Full-frame or 1.5 DSLR?

In message ,
RichA wrote:

But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
frame? I think that if Canon did what Nikon did, have a selectable,
internal reduction in the pixel area used to facilitate faster
sequential shooting and longer telephoto reach, they'd have the
perfect camera.

I'd like to see a camera that was just like a high-end P&S, but took my
EOS lenses. The sharper lenses that I currently use with teleconverters
could be used with the finer pixel pitch instead, eliminating light loss
and TC-induced optical problems. A Canon 500mm f/4 L IS on such a
camera (or visa versa) would have tremendous subject resolution. The
4/3 camera go a bit in that direction, but just a bit. I'd like to do
it with a tiny 5MP sensor.
--


John P Sheehy

In message ,
Stacey wrote:

RichA wrote:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:14:53 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

Yes Rich we would all like full frame D-SLR's but they are just too
expensive.

But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
frame?

No way! I want the LARGEST lens I can have on the camera, looks more "Pro"
even if the image quality is the same!

That's good, because the Olympus lenses look bigger than I'd expect from
a 4/3 camera. I saw a guy with an E-1 and a 300mm lens at "the Gates"
in Central Park in February, and I did a double-take when I realized
that the large lens was an Olympus 4/3 lens.
--


John P Sheehy

In message .com,
"wilt" wrote:

Funny how the world rejected Kodak APS film format eventually and went
back to larger 35mm film, yet it is so accepting of the 1.5 crop format
in digital! I finally made the jump to 1.6 crop in Canon simply
because the FF is so d*mn'd unaffordable to all but the rich and the
corporations who provide equipment to staff photos! FF will drop in
price, but I don't want to wait 3-5 years without a DSLR when the price
is attainable to 'everyman'.

It really depends on what you shoot; for someone that shoots small
and/or distant animals, or spies from a distance, a 1.6x 8MP 20D has
more lens-resolving power than any of Canon's FF digitals. It would
take 21MPs to have the same pixel pitch as the 20D. The only thing
finer right now is the Nikon D2X.

If you favor wide-angle stuff, then the full-frame is the best way to
go, especially with a high-MP count.

--


John P Sheehy

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:03:10 GMT, wrote:

In message ,
Stacey wrote:

RichA wrote:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:14:53 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

Yes Rich we would all like full frame D-SLR's but they are just too
expensive.

But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
frame?

No way! I want the LARGEST lens I can have on the camera, looks more "Pro"
even if the image quality is the same!

That's good, because the Olympus lenses look bigger than I'd expect from
a 4/3 camera. I saw a guy with an E-1 and a 300mm lens at "the Gates"
in Central Park in February, and I did a double-take when I realized
that the large lens was an Olympus 4/3 lens.

I wonder why it's as large as it is?
-Rich

I think you're mixing your parameters in your reply, or doing an
incomplete analysis...

a 1.6x 8MP 20D has more lens-resolving power than any of Canon's FF
digitals.

The same lens has to deliver MORE lines per millimeter of sensor or
film area in order to get LENS resolving power, this has nothing to do
with frame size. So for absolute LENS performance the 20D is NOT
better off than the 1Ds MkII (unless you can prove that the EFS lenses
have higher ll/mm than the EF lenses (not!), because they use the same
lenses (except for the EFS). For lens performance they are the same!


As for pixels per square millimeter of frame, the 20D does win. 16
million pixels in 24x36 area vs. 8 million in 15x22.5 area computes to
over 18000 pixels/sq.mm for 1Ds MkII vs. over 24000 pixels/sq.mm for
20D. But that does NOT tell the story!

It would take 21MPs to have the same pixel pitch as the 20D.

Yes, I agree about pixel pitch...I posted a message in another thread
exactly to this point, about why photographers would like a larger
format frame (like FF) with the same pixel pitch as the smaller crop
frame (1.5 or 1.6) to provide results similar to the improved tonality
achieved by MF and LF film photos that take away the viewer's breath in
comparison to the same scene shot on 35mm film...

*But* if you analyze the spec of total pixel count for the same amount
of subject on sensor, the story is different! If the subject on both
formats fits 10% of the total frame length, then the 20D uses 350
pixels for 2.25mm of length on the frame vs the 1Ds 490 pixels in 3.6mm
length on the frame, for the same subject; or 490^2 pixel area vs.
350^2 pixel area for the same subject on sensor. Or 240000 square
pixels in the 1Ds to portray the same amount of subject as 123000
square pixels in the 20D! So the 1Ds wins on tonality due to more
pixels for the same amount of subject on sensor...exactly why LF and MF
images have tonality advantage over 35mm images for the same subject.

I own the 20D; I cannot afford $8k for a single 1Ds MkII camera, so the
analysis does not bother me. Your statement is wrong about the
comparative performance of the 20D vs. the 1Ds MkII (or even vs. the
1Ds MkI).

--Wilt

In message .com,
"wilt" wrote:

I think you're mixing your parameters in your reply, or doing an
incomplete analysis...

a 1.6x 8MP 20D has more lens-resolving power than any of Canon's FF
digitals.

The same lens has to deliver MORE lines per millimeter of sensor or
film area in order to get LENS resolving power, this has nothing to do
with frame size.

I was talking about pixel pitch; not frame size. The mention of frame
size was to bring out the point that none of Canon's high-MP (11 and
16.7) FF cameras can resolve subject detail as well as the 20D (or
RebelXT, for that matter), with the same lens.

So for absolute LENS performance the 20D is NOT

For a subject smaller than the 20D frame, with the same lens, the 20D
(and XT) outresolve the 1Ds and 1DsmkII in terms of subject detail. Who
cares about all the extra pixels with no extra subject detail?

better off than the 1Ds MkII (unless you can prove that the EFS lenses
have higher ll/mm than the EF lenses (not!), because they use the same
lenses (except for the EFS). For lens performance they are the same!

The lens projects an analog image on the sensor. The pixel pitch of the
sensor determines how well the lens is resolved.

As for pixels per square millimeter of frame, the 20D does win. 16
million pixels in 24x36 area vs. 8 million in 15x22.5 area computes to
over 18000 pixels/sq.mm for 1Ds MkII vs. over 24000 pixels/sq.mm for
20D. But that does NOT tell the story!

It would take 21MPs to have the same pixel pitch as the 20D.

Yes, I agree about pixel pitch...I posted a message in another thread
exactly to this point, about why photographers would like a larger
format frame (like FF) with the same pixel pitch as the smaller crop
frame (1.5 or 1.6) to provide results similar to the improved tonality
achieved by MF and LF film photos that take away the viewer's breath in
comparison to the same scene shot on 35mm film...

*But* if you analyze the spec of total pixel count for the same amount
of subject on sensor, the story is different! If the subject on both
formats fits 10% of the total frame length, then the 20D uses 350
pixels for 2.25mm of length on the frame vs the 1Ds 490 pixels in 3.6mm
length on the frame, for the same subject; or 490^2 pixel area vs.
350^2 pixel area for the same subject on sensor. Or 240000 square
pixels in the 1Ds to portray the same amount of subject as 123000
square pixels in the 20D! So the 1Ds wins on tonality due to more
pixels for the same amount of subject on sensor...exactly why LF and MF
images have tonality advantage over 35mm images for the same subject.

That has nothing to do with what I said. I said *WITH THE SAME LENS*.
Your analogy changes lenses (or absolute focal lengths).

If your best lens is a 500mm f4L IS, a 1Ds mkII is not going to get a
higher resolution of that little bird than the 20D. Period.

--


John P Sheehy

wrote:

In message ,
Stacey wrote:


No way! I want the LARGEST lens I can have on the camera, looks more "Pro"
even if the image quality is the same!

That's good, because the Olympus lenses look bigger than I'd expect from
a 4/3 camera. I saw a guy with an E-1 and a 300mm lens at "the Gates"
in Central Park in February, and I did a double-take when I realized
that the large lens was an Olympus 4/3 lens.

Yea it's a LOT larger than the Canon 400mm F2.8.

Or does FOV not apply when comparing a canon to an OM and but it does
comparing a FF canon to a APS-c one?

--

Stacey

wrote in message
news
In message ,
RichA wrote:

But if you were shooting telephoto, wouldn't you rather carry
around a 10lb 400mm lens with 1.5 than a 17lb 600mm lens with a full
frame? I think that if Canon did what Nikon did, have a selectable,
internal reduction in the pixel area used to facilitate faster
sequential shooting and longer telephoto reach, they'd have the
perfect camera.

I'd like to see a camera that was just like a high-end P&S, but took my
EOS lenses.

You can, either the 300D or 350D fit the bill.

In article , says...
Or does FOV not apply when comparing a canon to an OM and but it does
comparing a FF canon to a APS-c one?

A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens. The FOV is a retarded point of
comparison.

--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

John,
The mention of frame size was to bring out the point that none of
Canon's high-MP (11 and
16.7) FF cameras can resolve subject detail as well as the 20D (or
RebelXT, for that matter), with the same lens.

But the lens has to deliver its resolution to the sensor, at a FIXED
resolution of the lens. If a lens can resolve 60 lines/mm in air, and
if the subject fills a 3.6mm section of the FF sensor and a 2,2mm
section of the 1.6 format sensor, what the sensor sees is 3.6x60= 216
lines on FF, and 132 lines on the 1.6 crop. The image is LESS
resolution for the same subject in the 1.6 crop frame! It does not
matter that the sensor has more pixels per mm in the 20D sensor, as the
same section of the total image fills 350 pixels (20D) vs. 490 pixels
(1Ds MkII). So you lose with 1.6 crop on TWO counts...delivered
resolution to the sensor and in terms of number of pixels used to
represent the same subject!

The lens projects an analog image on the sensor. The pixel pitch of
the sensor determines how well the lens is resolved.

But as I have shown above, 3.6mm x 60 line pairs/mm = 216 lines pairs
on FF, and 2.2mm x 60 line pairs s/mm = 132 line pairs on the 1.6 crop
to show the same subject in air. *Less subject resolution on sensor*
for the 1.6 crop with the same 60 ll/mm resolution lens on both
cameras.
For a 4x5 print, you would enlarge the FF by 4x, which results in
216/4.4 = 49 line pairs/mm of subject on paper. You would enlarge 1.6
crop by 6.7x for final 132 / 6.7 = 20 line pairs of subject on paper.
*Less final subject resolution on print* for the same magnfication
print from both cameras.

--Wilt