Hypothetically could...

[jaomul]

fullframe camera makers use the same type sensor but obviously smaller in their crop cameras giving less resolution but equal dynamic range and iso ability or is it not that straight forward.

I know marketing Wouldn't probably allow this but a Canon xxx or nikon xxx or whatever with 10mp and similar image quality to a 6d/d610 would be interesting imo

 

[SCraig]

I can't answer your question however, personally speaking, I wouldn't be willing to give up the resolution.

 

[runnah]

fullframe camera makers use the same type sensor but obviously smaller in their crop cameras giving less resolution but equal dynamic range and iso ability or is it not that straight forward. I know marketing Wouldn't probably allow this but a Canon xxx or nikon xxx or whatever with 10mp and similar image quality to a 6d/d610 would be interesting imo

Not that straight forward.

 

[480sparky42 42]

Sure. Just shoot a FF camera in crop mode.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Sure. Just shoot a FF camera in crop mode.

I used that option on mine (once), it really works!

 

[JerryLove]

Not that straight forward.

I disagree. It really is that straight forward.

In fact, Nikon sort of already does it. Many (all?) of their full-frame cameras have a crop-frame mode where they only use a portion of the sensor. You get exactly what the OP described (just with some unused silicon around it).

I'm relatively new to still photography as more than a layman, but I'm old hat at electronics. Perhaps you can tell me what the hurdle in making a smaller CMOS is.

 

[jaomul]

OP did say "in their crop cameras"

 

[480sparky42 42]

It is pretty straight-forward. It's just a matter of packing fewer pixels onto a smaller sensor.

It's not like you have to take a FF sensor, saw off two sides, then figure out how to make it work correctly.

 

[JerryLove]

OP did say "in their crop cameras"

Yes. So the die would be changed for the smaller silicon with fewer outputs and you are done. Crop-frame identical to full-frame with smaller sensor and less overall pixels.

 

[Gavjenks]

Yeah it is straightforward engineering-wise. As you said, though, marketing won't allow it.
@People saying to use crop mode: the point it seemed to me was to save money on not a full frame sensor but still get low light ability. Which is not accomplished with full frame crop mode.

 

[lambertpix]

Part of what makes FF sensors behave differently than cropped sensors is that there's more actual surface area for light to hit the sensor, not to mention the size of the sensor itself. You could absolutely scale down the same engineering process to produce a smaller sensor with the same pixel density, etc., but you're not going to have the same area for light to hit the sensor anymore, and you're not going to have the same pathways for light to move through lenses into your camera (ie, crop factor and depth-of-field differences between FF and cropped).

 

[Gavjenks]

Lambert, perhaps that is why the OP specified " giving less resolution but equal dynamic range and iso ability."
Not crop factor or DOF.

You are correct that you would not get crop factor or DOF of a FF. But you could easily get the dynamic range and ISO ability at the lower crop sensor cost.

 

[JerryLove]

Part of what makes FF sensors behave differently than cropped sensors is that there's more actual surface area for light to hit the sensor, not to mention the size of the sensor itself.

No, no, and no.

Stop thnking of the thing as a single sensor. It isn't. It's millions of little sensors on shared silicon.

The reason that current FF cameras are more light sensitive is because each of those little sensors is bigger.

You put the same pixel-density on any sensor and get the same ISO performance... but density x size = resolution, you would have fewer over-all pixels on a smaller surface with the same pixel density.

You could absolutely scale down the same engineering process to produce a smaller sensor with the same pixel density, etc., but you're not going to have the same area for light to hit the sensor anymore, and you're not going to have the same pathways for light to move through lenses into your camera (ie, crop factor and depth-of-field differences between FF and cropped).

Again NO.

DoF is unaffected by sensor size. There's no DoF difference between my T2i shooting with a 50mm lens and a 5DMkIII shooting with the same lens.

Light sensitivity is affected by pixel density (the size of each of the millions of little sensors), but not by the size of the silicon all the sensors share (the camera sensor).

Not only will you have the same pathways for light, you can actually use the same lens. Just the smaller camera sensor will ignore the parts of the output that don't hit the circle.

There is no technological reason I cannot make a crop sensor and FF sensor identical in every performance measure *except* for the fact that the crop sensor will be cropped (in a manner *identical* to cropping the FF image in photoshop).

You could reverse this as well. Taking a 20MP crop sensor and making it to a larger scale would give you a 30-something-MP FF sensor with performance just like the crop-sensor had. (Really want to see this done with the 70D sensor personally... that's what the 7DmkII should do IMO)

 

[Gavjenks]

Again NO.

DoF is unaffected by sensor size.

Yes it is. Smaller sensors compel you to move further for the shot you want, you have no choice (at a given focal length), thus they force a broader DOF due to the distance change. Thus the DOF will in practice definitely be different, by about 1 stop, between the FF sensor and the crop sized but with full format pixel pitch sensor.

Also the first thing you quoted and said no no no to was lambert talking about DOF and crop factor, which he was correct about. He was making no claims about ISO sensitivity. So he was not being wrong there. DOF and crop factor DO depend on the full size of the sensor, not the pixel pitch.

DOF, crop factor = sensor size in total matters
ISO, dynamic range = size of individual pixels matter



And yes, if you had a FF sensor you could simulate a crop frame sensor with equal pixel size perfectly, but that's not the point of the thread. The thread is about crop sensors to save money, and you cannot do the reverse (using more of your sensor than you have to simulate FF). So the DOF and crop factors are a non trivial consideration.

 

[JerryLove]

Deciding to move (more to the point, to change what percentage of the light circle is occupied by the objects in the composition), isn't exactly a technical issue. It's recomposing.

If I setup a FF and crop frame camera right next to each other, with the same lens pointed at the same target, at the safe aperture, and shot with both; then cropped the FF down to match the CF, you wouldn't see a difference in DoF.

A discussion of sensor technology and a discussion of the artistic choices they get you to create, are not the same thing.