Larger sensor just a luxury?

[o hey tyler]

It would depend on my subject. Definitely. I'd probably stick with a 35mm FF sensor just because of size and ease of use. But I'd definitely like to have a MF camera with a Digital Back too.

 

[zcar21]

I have no idea why we are still arguing about the mostly irrelevant facts.
I do own a D300 and a D700, the D700. Like Thunder, I've found the D700 to outperform the D300 in most respects except the apparent magnification with longer lenses.
That being said, a ViewCamera still wins.

In what respect other than resolution?

Full frame doesn't always mean more resolution anyway. Look at the D4 and the D7K.

Sensor resolution and real resolution is a big difference. D7K has higher sensor resolution but it doesn't mean their respective equivalent lenses also has the same resolution. A larger sensor makes it easier and/or cheaper to make a higher quality lens with higher resolution with the same entrance pupil diameter.

Did he just answer his own question?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

is someone is fishin' in this 15 page thread =)

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I guess it depends on personal taste. But I would like a wider FOV, at closer distances to subjects, with greater magnification.

Wider field of view? You could always get the equivalent focal length in smaller formats. Closer distance to subjects? You could always use the equivalent focal length. Greater magnification? This, I don't know. Need to ask Helen B.

Yeah, but what negative effects on the human form are present when using shorter focal lengths, at closer distances?

So you have two setups at "normal" or "standard" focal lengths. One 35mm format(50mm lens), the other 8x10 format(210mm lens).

Standing 10-15 feet from your subject which would you prefer?

I prefer the look of large format. Is it a luxury? No. It's personal preference or a necessity of your client.

Yep, I prefer the look of larger formats, that's why I said the perspective advantage is debatable.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Is it a luxury?
Another question one could ask themselves is:
If the price if a medium or large format digital system was equal to 35mm or smaller digital systems, what system would you choose.

I think it would depend on your subject, right?

It would depend on my subject, depend on the lens the system has, depend on how good the system is (like flash, etc), depend on how much resolution I need and depend on how big I'm willing to carry.

 

[Josh66]

You prefer the looks of larger formats, but you think it's just a luxury...?

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I have no idea why we are still arguing about the mostly irrelevant facts.
I do own a D300 and a D700, the D700. Like Thunder, I've found the D700 to outperform the D300 in most respects except the apparent magnification with longer lenses.
That being said, a ViewCamera still wins.

In what respect other than resolution?

Full frame doesn't always mean more resolution anyway. Look at the D4 and the D7K.

Sensor resolution and real resolution is a big difference. D7K has higher sensor resolution but it doesn't mean their respective equivalent lenses also has the same resolution. A larger sensor makes it easier and/or cheaper to make a higher quality lens with higher resolution with the same entrance pupil diameter.

Did he just answer his own question?

I don't understand what you're trying to say. :/

 

[EchoingWhisper]

The jumps from sensors to lens and back are hard to follow.

I always thought that resolution = pixel count. Which doesn't necessarily mean better IQ.

Now the lens factors in into resolution ?

I'm not trying to be picky. Simply trying to keep up as a newbie.

Sensor has resolution, and lens has resolution. The resolution of the system depends on whether the sensor or the lens has the lowest resolution and will limit the total resolution. That's why I asked 'Are extra megapixels useless?' in one of my previous thread. Because there are no reason to get a higher resolution sensor if your lens has low resolution. But I was wrong in the previous thread, because most sensors has AA filters which will decrease the effective resolution of the sensor so a higher megapixel would be useful in some case, but still not worth the price you have to pay for the loss of dynamic range.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

You prefer the looks of larger formats, but you think it's just a luxury...?

Forgive me for my bad word usage. The perspective difference, better resolution and depth of field distribution difference is just not worth the extra price for me, yet.

 

[zcar21]

In what respect other than resolution?

Sensor resolution and real resolution is a big difference. D7K has higher sensor resolution but it doesn't mean their respective equivalent lenses also has the same resolution. A larger sensor makes it easier and/or cheaper to make a higher quality lens with higher resolution with the same entrance pupil diameter.

Did he just answer his own question?

I don't understand what you're trying to say. :/

If I interpreted that sentence corrected, you are partly answering your won question.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Did he just answer his own question?

I don't understand what you're trying to say. :/

If I interpreted that sentence corrected, you are partly answering your won question.

That is still about resolution.

 

[Village Idiot]

They don't have anything better to do in Malaysia is what I'm guessing.

 

[Helen B]

I think that it is very difficult to draw definitive general conclusions from comparisons of specific cameras because there are so many variables. For example, I've seen side-by-side comparisons between my D3 and the Fuji X100 - both 12 megapixel cameras, but the Fuji is an APS-C. There isn't that much difference in resolution - the D3 might have a slight edge in colour accuracy and contrast, but that might be a software issue, I'm not sure. I'll be interested to see comparisons between the new X-Pro 1 and full frame cameras. I've seen plenty of comparisons between the D3 and 4x5, and the difference is slight until you print larger than 12x18 or so. Meanwhile, there's no harm in having a good grasp of the issues...

 

[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.

Uhm, as I said, given the same magnification, same final image viewing size, same f stop, a larger format would get the advantage in lesser depth of field. But the same f stop on a larger format means a larger entrance pupil. If both format has the same final image viewing size, same magnification, and same entrance pupil diameter, then depth of field shall be the same.

I'm sure someone has pointed this out by now (I haven't read further yet, but will), but this is incorrect. At the same f stop, the iris is the same. It matters not what sensor or what mount type the lens is. An f/4 has the same size iris/aperture regardless of whether it's mounted on an iphone or a large format. Why? The "f" in f/4 stands for focal length. Aperture(iris) dimension = focal length / 4 . Iris size is not dependent on any factors other than light coming out the other end of the lens and focal length. And the light coming out the end of the lens is going to be "perceived" the same by any medium no matter what size. The difference will be the size of the imaging circle of light the lens produces... not it's brightness/density/amount/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

bump

onwards to pg 16