Why full-frame?

A lot of people here seem concerned whether a digital camera has a
full-frame sensor or not. But why is that important, and what's special
about 35mm such that people aren't dreaming of, say, a 50mm sensor? The
sensor could be any size (barring technological problems) as long as the
lens puts light on all of it.

--
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to
the Internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Wilensky

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...

A lot of people here seem concerned whether a digital camera has a
full-frame sensor or not. But why is that important, and what's special
about 35mm such that people aren't dreaming of, say, a 50mm sensor? The
sensor could be any size (barring technological problems) as long as the
lens puts light on all of it.


There are two advantages to a "full frame" sensor, one specific to its size,
wide angle lenses designed for 35mm film perform as they were designed on a
digital, as opposed to some multiple thereof. My 16-35 works the same on my
5D as it would on my 1n, as opposed to looking like a 26mm-56mm on my 20D.
The other has to do with the actual size of the pixels, larger pixels tend
to have better noise characteristics, and, in my opinion, give smoother
tonal transitions than smaller pixels. Some argue that smaller pixels give
better detail, and that may be true, I'm not sure what I'm seeing is that,
or merely the result of subject material.
And some people are dreaming of sensors larger than 35mm, in medium format
cameras, such already exist, with room to "grow!" The only limitation to
sensor size is the image circle of the lenses in question, lenses designed
for 35mm film are pretty maxed out at that sensor size, and the mount sizes,
being designed for either that format or for the lenses designed for that
format, probably limits any increases there.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
A lot of people here seem concerned whether a digital camera has a
full-frame sensor or not. But why is that important, and what's special
about 35mm such that people aren't dreaming of, say, a 50mm sensor? The
sensor could be any size (barring technological problems) as long as the
lens puts light on all of it.

--
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to
the Internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Wilensky

Full frame is great, if you can afford it. It gives you a lot of
choices for wide-angle lenses. On the 20D, with a crop factor of 1.6, I
can get the 11-22 Canon lens that is designed for the smaller sensors,
but this is a pretty pricey lens. With a full frame sensor there is a
much larger selection. In time there will likely be more lenses
designed for APS sized sensors but at this point in time the picking
are pretty slim.

And of course if you already own a number of wide angle lenses for your
film camera going to a less then full frame digital and losing much of
your FOV is not too pleasant of a thought.

A full frame sensor also can have more pixels and still have pixels
that are as large as the 20D, this is another good thing.

For myself I find that most of the time I am wishing to take a wide
angle photo I can easily do so with stitching. There are some real
limitations of wide-angle lenses, even if you have a full frame sensor,
they tend to go soft in the corners.

Scott

In article ,
says...

A lot of people here seem concerned whether a digital camera has a
full-frame sensor or not. But why is that important, and what's special
about 35mm such that people aren't dreaming of, say, a 50mm sensor? The
sensor could be any size (barring technological problems) as long as the
lens puts light on all of it.

It's a system thing. I want my wides to be wide and my mids to be mids.

Nikon have done a fairly good job with the DX approach, but I think it's
just a stop-gap, which is why I won't buy into it just yet.

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
A lot of people here seem concerned whether a digital camera has a
full-frame sensor or not. But why is that important, and what's
special about 35mm such that people aren't dreaming of, say, a 50mm
sensor? The sensor could be any size (barring technological
problems) as long as the lens puts light on all of it.

Because there's a glut of existing 35mm lenses, and people would like them
to work as designed.

Were it not for the pre-existence of these lenses, the "DSLR" would have
likely taken on very different sensor characteristics.

Scott W wrote:

There are some real
limitations of wide-angle lenses, even if you have a full frame sensor,
they tend to go soft in the corners.



MMMMmmmm...

I want one of them (what are they called?) cameras which give you soft
corners with wide-angles lenses....

YESSSssss.... Dreamy!

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

A lot of people here seem concerned whether a digital camera has a
full-frame sensor or not.

On rec.photo.equipment.35mm? I think you have the wrong newsgroup. That
'Nikon as Pentax' thread is crossposted.

But why is that important, and what's special about 35mm such that people
aren't dreaming of, say, a 50mm sensor? The sensor could be any size
(barring technological problems) as long as the lens puts light on all of
it.

Check this out: http://www.gigapxl.org/technology-format.htm

In article SUwjf.10219$pF.458@fed1read04,
Mark² mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
Were it not for the pre-existence of these lenses, the "DSLR" would have
likely taken on very different sensor characteristics.

You mean like the 4/3 format, that doesn't seem to really offer anything
that can't be found in Canon or Nikon's cameras based on APS-C sized
sensors?


--
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

Having owned several DSLRs and my current flock of them containing a Full
Frame 5D, I can say with some conviction that the 5D has a better quality
image than a 20D. Wether this is because of evolution or some inherent
design improvement by using bigger pixels, I cannot say. All I know in that
area is the 20D took better pictures than my 10D and the 5D takes better
pictures than the 20D. I use a $1000 lens on the 5D and get wide field of
view like I had almost forgotten existed.


--

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...

A lot of people here seem concerned whether a digital camera has a
full-frame sensor or not. But why is that important, and what's special
about 35mm such that people aren't dreaming of, say, a 50mm sensor? The
sensor could be any size (barring technological problems) as long as the
lens puts light on all of it.

--
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to
the Internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Wilensky

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...

A lot of people here seem concerned whether a digital camera has a
full-frame sensor or not. But why is that important, and what's special
about 35mm such that people aren't dreaming of, say, a 50mm sensor? The
sensor could be any size (barring technological problems) as long as the
lens puts light on all of it.


There is the fact that a wide angle lens won't be quite as wide on a less
than full frame sensor, and all the rest is mere marketing hype.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com