Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 58 of 58

Thread: APS-C in a compact?

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Shunfu Road, Singapore
    Posts
    2,465

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Sorry, you guys are very confusing. 35mm refers to the width of a 35mm roll of film where a full image frame is 36mm x 24mm. So if you need to refer to the sensor size of a DSLR of the same format, then it's called 135.
    Home is where the heart is.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Override2Zion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Singapore/Bangkok Thailand
    Posts
    2,111

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    Do you see DSLRs dying out because of the NEX? Nope. If anything, photogs are buying these as lightweight travel/backup cams.
    I agree with this. Having APS-C sensors in PnS cameras simply adds to the number of choices we have. Its a good idea and I wouldn't mind getting one of those as a camera that i would use for casual outings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmatt View Post
    So why do we need 35mm full-frame sized sensors?
    On full frame, same lens, same aperture and focal length, you get more bokeh. Also wider angle of view, landscapist would love it. Sports people will hate it
    Last edited by Override2Zion; 17th December 2010 at 04:23 PM.
    Nikon D200/D700/D800 User :)
    [www.PositiveStudioProductions.com]

  3. #43

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Override2Zion View Post
    I agree with this. Having APS-C sensors in PnS cameras simply adds to the number of choices we have. Its a good idea and I wouldn't mind getting one of those as a camera that i would use for casual outings.

    On full frame, same lens, same aperture and focal length, you get more bokeh. Also wider angle of view, landscapist would love it. Sports people will hate it

    The current lot of EVIL cameras offered up by Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and Olympus are fairly serious units with very good quality native mount lens selections and a wide variety of adapters for most lens ranges out there. In addition they cost as much as a DSLR. Backup cams they are not. These cameras are the future of photography to me.


    Your comment on full-frame is not relevant to the issue. Your comment regards the use of a full-frame lens on a cropped body. This doesn't mean anything as manufacturers are producing lenses native to APS-C sensor (cropped) bodies anyway. Therefore there is no disadvantage to the APS-C body.

    The benefit of full-frame is allegedly the larger sensor. But this is effectively countered by the modern APS-C sensor. Therefore I argue that full-frame is pointless.
    Samsung NX10+30mm, Fuji S6500FD

  4. #44
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Quote Originally Posted by ismokeweed79 View Post
    Looks pretty sick to me .. hope its more affordable compared to the M9
    1k USD. that is the target price.

  5. #45

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmatt View Post
    Actually I wonder if there is a need to go to 35mm at all. We aren't physically developing film to prints anymore - so size of sensor is not a factor. The aspects that matter are resolution, dynamic range and noise. With new sensor technology the APS-C is already doing well enough in all three items.

    So why do we need 35mm full-frame sized sensors?
    shallow depth of field.
    At the same distance (to subject) and field of view, an APS-C sensor will never achieve the same shallow depth of field that a full frame can achieve.

    also less distortion at ultra wide angles.
    Last edited by torak; 17th December 2010 at 10:43 PM.

  6. #46

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Quote Originally Posted by torak View Post
    shallow depth of field. At the same distance and field of view, an APS-C sensor will never achieve the same shallow depth of field that a full frame can achieve.

    also less distortion at ultra wide angles.
    And more UWA options, and the ability to have high resolution with incredible low-light capability far beyond APS-C capabilities, like the D3/D3s.
    Alpha

  7. #47
    Senior Member Override2Zion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Singapore/Bangkok Thailand
    Posts
    2,111

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmatt View Post
    In addition they cost as much as a DSLR. Backup cams they are not. These cameras are the future of photography to me.
    Hey chill bro, don't need to be over protective about your opinions and my views. Freedom of speech, my comments about this new generation of camera are mine solely, others may beg to differ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmatt View Post
    Your comment on full-frame is not relevant to the issue. Your comment regards the use of a full-frame lens on a cropped body. This doesn't mean anything as manufacturers are producing lenses native to APS-C sensor (cropped) bodies anyway. Therefore there is no disadvantage to the APS-C body.

    The benefit of full-frame is allegedly the larger sensor. But this is effectively countered by the modern APS-C sensor. Therefore I argue that full-frame is pointless.
    Again, I was only stating the answers to your "why 35mm" question. I didn't even mentioning anything about Full Frame sensor in "cropped body". And there is no such thing as "cropped body", D300 and D700 are about the same size, D2x is bigger than D700... I wonder how you would categorize them as "cropped bodies" or "full bodies"? I'm not the one that raised any issue about 35mm. You ask a question you get an answer. Don't take things so seriously yah?

    Quote Originally Posted by torak View Post
    shallow depth of field.
    At the same distance (to subject) and field of view, an APS-C sensor will never achieve the same shallow depth of field that a full frame can achieve.

    also less distortion at ultra wide angles.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    And more UWA options, and the ability to have high resolution with incredible low-light capability far beyond APS-C capabilities, like the D3/D3s.
    Others have also answered your question haven't they?
    Last edited by Override2Zion; 17th December 2010 at 11:48 PM.
    Nikon D200/D700/D800 User :)
    [www.PositiveStudioProductions.com]

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Er, re: the last two posts above (torak/rashkae), only "shallow depth of field" is a true larger-sensor advantage. Wide angles - actually any focal length - are easier to make for any smaller sensor over a bigger one, simply by virtue of the fact that the required image circle is smaller. For the same lens design and quality, less glass is involved. Less weight, less aberrations, less distortion, less complications in the manufacturing process. Everything is easier with smaller sensors, hence the emergence of so many PnS with quality glass.

    Smaller sensors also require a smaller flange distance, so the focal length which lenses start becoming retro-focal is a lot wider, actually giving the wide angle advantage to smaller sensors. UWA availability is more a market situation than a fullframe advantage over "cropped-frames", due to FF being around a lot longer.

    As for low light capability, it's inherently a sensor technology thing. You cut an "incredibly low-light capable" full frame sensor in half, both halves have the same low light sensitivity. Nothing to do with sensor size. Conversely, it is actually easier to make faster lenses with smaller sensors (smaller image circle => less glass, etc), hence we have the 4/3 f2.0 zooms emerging. Again, for "low-light", advantage goes to smaller sensors.
    Last edited by ST1100; 17th December 2010 at 11:59 PM.

  9. #49

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Quote Originally Posted by ST1100 View Post
    As for low light capability, it's inherently a sensor technology thing. You cut an "incredibly low-light capable" full frame sensor in half, both halves have the same low light sensitivity. Nothing to do with sensor size. Conversely, it is actually easier to make faster lenses with smaller sensors (smaller image circle => less glass, etc), hence we have the 4/3 f2.0 zooms emerging. Again, for "low-light", advantage goes to smaller sensors.
    If by your theory that smaller sensor = better low light performance, then those 12mp pns sensors will have the best ISO performance, since they're so much smaller than DSLR sized sensors.


    The D3S is the best low light, high ISO DSLR right now, and it has such good low light capability partly due to its low pixel density of having only 12mp in a full frame sensor.

    I understand that sensors are getting better nowadays, with 16-18mp APS-C sensors having good high ISO performance. However, if u take the same sensor technology and use it on a full frame, with such a low pixel density, it will still perform even better at ISO noise control.

  10. #50
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Quote Originally Posted by android17 View Post
    If by your theory that smaller sensor = better low light performance, then those 12mp pns sensors will have the best ISO performance, since they're so much smaller than DSLR sized sensors.


    The D3S is the best low light, high ISO DSLR right now, and it has such good low light capability partly due to its low pixel density of having only 12mp in a full frame sensor.

    I understand that sensors are getting better nowadays, with 16-18mp APS-C sensors having good high ISO performance. However, if u take the same sensor technology and use it on a full frame, with such a low pixel density, it will still perform even better at ISO noise control.
    you take the D3s sensor break cut it into APS-C sensor size... and the ISO capability will still be the same as the full D3s sensor... But you get less MP and resolution...

    Simple physics.

  11. #51

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    i guess u don understand pixel density.

    less density = less noise, thus the d3s having 12mp in a full frame sensor means its hving a much lower pixel density, thus making it the best low light high iso dslr.

    aps-c sensors squeezing 18mp into it will not give u such a good high iso noise control. similarly, if the d3s has 24mp instead of only 12mp, it will not be as good as it is now.

  12. #52
    Member dannyfoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    650

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    If ppl here talking so much sense, so good in camera engineering, I'm waiting for the next camera brand made in Singapore.
    flickr
    ... I'm not a photographer yet.....

  13. #53

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Quote Originally Posted by dannyfoxy View Post
    If ppl here talking so much sense, so good in camera engineering, I'm waiting for the next camera brand made in Singapore.
    Look at Red. :P
    Alpha

  14. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Quote Originally Posted by android17 View Post
    i guess u don understand pixel density.

    less density = less noise, thus the d3s having 12mp in a full frame sensor means its hving a much lower pixel density, thus making it the best low light high iso dslr.

    aps-c sensors squeezing 18mp into it will not give u such a good high iso noise control. similarly, if the d3s has 24mp instead of only 12mp, it will not be as good as it is now.
    If you take the D3 sensor and trim its sides to 1.5x crop, it would be a 5.1mp sensor, with the same density. All things equal, it would have exactly the same ISO capability as the original D3 sensor. If the sensor is further trimmed to the size of a typical 1/1.7" PnS sensor, it would be a 0.6mp camera - with exactly the same ISO capability as the D3. And yes, it would be easier to make faster lenses for that PnS sensor than the D3, due to its incredibly small image circle compared to the 36x24 sensor.

    "Less density = less noise" is true. However, this is true of ALL sensor sizes. Pixel density is totally irrelevant in a sensor size discussion. Nobody is discussing pixel density as a variable here, dunno why you even brought it up.
    Last edited by ST1100; 18th December 2010 at 11:50 PM.

  15. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Shunfu Road, Singapore
    Posts
    2,465

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Quote Originally Posted by ST1100 View Post
    If you take the D3 sensor and trim its sides to 1.5x crop, it would be a 5.1mp sensor, with the same density. All things equal, it would have exactly the same ISO capability as the original D3 sensor. If the sensor is further trimmed to the size of a typical 1/1.7" PnS sensor, it would be a 0.6mp camera - with exactly the same ISO capability as the D3. And yes, it would be easier to make faster lenses for that PnS sensor than the D3, due to its incredibly small image circle compared to the 36x24 sensor.

    "Less density = less noise" is true. However, this is true of ALL sensor sizes. Pixel density is totally irrelevant in a sensor size discussion. Nobody is discussing pixel density as a variable here, dunno why you even brought it up.
    I am lost. Are you saying that pixel density is constant across all sensor sizes?
    Home is where the heart is.

  16. #56

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Lee View Post
    I am lost. Are you saying that pixel density is constant across all sensor sizes?
    Nope, it is not. From what I know, the lower the pixel density, the lower the noise as more sensor 'space' is used to measure the light reaching each pixel.

    Therefore, all other things (like sensor technology) remaining constant, PnS having big megapixel count but a small sensor tend to be noisier, as compared to their DSLR counterparts, which contain a bigger sensor.

  17. #57

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    i believe DSLR would never be replaced but the compacts would be a lovely backup camera to the DSLR on occasions such as going on travel... the fujifilm seriously seems cool, i would love to have it as my back up cam!

  18. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default Re: APS-C in a compact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Lee View Post
    I am lost. Are you saying that pixel density is constant across all sensor sizes?
    No, i apologize for the confusion. The argument has gone off tangent a bit. The original discussion was on the merits/shortcomings of fullframe sensors. i'm just replying a specific post, pointing out that pixel density is an independent variable where sensor size is concerned, at least at the design stage. You can freely choose the sensor size and pixel density at the design stage, without one having any influence on the other.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •