Practical Discussion on Full Frame Sensors

My opinion of quality comes down from colour reproduction and noise. I have never reproduced a photo which required the full 20mpx of my camera, and chances are I won't. With the restriction of megapixels out of the way the above is the only thing left.

Now what I have been trying to get across is yes ok noise has a little to do with pixel density which is low on the 5D because of the full frame sensor. But it has a lot more to do with the sensor design itself. There are many different ways to use the data from the photo receptors. The way the electrical lines are run from the photoreceptor to the amplifier for one, the design of the amplifer, the path the information is read out, the order that it is read out at, the actual amplifying transistor used, the type of transistor that is used, the voltage across that resistor, the voltage across the photo diode, the precision of the voltage source... do I need to go on? Because I can think of a few more, I haven't even gotten past the edge of the silicon yet.

When I have looked at noise test photos of the 1DMkIII and the 5D, 20D and the Nikon D2X, D200. The 5D was bested by the 1DMkIII and D2X, and of course was better than the 2 prosumer choices. But the reason is the electronic design more than anything. Or how about the Nikon D1 prototype. It had a 35mm sensor with a whopping 0.56Mpx. The images from that pale in comparison to most of the DSLRs on the market nowadays. But clearly it would have had the largest pixel density of nearly any working camera.

Implementation > size of photodiodes with regards to noise on modern cameras.
 
The way the electrical lines are run from the photoreceptor to the amplifier for one, the design of the amplifer, the path the information is read out, the order that it is read out at, the actual amplifying transistor used, the type of transistor that is used, the voltage across that resistor, the voltage across the photo diode, the precision of the voltage source... do I need to go on? Because I can think of a few more, I haven't even gotten past the edge of the silicon yet.

Huh? I just wanna make photographs.
 
I am just tired hearing people rant about how good their 5D is because of it's full frame sensor. Just say it like it is. The 5D is a great camera regardless of it's sensor.

Exactly. I agree. I want a 5D myself because it is just a better camera overall than what I have now. Buyers who want a better professional SLR for pro work should not be so ready and willing to believe the "higher pixel count is better" or "full frame sensor is better" marketing hype. As with all good investments, you have to read between the lines, do your homework, and make your own judgement call based on what is best for you.
 
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned depth of field. Larger film formats produce less depth of field at a given focal length, because it takes a longer focal length to frame an equivalent field of view. The same thing is happening with a full frame sensor, compared to an aps-c. Your 50mm lens on your aps-c digital does not give you the same depth of field of an 85mm lens on a full frame sensor. The difference may be slight, but I want the lens to perform as it's meant to perform.

Here is Bob Atkin's take on this whole topic if you care to read.

http://www.photo.net/oped/bobatkins/full_frame.html
 
At the PMA show, the Mark III was described as capable of producing the best image quality of any Canon product. Yes, any Canon product. That's a remarkable statement from the company that makes the full-frame 16-megapixel EOS-1Ds Mark II.
A quote from this article in DPP.
 
I also agree with not investing heavily in DX format lenses. I shoot several 1.5 clip chip cameras and own no DX glass. I am convinced that the next generation of "big D pro" body will need to be full frame. The current model, the D2Xs is at the limits of our lenses ability to resolve sharply. Any meaningful increase in MP's will require a larger sensor. I bit the bullet and bought a 14mm 2.8 to get what I need until the FF comes out. Having said that, I really don't think my work has suffers any what so ever by using the clipped chip bodies. When I stick that old 400 3.5 on there, it really reaches out and touches somebody/thing. I love it.
 
I see your point Matt, but I don't think APS-C sized sensors have fixed any problems in photography. I think people have learned to treat "bugs" (like 1.6x crop factor) as "features". I would never choose a 20D over a 1DS MKII for shooting wildlife just because my 200mm lens is a 280mm on the 20D.

If you read Bob Atkin's article, I think he makes a valid point.

So what about APS-C (ca. 22mm x 15mm) as a digital format. Will it survive?

My guess is that it will be with us for a while, but in the end it will fade out. Why? Because nobody ever got rich by telling the American public that what they had was good enough and that they really didn't need anything better! If 24x36mm sensors had been available for the same price as 22x15mm sensors do you think anyone would have made a camera with the smaller sensor? Would arguments about it being "good enough" have convinced the consumer? Of course not (look at APS again).
 
Sorry to go on that rant, it's the engineer in me. I will pursue that topic no further. Frankly I wouldn't know how lol.

Actually I got to thinking about how a lot of you have said not to invest in the DX format and lens qualities and I realised something else. Diffraction! Ok my optics theory is dodgy, but a larger sensor has a ?larger? circle of confusion? Larger smaller whatever it is the effects of diffraction are more pronounced on an APS sensor than a full frame sensor for the same glass (not to do with the sharpness of the lens but just fundamental physics). I just thought that may actually be very important with a few claims that lenses are nearly becoming diffraction limited in quality, meaning if we want to get the sharpest pictures we'd nearly need to open it up all the way.

Which makes the point of the future in APS. If the lenses are reaching diffraction limits already the only way to make improvements in lenses is to give them a larger sensor to work with.

I think the above is right anyway I saw something about it at 2am on the luminous landscape, but like everything that happens at 2am little of it got understood.
 
I would never choose a 20D over a 1DS MKII for shooting wildlife just because my 200mm lens is a 280mm on the 20D.

Well, even though I made this point in favour (and several others) of APS sensors above, I actually do shoot exclusively with "full frame" ... but magnification can be an advantage if you want to travel light.

I do just crop to 1.3 or 1.6 APS if the subject is too far away ... still enough MP and resolution is OK if you use OK glass.
 
At the PMA show, the Mark III was described as capable of producing the best image quality of any Canon product. Yes, any Canon product. That's a remarkable statement from the company that makes the full-frame 16-megapixel EOS-1Ds Mark II.

The Mark III is the latest development of all Canons, so it would be very sad if it was not better than the rest. There is still development in sensors. And the new sensor is years ahead in terms of materials technology compared to the 1Ds MarkII.

My guess is, if they release a 35mm version of that sensor, it will be even better. :p
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top