# Larger sensor just a luxury?



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

Isn't a larger sensor just a luxury? I can only name a larger sensor's benefit - more resolution. A different perspective is debatable - whether it's better or not. Depth of field and low light ability is almost the same, given that the lens is the same size and sensor design is the same (same megapixels). Almost all camera companies only put professional features in their larger cameras now. Is there other benefit for a larger sensor?


----------



## Kerbouchard (Feb 5, 2012)

It's one of those cases where if you have to ask, then it shouldn't matter to you.

Either way, you missed one of the primary advantages; lower noise.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 5, 2012)

Generally speaking larger sensors mean larger pixels on the sensor, which generally means that the signal strength of each pixel on the sensor has a higher signal to noise ratio.  This translates, roughly, to larger sensors means lower noise.  Given the exceptionally good noise rejection performance that some manufacturers are getting from smaller, high-density sensors these days, and the fact that even the full-format sensors are getting much higher densities, the line between the two is getting blurred though.


----------



## Overread (Feb 5, 2012)

A large sensor gives a different angle of view when using the same lenses and comparing to a crop sensor. This can be a big difference when you're working indoors and want to use something like a 50mm for portrait work, rather than having to use a 35mm and suffer distortion problems (parts of the shot closer to the camera being enlarged). 

You also get depth of field advantages - around one stop less is possible with the fullframe as compared to the 1.5/6 crop sensor camera bodies. 

Points have also been made regarding the pixels size and density and advantages with cleaner high ISOs. 


Also remember the whole of the DSLR is a luxury. Heck the ownership of a camera in itself isn't a necessity


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 5, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Isn't a larger sensor just a luxury? I can only name a larger sensor's benefit - more resolution. A different perspective is debatable - whether it's better or not. Depth of field and low light ability is almost the same, given that the lens is the same size and sensor design is the same (same megapixels). Almost all camera companies only put professional features in their larger cameras now. Is there other benefit for a larger sensor?



At longer focal lengths you also have more background control with a full frame camera. 

If you frame a shot with a full frame camera at 135mm @ f/2 you'll have a DoF of .79 feet, if you were to frame the shot EXACTLY the same with an APS-C camera you would need to move away from the subject farther. Thus increasing the DoF at the same aperture/focal length giving you (to my eyes) a noticeable difference in background control. 

This is an extreme example, but if you think about it, sense will make itself.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 5, 2012)

Overread said:


> A large sensor gives a different angle of view when using the same lenses and comparing to a crop sensor. This can be a big difference when you're working indoors and want to use something like a 50mm for portrait work, rather than having to use a 35mm and suffer distortion problems (parts of the shot closer to the camera being enlarged). ...


Agreed, however that same logic can be viewed as a deficit in other areas of photography.  For example, when shooting birds the effective focal length increase of 150% is a big benefit.


----------



## Overread (Feb 5, 2012)

SCraig said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > A large sensor gives a different angle of view when using the same lenses and comparing to a crop sensor. This can be a big difference when you're working indoors and want to use something like a 50mm for portrait work, rather than having to use a 35mm and suffer distortion problems (parts of the shot closer to the camera being enlarged). ...
> ...



Exactly - which is partly why I love my 7D (along with its fantastic AF). 

Although I should point out that the 7D also has a luxury sensor in it, big and expensive if I compared it to a bridge camera.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

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.

And depth of field should also be the same. At the same focal length, you get to get about 1 time closer to the subject using a full frame camera compared to APS-C cameras, which gives you about 1 stop less depth of field. But that depth of field difference could be removed if both the full frame lens and APS-C lens are the same size since the APS-C lens is f/2.0, you get back your 1 stop loss of depth of field by using a larger aperture.

The only difference I see from a full frame compared to APS-C other than resolution is depth of field distribution, distortion and foreground size in relative to background size (perspective).

Please correct me if you find me wrong.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 5, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> 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.


Not true.  A full-frame sensor is 36mm x 24mm in size, or 864 square mm.  An APS-C sensor is 25.1mm x 16.7mm or 419.7 square mm (varies with manufacturer).  Assuming that both sensors have, for example, 10 megapixels it's obvious that each pixel on the APS-C sensor is going to be physically smaller by about 50%.  Since each pixel is a light sensor, the larger each individual pixel the more photons will hit it during the exposure.  More photons hitting the pixel means a higher voltage for that particular pixel when compared to the same pixel of an APS-C sensor.  It we make the assumption that the electronic noise level will be consistent between the two sensors (I don't know whether that's a valid assumption or not) then the voltage for each pixel on the FX sensor is going to be higher than the voltage of each pixel of the APS-C sensor yielding a higher signal to noise ratio.  That ratio is what's important since the higher the ratio the easier it is to filter out the noise.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

SCraig said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Given that both of the lens are the same size, both will get. Since APS-C sensors' pixel are denser, the light that falls on it is also denser, given that the lens are the same size as full frame. Light in the lens in full frame is spread out more so photons will be more spread out and less dense. Not sure if I'm right too.

If I am right, full frame cameras' only benefit is resolution. A larger sensor also mean a more expensive sensor and also a larger body and a more expensive body. Whether a larger body is good or not, I'd say bodies larger than the current full frame camera bodies are too big to be comfortable, at least for me.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 5, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Given that both of the lens are the same size, both will get. Since APS-C sensors' pixel are denser, the light that falls on it is also denser, given that the lens are the same size as full frame. Light in the lens in full frame is spread out more so photons will be more spread out and less dense. Not sure if I'm right too.
> 
> If I am right, full frame cameras' only benefit is resolution. A larger sensor also mean a more expensive sensor and also a larger body and a more expensive body. Whether a larger body is good or not, I'd say bodies larger than the current full frame camera bodies are too big to be comfortable, at least for me.


I'm sure you have seen the diagrams that show a full-frame sensor with a crop-sensor indicated inside it (if not look Here).  The full-frame sensor effectively receives ALL of the light from the lens however the crop-sensor does not.  The crop-sensor camera only receives the middle 50% to 60% of the light transmitted through the lens.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

SCraig said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Given that both of the lens are the same size, both will get. Since APS-C sensors' pixel are denser, the light that falls on it is also denser, given that the lens are the same size as full frame. Light in the lens in full frame is spread out more so photons will be more spread out and less dense. Not sure if I'm right too.
> ...



That only applies if both are the same lens. If the APS-C lens is made to transmit the same amount of light as the full frame lens while covering only APS-C will be 1 f stop higher than the full frame sensor even though that they get the same amount of light.


----------



## slackercruster (Feb 5, 2012)

Depends on what your doing with it?

If you make big prints, go with a big sensor.  (In general.)

Nowadays 'almost' all cams can take a decent photo for viewing on the 'puter.

Here is a shot taken with a cheap Walmart $75 PS Kodak cam... shot at a measly mp setting of 1.1mp.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 5, 2012)

You say large sensor, yet your talking about 35mm.  When I hear large sensor I think medium format and large format.  I'm not sure about the advantages, but I can tell you what I personally like about portraits produced with medium/large format sensors.  You get a wider FOV, with longer focal lengths.  People look their best at longer focal lengths, and with medium/large format you can use very long focal lengths in smaller spaces.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 5, 2012)

jake337 said:


> You say large sensor, yet your talking about 35mm.  When I hear large sensor I think medium format and large format.  I'm not sure about the advantages, but I can tell you what I personally like about portraits produced with medium/large format sensors.  You get a wider FOV, with longer focal lengths.  People look their best at longer focal lengths, and with medium/large format you can use very long focal lengths in smaller spaces.



I always thought that it was the camera-subject distance that mattered with portraits, not the focal length of the lens itself.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

jake337 said:


> You say large sensor, yet your talking about 35mm.  When I hear large sensor I think medium format and large format.  I'm not sure about the advantages, but I can tell you what I personally like about portraits produced with medium/large format sensors.  You get a wider FOV, with longer focal lengths.  People look their best at longer focal lengths, and with medium/large format you can use very long focal lengths in smaller spaces.



Yeah, I was saying larger sensor, but not necessarily meant medium format etc, cause' my statements are relative. That's why I say the different perspective is quite debatable, it depends. Some might like the strong perspective of smaller sensors cause' they might look more 3D.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 5, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Isn't a larger sensor just a luxury? I can only name a larger sensor's benefit - more resolution. A different perspective is debatable - whether it's better or not. Depth of field and low light ability is almost the same, given that the lens is the same size and sensor design is the same (same megapixels).


 


EchoingWhisper said:


> 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. [...]
> 
> And depth of field should also be the same.


 


EchoingWhisper said:


> Given that both of the lens are the same size, both will get. Since APS-C sensors' pixel are denser, the light that falls on it is also denser, given that the lens are the same size as full frame. Light in the lens in full frame is spread out more so photons will be more spread out and less dense. Not sure if I'm right too.
> 
> If I am right, full frame cameras' only benefit is resolution. A larger sensor also mean a more expensive sensor and also a larger body and a more expensive body. Whether a larger body is good or not, I'd say bodies larger than the current full frame camera bodies are too big to be comfortable, at least for me.



You are very misinformed.  As just ONE example, a larger sensor doesn't automatically mean more resolution.  There are lots of FF sensor that have LESS resolution than crop sensors (even with current sensors,ex. D4 vs A77).  I can't even begin to understand your logic of light somehow becoming more or less dense depending on the sensor behind it


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

Helen B said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > You say large sensor, yet your talking about 35mm.  When I hear large sensor I think medium format and large format.  I'm not sure about the advantages, but I can tell you what I personally like about portraits produced with medium/large format sensors.  You get a wider FOV, with longer focal lengths.  People look their best at longer focal lengths, and with medium/large format you can use very long focal lengths in smaller spaces.
> ...



Yeap.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't a larger sensor just a luxury? I can only name a larger sensor's benefit - more resolution. A different perspective is debatable - whether it's better or not. Depth of field and low light ability is almost the same, given that the lens is the same size and sensor design is the same (same megapixels).
> ...



Then please correct me.

If you have the same amount of light falling on the sensor, there's no difference no matter how large the sensor is (given that they have the same amount of pixels), the same amount of light will still hit the sensor. Each pixels will still get the same amount of photons, only that the smaller sensors have much denser photons than the larger sensor.

Correct me if you wish, cause' I don't like to see myself being misinformed for too long.


----------



## brush (Feb 5, 2012)

Hold on...you keep going back to this thing about a large sensor having higher resolution than a smaller one. That's not even true. Resolution has nothing at all to do with the size of the sensor. If you have an 18mp crop sensor it's the same resolution as an 18mp full frame and the same resolution as an 18mp point & shoot. 18mp is 18mp no matter what kind of sensor captures it. But if you're squeezing that 18mp onto a sensor the size of your thumbnail in a point & shoot, the individual light receptors are tiny, have a crap signal to noise ratio, and produce noisy ugly pictures. I don't know if you're confused by the fact that Canon's line has 18mp for the 7D and 21mp for the 5Dii, but that extra 3mp is not a product of the larger sensor. You can buy a 5Di that's full frame and only has 12mp. Don't confuse image sensor size with resolution...


----------



## KmH (Feb 5, 2012)

The problem with your logic is the assumption it's the same amount of light, because it isn't.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 5, 2012)

Helen B said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > You say large sensor, yet your talking about 35mm.  When I hear large sensor I think medium format and large format.  I'm not sure about the advantages, but I can tell you what I personally like about portraits produced with medium/large format sensors.  You get a wider FOV, with longer focal lengths.  People look their best at longer focal lengths, and with medium/large format you can use very long focal lengths in smaller spaces.
> ...


I'm not sure how to explain what I'm trying to say.  Yes camera to subject distance is what is important, but with larger sensor/film one can keep that distance while using longer focal lengths for more magnification.  Does that read better?


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 5, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Then please correct me.
> 
> If you have the same amount of light falling on the sensor, there's no difference no matter how large the sensor is (given that they have the same amount of pixels), the same amount of light will still hit the sensor. Each pixels will still get the same amount of photons, only that the smaller sensors have much denser photons than the larger sensor.
> 
> Correct me if you wish, cause' I don't like to see myself being misinformed for too long.



There are two problems with your reasoning.  The first is that the same AMOUNT of light does not fall on a ASP-C sensor as a FF sensor given the same lens.  The same DENSITY of light does, but the larger area of the FF sensor allows it to collect more light.

The second problem with your reasoning is that the density of light doesn't change, meaning it also doesn't vary depending on the number of photosites.  Consider the case of your sensor only having one pixel.  That one pixel will collect all of the light.  Now consider your sensor having two pixels.  Each pixel will collect half the light.  This is because each pixel will occupy half the area and the light hitting each pixel maintains the same density.  As a whole, the 2 pixel sensor collects the same amount of light as the one pixel sensor because the total area of both sensors is the same.  Your statement "Each pixels will still get the same amount of photons, only that the smaller sensors have much denser photons than the larger sensor" cannot be true because a sensor with more pixels AND denser light would mean more light had to have been input.  It's not more dense and it's not less dense... it is the same density over a smaller area, hence less light collected by each photosite.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

KmH said:


> The problem with your logic is the assumption it's the same amount of light, because it isn't.



Okay, so I'm wrong. But do you have any clearer explanation?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

brush said:


> Hold on...you keep going back to this thing about a large sensor having higher resolution than a smaller one. That's not even true. Resolution has nothing at all to do with the size of the sensor. If you have an 18mp crop sensor it's the same resolution as an 18mp full frame and the same resolution as an 18mp point & shoot. 18mp is 18mp no matter what kind of sensor captures it. But if you're squeezing that 18mp onto a sensor the size of your thumbnail in a point & shoot, the individual light receptors are tiny, have a crap signal to noise ratio, and produce noisy ugly pictures. I don't know if you're confused by the fact that Canon's line has 18mp for the 7D and 21mp for the 5Dii, but that extra 3mp is not a product of the larger sensor. You can buy a 5Di that's full frame and only has 12mp. Don't confuse image sensor size with resolution...



I did not, I simply said that you could get more resolution from larger sensors, ain't that true? At the same pixel pitch, a full frame sensor would get 1 time more resolution.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Then please correct me.
> ...



Ah, you're essentially saying what I'm trying to say. What I mean from an APS-C lens is a lens that only covers the APS-C sensor, not a full frame lens that covers for full frame but used on APS-C sensor.

Do you realise that even at the same f/stop, full frame lenses are larger than APS-C lenses? If you made the APS-C lens the same size as the full frame lens, then the same total amount light will hit the sensor. Density of light does change. A larger f/stop will bring higher density of light, even if the total amount of light is the same. The reason DX *seems* to have worse low light capabilities is because most of the time, when people compare DX with FX, they're using FX lens and the same aperture. The FX lens is not made for the DX sensor, so, you'll be wasting a lot of the glass. If you utilise the entire glass, a DX lens at the same size as FX will essentially transmit about the same amount of light to the sensor. 



> Your statement "Each pixels will still get the same amount of photons, only that the smaller sensors have much denser photons than the larger sensor" cannot be true because a sensor with more pixels AND denser light would mean more light had to have been input.



That is simply not true. Here is an easier explanation. Humans are pixels on full frame, mice are pixels on cropped frame, apples are photon, fullness is density of photon. There is 100 apples given to 100 humans and 100 apples given to 100 mice. Each human and mouse gets to eat 1 apple. To a human, they don't feel really full. To a mice, they feel really full, even though they actually got the same apples.

Because light are more spread out in full frame, they're less dense. DX sensor size is smaller light are not as spread out, so the light is denser.

Another way to think of this - at the same weight, short people are normally fatter/larger/denser than tall people.

Although I might not be sure if full frame really had no low light advantage compared to cropped frame, I'm pretty sure if both full frame and cropped frame get the same total amount of light (same amount of light per pixel), cropped frame will always get denser light.


----------



## Austin Greene (Feb 5, 2012)

2 pages of this thread = instant headache


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 5, 2012)

So are you saying that you'll get a different exposure with a Nikon D3000 with a DX 35mm f/1.8 shot at f/1.8, ISO 200, 1/100s...Than you would with a Canon 5D and a 35mm f/1.4L @ f/1.8 ISO 200, 1/100s?


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 5, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Density of light does change. A larger f/stop will bring higher density of light, even if the total amount of light is the same.


 
You just added a variable that should be a constant between your comparisons.  The only variable here should be the sensor size.



EchoingWhisper said:


> The reason DX *seems* to have worse low light capabilities is because most of the time, when people compare DX with FX, they're using FX lens and the same aperture. The FX lens is not made for the DX sensor, so, you'll be wasting a lot of the glass. If you utilise the entire glass, a DX lens at the same size as FX will essentially transmit about the same amount of light to the sensor.



This is wrong in so many ways.  By this logic, if you used a FF body in DX mode, which only makes use of that part of the lens and sensor, your exposures would all be darker and noisier.



EchoingWhisper said:


> Because light are more spread out in full frame, they're less dense. DX sensor size is smaller light are not as spread out, so the light is denser.



Light is NOT more sparse for a FF sensor over a DX all other things being equal.  And your analogies are bogus and do not apply here.  If you're that interested in it, then pick up a physics book that covers specifically optics.  But coming here and asking a question that you _think_ you already know the answer to is not going to help.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Density of light does change. A larger f/stop will bring higher density of light, even if the total amount of light is the same.
> ...



I'm not trying to say I'm right. But I think my logic applies. What you're saying is right but you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 5, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Density of light does change. A larger f/stop will bring higher density of light, even if the total amount of light is the same.
> ...



It's not a variable, just that sensor size affects the density of light given that the same total amount of light falls on the sensor. On the larger sensor, the light is refracted to fill a larger frame, thus the light is less dense.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 5, 2012)

Larger sensors are a con, waste of money and time, there's no reason to use one at all.  If you don't beleive me just do a forum search of some other threads you'll see


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 5, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



So ... Are you saying that f/8, 1/125 will give a different exposure on full frame than it will on crop, with both cameras side-by-side, in the same light and the same lens?

edit
And same ISO, obviously...



(If that is what you are saying (which is what it sounds like to me) - you are wrong.)


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

If there is a full frame lens that could refracts all of its its light to cover only the DX frame, then it'll be a fair comparison.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 6, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> If there is a full frame lens that could refracts all of its its light to cover only the DX frame, then it'll be a fair comparison.


There isn't, so it's not.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



No, that's not what I mean. A f/8, 1/125 and at the same ISO will give the same exposure for FX and DX, because their pixel pitch is the same. If both FX and DX have the same amount of pixels, DX would have about 1 time smaller pixels. So, at base ISO for both sensors with the same design, without amplification, DX's base ISO would be 1 stop less, the exposure for both would be different. Even at the same amount of amplification, DX's ISO would always be about 1 stop less.

This makes FX has higher low light capabilities - at the same f/stop. But that is not true, cause' FX's lenses would always be larger than DX's lenses at the same f/stop, which means FX basically gets more light because their lens. If both DX and FX's lens were at the same size, both DX and FX would get the same amount of light and their low light capabilities would be the same. A DX's effective f/stop is one stop less compared to FX. It's the lens that controls the low light ability, not the sensor. Do you realise why compact cameras are such bad low light performers? Cause' their lenses are small.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 6, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...


So where does the 'light density' get factored in, and why does my light meter not have a button to adjust sensor size and/or light density?


And, even more puzzling, why does it give me correct exposures, even without knowing what size sensor I have?


----------



## murlis (Feb 6, 2012)

large sensor, Sigma DP2






small sensor, Sony Cybershot







Need I say any more.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

murlis said:


> large sensor, Sigma DP2
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That has nothing to do with this thread, and these are JPEGs, they're not released at the same year, by the same manufacturers, so you can't really compare them. READ THIS: The Real Megapixel Myth


----------



## Dao (Feb 6, 2012)

OP, just want to clear one fact.

DX lens and FX lens are basically the same as far as light correcting goes.

i.e.  A DX 50mm lens vs a FX 50mm lens with same camera mount (Assuming they exist)

The only difference is the size of the image circle. Let's say AreaD (for DX) and AreaF(for FX)  (AreaF > AreaD)
If all conditions are the same except the recording medium is different.  The light intensity in a particular spot on AreaD is the same as AreaF. 


For some reason, I think OP maybe thinking FX lens and DX lens has the same image circle.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 6, 2012)

Dao said:


> For some reason, I think OP maybe thinking FX lens and DX lens has the same image circle.


I think he is expecting the DX image circle to start out the size of the FX circle, but then get shrinked down (and 'intensified') before it gets to the sensor.

Similar to the way you would focus the light through a magnifying glass to burn something.  When it's diffused (large image circle), it can't burn anything.  When it's focused (small image circle), it'll burn ants all day long.  In both cases there is the same amount of light coming through the glass, only the area it is focused on is changing.  I think he is expecting the same thing to be happening inside the camera.


----------



## Dao (Feb 6, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason, I think OP maybe thinking FX lens and DX lens has the same image circle.
> ...



I think he believe they both have the same image circle at the focal plane.  But the FX lens are larger, it collect more light and the image that cast on the recording medium is brighter.  (Kind of based on the same magnifing glass example you mentioned)


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason, I think OP maybe thinking FX lens and DX lens has the same image circle.
> ...



Oh thanks, now you understand what I'm talking about. So am I right?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

Dao said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...



Oh thanks, so there's a way to explain what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that at the same f stop, both lens don't actually get the same total amount light, but only the same density of light. Which means a larger sensor would always collect more light at the same f stop. If both lens started out with the same amount of light, the DX one would be 1 f stop higher.


----------



## Dao (Feb 6, 2012)

Let's just make it simple.  Shooting a evenly lit white wall.


Total amount of light collected
FX > DX because of larger area.

Expousre:
Same.

Please keep in mind that expousre has nothing to do with the size of the overall area.  At a partcular spot, they receive the same amount of light.  i.e.  The 1mm x 1mm center of the center of DX or FX receives the same amount of light when all other conditions are the same.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 6, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...



No.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

Dao said:


> Let's just make it simple.  Shooting a evenly lit white wall.
> 
> 
> Total amount of light collected
> ...



Gorrect. Because exposure is about the density of light, not the total amount of light. Per mm, they are receiving the same amount of light. But DX is actually receiving less light because on the entire sensor because it is smaller. But low light capabilities is actually not determined by sensor size, but lens itself. Realise why larger sensors at the same f stop is always better in low light? Because they always have larger lenses at the same f/stop.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 6, 2012)

Echoing Whipser, if you're going to post a question asking for input... And 100% of the people are telling you wrong... Why are you so insistent that you are right, if YOU were the one posing the question in the first place?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Echoing Whipser, if you're going to post a question asking for input... And 100% of the people are telling you wrong... Why are you so insistent that you are right, if YOU were the one posing the question in the first place?



I didn't ask the question about the depth of field and low light part. I was just asking if there was any other benefits other than resolution, given that depth of field, depth of field distribution, perspective and low light abilities are not factors (or at least to me).


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...



Kay. I'll not debate anymore. I guess I'm wrong, since you guys are saying that I'm wrong even after understanding what I'm trying to say. But I'm still not clear why am I wrong, cause' my logic don't seem to go with your explanation and no one had explain why my logic is wrong, they just tell me why they're right.


----------



## Dao (Feb 6, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > Let's just make it simple.  Shooting a evenly lit white wall.
> ...




Take a photo with Nikon D700 paired with a 50mm DX lens, then take another photo with the same D700 paired with a 50mm FX lens.  Do you think there are difference in terms of exposure in the center between the 2 photos?


----------



## analog.universe (Feb 6, 2012)

Dao said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...



By the same token you could put either the 50mm FX or DX lens a on D7000, and compare the center crop with a center crop of the same lens on a D700, and get the same exposure.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 6, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...


I can see why would would think that, because it does kind of make sense - but it just doesn't work that way...  I'm trying to think of a good way to explain it...

If you had a FX lens on a DX body, the image circle is much larger than the sensor.  Yes, there is more light coming through it than the DX lens, but that light is just wasted - it isn't doing anything, since it isn't hitting the sensor.  The DX lens just gets rid of all that wasted light.


----------



## jaomul (Feb 6, 2012)

High quality full frame sensors can produce better images than high quality crop sensors. If the physics doesn't make that clear just look at the photographs


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



Yep, DX lens just gets rid of all that wasted light, that's why it is smaller. So if the DX lens is made larger, at the size of an FX lens, doesn't it gain back all those wasted light?


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 6, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...


So, basically, if you took a DX lens and turned it into a FX lens, would it behave like a FX lens?  Is that what you're asking?

I think your question has the answer in it...


----------



## Dao (Feb 6, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



Let me put it this way.  Hope that will help you understand.

Using a DX macro lens , take a photo of an area that has thousands of dead ants (not moving).  In your photo, you capture 40 ants and the size of one of the ant is 4mm life size image on DX sensor.

Now you happened to find a macro lens which the front element is a big as a basketball (make up lens) and you mount it on the same camera.  In your photo, you still capture 40 ants and the size of the same ant is 4mm life size as well.

(Assuming same shutter speed, iso and aperture #)


I think you maybe believe that since the lens is much bigger,  more light is entering the sensor at a given time. And all light endup in the sensor.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

Dao said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...



No. But that is not the correct comparison, because DX mode in D700 decreases the pixel count. A better comparison would be the D3 with 50mm (at f/2.8) VS D300 with 35mm (at f/2.0)

Check the difference in noise levels, background control etc.

The comparison isn't perfect either, because the D3, as a professional camera, gets higher end sensor (more is paid and put into it to make the sensor better). But it would be a much better comparison.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...



No, the size of the DX lens will be the same as FX, only that it covers only the size of a DX sensor.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

Dao said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...



Hmmm, that's a good point.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 6, 2012)

jaomul said:


> High quality full frame sensors can produce better images than high quality crop sensors. If the physics doesn't make that clear just look at the photographs


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 6, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...


Are you talking about the physical size of the lens?

The outer dimensions of the lenses could be the same - that doesn't really matter.  The size of the image circle is what matters, and that isn't controlled by the physical size of the lens.  There are plenty of full-frame lenses that are even smaller than crop sensor lenses.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...



No, I don't mean the physical size of the lens. In a few of my previous posts, I've already stated that, so I assumed you guys know what I'm talking about.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 6, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



If you change the optics of the lens so that it has the same front element but smaller image circle, then you have to change every element in between which means an entirely different lens with a different focal length and different max aperture.  I know that it doesnt sound like it would make sense that the focal length of the lens would change if you didnt physically change the length of the lens, but if you take for example the Canon 800mm, it is only about 18" long but it's focal length is 31.5".


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 6, 2012)

jaomul said:


> High quality full frame sensors can produce better images than high quality crop sensors. If the physics doesn't make that clear just look at the photographs



True enough, but more money is spent to make sensors in professional cameras better. Just look at D3x, it's a great example. The D700/D300 is also a good example. The D700 is almost 2 times better than D300 in the low light score, even though a the D700 is supposed to be only 1 time better in the DxOMark low light score than D300. There must be a lot more things going on.


----------



## Balmiesgirl (Feb 6, 2012)

I have a d3 and a d300 .... I use the same lenses on both cameras. The d3 (full frame) has much better resolution and better performance in high iso situations. I keep my d300 (dx) because of the extra reach that I get with my lenses.  I use my d3 about 90 percent of the time because the quality is sooooo much better.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 7, 2012)

Balmiesgirl said:


> I have a d3 and a d300 .... I use the same lenses on both cameras. The d3 (full frame) has much better resolution and better performance in high iso situations. I keep my d300 (dx) because of the extra reach that I get with my lenses.  I use my d3 about 90 percent of the time because the quality is sooooo much better.



Can't doubt it. A professional camera is a professional camera. Much more money are put into it so that it becomes a better product.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 7, 2012)

I don't understand where you get the idea that an FX and a DX sensor of the same resolution would result in the same performance. SNR is depicted as a function of photons converted to electrons vs background noise. More photons = better signal = more dynamic range. There's a good reason they sent large 1mpxl sensors to Mars to take photographs, and there's a reason why large sensors in the kilopixel range are used in space telescopes. 

Regardless how companies act, and how they bow to demand of marketing departments who dictate "what people want", the simple fact remains more is gained from a larger physical pixels size.


----------



## Kolia (Feb 7, 2012)

Weeee, long topic. OP, you have to separate the sensors from the optics (lens) in your mind. The image projected on the back of the camera will be the same regardless of the type of lens for a given setup. 

The "fringe" will be missing from the DX lens image but it would overlay perfectly with the image from the FX lens. 

The sensors characteristics, resolution sensitivity etc will have their effect over all. But the "source image" will be the same.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 7, 2012)

Overread said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



That settles it. I have been debating about upgrading from my XSi to something better, in the Canon line, of course, and couldnt decide if I should go with the 7D or spend a few bucks more and go up to the 5D Mark II. But if you "love" your 7D.... good enough for me.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 8, 2012)

I realised I'm slightly wrong. The reason larger sensors' lenses are larger is because their focal length is longer compared to smaller sensors at an equivalent focal length. But it is still similar - they are larger -  so if we make DX's lenses larger too then it will have the same low light performance.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 8, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> I realised I'm slightly wrong. The reason larger sensors' lenses are larger is because their focal length is longer compared to smaller sensors at an equivalent focal length. But it is still similar - they are larger -  so if we make DX's lenses larger too then it will have the same low light performance.



Some lenses are compatible with both FX and DX.
The difference is on a FX, a 200mm tammy would be 200mm
Put the same lens on a DX and it becomes a 300mm.
Same amount of light going through the lens.

Sensor pixels are measured in microns. For example the Nikon D4 pixel size is 7.3 microns.
A nikon D7000, with a DX sensor, pixels are about 4.7 microns.

How big is a micron? Look at this (.) period.
That's about 615 microns.


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 8, 2012)

Longer focal lengths create less dof at the same subject distance, and with full frame u use longer focal lengths to achieve the same composition as aps.  A 35mm f1.4 on aps may produce the same exposure and composition as a 50mm f1.4 on full frame, but it will have a wider dof due to the wider focal length.  If u use the same lens on both the aps will have less dof due to the fact that you needed to back up 30% to fit the subject in frame.

An extreme example of this is found when you shoot large format film.  This photo was taken at f2.5 on 4x5" film:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/espressobuzz/5339594747/

2.5 isnt an extremely large aperture on small format, but it's very large for 4x5, you'd need a f0.75 lens to achieve this on a full frame dslr due to its much smaller sensor area compared to 4x5" film.  You get the same effect when going from aps to full frame, just to a lesser degree.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 8, 2012)

djacobox372 said:


> Longer focal lengths create less dof at the same subject distance, and with full frame u use longer focal lengths to achieve the same composition as aps.  A 35mm f1.4 on aps may produce the same exposure and composition as a 50mm f1.4 on full frame, but it will have a wider dof due to the wider focal length.  If u use the same lens on both the aps will have less dof due to the fact that you needed to back up 30% to fit the subject in frame.
> 
> An extreme example of this is found when you shoot large format film.  This photo was taken at f2.5 on 4x5" film:
> 
> ...



Longer focal length doesn't create less DOF at the same magnification. Larger sensor do seem to use to get less DOF because you could go closer to the subject at the same focal length. But a DX lens at the size of the FX lens but only covering the frame of DX would have similar DOF.


----------



## Kolia (Feb 8, 2012)

As said elsewhere, optical physics has nothing to do with the type of sensor. 

The conversion factor only applies to the affective FoV captured by each sensor type.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 8, 2012)

From Cambridge in colour -
One might initially think that throwing away image information is never ideal, however it does have its advantages. Nearly all lenses are sharpest at their centers, while quality degrades progressively toward to the edges. This means that *a cropped sensor effectively discards the lowest quality portions of the image, which is quite useful when using low quality lenses (as these typically have the worst edge quality).

*On the other hand, this also means that one is carrying a much larger lens than is necessary &#8212; a factor particularly relevant to those carrying their camera for extended periods of time (see section below). Ideally, one would use nearly all image light transmitted from the lens, and this lens would be of high enough quality that its change in sharpness would be negligible towards its edges.

So, a FX lens is actually larger than DX lens. "Ideally, one would use nearly all image light transmitted from the lens." So if a DX lens is made the same size as a FX lens, the same amount of light in FX lens is transmitted to the DX lens, then the noise performance and depth of field would be the same.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Feb 8, 2012)

If you have a 7D (crop) and a 5D (full) and use the same 200mm EF lens on both using the same aperture value and the same distance to subject then the 5D will have a slightly shallower DOF.


----------



## Dao (Feb 8, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> I realised I'm slightly wrong. The reason larger sensors' lenses are larger is because their focal length is longer compared to smaller sensors at an equivalent focal length. But it is still similar - they are larger -  so if we make DX's lenses larger too then it will have the same low light performance.



Focal length is the optical property of the lens.  So even if someone managed to mount that on the iPhone, the focal length is the same.  Just like a race car performance tires(tyres).  If someone manage to mount them on a Toyota Prius, the tires performance properties are the same.  It just that the Prius is not able to take full advantage of it.

Since Toyota do not need to spend that kind of money nor the consumer want to do that, so it is better to get a smaller, less perform tires on it.

Same thing apply to lens.  I strongly believe the cost of making and using (require less processing power) a smaller sensor is much lower than a full frame.  So manufacturers go that route and create the cropped sensor.  

And because of the cropped sensor, the lens manufacturers now can create a fast zoom lens with smaller glass (possible lower cost).  With less glass => less weight => do not need sturdier lens housing => even less weight.


----------



## Dao (Feb 8, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> If you have a 7D (crop) and a 5D (full) and use the same 200mm EF lens on both using the same aperture value and the same distance to subject then the 5D will have a slightly shallower DOF.



I believe they will have the same DoF.  However, if you frame the subject so that the size appear to be the same, then the one in 5D should have a shallower DoF.  In order to do so, the 5D camera will need to move closer to the subject.  So the DoF change due to subject to camera distance change.


----------



## Dao (Feb 8, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> From Cambridge in colour -
> One might initially think that throwing away image information is never ideal, however it does have its advantages. Nearly all lenses are sharpest at their centers, while quality degrades progressively toward to the edges. This means that *a cropped sensor effectively discards the lowest quality portions of the image, which is quite useful when using low quality lenses (as these typically have the worst edge quality).
> 
> *On the other hand, this also means that one is carrying a much larger lens than is necessary &#8212; a factor particularly relevant to those carrying their camera for extended periods of time (see section below). Ideally, one would use nearly all image light transmitted from the lens, and this lens would be of high enough quality that its change in sharpness would be negligible towards its edges.
> ...




What that line means is lens usually perform the best in the center.  And DX sensor only use the center region, so overall image is better.  There are examples that fall into that category.   i.e.  The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.  It border performance is not as good as the center, so when that lens is test with a DX body, the MTF charts are not bad at all,   however, when it test with a FX body, MTF charts show weakness on border performance.

Again, even if the DX lens make the same size as a FX or big enough for full format camera, it is going to be the same.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 8, 2012)

Dao said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > From Cambridge in colour -
> ...



True for non-pro lenses that don't perform on the outside, but not a good argument at shooting DX over full frame. Its no secret if one wants the best image quality, camera body, most functions, pro durability and sealed up body, and an overall pro-level its full frame all the way. 

6 pages of funny right here LoL and another 6  pageswill never reverse the roles of FF > DX  and DX > than 3/4 and 3/4 > cell phone sensor.


----------



## Dao (Feb 8, 2012)

Yes, and border performance may not be too important for some shooters since the subject that need to be sharp is closer to the center.  And the background is blurred anyway.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 8, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> "Ideally, one would use nearly all image light transmitted from the lens." So if a DX lens is made the same size as a FX lens, the same amount of light in FX lens is transmitted to the DX lens, then the noise performance and depth of field would be the same.



Wrong.  And if you need an explanation as to why, re-read all of mine and everyone elses other responses.


----------



## molested_cow (Feb 8, 2012)

Okok here's an analogy, not sure if this will work for you.

You got two cups. One with 5cm diameter and one with 10cm diameter, both have the same depth. Put both in a down pour and see which will collect more water at the same period of time.

A larger sensor vs a smaller sensor of the same pixel count, means the size of each pixel is different. If each pixel is like a cup, then a larger pixel will "collect" more light than the smaller pixel at the same given time.
You kept arguing that they will receive the same amount of light if the light source is the same. However it seems that you are quantifying the light by the number of photons that YOU ALLOW to hit the pixels, which is unrealistic. In the real world, the amount of light is controlled by the aperture and shutter open time, which means at the same given time, there will definitely be more photons hitting on a larger pixel than the small one.


Another way to look at it is, take the D700 sensor and turn it to DX mode(6mp). Its noise performance at DX mode will be the same as FX, which is better than D90 which has a 12mp DX sensor.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Feb 8, 2012)

Dao said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> > If you have a 7D (crop) and a 5D (full) and use the same 200mm EF lens on both using the same aperture value and the same distance to subject then the 5D will have a slightly shallower DOF.
> ...



Not according to my depth of field calculator.  There's a reason those calculators ask what format of film/size of sensor the camera has.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 8, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> If you have a 7D (crop) and a 5D (full) and use the same 200mm EF lens on both using the same aperture value and the same distance to subject then the 5D will have a slightly shallower DOF.



Sorry, depth of field is determined by circle of confusion, aperture and subject - sensor is not a factor.


----------



## Dao (Feb 8, 2012)

EchoingWhisper 

Hope this will clear things up. Diagram quote from dpreview








Assuming shutter speed and ISO value are constant. 

What will make the image casted on the sensor brighter?
The answer is the aperture.

What if I make the lens bigger and keep the aperture the same?
Same brightness.

So what a larger lens can do?
To create a larger image circle at the focal plane. => wider Angle of View (AoV) / Field of View (FoV) = See more sky around the eagle

What if I use a smaller sensor?
Same brightness.  But the eagle is cropped and I cannot see the tip of the wings. (In other words, I can say narrower AoV/FoV)

What if I use a FX sensor, but use a DX lens?
Same brightness.  But the eagle is cropped by a black circle and I cannot see the tip of the wings.


Please note that, no matter what I use for the recording medium, P&S sensor or medium format, the focal length is the same. Brightness is the same.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 8, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> Okok here's an analogy, not sure if this will work for you.
> 
> You got two cups. One with 5cm diameter and one with 10cm diameter, both have the same depth. Put both in a down pour and see which will collect more water at the same period of time.
> 
> ...



Not really true, two lens with the but covering a smaller sensor, light density is highly. The magnifying analogy is surprisingly accurate to what I am thinking.

Another way to look at it is, take the D700 sensor and turn it to DX mode(6mp). Its noise performance at DX mode will be the same as FX, which is better than D90 which has a 12mp DX sensor.

Not true. Because at 100%, the D700 sensor in DX mode will look better. But if you display both at the same size, you'll realise both have the same noise performance.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 8, 2012)

Dao said:


> EchoingWhisper
> 
> Hope this will clear things up. Diagram quote from dpreview
> 
> ...



Not trying to say you're wrong. You're entirely right, but it's just that at the same total light level, the DX will always get higher density of light, therefore it will not be worse than FX, in terms of SNR.


----------



## Dao (Feb 8, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Not really true, two lens with the but covering a smaller sensor, light density is highly. *The magnifying analogy is surprisingly accurate* to what I am thinking.



This is what I keep trying to show you.   IMAGE CIRCLE.  Larger lens has larger image circle.  Smaller lens has smaller image circle.

You assumption was wrong and that make you believe what you believe.  You assume when DX lens change into a FX lens, the image circle remain the same, which is not the case.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Feb 8, 2012)

ABSOLUTELY !

A larger sensor is nothing more than a luxury.

I spent all kind of crazy money on my Hassies because I had no idea what else to do with that extra cash...


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 8, 2012)

c.cloudwalker said:


> ABSOLUTELY !
> 
> A larger sensor is nothing more than a luxury.
> 
> I spent all kind of crazy money on my Hassies because I had no idea what else to do with that extra cash...



Luxury of more resolution.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 8, 2012)

Dao said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Not really true, two lens with the but covering a smaller sensor, light density is highly. *The magnifying analogy is surprisingly accurate* to what I am thinking.
> ...




So, just increase the aperture and turn it into the size of a FX lens and you'll get the same SNR and photon per pixel.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Feb 8, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...




:lmao:

Do you want to work?

Or do you just want to think about working?


----------



## molested_cow (Feb 8, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> molested_cow said:
> 
> 
> > Okok here's an analogy, not sure if this will work for you.
> ...





I don't really know what else to say. It's obvious that you are trying really hard to read things in ways you want to agree with. 

I never mention anything about "magnifying" image. You are skewing the D700 vs D90 example by altering the condition of the comparison. You want to argue that D700's image will look worse by stretching a 6mp photo to match the D90's 12mp. How about compressing the D90's 12mp image to match the D700's 6mp DX image? If they indeed look equally good, won't that prove that D700's larger pixels are superior to D90's smaller pixels?

It rains all the time in Malaysia, I strongly suggest trying the cup experiment.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 8, 2012)

I think you are asking the wrong question about luxury. As the committee has already decided, luxury shall be punished. You should be asking "Are larger sensors irrelevant?" That is much easier to answer, because everyone knows that relephants are large. Even the baby ones.


----------



## molested_cow (Feb 8, 2012)

But but elephants are much more relevant to the well being of planet earth than the smaller human kind!


----------



## bentcountershaft (Feb 8, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> > If you have a 7D (crop) and a 5D (full) and use the same 200mm EF lens on both using the same aperture value and the same distance to subject then the 5D will have a slightly shallower DOF.
> ...



The circle of confusion is determined by how much enlargement is necessary which is directly related to sensor size.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 8, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > molested_cow said:
> ...



If they look equal, they are the same then. Sensel size don't determine SNR. Sensors size do, at the same f-stop. But a larger sensor would require a larger lens, therefore getting more light. If the smaller sensor use a lens as large as the large sensor, it will get the same light. The cup experiment is applicable too, but goes against your opinion. A good example would be someone trying cup experiment testing two different versions - test one - less cups, larger cups, test two - more cups, smaller cups. Moreover, we're not talking about sensels, but we're talking about sensors now.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 8, 2012)

"Humans are pixels on full frame, mice are pixels on cropped frame, apples are photon, fullness is density of photon. There is 100 apples given to 100 humans and 100 apples given to 100 mice. Each human and mouse gets to eat 1 apple. To a human, they don't feel really full. To a mice, they feel really full, even though they actually got the same apples.

Another way to think of this - at the same weight, short people are normally fatter/larger/denser than tall people".

:er: WHAT??


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 8, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> "Humans are pixels on full frame, mice are pixels on cropped frame, apples are photon, fullness is density of photon. There is 100 apples given to 100 humans and 100 apples given to 100 mice. Each human and mouse gets to eat 1 apple. To a human, they don't feel really full. To a mice, they feel really full, even though they actually got the same apples.
> 
> Another way to think of this - at the same weight, short people are normally fatter/larger/denser than tall people".
> 
> :er: WHAT??



lol. Just go with the magnifying glass analogy. XD


----------



## Helen B (Feb 8, 2012)

Echoingwhisper,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would find it easier to discuss this issue with you if you were able to explain your theories in a clearer manner. You seem quite confused, and you use vague and confusing phrases, such as "_If the smaller sensor use a lens as large as the large sensor, it will get the same light._" In this example, could you try to be more specific about the 'size' of the lens - if you mean its image circle, then say so, and also say whether the f-number stays the same or not. When you say '_same light_' can you be more specific about what you mean - for example, do you understand enough to use terms like 'luminous flux' and 'illuminance' (or radiant flux and irradiance, if you wish)?

Best,
Helen


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 8, 2012)

Summation of what's going on in this thread with EchoingWhisper... and everyone else.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 8, 2012)

TTT bump!


----------



## Kolia (Feb 8, 2012)

I'm amazed at how many different analogies we can come up with and still the idea doesn't get across.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 8, 2012)

Wow... that's fifteen minutes of my life I'll never get back!


----------



## Dao (Feb 8, 2012)

Kolia said:


> I'm amazed at how many different analogies we can come up with and still the idea doesn't get across.



I think maybe OP thought he kind of like discovered that the earth is not flat and earth circles around the sun while others said no.


----------



## ph0enix (Feb 8, 2012)

Somebody needs to put an end to this thread.
OP: quit smoking cannabis or at least limit the amount


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 8, 2012)

ph0enix said:


> Somebody needs to put an end to this thread.
> OP: quit smoking cannabis or at least limit the amount



LMAO

Hey its hard for some to grasp medium format *>* full frame *>* DX *>* four thirds *>* cell phone sensor!


----------



## zcar21 (Feb 8, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Echoing Whipser, if you're going to post a question asking for input... And 100% of the people are telling you wrong... Why are you so insistent that you are right, if YOU were the one posing the question in the first place?
> ...



I think you have answered your own question, but I don't agree with your views on lenses or pixels.
You just stated the advantages. If you are happy with the perspective, low light ability, depth of field and resolution(I mean fine detail not pixels). And are not printing larger than 8x10, the advantages of full frame seems a waste of money or luxury like you call it. 

Just like more resolution is important for bigger print, depending on the type of photography, low light, wider view, more detail can be as important. It depends on the photographer needs. 

Check this out.
Canon EOS 5D vs. Canon EOS 20D &mdash; Full-Frame vs. APS-C sensors - photo.net
Canon EOS 5D upgrade feature Cameralabs outdoor results


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 8, 2012)

ph0enix said:
			
		

> Somebody needs to put an end to this thread.
> OP: quit smoking cannabis or at least limit the amount



I smoke plenty of cannabis and can understand what everyone is saying just fine. The OP is just in denial.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 8, 2012)

I agree that herbage is no excuse for not undertsanding the obvious


----------



## zcar21 (Feb 8, 2012)

Copyright enfringement is condemned, but canabis use is ok? People is sentenced to ridiculous long sentences for marijuana possession and dealing everyday. The comment is out of place.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 8, 2012)

zcar21 said:


> Copyright enfringement is condemned, but canabis use is ok? People is sentenced to ridiculous long sentences for marijuana possession and dealing everyday. The comment is out of place.



Yes. Cannabis use is okay... And no, no one gets sentenced for marijuana possession where I live. It's decriminalized and cops often don't feel like filling out the paperwork. They just tell you to take it elsewhere. Some might confiscate it and break your piece, but that's never happened to me. 

Smoking weed never hurt anyone. :thumbup:


----------



## ph0enix (Feb 8, 2012)

zcar21 said:


> Copyright enfringement is condemned, but canabis use is ok? People is sentenced to ridiculous long sentences for marijuana possession and dealing everyday. The comment is out of place.



This thread is finally starting to get interesting.
Copyright infringement is stealing the fruit of someone's hard work, their livelihood.  I don't smoke weed myself but I don't care if someone else chooses to do it.  Despite people being sentenced for possession and dealing of marijuana, you decide which is more morally wrong.


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 8, 2012)

zcar21 said:


> Copyright enfringement is condemned, but canabis use is ok? People is sentenced to ridiculous long sentences for marijuana possession and dealing everyday. The comment is out of place.



Copyright infringement hurts the livelihood of others. Cannabis just hurts the user. Nobody ever went to jail for sadomasochism.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 8, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> zcar21 said:
> 
> 
> > Copyright enfringement is condemned, but canabis use is ok? People is sentenced to ridiculous long sentences for marijuana possession and dealing everyday. The comment is out of place.
> ...



There's your misconception of the night guys!


----------



## tirediron (Feb 8, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Smoking weed never hurt anyone. :thumbup:


 You have GOT to be kidding!!!!!!!!


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 8, 2012)

tirediron said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Smoking weed never hurt anyone. :thumbup:
> ...



No, I am actually quite serious. Marijuana intake has never claimed a single life. Ever. There has been zero documented cases of cannabis as the cause of death in medical history. You have to smoke your several times your body weight in order to die from marijuana consumption. 

I also used to smoke cigarettes. Even the good kind,  Organic American Spirits. I can tell you from personal experience that since I have stopped smoking cigarettes, my health has improved drastically. From smoking marijuana (as I do on occasion) I never have any of the same coughing fits, lack of breath, or other "smoking" related problems. 

I actually just had my lungs checked out the other day, and they're in perfect shape. I only smoked Cigs for 2. years, and I've smoked marijuana for roughly 5. I was also able to climb the tallest mountain in my state shortly after quitting cigs, and that was a huge achievement for me. 

Also, marijuana has been used for plenty medicinal purposes to great effect. I use it to help me sleep at night specifically, as I suffer from insomnia (hence why I am still up). 

This guy wouldn't be able to function or live a life without marijuana: 






Didn't mean to derail the thread, and you're entitled to your opinion John. But it's also nice to be informed too.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 9, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



And......
Study: Smoking Marijuana Not Linked with Lung Damage | Healthland | TIME.com



And some good reads...
10 choice weed books - latimes.com


And some more reads...
http://www.questia.com/library/science-and-technology/health-and-medicine/prescription-drugs/medical-marijuana.jsp




How this thread got to hear, I have no idea!!!


The key here is you need to read instead of just agreeing with Big Brother, because he's always right, right?


----------



## Helen B (Feb 9, 2012)

To go back to the original contretemps, the main problem has been that we have had a failure to communicate. The OP seems to have read something somewhere, partly understood it, and tried to discuss it without explaining it very well. All that stuff about lens size and how much light? Is it a vague way of saying that you could make comparisons between formats by keeping the diameter of the entrance pupil the same. That's not an entirely invalid way of comparing. The smaller the format the faster the practical lens. When I shot 16 mm movie film my standard zooms were an f/1.1 2.5x, an f/1.6 5x and an f/2.2 10x - these were quite common lenses and none of them were unweildy. Their extra speed offset the greater DoF of the small format - or conversely the smaller format meant that the speed was not such a disadvantage when you wanted deep focus. (Of course it is always difficult to go beyond about f/0.9 even for very small formats, so that sets a limit to the comparison.)

Doing a 'same picture from the same place, enlarged to the same size' format comparison then looks different, and it isn't heretical or novel. Consider a comparison between full frame and a 2x crop sensor (for ease of calculation).

Lenses: 50 mm at f/2 vs 25 mm at f/1 - field of view the same, DoF the same ( ie same picture from same place), but the smaller format image is two stops brighter. That means that the sensor can be two stops less sensitive to use the same shutter speed at the same scene brightness. Is this beginning to make more sense - is this what the OP is trying to talk about?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 9, 2012)

Helen B said:


> Echoingwhisper,
> 
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I would find it easier to discuss this issue with you if you were able to explain your theories in a clearer manner. You seem quite confused, and you use vague and confusing phrases, such as "_If the smaller sensor use a lens as large as the large sensor, it will get the same light._" In this example, could you try to be more specific about the 'size' of the lens - if you mean its image circle, then say so, and also say whether the f-number stays the same or not. When you say '_same light_' can you be more specific about what you mean - for example, do you understand enough to use terms like 'luminous flux' and 'illuminance' (or radiant flux and irradiance, if you wish)?
> 
> ...



At the same equivalent focal length, and lens with the same size, the radiant flux would be the same no matter the size of the sensor. The total amount of light landing on a the sensor (radiant flux) determines the SNR, not the illuminance (which is determined by the fstop). If the radiant flux of both FX and DX sensor is the same, then their SNR would be the same (though FX sensor might get a bit advantage due to less gaps between pixels, but that is likely going to diminish due to technological advances).

I'm not sure about the terms I'm using, but understand it from the definition from Wiki.

So am I right? If not, can you explain to me how I am wrong? Using those terms you gave me to explain it would make it even clearer.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 9, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> At the same equivalent focal length, and lens with the same size...



Very quickly, before I go to bed, what do you mean by 'size' - same entrance pupil diameter?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 9, 2012)

Helen B said:


> To go back to the original contretemps, the main problem has been that we have had a failure to communicate. The OP seems to have read something somewhere, partly understood it, and tried to discuss it without explaining it very well. All that stuff about lens size and how much light? Is it a vague way of saying that you could make comparisons between formats by keeping the diameter of the entrance pupil the same. That's not an entirely invalid way of comparing. The smaller the format the faster the practical lens. When I shot 16 mm movie film my standard zooms were an f/1.1 2.5x, an f/1.6 5x and an f/2.2 10x - these were quite common lenses and none of them were unweildy. Their extra speed offset the greater DoF of the small format - or conversely the smaller format meant that the speed was not such a disadvantage when you wanted deep focus. (Of course it is always difficult to go beyond about f/0.9 even for very small formats, so that sets a limit to the comparison.)
> 
> Doing a 'same picture from the same place, enlarged to the same size' format comparison then looks different, and it isn't heretical or novel. Consider a comparison between full frame and a 2x crop sensor (for ease of calculation).
> 
> Lenses: 50 mm at f/2 vs 25 mm at f/1 - field of view the same, DoF the same ( ie same picture from same place), but the smaller format image is two stops brighter. That means that the sensor can be two stops less sensitive to use the same shutter speed at the same scene brightness. Is this beginning to make more sense - is this what the OP is trying to talk about?



Yes, exactly. My English isn't very good. :/


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 9, 2012)

Helen B said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > At the same equivalent focal length, and lens with the same size...
> ...



Yes, that was what I mean, just that I don't know the term.


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 9, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:
			
		

> Longer focal length doesn't create less DOF at the same magnification. Larger sensor do seem to use to get less DOF because you could go closer to the subject at the same focal length. But a DX lens at the size of the FX lens but only covering the frame of DX would have similar DOF.



Lol, now that's stretched logic... The "real world" answer is that a 50mm achieves the same PRINT magnification on fx as a 35mm does on dx, and the 50mm on fx has noticably shallower dof due to greater OPTICAL magnification.

In the real world we care about prints not optical math. If people only printed photos to the exact deminsions of their sensor the OP would make sense, but they dont.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 9, 2012)

(One of our cats has just got sick - the poor little thing threw up all over the bed and woke me up. Funny how it's always me that gets woken up by the cats...)

I thought you meant entrance pupil. I think that learning a few of these optical concepts would not only help you get your thoughts across, but also help with your general understanding.

Anyway, yes, if the entrance pupil is fixed, then the luminous flux is fixed: it's a very simple relationship to conceptualise. The light from an object point spreads out and part of it goes through a hole and then gets focused onto the image. That hole is the entrance pupil, and the area of it determines the rate at which light energy passes through it and on to the image, if it stays in the same location. For a fixed entrance pupil size and location, the luminous flux from an object point will be the same, regardless of the focal length of the lens. (That's why entrance pupil size can be more important than f-number in astrophotography.)

Oops, she's thrown up again. Time to clean up...

(Oh, and if you keep the same entrance pupil diameter  - 'lens size' as you were calling it - and field of view, the DoF is indeed the same between formats.)

Coverage is a red herring, and it is also a relephant.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 9, 2012)

djacobox372 said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't wanna debate again. - just giving you a link - http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/267282-focal-length-depth-field.html


----------



## Dao (Feb 9, 2012)

Helen B said:


> (One of our cats has just got sick - the poor little thing threw up all over the bed and woke me up. Funny how it's always me that gets woken up by the cats...)
> 
> I thought you meant entrance pupil. I think that learning a few of these optical concepts would not only help you get your thoughts across, but also help with your general understanding.
> 
> ...



Hope your cats are alright!

Yes,  the DoF should be the same between format.
It is the photographer who alter the DoF when he/she try to frame the subject in the same way when using different format.  So a head shot photo in larger format should have a shallower DoF than a smaller format (same head shot framing) because the subject to camera distance decrease when shooting with larger format medium.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 9, 2012)

Dao said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > (One of our cats has just got sick - the poor little thing threw up all over the bed and woke me up. Funny how it's always me that gets woken up by the cats...)
> ...



But that is offset by the larger fstop of smaller formats with the same entrance pupil size.


----------



## Dao (Feb 9, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > Helen B said:
> ...





What do you mean by offset by larger fstop of smaller format??

fstop stay the same regardless the recording medium.










Area of the aperture = Area
f = focal length (do not mix the equivalent focal length)
N is the f number.


As you can see, the area,  which determine how much light enter has nothing to do with the recording format.  

So if the focal length and the entrance pupil (AREA) keep constant, the f number stay the same.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 9, 2012)

Dao,

I tried to explain the situation that I believe EW is talking about in post #121. It refers to two pictures, each taken on different format from the same place, with the same field of view. The entrance pupils are the same size (ie the f-numbers are different). The DoF is the same. 

Best,
Helen

PS, Ginger (the sick cat) didn't throw up any more after that. She seems OK this morning. Thanks for asking!


----------



## Dao (Feb 9, 2012)

Helen B said:


> Dao,
> 
> I tried to explain the situation that I believe EW is talking about in post #121. It refers to two pictures, each taken on different format from the same place, with the same field of view. The entrance pupils are the same size (ie the f-numbers are different). The DoF is the same.
> 
> ...



Helen,

Ok, now I understand.   I was talking about same f number with same focal length (=> same entrance pupil size).  In order to keep the field of view constant, the photographer need to move.   I guess too many things going on.


----------



## zcar21 (Feb 9, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> zcar21 said:
> 
> 
> > Copyright enfringement is condemned, but canabis use is ok? People is sentenced to ridiculous long sentences for marijuana possession and dealing everyday. The comment is out of place.
> ...



You are clearly living a different reality, probably from smoking too much.
Thousands of people die in Mexico so you can safely buy and smoke marijuana.

Inform yourself


----------



## Overread (Feb 9, 2012)

Drug talk ends now. 
We don't need it on the site in general and we certainly don't need it derailing a thread. I would also like to advise members that admitting to known illegal activities is not suitable behaviour.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 9, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > Helen B said:
> ...



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


----------



## chuasam (Feb 9, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> It's one of those cases where if you have to ask, then it shouldn't matter to you.


Hey! I was going to say that.


> A different perspective is debatable


the same way that the law of gravity is debatable.

Sure you get get great pictures with a camera of any size. Is a larger sensor a luxury? Well it really depends on what you are doing with your camera.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 9, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...



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.


----------



## zcar21 (Feb 10, 2012)

Most of us can't explain it but the benefits are obvious, just look at the pictures.

The Full-Frame Advantage

Regardless of what people say about ken rockwell the pictures speak by themself.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 10, 2012)

I think that most of the controversy in this thread has been because of communication problems, not because there was anything fundamentally incorrect about what EW was trying to say. Once the vagueness was cleared up, and a few irrelevant points removed, what EW was talking about was neither new nor controversial. It was as if he had read it somewhere and partly understood it - but I could be wrong about that, of course.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Kolia (Feb 10, 2012)

EW, you have been provided with multiple diagrams and links to various sources. 

I wouldn't say that proof hasn't been provided. Don't alienate the people trying to help you.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 10, 2012)

Helen B said:


> I think that most of the controversy in this thread has been because of communication problems, not because there was anything fundamentally incorrect about what EW was trying to say. Once the vagueness was cleared up, and a few irrelevant points removed, what EW was talking about was neither new nor controversial. It was as if he had read it somewhere and partly understood it - but I could be wrong about that, of course.
> 
> Best,
> Helen



I didn't read it. I just went by my common sense that if the entrance pupil was the same size then luminous flux shall be constant. But instead they say its not the same, so I tried to explain, but they just didn't understand what I say.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 10, 2012)

Kolia said:


> EW, you have been provided with multiple diagrams and links to various sources.
> 
> I wouldn't say that proof hasn't been provided. Don't alienate the people trying to help you.



But those source don't directly go against my points. Those source are right but what I was saying is that if the lens size is the same (entrance pupil - I didn't know the term before Helen B came) then total amount of light (luminous flux) would be the same, and those source didn't actually said that I'm wrong in any way.


----------



## zcar21 (Feb 10, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> 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.


----------



## Dao (Feb 10, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > I think that most of the controversy in this thread has been because of communication problems, not because there was anything fundamentally incorrect about what EW was trying to say. Once the vagueness was cleared up, and a few irrelevant points removed, what EW was talking about was neither new nor controversial. It was as if he had read it somewhere and partly understood it - but I could be wrong about that, of course.
> ...



In the opening paragraph, you said

"Depth of field and low light ability is almost the same, given that the  lens is the same size and sensor design is the same (same megapixels)"

Later one, you said what you mean by lens size is the entrance pupil.

So now you are saying

"Depth of field and low light ability is almost the same, given that the  lens has the same entrance pupil size and sensor design is the same (same megapixels)"


Is that what you meant?   I am trying to understand your statement.  If not, can you tell us what you really meant?


----------



## Helen B (Feb 10, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > I think that most of the controversy in this thread has been because of communication problems, not because there was anything fundamentally incorrect about what EW was trying to say. Once the vagueness was cleared up, and a few irrelevant points removed, what EW was talking about was neither new nor controversial. It was as if he had read it somewhere and partly understood it - but I could be wrong about that, of course.
> ...



Trouble is, that's not what you said until the words were given to you. You introduced a few red herrings (irrelevant issues) that suggested that you didn't really understand what is going on.

Don't forget that the discussion has been largely theoretical, and that there are practical issues that should also be taken into account. There's an interesting discussion going on right now about wide apertures and sensel density, for example.



zcar21 said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Once you realise that when he says 'the same size' he means the same entrance pupil diameter, and he is referring to the same field of view, he is actually correct, I'm afraid.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Balmiesgirl (Feb 10, 2012)

c.cloudwalker said:
			
		

> ABSOLUTELY !
> 
> A larger sensor is nothing more than a luxury.
> 
> I spent all kind of crazy money on my Hassies because I had no idea what else to do with that extra cash...



Lol! Ya I totally agree


----------



## zcar21 (Feb 10, 2012)

Helen B said:


> Once you realise that when he says 'the same size' he means the same entrance pupil diameter, and he is referring to the same field of view, he is actually correct, I'm afraid.
> 
> Best,
> Helen



It doesn't matter, we all know you can change aperture and focal length to get equivalent dof, or perspective. The fact of the matter doesn't change, bigger sensor=less magnification=better quality.

There's not point discussing, if somebody say the difference in low light ability between ff and aps-c is almost the same all the rest of benefits we happen to mention don't matter. 
A couple of months ago I started a thread saying that the different between older and newer entry level dslr are mininum and not worst the extra money. But saying that ff and aps-c is almost the same in that respect is ridiculous.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Feb 10, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Kolia (Feb 10, 2012)

Helen B said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Helen B said:
> ...


 
I think the whole misconception comes from EW's belief that all the light entering a lens is being focused on the sensor by some extra glass in a cropped sensor camera. 

The ants picture example was a good one but didn't get traction.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 10, 2012)

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 (Feb 10, 2012)

chuasam said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...



Yeah, that's my mistake. :/


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 11, 2012)

zcar21 said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 11, 2012)

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 (Feb 11, 2012)

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


----------



## Dao (Feb 11, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2012)

> 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 (Feb 11, 2012)

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 (Feb 11, 2012)

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 (Feb 11, 2012)

Helen B said:


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




But that the f number is different?  Right?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 11, 2012)

Dao said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



Depends on the entrance pupil.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 11, 2012)

Dao said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > Dao,
> ...



Yep.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 11, 2012)

Helen B said:


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



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 (Feb 11, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> My point is
> -same magnification
> -same entrance pupil
> =
> ...



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.


----------



## Dao (Feb 11, 2012)

EW, I'm fully aware of the magnification.  DoF changed when the final image is magnified. Same as viewing distance.  But I am asking you on post #160.

You said it depends on entrance pupils. In the examples they are the same since the focal length and f number are the same.  Can you explain a little more on that?


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Feb 11, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



Ah well, we all make mistakes sometimes! 

Just take a step back sometimes, before you jump in...


----------



## Helen B (Feb 11, 2012)

EW doesn't help himself by being so vague. I've made a couple of attempts to clear his vagueness up for him, but he just goes and rewrites the vagueness back in and loses the ground he's gained. He is, in essence, theoretically correct although there are practical limitations on keeping the entrance pupil the same size and in going to very wide apertures with digital sensors. His point about entrance pupil size, if only he could write it more clearly, is obvious to people who use a wide range of formats. 

This thread is now going round in tiresome, pointless circles. All I can suggest is that people attempt to see what he is trying to say, and forgive him for his poor communication. I think that posts #121 and #159 represent what he is trying to say, by the way.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Feb 11, 2012)

Helen B said:


> EW doesn't help himself by being so vague. I've made a couple of attempts to clear his vagueness up for him, but he just goes and rewrites the vagueness back in and loses the ground he's gained. He is, in essence, theoretically correct although there are practical limitations on keeping the entrance pupil the same size and in going to very wide apertures with digital sensors. His point about entrance pupil size, if only he could write it more clearly, is obvious to people who use a wide range of formats.
> 
> This thread is now going round in tiresome, pointless circles. All I can suggest is that people attempt to see what he is trying to say, *and forgive him for his poor communication*. I think that posts #121 and #159 represent what he is trying to say, by the way.



By that same token, he can quite clearly speak much better english than I can speak Malaysian!! So I am not going to be knocking him for that. :thumbup:


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 11, 2012)

Helen B said:


> EW doesn't help himself by being so vague. I've made a couple of attempts to clear his vagueness up for him, but he just goes and rewrites the vagueness back in and loses the ground he's gained.



Helen, can you decode this one?



EchoingWhisper said:


> Given that both of the lens are the same size, both will get. Since APS-C sensors' pixel are denser, the light that falls on it is also denser, given that the lens are the same size as full frame. Light in the lens in full frame is spread out more so photons will be more spread out and less dense. Not sure if I'm right too.



I cannot understand how light will become more or less dense based on the sensor it is hitting, all other things being equal of course.


----------



## Kolia (Feb 11, 2012)

quantum sensors ?  

Seriously tho, that post is what made me think EW assumes that the croped sensors still receive the total light even when using an FX lens or that the DX lens is otherwise "concentrating" (I don't want to say focus as I feel it would just confuse him more) the total light in a smaller circle.


----------



## Dao (Feb 11, 2012)

Kolia said:


> quantum sensors ?  Seriously tho, that post is what made me think EW assumes that the croped sensors still receive the total light even when using an FX lens or that the DX lens is otherwise "concentrating" (I don't want to say focus as I feel it would just confuse him more) the total light in a smaller circle.


That is what I believe as well when he used the magnifying glass example.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 11, 2012)

bazooka said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > My point is
> ...



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.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 11, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> 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.



So if I put an 85 1.4 on a D7000 and snapped a photo of a face that filled half the frame and then put that same 85 1.4 on a D700 and recomposed so that the same face filled the same half frame... you're saying the DOF would be the same?  After all, since I'm using the same lens at the same f-stop, the entrance pupil here is no different, along with all other characteristics aside from sensor size.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 11, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



True enough, but its not a DX lens anyway. A DX lens with the same entrance pupil as the FX lens would produce the same depth of field at the same magnification.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 11, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



hmmmm

free bump cuz thats all this thrwad is about. I almost got sucked into this debate heh edit off


----------



## Dao (Feb 11, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> But the same f stop on a larger format means a larger entrance pupil.




Can someone explain this please?


I always thought f number, or f stop if you will, is focal length divided by the diameter of the entrance pupil.  Why is it affected by the recording medium format?

Focal length, the distance when a optics brought the distance subject to it focus.   So 50mm on full frame is the same as 50mm on cropped body.   It should be independent from the recording medium format.  Because it is the physical property of the optics.

So,   f number = focal length / diameter

if we keep f number and focal length constant, diameter should be constant.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 12, 2012)

Dao said:
			
		

> Can someone explain this please?
> 
> I always thought f number, or f stop if you will, is focal length divided by the diameter of the entrance pupil.  Why is it affected by the recording medium format?
> 
> ...



That's right but that would mean a different framing. But if the same equivalent focal length is used, then it'll be another case.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 12, 2012)

I'll have another attempt at summarising what EW is trying to compare. This time I'll expand on the basic conditions with the direct consequences of those conditions. These parameters are collected by reading through the thread, and they are fairly consistent, though often vaguely stated.

He's doing a 'same picture' comparison with two cameras that have different formats but the same number of sensels (same megapixels) and the same 'size' of lens.

'Same picture' in this case means:
Same subject;
Same subject distance;
Same field of view (therefore different focal lengths for the two different formats); and
Same final image size.

Same lens size has been clarified to mean same entrance pupil size. This implies:
Same luminous flux (and same radiant flux, because the two will be proportional in this case); and
Different f-numbers (a simple and obvious consequence of holding the entrance pupil the same while varying the focal length).

The consequence of having the same number of sensels and the same entrance pupil diameter is that each sensel receives the same 'amount' of light (the same luminous flux). (Of course this assumes a constant sensel area efficiency between the two formats - ie the same proportion of incident light is captured by the sensels of each format.)

The consequence of having the same entrance pupil size but different focal lengths is that the DoF is the same - so it is the 'same picture', as intended in this comparison.

End of description of conditions. ******************  

While it is true that the smaller the format the easier it is to make high quality, very fast lenses there are practical and theoretical limits to this for lenses in air. There's the theoretical limit set by optics and thermodynamics: f/0.5. There's the observation that there are very few photographic lenses for any format that are faster than f/0.9. There may be a potential problem with the angles of incidence on a sensor with very fast lenses. It's a good idea, therefore, to separate the _understanding_ of the theoretical parts of this discussion from the practical limitations, while knowing that these limitations exist.

*************************



mjhoward said:


> Helen, can you decode this one?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's my translation, given the comparison parameters stated above:

_Given that both of the lenses [have the same entrance pupil diameter] both will get [the same luminous flux]. Since [An] APS-C sensor's pixels are denser [than those of a larger sensor with the same number of sensels], and the light that falls on it is also denser [has greater luminance] given that the lens has the same [entrance pupil diameter] as the full frame lens [of the focal length that gives the same field of view because we are taking the 'same picture'.] [The same luminous flux] Light in [from] the full-frame lens is spread out more so photons will be more spread out and less dense. 

_Is that any clearer?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 12, 2012)

Helen B said:


> I'll have another attempt at summarising what EW is trying to compare. This time I'll expand on the basic conditions with the direct consequences of those conditions. These parameters are collected by reading through the thread, and they are fairly consistent, though often vaguely stated.
> 
> He's doing a 'same picture' comparison with two cameras that have different formats but the same number of sensels (same megapixels) and the same 'size' of lens.
> 
> ...



Thank you, you do a much better explaining this and know about this much better.


----------



## Kolia (Feb 12, 2012)

So all along "same lens" for EW meant comparing a 50mm DX to a 75mm FX lens ?!?

No wonder this was going nowhere...


----------



## Dao (Feb 12, 2012)

Kolia said:


> So all along "same lens" for EW meant comparing a 50mm DX to a 75mm FX lens ?!?
> 
> No wonder this was going nowhere...



But I still not sure why EW said FX is just luxury?    Use a 50mm f/1.4 lens shot at wide open on a D7000 vs D700.  There are differences as far as DoF goes when the subject framing is the same.  It is not luxury, it is a tool that get the job done.     

It seems like there is not point to continue with the conversation because EW and the rest of the world are talking about different things.


----------



## Thunder_o_b (Feb 12, 2012)

I have read the first five pages of this thread with interest. I have heard many discussions like this over the years. The one question that I would ask is do the respondents actually own both a high quality crop sensor camera and a full frame camera that can use the same lens for comparison? Or are the writings of others being presented as personal experience?

I own a Canon 50D and a 5DMKII and with my favorite lenses the Sig 150mm macro and the Canon MP-E65, the 5DMKII beats the 50D in all respects except for the greater magnification that you get with the crop factor. Honestly, I can't see how this subject elicited such a long discussion.

But then, maybe I have missed something in all this.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 12, 2012)

Kolia said:


> So all along "same lens" for EW meant comparing a 50mm DX to a 75mm FX lens ?!?
> 
> No wonder this was going nowhere...



It's quite common to compare lenses with the same field of view when comparing formats.



Thunder_o_b said:


> Honestly, I can't see how this subject elicited such a long discussion.
> 
> But then, maybe I have missed something in all this.



It's because EW's reasoning, though basically valid, took some effort to understand, and not everyone was willing to make that effort.

Best,
Helen

PS I own and use a number of formats, from a little Canon S95 to 8x10. That's why I found it relatively easy to understand what EW was trying to say.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 12, 2012)

Yea but calling them the 'same lens' is along the same lines of those that say a DX will turn a 50mm lens INTO a 75mm lens... which is simply not true.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 12, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Yea but calling them the 'same lens' is along the same lines of those that say a DX will turn a 50mm lens INTO a 75mm lens... which is simply not true.



Well sometimes you have to work out what fits EW's meaning, knowing that he isn't stupid - far from it. He comes across as a fairly bright guy trying to work things out for himself, who knows what he is thinking about but can't always get it into the right words. I have a lot of sympathy for people like that.


----------



## Kolia (Feb 12, 2012)

Nobody is calling anybody stupid. 

From working oversea and ending up acting as an arbiter among people who allegedly speak the same language, I learned early on the value of a proper vocabulary. I had French, Belgian and Swiss engineers about to come to blow on technicalities and I, the French Canadian, had to translate from french to french to french...

Same lens should refer to same focal length and aperture at a minimum. Ideally, the same lens swapped from body to body. 

So, the question was ? FF a luxury ?

Considering anybody with a pulse nowadays has a phone with a camera in his pocket, any type of machine that only takes pictures and sometime videos is a luxury...


----------



## Helen B (Feb 12, 2012)

Kolia, I completely agree with you about the clarity afforded by correct terminology and careful descriptions - which is why I wrote post #102 (link) in an attempt to help. Anyway, we all make unthinking errors now and then, and may need a nudge to get back on track. Is everything you wrote in this thread 100% accurate, for example?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 13, 2012)

Dao said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> > So all along "same lens" for EW meant comparing a 50mm DX to a 75mm FX lens ?!?
> ...



You're still not getting it.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 13, 2012)

Everyone is right all along, just that they need to know what I am talking about, because what I'm talking about is not what they're talking about.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 13, 2012)

Thunder_o_b said:


> I have read the first five pages of this thread with interest. I have heard many discussions like this over the years. The one question that I would ask is do the respondents actually own both a high quality crop sensor camera and a full frame camera that can use the same lens for comparison? Or are the writings of others being presented as personal experience?
> 
> I own a Canon 50D and a 5DMKII and with my favorite lenses the Sig 150mm macro and the Canon MP-E65, the 5DMKII beats the 50D in all respects except for the greater magnification that you get with the crop factor. Honestly, I can't see how this subject elicited such a long discussion.
> 
> But then, maybe I have missed something in all this.



Of course, your macro is for a full frame camera. If the lens is made for your 50D, then it would be another case (example 100mm f/2.0 macro).


----------



## chuasam (Feb 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 13, 2012)

chuasam said:


> 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?


----------



## jake337 (Feb 13, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 13, 2012)

jake337 said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



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.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 13, 2012)

Kolia said:


> So all along "same lens" for EW meant comparing a 50mm DX to a 75mm FX lens ?!?
> 
> No wonder this was going nowhere...



I don't think I've said 'same lens'. I said 'lens with the same size'. Maybe sometimes I did forget to write it, but most of the time, I've written it as lens with the same size.


----------



## Kolia (Feb 13, 2012)

I'm not here to split hair any more than we already have Micheal.

For future reference, when talking about lens, everybody assumes "same" or "same size" means same focal length. If I asked someone to hand me my 200mm, I very much doubt he or she will go fetch a telescope or start measuring lens diameter instead of grabbing the 55-200mm with a 55mm filter ring !


----------



## Helen B (Feb 13, 2012)

Kolia said:


> I'm not here to split hair any more than we already have Micheal.
> 
> For future reference, when talking about lens, everybody assumes "same" or "same size" means same focal length. If I asked someone to hand me my 200mm, I very much doubt he or she will go fetch a telescope or start measuring lens diameter instead of grabbing the 55-200mm with a 55mm filter ring !



Kolia,

The issue of what EW meant was cleared up about 76 posts ago, if not earlier, so it is a bit puzzling why you are bringing it up so late. You know, there might even be posts by you in this thread that aren't 100% accurate and clear.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Kolia (Feb 13, 2012)

It wasn't clear for me Helen.

I had to word it differently I suppose.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 13, 2012)

Helen B said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not here to split hair any more than we already have Micheal.
> ...



Yep, when I've started using the terms you introduced.


----------



## Dao (Feb 13, 2012)

But why Full frame is luxury?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 13, 2012)

Dao said:


> But why Full frame is luxury?



14 pages and I'm still trying to figure out the luxury value too


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 13, 2012)

The resolution is the luxury.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 13, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> The resolution is the luxury.



No, the resolution is the necessity for me.  I still want to know the luxury =)


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 13, 2012)

Full frame doesn't always mean more resolution anyway.  Look at the D4 and the A77.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 13, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> 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.


----------



## Kolia (Feb 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 13, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...




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.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 13, 2012)

jake337 said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > jake337 said:
> ...



I guess since EW hasn't shot wider format, it's harder for him to visualize this. I can see why that would be so. I felt the same way while I was shooting an APS-C camera. My mind changed once I changed formats.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 13, 2012)

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?


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 13, 2012)

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 (Feb 13, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > I have no idea why we are still arguing about the mostly irrelevant facts.
> ...





EchoingWhisper said:


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



Did he just answer his own question?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 13, 2012)

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


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 14, 2012)

jake337 said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > jake337 said:
> ...



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


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 14, 2012)

jake337 said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2012)

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


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 14, 2012)

zcar21 said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



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


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 14, 2012)

Kolia said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Feb 14, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> 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 (Feb 14, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> zcar21 said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



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


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 14, 2012)

zcar21 said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > zcar21 said:
> ...



That is still about resolution.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 14, 2012)

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


----------



## Helen B (Feb 14, 2012)

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 (Feb 14, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> bazooka said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



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 (Feb 14, 2012)

bump 

onwards to pg 16


----------



## bazooka (Feb 14, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> bump
> 
> onwards to pg 16



Change it to max posts per page and it's a much less impressive 8 pages.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 14, 2012)

Helen B said:


> 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...



Have you seen this comparison of different format capture devices and media?  Big Camera Comparison | On Landscape

I thought THIS photo was a really interesting one:  miroscope-700.jpg


----------



## Helen B (Feb 14, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > 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...
> ...



I hadn't seen that comparison. Thanks for mentioning it. I've seen many of Tim Parkin's comparisons between LF and digital. It should be no surprise that the difference between a good FF 35 mm format digital camera and LF isn't significant until you print large, or that the Mamiya 7 can give similar results to 4x5 - I only notice that particular difference above about 24x30, and I can mix my 4x5 shots with my Mamiya 7 shots at that size with only very slight differences, mostly caused by the graininess of the film. DoF is another issue - if you want really shallow DoF then bigger is still better, because although lenses do generally get faster as the coverage goes down, it isn't quite in proportion to the format size.

Best,
Helen


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 14, 2012)

bazooka said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > bump
> ...



done|      thanks for the tip!


----------



## chuasam (Feb 14, 2012)

This thread is terrific for people who'd rather be arguing sensor size than out there taking pictures. Why am I answering it? It pops up my my "new posts" display. 
Why aren't I out taking pictures? I'm waiting for Lightroom to be done exporting last night's shoot.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 14, 2012)

chuasam said:


> This thread is terrific for people who'd rather be arguing sensor size than out there taking pictures. Why am I answering it? It pops up my my "new posts" display.
> Why aren't I out taking pictures? I'm waiting for Lightroom to be done exporting last night's shoot.



You have no idea what the people who are taking part in this thread are doing, so why don't you just stop making stupid assumptions? If you want to contribute, contribute something positive. Otherwise why not keep out of it?

As for me, I post here in between shots, while the guys are doing the set for the nest shot.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 15, 2012)

bazooka said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > bazooka said:
> ...



Hmmm... Try this. Equivalent focal length = 50mm, fstop = f/2. Full frame - 50mm/2 = 25mm entrance pupil. M4/3 - 25mm/2 = 12.5mm entrance pupil. Same?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 15, 2012)

Language (native? second? third? fourth? written or spoken?), grammar, and punctuation can ALL make communication difficult on complicated matters. I'd like to suggest this article by Bob Atkins.

Fast Primes and Background Blur - Bob Atkins Photography

It shows a small ceramic frog in his ceramic pond; the frog is shown at a more-or-less "identical size" in two small photographs. Both were made with lenses set to a moderate f/stop, f/4.5. While it is true that f/stops are proportional to focal length of the lenses they are calculated for, and that they pass equal "brightness" irrespective of the format of the camera they are used upon, the ABSOLUTE SIZE of the lens aperture leads to a greater degree of background blur. Not Depth of Field, but a seldom-mentioned thing called background blur. Look at the frog pictures: ef_85_1-8_vs a720is.jpg

The title of this post is,"Larger sensor just a luxury?" Well, to me the larger sensor is much more than a luxury: in the d-slr world, the difference in angle of view, camera-to-subject distance, and the way a 24x 36mm sensor works compared to a much smaller-sensored camera that USES THE SAME LENSES--it a HUGE practical, real-world, every-single-day type of difference. With say a 1.6x FOV camera, indoors in a normal living room, and 85mm f/1.8 lens is almost useless if one wishes to shoot a full-length portrait of a six foot tall man, the camera must be around 34 feet distant to encompass the man, and to allow a bit of foot- and head-space for proper framing, or even a smidgeon of cropping room. At 34 feet distant from the subject, the field of view of an 85mm lens on a 1.6x Canon body is about 8.47 feet in the longest dimension of the frame, ie, with the camera in a vertical capture mode.

With a larger, 24x36mm sensor d-slr Canon, and the SAME, EXACT Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens, the same 8.47 foot tall field of view can be achieved with a 20 foot camera-to-subject distance. That represents A HUGE difference in terms of making photos in the real world-in homes, schools, churches, studios, patios, back yards, etc!!!

What this means in social or studio photography is that with a larger-sensor d-slr, one can photograph a standing man, full-length, in a "normal home", indoors, or in a "smallish" studio. With a 1.6x Canon body, the photographer will need to be 34 feet distant. With the smaller sensor size, and the greatly increased camera-to-subject distance, the depth of field with the smaller 1.6x camera is greater than if a larger-format camera were to be used from a much-closer 20 foot distance.

For every picture angle of view, the LARGER the CAPTURE format is, the LESS there is in terms of depth of field. So, a 4x5 has less DOF on a half body shot than does a shot made on a 6x7 camera. An FX digital SLR picture has less DOF in a half-body shot than a 1.6x camera has in a half-body shot. And a P&S digital with a teenie-tiny sensor will have DEEP depth of field in a half-body shot.

So...it's pretty simple? Is a larger sensor "just a luxury"? The answers are so readily discovered, and the visual differences between format are (often, but not always) so striking, that the very question seems contrived, or almost like a question simply designed to provoke. But then again, it's often difficult to decipher the intentions of people on the internet.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 15, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Language (native? second? third? fourth? written or spoken?), grammar, and punctuation can ALL make communication difficult on complicated matters. I'd like to suggest this article by Bob Atkins.
> 
> Fast Primes and Background Blur - Bob Atkins Photography
> 
> ...



Again - the same lens, which is not fair, because the 85mm lens is not made for the APS-C sensor, a 50mm would be a much better comparison. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you spend some time reading what Helen B said, you'll understand what we're talking about is totally different.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 15, 2012)

Yes, Derrel, I think that you have missed the entire point of this discussion. I mean, why read what has gone before and try to understand it when it is much simpler to jump to an assumption that you know what the thread is about and then trot out the stuff that everybody already knows (and has already been mentioned without contest in this thread)?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 15, 2012)

Helen B said:


> Yes, Derrel, I think that you have missed the entire point of this discussion. I mean, why read what has gone before and try to understand it when it is much simpler to jump to an assumption that you know what the thread is about and then trot out the stuff that everybody already knows (and has already been mentioned without contest in this thread)?



It's difficult for me to tell if you are being sarcastic or just snarky, Helen. Sorry if what I posted did not meet with your approval. Or that there is nothing whatsoever to be understood by providing a basic reference for common ground. For example, EchoingWhisper's comment that the "85mm lens is not made for the APS-C sensor"...well...most cameras in use today are using lenses "made for" 24x36mm film...his comment almost merits a "Well, duh!"

It seems rather disingenuous to even begin a thread entitled "Larger sensor just a luxury?" when the advantages of larger capture formats are so well-known...

I sense a pretty fair amount of language confusion in this long, tiresome thread, both in terms of the grasp of various terms, as well as English as a second language types of confusion. This seems a lot like stepping into a pile of something brown on a lawn and only later realizing it came from a dog's back end...going back to the original post and re-reading it, the OP seems pretty clueless as to what a larger sensor does, and he makes some erroneous assumptions...later posts seem to indicate to me that he is unable to communicate truly effectively in written English with native speakers of the language.

What exactly is "the entire point" of this discussion Helen? In regard to the 231 posts before this, in light of the original post? Can you please distill "the entire point" of this discussion into say, perhaps 50 to 60 sentences and a page or two? That would be nice. Oh, and I'd like a rundown on who is who, and who knows exactly "what" while you are at it! That'd be great!


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 15, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Derrel, I think that you have missed the entire point of this discussion. I mean, why read what has gone before and try to understand it when it is much simpler to jump to an assumption that you know what the thread is about and then trot out the stuff that everybody already knows (and has already been mentioned without contest in this thread)?
> ...



Derrel, read this.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...larger-sensor-just-luxury-12.html#post2498739


----------



## Dao (Feb 15, 2012)

Derrel,

I agree with you.  The fact the matter is if I need to shoot FF with the 85mm at f/1.2 with that FoV and DoF, it is not luxury.  It is using the right tool to do the right job.

EW kept saying that lens is not made for APS-C, if ....   

I don't know.  Maybe I better stay away from this thread.    It's all good.  Hoping nobody feel bad or anything in this thread.  It is just a friendly discussion.

(Also, English is my 2nd language)


----------



## Derrel (Feb 15, 2012)

Helen B said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is terrific for people who'd rather be arguing sensor size than out there taking pictures. Why am I answering it? It pops up my my "new posts" display.
> ...



Where's that summary of the 231 posts in this thread??? EchoingWhisper, until HelenB can get some free time in the studio between shots, can you provide us with a summary of "the entire point" of this thread's 230-some posts??? Thanks!


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 15, 2012)

Dao said:


> Derrel,
> 
> I agree with you.  The fact the matter is if I need to shoot FF with the 85mm at f/1.2 with that FoV and DoF, it is not luxury.  It is using the right tool to do the right job.
> 
> ...



You still don't understand...


----------



## Dao (Feb 15, 2012)

So EW, please tell us in details why you think FF is luxury?

Would you tell me how you can achieve the result with a aps-c camera as someone using a 85mm f/1.2 lens shoot at f/1.2 with ff camera?


I am fully aware that for 2 different format size, that has the same FoV and same physical aperture size, they can achieve the same DoF. (Provided that the f number or focal length are different)


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 15, 2012)

Dao said:


> So EW, please tell us in details why you think FF is luxury?
> 
> Would you tell me how you can achieve the result with a aps-c camera as someone using a 85mm f/1.2 lens shoot at f/1.2 with ff camera?
> 
> ...



Okay, to make it clearer, a M4/3 equivalent of 50mm f/2.0 is 25mm f/1.0.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 15, 2012)

Dao said:


> Derrel,
> 
> I agree with you.  The fact the matter is if I need to shoot FF with the 85mm at f/1.2 with that FoV and DoF, it is not luxury.  It is using the right tool to do the right job.
> 
> ...



Damn right! We learn 'Murican over here first!


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 15, 2012)

I think the biggest issue is if the OP thinks APS-C sensors are the best and most frugal sensors out there and only wants to use APS-C glass, he's going to have a problem. Even when I was shooting with a 30D I was using EF lenses and the only EF-S lens in my house was a kit lens sitting on a shelf. Nikon has more DX lenses than Canon has EF-S, but either way the faster lenses that most likely have better IQ and similar focal lengths are not going to be crop glass.

A larger sensory is just a luxury if you consider it that. I use the quality and perfomance my camera gives me over a crop sensor for creating images for clients. There isn't a crop sensor camera that would provide what I want in a camera. It's not a luxury to me.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 15, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> I think the biggest issue is if the OP thinks APS-C sensors are the best and most frugal sensors out there and only wants to use APS-C glass, he's going to have a problem. Even when I was shooting with a 30D I was using EF lenses and the only EF-S lens in my house was a kit lens sitting on a shelf. Nikon has more DX lenses than Canon has EF-S, but either way the faster lenses that most likely have better IQ and similar focal lengths are not going to be crop glass.
> 
> A larger sensory is just a luxury if you consider it that. I use the quality and perfomance my camera gives me over a crop sensor for creating images for clients. There isn't a crop sensor camera that would provide what I want in a camera. It's not a luxury to me.



I used to wrong words. Hehe, shouldn't have written it as luxury...


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 15, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> I think the biggest issue is if the OP thinks APS-C sensors are the best and most frugal sensors out there and only wants to use APS-C glass, he's going to have a problem. Even when I was shooting with a 30D I was using EF lenses and the only EF-S lens in my house was a kit lens sitting on a shelf. Nikon has more DX lenses than Canon has EF-S, but either way the faster lenses that most likely have better IQ and similar focal lengths are not going to be crop glass.
> 
> A larger sensory is just a luxury if you consider it that. I use the quality and perfomance my camera gives me over a crop sensor for creating images for clients. There isn't a crop sensor camera that would provide what I want in a camera. It's not a luxury to me.



Another way to think of it is that 35mm is the middle ground for size and resolution, that's why many camera manufacturers build it as a professional system, especially in digital. It doesn't necessarily mean crop sensor ain't good, its just because that 35mm had a long history and its not too big or low res-ed.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 15, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > I think the biggest issue is if the OP thinks APS-C sensors are the best and most frugal sensors out there and only wants to use APS-C glass, he's going to have a problem. Even when I was shooting with a 30D I was using EF lenses and the only EF-S lens in my house was a kit lens sitting on a shelf. Nikon has more DX lenses than Canon has EF-S, but either way the faster lenses that most likely have better IQ and similar focal lengths are not going to be crop glass.
> ...



Crop sensors aren't bad, they just don't perform as well in low light given the same amount of pixels and the same tech in the camera, they don't provide the DOF that portrait photographers and a lot others are looking for at any given length, and if you're not specifically looking for extra reach, it gets you where you want to be with your lenses.

A canon 17-40 f/4 is nothing special on an APS-C sensor. It's an upgrade to the kit lens imho. If you toss it on a FF camera though, it because a fantastic lens.

And the reason I don't have an even larger sensor than I currently do is because of money. If prices were all the same, I'd take a medium format digital camera with a good set of primes over my 5D MKII 7 times out of 10.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 15, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



Oh, again, I suggest you to read this - http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...larger-sensor-just-luxury-12.html#post2498739. With the same entrance pupil diameter, two lenses (in two different format) with the same equivalent focal length would produce the same depth of field and amount of light.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 15, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



Yes, but the point is that there's aren't lenses for APS-C cameras that replicate what you're speaking of. Using your example, there's no 25mm f/1 lens for a M43 camera.... And I doubt there will be. Which is why the accessibility of full frame cameras and using EF or FX lenses is a benefit.


----------



## Dao (Feb 15, 2012)

In theory, I can drive my car at 300 mph.  So flying from St. Louis to Chicago with commercial airline is just a luxury when I need to get there in an hour.


----------



## bazooka (Feb 15, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Oh, again, I suggest you to read this - http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...larger-sensor-just-luxury-12.html#post2498739. With the same entrance pupil diameter, two lenses (in two different format) with the same equivalent focal length would produce the same depth of field and amount of light.



I think I understand what you are saying now.... how about this example....

Canon 40D (x1.6 crop)
50mm @ 30mm aperture. 30 = 50/x. x=50/30. So f/stop is ~1.7.
Subject distance is 5 feet.
Depth of field is .19 feet.

5D Mk2 (FF)
Equivalent focal length is 80mm.
x= 80mm/30mm aperture... x= ~2.7
Subject distance is 5 feet.
Depth of field is ~.19 feet.

Notice that the density of the light is not the same. The crop lens must be capable of transmitting much more light than the full frame. To put it another way, if you have a lens at 2.8 on a full frame, and the same lens at 2.8 on a crop, the 2.8 lens on a full frame is capable of much smaller DoF.  Is this getting close to what you are asking?


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 15, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



Oh, again, I suggest you find me a lens that I can use on an APS-C canon that's equivalent to the 24-70 f/2.8 on a FF DSLR that gives me the same DOF, apertures, distortion characteristics, and IQ.

Theory is all well and good and you can twist numbers around all you want, but until you start making your own lenses, it doesn't matter how much match you attempt to do to make a crop sensor look more appealing to you.

Olympus makes a 35-100 f/2 that's equivalent in FOV to a 70-200, most of which are f/2.8 constant aperture lenses. At f/2 and 100mm, it's still going to have a larger DOF than the 70-200 @ 200mm shooting with an f/2.8 aperture. Sure, you could find a 200mm lens to put on a 4/3 sensor, but then your field of view would be at 400mm compared to a FF camera. 

Online Depth of Field Calculator


----------



## Helen B (Feb 15, 2012)

I did mention the practical aspect of available fast lenses once or twice a while back. Maybe it didn't sink in.



o hey tyler said:


> Yes, but the point is that there's aren't lenses for APS-C cameras that  replicate what you're speaking of. Using your example, there's no 25mm  f/1 lens for a M43 camera.... And I doubt there will be.



Actually, there is already a 25 mm f/0.95 designed for M4/3 - that's why I used it in my example. There are also very fast zooms that will almost cover M4/3, like a 16-44 f/1.1, 9.5 - 57 f/1.6 and 10-100 f/2.2.

I thought we'd been over all this before...

Best,
Helen


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 15, 2012)

Helen B said:


> Actually, there is already a 25 mm f/0.95 designed for M4/3 - that's why I used it in my example. There are also very fast zooms that will almost cover M4/3, like a 16-44 f/1.1, 9.5 - 57 f/1.6 and 10-100 f/2.2.
> 
> I thought we'd been over all this before...
> 
> ...



Sorry Helen, I haven't read the entire thread front to back like you have. Don't have the time, or care to. 

It seems that for the price of a 25mm f/.95 I could get a 5Dmk1 and a 50mm f/1.8 (or used f/1.4) for the same price, shoot it at f/2 and get the same effect... But also have access to less prohibitively expensive lenses to get the same effects on a M43 camera (and they'll also autofocus.)

I can't find information on either of the other lenses you listed.


----------



## zcar21 (Feb 15, 2012)

Are you saying that if there were equivalent lenses for ff and crop sensor, dynamic range, noise, price, color, etc. will be the same for both formats? Resolution is already agreed on, so we're good, but for the rest I wouldn't believe it until I see it.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 15, 2012)

zcar21 said:


> Are you saying that if there were equivalent  lenses for ff and crop sensor, dynamic range, noise, price, color, etc.  will be the same for both formats? Resolution is already agreed on, so  we're good, but for the rest I wouldn't believe it until I see  it.



Speaking for myself, here's one thing I've said:



Helen B said:


> ... although lenses do generally get faster as  the coverage goes down, it isn't quite in proportion to the format  size.



Which hopefully shows my overall practical view of this particular type of comparison.



bazooka said:


> I think I understand what you are saying now.... how about this example....
> 
> Canon 40D (x1.6 crop)
> 50mm @ 30mm aperture. 30 = 50/x. x=50/30. So f/stop is ~1.7.
> ...



The two lenses have the same entrance pupil diameter, therefore although the 'density of the light' (illuminance)  is not the same because of the different f-numbers, the 'amount of  light' (luminous flux) is the same over the frame.



Derrel said:


> Where's that summary of the 231 posts in this thread???



Here's one I prepared earlier:



Helen B said:


> I'll have another attempt at summarising what EW  is trying to compare. This time I'll expand on the basic conditions with  the direct consequences of those conditions. These parameters are  collected by reading through the thread, and they are fairly consistent,  though often vaguely stated.
> 
> He's doing a 'same picture' comparison with two cameras that have  different formats but the same number of sensels (same megapixels) and  the same 'size' of lens.
> 
> ...



Or the shorter version:



Helen B said:


> I think you are asking the wrong question about  luxury. As the committee has already decided, luxury shall be punished.  You should be asking "Are larger sensors irrelevant?" That is much  easier to answer, because everyone knows that relephants are large. Even  the baby ones.



Note: EW has since accepted that he worded the original poorly.

This thread really is a mess now - it does feel like it is going round in circles, flogged to death, turning and turning in the widening gyre. The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.


----------



## bratkinson (Feb 15, 2012)

Now that the subject has been flogged to death, I've come up with a different answer than all of the above. 

Luxury is in the eye/mind of the beholder.

Is driving a Cadillac rather than a Chevrolet a luxury? If you make, let&#8217;s say, $200,000 per year, a Caddy is just a &#8216;nice car with all the bells and whistles&#8217;. But if you are a working stiff making perhaps $40,000 per year, a Cadillac is more than a luxury, it&#8217;s an impossible dream. Perhaps to the $200K earner, a Rolls Royce would be a luxury&#8230;or a Lambourghini&#8230; 

In the photography world, is a full-frame sensor a luxury? A similar question 40 years ago would have been &#8220;is a 35mm SLR a luxury?&#8221; when Kodak was selling Instamatics by the millions and there were lots of 35mm viewfinder cameras that gave good results. I know&#8230;I used both in the &#8216;60s and &#8216;70s. Ultimately, I wanted better results than what I could get with even a good quality viewfinder camera. So I bit the bullet and bought an SLR and several lenses (All Canon, by the way). I got the results I desired.

Yes, us croppers are quite aware that even better results are available with a full-frame body. When I wasn&#8217;t getting the IQ I wanted with a 30D and 2 EF-S lenses, I knew it was time to upgrade. But picking up even a used 5D II in decent condition is more than I want to pay to get a picture. So I put my money on a couple of L lenses and a 60D. For now, I&#8217;m at the point of &#8216;meeting the need&#8217; to get the IQ I wanted. On the other hand, if you&#8217;re a college student, any DSLR and kit lens is a luxury! It all depends on ones&#8217; frame of reference. 

Perhaps, someday, I&#8217;ll replace or add-to my 60D with a good used 5D II. But at the moment, I&#8217;m still paying for my latest acquisitions. So, for now, a full frame body is a luxury to me...in my mind.

edit:  The other side of the coin is that of a professional.  Professional results usually require professional tools.  So a full-frame body is a requirement...and NOT a luxury.


----------



## usayit (Feb 15, 2012)

Unless you are a professional photographer, having a camera at all is a luxury.

(I know not really on topic... first thought that came to mind)


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 16, 2012)

bazooka said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, again, I suggest you to read this - http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...larger-sensor-just-luxury-12.html#post2498739. With the same entrance pupil diameter, two lenses (in two different format) with the same equivalent focal length would produce the same depth of field and amount of light.
> ...



Density of light (illuminance) is different, but amount of light hit on the surface of the sensor (luminous flux) is the same, therefore, they're as capable of transmitting light as each other, only that the light in the DX lens hit a smaller image circle, therefore light is denser.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 16, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



Another thing to factor in is that M4/3 and APS-C are rarely used by professionals, that's why there is less of a market to create fast (and often expensive) lenses.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, there is already a 25 mm f/0.95 designed for M4/3 - that's why I used it in my example. There are also very fast zooms that will almost cover M4/3, like a 16-44 f/1.1, 9.5 - 57 f/1.6 and 10-100 f/2.2.
> ...



The reason it is so expensive is because there is a low demand for it. Those who buy it are really collectors, tell me, how many professional photographers use M4/3rds?


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 16, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Helen B said:
> ...



That's exactly what I'm saying. I personally wouldn't get a M43 camera because of the fact that it would be extremely expensive to do what I'd want to do, but with less capabilities. I can understand people that want to shoot with those bodies, I guess. But to me, it's just not practical... Because I can get the effect I desire with a larger format with more capabilities for less money. 

There may be professional photographers that use M43 cameras, but not many as their "go to" body... Or at least I wouldn't think so.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 16, 2012)

And do take notice of my original thread title (I know I worded it wrongly), I'm not talking about the camera as a whole, but only the sensor.


----------



## bazooka (Feb 16, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Density of light (illuminance) is different, but amount of light hit on the surface of the sensor (luminous flux) is the same, therefore, they're as capable of transmitting light as each other, only that the light in the DX lens hit a smaller image circle, therefore light is denser.



I'm not up to speed on luminous flux.  Perhaps someone can school me.  Here is a reference I found on a physics forum....



> Illuminance is the amount of light coming from light source landing on a surface. Remember "I" in illuminance is for light *incident* on a surface.
> Luminance is the amount of light *leaving* a surface. Remember "L" in luminance for leaving a surface.
> Flux is the flow of light thru a surface.



How do these terms fit into photography?  (Sorry if this is off-topic but it seems like it's been a long time since I've actually learned something from reading theads this long)


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 16, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



This is wrong. The majority of cameras sold are crop sensor cameras. That's how Canon and Nikon make all their money. The 5D MKII may have been an immensely popular camera and changed the face of amateur videography, but I'm pretty sure that Canon sold many more rebels, XXD and 7D cameras than they have 5Ds. There os a much lager market to sell crop lenses to.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 16, 2012)

Here's one opinion of the future: Trey Parker on the future of the DSLR

Not everyone wants shallow DoF, of course. In many documentary/photojournalism situations you are trying to get deep DoF in poor light. You also want to carry as little weight as possible.



bazooka said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Density of light (illuminance) is different, but amount of light hit on the surface of the sensor (luminous flux) is the same, therefore, they're as capable of transmitting light as each other, only that the light in the DX lens hit a smaller image circle, therefore light is denser.
> ...



Here's what I wrote in reply to you in post #256:

"_The two lenses have the same entrance pupil diameter, therefore although  the 'density of the light' (illuminance)  is not the same because of  the different f-numbers, the 'amount of  light' (luminous flux) is the  same over the frame._"

Illuminance is what you call the density of the light falling on the sensor, and luminous flux is what you call the amount of light. Some people may find it easier to visualise in more common power units: illuminance (which can be measured in lux, equal to lumens/square metre) is like watts/square metre and luminous flux (which can be measured in lumens) is like watts. (a lumen is the light equivalent of a watt) In fact irradiance is measured in watts/square metre and radiant flux is measured in watts. The difference is that lumens are only watts with a spectral weighting applied so they represent a human's spectral response. Does that make more sense? I'll be more than happy to elaborate on any of this... Exhaust your subject and exhaust your audience, that's what I always say.

Best,
Helen


----------



## bazooka (Feb 16, 2012)

Hmmm.... trying to compute, not having much success.  

Ok, when I think of density of light, I think of it's brightness, but it seems my density of light concept is wrong.  Or what tonal value a single pixel will have given a certain aperture.  So that would be luminous flux?

And if illuminance is measured.... sorry, I think I smell smoke.  I should stop thinking about physics.


----------



## memento (Feb 16, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> Oh, again, I suggest you find me a lens that I can use on an APS-C canon that's equivalent to the 24-70 f/2.8 on a FF DSLR that gives me the same DOF, apertures, distortion characteristics, and IQ.



17-55 is pretty close.


----------



## bratkinson (Feb 16, 2012)

I don't remember my physics classes from eons ago either.  But luminous flux sounds like the equivalent of gallons per minute...eg, garden hose vs fire hose...


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 16, 2012)

memento said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, again, I suggest you find me a lens that I can use on an APS-C canon that's equivalent to the 24-70 f/2.8 on a FF DSLR that gives me the same DOF, apertures, distortion characteristics, and IQ.
> ...



But at 17mm it should have more barrel distortion than a 24mm lens on a FF camera.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 16, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> memento said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



Not according to this:
17-55 2.8 Barrel Distortion
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS - Review / Test Report - Analysis

24-70 2.8 Barrel Distortion
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L - Full Format Review / Test Report - Analysis


----------



## Kolia (Feb 16, 2012)

If I may ask the initial question differently. Micheal say's he's only talking about the sensor but keeps making up virtual lenses. 

So, to those who have experience with both formats, is there a combination of existing camera and lens that would allow one to take the exact same pictures with both sensors. And how much would that cost new ?

I'm referring to the final product and existing equipment. 

From reading this topic, it seems that the FF will have the advantage in low light and close range.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 16, 2012)

top~


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 17, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



Tell me how many amateurs are willing to pay a few grands for those fast lenses?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 17, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> memento said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



Hmm, according to DxOMark, they have about the same distortion at the same equivalent focal length. Note: the comparison is made where the 17-55mm is mounted on D300 and the 24-70 is mounted on D700. Both have the same amount of pixels to make the comparison fair and the lens are each made of the body. Comparing both lens, the 17-55mm is slightly inferior, but the 24-70mm is slightly more expensive, also I have to say that the 24-70mm is more worth it, because you get almost 1 extra stop of light.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 17, 2012)

Kolia said:


> If I may ask the initial question differently. Micheal say's he's only talking about the sensor but keeps making up virtual lenses.
> 
> So, to those who have experience with both formats, is there a combination of existing camera and lens that would allow one to take the exact same pictures with both sensors. And how much would that cost new ?
> 
> ...



Yes, I'm talking about the sensor, but you guys aren't making the comparison fair because the lenses you guys used for comparison doesn't have the same entrance pupil.


----------



## Kolia (Feb 17, 2012)

My pseudo-scientific mind has a hard time comparing two sensors without projecting the same image on them, hence canceling the effect of the lens. 

But I'll admit that a "real life" comparison would make for different lens selection and as such I think the whole system needs to be taken into account. But "real life" has to use real lens that exist. Not virtual lens. 

Standing from a given spot, can we obtain the same picture with different sensor size.


----------



## Thunder_o_b (Feb 17, 2012)

Kolia said:


> Standing from a given spot, can we obtain the same picture with different sensor size.



You would have to stand .6 farther away with the crop (Canon) to obtain the same picture. If you want, and if I have time I will setup a shoot using the Sigma 150mm /2.8 macro (this is a very fine lens) on the 50D and the 5DMKII, and post the shots for you all to play with. But would it really be a valid test with the posted files being so small?


----------



## Kolia (Feb 17, 2012)

Standing farther is not an option as it changes the perspective. It's not the same picture anymore.

Use a zoom lens and adjust the focal length ?


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 17, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> > If I may ask the initial question differently. Micheal say's he's only talking about the sensor but keeps making up virtual lenses.
> ...



The world is not fair.

If a company sold two different cameras with lenses for each that had the equivalent FOV and both had the same IQ, DOF, and ISO peformance, then it would be a luxury to own a FF sensor than provided nothing over a cheaper APS-C sensor. The problem is, that's not the case. That'll probably never be the case.

I'm not afraid to use 4000 ISO on my FF camera. Can you can the same on your APS-C camera?


----------



## Thunder_o_b (Feb 17, 2012)

Kolia said:


> Standing farther is not an option as it changes the perspective. It's not the same picture anymore.
> 
> Use a zoom lens and adjust the focal length ?



I would say no, as zooming changes the optics. Maybe crop the FF image to match the crop image then do a comparison?


----------



## Kolia (Feb 17, 2012)

Thunder_o_b said:
			
		

> I would say no, as zooming changes the optics. Maybe crop the FF image to match the crop image then do a comparison?



No cropping. 

Michael, the OP, asks if the FF is a luxury. 

If a camera with an APS-C sensor could take the exact same picture in the same condition (position, lightning etc) with any type of existing optic, then we could say the FF is redundant. 

It think this would boil it down to the base of the whole topic.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 17, 2012)

Kolia said:


> Thunder_o_b said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It would be redundant if your FF camera purchased was based solely on the size of the sensor and not any of the other advantages of a professional piece of equipment.


----------



## Thunder_o_b (Feb 17, 2012)

Ok, it is clear that there will never be a way so satisfy those that do not see the IQ difference between the two. Which is something that I just do not understand, as it is clear to me. The whole point to me is to create the highest quality image, so it is not a matter of luxury but affordability.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 17, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



You're wrong, again. The M4/3 equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 is 35-100 f/1.4.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 17, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Kolia said:
> ...



You're totally not getting it. 4000 ISO on FF is equal to 1000 ISO on M4/3, if both M4/3 and FF lens has the same entrance pupil diameter, then M4/3 and FF would have equal exposure, and equal SNR, so your argument isn't valid. I agree that it's not a luxury to own a FF system, because the FF system is more complete professionally compared to others, but a smaller sensor wouldn't change too much if they were as complete as the FF system.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 17, 2012)

Kolia said:


> My pseudo-scientific mind has a hard time comparing two sensors without projecting the same image on them, hence canceling the effect of the lens.
> 
> But I'll admit that a "real life" comparison would make for different lens selection and as such I think the whole system needs to be taken into account. But "real life" has to use real lens that exist. Not virtual lens.
> 
> Standing from a given spot, can we obtain the same picture with different sensor size.



Given that we have two lens with similar design and same entrance pupil diameter, one for M4/3 and one for full frame. At the same subject distance, same entrance pupil diameter, same equivalent focal length, we will obtain the same signal noise ratio, depth of field and field of view. The foreground size in relation to background size might be different, and the larger sensor would get more sensor resolution and lens resolution. The only real reason you need to get a system with larger sensor is more resolution.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 17, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> > Thunder_o_b said:
> ...



That's why I said, full frame sensor may be irrelevant for those who don't need lots of resolution. But a full frame camera system is normally much more professional that it isn't the sensor we're going for, but the entire system.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 17, 2012)

Thunder_o_b said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> > Standing farther is not an option as it changes the perspective. It's not the same picture anymore.
> ...



No it doesn't. You don't need to crop. Just use an equivalent lens. Example, the equivalent lens of 70-200mm f/2.8 in M4/3 is 35-100mm f/1.4.


----------



## Austin Greene (Feb 17, 2012)

A lot of actual technical talk, with minimal drama? I think its safe to say,


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 18, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Thunder_o_b said:
> 
> 
> > Kolia said:
> ...



A 35 - 100mm f/1.4 would be thousands of dollars. Wouldn't that make it a luxury if the practicality lies with a full frame?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 18, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Thunder_o_b said:
> ...



A 70-200mm is thousands of dollars too. If the 35-100mm 1.4 sells as much as 70-200mm, it wouldn't be much more expensive than 70-200mm anyway.


----------



## Kolia (Feb 18, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> A 70-200mm is thousands of dollars too. If the 35-100mm 1.4 sells as much as 70-200mm, it wouldn't be much more expensive than 70-200mm anyway.



Well, a quick search on B&H Photo Video Digital Cameras, Photography, Camcorders didn't produce any 34-100 f/1.4 sense for the 4/3 format.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 18, 2012)

Kolia said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > A 70-200mm is thousands of dollars too. If the 35-100mm 1.4 sells as much as 70-200mm, it wouldn't be much more expensive than 70-200mm anyway.
> ...



Because there's no/little market for it.


----------



## zcar21 (Feb 18, 2012)

It's like comparing apples and oranges, or worst because the equivalent lenses he's talking about don't actually exist.


----------



## Kolia (Feb 18, 2012)

zcar21 said:
			
		

> It's like comparing apples and oranges, or worst because the equivalent lenses he's talking about don't actually exist.



Exactly.


----------



## usayit (Feb 18, 2012)

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/telephoto.html#i_035-100mm_f020_olympus


----------



## usayit (Feb 18, 2012)

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/telephoto.html#c=OLYMPUS&i_090-250mm_f028_olympus


----------



## Dao (Feb 18, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



If someone can make a 35-100mm f/1.4, it is going to be 5 to 10 times more than 70-200mm f/2.8 (assume the same optical quality)


----------



## Dao (Feb 18, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



No market since it is going to be too expensive.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 18, 2012)

Dao said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



Can you support your claim? Given a similar optical design, the 35-100mm f/1.4 would be worse in resolution compared to 70-200mm, I'd admit, that's why I said the equivalent lens would have worse resolution and a larger format would only bring higher system resolution. A 35-100mm 1.4 would likely cost 1 time more than the 35-100mm 2.0 if both sells as much as each other and is similar in design. Expensive eh? But, how many 35-100mm 2.0 do they sell? How many, compared to the 70-200mm.


----------



## usayit (Feb 18, 2012)

Smaller format lenses can be more of a practical design that larger format lenses.  So any speculation on price is just that ... speculation.   

Example.. the Olympus 90-250mm f/2.8 is about $6k.   How much is a Canon 200-400L f/4L?  How much for a Nikon 200-400L f/4?  How much for a Canon 500mm f/4L?

I get the idea of comparison by fixing distance, FOV, entrance pupil, and DOF.   I can't see how this translates to anything in the practical real world sense.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 18, 2012)

usayit said:


> Smaller format lenses can be more of a practical design that larger format lenses.  So any speculation on price is just that ... speculation.
> 
> Example.. the Olympus 90-250mm f/2.8 is about $6k.   How much is a Canon 200-400L f/4L?  How much for a Nikon 200-400L f/4?  How much for a Canon 500mm f/4L?
> 
> I get the idea of comparison by fixing distance, FOV, entrance pupil, and DOF.   I can't see how this translates to anything in the practical real world sense.



It wouldn't (cause' the full frame is currently the most complete/successful professional line, that's why I wouldn't buy a smaller format if I were a professional, DX cameras can be professional in every way). But I'm just trying to plant something into everyone's head that larger format don't equate to lower depth of field, if the lens (entrance pupil) is similar in size.


----------



## usayit (Feb 18, 2012)

I understand what you are saying (I have both FF and Micro 4/3).  On the other hand, I still don't see a practical real world impact in the hands of a professional shooting in let say low light concert.   EV and the resulting quality image is all that matters.. willing to work with differences in the size of the entrance pupil, DOF, and sensor output.


btw...  4/3 lenses didn't sell well probably because the bodies they attach to didn't sell well.  Now that micro 4/3 is doing very well in certain markets, most of us are hoping the technology behind some of the 4/3 lenses will eventually translate to the micro 4/3 system (in a more compact form).   Just purchased a 45mm f/1.8 Olympus in micro 4/3 format.  Wow.... good performer given the price.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 18, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



If you're paying 1,300USD for a 25mm f/.95 lens, plus ~700USD for a decent M43 camera... when you can get a 5Dmk1 and a 50mm f/1.4 for about $600 less and have the same effect, wouldn't that make the NEX+25mm f/.95 more of a luxury? Luxury items or features are things that we don't need, or are not cost effective, but valuable to the consumer because it's highly sought after by them.


----------



## usayit (Feb 18, 2012)

So let me get this straight... you are comparing a new camera to an old used one.   I see were you are taking this but that's not really getting your point across.  The 5D Mark 1 was $3300 when it was first released.   

A more fair comparison:

M43 camera (high end) $1000 USD  + Olympus 45 f/1.8 ($400)


Canon 5DMark (new) $3200 USD + Canon 100mm f/2.8 ($554)

or even substitute a more expensive lens; Olympus 12mm f/2, to a cheaper Canon 24mm f/2.8 or even the f/1.4L



Again... my feeling is this is still all moot since none of this really translates to anything in real world practical.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 18, 2012)

Full sensor is about as luxurious as a grey poupon car?


----------



## Kolia (Feb 18, 2012)

But of Course !


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 18, 2012)

Kolia said:


> But of Course !



lol....well the dude driving it didn't think it was funny when I asked!  that prolly cuz he was with some gal and she wasn't impressed with him anyway.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 18, 2012)

usayit said:


> So let me get this straight... you are comparing a new camera to an old used one.   I see were you are taking this but that's not really getting your point across.  The 5D Mark 1 was $3300 when it was first released.
> 
> A more fair comparison:
> 
> ...



It's not about specific cameras though, it's about sensor size. If you want to get the desired effect economically it's easier to do on a FF sensor than a M43 sensor. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## usayit (Feb 18, 2012)

I see... but its tough to make a comparison considering that even the cheapest full frame cameras are quite a bit expensive than even the most expensive M43 cameras.   An addition, the fast prime micro 43 lenses are priced pretty competitively as well...

Olympus 12mm f/2 $800
Olympus 45mm f/1.8 $400
Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 $300
Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 $340
Panasonic-Leica 25 f/1.4 Summilux $540
Panasonic-Leica 45 f/2.8 macro $670
Panasonic 8mm f/3.5 $630

and that's not considering the numerous high speed non-native (non-AF) lenses that are available via adaptation, the Olympus 43 lenses that do adapt with AF, and the oddities like the voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 which is completely manual.  


Its the type of comparison that one can attempt with FF DSLRs versus digital MF cameras of several years old.    When it comes down to it... I really don't think it matters.   Both have their adv/disadv and when your specific/personal needs are met by either than it stops being a luxury (putting aside that all cameras are pretty much a luxury to a hobbyist).  Let's take zooms.  Much like the 90mm-250mm f/2.8 and the 35-100mm f/2 there are no other zooms in a full frame system equivalent in the same price range.  Its a tough comparison.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 18, 2012)

top~


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 18, 2012)

It really depends on what you do. If you need resolution, the extra chunk of sensor ain't gonna cost much compared to the lens you are buying. But if you don't need much resolution, the extra chunk of sensor would not be worth it. Please don't use the word luxury anymore, it isn't relevant for this thread, and I've already admitted it.


----------



## usayit (Feb 19, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:
			
		

> It really depends on what you do. If you need resolution, the extra chunk of sensor ain't gonna cost much compared to the lens you are buying. But if you don't need much resolution, the extra chunk of sensor would not be worth it. Please don't use the word luxury anymore, it isn't relevant for this thread, and I've already admitted it.



So what term shall I use?  

 btw.. you cant assume that the extra chunk of sensor X is not going to cost much as lens Y or vice versa.   There are way too many variables....   reference resources to support your statement?  First of all, the real estate (and waste )of a silicon wafer between larger amd smaller sensors is not a linear relationship....


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 19, 2012)

usayit said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I know that.


----------



## Groupcaptainbonzo (Mar 3, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Isn't a larger sensor just a luxury? I can only name a larger sensor's benefit - more resolution. A different perspective is debatable - whether it's better or not. Depth of field and low light ability is almost the same, given that the lens is the same size and sensor design is the same (same megapixels). Almost all camera companies only put professional features in their larger cameras now. Is there other benefit for a larger sensor?




I can only speak personally of course, but to me, More Resolution ,hence sharper images, is the whole point..Although I do use a cropped sensor when the extra reach is an advantage that outweighs the definition. but this is quite rare.


----------



## Groupcaptainbonzo (Mar 3, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...




Again, a zoom lens is a compromise in image quality. If you are prepared to pay 5 or 6 thousand pounds for a lens, then you are probably not the sort of person who would compromise. I would assume that you would then go for a specific fixed focal length lens. Also it would be much cheaper and possibly even allow for extra fixed length lenses to be added to your kit???


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Mar 3, 2012)

Groupcaptainbonzo said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't a larger sensor just a luxury? I can only name a larger sensor's benefit - more resolution. A different perspective is debatable - whether it's better or not. Depth of field and low light ability is almost the same, given that the lens is the same size and sensor design is the same (same megapixels). Almost all camera companies only put professional features in their larger cameras now. Is there other benefit for a larger sensor?
> ...



You're not understanding it. You don't get extra reach.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Mar 5, 2012)

Hey, one thing, changing focal length and sensor sizes doesn't change perspective, therefore the argument that a larger sensor have more pleasing perspective isn't right.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Mar 5, 2012)

Just found a good site with good clarity that goes hand in hand with my statements. http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#blur


----------

