 

[shootermcgavin]

I've never heard a full frame gives you a better image, I don't really get that.

 

[Dao]

If just Sensor to Sensor, pixel density is different between the cropped sensor and FF sensor when both output the same amount of pixels.

As for FF sensor camera vs cropped sensor camera, it depends what you like to do with them. Again, different tools for different jobs.

 

[LightSpeed]

No one has mentioned " Less depth of field " with FX ( full frame), which is important in certain situations, such as macro photography where depth of field is a problem unto itself without complicating it with this.
Quite a bit of loss in depth of field. Thus forcing slower shutter speeds, OR higher ISO to compensate, when a faster shutter is needed as well as more DOF. There's always flash, but that's not what I'm talking about. I speak of natural light, where most of Mr. Craigs work seems to be done. To say full frame high ISO is leaps and bounds better would be misleading considering there is substantial loss in image quality even with the King of high ISO, the Nikon D3S. I looked at that pretty good before going with the K5, because I wanted the D3S. I did not see $4000.00 better high ISO image quality. Better, yes a little. 4000 dollars worth, NO.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

No one has mentioned " Less depth of field " with FX ( full frame), which is important in certain situations, such as macro photography where depth of field is a problem unto itself without complicating it with this.
Quite a bit of loss in depth of field. Thus forcing slower shutter speeds, OR higher ISO to compensate, when a faster shutter is needed as well as more DOF. There's always flash, but that's not what I'm talking about. I speak of natural light, where most of Mr. Craigs work seems to be done. To say full frame high ISO is leaps and bounds better would be misleading considering there is substantial loss in image quality even with the King of high ISO, the Nikon D3S. I looked at that pretty good before going with the K5, because I wanted the D3S. I did not see $4000.00 better high ISO image quality. Better, yes a little. 4000 dollars worth, NO.

Yep. But think again. You get less depth of field... but! You can increase the f stop without needing to worry (at least not at much) about diffraction. Increasing f stop means you get less light... but! Since the sensor has better ISO performance, you can boost your ISO without worrying about image quality loss. At the end of the day, it all depends on the size. The larger the sensor/pixels, the less likely it will be limited by the overall sharpness of the lens.

 

[Derrel]

Focusing, metering, system speed have nothing to do with full/crop sensor comparisons.

This is like saying a Porsche goes faster than a Kia because of it's leather interior.

Sorry, 480sparky, but your assertion is not in line with the realities of the cameras. For example, in the Nikon line, the full-frame cameras ALL HAVE Nikon's highest-capability autofocusing module, with 51 AF points and a high number of cross-type focusing sensors..not just say, 11 AF sensors, with ONE,single cross-type sensor in the middle of the frame. Also, the shutter lag time, mirror return time, and "latency" of the professional-level Nikons is significantly "faster". You have obviously not owned a true professional-level Nikon camera if you think that core capabilities are the same between the professional-level bodies and the crop-body Nikons. They are clearly NOT.

Your analogy that, "This is like saying a Porsche goes faster than a Kia because of it's leather interior," is quite a cute attempt at an analogy that would be applicable, but it's unfortunately not applicable. An accurate analogy would be something like this, "This $139,000 Porsche goes faster than this $14,900 Kia because the Porsche has a bigger displacement, faster-revving, turbo-charged engine,supremely tuned exhaust system,has a taller rear end, a better, 6-speed transmission,and was engineered to be a $139,000 car, not an economy car for Moms and college coeds.It has the goods under the HOOD. The Kia has a leather interior, and a 1.9 litre 4-banger and slop-box tranny."

 

[Helen B]

Lenses are normally the one that limits your resolution.

Jees. I thought that we had already been through all that.

Oh, what's the point?

 

[LightSpeed]

No one has mentioned " Less depth of field " with FX ( full frame), which is important in certain situations, such as macro photography where depth of field is a problem unto itself without complicating it with this.
Quite a bit of loss in depth of field. Thus forcing slower shutter speeds, OR higher ISO to compensate, when a faster shutter is needed as well as more DOF. There's always flash, but that's not what I'm talking about. I speak of natural light, where most of Mr. Craigs work seems to be done. To say full frame high ISO is leaps and bounds better would be misleading considering there is substantial loss in image quality even with the King of high ISO, the Nikon D3S. I looked at that pretty good before going with the K5, because I wanted the D3S. I did not see $4000.00 better high ISO image quality. Better, yes a little. 4000 dollars worth, NO.

Yep. But think again. You get less depth of field... but! You can increase the f stop without needing to worry (at least not at much) about diffraction. Increasing f stop means you get less light... but! Since the sensor has better ISO performance, you can boost your ISO without worrying about image quality loss. At the end of the day, it all depends on the size. The larger the sensor/pixels, the less likely it will be limited by the overall sharpness of the lens.

Yes and no.
You're on the right track.
Anytime ISO is boosted in any of them, IQ is degraded to some degree.
In cases such as Macro photography, it would seem that in instances where more depth of field is needed with the FX camera, an ISO boost would be needed to compensate for loss of shutter speed. ( hand held stuff)
Whereas on the DX cameras lower ISO could be used to capture the same depth of field and/or more depth of field along with a faster shutter.
Not sure where IQ would fall across the board in this scenario, but I tend to give the nod to the DX camera if it's one with very good high ISO capabilities, such as the K5 and/or the Nikon d7000.
Don't carve this in stone, just a thought.
Derrel might get in on this and take us both to school. lol

 

[480sparky68 67]

Focusing, metering, system speed have nothing to do with full/crop sensor comparisons.

This is like saying a Porsche goes faster than a Kia because of it's leather interior.

Sorry, 480sparky, but your assertion is not in line with the realities of the cameras. For example, in the Nikon line, the full-frame cameras ALL HAVE Nikon's highest-capability autofocusing module, with 51 AF points and a high number of cross-type focusing sensors..not just say, 11 AF sensors, with ONE,single cross-type sensor in the middle of the frame. Also, the shutter lag time, mirror return time, and "latency" of the professional-level Nikons is significantly "faster". You have obviously not owned a true professional-level Nikon camera if you think that core capabilities are the same between the professional-level bodies and the crop-body Nikons. They are clearly NOT.

Your analogy that, "This is like saying a Porsche goes faster than a Kia because of it's leather interior," is quite a cute attempt at an analogy that would be applicable, but it's unfortunately not applicable. An accurate analogy would be something like this, "This $139,000 Porsche goes faster than this $14,900 Kia because the Porsche has a bigger displacement, faster-revving, turbo-charged engine,supremely tuned exhaust system,has a taller rear end, a better, 6-speed transmission,and was engineered to be a $139,000 car, not an economy car for Moms and college coeds.It has the goods under the HOOD. The Kia has a leather interior, and a 1.9 litre 4-banger and slop-box tranny."

Thank you for proving my analogy is precise. The Porsche doesn't go faster because it has leather seats.

Nor does metering, processing speed, focus systems make a full-size sensor any better.

 

[mrpink]

Focusing, metering, system speed have nothing to do with full/crop sensor comparisons.

This is like saying a Porsche goes faster than a Kia because of it's leather interior.

Sorry, 480sparky, but your assertion is not in line with the realities of the cameras. For example, in the Nikon line, the full-frame cameras ALL HAVE Nikon's highest-capability autofocusing module, with 51 AF points and a high number of cross-type focusing sensors..not just say, 11 AF sensors, with ONE,single cross-type sensor in the middle of the frame. Also, the shutter lag time, mirror return time, and "latency" of the professional-level Nikons is significantly "faster". You have obviously not owned a true professional-level Nikon camera if you think that core capabilities are the same between the professional-level bodies and the crop-body Nikons. They are clearly NOT.

Your analogy that, "This is like saying a Porsche goes faster than a Kia because of it's leather interior," is quite a cute attempt at an analogy that would be applicable, but it's unfortunately not applicable. An accurate analogy would be something like this, "This $139,000 Porsche goes faster than this $14,900 Kia because the Porsche has a bigger displacement, faster-revving, turbo-charged engine,supremely tuned exhaust system,has a taller rear end, a better, 6-speed transmission,and was engineered to be a $139,000 car, not an economy car for Moms and college coeds.It has the goods under the HOOD. The Kia has a leather interior, and a 1.9 litre 4-banger and slop-box tranny."

Thank you for proving my analogy is precise. The Porsche doesn't go faster because it has leather seats.

Nor does metering, processing speed, focus systems make a full-size sensor any better.

*facepalm*





p!nK