Ned Bunnell's blog 'editorial'

[skypacker]

Interesting read for those who haven't seen the latest post from Ned-B.

http://nedbunnell.blogspot.com/2009/...ts-by-spa.html

Quote: "In our case, if we developed a full frame camera, it's likely that very few of our recent DA lenses (those designed for APS-C) would be able to properly fill the viewing area of this new sensor. And although we have some wonderful FA lenses, like my favorite FA 31mm Limited, I'm not sure even this lens would be up to the optical challenge. I know that our engineers have studied these issues and would probably not agree totally with my simplistic explanation. However, I think it's important to understand that going to a full frame sensor means not only having to design a brand new camera from ground up, but likely a new line of lenses that meet the more demanding optical requirements"

I hope Pentax continues along the APS-C path and develops better AF systems and faster lenses. I personally have zero interest in FF except for the viewfinder size. I am happy with the noise levels on the K20D for my shooting style, and I like the 'free' 1.5x focal length extension at the cost of the wide end.

[watchthewaves]

He's getting in on the teasing too -- the camera sitting in the photo there -- the new K-7

[hjbyeo]

What a teaser!

[knyghtfall81]

Originally Posted by skypacker lenses. I personally have zero interest in FF except for the viewfinder size. I am happy with the noise levels on the K20D for my shooting style, and I like the 'free' 1.5x focal length extension at the cost of the wide end.

thanks for the link, interesting read. Think the FF vs APS C is a matter of shooting style tho. Anyway, the free 1.5x focal length extension is really an illusion - you can shoot on full frame, crop the image to the equivalent you get on APS-C sensor, and you have the same thing. This of course doesn't apply the other way round..

Me personally, given that all my lenses are FF, you can guess my preference.
Now that they're coming up with the 645D with its bigger sensor, a 35mm FF sensor shouldn't be that hard to make.

Not sure about his comments on the lens not living up to the FF sensor tho, given that film negatives can have resolutions higher than digital sensors. Agree that given that the film negative and digital sensor function in different ways, the older FF lenses may not be optimised for digital FF. But given that they function well enough on the cropped APS-C, logically the same sensor but expanded to FF size should function just as well?

[darrrrrrrrrr]

i think digital sensor photosites require light to hit it straight on to register, whereas the film isn't picky about light direction. so you'll get plenty of light fall-off at the edges and lousy corner performance on a FF sensor? whereas the aps-c sensor uses the sweet-spot of the FF lens' image circle so there are no problems in using most decent film lenses on crop sensors.

[scorpioh]

It's not just the sensor. I think that is not too much of a technical hurdle. The main issue here is the whole lens lineup. Going FF needs a revamp and it makes no sense given their (and many of our) investment on APS-C Lenses.

[matchkk]

Originally Posted by knyghtfall81 thanks for the link, interesting read. Think the FF vs APS C is a matter of shooting style tho. Anyway, the free 1.5x focal length extension is really an illusion - you can shoot on full frame, crop the image to the equivalent you get on APS-C sensor, and you have the same thing. This of course doesn't apply the other way round.. Me personally, given that all my lenses are FF, you can guess my preference. Now that they're coming up with the 645D with its bigger sensor, a 35mm FF sensor shouldn't be that hard to make. Not sure about his comments on the lens not living up to the FF sensor tho, given that film negatives can have resolutions higher than digital sensors. Agree that given that the film negative and digital sensor function in different ways, the older FF lenses may not be optimised for digital FF. But given that they function well enough on the cropped APS-C, logically the same sensor but expanded to FF size should function just as well?

The 1.5x chop factor is solid. This is not only about the chop on the sensor, but also the "chop" of the weight. A DA*200mm 2.8 will work like a FA*300mm 2.8 but the weight of FA*300 2.8 (2495g) is about 3 times of DA*200 (825g).

An ASP-C body is also about 50-60% of the weight (K-m: 625g), D60: 522g) of any FF (D700 :995g, 5DMkII: 810g).

So this is really solid and it is a matter of the shooting style.

[skypacker]

Originally Posted by knyghtfall81 thanks for the link, interesting read. Think the FF vs APS C is a matter of shooting style tho. Anyway, the free 1.5x focal length extension is really an illusion - you can shoot on full frame, crop the image to the equivalent you get on APS-C sensor, and you have the same thing. This of course doesn't apply the other way round..

True, it is a 'crop'; but to get the same amount of detail/quality for the equivalent (to APS-C) FOV from a FF sensor, the FF sensor needs to have a much higher megapixel count isn't it?

Eg, a 100 mm on the K20D = 14mp image corresponding to FOV of 150 mm of a FF.

Now, using the same 100mm lens on the FF, I want a 14 mp crop ( so the level of detail is not sacrificed) corresponding to the FOV of 150 mm.

K20D
-----
Resolution = 4672 x 3104 px
Sensor = 23.6 x 15.7 mm
Linear pixel density = 4672/23.8 = ~ 196 px/mm

FF
----
Sensor = 36 x 24 mm
Required resolution to get a 14 mp crop with the same amount of detail as the K20D
= (36 x 196 = 7056) + (24 x 196 = 4704)
= 33191424 pixels
= 33.1 mp

So, the 1.5 x crop is really useful for tele if you are shooting APS-C, otherwise to get the same level of detail after cropping the FF output, you need to go to very high resolution sensors.

Also, my calculation/reasoning could be wrong...I havent read deeply about this topic , and I would gladly stand corrected.

[dnaxe]

Skypacker is right, you lose megapixels by shooting full frame then cropping.

I can't face checking the maths, but the 24.5mp D3X in crop mode only produces 10.9MP images.

14MP and 10.9MP may not be a huge difference for some applications, but...

The other thing is that you apparently get more depth of field, which I think is actually useful generally.

[flowerpot]

more MP in a smaller area doesn't mean u can capture "better" details... if thats the case than all the compacts would have outguns all the DSLRs...

top end commercial photographers uses medium format (although they are 20 over MPs)to print hugh posters size ads for a reason...

the amount of details diff between is too hugh if u compare them...

i think Mike Jonhson has written about this i can't really remember...

anyway which has better details...a 10MP compact or a 6MP DSLR with the same FOV of the same image...

[fengwei]

I'd sure love to have a FF Pentax dSLR camera, if the price is within my reach

FF isn't guaranteed to make better photos, but a bigger sensor will sure have some advantages. For now, I'll just live w/ whatever Pentax has to offer...

[pinholecam]

Originally Posted by darrrrrrrrrr i think digital sensor photosites require light to hit it straight on to register, whereas the film isn't picky about light direction. so you'll get plenty of light fall-off at the edges and lousy corner performance on a FF sensor? whereas the aps-c sensor uses the sweet-spot of the FF lens' image circle so there are no problems in using most decent film lenses on crop sensors.

FF is really an "old mans want" IMO. I can understand the need when 1.5x crop 1st came out, there were no wide angle lenses as the "old guys" found that the 'standard wide' 28mm was now closer to 'normal'. But this has already been addressed with new 10-20, 12-24, 16-50, etc. There is of course the argument on pixel quality but who has the $$$ to print every print as poster sized? In fact poster or larger display sizes will need a further viewing distance, which negates the pixelation.FF also can make a 'good' lens 'worse' as mentioned in Ned's post and by darrrrr.The 1.5x crop factor is actually using the better performing center of the 35mm format lens.

The only downside has been increased depth of field (again arguably a negative point, since macro shooter gain a tad bit more).

[skypacker]

Originally Posted by flowerpot more MP in a smaller area doesn't mean u can capture "better" details... if thats the case than all the compacts would have outguns all the DSLRs... top end commercial photographers uses medium format (although they are 20 over MPs)to print hugh posters size ads for a reason... the amount of details diff between is too hugh if u compare them... i think Mike Jonhson has written about this i can't really remember... anyway which has better details...a 10MP compact or a 6MP DSLR with the same FOV of the same image...

True, mp count is not everything, but a well exposed 12-14 mp capture with low noise and good detail (say, ISO 100-400) will beat out an equivalent FOV crop from a 12-14 mp FF, no?

Higher megapixels on a small sensor are a problem because of the electrical noise and dynamic range limitations, not anything else (well, maybe diffraction too, but that's a different story).

The FFs had an advantage so far because they were in the same resolution range as the APS-C ( 12 mp) but with larger photosites and lower pixel density due to the larger sensor size. But a pixel can store only one value for color/luminosity/whatever. FF cannot change that.

I feel that, at the end of the day, a 14 mp APS-C sensor will hold more 'raw' detail than a 8-10 mp crop from the FF. How the image processor handles the data is another matter.

If you put 33 mp on a FF sensor, I don't think it's going to be any better than the 14mp K20D. If noise can be controlled on the FF with that high pixel density, then the same technology can be applied to the APS-C, isn't it? If FFs do hit the 30 mp mark, then it will be interesting to do a comparison, since the pixel density will be in the same ballpark as the current APS-Cs.

Take the A900 for eg., it's 24 mp, but relatively noisy. I have no data for comparison, but I doubt it can kill the K20D from ISO 100-400, if you make an APS-C FOV crop from it, especially considering the price difference.

[dnaxe]

on the 10MP P&S vs. 6MP dSLR, look at this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

I would agree, with skypacker, that it is unlikely that a cropped image from a A900 at ISO 100-400 will "kill" the K20d.

[flowerpot]

why would anyone buy a FF and use it as a crop ?? isn't this defeating the purpose of FF...

u cannot compare a APC with a crop FF, its like comparing an adult and a child...make no sense... u wanna compare... then it should be on the same FOV... same lens... which means u have to move forward on a FF...

do u see someone shooting with a medium format then crop to FF FOV ?? make no sense... u use it as it is and compose as it is... the details would blow anything away...

[skypacker]

Originally Posted by flowerpot why would anyone buy a FF and use it as a crop ?? isn't this defeating the purpose of FF...

Which is exactly the point I am trying to make.

See the last (edit: lol not first. typo) part of my post #18.