APS sized nikon sensors, good idea or bad?

[rob_malkin]

I was just wondering what your feelings were on Nikons sensor size.

It appers that most if not all of their future DSLR's are going to

have APS sized sensors.

The new DX lenses, some being very expensive, would lead me to think

that Nikon is going to stick with this size.

Canon on the other hand have not produced any expensive/pro lenses to

cover the less than full frame sensor. They have got the 18-55 but

from what I have seen its just a way of selling lots of 300D's to the

masses.

So it looks like Canon will be moving towards a full frame sensor

with all their DSLR's. This is just speculation, but a good guess I

would think.

 

So the question is, what are your opinions on Nikon choice of APS

sized sensor on all, and maybe future DSLR's.

 

I for one think it a good idea.

 

rob

[john_carter_rhodes]

In what way do you think it's a good idea?

 

A larger sensor makes it easier to produce high quality images with lower noise and maintains that lens focal length to angle of view to which we have all become accustomed. There is also a limit to how short a focal length lenses can be made while maintaining the basic layout of a 35mm camera, which means that very wide angle lenses will be more difficult to produce while still having compatibility with older lenses.

 

I'm sure you have some very good reasons for your desire for small sensors, but you haven't stated any. Please tell me how you think smaller is better.

[ShunCheung]

There is one simple reason why most DSLRs use sensors smaller than the 24x36mm frame: they are far cheaper to produce, and the image quality they deliver is just fine. If DSLRs were still at least $5000 to $8000 each (like the full-frame EOS 1Ds or 14MP Kodak) as it was when the D1 was first introduced, they wouldn't have nearly the kind of popularity they have today.

[rob_malkin]

hmmm,

I guess...

- From what I have read that having a smaller sensor is better as the pixels work better when the angle of incidence is as small as possable. (its been a long time since I last did physics, so I dont know if this is right!)

Like the new Epson Digital range finder is having a hard time making a sensor to work well as the lenses of a range finder are much closer to the sensor, thus increasing the angle of incidence.

- You get the best optical quality from your lens. Its always been known that the best part of a lens is as close to the optical axis as you can get.

- It keeps costs down.

- It increases battery life.

 

But.... it does have its bad sides too.

-Greater noise at higher ISO levels(but form what I have seen form the the D70 I think this is becoming less and less important)

- You can have a 17mm and get the perspective of a 17mm.

- Greater print size.

 

I guess that its has good and bad sides. But for me, and what I like form a photograph the smaller size is much more suited to me.

 

rob.

 

(and lets keep the size is important puns to a minimum please)

[ky2]

Despite the larger-is-better accusation, I must admit that Nikon has made a GOOD marketing decision when they chose to standardize on the sub-35mm frame size; unlike Canon, Nikon has most DSLR focal-lengths covered nicely with their DX line (try to find a similar Canon lens to the 12-24DX or the 17-55DX), this is strictly because Canon cannot commit to such a "DX" standard; instead, they have 1.6x, 1.3x, and 1.0x cameras.

 

Coming to think of it, this is history repeating itself. Nikon sticking to a standard lens interface/lineup, and Canon changing their bodies.

 

Sub-35mm frame size CCDs do limit maximum resolution/noise; but I suppose Nikon made their homework-- and although its always nice to boast that you have an 11mpixel, full-frame camera, it's the actual profit you make that counts.

 

There is no doubt that a lot depends on the D2x. I'll bet my next 2 paychecks that it would still be a DX camera; now, JBQ, if the D2x would have a higher resolution (8-10mpixel?) DX-CCD, that would still be noise-less, wouldn't it be enough to tramp the Canon 1Ds?

[rob_malkin]

but after reading this, I think that I would not mind a full frame (to keep my wide angle lenses wide), but I am just as happy with a 1.5X sensor.

 

So I am happy either way. But if it makes the DSLR's cost less even better.

[john_carter_rhodes]

We're all right. DX is good. Full size is good. So long as I can still use me AI lenses, even without metering, I'm happy. I'll just add a cheap DX wide angle if I ever need to go digital.....for which I have no plans right now. :)

[rob_malkin]

Photo.net members in full agreement with each other, I honestly don�t think I have seen this before.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>So it looks like Canon will be moving towards a full frame sensor with all their

DSLR's.</I><P>Dream on!

[scott_warn]

Whether a full size sensor is a good idea may be dependent on the type of sensor. The big buggaboo for CCD sensors is chromatic abberation and I have read that this is related to the angle that the projected image hits the sensor at. This means that a smaller sensor is a good thing for reducing the chromatic abberation tendency. At least thats is what some of Nikon's promos for the 4/3 standard indicate to me. The new Foveon sensor does not use the RGB grid array like a CCD does and doesn't have all the hardware and software issues that are tied to a RGB array. Foveon in still an infant technology but I happen to like the idea of the color being detected by layer instead of a grid, it is how film works and I think it will be a lot less prone to chromatic abberation.

 

Full size sensors will happen someday, Canon will push Nikon into it just as the pushed Nikon into building the D70. As for the price of the sensors, what is the name, "Moores Law" about how digital products improve by 2X every 18 months. The same thing will happen with the sensor. The more they make, the cheaper it will get. I expect that we will see a full frame Nikon within the next 5 years and it may be a 20 or 30 mp camera.

 

Those who don't think it will happen that fast, consider what has happened to the PC in the past 15 years. In 1989 a 33mhz 386 was state of the art and with a graphics card and dedicated 1024 x 768 monitor the cost totalled about 7000 dollars US. Today a 3 plus ghz computer is run of the mill and a complete package with monitor runs under 700 dollars. I still am astounded by this, speed has increased by 1000 times and price has dropped by a factor of 10 in only 15 short years.

 

Right now, what matters to me is the image, and you can get a pretty good image with the 4/3 sensors. It's why I broke down and just picked up a D70. Some day I may regard it as a stone age brick but right now I am satisfied, it takes a pretty good picture.

[ky2]

<p><i>"In 1989 a 33mhz 386 was state of the art and with a graphics card and dedicated 1024 x 768 monitor the cost totalled about 7000 dollars US. Today a 3 plus ghz computer is run of the mill and a complete package with monitor runs under 700 dollars. I still am astounded by this, speed has increased by 1000 times and price has dropped by a factor of 10 in only 15 short years."</i></p>

<p>-- True, but most people have their desktop set to 1024 x 768. Moore law applies to the number of transistors per fixed area, and not to anything that is computer/digital-related...</p>

[jbq]

Scott - Intel claims that the size of chips grows by 7% per year, i.e. 7 years for a 1.6x increase in size.

 

A number of people say that sensors are only sensitive to light that hits them fairly straight, especially if they have microlenses, that 15 degrees is really an upper bound on the angle that light may have when hitting the sensor. Based on that, you can figure out how far the aperture has to be from the sensor for the corners to be hit at 15 degrees from the center of the aperture (80mm), and then figure out how fast a lens can be before the mount start to create some vignetting (not very fast, f/2.8 is about how much you can do through a F mount).

 

I'm not sure about the above claims, because they imply that at apertures faster f/4 most of the extra light gets lots (the edges of a f/4 cone hit the center of the sensor at 14 degrees). At f/1.4 I don't see any significant loss of light in the center, even though 85% of the light hits the sensor at an angle higher than 15 degrees - I should be severely underexposed if the 15-degree theory was correct.

 

I don't think that full-frame DSLRs will ever be really mass-produced, today's 6MPix APS-sized sensors already produce a higher quality than most people will ever want (and most people wouldn't use anything wider than 28mm on full-frame, and the current crop of 18mm lenses is just fine for them). That being said, I do believe that we'll see cameras with 1Ds-like sensors for less than $2000 by the end of the decade.

 

You also want to notice that the last pro digital camera with an APS-sized sensor was released 6 years ago (D2000), and that the DCS1 in 1995 already had a 1.3x cropping factor.

[ShunCheung]

I have seen people quoting "Moore's Law" in this context a few times. Unfortunately, those who quote Moore's Law this way are doing so totally out of context.

 

As Yaron correctly points out, Moore's Law is about putting more and more transistors in the same (small) area as technology improves, and that is why computers chips become more and more powerful and memory gets cheaper and cheaper. The problem with large sensors is that the probability of having impurity on a chip is roughly proportional to its size (area). The larger the chip, the more bad ones you'll get in a batch. Those who buy large chips have to pay for the many bad ones that are trashed. This problem has nothing to do with Moore's Law. And until there is some break through in production method, prices for 24x36mm sensors will continue to be expensive for quite a while.

 

Expect Nikon to stick with DX-sized sensors for the next few years. It is not that they cannot introduce 24x36mm DSLRs, but either they would lose money or the profit will be very low. Meanwhile, people are getting excellent 8x10 prints from 6MP DSLRs. Only very few high-end users really need "full frame."

[jbq]

Scott - Intel claims that the size of chips grows by 7% per year, i.e. 7 years for a 1.6x increase in size.

 

A number of people say that sensors are only sensitive to light that hits them fairly straight, especially if they have microlenses, that 15 degrees is really an upper bound on the angle that light may have when hitting the sensor. Based on that, you can figure out how far the aperture has to be from the sensor for the corners to be hit at 15 degrees from the center of the aperture (80mm), and then figure out how fast a lens can be before the mount start to create some vignetting (not very fast, f/2.8 is about how much you can do through a F mount).

 

I'm not sure about the above claims, because they imply that at apertures faster f/4 most of the extra light gets lots (the edges of a f/4 cone hit the center of the sensor at 14 degrees). At f/1.4 I don't see any significant loss of light in the center, even though 85% of the light hits the sensor at an angle higher than 15 degrees - I should be severely underexposed if the 15-degree theory was correct.

 

I don't think that full-frame DSLRs will ever be really mass-produced, today's 6MPix APS-sized sensors already produce a higher quality than most people will ever want (and most people wouldn't use anything wider than 28mm on full-frame, and the current crop of 18mm lenses is just fine for them). That being said, I do believe that we'll see cameras with 1Ds-like sensors for less than $2000 by the end of the decade.

 

You also want to notice that the last Canon pro digital camera with an APS-sized sensor was released 6 years ago (D2000), and that the DCS1 in 1995 already had a 1.3x cropping factor - not a whole lot of reasons to go for smaller sensors, especially with the 17-40L which is said to be very good at the wide end.

[Karim Ghantous]

A smaller sensor kind of saves you money in some way. With 8-perf 35mm you need a 300mm lens but with the small sensors you only need a 200mm or a 180mm. Almost the same angle of view, but you don't have to buy the 300mm.

 

Wide angle lenses all of a sudden get more expensive. To approximate a 50mm f/1.4 you'll need a 35mm f/1.4 or even the more expensive 28mm f/1.4 for the 1.5x sensor. OTOH you get extra speed effectively with the digital camera so you can make do with an f/2.0 or even an f/2.8.

 

The last thing I want to see is for Nikon to go overboard with the resolution if the woeful Kodak 14n is anything to measure by. I mean, in real terms, 10Mpx isn't really *that* much better than 6 - all other things being equal of course.

 

If the D2H is a sign of things to come - clean image, modest resolution (for the sake of large pixels) - then they are assured continued success. DSLR buyers are not looking for numbers, they're looking for results, unlike the morons who think that a 5Mpx camera that can fit in your shirt pocket is something to get excited about.

 

That's all theory of course. We each have our own demands that we'll place on our cameras. Some will need to spend more and some will be able to save more.

[scott_warn]

I quoted Moores Law as an example of how digital media increases in capability at an intense rate while at the same time the prices keep dropping. Bigger, and higher, resolution sensors will happen, probably sooner that any of us will expect and they will cost less than they do today. That is something that I am sure of.

 

As to the angular problem, that is partly tied to the type of sensor employed. CCD sensors must have an anti moiré filter mounted to them which, I believe, has a large effect on how sensitive the sensor is to angle of the light. Foveon sensors may prove to be capable of tolerating a larger angle. Another obvious answer is to use a curved, or dished, sensor. With lenses designed for a non planar sensor, the angular problem can be completely overcome. The simple fact is that this problem will be overcome, how and when, I don't know, but it will happen. It will be interesting to see how they do it, and who does it first.

 

Nikon is a market driven company, and to survive, they must meet the market demands. Whether full frame is better doesn't really matter, if everyone else is using a full frame sensor, Nikon will have to build a full frame model or disappear. How soon that will happen, I don't know, but I suspect it will happen sooner than most expect. The general public has been conditioned to think that bigger, or higher, is always better. Megapixels are the "horsepower" factor for digital cameras and the camera makers are in a "horsepower" race. Since there must be some limit to how closely the pixels can be placed, increasing the sensor size is a logical approach to increasing pixel count.

 

It's all moot for me, I just bought a D70 and am quite happy with my choice. It is the results that matter and the 4/3 sensors give a good result, right now. It just means that I won't be trading in my 35mm lenses for DX replacements.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The Nikon E2; eight years ago in 1996; used a 2/3 inch CCD; at 1.3 megapixels. Iso's of 800 standard; and 3200 in High setting. 1280 x 1000 pixels. This camera had no "cropping effect"; because there is extra optics inside that make the almost 24x36mm area of the taking lens mapped to the smaller sensor. This is why these cameras have a chunky shape. Nikon stated with the full effective 24x36mm digital; in this joint venture with Fuji.<BR><BR> Later in 1998; the Canon EOS D2000 had 2 megapixels; with a small 22.8 x 15.5mm cropped image.<BR><BR>Nikon had a full frame dslr; and Canon didnt. The Nikon E2 was way too expensive; the Canon with the truncated small sensor was a more compact camera. The newspaper here got Nikon E2; it was something like 17 grand; maybe this was with lenses?

[walterh]

i just finished my coffee. looking at the filter with the ground coffee i see many new nikon sensors coming, some smaller than 16mm film (perhaps for amateur movie makers?) some even larger than 35mm film.

 

cheers

walter

[gilbert_c1]

I will like to buy a 3200 dollar full-frame digital body but I know it's impossible because the larger the chip the more difficult to get good yield in production thus it's imposible to buy a full-frame digital body at an affordable price. I dont really complain too much about APS size since I think it too stupid to spend 8000dollar on a body. Well, if keeping 1.5 crop factor I wish nikon make the aspect ratio of D3 to be 16:9. Yup wider aspect ratio just like movie and wide TV it's beautiful!

[ShunCheung]

Keep in mind that Olympus and partners such as Fuji, Kodak, etc. decided on the 4-3rd DSLR standard a few years back and the sensor size is the even smaller 17.4x13.1mm (with a 2x so called "multiplying factor"). The 4/3 lenses only have a very small image circle to cover the tiny sensor with no possibility to go "full frame." I am sure these companies had made careful analyses before deciding on a new small-sensor standard.

 

The world is changing. The manual-focus era is way into the past, lenses no longer have aperture rings, and small sensors are the norm for DSLRs. In a few years it'll gradually become difficult to buy film. You'd better get used to it.

[ilkka_nissila]

Anyone who needs a large print, or a really wide angle would benefit from a larger sensor. Even though I agree that 8x12 inch prints from a few small format DSLRs are just fine, there is room for improvement in sharpness although present home printing wouldn't show it properly. Printers get sharper and people's expectations higher.

 

People who shoot small objects at a distance like smaller sensors. See how future is predicted by people according to their needs. No one sensor size will be fit for all people and all purposes.

 

The D2X will be the decisive camera for the future of the DX format in high-resolution applications. If it works out fine, probably people will buy it instead of a full-frame cameras, if it doesn't and produces inferior quality image quality to the 1Ds, Nikon will have to either give up the high-res market or introduce a full-frame camera. I consider 24x36 mm format DSLRs inexpensive considering the option: a medium or large format digital back at 2-3 times the cost. And no wide angle there either.

[ilkka_nissila]

And I forgot to mention focusing problems. It is very difficult indeed to focus a DX SLR manually, and in some applications this is needed. And some of the DSLRs have AF systems which are unable to produce the required accuracy when using AF at f/2.8. This is one of the main culprits of excessively miniaturized cameras and in addition to high-res applications, there will be a market for either film or large format digital sensors. It doesn't have to be very large but it will exist, because there is a need for it.

 

Notice how Canon is reluctant to introduce small-format wide angles. They look into the future and see that people would upset if they invested a lot of money into small-format wide angles for a usable life of only 5 years or so. It may be that by design, Nikon's lenses don't produce artifact free images of 24x36 mm size on a digital sensor. That would be sad. Fortunately there will be new sensor technologies which will solve this problem.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The masses are buying digitals with fixed lenses; not removeable lens digital bodies. The removable lens market is a small piece of the digital camera total market.

[kc4fox]

The tragedy of the smaller sensors is the increased DoF associated with the wider standard lenses.

 

I want a camera that I can use a longer f/1.4 lens on that still gives me very strong isolation between the subject and the background like the 50mm f/1.4 (or like my Mamiya 80 f/1.9!). I've not seen it in APS sized cameras. Not to say the images don't look nice but they don't have the pop I like to use in my pictures. Sometimes "good enough" isn't good enough.