• 10-25-2004, 05:59 PM
    SmartWombat
    23x15mm or full frame 36x24 ?
    Ken Rockwell has some interesting things to say about the D2X.
    One of them "standard DX sized sensor, not the obsolete 35mm film frame sized sensor" made me wonder ...

    The small sensors are about the same size
    Canon 22.7mm x 15.1mm
    Nikon 23.7 x 15.7mm
    Minolta 23.5 x 15.7 mm

    Except Olympus who just had to be different :)
    Olympus 17 x 13mm (4/3)

    Is there an advantage to the smaller sensor size? Apart from price of course.


    Ken seems to have deep feelings about the movie industry being right
    "There are numerous advantages to the standard DX 16 x 24 mm sized CCD, and none to the old 35 mm film size"
    and amazingly
    "DSLRs blindly copy the obsolete 3:2 (1.5:1) aspect ratio of 35mm film. The longer, skinnier 3:2 shape is a throwback to 1913 when an asthmatic hiker who couldn't carry a real camera developed a way to jam 35mm movie film into a still camera and chose an elongated format to allow a little more film area to be used with the tiny film. (See the history of the Leica camera to learn more.)"
    and finally
    "Using a DSLR with its outdated 3:2 aspect ratio means every time you do a digital slide show you'll have black bands across the top and bottom of your screen"

    For a start, Nikon's 23.7:15.7 is 1.5:1 and so is Canon's 22.7:15.1 ... well +/- 0.1
    Now with my maths, that's 3:2 - and what is the ratio if his favoured 16:24 "standard" 35mm movie format?
    Hmm, three eights are 24, two eights are 16, that's umm 3:2 isn't it?

    I'm taking what he says with a huge pinch of salt !
  • 10-26-2004, 09:31 AM
    Michael Fanelli
    Re: 23x15mm or full frame 36x24 ?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SmartWombat
    Ken Rockwell has some interesting things to say about the D2X.
    One of them "standard DX sized sensor, not the obsolete 35mm film frame sized sensor" made me wonder ...

    The small sensors are about the same size
    Canon 22.7mm x 15.1mm
    Nikon 23.7 x 15.7mm
    Minolta 23.5 x 15.7 mm

    Except Olympus who just had to be different :)
    Olympus 17 x 13mm (4/3)

    Is there an advantage to the smaller sensor size? Apart from price of course.


    Ken seems to have deep feelings about the movie industry being right
    "There are numerous advantages to the standard DX 16 x 24 mm sized CCD, and none to the old 35 mm film size"
    and amazingly
    "DSLRs blindly copy the obsolete 3:2 (1.5:1) aspect ratio of 35mm film. The longer, skinnier 3:2 shape is a throwback to 1913 when an asthmatic hiker who couldn't carry a real camera developed a way to jam 35mm movie film into a still camera and chose an elongated format to allow a little more film area to be used with the tiny film. (See the history of the Leica camera to learn more.)"
    and finally
    "Using a DSLR with its outdated 3:2 aspect ratio means every time you do a digital slide show you'll have black bands across the top and bottom of your screen"

    For a start, Nikon's 23.7:15.7 is 1.5:1 and so is Canon's 22.7:15.1 ... well +/- 0.1
    Now with my maths, that's 3:2 - and what is the ratio if his favoured 16:24 "standard" 35mm movie format?
    Hmm, three eights are 24, two eights are 16, that's umm 3:2 isn't it?

    I'm taking what he says with a huge pinch of salt !

    This guy is full of it. A larger sensor with larger pixels will always be better. The "full frame" size was not chosen because of some love of that format. Most photographers already have lenses that cover the 35mm frame, why not use what everyone has? This has nothing to do with history or 35mm film. It's just common sense. Once sensor yields for full frame become more economical, full frame will gather steam.

    The APS size can use existing 35mm lenses. The only exception I know about iis the 4/3 size. Olympus has built these cameras in a way that requires a start-from-scratch system, i.e., lots of money for a smaller, noisier camera.
  • 10-26-2004, 12:10 PM
    JeffHall
    Re: 23x15mm or full frame 36x24 ?
    Ken Rockwell is notoriously biased toward Nikon--just read more of his stuff. Nikon decided to commit to an APS sized sensor forever (though they may back off later) and he is trumpeting their claim. He must not believe that film photographers prefer medium and larger format quality to 35 mm and APS.

    All other things equal (internal noise processing, microlens coverage, anti-alias filtering, etc.) a larger sensor has a larger SNR, period. That will ALWAYS help noise. Keep in mind diffraction effects...ever wonder why P&S digital cameras only stop to f8, while DSLR lenses stop down to f22? And larger sensors can have a wider field of view while enjoying the shallow DOF effects of a long, fast lens...reducing magnification so that you can have some really interesting portraits or creative effects. Why does the Nikon D2X only go up to ISO 800 (or I think extended 1600) while a Canon 1Ds II will go to ISO 1600 and 3200 extended?

    Ken Rockwell really disgusts me sometimes.
  • 10-26-2004, 01:14 PM
    Michael Fanelli
    Get Your Rumors Here
    FWIW, Rumor, rumor, rumor, say it again, the following is an unsubstantiated rumor...

    Sony is getting ready to produce a reasonably priced full-frame sensor some time next year. Nikon is very interested and gets most of it's sensors from Sony already. Such a chip could reverse the APS-only stand they have taken up until now.
  • 10-26-2004, 02:24 PM
    JeffHall
    Re: Get Your Rumors Here
    I hope you're right. Nikon needs a decent full-frame camera, former claims nonwithstanding, and the Kodak back doesn't quite do what they need.
  • 10-27-2004, 06:21 AM
    another view
    Re: 23x15mm or full frame 36x24 ?
    I'm guessing that Nikon's new F6 35mm film camera is a step towards a full frame DSLR...

    I've been using a 1.5 factor DSLR for a little over a year and that format change hasn't really been a big deal in practice to me with the Fuji S2. I lose my wide lenses (my 20mm is now a 30mm - of course this is just in reference to angle of coverage!) but my long lenses are longer without losing a stop or two like you would with a teleconverter. It's the same idea as working with medium format - a 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR becomes an 80mm on a 6x6, etc.

    I now have a 300 f2.8 with my 80-200, but I'd have to spend a fair amount of money to get the wide angle part back again (12-24 DX). That's where the advantage/disadvantage is IMO. When I use this camera for paying gigs, I never need more than the 20mm lens anyway (30mm coverage) so I haven't gotten that lens yet.

    The thing about the Olympus 4/3 is that it's closer to standard print dimensions like 8x10, etc. A 3:2 format prints full frame at 8x12 and you have to crop a total of two inches off the long side. Explain it all you want to people, they want 8x10's... :rolleyes: You can shoot that way - leaving extra room on the sides, but sometimes there are shots that still work best at full frame...
  • 10-27-2004, 10:52 PM
    SmartWombat
    Re: 23x15mm or full frame 36x24 ?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffHall
    Ken Rockwell really disgusts me sometimes.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Michael Fanelli
    This guy is full of it.

    Forget the pinch then, I'll take the whole bag :)

    I'm leaning towards the 1DsII because of its full frame.
    But budget may have to lead me to the 20D first.