Why 1.5x magnification on most DSLRs ?


Status
Not open for further replies.

marcwang

New Member
Jan 9, 2003
1,112
0
0
East Singapore
www.pbase.com
#1
Whats limiting them from a 1x focal length ? 1.5x mag is detrimental to wide angle photography. I'm not gonna get a DSLR until a reasonably priced model with no magnification comes along. Simply cant afford ultra wides of reasonable quality.
 

Oct 26, 2002
228
0
0
Visit site
#2
then i guess u will have to wait till full-frame DSLRs become the norm...

i'm waiting... still experimenting with films for the moment.;)
 

#3
Among other very cheem technical issues, COST is one of the major one. And it's not easy to make a CCD that big.

If you go on the Nikon platform, the wide angle solution is coming, in the form of the Nikkor AF-S 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF.

There is no such thing as a cheap, fast, distortion-free wide angle, not even for film SLRs. Unfortunate, yes. :(

Regards
CK
 

Shadus

New Member
Jan 17, 2002
841
0
0
43
HWZ?
mylife.clubsnap.org
#4
Simple. The bigger a chip, the higher the chance of a pixel failing. Since consumers *expects* 100% working pixels, now you see how tough the QC needs to be. For 6 megapix DSLR we hv today, this means you've 6 millions pixels all working perfectly.
 

reflecx

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2002
757
0
16
Bishan
reflexaction.awardspace.com
#5
Originally posted by Shadus
Simple. The bigger a chip, the higher the chance of a pixel failing. Since consumers *expects* 100% working pixels, now you see how tough the QC needs to be. For 6 megapix DSLR we hv today, this means you've 6 millions pixels all working perfectly.
Actually, it's highly probable that not all the pixels are working. Those that don't work are remapped via firmware in the camera.
 

clive

Senior Member
Oct 9, 2002
2,537
0
0
Visit site
#6
actually from a simpleminded point of view, 1.5x factor is good coz

(1)200mm/2.8 becomes 300mm/2.8 "for free" (yeah disregarding the slight changes to DOF effects; it never really bothers that much anyway)

(2)400mm becomes 600mm "for free"

(3)500mm becomes 750mm "for free"

(4)so what if wideangles get affected? for nikon's case; a 17-35mm lens becomes a 25-52mm lens which is very naturally wide to naturally normal focal length all rolled as one lens! thats good
 

Larry

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2002
5,499
0
0
45
singapore
www.larryloh.com
#7
clive, not that there's any wrong or right answer answer, but there's always a flip side to your comments as well. this is particularly so for wide-angles. the FLM means that it's next to impossible to obtain "true" wide angles of less than 20mm (disregarding the upcoming 12-24mm Nikkor DX lens).

so while the FLM is a boon for sports shooters for example, the landscape and events people won't be so happy about the lack of wide-angles. so it really depends on the subject matter of choice to see how FLM affects your style of shooting.
 

mervlam

Senior Member
Apr 26, 2002
2,279
0
0
Visit site
#8
guys guys guys~~~ you all still hadn't fully answered his question.

due to a smaller than full frame (ie. 24mm by 36mm) sensor, the field of view is cropped. the cropping results in a focal length multiplier, mostly 1.6x eg. on the 10D, D30, D60, D100.

then why a smaller than full frame sensor? cost is one of main reasons.
 

mig37

New Member
Mar 4, 2003
120
0
0
52
Toa Payoh, Singapore
#9
Hi All,

May I know if there is any DSLR, at the moment, that has 1x focal length?

Thanks in advance. :)

Ming Huei
 

mig37

New Member
Mar 4, 2003
120
0
0
52
Toa Payoh, Singapore
#12
Hi,

How much are those cameras, may I ask? I am very new to DSLR. :embrass:

Thanks again.

Ming Huei
 

neptune

New Member
Mar 25, 2003
60
0
0
Visit site
#15
Its not a real 'upgrade' of 400 to 600mm etc. Its just the CMOS/CCD is too small to accomodate the whole frame.So what you see is the reduced angle captured by the CMOS/CCD. If you compare your shot 400mm with a real 600mm you will notice that its is a cropped 400mm shot while the 600mm truly gives you the same shot magnified to 600mm.

Originally posted by clive
actually from a simpleminded point of view, 1.5x factor is good coz

(1)200mm/2.8 becomes 300mm/2.8 "for free" (yeah disregarding the slight changes to DOF effects; it never really bothers that much anyway)

(2)400mm becomes 600mm "for free"

(3)500mm becomes 750mm "for free"

(4)so what if wideangles get affected? for nikon's case; a 17-35mm lens becomes a 25-52mm lens which is very naturally wide to naturally normal focal length all rolled as one lens! thats good
 

szekiat

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
2,252
0
0
London
Visit site
#16
look at it this way, the saving on the telephoto end definitely outweigh the expense on the wide end eg:

300 f2.8=7000 (N-AFS)
400 f2.8=14000(N-AFS)

As compared:

20mm f2.8=600 (N-AFd)
14mm f2.8=3000 (N-AFd)

See what i mean?:gbounce:
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#17
What Szekiat has said is what I've been saying for a long time. But it goes way beyond that. I can honestly see no benefit to having a full frame sensor at all as opposed to a DX sensor.

If you are keen on finding out why, I'm open to honest questions that I'll answer straightforwardly. But don't ask a general type question because I'm not writing an essay, but if you have a specific concern about DX sensors then feel free.
 

reflecx

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2002
757
0
16
Bishan
reflexaction.awardspace.com
#18
Originally posted by Jed
I can honestly see no benefit to having a full frame sensor at all as opposed to a DX sensor.
Let's see...
1. Bigger sensor, keeping pixel count constant = less noise
2. Can shoot wider angles using existing range of wide angle lenses
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#19
Originally posted by reflecx
Let's see...
1. Bigger sensor, keeping pixel count constant = less noise
2. Can shoot wider angles using existing range of wide angle lenses
I asked for questions... those aren't questions, those are statements of your beliefs, in which case congratulations and keep thinking that way. Now if someone wants to ask a question, feel free.
 

ckhaos

New Member
Dec 28, 2002
64
0
0
Singapore
Visit site
#20
Why not then use the smaller CCDs in the consumer level digital cameras like the G3 in the DSLRs? Then one can get 2x or 3x or 10x or more? Why stop at 1.6x?

What is the optimal crop factor?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom