Full Frame vs. Non-full frame sensor

[Matthew]

Hi all.

It's obvious that full frame sensors hold superiority over their smaller cousins. I happen to own one of the smaller cousins (Love my XT!), and as such have wondered what the practical difference is in image quality. I'm not talking resolution, I'm talking artifacts, etc.

Does anyone have any pictures taken to demonstrate this or know of any sites that do?

[George Riehm]

Just curious, as it isn't obvious to me: Other than increased wide-angle capability, what other specific advantages do full frame sensors offer? Please use specific references as speculation doesn't count.

Thanks.

[Jason25]

I like telephoto, so Nikon's DX format is just fine with me :)

[Rhys]

Full-frame offers many advantages. The first is that you can finally get the shallow depth of field you used to on 35mm. It also means viewfinders can be bigger and brighter. I'm all in favour of big, bright viewfinders, having used the pokey little things they provide on most digital cameras. It also means that pixels can be larger and hence more light-sensitive.

[Ray Schnoor]

It also means that pixels can be larger and hence more light-sensitive.
This only holds true if in a race to be better(i.e. more MP) than other manufacturers, they do not continue to increase the # of pixels in the sensor. Otherwise, the pixels will not be larger and more light-sensitive.

[Rhys]

This only holds true if in a race to be better(i.e. more MP) than other manufacturers, they do not continue to increase the # of pixels in the sensor. Otherwise, the pixels will not be larger and more light-sensitive.

But even if they double the number of pixels they can still be bigger on a 35mm chip.

[Ray Schnoor]

But even if they double the number of pixels they can still be bigger on a 35mm chip.
Although they can increase the MP by quite a bit, they can't quite double it before they reach the same pixel density.

To have the same pixel density as the original Digital Rebel, they can only go up to 16.5 MP or 4972 x 3319 pixels. To have the same pixel density as the Digital Rebel XT, though, they can go up to 20.9 MP or 5593 x 3734 pixels.

I would also think that the successor to the 5D will be at least 16 MP if not more.

[Rhys]

Although they can increase the MP by quite a bit, they can't quite double it before they reach the same pixel density.

To have the same pixel density as the original Digital Rebel, they can only go up to 16.5 MP or 4972 x 3319 pixels. To have the same pixel density as the Digital Rebel XT, though, they can go up to 20.9 MP or 5593 x 3734 pixels.

I would also think that the successor to the 5D will be at least 16 MP if not more.

The big question is though - how many megapixels is enough? Another big question is - how are we going to store it all?

We've seen the rise of floppy-drives to store photos with the original Mavica. Then we saw CD-based Mavicas. Now we're getting gigantic file sizes that mean very few photos will fit on a CD and not that many on a DVD.

[coldrain]

Besides the main advantages of knowing 35mm film focal lenghts are what it says on the lens, and a bigger view finder, and with the Canans at least very good dynamic range, there are some drawbacks too.
You need to take care in the lenses you use, since the cameras tend o show weaknesses of the lens clearly. Softness towards the corner, vignetting, a bigger falloff towards the corner (bigger than with 35mm film, probably has to do with the angle that the light hits the sensor with? A strange phenomenon), it all will show.

With good glass and taking the falloff into account, you do have great cameras though.. Of course if your wish is for a longer tele range, a 1.5 or 1.6x crop sensor may be more your cup of tea.

[ReF]

i don't really see many advantages to FF other than having more surface area to cram more pixels in and not having to deal with the crop factor when using wide angle lenses. according to DP review the 5D doesn't improve much over the 20d in noise and dynamic range. the wide angle issue has already been handled with the release of 10 or 12mm lenses, although there aren't really any large aperture ultra wides YET and nikon is the only one with a diagonal fisheye replacement. manufacturers can build a larger viewfinder if they want to. i really enjoy the added reach i get with telephoto lenses on the crop factor, as well as leaving the optically poorest parts of FF lenses out of the frame. the crop factor helps with macro too. the only thing that really bothers me about APS-C sensors is the lack of a good and affordable 50mm prime lens replacement, at least from canon. the 35L costs mad $$$ and i'm not too crazy about the idea of spending $400 for a 3rd party, digital only lens (sigma 30mm f1.4).

[Rhys]

The beauty of Canon's system of full frame, 1.3x crop and 1.6x crop is that you can choose the crop factor to suit you.

[ktixx]

...according to DP review the 5D doesn't improve much over the 20d in noise and dynamic range...

Forget the Camera's 6-8 stops of Dynamic Range, Spend $500 and create your own photo's with 10-12 stops using Photoshop CS2's HDR function. I think it will be a LONG time before we see a camera that can record that much DR
Ken