Larger sensor just a luxury?

[chuasam]

you know what? FullFrame is rubbish. It's not only not a luxury, it's completely underwhelming.
My girlfriend shoots on a 4"x5" viewcamera. Now the output from those slides are MindBlowing. Never mind the 8"x10" transparencies that I have seen.

 

[o hey tyler]

you know what? FullFrame is rubbish. It's not only not a luxury, it's completely underwhelming.
My girlfriend shoots on a 4"x5" viewcamera. Now the output from those slides are MindBlowing. Never mind the 8"x10" transparencies that I have seen.

Yeah, full frame is total rubbish... If you don't want better noise handling, image quality, background control, and the additional features that FF cameras usually have over APS-C bodies.

Total rubbish. That's why I shoot two of them. :lmao:

 

[EchoingWhisper]

No its not. if you had pin head size pupil size / entrance compared to big..... nevermind. LoL good luck "getting it"

I don't know what to say, you guys got the information through but I don't agree with it because you guys are just saying that you're right without supporting it. For me, I couldn't get my information/opinion/idea through anyone except Helen B.

Sorry to say this EW, but alot of your views are rather strange and not very well researched at all. You seem to come on more often than not and just come out with stuff that is fiction rather than fact.

You were even shown the other day to have deliberately started a thread to cause a war between Nikon and Canon users which in my opinion is a shameful act on your part and shows the way you conduct your business on this forum.

Yeah, that's my mistake. :/

 

[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.
Please correct me if you find me wrong.

This is the reason you can't believe what we're saying, The statements are wrong. f/2 is f/2 on either ff or aps-c, same amount of light. You know about the square law of light? Well, the inverse happens here. You can change aperture to balance dof but you'll be changing the amount of light. A bigger sensor-less magnification is what makes the difference and all the benefits we're been talking about.

The f stop determine the illuminance (density of photons), not radiant flux (total amount of photons landing on the sensor).

 

[EchoingWhisper]

IF physics makes it impossible to go past f/0.9 (Helen B said its hard to make lenses larger than f/0.9 - so I'll just denote it as impossible to make comparison easier), then full frame does has some advantage. Full frame would less depth of field and more light, compared to DX - if you have a lens larger than f/1.4, compared to M4/3 - if you have a lens larger than f/1.8, compared to CX - if you have a lens larger than f/2.5, compared to 1/1.7 - if you have a lens larger than f/4.2.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Just found out that there's a f/0.6 lens. Awesome thing.

 

[Dao]

IF physics makes it impossible to go past f/0.9 (Helen B said its hard to make lenses larger than f/0.9 - so I'll just denote it as impossible to make comparison easier), then full frame does has some advantage. Full frame would less depth of field and more light, compared to DX - if you have a lens larger than f/1.4, compared to M4/3 - if you have a lens larger than f/1.8, compared to CX - if you have a lens larger than f/2.5, compared to 1/1.7 - if you have a lens larger than f/4.2.

EchoingWhisper,

If you say full frame sensor has the same depth of field as the cropped sensor with the following condition, I am 100% agree with you.

- Subject to camera distance kept constant
- Focal length kept constant
- f number kept constant

So basically, you use a full frame camera take a photo of a rabbit focus on his right eye with a 50mm lens aperture set at f/1.8. And then stand at the same spot and use a cropped body with the same 50mm lens take another shot of the same rabbit also focus on right eye at f/1.8. When you crop and resize the photo so that the size of the rabbit appear the same in the 2 photos, you will notice the Depth of Field is the same. No difference at all. The out of focus blur should appear the same as well.

So yes, no difference between full frame and cropped sensor.




However, there is one important factors is real life example.

There are 2 photographers, one use full frame (i.e. Nikon D700) with a 85mm lens while the other use cropped body (i.e. Nikon D7000) with the same 85mm lens.
Both photographers is trying to take a full body photo of the couple (same framing) at 85mm at f/1.4, you will notice the photographer with the full frame body stand closer to the subject. So when you compare the 2 photos (no need to crop this time because the framing is the same), you will notice there are difference in Depth of Field. The out of focus background blur also different. The DoF changed not because of the format, it is because of the photographer, he/she change the distance between the subject and the camera.


You see, you are correct when you say the DoF is the same between format, however, you did not factor the real life example in the picture. This is why photographers like to upgrade their camera to full frame especially those who shoot weddings or something similar. So for wedding photographers, the full frame camera is not a luxury anymore.


Hope you understand what I tried to say. I am not against your opinion, just like to get the fact correct. Of course, I could be wrong, and if that is the case, please correct me.




Edit:
P.S.
Another example for the wedding example:
The second photographer can change is lens to achieve the same framing such as using a 55mm lens and shot at f/1.4 so that both photographers can stand next to each other (i.e. they cannot move back further due to already stand against a wall). The end results are also different as far as DoF concern.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

If you say full frame sensor has the same depth of field as the cropped sensor with the following condition, I am 100% agree with you.

- Subject to camera distance kept constant
- Focal length kept constant
- f number kept constant

Yes, your answer is true, but - that gives us a different magnification. Which means you'll crop away more in the crop sensor. At the same magnification and f stop, the full frame sensors would get the advantage - but that is because the full frame sensor has a larger entrance pupil. Focal length is not a direct factor here.

Depth of field is kept constant if:
-Magnification is kept constant (subject size on the sensor)
-Entrance pupil is kept constant (which means the f/2.0 on full frame means f/1.4 on DX)

Again, I'll explain. With the same entrance pupil diameter, the radiant flux (total amount of light hitting the sensor) is the same, SNR would be the same, but illuminance (density of light) is higher. F stop (more accurately, T stop) determines the illuminance, that's why smaller formats gets less light at the same f stop, because of their smaller entrance pupil (and indirectly, a smaller lens).

Upgrading to the 35mm system is a much better choice in my opinion. APS-C systems could be just as good as full frame, but the big companies didn't really invest in it to produce enough professional lenses and make all equivalents of the full frame lenses. There are more full frame lenses than APS-C lenses and full frame lenses are normally made with more high quality than APS-C cameras. In my opinion, the current two best digital systems are Micro Four Thirds and full frame.

The main advantage of full frame is sensor resolution and lens resolution.

 

[Helen B]

Dao,

I could be wrong, but I believe that he is doing this comparison:

Same subject distance
Same field of view (edit; I think that he's written that confusingly)
Same final image size (size of viewed image)
Same entrance pupil diameter

That means:
Same luminous flux
Same depth of field

Best,
Helen

 

[Dao]

EW, let me ask you this. In my example #1, the rabbit photo.

When I print the photos in 4x6 where both have the same framing, DoF same or not?


In example #2, the wedding couple photo.
When I print the photos in 4x6 where both have the same framing, DoF same or not?

 

[Dao]

Dao,

I could be wrong, but I believe that he is doing this comparison:

Same subject distance
Same field of view (edit; I think that he's written that confusingly)
Same final image size (size of viewed image)
Same entrance pupil diameter

That means:
Same luminous flux
Same depth of field

Best,
Helen

But that the f number is different? Right?

 

[EchoingWhisper]

EW, let me ask you this. In my example #1, the rabbit photo.

When I print the photos in 4x6 where both have the same framing, DoF same or not?


In example #2, the wedding couple photo.
When I print the photos in 4x6 where both have the same framing, DoF same or not?

Depends on the entrance pupil.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Dao,

I could be wrong, but I believe that he is doing this comparison:

Same subject distance
Same field of view (edit; I think that he's written that confusingly)
Same final image size (size of viewed image)
Same entrance pupil diameter

That means:
Same luminous flux
Same depth of field

Best,
Helen

But that the f number is different? Right?

Yep.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Dao,

I could be wrong, but I believe that he is doing this comparison:

Same subject distance
Same field of view (edit; I think that he's written that confusingly)
Same final image size (size of viewed image)
Same entrance pupil diameter

That means:
Same luminous flux
Same depth of field

Best,
Helen

Dao is saying that
-same subject distance
-same final image size
-same focal length
-same fstop
=
-same luminous flux
-same depth of field
What he is saying is of course right.

But what about magnification? That's where the depth of field argument come in.
So, most people would say larger sensor compared to smaller sensor, given that
-same final image size
-same fstop
-same magnification
=
-same luminous flux
-less depth of field
True, again - but comparing fstops is just not fair, their entrance pupil is just not the same size.

My point is
-same magnification
-same entrance pupil
=
-same radiant flux
-same depth of field

 

[bazooka]

My point is
-same magnification
-same entrance pupil
=
-same radiant flux
-same depth of field

You keep leaving out important variables.

Depth of field is dependent on magnification, focal plane-to-subject distance, and aperture (iris). You cannot say that at the same magnification and same aperture size, the DoF is the same because you're not considering subject distance. If you have a full frame sensor and a crop sensor, then subject distance MUST change in order to keep the magnification constant. And if subject distance changes, DoF must change as well, given everything else stays the same.