If anyone thinks that an APS size sensor DSLR can only have a small pathetic viewfinder, they probably have never looked through a Nikon D2X or a D200. Both are cheaper than the Canon EOS 1DSmkII and EOS 5D respectively. The price difference can easily buy a few more lenses.ahbeng said:
Do you want a full frame DSLR?
- Thread starter ahbeng
- Start date
- Status
wind30 said:
I think you are dreaming, but a nice dream none the less. In 3 years, while pixel density increases to a point where we can squeeze 10 MP onto a small sensor, the same 10 MP on a full size sensor, full size as defined by the 35mm equivalent, will be that much better.
Small sensors will always be handicapped against larger ones in terms of quality.
mighty_mouse
New Member
wow! tatz bad :nono:
EUGSEOW said:I second with u. I dun think my 5D viewfinder is any bigger than my MkII N (1.3x) anyway. I only kept the 5D as my spare as its no where near 1D's performance.
Deadpoet said:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=16977073
IMO, APS format is good enough at this point of time, but FF is probably the only way to go for future DSLR, no matter how good is the noise reduction algorithm, there will be a limit and trade off in terms of details and other problems. A bigger photosite not only improve sensitivity and reduce noise, but also reduce the effect of diffraction which kicks in when you use smaller aperture.
I guess Nikon is probably is stuck with DX format now. They are not making anymore film camera except the top-end F6, so there is lesser demand for FF lens when DX format is good enough for all their DSLR. Thus no development of new FF lenses (too little quantity to pay back the development costs). => Who will then buy FF film? Nobody! Thus FF is totally dead for them.
And for those pple who think Canon's wide angle lens cannot make it...why do you think there are professionals who shoot landscape with Canon gears? Go look at some of the work by some of the top photographers in the world that use Canon, are they merely making do with crappy Canon wide angle lenses?
http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/explorers/lobby.html
AFAIK, Mike Yamashita from National Geographic, shoot his commerical works with just 20D + kit lens and 10-20mm. Only recently he upgraded to 5D + 16-35L.
If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
Wai said:
The mega pixel race, this is what really disappointed me, particularly on the pro and prosumer level of DSLR. I really would like to see more R&D and advances to bring digital closer to film in terms of color depth and dynamic range.
I want the best of both world, the convienence of digital and quality of film.
Back to FF or what, for 90% of the photographers out there, APS or even smaller sensors, is not something they will care about. And that is fine, but for the serious amateurs and pros, the bigger the sensor the better. It's like 35mm vs 120/220 vs 5x7 vs 8x10 film. The larger the film, slides or negatives, generally means the better the output. I am not going to argue or discuss what is better here.
I want a big sensor. There is no argument that, given the same level of technology, the larger sensor will will hands down, just like film.
actually these days there are 2 definitions of fullframe, as far as it seems. pardon me if someone has already written about this prior to my entry.
1st definition: fullframe transfer = the whole chip is the sensor (vs only part of the chip is sensor filled)
2nd definition: fullframe = sensor of the same size as 35mm film.
this thread is prob referring to the 2nd definition, but good to note.
i believe the one main point of digital is to bring down the total weight and bulk of shooting equipment, hence it would be good to use a non fullframe sensor.
it's kind of like getting used to a new idea. hence now a 14mm on an olympus offers a 85degrees view (2.0X crop factor). but then the 'crop factor' is in comparison with a 35mm film. but with this 'crop factor' the weight of telephoto lens is now vastly reduced to achieve a 'frame filling' image of something far away.
the limitation these days is actually not really the sensor, but the optical quality of the lens glass. knowing the camera companys' (actually, all companies work like this) practical approach to things, the quality of the 'prime lenses' glass is actually not that 'high quality' as there is no need for ultra sharp rendering of the light directed onto the film, as it is bigger (35mm). the lens glass is only grounded to the 'required quality', which is sharp enough for 35mm.
so now with a smaller sensor the 'prime lenses' (made for 35mm, with the '35mm required quality' groud glass) may not produce as good an image as it is not opticall sharp enough, and it is very much up to the companies to come out with higher quality glass for the digital lenses. if they don't, then definitely, the quality of a non full-frame will never match that of the full frame sensor, used with prime lens. but if they do, then we'll have a lighter weighted camera, with quality matching that of a traditional 35mm.
then, might as well use a non full frame. but then, the question is when is the 'then'. whether the companies will start making higher quality glass for the lenses, and are they going to price them reasonably.
if you used the lens glass form the hubble space telescope (ultra high quality) on a non full-frame sensor, the image would definitely be much better than a similar photo taken with a 'high quality' prime lens on a full frame sensor.
we shall see.
perhaps the practicality of coming out with 'full frame sensors' is a pseudo goodwill gesture, it may just be to ensure that the old 'prime lens' will not become obsolete due to their lack of sharpness when used with non fullframe sensors.
perhapsperhaps.
1st definition: fullframe transfer = the whole chip is the sensor (vs only part of the chip is sensor filled)
2nd definition: fullframe = sensor of the same size as 35mm film.
this thread is prob referring to the 2nd definition, but good to note.
i believe the one main point of digital is to bring down the total weight and bulk of shooting equipment, hence it would be good to use a non fullframe sensor.
it's kind of like getting used to a new idea. hence now a 14mm on an olympus offers a 85degrees view (2.0X crop factor). but then the 'crop factor' is in comparison with a 35mm film. but with this 'crop factor' the weight of telephoto lens is now vastly reduced to achieve a 'frame filling' image of something far away.
the limitation these days is actually not really the sensor, but the optical quality of the lens glass. knowing the camera companys' (actually, all companies work like this) practical approach to things, the quality of the 'prime lenses' glass is actually not that 'high quality' as there is no need for ultra sharp rendering of the light directed onto the film, as it is bigger (35mm). the lens glass is only grounded to the 'required quality', which is sharp enough for 35mm.
so now with a smaller sensor the 'prime lenses' (made for 35mm, with the '35mm required quality' groud glass) may not produce as good an image as it is not opticall sharp enough, and it is very much up to the companies to come out with higher quality glass for the digital lenses. if they don't, then definitely, the quality of a non full-frame will never match that of the full frame sensor, used with prime lens. but if they do, then we'll have a lighter weighted camera, with quality matching that of a traditional 35mm.
then, might as well use a non full frame. but then, the question is when is the 'then'. whether the companies will start making higher quality glass for the lenses, and are they going to price them reasonably.
if you used the lens glass form the hubble space telescope (ultra high quality) on a non full-frame sensor, the image would definitely be much better than a similar photo taken with a 'high quality' prime lens on a full frame sensor.
we shall see.
perhaps the practicality of coming out with 'full frame sensors' is a pseudo goodwill gesture, it may just be to ensure that the old 'prime lens' will not become obsolete due to their lack of sharpness when used with non fullframe sensors.
perhapsperhaps.
non fullframe sensors can achieve as good optical quality as full frame sensors, as long as the quality of the glass components in the lens is up to standard. the standard of glass (how well it is ground) will determine how sharp and clearly the light is projected onto the sensor.
with larger fullframe sensors, quality of lens glass do not have to be as good to achieve a good, sharp image. glass components on these current 'prime lenses' made for 35mm film/sensors are not of high enough standard to render clear images on a smaller sensor. therefore using the same lens on a non fullframe seemingly gives lousier image quality.
currently many camera manufacturers have already in stock/made such lenses with the above-mentioned glass standard. if they don't continue selling these 'prime' lenses they will incur losses. thus they just simply introduce 'full frame' sensors so people won't complain about lousy quality of lens
it takes courage for companies to go into manufacturing higher quality glass for lenses to achieve good, sharp images on smaller sensors. if there is a company who does so, then the image quality on a smaller sensor will be equal to that of a full frame.
with larger fullframe sensors, quality of lens glass do not have to be as good to achieve a good, sharp image. glass components on these current 'prime lenses' made for 35mm film/sensors are not of high enough standard to render clear images on a smaller sensor. therefore using the same lens on a non fullframe seemingly gives lousier image quality.
currently many camera manufacturers have already in stock/made such lenses with the above-mentioned glass standard. if they don't continue selling these 'prime' lenses they will incur losses. thus they just simply introduce 'full frame' sensors so people won't complain about lousy quality of lens
it takes courage for companies to go into manufacturing higher quality glass for lenses to achieve good, sharp images on smaller sensors. if there is a company who does so, then the image quality on a smaller sensor will be equal to that of a full frame.
This statement is incorrect.
A larger sensor requires better not worse glass. Don't forget that the projected image circle from the back of a lens is the same size regardless of the sensor. So a bigger the sensor (regardless of the resolution) will mean it sees more of the image circle where you start to get vignetting and edge softness - this is true of ALL lenses although on many, in particular most pro glass, this is either insignificant, sometimes to the point of being not detectable (therefore, not there), but applies to ALL lenses just in varying degrees.
Conversly a smaller sensor, again of any resolution will be less prone to vignetting or corner softness because it only sees the 'sweet spot' of the image circle thrown by the lens.
A larger sensor requires better not worse glass. Don't forget that the projected image circle from the back of a lens is the same size regardless of the sensor. So a bigger the sensor (regardless of the resolution) will mean it sees more of the image circle where you start to get vignetting and edge softness - this is true of ALL lenses although on many, in particular most pro glass, this is either insignificant, sometimes to the point of being not detectable (therefore, not there), but applies to ALL lenses just in varying degrees.
Conversly a smaller sensor, again of any resolution will be less prone to vignetting or corner softness because it only sees the 'sweet spot' of the image circle thrown by the lens.
realgar said:
- Status
Similar threads
