| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/15/2009 11:59:20 AM · #1 |
Is Ken right? Have we been fooled into thinking that difference between cropped sensor and full frame is small?
//kenrockwell.com/tech/half-frame.htm
Oh.. and if you want to bash or praise Ken please do it here:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=334007
|
|
|
|
01/15/2009 12:08:49 PM · #2 |
He's right.
Nikon's APS-C sensor area is 372.88 sq.mm (23.6mm x 15.8mm)
Nikon's FF sensor area is 864 sq.mm (36mm x 24mm)
The sensor of the FF sensor is 2.32 times greater than the one of the APS-C... sorry
;)
|
|
|
|
01/15/2009 12:11:30 PM · #3 |
The 1.6 crop factor of an APS-C sensor is still a huge amount larger than what a compact camera has. I think there is a much larger gap in performance between a compact sensor and an APS-C than fro an APS-C to a full frame.
I don't see where the scam is though. It is what it is. Marketing will always select numbers that sound better.
Message edited by author 2009-01-15 12:12:28. |
|
|
|
01/15/2009 12:41:03 PM · #4 |
hmmmm... With respect to Full Frame, Nikon sensors are 43%, equivalent Canon's are 38% the size.
[flame ware ignited! :-) ]
Seriously, I think this matters less than one might think in the grander scheme. Is FF better and more flexible than the 1.5x or 1.6x puppies--sure. 4x5 film has advantages over medium format which has advantages over 35mm. But when one factors everything in (cost, etc) there are other tradeoffs.
What matters most are the results: with the system you have, are you able to achieve the results you intend? No need to pitch everything out and take out a 2nd mortgage to get full frame cameras and compatible lenses. If money wasn't a factor, I might have upgraded to a D700 instead of a D90--but the d90 is a mighty fine camera :-) |
|
|
|
01/15/2009 12:55:34 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
[flame ware ignited! :-) ] |
Oh yea, well it doesn't matter if you have L glass.
What it comes down to is image quality and your needs for the camera. If a cropped sensor provides the image quality you need great save the money and buy lenses. If not, move up to full frame.
Its just Ken yelling fire in a crowded theatre again. |
|
|
|
01/15/2009 01:05:28 PM · #6 |
| I guess for me to feel scammed I would need to have been fooled. I guess it always made sense to me on my 1.6 that if I am getting 1.6 more out of the lenses the sensor was smaller by that proportion in the reverse. So I guess I missed how and why I am supposed to be angry. |
|
|
|
01/15/2009 01:21:05 PM · #7 |
| The only thing that really matters is whether the shots coming out of the camera are 2x better. Call me a skeptic, but the images coming out of my puny, half size sensor are pretty darn good. Maybe they would be marginally better if I were using a D700, especially if they were the kinds of shots that would benefit from FF. But 2x better? Doubtful. |
|
|
|
01/15/2009 01:52:26 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Ann:
The only thing that really matters is whether the shots coming out of the camera are 2x better. Call me a skeptic, but the images coming out of my puny, half size sensor are pretty darn good. Maybe they would be marginally better if I were using a D700, especially if they were the kinds of shots that would benefit from FF. But 2x better? Doubtful. |
The difference comes in the extreme shot, not the typical one. A crop sensor will perform wonderfully at ISO 200. It will definitely have trouble at an ISO 1600 compared to a FF sensor. The noise quality of the 5DmkII is likely 1-2 stops better than the crop sensor so this actually makes it 2x to 4x better in this regard... |
|
|
|
01/15/2009 02:10:15 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Ann:
The only thing that really matters is whether the shots coming out of the camera are 2x better. Call me a skeptic, but the images coming out of my puny, half size sensor are pretty darn good. Maybe they would be marginally better if I were using a D700, especially if they were the kinds of shots that would benefit from FF. But 2x better? Doubtful. |
The difference comes in the extreme shot, not the typical one. A crop sensor will perform wonderfully at ISO 200. It will definitely have trouble at an ISO 1600 compared to a FF sensor. The noise quality of the 5DmkII is likely 1-2 stops better than the crop sensor so this actually makes it 2x to 4x better in this regard... |
Agreed. The high end equipment is really for marginal cases. I can take my D60 out, and get great images, as long as I don't push the limits of the camera. But as soon as I reach the limits of the camera (for my kind of shooting, it's FPS and autofocus, not usually ISO), I want my "good" camera. But I don't think I've ever used ISO 1600 for anything except a snapshot, and I don't think I've ever wanted to. |
|
|
|
01/15/2009 02:38:43 PM · #10 |
That's a little weird:
1. First he tells us the megapixel designation is a scam, that 10mp sounds like a lot more than 6mp, but actually it's 3008 v 3883 pixels in the horizontal dimension, just not that much of an increase. Which is true...
2. Then he moves on to criticize the manufacturers for using a linear dimension to compare sensors when an *area* dimension shows that the crop sensor is only a half of the FF sensor.
You can't have it both ways, Ken; make up your mind....
R.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2009 03:14:33 PM · #11 |
Fool;-)
Message edited by author 2009-01-15 15:15:05. |
|
|
|
01/15/2009 05:44:49 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Fool;-) |
This thread is all about him - so HA - Genius!
|
|
|
|
01/15/2009 05:50:11 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Fool;-) |
Ditto.
And a 35mm (actually 36mm by 24mm) frame is either 2.25 times larger in area than typical Nikon "APS-C" sensors or 2.56 times larger in area than typical Canon APS-C. |
|
|
|
01/15/2009 05:54:25 PM · #14 |
if numbers are your game - look into an accounting job with one of those successful US banks - there are many of them that i am certain are hiring like a whirlwind. i mean they have billions of free money to spend - right ?
otherwise focus on the photo.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2009 05:56:53 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by canonnica:
The sensor of the FF sensor is 2.32 times greater than the one of the APS-C... sorry
;) |
That explains why photos from my 5D are at least twice as good as anyone else's.
I'm still not sure why most of them are 1000 times better. I think it might have something to do with my fabulous good looks.
Message edited by author 2009-01-17 19:57:42.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2009 09:35:25 PM · #16 |
His argument doesn't hold up at all - who cares about the surface area of the sensor. Now if he was comparing the volume of the sensors - well... then we'd really have something to talk about!
I wonder why Ken is so obsessed with size differences... ;)
(I bet he carries a tape measure around with him in his pocket for "emergencies") |
|
|
|
01/15/2009 10:14:48 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by DjFenzl:
His argument doesn't hold up at all - who cares about the surface area of the sensor. Now if he was comparing the volume of the sensors - well... then we'd really have something to talk about! |
Actually, the real issue is the relationship of photo-receptor size and density -- the larger the individual receptor site, the better your signal-to-noise ratio, but the fewer you can fit onto a sensor of any given size/area.
Huge numbers of MP's crammed onto a small chip (like in P&S cameras) leads to relatively high noise levels at even moderately-high sensitivities (e.g. ISO 400), while a full-frame sensor with fewer MP's (e.g. 6-12) will have a smaller file, but probably of such superior quality that it can be more successfully upsampled if necessary. |
|
|
|
01/15/2009 10:18:20 PM · #18 |
I'll have to comment though that having moved from a EOS 30D "cropped" sensor, to the 5D MKii's "full frame" sensor, the improvement in clarity, depth of image and colour saturation are amazing. Also as the good Dr says below, the ability to work in higher ISO's and still retain the quality is amazing. My last image  was shot in a museum at 3200 ( from memory, may even have been higher, don't have the original on teh computer ) and still retained all the detail and little noise. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 06:11:25 AM · #19 |
Well yes, but that's not all down to sensor size - in fact, the pixel density on those two cameras is identical. Far more significant there is the move from DIGIC II to DIGIC IV - that's two generations of image processor.
Size, whatever Saint Ken says, isn't everything. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 08:27:09 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by DjFenzl:
His argument doesn't hold up at all - who cares about the surface area of the sensor. Now if he was comparing the volume of the sensors - well... then we'd really have something to talk about!
I wonder why Ken is so obsessed with size differences... ;)
(I bet he carries a tape measure around with him in his pocket for "emergencies") |
I agree. As with most things in life it's not what you have it's what you do with it that counts!!
|
|
|
|
01/16/2009 11:52:33 AM · #21 |
| I am surprised this thread is nearly a day old and no first poster/same day joiners coming in to defend Kens musings. |
|
|
|
01/16/2009 12:02:01 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by vxpra:
I am surprised this thread is nearly a day old and no first poster/same day joiners coming in to defend Kens musings. |
They will arrive in 2012. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/11/2025 12:22:34 AM EDT.
