Why 1.5x magnification on most DSLRs ?

[marcwang]

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.

 

[yellow_kiwi]

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.

 

[ckiang]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hi All,

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

Thanks in advance.

Ming Huei

 

[Tweek]

Canon 1Ds

 

[Larry]

Originally posted by mig37
May I know if there is any DSLR, at the moment, that has 1x focal length?

Kodak DCS 14-n (Nikon Mount).

 

[mig37]

Hi,

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

Thanks again.

Ming Huei

 

[iceman]

14k and 8k respectively for the 1D and 14-n, i think.

 

[mig37]

Thanks a lot, guys

Ming Huei

 

[neptune]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?