Do we need a full frame sensor

Being a film burner with a few nice, fast lenses I've often felt I will hold out

from going digital until Nikon offers a digital camera with a Full-Frame sensor.

 

However, after doing a few searches and studying the pros and cons of Full-Frame

vs APS sized sensors I'm not so sure I want to wait.

 

Shun has made some great points about APS sized sensors. Is anyone else waiting

for the almighty Nikon Full-Frame digital to arrive or is that not as important

as some may think?

What's the widest lens you use on film?

Seems to me pixel density and tonal bits per pixel is more important than size...I believe Nikon D200 and D2X are 12 bit sensors....the new Canon Mark 3 is 14 bit, but with 10mp on a APS-H 1.3 frame, so less pixel density than either Nikons....

Keep waiting while the rest of us put laps on you ;-) Don't ya' love it when the competition is scrounging around for lug nuts in the pit stop.

 

I find that a 17-35/2.8 is wide enough for anything I need to do with a 1.5x cropping sensor (D2x). If things change, I can always get a 12-24/4 super-wide zoom lens. The Canon FF cameras have lower high-ISO noise than the D2x, but a greater problem with color fringing when using wide-angle lenses. Otherwise, the image quality is about the same in each. Pick your poison.

It seems to me noise level is directly proportionate to sensor size...ie bigger pixels = less noise...maybe this is why the full frame sensor at similar pixel counts but lower overall density has less noise at higher ISO's??....

Joseph, the biggest con for a 35FF DSLR is price. I agree with Edward, and find my 17-35/2.8 or stitching images gets me wide enough most of the time with my D200. I have a Tokina 12-24 for when I want to go wider, but my son has taken over that lens because he has much more use for it than I do (in fact, he loves it on his D70).

 

Morgan, what's funny about your post is that you don't know the difference between a photosite and and a pixel, 12 bits and 14 bits and how that might be relevant or not, and you don't understand the difference between photosite density and photosite size.

<i>Do we need a full frame sensor</i>

<br><br>

Yes, in a FM3A body.

But, as far a I concern having a small size sensor does have some pros. This makes all the FF designed lens better performers. This happens because most of the area where the aberrations are is cropped. So now you can go to wider apertures with better picture quality.

Anthony, as my career was an analog circuit designer, I would be interested to hear your explanation of these difference.

The edge aberration problem is only a problem with short lenses and zooms. Tele primes (>=50mm) have virtually as good edges as the center, and the angle of incidence also persents no problems. Ironically, DX users have replaced the short FF lenses with DX lenses, thus giving up the sweet spot.

In essence switching to FF with these lenses (FF primes >= 50mm) you get almost twice the image detail you'd get with DX.

Is full frame the Holy Grail, no. Is it better than DX yes and no. It really depends on your

needs. It also depends a lot on the sensor. If I was shooting a lot of film with digital I could

see this as an issue, but I do not. Yes, DX is similar to APS, but there is one major

difference. APS was taking 35mm and reducing the image size. But film was basically the

same as 35mm, so yes there was very noticeable drop in quality. So yes I cut a third of neg

film it will not be the same quality of image. The big difference is the sensors are being

designed for this format. This a little like the hype over VR and IS to me. A friend recently

asked me if VR made any difference to me with my 70-200 f2.8 VR over my old 80-200

f2.8. My answer was no. I can shoot at an 1/8 and 1/4 already. I am sure it helps a little.

That is my feeling with Full Frame.

The other issue to me is if Nikon goes full frame then it needs to make the entire line full

frame. I already had this issue with Canon once, with some lenses working on some digital

cameras but not on others. During a shoot this is a pain. My most heavily used lens right

now is my Nikon 12-24mm DX f4 lens.<div></div>

Digi is still growing just like computers. You will wait forever for it to be done. Once there is a FF, there will be improved FF and so on.

 

Canon has ff, but the wides are generally thought of as not so good in the corners. People use Leica R wides with adapters to overcome.

 

I got tired of waiting for Leica, so I got the D200 with 18/70. It is 95% of Leica film for 20% of the cost. Five years and I`ll get another just like I get new computers. I have to upgrade software too. People think digi is free. It is NOT considering all the costs.

FF is certainly coming for the pro and very high-end crowd. But the more of these DX

cameras we buy, hopefully the more decent DX lenses come out (especially at the wide end)

and the less likely it is, imho, that we'll see a real "consumer" FF Digital camera.

If you can do without automation of any kind you can get adapters that will let you use your Nikkors on Canon EOS 5D and EOS 1Ds bodies.

Its really very simple.

 

1) A smaller format allows for smaller cameras. The smaller sensor we see today in a Nikon prosumer D200 offers great image quality - sufficient for many applications. We do not get smaller Nikon bodies (OK a little smaller for some bodies) and no significantly smaller lenses with the smaller sensor. So first conclusion: In a technical aspect we gain nothing from a smaller sensor (smaller than FF). One additional problem: Even though the smaller sensors are mounted in larger bodies equipped with lenses for the larger format (the DX lenses are not really small either) our viewfinder shows the small image of the small sensor - bad for manual focus and composing.

 

2) A smaller sensor is cheaper - easy to understand if one can count to a few thousand ^^ - we benefit from this a lot :-)

 

3) A larger sensor that fits into the current body size (inversion of #1) can give better image quality either in number of pixels or in sensitivity. In principle yes but we need to see, it is not that trivial. For example at wide angle lenses effects near the sensor edges due to light rays not coming in at a 90? angle may cause optical problems. This problem adds a bit in cost for research and development of a FF sensor and camera and new lenses. And of course a larger sensor is more expensive. And this again is easy to understand.

 

Conclusion: As soon as a cheap FF sensor is available without dramatic effect of image quality deterioration near the edges all the people who claim we need no FF sensor will be the first to get one. I include myself in this group because I do not "need" a FF camera (=can not afford one).

 

If I "need" a larger format I use film. Used MF film cameras got cheap because other people who can afford a FF canon or digital medium format camera sold their MF film gear. By the way the size of the format has other implications like DOF - but then if we talk most likely amateur use here where "everything" should be in focus? A smaller sensor helps.

When you look at most of the new lenses there isn't any indication Nikon has much interest in full frame DSLR. The only area where it makes a big difference is WA. I think the argument may be about over.

Get a couple of new wide lenses (10-20, or 12-24, or 10.5), keep all your old lenses and make the switch. You'll never look back and you'll get completely professional images.

That's kind of like asking me ...do I need to spend another 8-12 grand on gear again this

next year.

My reaction response is..no.

After a moments thought I would say that I just need Nikon to keep doing whatever it is

they have been doing. That's how comfortable I am with their product, quality, innovation

and strategy.

Nikon has captured my business for a lot of reasons that I won't go into here. That's

because despite having have used both over the years I don't participate in the Canon

versus Nikon debate.

Aside from that I am quite happy to be shooting what I can with what I have right now.

 

Good luck!

Walter, it is all OT just like your first post.

 

A pixel from a BFA is the demosaiced single color value of the photosite along with an averaging of the two other color values from the surrounding photosites. The demosaicing algorithm can simply take the immediate neighboring photosite's values, or it can be more accurate (which ultimately translates to less noise) by taking averages from photosites that are farther away to calculate more precise values.

 

Once the RGB values have been determined for the pixel, they are recorded with varying degrees of accuracy based on the bit depth. 12 bits versus 14 bits doubles the size of the files (unless they are compressed back to fewer bits before being written to the card). Visual acuity is about 250 steps or levels from black to white to attain a smooth tonal ramp; NEF compressed RAW reduce the bit depth from 12 to 8 bits in highlights which results in 99% IQ and no one can see the difference without doing extensive alterations of the tonal curve in PP.

 

The noise floor to well depth is based on the control of electronic noise coming from the sensor circuitry and power sources inside the camera, by the amount of light capacity of the photodiode, and by how much light has actually been captured by that photodiode. The photodiodes are physically small but use microlenses to capture light from the surrounding area, that area is the photosite size. Usually there is space between the photosites and the total area isn't being utilized, so photosite density and photosite size are not the same; but even when they are the photodiodes of most digital sensors are -- which is why we see very little DR difference between large sensors and smaller ones -- especially at base ISO sensitivity.

Anthony,

 

How can there be little DR difference between large and small sensors if the larger sensor has larger photosites? A MF digital back has a much larger DR than an APS-sized sensor.

 

And larger photodiodes will have a larger SNR. Those are two main advantages that a larger sensor, with larger photosites and individual sensors, will have over a smaller sensor: Higher DR and higher SNR. That is why pros like MF digital backs.

 

Just like film...bigger is better.

"A MF digital back has a much larger DR than an APS-sized sensor."

 

First of all, a MF is not a 35FF; and no one has shown a difference of more than 1/3 of a stop in DR between small various formats sensors(except for the S5, which outperforms any 35FF sensor by two stops). Furthermore, I have heard claims of more DR in MF but have not seen it demonstrated. Actually, despite their larger photosites most MF digital sensors have small photodiodes, and their ISO performance is usually limited to ISO 400. Since DR is a function of SNR, I remain skeptical until it is proven otherwise that there is more than 1/2 a stop of increased DR in MF digital sensors.

Wider sensors? nah...wider lenses.

There is no direct correlation between photosite size and DR, though larger sites obviously have potential advantages. Similarly, a large photosite can still have a crappy SNR depending on design.

 

Since most MF backs until recently have been comparable in both manufacture and design to pro-level 35mm and APS sized sensors, the main advantage to them has been strictly in pixel count. And not too many "pros" have really gone wild over them, either.

 

Now, if you get Fuji to take their magic multi-sized photosite sensor and turn it into an MF back, *then* we might see a mass migration to MF. Until then, I agree with Thomas: MF = wider lenses.

I took this thread to my Stanford Bases meeting today...all us engineers (I'm actually a Chemical Engineer with minor in EE) who don't understand fundamental electrical engineering had a pretty good laugh.....