Full-frame CCD vs. the rest: Any difference?

[BrianFoster]

Now that Sony has come out with the very cool R1, I'm curious if there is anyone out there who has had any experience with full-frame sensors vs. the more common APS or CMOS sizes.

I have a new Nikon D70s, and I think it takes amazing pictures. Will there really be a difference in image quality with a full frame sensor? What's the big deal with full frame, besides not having to do the math with your lenses?

[Norfindel]

Bigger printing size
More wide-angle lenses
More file size

[Franglais]

Now that Sony has come out with the very cool R1, I'm curious if there is anyone out there who has had any experience with full-frame sensors vs. the more common APS or CMOS sizes.

I have a new Nikon D70s, and I think it takes amazing pictures. Will there really be a difference in image quality with a full frame sensor? What's the big deal with full frame, besides not having to do the math with your lenses?

I have a D70 and I'm amazed at the image quality on A4/8x10 enlargements.

The advantage of a full-frame 24x36 sensor is you have more photosites/more pixels so you can crop the image without losing quality. Alternatively if the designer settles for less photosites but makes them bigger then you have higher sensitivity/less noise than on a smaller sensor.

The disadvantage of a full-frame sensor: the cost of the device increases exponentially with size. The Canon full-frame sensors are all CMOS which is cheaper to manufacture than CCD.

Canon are the only manufacturer still making cameras with full-frame sensors. They come out with a new sensor then two years later the others come out with an APS-sized sensor that has the same performance for a fraction of the cost.

Charles

[another view]

Never used a full frame, but with the results of my 1.5x DSLR I don't see a need to. At least with Nikon, the 12-24 wide lens for DSLR's is under a grand and there are 3rd party lenses for less than that. The difference in price for a full frame sensor will be more than any of these lenses.

[OldSchool]

The first one is lens quality. If you have two 6MP sensors (one full frame and the other a 1.5 crop), one will need a more accurate lens for the 1.5 crop version than the full frame to get the same focus precision. This is because the image is being focused on a smaller area.

For those of use coming from film, a full frame sensor gives us familiar focal magnification ratios. That is, a 50 mm lens is roughly 1x, 100mm is 2x, 150mm is 3x, etc.

Also, the depth of field (dof) is different for the same view angle. Roughly, the 1x equivalent for a 1.5 cropped sensor is a 34mm focal length. The full frame equivalent is a 50mm lens. But, they are not equivalent in reality. They will both have different dof characteristics for he same aperture. In other words, I can get a shallower dof shooting a 50mm lens on a film SLR than when shooting with a 34mm lens on a DSLR with a 1.5 crop ratio.

If I had the choice (budget wise), I would go for a full frame DSLR.
BR,
Tim

[darkman]

I have both ff and aps-c.

For starters, why are you doing math? That's a strange phenomena that no one shooting MF or LF ever did... I never think I need a 20mm so on a 1.5x... I just grab my 12mm!

My FF is amazing. Even with all the crap you read about edge falloff by the measurebaters. With good technique you'll need one heck of a large print to tell the difference. I also enjoy the shallower dof. Especially for studio use.

Conversely, with my aps-c and a 12mm lens I can do wide angle shots that would take a T&S lens to accomplish on the FF for the same fov.

Anymore I think "image quality" is over-hyped. Theoretically, extinction occurs at ~3 lp/mm at 10 inches for your eyes. Which is about 190dpi. Which means a quality 3Mp camera can make a sharp 8x10. I've made and sold 20x30's from a 4Mp dslr. What I'm trying to say is for most people a 6Mp dslr will meet their needs for now and ever. Did you know, doing math, that going from 6 to 8MP only gives about 11-12% increase in resolution? You'll need ~36Mp to double the resolution of a 6Mp camera! I gave up MF long ago because I could count on one hand how many times I actually needed it's quality over 35mm.

So, yes there is a difference, but the majority of the time I'll never notice. As I pointed out in another post, to sizes past 8x12 it's hard to tell the quality differnce even when comparig to my KM A2. Where I definately notice a difference is dealing with the large files from the ff....

[Lionheart]

The first one is lens quality. If you have two 6MP sensors (one full frame and the other a 1.5 crop), one will need a more accurate lens for the 1.5 crop version than the full frame to get the same focus precision. This is because the image is being focused on a smaller area.

BR,
Tim

I'm not so sure about that OS. The cropping effect of the smaller APS sensor actually allows you to get away with a crappy lens because it is at the edges of the lens that the quality of the pro lenses show themselves off. The smaller sensors only capture the center of the image compared to a full frame sensor or 35mm film frame, essentially the "sweet spot" of the lens. That's what accounts for the cropping or magnification factor of the smaller sensors.
Conversely, a full frame sensor will really highlight the edge deficiencies of a lens, even more so than film will show because of the extremely large resolution and quality of these full size sensors. If you're going to splurge on a full frame sensor DSLR, I really believe you need the best lenses you can afford.
Just my two coppers of course, but that's my current understanding of the situation, I could be wrong

[Lionheart]

I have both ff and aps-c.

Which is about 190dpi. Which means a quality 3Mp camera can make a sharp 8x10. I've made and sold 20x30's from a 4Mp dslr. What I'm trying to say is for most people a 6Mp dslr will meet their needs for now and ever.

I agree wholeheartedly. I've got a 20x30 inch print at the office from a 4 mp dslr that's at least as sharp as the same size print of myself and my wife on our wedding day (shot on a Hassy). We use two 6mp dslr's for our intraoral photos at the office, but we shoot at the medium resolution because it gives us more than adequate resolution and quality without the file size penalty (SCSI RAIDs are EXPENSIVE, so we try to minimize how often we have to upgrade the storage on our servers).

[darkman]

You're both right, just the context is different.

Here's oldtimers pov: Consider taking a picture of a star (or any point). If the field of view is equal on both formats, the star/point will need to be smaller on the smaller format. Thus, MF and LF don't need as sharp lenses as 35mm and aps-c. If this wasn't true, if you printed an 8x10 you would have two pictures with different size stars!

Mike

I'm not so sure about that OS. The cropping effect of the smaller APS sensor actually allows you to get away with a crappy lens because it is at the edges of the lens that the quality of the pro lenses show themselves off. The smaller sensors only capture the center of the image compared to a full frame sensor or 35mm film frame, essentially the "sweet spot" of the lens. That's what accounts for the cropping or magnification factor of the smaller sensors.
Conversely, a full frame sensor will really highlight the edge deficiencies of a lens, even more so than film will show because of the extremely large resolution and quality of these full size sensors. If you're going to splurge on a full frame sensor DSLR, I really believe you need the best lenses you can afford.
Just my two coppers of course, but that's my current understanding of the situation, I could be wrong

[OldSchool]

You're both right, just the context is different.

Here's oldtimers pov: Consider taking a picture of a star (or any point). If the field of view is equal on both formats, the star/point will need to be smaller on the smaller format. Thus, MF and LF don't need as sharp lenses as 35mm and aps-c. If this wasn't true, if you printed an 8x10 you would have two pictures with different size stars!

Mike

My point was based on a theoretical context for the precision of the image projected on a focal plane -- not the reality of what's available at given price-points.

But, now that we bring this up, another thing to consider along Lionheart's thinking is the quality of "digital" SLR lenses that are smaller to because the are only projecting on a "1.5 crop factor" sensor. Do the same issues Lianheart points out resurface for these?

BR,
Tim

[darkman]

The lens reviews I've seen show the 1.5x only lenses have the issues lionheart brought forward.

I would think that if a manufacturer wasn't going to put forth a FF that all the lenses would be redesigned around the smaller image circle. It would be the right thing to do on most fronts.

My point was based on a theoretical context for the precision of the image projected on a focal plane -- not the reality of what's available at given price-points.

But, now that we bring this up, another thing to consider along Lionheart's thinking is the quality of "digital" SLR lenses that are smaller to because the are only projecting on a "1.5 crop factor" sensor. Do the same issues Lianheart points out resurface for these?

BR,
Tim

[Asylum Steve]

I agree with those here that feel image "quality" is overrated. I want more resolution as much as the next guy, but a bigger factor in me moving up to one of Canon's higher end DSLR bodies was conversion factor of the sensor.

For my wide shooting style, lens field-of-view is as important as any other facet of the shot, and seeing an expensive fisheye lens reduced to a much more "normal" field-of-view is extrememly frustrating to say the least...

Not only that, but I have learned to "see" through my camera over the years with a film field-of-view, and I choose my lenses based very much on this perception.

Finally, I almost always want my digital framing to match my film framing as closely as possible, so the closer the fields-of-view are to each other the better...

Now, granted, my body is still a conversion factor of 1.3, but I do see a noticible difference compared to the bigger conversion sensors, especially with my super-wides. And sometimes that alone makes the shot.

And, no, I ain't quite ready to drop $8000 or so on a full-frame sensor body, so the 1.3 will have to do for now...