View Full Version : Simply Sensor Size
It is interesting to note that the current controversy on sensor sizes has parallels to the struggle of the film formats in the first half of last century. Then all the arguments like loss of wide-angle capacity and lower resolution were used against the new miniature format Leica had introduced.Only after WWII did 35 mm film finally get dominant versus 6x9 and sheet film. It is very funny really, to see this mini-format presented as large now. Anyway, now as then there is a great confusion between field of view, focal length and DOF. I would like to put a few things in perspective.
The focal length of a lens does not change for different sensor formats. That is a property of the lens, not of the camera. What does change is its angle and with that field of view. So if you use a wide-angle just because no other lens will take in the bulk of Aunty Mathilda, when you use a smaller format with the same lens you will simply have to step back a few metres or, if that would land you backwards into the swimming-pool, then you will have to take advantage of the friendly terms offered by your camera-manufacturer and buy a shorter lens, as is fitting for the smaller format.
The same goes for the main use of short focal lengths, i.e. perspective control. As the perspective is controlled solely by the distance of camera to subject, the choice is either to crop closer or use a lens with a larger angle of view. Fortunately lenses as short as 12 mm are being offered for rangefinders.
On the other side of the spectrum the story is essentially the same. Those of us that constantly have to crop our photographs down will welcome the smaller field of view of their longer lenses. A smaller sensor will, among other things enable one to use a smaller, fast lens for portraits. A Summilux 50, for instance, is a lot more handy than a Summilux 75. And a field of view equivalent to 180 mm on 35 mm film is something quite new for a rangefinder.
Then there is DOF. If we have to use a 35 mm lens to get the angle of view we are used to with a 50 mm on a 35 mm film camera, obviously we will not get the same DOF. The main thing will be that we will enlarge the smaller sensor more, so we will need a smaller circle of confusion. A 27 mm sensor, as a ballpark figure, will need a 0.02 mm circle of confusion as opposed to the standard 0.03.
The net result wil be that the 35 mm will, on a 1.33 sensor, behave like a 43 mm lens on a 35mm sensor. I have the impression that on a sensor, the transition between sharp and out of focus is more sharply defined than on film, maybe because of the recording medium, maybe because grain and noise behave differently, maybe because we are using the sweet spot of the lens. Anyway, this effect reduces the impression of DOF to about 40 mm equivalent. No big deal between the formats.
Better quality on a larger sensor. Clearly, that is as true for small vs large sensors as it is for 6x9 film vs 35 mm. However, as soon as the smaller format is good enough, like the small film size, this argument loses relevancy. The new book by Pölking, <Digitale Naturfotografie in der Praxis> has a full spread high resolution print comparing all the formats offered by Canon, from 6Mp APS to 16.9Mp 35 mm. The differences, albeit discernable, are extremely small, although the older 6Mp APS loses out slightly.
So the future will teach us to choose our format to our purpose and our lenses to our format. Nothing changes. In the case of the Leica M8 it will mean trading in our 135 mm lens for a 19 mm one. Or just keeping the 135 and adding to our lens stable, as most posters on this forum seem to be doing all the time. Leica is sensitive to this and will be offering "attractively priced" (though what that means with Leica is unclear) wide-angle lenses.
Where does this "full-frame" hype come from? I feel, but I know I'm fighting a losing battle here, that full-frame is a nonsensical term. Not only is 35 mm far from full-frame photographically speaking, it refers to a negative/sensor size that is printed directly without enlarging. So the "full-frame" Canon 5D is in this reference only suitable for taking passport portraits.
Canon has some difficulty competing with Leica, Nikon and Sigma in the extreme wide-angle segment. Surprising as it may seem, this is not a situation that lends itself to a quick fix. As an example, Leica needed 15 years and a lot of expertise from Minolta and Sigma to catch up (and overtake) in the field of zoom lenses.
But Canon does own their private chip factory and Cmos sensors, which are a bit less expensive to produce than CCD's anyway. So the obvious solution is to produce camera's with a larger chip, needing less short lenses.
This has, of course, to be marketed. So imagine this poor marketing executive sitting in his office on the 95th floor in Tokyo. He has to find a catch-phrase. He doesn't know the first thing about camera's but he does know about selling products. The above has been explained to him by a technical executive, but it does not add up to a positive twist to his advertising campaign. A bright young underling, who has read a Readers Digest about Ansel Adams, remembers the words: Full Frame. It sounds even better than "more megapixels"!! They cook up a 100 million dollar campaign to ram this down the collective throats of an unsuspecting public, and there you are: Full-Frame is the hallmark of a quality camera! The guy is probably a vice-president now.
Why all this hatred toward manufacturers? Have you actually worked for a camera manufacturer and know how they develop their marketing?
It is slightly misleading to say that the 24 x 36 frame is just a product of marketing hype. What you forget to mention is that as the sensor gets smaller the number of pixels crammed on to the chip get higher placing more demands on the resolving power of the lens. A larger sensor with the same Mp rating places less demands on the lens. For ultimate image quality from a leica M series or any other 35mm lens the sensor should match the field of the lens to optimise its performance, then the pitch of the pixels should match the resolving power of the lens. Even if the leica lenses can match the demands the APS sensor puts on it the fact is that you have to enlarge the file 33% more for any given picture size. In other words a canon lens on a 26x36 sensor camera that was 25% poorer in resolution would still produce a more detailed image at an A3 enlargement because the leica lens was not given a sensor large enough to match its full potential. I know this is slightly simplistic because of factors such as micro contrast and colour rendition but I hope you see what I mean.
Why all this hatred toward manufacturers? Have you actually worked for a camera manufacturer and know how they develop their marketing?
Hatred?? Where did you see that? It is just that I feel free to offer some, slightly tongue-in-cheek reply to marketing.
It is slightly misleading to say that the 24 x 36 frame is just a product of marketing hype. What you forget to mention is that as the sensor gets smaller the number of pixels crammed on to the chip get higher placing more demands on the resolving power of the lens. A larger sensor with the same Mp rating places less demands on the lens. For ultimate image quality from a leica M series or any other 35mm lens the sensor should match the field of the lens to optimise its performance, then the pitch of the pixels should match the resolving power of the lens. Even if the leica lenses can match the demands the APS sensor puts on it the fact is that you have to enlarge the file 33% more for any given picture size. In other words a canon lens on a 26x36 sensor camera that was 25% poorer in resolution would still produce a more detailed image at an A3 enlargement because the leica lens was not given a sensor large enough to match its full potential. I know this is slightly simplistic because of factors such as micro contrast and colour rendition but I hope you see what I mean.
This is true, but as I argued in another post, even the "lesser" 8Mp APS crop sensor exceeds the capabilities of the human eye in all but the most extreme photographic situations. Like in audio: you might be able to record (a lot) more, but you cannot hear,see or even reproduce it. Your argument moves us into the stratophere of ayrie disks, central light-mountains, reslution definitions and the like. Suffice to say that the optical impression I get on A3 prints from my outmoded, 6Mp Canon 10D is closer to midformat than to 35 mm.
Btw, as you correctly imply: smaller sensors at the same resolution demand better lenses, only strengthens my argument that Canon needs large sensors to compete in extreme wide-angle.
This is true, but as I argued in another post, even the "lesser" 8Mp APS crop sensor exceeds the capabilities of the human eye in all but the most extreme photographic situations. Like in audio: you might be able to record (a lot) more, but you cannot hear,see or even reproduce it.
8mp corresponds to A4 at 300dpi (the standard for print reprodution) I don't know if I would call that "extreme". I've heard all sorts figures bandied about for the optimum Mp resolution and I don't know which is right or even if you can tell the difference, it's often a subjective argument often dictated by the self justification of the owner of a particular camera. In reality very few of us and certainly not me have access to all the cameras and prints we need to make an informed decision, we just exchange theories.
Current 35 mm lenses were designed for the 24x36 mm format in the same way half-format lenses were designed for the 18x24 mm format, or medium-format lenses...
Rangefinder photography equals in many of us view 35 mm film photography, hence the use of the expression full-frame format in this context. For we'd love to see our current 35 mm lenses to behave like 35 mm lenses in the event that film is substituted by digital sensors. To keep and uphold our lenses and a tradition that is so dear to our hearts. Not to mention that larger sensors are prone to be better sensors. Not to mention that it is our firm belief that lesser sensors are prone to have the terminal and final destiny of all lesserhood...
Not to mention that it is our firm belief that lesser sensors are prone to have the terminal and final destiny of all lesserhood...
A good argument to ditch 135 film for 120, and only take 6x9... ;)
But I share a lot of your sentiment I must confess. Newer is not always better, not by a long shot. But I love to embrace the future as well and I am prepared to drop old concepts, better to use new developments. So I will erase all preconceptions about focal lenghts from my brain when using a smaller medium and use the lenses in their own context there, and vica versa. It comes from using different formats over time, I guess.
I do take 645 negative, 35 mm negatives and 6Mp digitals, and enlarged to A3 the 645 clearly look best, the digital comes second and the 35 mm last by a fair margin. I won't open the whole argument here, but after all factors are considered a 6Mp image has enough resolution for any print, provided that print is viewed at the correct distance. You would, I am sure, not print a billboard at 300 Dpi....
Jaap: Thanks for a clear, insightful post. I too was puzzled by the "hatred" comment. Having worked with marketing folks for a long time, I have a pretty clear idea of how their campaigns develop, and they can be, shall we say "creative"?
While I would prefer a 24x36 sensor size to take advantage of my current lenses and maintain my sense of FOV, perspective when composing, etc., I can live with a different size and am not too worried about the resolution/definition aspect of digital capture, though good wide angle primes are very important to me. What I value far more is an image with "film-like" appearance, minimal post-processing work, and camera handling/"user interface", all in roughly equal measures of importance to me. For me, these are far more important considerations that sensor size.
While admitting not having enough hands-on experience to judge those priorities, my sense from reading lots of posts here and elsewhere is that so far only the R-D1 interests me. I'm interested in seeing what the M8 is like and, eventually, the Zeiss Ikon digital RF.
Earl
Jaap, let's not get through this superior resolution argument again. To me it seems like you have set on getting an M8, and now trying to rationalize your choice. Please don't, you don't have to :)
No-no Eugene,this is not a resolution thread,sorry for being sidetracked:(, I am just trying to stop the "I wanna fullframe" posts ;)
As for sensor-size and rationalizing, I already have-and like- a canon 10D- 22 mm sensor and Digilux2 (love-for its film-like quality) a 15 mm sensor. So I just want to make clear that size matters not a hoot....
Oh, I see.
Well, format probably doesn't matter if you don't have an array of lesnes for the system already (witness Olympus E). So far in SLR world the promises of smaller formats (smaller, cheaper, faster lenses) have not yet materialized and it is questionable if they ever will. And if you have that 50 'cron you used for a decade and can focus in your sleep, I can see how problematic would be re-accepting it as a portrait lens..
I think somebody who is willing to shell out 4500 Euro :eek: for a camerabody will probably be involved in the M system to a considerable extent.But the relatively small difference of 1.33, equivalent to 1 focal length, only necessitates one addition at the short end, unless, like me , the 21 is the least used lens anyway.
Thanks to the immediacy of digital and some willing friends I was able to do a lot of experimentation prior to getting my used Canon 20D. The camera I was comparing it to was of course the 5D.
First thing I noted was that the dimensions of the 5D sensor are 60% larger than that of the 20D and has roughly (actually a bit less) 60% more pixels. Therefore if one were able to mask the 5D sensor down to the dimensions of the 20D sensor, the # of pixels per square inch would be quite nearly identical. I took tripod mounted shots with each camera and then cropped the 5D shot down to the 20D crop and indeed the file sizes were nearly the same. Thanks to Canon's wizardry the noise is also very nearly equal between the 2 cameras. Bottom line is that between the two cameras it is the total # of pixels, and not sensor size, that directly relates to how big a print can be made and that was what led me to my choice to forego the 5D. The 20D can give me an un-interpolated print at the largest size print my printer is capable of, which is also the largest size print I can hang in my home with enough room to stand back and view it at a comfortable distance. Granted the 5D would allow more cropping, but as a long-time 35mm shooter I am disciplined to compose full-frame and rarely crop more than is necessary to fit a standard print size.
I got my used 20D for under $900, and a new Tokina 12-24mm lens for a bit over $400. In most cases my printer driver would be tossing out all the extra data I would've paid double for by going with the 5D. I'm perfectly willing to go without having the biggest, newest and most expensive camera when I see it offers me no tangible reward other than bragging rights.
However as to the often debated issue of depth of field, from my tests a 35mm lens on the 20D and 5D have exactly the same dof, but the fov due to the crop means it's functioning like a 56mm lens. The upside is that in most instances I'm grateful for the extended dof relative to fov. And the downside, the lessening of shallow dof for subject isolation, hasn't appeared as significant as I would have thought. It's nothing like the situation with the tiny sensors and crop factors in pocket digitals.
So for me, who is completely satisfied with the 20D with its 1.6 factor, the M8 with its 1.3 factor is bound to be satisfying. The difference is that I could amerliorate the loss of wide angle fov on the 20D in one fell swoop by purchasing an EF-S wide zoom. With the M8, I have to resort (maybe too negative a word) to Voitlander lenses because 1) Leica so far doesn't have a 15mm to replace the 21mm fov, and 2) If and when they do, I'm sure I won't be able to afford it. But then again I bought a Tokina lens for the 20D at a saving of 35% over the Canon lens (and got better build quality in the bargain), and I've been very happy with both the 15 and 12mm Voitlander lenses on my film Leicas.
And if you have that 50 'cron you used for a decade and can focus in your sleep, I can see how problematic would be re-accepting it as a portrait lens..
A weird thing happened when I got my Epson R-D 1 and started using it with the lenses I already had for my Canon and Bessa RFs:
At first I'd do a lot of mental arithmetic and think, "Okay, normally in this situation I'd be reaching for the 50mm lens, and 50/1.53 is 32.67, so I ought to get out the 35mm lens now..."
But shortly I got tired of that, and just stopped thinking about it deliberately and went back to taking pictures with whatever lens seemed to work best. (Brief round of appreciative applause for the feature of rangefinder cameras that lets you preview several different lens views before sticking the lens on the camera.)
What I found, oddly enough, is that generally I still use a 50mm lens on the R-D 1 in situations where I'd have used a 50mm lens on the film camera and so on. This makes absolutely no sense in terms of geometric optics, but it seems to work out OK in practice. Yes, I did buy a 21mm lens so I'd be able to cover wide-angle shots, but it seems as if I don't use it very much.
(I may be getting away with this because I always shot b&w film and did my own printing, so was pretty accustomed to framing loosely and then cropping a bit when I printed; now with the R-D 1 I just frame the shot the way I would have printed it. Inveterate slide shooters might have a more difficult adjustment.)
But I suspect this whole FOV-crop thing seems like a bigger hurdle to people who haven't experienced it than it is to people who actually live with it day-in and day-out. The human animal is marvelously adaptable.
zuikologist
07-25-2006, 06:47
Notwithstadning jlw's last sentence, I think Trius has hit the point that the marketing men/women have tried to exploit - human nature and our inability/unwillingness to relearn something we think we are good at - photography.
We can buy a 5D body for a little more money than a 30D that makes us happy, we can use existing lenses (though the 5D sensor demands good lenses apparently) and we can use existing photographic techniques with intuitive use of DOF etc. The 5D sensor also apparently happens to be very good and of course there are bragging rights that go with "full frame".
willie_901
07-25-2006, 07:22
The term full-frame means you can use your 35mm format lenses as you intended to use them when they were first purchased. Specifically, the relationship between the size of objects in the foreground relative to objects in the background will not change. That is, "distant objects appear larger in relation to the foreground object" [1] when longer focal length lenses are used. Using your legs can not change this (but using your legs will negate the crop-factor change in perspective).
The crop factor means you must use a shorter focal length lens to maintain the same relative size of foreground and background objects. For some subjects the relative size of foreground and background objects is unimportant. But when you use your feet (or zoom) to negate the digital-sensor crop factor, some images will look quite different compared to a full-frame sensor with the same focal length lens.
Full-frame means if you have a multi-lens RF kit, the longer focal length lenses will not sit on the shelf unused. It means if your widest focal length lens now is 28 or 35 mm, you won't have to purchase another lens just to have what you had before.
In the case of DLSRs, (moot for the M8 and RD-1) it also means:
o you do not have to suffer the ergonomics of zoom lenses that were not designed for manual focus operation, you can use MF lenses
o you do not have to tape DOF charts to your camera because modern lenses for DSLRs (with few exceptions) do not have DOF rings.
o you do not have to suffer with low-speed (affordable) zoom lenses (DSLR users seem to change out lenses infrequently). It means if you want a medium speed lens (f 2.8) you don't have to spend more than the camera body cost and then lug around a heavy, bulky zoom lens.
I have 35/2, 50/1.2 and 85/2 35mm format RF lenses.
So if I go out and buy a RD-1 or an M8
camera: $2,500 - $5,000 (of course, the upper range is a guess)
and
one 21, 24 or 25mm f2.8 lens: $1000 - $2,500
My cost to become a digital RF photographer is $3,500-$7,500.
Is film so inconvenient, inferior or expensive to justify this kind of expenditure?
And, what is my motivation to switch?
Do I regularly use commercial airline travel for my photography?
Do I feel left behind by the tidal wave of DSLR/P&S popularity?
Is color and monochrome film dommed to become unaffordable in 5, 10, 15 years, so I might as well just give up now?
While Zeiss's position regarding their decision to sell a new film RF instead of digital body is marketing propaganda, like most propaganda there is some truth behind it.
Digital-sensor photography is to immature to be attractive to me.
I follow new developments in the field with interest.
[1] H.S. Newcombe, "35 MM. Photo Technique",The Focal Press, London, 1953, pp 80-89.
photogdave
07-25-2006, 07:36
Funny, how you take a crack at marketing executives, yet your comments on full frame sound like they come straight from Nikon marketing!:D
I will add only two things:
First, one aspect of photography often overlooked by the general public but cherished on this forum, is the joy in the actual process of capturing the image. Bringing the viewfinder to the eye, focusing etc. The world looks a lot brighter through a full-frame viewfinder compared to the little tunnels you have to squint through on smaller-chipped DSLRs. That alone has sold more than a few 5Ds.
Second, for the working professional, it can be imperative that a lens behaves the way it was designed for. Although you mentioned FOV and DOP, you didn't mention distortion. Wide angle lenses distort much more than standard, even if your not using the whole image circle. Example: shooting a wedding with the Canon 20D and EF-S 17-85 (so in this case I was using the whole image circle). Despite being a digital design, at 17mm the lens still give you a FOV of almost 28mm. It looks like 28mm through the viewfinder. From past experience of shooting with 28mm lenses I am confident that I can frame people close to the edges without their heads going too wobbly. But wait! IT IS STILL A 17mm LENS! When I finally view these group shots on a full-size monitor the people at the edges have oval heads. Not too cool.
Rather than change my technique and style, I would buy a 5D if was to shoot weddings on a regular basis.
Actually after the whole experience I decided to return to film for weddings anyway (IF I ever shoot another!)
I'm not sure I quite follow what you are trying to say, Willie. Perspective is not a function of focal length, perspective is solely dependent on the relative position of the subject and the camera. If you take a 28 mm photograph and crop it to the field of view of a 135 in the darkroom, there is absolutely no change in perspective. The same goes for the use of larger and smaller film or sensor sizes. Don't move the camera, don't change the perspective. The effect your book is referring to is that the perspective changes as you keep the subject the same size in your viewfinder using different focal lengths. You will have, however, have to change your position relative to the subject then. If this is what you meant to say, indeed your signature sums it up that way, I didn't understand your post and apologize for the lecture.
I wonder why one should not be able to use manual lenses on any sensor size DSLR. I know of many photographers that do so on Canon D30-'s, various Nikons, Olympus etc.
Speaking for myself, I enjoy using digital for the vista of possibilities it opens for me. I do not think film is bad, or finished, but I like to explore morethan just that. And yes, I am prepared to spend such sums on this. Over the years I have spent and often wasted much more on film photography.
I think that Ben and JLW, who posted a real "report from the field" gave a pretty good picture of the realities of the whole thing.
Yes Dave, you are partly right about distortion and specifically three-dimensional distortion, but as I recall that is one of the areas where Leica lenses are deemed to be superior. Don't ask me to explain, it is far beyond my capability of understanding, but as far as I know three dimensional distortion is an aberration that can be corrected for in lens design. As far as I have read on Canon forums the lens you mentioned is indeed infamous for its high degree of egg-headedness towards the corners.
Btw, I would have hoped you would have said:" Nikon technical staff" instead of "marketing":D
shutterflower
07-25-2006, 08:10
Good point about "full frame". People just have been using 50mm as "normal" on the 24x36 format for decades, so that is "full frame" by way of habit. Of course, there is nothing inherently "full" about it. Only thing is, we don't have a discrete focal length on a cropped sensor. We have 43.xx or whatever. Only annoying for people who care a great deal about such things.
Me. . . it will not matter because I'd not be buying a $5000 digital rangefinder. Leicas aren't supposed to become obsolete. It's part of their great value. The M8 will change this.
tetrisattack
07-25-2006, 08:27
Those of us who are waiting for full-frame digital to come down in price may well be waiting for a long time. Computer chips drop in price over time because new fabrication techniques allow more chips to be placed on the same size silicon wafer. The physical dimensions change, but the transistor count remains the same.
Digital camera sensors are unusual because the size is a constant but the number of transistors is flexible. Here are some comparison numbers for context: Intel's current top of the line Pentium chip (3.7 ghz "Presler" core) costs about $1050 and has a die size of 162 mm2. The Core Duo chip that's been all over Apple's recent machines has a die size of 90.3 mm2. The die size of a 24x36mm sensor is 864 mm2. That's monstrously huge! Economies of scale can go a certain distance, but you can't get around the fact that the chip fabrication plant has simply got to burn more silicon to produce full-frame photo sensors. Worse, the overall yield of useable chips decreases as sensor size increases due to flaws in the etching process.
As was said earlier, lens resolution is another problem, and is probably a practical reason why the megapixel density of current cameras seems "stuck" where it is.
Anyway, sorry if this post comes off as rant-ish. I'm just bitter that the bottom falling out of the 35mm market is endangering my large-format baby without offering me any sort of reasonable digital replacement.
As far as I know the largest sensor used mainly in astronomy is 10x10 cm. I fear the price may be astronomical as well.
A good argument to ditch 135 film for 120, and only take 6x9... ;)
But I share a lot of your sentiment I must confess. Newer is not always better, not by a long shot. But I love to embrace the future as well and I am prepared to drop old concepts, better to use new developments. So I will erase all preconceptions about focal lenghts from my brain when using a smaller medium and use the lenses in their own context there, and vica versa. It comes from using different formats over time, I guess.
Actually I don't see any reason to erase my preconceptions about focal lengths from my brain for much the same reason I don't want to erase my present lenses from my bag. They are good, they take good pictures, they cost me much money, buying new lenses would cost me more, and also it's more than probable that in a couple of years new sensors will do justice to their design again.
As soon as the current market for APS sized sensors cools off, I'd say.
photogdave
07-25-2006, 09:14
Yes Dave, you are partly right about distortion and specifically three-dimensional distortion, but as I recall that is one of the areas where Leica lenses are deemed to be superior. Don't ask me to explain, it is far beyond my capability of understanding, but as far as I know three dimensional distortion is an aberration that can be corrected for in lens design. As far as I have read on Canon forums the lens you mentioned is indeed infamous for its high degree of egg-headedness towards the corners.
Btw, I would have hoped you would have said:" Nikon technical staff" instead of "marketing":D
Perspective-corrected lenses are famously expensive and not suitable for shooting people.
I think that Canon lens gets that repuation because most people on those forums have limited experience with ultra-wide lenses. (Many of them have never shot film or "full-frame"). I don't think it distorts any more or less than most lenses of that focal length designed for SLR cameras.
John Camp
07-25-2006, 11:16
I have not spent a lot of time testing and working out technical perspective problems, etc.. What I did do was fairly complicated archaeological photography in the desert in the Middle East under severe conditions, using, at the start, F4s, then a combintion of F5s and N90s, then D1x, then D2x, and in between the last two, a couple of Kodak SLRns. They were used to do on-site shots under a wide range of field conditions, ranging from pre-dawn light to stuff shot at high noon (in archaeology, you often don't have a choice; when you shoot depends on when an object comes up.) I also shot publicity photos for brochures and magazines; still life museum-type artificially lit shots of collections of pots and other artifacts; and macros of very small objects down to little-fingernail size (beads.)
I could have cared less about the digital/film argument, except that digital made life much easier; for one thing, you could verify on-site that you actually had the shot, which is important in archaeology, because then you can remove the object from its context and continue working.
Now, to relate that experience to this thread, I never paid too much attention to the change-over from "full-format" film to Nikon's 1.5 crop, although I did have to go out and buy a shorter lens. That was about it. I published a number of full-color photos in Bibilical Archaeology Review, including a double-truck that was actually a cropped shot (cropped down from the 1.5 sensor size), and it looked fine. At the very largest fine-art sizes, maybe a 5D or 1DsII would be marginally better than a D2x, but I have my doubts; at that point, the photos (I think) are becoming more lens-limited than sensor-limited. To put it another way, a Leica 10mp with the best 50mm Leica lens may take better photos than a Canon 16mp, because the lens makes more difference than the sensor. (And I suspect that at the larger fine-art sizes, a MF back would be even better, so if you really worry about this, maybe you should be shooting one of those.)
One thing that I really could have used on site was faster lenses. A summilux would have been a gift from the gods when you're trying to shoot into a hole in the ground in early pre-dawn light. But the format made no difference at all. Zip. Zero. I'd been shooting 35mm film for 40 years, since I went to Venezuela and Colombia as a kid in 1961; I had no trouble in the transition; it was the last thing that I would have thought of as troubling.
I also found a few really interesting things about the small format, like being able to ditch anything longer than a 200, because a 200's angle-of-view gave me a functional 300 with much less weight AND faster speeds AND lower cost -- which is important when you're working in a big pile of dust and sand and you have to change equipment every three or four years.
My feeling about a lot of these format arguments is essentially the same as the guy who suggested that there's a big PR element involved. On a practical level, FF or small frame (up to a point) just doesn't make much difference. I'm a professional writer, and in my experience, changing from FF to 1.5 was like changing my keyboard. I notice, but adaption comes quickly and then I don't notice anymore. The end product doesn't change at all.
JC
First, let my say that this is has been one of the most interesting and informative threads about the fuul frame vs APS issue I have ever read. Most interesting is the various positions that people have taken because of the dictates of thier work experience. Most of us made the change from a full frame SLR film camera to a APS sized DSLR. So we were actually making two changes at once. I bought a Canon 20D to replace my Canon AE-1. To be frank, the first difference I noticed was how absolutely inferior the 20D viewfinder was to my old manual focus SLR. But I had autofocus to replace a decent viewfinder, so lets call it a wash. Next, I compared resolution. Again, sort of a wash. It seemed a 8mb sensor was about equivelent to Kodacolor. I 'm not making a fine point here, just close enough.
About the only thing from a operational point of view was, I needed a wider, wide angle lens and my long telephoto was longer than I ever used.
Later I noticed the depth of field issue so I started shooting one stop faster when I was looking for a limited DOF. Which lead me to buy a few faster fixed focus lenses because zooms werent fast enough at F2.8 to get a wide angle limited DOF.
But thats about it . It boiled down to a 35mm f2 and a 24mm f1.4 . And the advantage over film was I could shoot at 1600 ISO.
The big change in going to digital was not crop factors or perspective changes or resolution or dynamic range or DOF or any of that stuff. The really change was I could take a jillion pictures and it didnt cost me anything. And I did take a jillion pictures. I think we new digital junkies with a technical bent have taking more photos of brick walls and their dog or their bookcase or whatever is your favorite test subject. I learned more about the technical side of DOF, distortion, focus accuracey and a hundred other issues that would have been totally impractical to do with film.
And thats was just my first step into the digital jungle. When I discovered rangefinders via the Epson RD1, things really got interesting. But thats another story.
Rex
P.S. full frame film and APS sized digital are functional equivelent. Full frame digital sensors are more like medium format film. That's about it in a nutshell.
Bob Ross
07-26-2006, 08:50
I will second Rex's comment that this is an interesting thread. One thing that I found in myself and in the comments here is that we all have some vested interests in our "habits of the craft" and possibley in our accumulated equipment, too. Over the years I have used various formats 35mm, 6X6, 6X7 and even Minox, so the transition to another few formats (2X in 4/3rds & ASP-C) wasn't too tramatic, though a tad expensive. I have found image quality to be a non-issue for my needs and as a color darkroom hobbiest, I love the digital darkroom. One side benefit is that if you are into gallery prints and shouldn't be using 35mm, you can use digital (APS) and learn to stitch instead of buying a larger format. All the added versatility in digital can sooth a lot of challenged "habit sof the craft".....LOL
Ronald M
07-26-2006, 09:34
There will be improvements in chip manufacturing so there is better yield. Also there will be ways to illuminate the "HOLES" in the corners so the receptors located there will get proper light.
When this happens, the M9 will appear or if we are really lucky, you can send in the M8 for an upgrade that will not be cost prohibitive.
For me, I`m sticking with Delta 100 and Portra 160 and my $200 Canon Power Shot 610 if I need a color pic fast and cheap. The Canon is indeed a throw away when technology advances while the M8 is not at the consumer level.
National Geographic can throw them away, I can`t.
patrickjames
07-26-2006, 10:02
In my experience the biggest factor of quality comes from the size of the individual sensors. On a full frame chip the sensors can be larger resulting in less inherent noise that has to be "processed". This is the reason small point and shoot digital cameras are horrendous with noise at higher isos. I have had my hands on just about every incarnation of digital camera at one point or another (I am a professional whatever that means). The medium format backs give the best quality (noise free) because the sensors are the biggest. The other factor is the quality of the lens. If you aren't using the sharpest lenses you are wasting your time. Use either fixed lenses or the best professional zooms.
Just a couple of thoughts for you.
When, and if, a digital rangefinder is born that can mount my old 35, 50 and 90 mm Leica mount lenses to make images that are not mere cropples of what that glass can produce when mounted on a film rangefinder, surely I may consider buying one such camera.
And I'm certain that day is not far from us.
Regretfully I can't afford the buying of an exceptionally expensive 1.5 crop sensor rangefinder plus an exceptionally expensive ultra-fast wide-angle, to make do for the loss of the 35 mm lens, only to have it exchanged for a horrendously expensive full frame sensor rangefinder only a couple of years later...
shutterflower
07-26-2006, 11:26
Those of us who are waiting for full-frame digital to come down in price may well be waiting for a long time. Computer chips drop in price over time because new fabrication techniques allow more chips to be placed on the same size silicon wafer. The physical dimensions change, but the transistor count remains the same.
Digital camera sensors are unusual because the size is a constant but the number of transistors is flexible. Here are some comparison numbers for context: Intel's current top of the line Pentium chip (3.7 ghz "Presler" core) costs about $1050 and has a die size of 162 mm2. The Core Duo chip that's been all over Apple's recent machines has a die size of 90.3 mm2. The die size of a 24x36mm sensor is 864 mm2. That's monstrously huge! Economies of scale can go a certain distance, but you can't get around the fact that the chip fabrication plant has simply got to burn more silicon to produce full-frame photo sensors. Worse, the overall yield of useable chips decreases as sensor size increases due to flaws in the etching process.
As was said earlier, lens resolution is another problem, and is probably a practical reason why the megapixel density of current cameras seems "stuck" where it is.
Anyway, sorry if this post comes off as rant-ish. I'm just bitter that the bottom falling out of the 35mm market is endangering my large-format baby without offering me any sort of reasonable digital replacement.
I think LF will hang out a long time after 35mm and MF have hit the road. LF has such a massive benefit over all others that its market will not find even a mediocre digital product for many years. Decades, maybe. Maybe never.
I'm the one that should be worried about this. 35mm is gone. 645 is the next to be swallowed up. We're all just scrambling for higher ground in one way or another. Moving into super-fine Leica bodies or up in format to escape the digital flood. Maybe I'll go to Fuji 6x9 or Alpa 6x9 after things have become unpleasant for 645. . . or not.
if we are really lucky, you can send in the M8 for an upgrade that will not be cost prohibitiveI think the last time Leica offered meaningful "upgrades" on this scale was during the screw-mount era.
Philipp
1.33 crop factor is very usable. Canon's 1D series DSLR has been 1.3 for a very long time and it is being used very well out in the field..
I think it's the thought that there are "compromises" with the Leica M8 that is troublesome to certain people.
1.33 crop factor is very usable. Canon's 1D series DSLR has been 1.3 for a very long time and it is being used very well out in the field.Still there are enough Canon users, albeit more in the Rebel and 20D class, who complain constantly about how they needed new wideangle lenses. The 5D is selling rather well, too.I think it's the thought that there are "compromises" with the Leica M8 that is troublesome to certain people.I agree completely. Partly it probably has to do with the peculiarities of the Leica userbase as well. Even if the M8 featured a full-frame 20 MP sensor some people would probably still complain about "compromises", about the "look" not being right, about vignetting in wideangles and so on.
Philipp
Bob Ross
07-26-2006, 14:20
When, and if, a digital rangefinder is born that can mount my old 35, 50 and 90 mm Leica mount lenses to make images that are not mere cropples of what that glass can produce when mounted on a film rangefinder, surely I may consider buying one such camera.
And I'm certain that day is not far from us.
Regretfully I can't afford the buying of an exceptionally expensive 1.5 crop sensor rangefinder plus an exceptionally expensive ultra-fast wide-angle, to make do for the loss of the 35 mm lens, only to have it exchanged for a horrendously expensive full frame sensor rangefinder only a couple of years later...
I don't share your certainty other than you will stll see that 1.5 factor, except it will be applied to the price....:(
I don't do ultra fast wides, but if you got one (28mm = 37mm on M8) it would still work on the larger sensor. One nice benefit for the 1.33X sensor is with ultra fast lenses. The do tend to be soft in the corners and that part is cropped.
Bob Ross
07-26-2006, 14:35
Patrick, I share your observation that chubby photosites do the best, not only in the noise dept., but in the tonal and color gradients of the image. They just seem to provide more image data. I will say that I am amazed at the image quality coming out of the bitsy photosites in the current crop of digi-snappers. The image data depth on them is shallow, so pushing the image around in post processing will produce some very surprising effects...LOL
The Phase One P-30 & P-45 backs share the photosite size of the DMR and hopefully the M8.
Perspective-corrected lenses are famously expensive and not suitable for shooting people.
I think that Canon lens gets that repuation because most people on those forums have limited experience with ultra-wide lenses. (Many of them have never shot film or "full-frame"). I don't think it distorts any more or less than most lenses of that focal length designed for SLR cameras.
Or rather de la voiture.
Driving home I realised that focal length cannot have anything to do with distortion. The only two parameters are angle of view and lens correction. Otherwise a 45 mm on 6x6 format would be totally distortion-free. It is not.
To prove my point, I took a test picture with my wife's Leica C-Lux1, at 28 mm equivalent. I was careful to include a ball in the corner and a line at the edge to judge distortion. That makes a focal lenth of 4.6 mm. If focal length were a factor, the result should make Salvador Dali look like a cubist. In reality, it looked like any other wideangle shot,a bit better than average distortion-wise, as the DC Vario Elmarit 4.6-16 asph is rather well corrected. The reason for your experience is that Canons 16-35 EFS is a decent, but rather modest consumer grade lens that has not pretensions to being suited for professional wide-angle group portraits. A 17-40 L would have done considerably better. Having said that, there is a reason that quality-aware Canon DSLR users slip Vario-Sonnars on their camera's.
I am surprised you didn't recover the photograph in post-processing. Usually distortion can be corrected, given a little patience.
Is that a ball or an egg? ;)
fitzihardwurshd
07-27-2006, 03:52
T
But when you use your feet (or zoom) to negate the digital-sensor crop factor, some images will look quite different compared to a full-frame sensor with the same focal length lens.
.
Actually the crop from a shorter lens and the shot with the original focal length look the same. Mysterious but true, shot from the same standpoint the crop only makes that feeling of compression, no matter if made with the lens or in the darkroom.
I saw it demonstrated once in a Leica book, and I admit it took some time until my poor little brain had aten this fact.
As for the rest, I agree at all points, it is exactly my sight too on the digital camera, as an amateur. If I would still work as a professional photog I would have to see it from a different POV.
Leaving the controverse about the look of the results off I cannot see any advantage for me, neither at the costs nor at the workflow, tho I really cannot say I would love developing and scanning film. But the handful of rolls I am still doing nowadays won't kill me ! :)
Regards,
Fitzi
Is that a ball or an egg? ;)
No, a granfalloon!(with the skin on):p
Hi Fitzi,
the angle of view on a crop vs. a longer focal length is the same, but the depth of field should still be different.
For example, on 35mm film, a 50mm lens set at 1 m and f/4 will deliver a DOF of 9.1 cm. With an APS-C size sensor, a 50mm-equivalent lens at the same settings will deliver a DOF of 12-something cm. A 75/1.4 on a M7 wide open at 3 m distance delivers a shallow DOF of 13 cm; a 50/1.4 on an R-D1 already delivers 16 cm, and in order to get the same DOF as on the larger format, you need at least a 50/1.1, which can get expensive if you've just paid for a digital body.
This is I think a well-grounded reason why many DSLR people are complaining about small sensors. The problem isn't so much that you need new wideangles, after all; the problem is you need even faster lenses for shallow DOF, which either aren't available at all (there is no 40/0.9 to replace the Noctilux) or are prohibitively expensive. The only thing you can do is to make the crop factor small enough and hope that people will adapt.
Philipp
Digital camera sensors are unusual because the size is a constant but the number of transistors is flexible. Here are some comparison numbers for context: Intel's current top of the line Pentium chip (3.7 ghz "Presler" core) costs about $1050 and has a die size of 162 mm2. The Core Duo chip that's been all over Apple's recent machines has a die size of 90.3 mm2. The die size of a 24x36mm sensor is 864 mm2. That's monstrously huge! Economies of scale can go a certain distance, but you can't get around the fact that the chip fabrication plant has simply got to burn more silicon to produce full-frame photo sensors. Worse, the overall yield of useable chips decreases as sensor size increases due to flaws in the etching process.
However, photo sensors have very regular structure, and much greater tolerance for error than logic circuits of CPUs. Dead pixels are allowed. All this leads to order of magnitude better yields for the same square.
Hi Fitzi,
the angle of view on a crop vs. a longer focal length is the same, but the depth of field should still be different.
For example, on 35mm film, a 50mm lens set at 1 m and f/4 will deliver a DOF of 9.1 cm. With an APS-C size sensor, a 50mm-equivalent lens at the same settings will deliver a DOF of 12-something cm. A 75/1.4 on a M7 wide open at 3 m distance delivers a shallow DOF of 13 cm; a 50/1.4 on an R-D1 already delivers 16 cm, and in order to get the same DOF as on the larger format, you need at least a 50/1.1, which can get expensive if you've just paid for a digital body.
This is I think a well-grounded reason why many DSLR people are complaining about small sensors. The problem isn't so much that you need new wideangles, after all; the problem is you need even faster lenses for shallow DOF, which either aren't available at all (there is no 40/0.9 to replace the Noctilux) or are prohibitively expensive. The only thing you can do is to make the crop factor small enough and hope that people will adapt.
Philipp
This is real, but as I explained in my original post, on a 1.33 sensor the real difference in the DOF illusion is about 1/2 a stop compared to 35 mm frame, not enough to get knickers twisted. Focussing tolerances, camera shake, cropping, even dust in the air will account for more. Funny thing, one never hears these arguments in 645 vs 35 mm.....
fitzihardwurshd
07-27-2006, 08:31
Hi Fitzi,
the angle of view on a crop vs. a longer focal length is the same, but the depth of field should still be different.
Philipp
This is true of course and if DOF was what Willie meant saying it may look very different he is right.
I meant rather the compressed perspective which you can get from a cropped 50mm shot as well as from a tele lens. Which is hard to believe until one watches a demo.
Technically the APS sensor should be enough for the most purposes, tho noise is still a bad issue. But I think the crop factor is the most important reason why people want a full frame sensor, who wants to mess his worthful lenses this way ? An APS chip needs it's own lens design.
Fitzi
I rated this thread "excellent" because of the positive way this potentially inflammatory subject was responded to. :)
photogdave
07-27-2006, 08:47
You are comparing apples to oranges. Of course the lens in your compact Leica is going to be designed for minimal distortion, otherwise it would be useless and no one would buy it!
My point is that in the average 35mm SLR lens group, ultra-wide lenses distort more than regular wide. (ie 17mm vs 28mm). Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but not everyone can the afford more expensive corrected lenses.
I know the 17-40 L is a better lens but it wasn't available to me at the time. However, it still gives you a FOV of 27mm on the APS-C sensor and wouldn't have the same characteristics as a 28mm on full-frame.
Can we talk about rangefinders now please?
originally posted by jaapv
I rated this thread "excellent" because of the positive way this potentially inflammatory subject was responded to.
I agree and enjoyed reading through this thread and believe I have learned a thing or two.
However, could a poll be devised? Here's my take.
Suppose Leica or another manufacturer plans on introducing a new digital rangefinder camera. There are three identical models to choose from for the exact same price. The only difference being sensor size choices of 1.5, 1.33, or full frame. Choose which one you would want. :)
You are comparing apples to oranges. Of course the lens in your compact Leica is going to be designed for minimal distortion, otherwise it would be useless and no one would buy it!
My point is that in the average 35mm SLR lens group, ultra-wide lenses distort more than regular wide. (ie 17mm vs 28mm). Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but not everyone can the afford more expensive corrected lenses.
I know the 17-40 L is a better lens but it wasn't available to me at the time. However, it still gives you a FOV of 27mm on the APS-C sensor and wouldn't have the same characteristics as a 28mm on full-frame.
Can we talk about rangefinders now please?
I thought the EF-S series was designed for APS sensors?
photogdave
07-27-2006, 09:37
They are. That has nothing to do with my point:
"Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but not everyone can the afford more expensive corrected lenses."
I'm sure (or I would hope) the new EF-S 17-55 f2.8 is less distorted than the 17-85 but it's twice the cost. I would rather put my money into a full-frame digital camera and have lenses that perform well on a film body AND the APS-C sensor digitals, rather than limit myself to mid-range digital body and lenses that will only work with it and its future upgrades. Regular EF lenses will work on FOUR types of Canon EOS bodies.
But going way back to my original comment on your original post, most of what I love about photography is the act of capturing the moment. Having shot with both sensor formats, I simply LIKE full-frame more and that's enough for me!
HenningW
07-28-2006, 15:46
Funny, how you take a crack at marketing executives, yet your comments on full frame sound like they come straight from Nikon marketing!:D
I will add only two things:
First, one aspect of photography often overlooked by the general public but cherished on this forum, is the joy in the actual process of capturing the image. Bringing the viewfinder to the eye, focusing etc. The world looks a lot brighter through a full-frame viewfinder compared to the little tunnels you have to squint through on smaller-chipped DSLRs. That alone has sold more than a few 5Ds.
Second, for the working professional, it can be imperative that a lens behaves the way it was designed for. Although you mentioned FOV and DOP, you didn't mention distortion. Wide angle lenses distort much more than standard, even if your not using the whole image circle. Example: shooting a wedding with the Canon 20D and EF-S 17-85 (so in this case I was using the whole image circle). Despite being a digital design, at 17mm the lens still give you a FOV of almost 28mm. It looks like 28mm through the viewfinder. From past experience of shooting with 28mm lenses I am confident that I can frame people close to the edges without their heads going too wobbly. But wait! IT IS STILL A 17mm LENS! When I finally view these group shots on a full-size monitor the people at the edges have oval heads. Not too cool.
Rather than change my technique and style, I would buy a 5D if was to shoot weddings on a regular basis.
Actually after the whole experience I decided to return to film for weddings anyway (IF I ever shoot another!)
Sorry, I came upon this post rather late as I don't read the list all that often.
The above conclusions re: 17mm on a 20D and 28mm on a 5D are incorrect.
The 17mm lens will produce exactly the same amount of 'egg-headedness' or 'going wobbly' on a 20D as a 28mm lens will on a 5D, as long as the people are not really close to the camera (less than 5ft or so).
This presupposes that linear distortion in the lenses is negligible or corrected. In fact, if barrel distortion is present, the 'egg-headedness' will be less than with a better corrected lens.
Distortion of 3 dimensional objects, when using a well-corrected lens with minimal linear distortion (2 dimensional distortion) is purely a function of angle of view, and the self same lack of linear distortion. Except for linear distortion correction (and remember, better corrected lenses do a worse job with 3-D objects in corners than 'poor' lenses with barrel distortion) lens design has no effect on 3-D distortion.
It matters not whether I use a 4mm lens on a tiny P&S sensor to give me a 75degree angle of view, or a 17 on a 10D, a 28mm on a 5D or a film Leica or Canon, or a (approx) 55mm on a 6x7 or (approx.) 100mm on 4x5. The three dimensional distortion (and angle of view) will be identical. And yes, I have all those cameras and lenses.
There are good reasons to use a 5D, or a 20D, but this 3-D distortion thing which I read here and in other places is a non-starter.
Another thing that has been posted here is that wide angle performance is better on the 5D than on the cropped cameras. This is not true. Canon's wideangles are generally not as good as some of the competitions, and the 5D only shows that better. The 16-35 is not as good on the 5D as the 10-22 is on the 20D. The 20/2.8 is really bad, the 14/2.8 is poor and while I enjoy and often use the 24/1.4, it's performance on the 20D is a lot more satisfying than on the 5D. The 24TSE is also not great. The only really good wideangle, and the widest really good lens is the 35/1.4. BTW, I use a 12-24 Sigma because it has noticeably better performance than the 20 or 16-35. At present I do not have the 14 and 20 of the above, because of the Sigma. I should also sell the 16-35.
With respect to the Leica M8, the thing that annoys me about not having it be full frame is that I won't have a lens with an approximate angle of view of 35mm that has a maximum aperture of 1.4. Other than that, I'm fine with it.
Henning
photogdave
07-28-2006, 16:14
All that math makes my head hurt. I only speak from real world shooting experience.
Not to say that you don't. I'm quite sure you and jaapv are both smarter than me.
willie_901
07-28-2006, 19:51
Ever since this thread began I've been trying to come up with a scenario to explain how the statement – "So what if my sensor has a 1.5 crop factor? All I have to do is use a 35 mm lens to achieve the results I'm used to with a 55 mm lens" – is somewhat misleading.
A few years from now two photographers with digital rangefinder cameras decide to take a walk in the park. Photographer A's camera has a full-frame sensor and photographer B's camera has a smaller 1.5 crop-factor sensor.
They come upon a group of large dogs sitting on the grass about 15 feet from the sidewalk. "A" notices there is a "Keep Off the Grass" sign next to the sidewalk and to the left of the dogs. "A" also sees a one-story flat-roofed building about 100 feet behind the dogs. "Park Police" is painted along the top of the building in large letters.
"A" fits a 55 mm prime lens and moves about until the composition in the finder seems right. He takes a picture.
The photographers view the result on A's LCD screen. The sign is on the far left side of the frame and is half as tall as the dogs. The dogs are in the middle. The Police building is at the very top of the frame on the far right side.
"B" like the image so much he decides to take one too. He thinks, "if A used a 55 mm lens I'll use a 35 mm lens." "B" stands exactly where A stood and frames the image in his finder to match what he saw on A's LCD and takes a picture.
B is surprised that his image is different than A's. The angle of view in both images is identical. But B notices the sign is the same height as the dogs and the building is smaller.
The relative size of objects in an image from a 35mm focal-length lens is different than a 55 mm lens.
"B" moves further away from the dogs and takes another picture. "B" thinks, "with my 48 MP 64 bit sensor I'll just crop the image and no one will notice the difference". "B" takes photos until the ratio of the sign's height to the dogs' height matches A's image. Then he crops the image right there on the camera's LCD screen. "B" is surprised again. Since B moved further away from the Police building, it appears to be even smaller than it did in his first image.
Finally B mounts a 55 lens on his camera. "B" moves away from the dogs and takes pictures until the angle of view is similar to A's image. He frames the scene and takes a picture. Now the relative heights of the sign, the dogs and the building are the same as in A's image.
The only purpose of this long-winded story is to illustrate how the relative size of objects in an image depends on the len's focal length. Even when the angle of view and DOF are adjusted to be identical, a 35mm lens on a 1.5 crop camera will not always give the same image as a 55mm lens on a full-frame camera.
willie
"B" like the image so much he decides to take one too. He thinks, "if A used a 55 mm lens I'll use a 35 mm lens." "B" stands exactly where A stood and frames the image in his finder to match what he saw on A's LCD and takes a picture.
B is surprised that his image is different than A's. The angle of view in both images is identical. But B notices the sign is the same height as the dogs and the building is smaller.
The relative size of objects in an image from a 35mm focal-length lens is different than a 55 mm lens.
...
Finally B mounts a 55 lens on his camera. "B" moves away from the dogs and takes pictures until the angle of view is similar to A's image. He frames the scene and takes a picture. Now the relative heights of the sign, the dogs and the building are the same as in A's image.
The only purpose of this long-winded story is to illustrate how the relative size of objects in an image depends on the len's focal length. Even when the angle of view and DOF are adjusted to be identical, a 35mm lens on a 1.5 crop camera will not always give the same image as a 55mm lens on a full-frame camera.Greetings, willie, and with respect I suggest you actually perform the above experiment. In doing so you will discover you are incorrect. The relative sizes of objects in the pictures are entirely and solely dependent on camera location. The angle of view of the lens determines how much stuff is included in the frame. Crop the photo to include the same stuff as the narrower-view lens and the relative sizes of near and far objects will be exactly the same. Try it! :)
despite all this crop frame vs full frame mumbo jumbo, in the end all I care about is my 35mm lens being a 35mm lens. I didnt buy a 50, thats not what I want to use.
There's not too much I can add here. I've been saying for a long time that the 35mm format became so popular because it WAS the digital of its era -- compared to middle and large formats of the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 35mm's smaller "sensor" size allowed for smaller lenses, more portability and greater depth of field. Calculations aside, a 35mm format photo has much more depth of field than a larger format photo made with an 80mm "normal" lens.
What's happening with digital today is simply another evolution of formats.
The reason we're using 35mm film is fairly accidental ... it became the standard film for the motion-picture industry in the early 20th century and so was made in large batches with consistent emulsions, catching the attention of camera-enthusiast Oskar Barnack as he experimented with a way to make his beloved photography hobby more portable. But we aren't using the same format as motion pictures anymore. They have moved on to a 70mm "wide-screen" format, and not many people are lamenting the loss of the old-fashioned TV-shaped screens.
In addition, 35mm cameras don't use the film the same way as motion-picture cameras did. Movie cameras fed the film roll vertically across the shutter, giving the equivalent of a half-frame image. Film emulsions of the 1920s were quite inferior to what we have today, if you've ever looked at stills from silent movies, even restored ones, they were grainy and prone to blown highlights. It's not such a big deal because silent movies were projected at 16-18 frames per second, resulting in a 16-fold increase in the amount of "pixels/grain" per second.
Barnack saw that the motion-picture format didn't translate well to still photography, so he opted to use more of the film surface area by running the roll horizontally through the camera while keeping a horizontal frame ... instead of the 18x24mm movie-film standard, he used 24x36mm.
As most of us know, this isn't all that standard a dimension. It's wider than a US-standard 8x10inch print -- using just 24x33.3mm of the negative. So, for decades, photographers and photolabs have been slicing off 9 to 10 percent of the image on the negative. My scanning software still tries to do this if I don't change its default settings.
Yes, for about 35 or 40 years, the 35mm format was THE standard of photography for most users, an era that ended a few years ago -- running roughly from 1960 to 2000. Before 1960, most consumers and many preofessionals used a larger format. And throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s, many consumers were quite happy with smaller formats such as the Kodak Instamatic. But we are now adapting to new standards imposed not by the motion-picture industry but by the computer/electronics industry. The nature of the free market is such that, if a 24x36 sensor were economically feasible, someone would have introduced it. In the meantime, we're using smaller sensors because they can be economically made with consistent quality, much like motion-picture film 80 years ago.
We here at RFF are, by definition, throwbacks. Most of use are using stuff that was fantasitcally high-priced cutting-edge gear when new, but is now affordable because technology has moved on. A few forum members adopted Leicas because of their reputation for excellence. But most of us came to the rangefinder world through hand-me-downs, cheap used equipment or a stubborn Soviet refusal to stop making 1930s Industrial-Age cameras. Even my Nikon rangefinders -- considered exotic and pricy -- were and are considerably cheaper today on the used market than they were when introduced in the 1950s where, adjusted for inflaton, each body cost over $2,000 and each lens was at least $1,000. In fact, one of the reasons I bought them in the late 1980s was because they produced excellent photojournalism results for a lot less money than equivalent Leicas. A big portion of us -- me included -- could only afford the RF equipment because it was considered obsolete. And we constantly trade anecdotes about lenses that were once hugely expensive investments for professionals and serious hobbyists, which can now be bought for the price of a not too snazzy dinner.
That's probably too long-winded a way of saying: The format is changing. We need to buy new wide-angles. We'll get used to it.
With respect to the Leica M8, the thing that annoys me about not having it be full frame is that I won't have a lens with an approximate angle of view of 35mm that has a maximum aperture of 1.4. Other than that, I'm fine with it.
Henning
I agree, a 28mm f1.4 would be a great lens for the M8 as it would be equivelent to the 35mm f1.4 .... but the cost to cover full frame would be very high. The other lens missing in the line-up is a full frame equivent to a 21mm f2.8. Leica is supposed to introduce such a lens (15mm??) but I tremble at the cost.
Rex
What about compression in all this?
Each focal length has its own way of compressing / expanding backgrounds and foregrounds.
Due to the crop factor, a wide angle lens like a 28mm may become a 'normal' one as far as FoV is concerned but it remains a WA as far as DoF and compression.
It may give nice results by expanding foregrounds for instance but also ugly ones like the brick walls in the pic below (R-D1 & 28/2) which would not bend that way with a 40mm lens on a 35mm camera.
Best,
LCT
http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN0085-afterweb.jpg
Bob Ross
07-29-2006, 13:56
Hi LCT,
I think that you do have the compression factor involved in changing formats. I have been using 4/3rds format for several years and find myself drifting back to my favorite 90mm lenses, that I used with 35mm film. I noticed the same can hold true for 35mm compared to 6 X 7 MF where 90mm is a normal. The image compression gradient significance may have to do with our individual eye sight or mind's eye vision, the way we want the world to stack up. Changing formats might be a time to discover whether you want to "get it all in' or "have what you got stack up the way you imagine it should", when you make the picture.
Mark Norton
07-29-2006, 14:03
VinceC talks a huge amount of sense. Good job!
James Brannan
07-29-2006, 14:15
I do take 645 negative, 35 mm negatives and 6Mp digitals, and enlarged to A3 the 645 clearly look best, the digital comes second and the 35 mm last by a fair margin. I won't open the whole argument here, but after all factors are considered a 6Mp image has enough resolution for any print, provided that print is viewed at the correct distance. You would, I am sure, not print a billboard at 300 Dpi....
Which 6mp body? Just curious. Adding to the point, I had a 8mp digicam that was abysmal at A3. I have 3 6mp DSLR bodies that easily do A3 and when I get everything right even make the occasional decent poster size print for me. I have higher resolution bodies but see 6mp as the turning point for consistently outdoing 35mm film.
James Brannan
07-29-2006, 14:25
Good point about "full frame". People just have been using 50mm as "normal" on the 24x36 format for decades, so that is "full frame" by way of habit. Of course, there is nothing inherently "full" about it. Only thing is, we don't have a discrete focal length on a cropped sensor. We have 43.xx or whatever. Only annoying for people who care a great deal about such things.
Me. . . it will not matter because I'd not be buying a $5000 digital rangefinder. Leicas aren't supposed to become obsolete. It's part of their great value. The M8 will change this.
How will the M8 change that? In the minds of some any RF is obsoleter already. In the minds of some RF users I'm sure any of the older Leica bodies lacking metering are obsolete. Take it ever farther, I'm sure there are those that consider any Leica without ap to be obsolete.
I've got an old DSLR that was considered state of the art just a few short years ago. It was in fact in the "Leica" realm speaking of price. Now you can buy it all day long on eBay in "pristine" shape for easily under $700. Does that make the images it still produces "obsolete". My newer D200 sure has alot more bells and whistles but do the old bodies cease to function simply because a newer body is now on the market or because Nikon discontinues and older one? Absolutely not but sadly this is the thinking of many young "photographers" these days. If I sell a print this weekend I will bet that the buyer won't ask if it was produced using a DSLR, a RF, a film SLR, or even one of my Polaroids!
James Brannan
07-29-2006, 14:34
Actually I don't see any reason to erase my preconceptions about focal lengths from my brain for much the same reason I don't want to erase my present lenses from my bag. They are good, they take good pictures, they cost me much money, buying new lenses would cost me more, and also it's more than probable that in a couple of years new sensors will do justice to their design again.
As soon as the current market for APS sized sensors cools off, I'd say.
If you have something that works for you then I say stick with it. I fail to see why so many Leica users are so excited over the prospect of any digital body. Of note there are currently APS sized sensors that blow away film in many ways. ;)
James Brannan
07-29-2006, 14:43
*snip*
One thing that I really could have used on site was faster lenses. A summilux would have been a gift from the gods when you're trying to shoot into a hole in the ground in early pre-dawn light. But the format made no difference at all. Zip. Zero. I'd been shooting 35mm film for 40 years, since I went to Venezuela and Colombia as a kid in 1961; I had no trouble in the transition; it was the last thing that I would have thought of as troubling.
*snip*
You make excellent points. I did want to highlight this one part of your post. Are you needing macro style high speed shooting in the dark? If so there are some really interesting options out there. Some suggested reading...
http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed00.html
http://www.muellerworld.com/exhibits/fast_lens/
The first is by Bjorn Rorslett. He is without a doubt my inspiration when it comes to high speed photography. Two of the many I've aquired since (warning on the second link, may not be suitable for small childern)...
http://mynakedsoda.smugmug.com/gallery/1051721
http://mynakedsoda.smugmug.com/gallery/974877
LCT
There is no "compression". If you compose a scene and change focal lengths AND crop factors both, the perspective will NOT change unless you MOVE YOUR FEET. If you stay in exaxtly the same place, no matter what you do, NOTHING will change except framing.
That being said, its true that you do move your feet when you change to a crop format because you are trying to preserve the original relative size of your subject with regards the background. From a practical point of view smaller sensors do tend to produce images with a more open perspective. But what is so bad about having another perspective availiable in your photo toolbox?
The full frame sensor guys seem to think that there is something intrincically better about the 35mm film frame perspective. I would suggest that, in fact, the 35mm perspective is simply the one most of us are used to. It doesn't take a whole lot of heavy mental lifting to adjust to a different perspective. Those of us that have shot in other film formats have been doing it for years. There is nothing new here except opportunity to break out of the perspective one is accustomed to.
I still shoot 35mm film, not so much for perspective reasons, or other supposed advantages. The reason I still shoot film is because I enjoy it,,, I like the tactile qualities. I like developing film and I like printing in a wet darkroom. All the romance of film and mechanical cameras (especially rangefinders) comes down to an esthetic appreciating of beautiful analog things. Really nothing more or nothing less.
Rex
60 years old but still changing
I think the digital full frame vs cropped digital sensors affects mainly the new effective focal lengths for those with a lot of M lenses AND new digital users.
For previous dslr or rd1 users, they will have adjusted to this and accept it, and/or bought into the new designed for digital lens families for their brands. For dslr users (nikon), they have had the option for a 35mm full frame digital back for some time to use their existing lens at the same lengths they've used, or use with film.
For new to digital users, the cropped M8 sensor will give these folks reasons to buy new wide angle products, and maybe whole sets of new lens sizes, and still be able to utilize their existing lenses at greater than previously used focal lengths.
I personally think the M8 will be technologically, and wide angle lens challenged in the market, even if it came out two years ago, yet it may still fill a niche market for m-mount lens users wanting a status symbol to carry around.
ffttklackdedeng
07-30-2006, 01:49
IMHO the FF DSLRs are better than the cropped ones because the viewfinder is better (bigger). As far as I rememeber from a recent magazine, the VF 'enlargment' was approx. 0.5 for D50 etc, while it was approx. 0.7 for the 5D (the calculation was taking all points into consideration, i.e. crop factor, VF enlargment w/ 50mm lens, VF coverage in percent; the final number being the ratio of a scene viewed through a 50mm 36x24mm equivalent).
For a rangefinder this doesn't make a difference at all, since 'only' a wider lens has to be attached.
Regards, Robert
James Brannan
07-30-2006, 02:08
IMHO the FF DSLRs are better than the cropped ones because the viewfinder is better (bigger). As far as I rememeber from a recent magazine, the VF 'enlargment' was approx. 0.5 for D50 etc, while it was approx. 0.7 for the 5D (the calculation was taking all points into consideration, i.e. crop factor, VF enlargment w/ 50mm lens, VF coverage in percent; the final number being the ratio of a scene viewed through a 50mm 36x24mm equivalent).
For a rangefinder this doesn't make a difference at all, since 'only' a wider lens has to be attached.
Regards, Robert
The 5D does in fact have a superior viewfinder in comparison to most other DSLR's. This is not (only) because it uses a different sized sensor.
I must say that it isn't an issue where viewfinder couldn't be made better though. I'm thinking between my D100 and D70 (D50 also) vs. my D200. The others really are marginal for manual focusing and make you think "tunnel". The D200 is a great improvement in this area. All are 1.5 crop bodies and all have a built in flash taking up space near the top of the body. By the same token not all SLR viewfinders are made equal. I love my Nikon F65 for it's compact size but the viewfinder is dim, small, and hard to use compared to my Nikon F100.
I agree it shouldn't be an issue with a RF.
After all is said and done, obviously any future M8 or 9er is worth a full frame sensor and should have it for the sake of the glorious glass that belongs in it.
LCT, There is no "compression". If you compose a scene and change focal lengths AND crop factors both, the perspective will NOT change unless you MOVE YOUR FEET. If you stay in exaxtly the same place, no matter what you do, NOTHING will change except framing...
I disagree, Rex.
Perspective and compression are not the same thing.
Each focal length has its own way of compressing, quite easy to check with long tele lenses but it's true for other lenses as well
Best,
LCT
LCT, Rex is right. Linear perpective, the relationship between the size of a foreground and background object, is changed in relation to the ratios between the camera and those two objects which can only be made by moving toward or away from them. Changing the angle of view either by focal length or format does not change the relationship between the object sizes in the image. BTW, it is easy to check. Simply view a picture in photoshop and change the magnification. The picture gets bigger, by the ratio between the foreground and background object sizes do not change (and how could they).
The neat tunnel effect you see in the movies where the background is getting larger or smaller compared to the person in the frame is done by changing the camera distance to the person while changing the focal length to maintain the image size of the person. The difference in foreground (person) to background size is caused by the change in distance. The change in focal length is just maintain the foreground image size otherwise it would just look like you are receeding from the subject.
BTW, it is easy to check. Simply view a picture in photoshop and change the magnification. The picture gets bigger, by the ratio between the foreground and background object sizes do not change (and how could they).
LCT
You can do the same test with zoom lens. Stay in one spot, and zoom around a bit. Check out the perspective when zoomed to telephto. Now, WITHOUT MOVING, zoom back and look at the perspective of the same area. It will not change. How could it? All you have done is inclided more area in the frame, not changed the perspective of the original telephoto area.
Another test is to take a normal or wide angle shot and crop the **** out of it and blow it up to 400%. It looks compressed, doesn't it? But its the same lens, so the cropping made it "look" compressed. Lenses don't compress anything in and of themselves.
BTW dont confuse rectilinear distortion found in wide angle lenses, with linear perspective. Thats another can of worms.
Rex
They are. That has nothing to do with my point:
"Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but not everyone can the afford more expensive corrected lenses."
As the M8 will , given the lens mount, use 99.9 % CV,Zeiss or Leica lenses,ranging from excellent to exceptional, I would say that in this case, this is rather irrelevant.
I disagree, Rex.
Perspective and compression are not the same thing.
Each focal length has its own way of compressing, quite easy to check with long tele lenses but it's true for other lenses as well
Best,
LCT
Sorry, in this context, compression and perspective are exactly the same and are determined exclusively by the camera standpoint.
Sorry, in this context, compression and perspective are exactly the same and are determined exclusively by the camera standpoint.
I beg to differ as well as i'm still able not to move my feet in spite of my great age http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/oldie.gif and different compression sounds obvious to me.
How about showing me some little piccies to demonstrate your theory?
I did it already above, so i wait for your evidence with a great interest.
http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/Photographer5.gif
It is not my theory, it is basic photographic fact. Stay in one place and change your focal length, and perspective (compression as you call it) remains the same. It even stays the same for a pinhole lens, that has no focal length at all. If you crop a wideangleshot to the FOV of a long lens the result is exactly identical, except for grain etc. Change your standpoint and change focal length to keep your subject the same size and the perspective changes, making the long lens (after moving backwards) show a "more compressed" effect. Use any of the methods suggested by other posters in this thread.Check any photography primer.
Did all that for 30 years my friend!
http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/oldie.gif
Show me your lil piccies as i did above and it'll me my turn if you prove me wrong.
http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/drunk.gif
TryTHIS SITE (http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=perspective)
or THIS ONE (http://www.cybercollege.com/myths.htm)
or THIS ONE (http://jamesmskipper.tripod.com/jamesmskipper/perspective.html)
or THIS ONE (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm)
I can keep this up for a long time, Google has 2384956 sites saying the same thing.....
>>It even stays the same for a pinhole lens, that has no focal length at all. <<
I think a pinhole lens has the focal length of pinhole-to-film plane.
I think a pinhole lens has the focal length of pinhole-to-film plane.
I should have said -of its own-
I have a 35mm FF RF camera and a 35mm FF SLR camera.
I have a FF (=35mm) DSLR camera.
I have an APS format DSLR camera 6MP. It is a fine camera. I intend to keep it and use it (or maybe someday upgrade to another APS format DLSR with a few more MP if I can get a decent price for the old one).
In DSLRs, the APS format is very useful for long tele lenses, especially when the resolution is not too much less than on the FF DSLR. This implies need for a higher pixel density, so noise at high ISO may be an issue (or maybe not). And it's more of a challenge to the lenses.
However, like most everybody else, I only use my RF with wide, normal and very mild tele lenses. I wanna FF DRF !!! :) :) :)
Perspective of course depends only on where the camera is. However, with long tele lenses the issue becomes less critical. If you get something framed at (say) 100 yards with a 400mm lens, then walk forwards 50 yards and take a similarly framed shot with a 200mm lens, you'll be hard-pressed to notice much difference in the compression. Both shots will have a distinctly tele-type (!) perspective. Now if you walk in to 25 yards and shoot with a 100mm lens, you'll probably start to see the difference, if the thing hasn't flown away.
However, like most everybody else, I only use my RF with wide, normal and very mild tele lenses.
I do use my M6 with 200 and 280 mm lenses. And I am negotiating for a 400.On the Visoflex of course. Though, if it still counts a a RF then is a question ;)
Perspective of course depends only on where the camera is. However, with long tele lenses the issue becomes less critical. If you get something framed at (say) 100 yards with a 400mm lens, then walk forwards 50 yards and take a similarly framed shot with a 200mm lens, you'll be hard-pressed to notice much difference in the compression. Both shots will have a distinctly tele-type (!) perspective. Now if you walk in to 25 yards and shoot with a 100mm lens, you'll probably start to see the difference, if the thing hasn't flown away.
Sure you must walk quite a bit. The idea is to get your subject into the picture at the same magnification. However, with the subjects I take with long lenses, I am likely to get gored, trampled, stomped or eaten using a wideangle :eek: :D
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/Old-Scrappy-1.jpg
photogdave
07-31-2006, 06:48
As the M8 will , given the lens mount, use 99.9 % CV,Zeiss or Leica lenses,ranging from excellent to exceptional, I would say that in this case, this is rather irrelevant.
By this time we were talking about DSLRs.
>>It even stays the same for a pinhole lens, that has no focal length at all. <<
I think a pinhole lens has the focal length of pinhole-to-film plane.
You might call a pinhole camera the ultimate zoom lens. Which goes to show you that perspective is totally determined by camera to subject distance. The "lens" just doesn't care what it's "focal length" is .
Even if LCT is wrong (and he is), I must admit for practical and artistic purposes we still act as if telephoto lenses compress and wide angles open up perspective. And more to the point, the M8 currently lacks any fast, wides to fill the gap.
Rex
<snip>However, with the subjects I take with long lenses, I am likely to get gored, trampled, stomped or eaten using a wideangle :eek: :D
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/Old-Scrappy-1.jpg
With that sweet little kitty I would surely approve use of the 400 !!! :)
I do use my M6 with 200 and 280 mm lenses. And I am negotiating for a 400.On the Visoflex of course. Though, if it still counts a a RF then is a question ;)
<snip>
On the M8 your 400 will have the FOV of a 520 on 35mm :)
You are the first Visoflex user I have heard of for many a long year! I wonder how many there are on RFF?
"Full Frame" for digital cameras based on 35mm film cameras is APS-C or something in the crop range of 1.3 to 1.6.
This is dictated by physics.
Film doesn't really care what angle the llight is coming from. Digital sensors like the light to come straight on.
As you get to the edge of the 35mm frame the angle of light hitting the film/sensor plane becomes more acute. Lenses for film are designed to minimize the vignetting this can cause on a 35mm film frame. However, because sensors handle this vignetting less well than film, vignetting effects are more pronounced. Canon boosts the edges of the frame in software in the 5D to reduce the vignetting problem. However, with some "full frame" wide-angles vignetting is still quite pronounced in the 5D.
Lenses, particularly wide angles, would have to be redesigned to work acceptably on an FF rangefinder. A smaller sensor allows you to use current glass and get good results. It will force those who like wide lenses to buy another wider wide. The alternative is a larger sensor and buying pretty much a whole new set of lenses designed to properly cover the sensor.
Peter
HenningW
07-31-2006, 08:03
Hi LCT,
I think that you do have the compression factor involved in changing formats. I have been using 4/3rds format for several years and find myself drifting back to my favorite 90mm lenses, that I used with 35mm film. I noticed the same can hold true for 35mm compared to 6 X 7 MF where 90mm is a normal. The image compression gradient significance may have to do with our individual eye sight or mind's eye vision, the way we want the world to stack up. Changing formats might be a time to discover whether you want to "get it all in' or "have what you got stack up the way you imagine it should", when you make the picture.
Compression is a perspective phenomenon. It depends solely on relative position of the elements, and is not dependent on the optics in the camera nor the format.
Henning
On the M8 your 400 will have the FOV of a 520 on 35mm :)
You are the first Visoflex user I have heard of for many a long year! I wonder how many there are on RFF?
Actually I started again after I decided to get the M8. The Visoflex3 will be rather nice for use on that camera and I am hoping for better quality than my Canon 10D. Not that that is a bad camera, not at all. I also got a VisoIII plus 200 and 280 for a steal. So I just now closed the deal for a Novoflex C 400, which is one of the very best 400 lenses ever built. It will have to be sent to the factory for shortening, but they still do that and they still sell the Visoflex adapters for the various lenses, which was a pleasant surprise. I have been shooting the 280 and 200 on my M6TTL for a few weeks now and it is rather nice to use, a lot better than I recall. The "soft" option for the mirror release is particularly useful. But then I had the Visoflex2 before, that did not have the quick-return mirror.
Anyone interested in a Canon 100-400L, mint,boxed ???;)
photogdave
07-31-2006, 08:58
Going back to my statement that wide angle lenses when cropped on a smaller sensor have more distortion, I was TOLD that I was incorrect, and given some interesting mathmatical formulas etc. to explain this.
Well, I failed math at school but I have been taking photos for a while. So I shot the same subject at the same distance. The first image is the 5D with the 28-135 IS @f4. The second image is the 30D with the 17-40 f4L @f4. No manipulation done. To my eye the wider lens on the smaller sensor clearly shows more distortion. I don't care if the physics are wrong but this is simply how it looks. End of story.
HenningW
07-31-2006, 09:06
After all is said and done, obviously any future M8 or 9er is worth a full frame sensor and should have it for the sake of the glorious glass that belongs in it.
Unfortunately the 'glorious glass that belongs on it' is not generally the current range of lenses that Leica makes. Especially the wideangle lenses are not suitable for a full frame sensor.
The 'glorious glass that belongs on it' will be a new series of digitally optimized lenses that will be sold at a 'glorious new price'. Or you could just use the Zeiss lenses.
Henning
HenningW
07-31-2006, 09:31
Going back to my statement that wide angle lenses when cropped on a smaller sensor have more distortion, I was TOLD that I was incorrect, and given some interesting mathmatical formulas etc. to explain this.
Well, I failed math at school but I have been taking photos for a while. So I shot the same subject at the same distance. The first image is the 5D with the 28-135 IS @f4. The second image is the 30D with the 17-40 f4L @f4. No manipulation done. To my eye the wider lens on the smaller sensor clearly shows more distortion. I don't care if the physics are wrong but this is simply how it looks. End of story.
Not quite. As you have focussed at a point that is fairly close, and obviously not at infinity, the focal lengths of the lenses are not necessarily what you think they are. From measuring the elements on the back rack I surmise that you are actually closer to the back rack in the second shot compared with the first. You do that to account for the wider angle of view that the second lens gives you, and that will increase the distortion evident in your pictures.
I also have the 5D and an APS sensor camera, the 20D. I don't have the 17-40, but the 16-35 lens which I do have has internal focussing which shortens the focal length as you focus closer. I don't have the 28-135 anymore, but the marked 28 focal length certainly wasn't 28mm; it was longer.
My point is this: if you have two lenses with focal lengths (in 35mm terms) of 27 and 29mm, you'll get quite different results and these will produce results such as you have shown.
Anecdotal: About 40 years ago I had to do a very large group shot (250 people) and the only equipment I had that would handle this was a 90mm lens on 4x5. As you might imagine, I had issues with distortion, and had to make sure that the thinnest people were in the outer zones of the photo. The group started getting antsy because they could see no sense in the way I rearranged people, and I didn't know how to explain to them politely that it was based on body mass. ;)
Now I take group pictures with a Noblex or Roundshot, and avoid any such distortion issues.
Henning
photogdave
07-31-2006, 10:12
All this goes back to my example of shooting a wedding with a 17mm lens to approximate 28mm full-frame, vs using a 28mm on a full-frame camera.
You wouldn't be focusing at infinity if you're doing a group shot in close quarters, and you wouldn't be measuring the alignment of your elements in relation to the imaging plane. You will have your camera, your lens and you will shoot.
From this experience I would rather use full-frame and a true 28mm lens rather than trying to approximate that focal length with a wider lens on a smaller-sensor camera.
From this experience I would rather use full-frame and a true 28mm lens rather than trying to approximate that focal length with a wider lens on a smaller-sensor camera.
The problem is that many current lenses would have to be redesigned to work with a so-called FF sensor ... they just wouldn't cut it as far as corner coverage goes.
The other option is to keep the current glass and add an 18mm designed to properly cover the APS-C sensor.
Peter
This issue of whether current wide-angles work on a full-frame sensor is puzzling me somewhat. I have a 5D and also a Sigma 12-24 zoom lens, which IMHO performs extremely well on that camera. There is a little vignetting, true, and there is some loss of resolution towards the corners, but in both cases it's not noticeably more than you get on film. I don't see any real difference in performance over the entire range. If you stop down a touch, there is some improvement, but even wide open it's quite acceptable.
Unfortunately the 'glorious glass that belongs on it' is not generally the current range of lenses that Leica makes. Especially the wideangle lenses are not suitable for a full frame sensor.
The 'glorious glass that belongs on it' will be a new series of digitally optimized lenses that will be sold at a 'glorious new price'. Or you could just use the Zeiss lenses.
Henning
:angel:
glory doesn't come cheap
but I won't be paying a leg and a toe for a croppled thing
sorry about my bad english
nuno
photogdave
07-31-2006, 12:32
This issue of whether current wide-angles work on a full-frame sensor is puzzling me somewhat. I have a 5D and also a Sigma 12-24 zoom lens, which IMHO performs extremely well on that camera. There is a little vignetting, true, and there is some loss of resolution towards the corners, but in both cases it's not noticeably more than you get on film. I don't see any real difference in performance over the entire range. If you stop down a touch, there is some improvement, but even wide open it's quite acceptable.
I agree completely. I think most of the complaints about wide angle performance come from number-crunchers, rather than people actually taking photos.
Not to mention that many people are viewing their digital images at greater magnifications on their computer monitors compared to how they viewed their film images!
Jaap, good group of web references to the perspective topic. Depth of field is another tough one... I was recalling Spotmatic-era Pentax manuals and brochures on Pentax lenses would illustrate each lens with a shot from the same position, each longer lens showing an ever-more-magnified view of the same scene. I would pour over these in trying to decide what lens I "needed" next. But this kind of series is also useful in showing that while the view narrows and is magnified, and the "compression effect" is notable, close examination teaches us that a crop of the wider illustrations has the very same perspective. I found some pdf files of old Pentax manuals, but the copying was so poor that the illustrations were all blocked up and hard to see clearly.
Interesting philosophical point about the pin-hole camera... the aperture disk is its effective "lens" and it indeed has no inherent focal length or angle of view or f-number, these being determined by the position and size of the sensitive material in the box.
To my eye the wider lens on the smaller sensor clearly shows more distortion. I don't care if the physics are wrong but this is simply how it looks. End of story.
They look about the same to me. Except, of course, the 30D's zoom lens is set for a little wider field of view. Is that what you notice?
Note that the perspective is the same as one would expect.
Rex
Who still can't see "compression"
What physics? As far as the wide-angle effect, three-dimensional objects stretching away from the optical axis, there should be no difference. As far as curvilinear distortion, that is related to the quality of the lens design. In current DSLR technology, the APS size sensor has a distinct disadvantage as the mirror box is scaled for a larger format. Given the same angle of view with wide-angle lenses, it becomes a greater problem to project the image to the image plane and greater curvilinear distortion can be a result. Since most zooms today are designed with price in mind, it is difficult to expect miracles.
Not to mention that many people are viewing their digital images at greater magnifications on their computer monitors compared to how they viewed their film images!
A very good point. Few people using so-called 100% crops actually work out the magnification that entails for their particular camera, nor do they figure in the viewing distance to their monitor as related to an enlargement hanging on the wall
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.