Do full frame sensors make sense for you?

Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
angles?
-Rich

RichA wrote:

Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
angles?
-Rich
yes yes

"RichA" wrote in message
...
Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
angles?
-Rich

I use the great DA Pentax 14mm f:2.8 (IF) ED on my *ist D body. It closely
matches my SMC Pentax-M 20mm f:4 in FOV.

RichA wrote:

Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
angles?

I don't particularly want full-frame. I can go as wide as I care to
with a 1.5x crop, and I like the crop effect. And reality utterly
fails to bear out the theories of "larger sensors have less noise"
and such. Not to mention the lack of edge falloff, chromatic
aberration, and etc. The only real advantage I see in full-frame
would be the ability to achieve less depth of field.

Having said that, we'll probably end up there sooner or later.

--
Jeremy |

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:

Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
angles?

I don't particularly want full-frame. I can go as wide as I care to
with a 1.5x crop, and I like the crop effect. And reality utterly
fails to bear out the theories of "larger sensors have less noise"
and such. Not to mention the lack of edge falloff, chromatic
aberration, and etc. The only real advantage I see in full-frame
would be the ability to achieve less depth of field.

Cropping is something I would like to have as an option. Here is the reason
behind my dis-like of the FOV crop sensors:

The whole idea of "full-frame" and FOV crop should really be meaningless.
Who is to say that medium format is not "full-frame" and that 35mm is a
"cropped" version. The reason that the FOV crop notion exists, is that the
SLR lenses are designed to take advanatage of the 35mm geometry. All the top
lenses have focal lengths designed around this geometry:

16-35 f2.8 - supposed to be ultra-wide
24-70 f2.8 - suppoesd to be wide to "normal"
50mm - supposed to be "normal"

On my 20D these lenses do not really make sense (except the 16-35, but
again, I will not be getting ultra wide here and only a 2X zoom for a high
price).

So, all the top-of-the-line lenses are still designed with this in mind.
There has been a slew of "for-digital" lenses, but frankly these are not up
to scratch. Their are cheap plasticky consumer lenses that provide
satisfactory results. I would be much happier if Canon decided to release:

- 10-22 f2.8L
- 15-50 f2.8L
- 30mm f1.4L
- The tele lenses can stay as they are, but could be refined to use less
glass due to smaller image cirlce required, so my 70-200f2.8LIS does not
need to weigh so much.

This would show me that Canon are serious about these "1.6x" sensors being
the future. So two things need to happen to make me happy:

1) Begin to "end-of-life" the 35mm format and introduce the "hypothetical"
lenses. Release "pro" bodies which have the 1.6x FOV crop
or
2) Evolve the prosumer (20D) cameras to use a FF sensor

I really dont care which, except that 2 above has the potential for lower
noise and the DOF we are used to from film (alas, at the potential for
higher prices).


Having said that, we'll probably end up there sooner or later.

I hope you're right - but I fear that you may be wrong.

RichA wrote:
Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
angles?
-Rich

I would prefer that DSLRs broke out of the "35mm" mould and went to a
smaller, lighter system such as 4/3 might become.

David

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 20:01:06 -0400, RichA wrote:

Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach" afforded by
less than full frame sensors a positive benefit? Or, do you dislike having
to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do the job formerly done by less
expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide angles?
-Rich

Yes. Yes.

I am in a position where I can do either job using the tools at my
disposal. I treat my Nikon digital as a different system to my Nikon film
but with some overlap.

Works for me.

--
?

"RichA" wrote in message
...
Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
angles?
-Rich

There is no 'extra reach', it's just a cropped full frame. You just enlarge
it more.
I look forward to full frame with justifyable (to me) prices, and my lens
will do what they say on the box ie 20mm=20mm.

next..

In article ,
RichA wrote:
Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
angles?

'Full frame' sensors start to make sense when people can afford more than
one sensor.

At the moment, the 1.5x/1.6x crop sensors are probably best in line with
what 35mm film used to be: a practical and affordable format.

The advantage of full frame 35mm sensors over 1.5x crop sensors is that
you can have:
1) more pixels. Which is good for big enlargements, or
2) (in theory) better sensitivity if you keep the number of pixel the same
as in the cropped format, or
3) better colors (you can afford filters that are less efficient).

Bigger sensors make sense if you need one of those three features.

Once sensor technology is stable enough that almost no progress is to be
expected, camera manufacturers are likely to produce sensors with different
trade-offs that are dedicated to specific markets (low-light, large crop
factor, high resolutions, accurate colors, etc.)


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

RichA wrote:
Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
angles?

The thing that doesn't make sense is having these huge lenses which are
designed for a full sensor. For that reason alone, it's inevitable there
will be a push for affordable full size sensors. I would want one for
low noise but I'd also want to keep my D70 for telephoto.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants