DX sized sensors. The "Ideal" format.

[thomas_hardy1]

I had a little experience which sort of changed my mind about the sensor size

debate. If you've ever shot MF 6x6, film and then attempted to print it on

8x10 or 11x14 paper, you soon realized that you had to choose a composition by

cropping and then throw the rest away so to speak. This is very expensive.

Moving to 6x7, you notice the film prints much easier size wise. You just put

the film in the carrier and burn the paper...just about full frame.

 

The digital realm is similar...there are the so called full framed sensors

based on the 35mm film size and "DX" or aps sized sensors.

 

OK, back to medium format..when I want to "capture" a wider scene I use a wider

lens, especially when we're talking about the 6x7 format. Most of us don't go

looking for a 6x10 cm camera do we? I understand that there are panoramic

cameras in 120 size, but that's beyond the scope....

 

I just uploaded some files to be printed ..aint technology great? Some are from

a non full frame digital slr and some scanned 35mm files. The cropping choice

was vertical, horizontal, and full frame. Full frame would have been ideal,

but it just didn't fit the paper. Yes, the whole picture was there as I

composed it in camera, but it looked silly to me. A thin letter box type

photo with big areas of wasted paper on the top and bottom. The horizontal

crop forces you to choose a composition which changes the entire feel of your

shot....leave off these trees here or that mountain over there. It looks like

half the shot is cropped away. The 35mm height/width ratio is just too wide

to fit standard sizes of paper.

 

So, when we print in "standard' paper size like 11x14 I noticed the DX sized

files fit right into the box with just a sliver of crop.

 

I'm now thinking the whole full frame vs DX sized sensor problem might be moot

when we actually start to print images. See, I'm not used to printing on 6x10

paper which is what a 35mm needs to print full frame. Again, I checked and

found that full frame prints at 8x14 (according to photoshop print

parameters). Amazing how something like that just made my lust for a 5D melt

away almost completely.

 

We DX sized camera owners don't need a wider sensor which costs thousands of

dollars more, we need better, wider angle lenses, which lets us realize the

full potential of our cameras.

[johnmarkpainter]

Your lust is very misdirected. You are missing the point of Sensor size. It's not about

apsect ratio

 

My Ricoh GR Digi has a much smaller-than-DX size but has the same convenient aspect

ratio (basically). It doesn't mean that the larger DX sensor doesn't look better.

[Ed_Ingold]

The design of wide angle lenses for SLRs is compromised in general by the need for a long back-focus distance to provide clearance for the swinging mirror. This is compounded when the sensor size is reduced, requiring even shorter focal length lenses for the same field of view. Not everybody feels pinched in this regard. My 17-35 is wide enough for events I cover, and I tend to use even longer lenses for groups and landscapes,

 

Secondly, at the current state of the art for sensor design, the cells should be 6 microns wide or more in order to have an acceptible signal to noise ratio. The Nikon D2x is there now, so Nikon will need a larger sensor (or a technical breakthrough) if they wish to significantly increase the pixel count.

[thomas_hardy1]

Someone makes a 10 or12mm wide angle zoom. (I saw in a magazine advert) That is what's needed for aps sized sensors. The question is how well will it work?

[calebcondit]

I think the standard paper sizes are silly. For years people fought to have the whole image on the page. I personally have always left the whole image and just left borders. Sure 6x7 fits an 8x10, but with a Inkjet at home, I can brint borderless prints on whatever size paper I want by purchasing a roll of paper...much better solution than having a sensor that is smaller, noisier, and doesn't let me use my wide angle lenses correctly.

[matthew_julian]

Yeah I never understand why people feel compelled to crop to fit to a standard paper size all the time. If you've chosen to shoot 6x6, just fit that entire square image on the paper as you shot it and either cut off the extra PAPER or leave as is! Otherwise you're completely wasting what is so wonderful about the format. The image doesn't NEED to fill some arbitrary proportions of a sheet of paper, especially if you are matting it and framing later. If you think you're left with "wasted space" cut down the paper to fit.

[KenPapai]

Smaller is never better, it only means less quality and cheaper. Ideal? Only for a budget. Why do you think Olympus and P&S cameras have such teeny tiny sensors? (price point for people who love photography but are lacking bucks)

 

When Canon soon announces their 22 MP full frame flagship DSLR do you think a small sensor from Sony is more ideal, even though the Sony is $2000 cheaper? Quality wise it's like comparing BMW to Hyundai.

[johnmarkpainter]

<<Someone makes a 10 or12mm wide angle zoom. (I saw in a magazine advert) That is

what's needed for aps sized sensors. The question is how well will it work?>>

 

Actually quite well. I have the Tokina 12-24/4 and am very happy with it. I have a friend

that used the Sigma which is a bit wider, slower and more distortion but he uses it for

work very often and it looks great in use.

 

Lots of comparison reviews on the net for the Ultra-Wide Zooms.

[thomas_hardy1]

Now we're getting somewhere. I just took a look at BH. An advanced digicam can cost about $600. ("1/1.6" 9.24 Megapixel Super CCD HR") the sensor size is 1/1.6'! I really don't know what that is but I think it's really, really tiny. We now see "real" cameras (digital SLRs) with much much bigger dx or aps sized sensors which costs the same or a little more.

 

Now Canon, puts out the "full frame" sensor which is just a little bit larger than the DX sized at many times more the price and we hear claims that sensors are expensive, and it's really worth it because of this and that or the other.

 

 

Why , why ,why, should a 35mm sized sensor cost so much more....what camera in the DX realm is comparible to the 5D in terms of whatever makes digital cameras so expensive other than the sensor size?

[oceanphysics]

I'm sorry, but WTF are you talking about? APS Digital SLR's have the same 3:2 ratio as film.

[digitmstr]

I used to own 6x6, 6x4.5 and 6x7 cameras. I never worried about the aspect ratio. I just look into the finder and arrange the composition as I like. The ONLY difference was that with the 6x6 bodies there is never any reason to change the back (or camera) orientation. It's not like I lost part of the 6x6 image!

 

If you are shooting a square format you do one of the following:

 

1) use it for compositions that work great as a square and print it as such

 

2) use it in PORTRAIT or LANDSCAPE framing in which case the left over strips are throw aways (not part of the composition)...and print on whatever size paper.

 

I never really grew attached to ANY particular aspect ratio. I shoot what I see in the manner I feel is more appropriate for the subject and desired output. Each image is different.

[don_e]

"Why , why ,why, should a 35mm sized sensor cost so much more...." Thomas

 

 

Most p&s have sensors around 9-9.5mm diagonal and 4:3 aspect ratio. APS-C is 28.4mm diagonal and 35mm is 48.4mm diagonal; both have a 3:2 aspect ratio. Some manufacturers have APS-C sensors with slightly smaller diagonals as well.

 

As you can see "full frame" is significantly larger that APS-C

 

--

 

Don E

[kelly_flanigan1]

"Why , why ,why, should a 35mm sized sensor cost so much more...." Thomas<BR><BR>why does 8x10" film cost more than 4x5" film, or 35mm per frame? Will 8x10" film film get cheaper "when yields get better"? Lets see, the format is 1 century old... :)

[wigwam jones]

For me, the aspect ratio is less important than the overall size of the image sensor, and this is because I quite often use the technique of selective focus. A larger sensor can more easily render the background of a subject pleasantly out-of-focus than a smaller sensor. My APS-C size sensor in my *ist DS can produce some lovely portraits with a 80mm f/2.8 lens - the background all blurred and non-distracting. My 1/1.8" Olympus D40Z cannot do this, although the photos it makes are nice and sharp and very acceptable in all other respects.

 

So I don't care too much about the aspect ratio - I usually do not know in what size I may end up printing my photos anyway - could be 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 or larger - or I may not print them at all. I may have to crop severely - or not at all. If I know I want to print an 8x10 when I take the photo, I may compose the scene in my viewfinder to leave myself room for later cropping.

 

But I'd much rather have a larger than a smaller sensor, if for no other reason that DOF effects (selective focus).

[thomas_hardy1]

Mr Ocean, I never said anything about "aspect ratio". We're really talking about.

 

1. DX sized sensors just need wider lenses. This is what most of us are using.

2. FF sensors are most likely expensive due to PRICE GOUGING like anything with the pro tag attached. It's like medical equipment.

3. Even if the ratio is the same for some reason IT LOOKED LIKE a huge chunk (percentage wise) of the 35mm size image was thrown away compared the dx sized sensor when i tried to print it. Maybe a more scientific look at this is needed?

[kelly_flanigan1]

Thomas, a larger sensor costs more. There is no great coverup. <BR><BR>It just basic economics in the IC fab and sensor industry.<BR><BR>It is as fundamental as asking why a big coke and big fries cost more than a small coke and fries. The cost of the sensor goes up with the surface area.<BR><BR>There are alot of other MATURE consumer items that cost more when they are larger too. Look at car engines, lawn mowers, sledge hammers, Giant T shirts, containers of milk, bolts and nails. The last list is all mature items, with alot of decades of time to sweat the costs. <BR><BR>With a FF digital sensor, one has a moving target of increasing Megapixel size, low yields and low volumes. It is not a mature market with a stable design that is going to be made for a decade or two. All theses things drive the break even and profitabilty points high. The high end FF sensor costs must be high to cover all the development, testing, debuging, rework, mapping out of dead pixels too. <BR><BR>Full Frame dslr camera have been around along time, its just most folks are to cheap to buy them. <BR><BR>

[thomas_hardy1]

You calling me cheap Kelly? Just kidding. I have pondered the whole DX vs FF comparison in the last hour or so. Yes, both print to the same dimensions. Silly me, I think I cropped a scan from a 35mm slide and then it looked like a #10 envelope. The truth is an APS sensor, 35mm film, and a FF sensor (at 35mm) ALL print at 8x12. Apparently not much is lost in the crop to print at standard paper sizes.

 

OK, as was stated above the smaller aps sized sensors need good wide view lenses, I still believe that. Canon will probably keep building some FF digital cameras. The question is what about the other companies.

 

The hardest thing to determine about anything is its worth. Yes there is R & D, and other costs associated with these gadgets, but hadn't Canon already worked that out with their first FF camera?

 

I've bought and done many expensive things over the last few years (I get sick just thinking about them). We defend and justify almost to the death these things we do. (I did) And then years later you say was it worth it? Many things no....some things I'm still paying for and won't know for years to come.

 

Well like I told someone before...I'll save my pennies for a sensor that fits my Rollei 6000. That way I'll know it's good and I'll also know I'll be screwed on price...I can sleep at night because there will be no guesswork in my mind. It's the not knowing that kills you.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion with those of you willing to play.

 

Until later,

 

 

 

 

I'll be the guy chimping the Rollei.

[g._armour_van_horn]

Although I'm very much interested in a full-frame camera that takes Nikon mount glass, I'm not holding my breath right now. I don't think there is any "gouging" going on, the sensors just cost a lot. There are three distinct reasons for this.

 

First, when making any semiconductor product the costs of a given technology in a given fab are the same per wafer. I'm not sure what size wafers are used for sensors, I suspect that it's mostly 200mm (8 inch). Once the wafers are finished they are diced, cut to individual chips. If each sensor is larger, there will be fewer of them based simply on the area used, and there will also be some additional inefficiency as larger rectangles will always less efficiently fill a circle of any given size. Assuming 2mm all around, a full frame sensor will eat up 28x40mm of wafer, a 16x24 DX sensor will take up exactly half that, 20x28. A quick pass at arranging the two sizes on a 200mm circle yields 20 full-frame or 44 DX sensors on one wafer.

 

Second, there are flaws distributed over the face of the wafer that cause dead pixels. A certain number of dead pixels can be accomodated by a camera, but as the number of sensors made from a single wafer falls, the chances of there being too many flaws in a given sensor rise, so the yield falls. This is the same issue with CPUs vs RAM, the individual dice are larger.

 

Third, there is always economy of scale. Preparing the masks for a wafer is a staggering expense (as in a megabuck per layout), and the market for full-frame sensors is much smaller than for APS-C and smaller P&S sensors. Longer runs mean less cost per wafer for the masks, although at some point the cost of repairing and replacing masks prevents the average cost from dropping.

 

It wouldn't be any problem for me to think that the manufacturing cost of a full-frame sensor would be around a grand and the DX sensor in the same technology only a couple of hundred bucks. Assuming the normal 5x multiplier between manufacturing cost and retail, there you are.

 

Personally, I think Nikon is nuts not to have at least one full-frame camera in their lineup. They might never sell enough of them to actually make money on it, but it would be profitable because it will demonstrate that they haven't permanently ceded technology leadership to Canon. But they didn't ask me, and apparently have reached a different conclusion.

 

Van

[trunfio]

I print Rolleiflex TLR 6x6 images usually square for family portraits and I'm happy with the results and don't find a need to crop most of the time.

[cjfraser]

This must be one of the most mixed-up threads I've seen. Ocean Physics was right: The initial post implied that, somehow, compared with 35mm film, the DX sensor size affects how much of an image must be cropped to fit various paper sizes. But... the aspect ratio of pictures taken on DX cameras is just 2:3, exactly the same as 35mm film. So changing from full-frame to DX has no effect at all on how much of an image must be cropped to fit a certain paper size.

 

By contrast, the Coolpix cameras have an aspect ratio of 4:3, which does affect how the images fit on common paper sizes.

[40mm]

The bigger sensors are much more expensive because it's much more difficult to make them that size without imperfections. Quality control is a nightmare on something as huge (in the microelectronics world) as 36 x 24 mm. Many sensors of that size don't get to leave the factory, so the QA overhead is an expensive problem. No doubt, manufacturing techniques and tools will improve and the cost of manufacturing big sensors will eventually fall. How long that will take and how far the fall might be is anyone's guess at the moment. You can bet there's some very clever engineers already working on it.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Another real cost is that REMOVEABLE lens digital camera buyers whine more, they tend to get excited about a dead or hot pixel, tend to get dust on their sensors. These things make the warranty cost of a removeable lens digital camera be alot higher than a sort of sealed fixed lens P&S digital.

[thomas_hardy1]

C. Fraser Wrote:

 

"This must be one of the most mixed-up threads I've seen. Ocean Physics was right: The initial post implied that, somehow, compared with 35mm film, the DX sensor size affects how much of an image must be cropped to fit various paper sizes. But... the aspect ratio of pictures taken on DX cameras is just 2:3, exactly the same as 35mm film. So changing from full-frame to DX has no effect at all on how much of an image must be cropped to fit a certain paper size.

By contrast, the Coolpix cameras have an aspect ratio of 4:3, which does affect how the images fit on common paper sizes."

 

 

 

 

Yes, this has been one wild and crazy and confusing thread. I will TRY to summarize the thread and list things which I have learned from you all, which has given me more insight into some things concerning our digital tools.

 

To recap:

 

For some reason some images I uploaded to have printed (scanned from 35mm and some shot with a Canon 20D) needed to be cropped differently. The 20D files fit almost perfectly with minimal cropping. The images from the scanned film appeared to be much wider and needed much more cropping, thus changing the feel of the entire shot.

 

Ok, after reading Ocean Physics post about the aspect ratio of Full frame and APS sized sensors being the same; I had to go back and rethink what had happened. The reason the scanned files looked very wide compared to the canon 20D is because when the film was scanned either the top or bottom was cut off just a little. So when I tried to print, the 20D was more square and the scanned 35mm was much more rectangular. So the scanned film needed a sheet of paper 8x14.7 and the digital capture needed only 8x12....thus my statement "So, when we print in "standard' paper size like 11x14 I noticed the DX sized files fit right into the box with just a sliver of crop."

 

You've all heard of the so called true, true, but unrerelated statements right? I got to thinking that people using APS sized sensors only needed wider lenses to capture wider scenes, and a lot of money could be saved over full frame cameras. But it seems that it is much more complicated than that.

 

Some things I have learned:

 

1. Many people have very expensive, very fine wide lenses and to fully take advantage of them a proper sized full framed sensor needs to be utilized. The price of a new body with a FF sensor would be small to those folks.

 

2. There is a quality issue: Bigger sensors make higher quality images just like bigger pieces of film allows higher quality images, all other things being equal.

 

3. There are some other optical factors in which a bigger sensor makes more pleasing images ...depth of field.. etc. Just like med format vs smaller format film cameras.

 

4. The manufacturing cost of bigger sensors over smaller sensors is currently much higher.

 

5. There are probably many other things which makes a bigger sensor better and more expensive.

 

I hope this clears up this mess of a thread :-)

 

Have a good week!

[kelly_flanigan1]

In the early Nikon F era, a 28mm was a super wide as one could use with full slr viewing. For wider coverage, there was the 20mm with mirror lockup and external finder. In that early era a 35mm lens was abit wide for an slr, a normal was the 5.8cm, ie 58mm. Many folks just used a Leica for wide coverage. The aftermarket 1960's wideangle lenses were not all that great.