March 04, 2015, 09:54:19 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - iP337

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
hope this helps:
"The Missing Piece:  Sensor Resolution

Clearly there's the two sensors have other differences besides size.  To see that, let's do a bit of arithmetic.  Canon says that the 5D sensor holds 12.8 megapixels, and the 30D sensor holds 8.2 megapixels.  An APS-C sensor is 17 mm x 25 mm, which is 425 mm2.  A full frame sensor is 24 mm x 36 mm, which is 864 mm2.  Aha!  The full frame sensor has about twice the square millimeters' area of the APS-C sensor, but only about 1.5 times the number of pixels.  Calculating the resultant average size of a 5D "megapixel" and a 30D "megapixel," we get

5D pixel size = 864 mm2 / 12.8 million pixels = 68 mm2 per million 5D pixels

30D pixel size = 425 mm2 / 8.2 million pixels = 52 mm2 per million 30D pixels

The 5D pixels, then, are a bit larger, making for a somewhat lower-resolution image.  It's almost as if the 30D has finer grained film than the 5D.  The field of view on the 30D isn't as large, but it can capture any given thing in the field of view better than the 5D can.  Thus, if we were taking telephoto pictures of, say, birds in a nest, then the 30D would provide a somewhat better image than would the 5D.

This apparently isn't the case for all full frame sensors, however.  For example, when I looked up the megapixel values for the EOS-1Ds and the EOS-1Ds Mark II, I found that they offered 11.1 and 16.7 megapixels, respectively.  That would imply that the an EOS-1Ds megapixel would be 78 mm2 in size, worse grain than that offered by the 5D, and the Mark II's megapixel is only 52 mm2, equaling the 30D.

To sum up, then:

Full frame digital SLRs will always photograph a significantly larger field of view than will an APS-C digital SLRs
APS-C digital SLRs may, however, offer finer resolution in their sensors, meaning that they may be the better choice for telephoto applications wherein the subject is too far away to fill even an APS-C's field of view.  The only way to be sure is to compute size of a "megapixel" by dividing a sensor's megapixel count by either 425 (for an APS-C sensor) or 864 (for a 35mm full frame sensor); smaller numbers mean finer "grain" and better images.
These aren't the only factors to consider about applicability of a given camera for a given usage.  For example, the single most important factor in getting that rare shot of the vermillion-eared grubcatcher may be how quickly your camera auto-focuses!"

Basically with the large pixels of Full Frame cameras can get a wide dynamic range which of course means a lower contrast and at the sake of finer details but the pixel sizes on APS-C we get a narrower dynamic range which means higher contrast and also finer details.  It's exactly like choosing ASA back in the film days, slower ASA speeds (lower number) means sharper image but less sensative to light and faster ASA (higher number) means low light at the sake of fine detail sharpness.

I'm glad to see a lot of people on this thread understand the differance between current APS-C and Full Frame sensors. :)

For those that still seem confused just go get a current full frame camera and go home happy with your sharp pics while pixel peeping ok :) now please stop posting in this thread.

For the more inquisitive minds trying to answer the topics question "Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C?"  First it's important that you understand when comparing images captured on 135 (it's not 135mm btw, it's just the cartrige size used for 35mm Photo film, I just find it easier to type "135" rather then "Full Frame 35mm") to images captured on APS-C (Advanced Photo System "Classic" created in 1996 "for High-Resolution photos") it's not the physical size of the sensor that matters it's the physical size of the individual pixel sensors that need to be compared.  So the question should REALLY be, "Are bigger pixels sharper than smaller pixels?"  the short answer to that is no but that depends on how you use it.

For example, there is no point to compare 2 pictures at 50mm and at 35mm that were taken on the same camera; if you crop the 35mm to the FoV of the 50mm and blow it up to the same size as the 50mm than it will obviously be softer because they both had the same individual pixel sizes and therefore the same "resolving" power, one just got blown up to 150% compared to the other at 100%. 

Back in the film days the grain size was tied to ASA speed (aka ISO), smaller grain (or faster ASA) also meant sharper finer details. In Digital photography there is no grain size, we now have pixel size and it is not tied to the ISO speed anymore, it's tied to resolution and sensor size. Current APS-C cameras have smaller/finer individual grain/pixel sensors than their 135 counterparts, think of it like the D800 vs the 5D3, so you need to compare them by "pixel size" not sensor size.  Unfortuantely lenses made to be sharp on 135 don't care about resolving enough for the finer pixels of new APS-C sensors, this is why Canon is updating all their lenses.  We are reaching a point where the lenses are becoming the bottleneck to image sharpness.

Of course smaller pixels have other issues such as light-gathering and dynamic range but new technologies such as gapless microlenses and back illiminated pixels are helping to boost these issues.

Oh and thanks for pointing out the 1Dx doesn't have a crop mode, I missed that,  but the 1Dc video and Nikon Full Frame cameras have crop modes.
"...The 1D C offers 4K (4,096 x 2,160 pixels) video capture with an APS-H crop. You can also opt for a Super 35mm crop mode, ..."

For one, I asked you what exactly you meant by "the APS-C lens has to be better than the FF lens"?

I followed that up with a clarifying question asking if you were talking about two different lenses such as one EF-S lens and one EF lens.

Sorry if I was the cause of any additional confusion... :)

-Yes, to get two images, one taken with APS and one taken with FF appear equally sharp when viewed at equal presentation size in your presentation format of choice, the lens used on the APS camera needs to be sharper, when sharpness is defined by "lines or line-pairs per mm".

Right, sensor sizes, output resolutions and print sizes aside; any sensor with a higher pixel density (smaller pixels) with resolve finer details, commonly measured in Line-Pairs per mm (or how many lines you can squeeze into a millimeter). 

So an equal pixel APS-C sensor has the potential of resolving finer details but the lens needs to be sharper, many of todays lenses, even EF-s lenses, are made for 135 (Full Frame 35mm) sharpness but APS-C needs sharper than that because it's trying to resolve finer details.  So blowing up to 100% (pixel level) on the APS-C image will look softer than a 100% 135 image because by going to "pixel level" you are actually magnifying the APS-C image about 50% larger than the 135 image.

This is also one of the reasons why the GH2 with a 4/3 sensor can resolve near 1000 lines in 1080p video vs the 5D2 resolving about 700 lines in 1080p and the older 2/3 HD camcorders did 1000 lines easy.  Now of course there is still diffraction to worry about, 5D2 starts to limit around f/11 while the 7D starts at f/6.3, go too small (pixel size that is) and you'll start out limited wide open!  APS-C has a deeper DoF so it about evens out; but this is why I think the high megapixel full frames like the D800 isn't a practical camera, you get a low f-stop diffraction limit with a shallow DoF, which is only really usable at f/4-f/5.6. 

The best setup to test this is with a 135 and an APS-C with the same output resolution (D3x and NEX7 maybe), get the sharpest glass you can find (a Leica Summicron or maybe that Ziess 35/2.8) shoot and compare.

But no matter what you find it doesn't change the fact that some things are better with 135 and some better with APS-C.  If you need shallow DoF, higher dynamic range or low light shots than APS-C will not work but if you need the extra reach but can't afford an exotic telephoto, need finer details and have the lenes that can resolve them or need a deeper DoF without sacrificing light than grab your APS-C.  There is a reason why the 1Dx, 1Dc and Nikon Full Frame DSLRs have an APS-C mode...

Contests / Re: Gura Gear Giveaway!
« on: December 07, 2012, 10:17:44 PM »
I want to win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Please ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: 4 More DSLRs Coming in 2012? [CR2]
« on: June 14, 2012, 06:41:09 AM »
More Wish-Listing!!!

Here's what I expect/wish for the Canon 2012 lineup

*$500 range: A pocketable 18mp APS-C Mirrorless with 40/2.8 STM and PDAF to replace the 1100D and to compete with NEX and Fuji cameras. (Entry level Mirrorless?)
$900 range: The 650D
*$1300 range: A 22mp APS-C with improved morie and aliasing in 7D like body and feature set. (70D?)
$1600 range: The 7D, with added 650D PDAF & noise performance via firmware update or Magic Lantern support :-D
$2000 range: The 5D mark II
*$2500 range: A retro rangefinder style 22mp "Photo Full Frame" mirrorless with 650D like features (Entry level FF?)
*$3000 range: High Mp "Full Frame" with a 22Mp (or 18Mp) APS-C crop mode in a 5Dmk3 body & features. (7D mkII?)
$3500 range: The 5D mark III
$7000 range: I don't care...

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Brief Specs? [CR1]
« on: January 26, 2012, 10:00:54 PM »
...the lower end of the market is where there will be a shakeout especially with mirrorless on the way. the xxxxD xxxD and xxD line occupy a space that will really only fit one low end DSLR once the mirrorless moves in i think mirrorless will wipe out the xxxxD and xxxD lines leaving the xxD as the entry level DSLR with the 7D remaining the weather sealed crop flagship

Not to get too far off subject but I also like the idea of the xx00D being replaced by a mirrorless EF mount body, but I don't see it replacing the xx0D, Here's what I'd like to see for the EOS line: xx00D(APS-C Mirrorless)$1000, xx0D(APS-C Entry)$1000, x0D(APS-C Flagship)$1500, 7Dmk_(APS-H Sport)$2000, 5Dmk_(Full Frame Studio)$3000, 1Dx_(Full Frame Flagship)$6000.

To get back on track, if 5Dmk3 is the new Studio Cam, I doubt it would be 7.5fps; I believe it will have 22Mp but with something like 4fps and though I hope for a Pro-AF system I don't expect it on the 5D, I expect something like 9 cross-type AF points.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H
« on: January 26, 2012, 08:43:35 PM »

The APS-H sensor is a misfit and only came about because of technical restrictions with respect to sensor yield in fabrication. With the technical restrictions now history and the sensor yield problem solved, there is no longer any reason for APS-H sensors to exist.

Also developing chips is expensive. Refitting a chip design to fit another die size is expensive and probably most important: Running production for a chip is expensive. For different sensor sizes, different equipment is required, which takes away more precious space in fabs limiting overall capacity and driving up costs. This is probalby the number one reason for the 1Dx being full frame only. While in the Premium they saw these costs justifyable through other means, like lens sales and the prestige, it really isn't for the 7D line.

Though I doubt Canon would, I assume they could easily crop a 30.2×16.7mm APS-H area from the 18Mp 36x24mm sensor giving it a lower effective Mp count with a 1.3ish crop.  Come on Canon ...D4 and GH2 does it! lol

Tech manufacturing companies do stuff like this all the time; underclocking CPUs, cutting bit rates or disabling features to create a new but lesser product from the same production line to meet consumer demand. However I just don't think there's much demand for APS-H.

But if they do then Magic Lantern can re-enable the deactivated pixels and we can ruin Canon financially! MUAHAHAHA! Well maybe the 1Dx department at least, which would probably take the D4 and A900 with it.  OMG it's the DSLR bubble burst! ...You know it's coming.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H
« on: January 26, 2012, 07:53:56 PM »
Heh, I posted this same question in another thread at the same time.,2975.msg63304.html#msg63304

I thought it would be interesting if Canon made a 16:9 APS-H sensor, since back in the film days APS-H (known as APS-High Definition) was 16:9 for landscape photography instead of 3:2. If they did make this, then the HDMI out with a 16:9 sensor wouldn’t have those pillar bars or crop marks that the current 7D’s HDMI out has due to it’s 3:2 sensor, this could be the “clean” HDMI out camera we’ve been waiting for!  Nikon’s already doing a clean HDMI out with the D4, Canon has to do something and the current 7D almost already has it. (Though I was just reading that the D4 might have video issues at the sensor level even before compression; )

I always liked 16:9 photos, I had a Lumix LX1 and LX2 with a 16:9 sensor that not only cut into video easily but also displayed as nice wallpapers on computers or slideshows on TVs.  Of course I could always crop a 1.78 in post but my point is I don't mind 16:9 native photos, and they might help simulate that wide feeling someone complained the current 1.3 crop factor was lacking.  Come on Canon... GH2 did it! lol

I know it won't happend but I'm a dreamer, lol  :)

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III (or other) Followup
« on: January 26, 2012, 01:42:00 PM »
Yes, I think you've set yourself up for disappointment, mainly because we all see what we want to see. Allow me to humorously re-order your statements to what I think you really mean:  ;)

I think that's a 7DmkII in the pic cause...

I for one really like the idea of an APS-H sensor in a sub $2000 line like the 7D...I'm looking for a new useful shooting option in an affordable package like an $1800 7Dmk2.

I like the idea, too, but unfortunately, I think it's pretty unlikely.

Lol, it's true, I have been fantasizing of adding an APS-H body to my bag but a 1Dmk4 is just a bit too much for me to rationalize the cost and I usually won't upgrade for a few extra MP or slightly increased DR, I was still happy shooting the D60 and 20D until the 5Dmk2 came out. (Well that's not really true, I desperately wanted a 5Dc and 40D but kept spending the money on my car, lol.) 

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III (or other) Followup
« on: January 26, 2012, 05:31:51 AM »
I for one really like the idea of an APS-H sensor in a sub $2000 line like the 7D.  I still love using my 5D2 and 7D, they have a lot of life left in them still so I'm not compelled to upgrade them anytime soon but at this point I'm looking for a new useful shooting option in an affordable package like an $1800 7Dmk2 to slot between my 5D2 and 7D to increase my shooting options without bankrupting me ;D (Was planning on a Panasonic Micro Four Thirds but rather have a Canon APS-H)

I think that's a 7DmkII in the pic cause it makes sense to release a 7DmkII right now; Nikon is rumored to announce the D800 soon so Canon may feel the need for something new as well, but the 1DX is about to release and announcing it's "affordable full frame alternative" now can only hurt 1DX pre-sales (Though Nikon seems to be doing just that with the D800 announcement just before their D4 release, lol.), also as mentioned here before it's a big sports year 2012 (but not a big studio year) and too many of the recent Canon models are competing with each other killing the x0D line (semi-pros go to 7D while consumers go with 600D, so what's the 60D for?! semi-consumers? no wait that's 1100D.)

Canon said starting with the 1DX they will be "cleaning up" their DSLR models, but they also claimed to have no intention of abandoning APS-H.  Canon is in a great position to make the 7D line the "Sports"(APS-H)cameras, the 5D line the "Studio" camera and the 1DX into an "EVERYTHING" camera while giving the x0D line it's "Semi-Pros" back.

Also it would be interesting if Canon made a 16:9 APS-H sensor, since back in the film days APS-H (known as APS-High Definition) was 16:9 for landscape photography not 3:2 like APS-Classic or 135 Film.  This could be a 16:9 LCD on the back of the “mystery body” to go with a 16:9 sensor.  If they did make this, then the HDMI out with a 16:9 sensor wouldn’t have those pillar bars or crop marks that the current 7D’s HDMI out has due to it’s 3:2 sensor, this could be the “clean” HDMI out camera we’ve been waiting for!  Nikon’s already doing a clean HDMI out with the D4 by cropping a 16:9 portion of their 3:2 so you know Canon has to do something and the current 7D almost already has it.

Aww, I just set myself up for a big let down later haven't I? That camera's probably just a 5DmkIII with a 16:9 LCD display that drops to 3:2 when you hit record  :-\

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]