Reason for going with cropped sensor (i.e. 50D, 7D), other than cost

[HBOC]

As pointed out, you are NEVER locked into anything. I buy all my lenses used (Fred Miranda), so i don't take too much a loss when selling, if i do.

If you buy shady lenses, you will have problems selling. Same goes for prosumer glass. At least that has been my experience. A 17-55 2.8 is easy to sell. It is on par with an L optically. L lenses are easy to sell.

Lenses retain about 65-70%, and some recently have gained value, such as the 24-70L. I do not know why, but that is what i have seen.

A cropped body is good for wildlife. People have been raving about the 7D for birding for the frame rate and IQ. I hope to go FF this summer. We will see.

 

[Edge100]

My $0.02...

I would first say that back in the film days, no one ever thought of not having enough 'reach' on their "full frame" film; cropped sensors are an entirely new phenomenon (well, there was APS film, but it was never very popular), and so are these "FF vs. cropped" discussions.

There certainly are advantages to cropped sensors. An increase in effective focal length for the same length is certainly one of these advantages. If you were to crop a 21MP FF image by 1.6x (using Canon's APS-C sensor as a reference), you'd only be looking at a 8.2MP image, equivalent to that of a 30D (i.e. a 5DmkII and 20D/30D have the same pixel size...6.4 um). So high MP crop sensors (such as the 7D) provide both high resolution (as a result of all those pixels) AND additional effective focal length reach. And if you crop one of these images further, you'll get even longer effective focal lengths while still retaining resolution that was state-of-the-art only a few years ago.

Having additional DoF with equivalent framing (i.e. because you're further away from the subject) is another advantage of a cropped sensor, especially for landscape photographers.

For my own purposes, FF is where it's at. As an event and portrait photographer, what I need above all is good high ISO performance (though I'm not overly fussy about this) and shallow DoF. It's also fantastic to have lenses perform as they were intended. Yes, you do tend to see the warts of certain lenses a lot more (FF corners can be a bit rough on all but the best lenses), but this is more than made up for by the other benefits (plus, I tend not to put important things in the corners anyway).

FF will always have better pixel-level noise than cropped sensors, when evaluated at equivalent resolutions. That's not to say that cropped can't produce low noise images; it obviously can. But pixel for pixel, FF will always be better when compared to the same manufacturer's cropped sensors.

As with most things in life, the real answer is "it depends". If you are shooting sports or birds in flight, and don't need the absolute best high ISO performance, cropped is probably the way to go. If you're shooting events or portraits, and need high resolution AND good high ISO, FF is the better choice.

 

[Edge100]

Lenses retain about 65-70%, and some recently have gained value, such as the 24-70L. I do not know why, but that is what i have seen.

L lenses are often basically free to own, except for the opportunity cost, especially when purchased used. I have sold two L lenses in the last 4 months, both of them for significantly more than I paid for them about 2 years ago (the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L, incidentally).

 

[HBOC]

L lenses are often basically free to own, except for the opportunity cost, especially when purchased used. I have sold two L lenses in the last 4 months, both of them for significantly more than I paid for them about 2 years ago (the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L, incidentally).

I know, it is great. Initial cost is high but worth it.

 

[mdatwood]

For my own purposes, FF is where it's at. As an event and portrait photographer, what I need above all is good high ISO performance (though I'm not overly fussy about this) and shallow DoF. It's also fantastic to have lenses perform as they were intended. Yes, you do tend to see the warts of certain lenses a lot more (FF corners can be a bit rough on all but the best lenses), but this is more than made up for by the other benefits (plus, I tend not to put important things in the corners anyway).

FF will always have better pixel-level noise than cropped sensors, when evaluated at equivalent resolutions. That's not to say that cropped can't produce low noise images; it obviously can. But pixel for pixel, FF will always be better when compared to the same manufacturer's cropped sensors.

This is why I said earlier I would go with a FF every time. IMHO, the ISO performance and picture quality trumps the cropped sensors. I'm a Nikon guy so I don't know the first thing about Canon, but the Nikon D3\D3x is an amazing body. The biggest problem I see right now is that it's hard to do a straight comparison between cropped/FF sensors because the FF tend to be in the big money bodies that have lots of other bells and whistles to improve image quality.

 

[compuwar]

To be fair, this thread has been mostly Canon talk.

Yes, but we're talking principles. The 1Ds IV will be out soon too. To try to back into logic by picking specific bodies out of a lineup doesn't help the OP with their actual question.

In your case, there is an advantage in the D300, as a 1.5x linear crop on your D3x is < 12Megapixels.

Not enough of an advantage to make a real-world difference. 10.5MP is close enough for sports and wildlife where the reach is important. Trust me, I took three months to do the analysis because the D3 + D300 would have been cheaper than the D3x alone. 1.9MP is peanuts when it comes to the area of the sensor. I've shot my D3x in DX mode, and I still shoot my D2x- which shares the resolution of the D300 without having to base at ISO 200 (but with worse high-ISO noise.) So, unlike the theorists here, I've actually got real-world experience shooting wildlife with both- I caveated the statement with resolution because that's the only potential difference which changes the equation.

The difference is much more extreme comparing the 21MPix 5DII to the 18MPix cropped 7D (and remember the Canon crop is 1.6x)

It still doesn't turn a crop into a zoom- when the 1DsIV comes out, that will likely be negated again- which is why it's important to not think your way into a rut that doesn't look at the overall principles involved.

I don't want to derail the thread, but there are also advantages to the larger senels- resolution isn't the only measure of IQ- but my point still stands- given the closeness between an FX sensor with sensels close to the size of a DX sensor, the "advantage" of the crop isn't significant and is likely to be outweighed by the advantages in well depth and DoF control on the FF body.

Think of it this way- if the "advantage" were all that big, all of us wildlife shooters would be shooting with 4/3rds cameras in the least- but you don't see us all flocking over that direction.

Paul

 

[firestarter]

Yes, but we're talking principles. The 1Ds IV will be out soon too. To try to back into logic by picking specific bodies out of a lineup doesn't help the OP with their actual question.

The 1Ds IV is going to cost 3x either the 7D or 5DII.

This was a practical question... I don't think the OP is about to drop $6-8k on a body.

How is some diversion into the theoretical helping the OP exactly? He already said that he's upgrading within the Canon line... and mentioned prospective bodies.

Not enough of an advantage to make a real-world difference. 10.5MP is close enough for sports and wildlife where the reach is important. Trust me, I took three months to do the analysis because the D3 + D300 would have been cheaper than the D3x alone. 1.9MP is peanuts when it comes to the area of the sensor. I've shot my D3x in DX mode, and I still shoot my D2x- which shares the resolution of the D300 without having to base at ISO 200 (but with worse high-ISO noise.) So, unlike the theorists here, I've actually got real-world experience shooting wildlife with both- I caveated the statement with resolution because that's the only potential difference which changes the equation.

I agree, the D300/D3x example is not as clearcut as the 7D/5DII one.

It still doesn't turn a crop into a zoom- when the 1DsIV comes out, that will likely be negated again- which is why it's important to not think your way into a rut that doesn't look at the overall principles involved.

You're the only person fixated with the word 'zoom' here. I never said 'zoom' in my reply, and you didn't seem to pick up on gnd's use of quotation marks around "zoomed in". This crop vs zoom issue you're having seems to be a straw man.

I don't want to derail the thread, but there are also advantages to the larger senels- resolution isn't the only measure of IQ- but my point still stands- given the closeness between an FX sensor with sensels close to the size of a DX sensor, the "advantage" of the crop isn't significant and is likely to be outweighed by the advantages in well depth and DoF control on the FF body.

Yes, back to Nikon and sure, the difference between cropped FX and DX isn't that startling.

But this wasn't just a theoretical question... the OP is looking to upgrade within the Canon system, and mentioned several cameras in consideration.

Comparing a cropped 5DII to a same lens, same angle of view picture taken full frame on a 7D yields an 8.2Mpixel crop on the 5DII, compared to an 18Mpixel image from the 7D. This is a very worthwhile difference.

The 1Ds IV would have to be 46 Mpixels to match that... and the price will be a great deal more.

(And you're preaching to the converted WRT the appeal of full frame... I have a 5DII. But that's not relevant to the point we're discussing about the appeal of the cropped sensor for telephoto lens work).

Think of it this way- if the "advantage" were all that big, all of us wildlife shooters would be shooting with 4/3rds cameras in the least- but you don't see us all flocking over that direction.

I'm sure some do. However, for the Canon-shooting OP I don't think this is a relevant point.

 

[Ruahrc]

Already there? We're only on the second generation of 'reasonably priced' full frame sensors - and sensor resolution hasn't even bottomed out yet.

I'd expect full frame to get cheaper. I'd expect full frame to appear in a wider range of body types.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with you. We're not at the endpoint yet, and there will be a lot of change over the next 5 years.

The price of full frame sensors may not go down as quickly as you think. Prices for silicon-based components are all about area. Computer chips get cheaper with time because as they develop the technology to make smaller transistors, the footprint of the chip is reduced. This in turn leads to more chips per silicon wafer, lowering the cost.

By definition, you cannot "shrink" a FF sensor- nor will smaller transistor technology really help much with costs. You still need a FF-sized piece of silicon. That in turn defines the amount of sensors per wafer you can produce, and will ultimately determine the cost. The only way to get more sensors per wafer is to grow larger and larger wafers, the technology for which advances far more slowly than shrinking transistor sizes. You can improve yields with better manufacturing techniques but until you are producing significantly larger wafers of semiconductor grade silicon (think about how many FF sensors you can fit on a wafer, and then think about how much larger it needs to be in order to fit more) the cost is always going to remain pretty high, and therefore to keep reasonable costs on DSLRs, DX or crop bodies will always be around.

P.S. regarding the OP, cost aside, about the only reason to go with a crop sensor is the physical size factor. A FF camera is pretty big, and sometimes you don't want to/can't take that size/bulk along. But "cost" touches upon many aspects of DX design. Not only will the camera itself be cheaper, but all of its associated eqiupment has the potential to be cheaper as well. Assuming that your DX sensor is going to have a higher pixel density than FX- you will get more "reach" from a particular focal length, which saves you from having to buy the ultra expensive supertelephoto and let you use a shorter focal length instead. It's a lot easier to buy a high quality ultrawide to give you width on a crop sensor than it is to buy a 600mm f/4 to give you enough reach on FF. Cost factors in that you can use smaller and lighter "DX" lenses rather than buying/carrying larger FF lenses. You might not need as large/heavy/expensive a tripod with DX because you will have a smaller lighter body and a smaller lighter lens, and maybe only a 400mm ultralong vs. a 600mm resulting in less tripod needed to support your gear.

Ruahrc

 

[mdatwood]

P.S. regarding the OP, cost aside, about the only reason to go with a crop sensor is the physical size factor. A FF camera is pretty big, and sometimes you don't want to/can't take that size/bulk along. But "cost" touches upon many aspects of DX design. Not only will the camera itself be cheaper, but all of its associated eqiupment has the potential to be cheaper as well. Assuming that your DX sensor is going to have a higher pixel density than FX- you will get more "reach" from a particular focal length, which saves you from having to buy the ultra expensive supertelephoto and let you use a shorter focal length instead. It's a lot easier to buy a high quality ultrawide to give you width on a crop sensor than it is to buy a 600mm f/4 to give you enough reach on FF. Cost factors in that you can use smaller and lighter "DX" lenses rather than buying/carrying larger FF lenses. You might not need as large/heavy/expensive a tripod with DX because you will have a smaller lighter body and a smaller lighter lens, and maybe only a 400mm ultralong vs. a 600mm resulting in less tripod needed to support your gear.

Ruahrc

This is a great point. I own a D60, but have access to a friends D3 anytime I want to take it. I do a lot of hiking and will rarely lug the D3 around, although I will make a weight exception for the that amazing 14-24mm f/2.8 lens

If it's a chore to bring your camera gear somewhere then you won't take as many pictures and then what's the point of owing all this great gear?

 

[compuwar]

The 1Ds IV is going to cost 3x either the 7D or 5DII.

This was a practical question... I don't think the OP is about to drop $6-8k on a body.

Perhaps you might look at the thread title- "other than cost" being the operative piece.

How is some diversion into the theoretical helping the OP exactly? He already said that he's upgrading within the Canon line... and mentioned prospective bodies.

He's asked if there's a reason other than cost- you seem to think that "well, if you look at the line-up this very second..." qualifiers are necessary. Me, I think the actual answer is a better thing- and that's what I gave- I took into account resolution in my answer- but we're going to have to just disagree I suppose.

I agree, the D300/D3x example is not as clearcut as the 7D/5DII one.

Yes, but they're still *examples*, the real answer is still "no, cost is the only mitigating factor if you're comparing different sized sensors with similar pixel pitches."

You're the only person fixated with the word 'zoom' here. I never said 'zoom' in my reply, and you didn't seem to pick up on gnd's use of quotation marks around "zoomed in". This crop vs zoom issue you're having seems to be a straw man.

No, it's not a straw man quotation marks or not, it's simply not a factual statement without some sort of qualifier about pixel size. You seem to have missed the OP's "all I'll ever need" as well as "Any information you contribute will be helpful probably to a few of us" in your rush to defend a temporal and incomplete answer.

But this wasn't just a theoretical question... the OP is looking to upgrade within the Canon system, and mentioned several cameras in consideration.

Comparing a cropped 5DII to a same lens, same angle of view picture taken full frame on a 7D yields an 8.2Mpixel crop on the 5DII, compared to an 18Mpixel image from the 7D. This is a very worthwhile difference.

The 1Ds IV would have to be 46 Mpixels to match that... and the price will be a great deal more.

The OP phrased the question as a generic with examples of the current Canon line and offered the opinion that the information would be useful to more than just themselves, so trying to backfill the question into current Canon-only is more of a strawman than anything. Worse, you're backfilling it to be 7D-only- hardly making the thread useful to a wider audience.

Secondly, bringing up cost is disingenuous- the OP asked quite clearly if cost were the only reason- so trying to rephrase things to account for cost negates the actual question.

I'm sure some do. However, for the Canon-shooting OP I don't think this is a relevant point.

I suppose it depends on if the OP wants to actually know the answer to their question in terms of real and complete information that they can apply no matter what, or simply a view on a single manufacturer for what may well be a very limited amount of time. I took the OP's use of "i.e." and "ever," as well as to include more than themselves as recipients of the information to mean the former.

Paul

 

[compuwar]

and maybe only a 400mm ultralong vs. a 600mm resulting in less tripod needed to support your gear.

Ruahrc

FWIW, 400 primes like the Canon 400/5.6 require about the same support as the 600mm prime, the 400/2.8 *defintely* requires the same support and the weight difference between the 400/2.8 and 600/4 is negligable once you're lugging around the appropriate head and leg set.

The better arguments are made before you get to the very long end- a 150mm instead of a 300mm for sports, or a 100mm instead of a 200mm for indoor sports- but I think you'll find that most folks end up around the same length either way (that is, most sports shooters will shoot a 300, crop or not, for instance.) I'm not sure why that is, but it's pretty common in my experience to see former film shooters going out with the same lenses they shot on film with crop bodies- look at the sidelines at any soccer match, football game, tennis match, auto race... and you'll still see huge primes on monopods for the most part- not a lot of downsizing seems to happen.

For wildlife shooters, a 600/4, 500/4 or 400/2.8 are the practical limits of what you can hump in the field day in and day out more than an appropriateness of focal length (you can always use more reach.) While you may occasionally be able to get away with a small, cheap hand-holdable lens like a 300mm f/2.8- more often than not, you'll wish you'd brought a bigger gun to the fight, crop or not.

Paul

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Cu, Cut!

Lets talk about why choosing a Canon cropped sensor camera over a FF one.

 

[mjones185]

Hi everyone,

First I can say I've learned a lot from you the past couple days. An example, as simple as it seems, I didn't consider the weight difference between the two camera types.

I like how this has turned out and one thing I want to hopefully clear up with my subject line is the ONE thing I personally understood and figured most people did and that is the "cost." It's a big factor in the two sensor type cameras. I mean it's obvious at least to me when I go to B&H for example and see a 7D body for $1599 and a 5D for $2499, that a HUGE cost difference so I really didn't want people to focus on that as I and probably most people get that part.

Most articles on the internet discuss the difference between FF and cropped but are always above a lot of peoples heads. I was hoping people in their own way would say I got a cropped or I got a FF sensor camera for these reason and this is why I think it's better or ok with me (i.e. responder).

I think this information "like size and weight" might help people who are trying to decide what direction they want to go.

Me personally, I'm at the point in my hobby that I want to expand my Lens collection with quality lenses and for my next purchase I'm torn between a couple lens based on sensor size. If the 24-70 had IS it'd probably be a no brainer. I've read tones about the available lens and wanted to know more about the bodys. I'm currently at Osan AB, South Korea and have 8 months left. I want to get a better lens that will work with my existing camera but am not sure if I need to worry about going FF. The money I spend as with most people has to be done correctly the first time. This is a hobby and I do not make any money, well except when I was into slides and Military Air-To-Air shots, they went like crazy when I was stationed in England I didn't want to ask too much about lens as I didn't want this thread to get hijacked onto lens and not focus on sensor size bodies.

I would love to quote everything that helped me in this thread but it would take up a lot of space so I'm going to leave to you as this. You all have been very helpful and Keep posting what you think will be helpful to me and anyone else who may be reading this and hasn't figured out how to ask or hasn't figured out that they need to ask.

Once again, you guys & gals are great.


Mike

 

[VirtualRain]

It's not unusual for these kinds of threads to lose sight of the OP's question and turn into a theoretical discussion or religious debate on the merits of this vs. that.

Anyway, Mike, you are correct, the majority of people choose a crop body simply because they can't afford or can't justify the cost of FF.

I purchased a 7D because that's the most camera I can afford (or justify). If they made a FF camera at the same price point, it would have been more difficult and I might have opted for the FF but alas they don't.

However, I don't really feel left wanting for anything. In fact, the EF-S format has one of the best everyday lenses available in Canon's line-up... the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM. There's no L equivalent that has the speed, sharpness and stabilization in this focal range. As I suggested before, you should strongly consider this as a very nice complement to your 70-200. It would breathe new life into your existing body for sure.

Cheers.

 

[compuwar]

If the 24-70 had IS it'd probably be a no brainer.

If you're shooting from a moving platform, IS is useful, but at 70mm, if you can get to 1/125th of a second and aren't in detox, you'll be fine 99% of the time, and two stops up from that should do you for pretty-much any condition you'd normally encouter. Most people who do any amount of practice and can handhold moderately well will do just fine at 1/60th of a second at 70mm. Subject movement is going to be as much of an issue as camera movement below that, or even there for fast-moving subjects.

Paul

 

[toxic]

if you have an APS-C camera (which you probably do), you have no reason to avoid "digital only" lenses. they are not inferior to EF or FX lenses, and even if you buy an EF/FX lens, there is no guarantee you will still like it if you switch formats.

35mm was the upstart format which came out in the early 20th century for pretty much the same reasons as APS-C - cost and bulk (of both bodies and lenses). medium format lenses can be adapted to 35mm bodies. no one in the film era worried about only buying MF lenses so they wouldn't have to buy and sell lenses when they upgraded from "crop" (35mm) to "FF" (MF).

a 35mm sensor is not a holy grail of photography. there are only a few situations I can think of where it is definitively better than a smaller sensor:

- anything requiring a wide shift lens, like architecture. the only shift lens wide enough for APS sensors is the Canon TS-E 17mm f/4, which is the most expensive. 35mm sensors, though, can use all modern shift lenses, plus older manual focus ones. this is also assuming the photographer in question would be too inconvenienced by using a (film) view camera.
- photographers who like fast, wide primes - especially inexpensive ones (I could go on a rant about this, though, because the choices here are poor, across all manufacturers)
- photographers who routinely make very large prints (say 20x30+) or want to record the finest detail possible, but can't afford MF digital and would be too inconvenienced by MF or LF film.
- those who want access to as shallow a DoF as possible, especially with wide or standard lenses, and can't afford the cost or bulk of an MF or LF camera.

Anyway, Mike, you are correct, the majority of people choose a crop body simply because they can't afford or can't justify the cost of FF.

correction: most people buy crop bodies because they don't know what "FF" is, or "crop" for that matter, and because they're affordable.

 

[OreoCookie]

@toxic
Very good post :thumbsup:
I fully agree that unless someone plans to switch to full frame in the foreseeable future, there is little reason to buy only full frame lenses -- especially if the focal lengths are not well-suited for crop sensors.

I have had this impression quite often here: people who were asking about whether or not to buy a particular full frame lens wanted to be `on the safe side,' because `one day, they may switch to full frame.' Just fear. You can always sell (good) lenses. Neither APS-C nor full frame will go away in the foreseeable future, so there is no reason to be worried that you won't be able to sell glass for either format.

And I dare say for many people it makes sense to buy more good (crop?!) lenses or flash guns instead of paying top dollars for a full frame body.

 

[VirtualRain]

correction: most people buy crop bodies because they don't know what "FF" is, or "crop" for that matter, and because they're affordable.

Agreed, most consumers just look at Mega Pixels and the size of the LCD.

Of course, gear enthusiasts will know, and many of them likely are forced to choose a crop vs. FF due to budget constraints. When I was shopping for my first DSLR recently, I briefly investigated sensor size but when I realized you had to spend $2500 ($3K CAD) to get a FF, I didn't spend any more time on that aspect.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Hi everyone,
I mean it's obvious at least to me when I go to B&H for example and see a 7D body for $1599 and a 5D for $2499, that a HUGE cost difference so I really didn't want people to focus on that as I and probably most people get that part.

Me personally, I'm at the point in my hobby that I want to expand my Lens collection with quality lenses and for my next purchase I'm torn between a couple lens based on sensor size. If the 24-70 had IS it'd probably be a no brainer. I've read tones about the available lens and wanted to know more about the bodys. I'm currently at Osan AB, South Korea and have 8 months left.
Mike

Mike,

There are but a very few EF-S lenses for cropped sensors, and you don't have to buy any of these if you don't want to, except as follows: the EF-S 10-20mm is an ultra wide lens that's useful for wide cityscapes, landscapes, and such with a cropped sensor. However, Sigma and Tokina offer ultra-wide lenses for cropped sensors.

I have a 40D (cropped sensor), and have been buying EF (not EF-S) lenses, simply because I don't have to use only EF-S lenses. Cameras with cropped sensors like the 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D and 7D benefit from both lens types. Not so with cameras that have FF sensors; these work best with EF (not EF-S) lenses.

Also, while everybody is jumping on the IS lenses these days, I look for good deals on non-IS lenses.

I plan to continue using Canon cameras with cropped sensors. I take photos of cityscapes, landscapes, moon, wildlife (birds, moose, and other animals), people, pets, the occasional friends and family weddings, macro, etc., and can do all with my 40D and a Rebel XT. I plan to upgrade maybe to the 8D (or 9D) three or four years from now. It means that I will continue buying EF lenses whenever I need to. The next lens will be a non-IS EF 70-200mm f/4 USM. I don't need IS, nor a faster lens, because there is a lot of daylight in Alaska where I live.

With a 5D camera (FF), I don't have to use an ultra wide lens like I use now with my 40D. For example, I could use one from 24mm through 35mm and be wide enough.

Now, I could use the same lens on my 40D (around 35mm) and be an excellent lens for portraits. But for the 5D, a lens around 85mm is a good lens for portraits (this isn't carved on stone, however).

I use the following lenses with my 40D:

-Tokina 12-24mm f/4 for landscapes and such (around $400.00)
-Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for people, pets, and such (around $400.00)
-EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro (also use as a telephoto, etc.), around $400.00
-EF 200mm f/2.8L USM II for large animals or small but close ones, close-up with the aid of a Kenko tube, and so forth (around $700.00)
-EF 400mm f/5.6L USM for the same animals, but farther out (around $1,100)

My 40D with the 400mm lens (above) goes a long way. I could use the same lens on a 5D, but I would have to zoom and crop the photo a little more than the 40D. In fact, what I would do instead is to buy a 500mm lens for the 5D.

Take a look at two photos of the same subject, same lens used (cropped sensor and FF):
http://www.digitalslrguru.com/full-frame-v-cropped-sensors/

My recommendation would be for you to buy EF-S lenses only if you have to (like the 10-20mm above, and only if you don't want to use a Sigma, or Tokina lens of the same focal length), and to buy any EF lens you may need. This way you can switch to FF is you want do do so in the future, and still use the same lenses on the cropped-sensor camera, too. Of course, you don't want to use the EF-S lenses on the camera with FF sensor

 

[Westside guy]

But the point i'm suggesting is that there may come a point when the sensor technology is so advanced that there is no point having a ff or larger sensor even for most pros.

This is just my mere ideas and ramblings and I mean in the long run (we'll have DSLRs for the next 10 or more years)

Sorry for replying late to an older post, but I've been away.

I don't think this will ever be true because of diffraction - you're never going to want as many pixels on a crop sensor as on a full frame sensor. The camera makers are beginning to realize this, despite the push from their marketing people.

At the other end aperture-wise, a portrait shooter won't care about diffraction - but he will probably still want the greater control over depth of field that full-frame offers.

I think the noise argument (from other posts) is academic for most people with current-generation cameras. Full frame will be better, and I love my D700 - but how many of us are really shooting at ISO 102,400?

Note that I'm not arguing full-frame is better - just that it has different advantages and disadvantages (weight being the disadvantage that immediately springs to mind).

 

[toxic]

But the point i'm suggesting is that there may come a point when the sensor technology is so advanced that there is no point having a ff or larger sensor even for most pros.

This is just my mere ideas and ramblings and I mean in the long run (we'll have DSLRs for the next 10 or more years)

Sorry for replying late to an older post, but I've been away.

I don't think this will ever be true because of diffraction - you're never going to want as many pixels on a crop sensor as on a full frame sensor. The camera makers are beginning to realize this, despite the push from their marketing people.

more megapixels do not reduce image quality through diffraction (or noise, for that matter). when it comes to diffraction, more pixels can only improve IQ.

The diffraction cutoff frequency

also, from Digital-Picture, this footnote is listed below the sensor-related specs in the camera reviews:

* DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) is the result of a mathematical formula that approximates the aperture where diffraction begins to visibly affect image sharpness at the pixel level. Diffraction at the DLA is only barely visible when viewed at full-size (100%, 1 pixel = 1 pixel) on a display or output to a very large print. As sensor pixel density increases, the narrowest aperture we can use to get perfectly pixel sharp images gets wider.

DLA does not mean that narrower apertures cannot be used. And in fact, higher resolution sensors generally continue to deliver more detail well beyond the DLA - until the "Diffraction Cutoff Frequency" is reached (a much narrower aperture). The progression from sharp the soft is not an abrupt one - and the change from immediately prior models is usually not dramatic.

to answer Gold89's post, though: the larger sensor will always hold a significant advantage over a smaller one. it takes years of progress for a smaller sensor to match the quality of a larger one.

people often forget that there is a physical size to the recorded image, and that image quality is necessarily tied to the size of the original image. a 35mm sensor, let alone an APS one, cannot record tonal gradation like a 4x5 one would (if it existed), and neither could it match the resolution in giant prints. adding more MP has diminishing returns in terms of resolution. shoving a billion pixels on a 35mm camera won't give it the same print resolution as a large format camera with less resolution. ppi is not the same as lp/mm.

I think the noise argument (from other posts) is academic for most people with current-generation cameras. Full frame will be better, and I love my D700 - but how many of us are really shooting at ISO 102,400?

agreed.

additionally, what is rarely mentioned in the noiseless-picture race is that DR still drops as ISO is raised, and until it doesn't, ISO 1600 won't replace ISO 100 (or 200), no matter how noiseless it is.

on top of that, light quality is usually extremely poor when there is little of it, so ISOs that high would hardly be used by those who get paid for their work (except for indoor sports, I guess).

 

[Westside guy]

more megapixels do not reduce image quality through diffraction (or noise, for that matter). when it comes to diffraction, more pixels can only improve IQ.

The diffraction cutoff frequency

Hmm... I don't think you interpreted what I wrote to mean what I intended it to say. Let's try again from a slightly different angle:

An image from a 36MP DX sensor is going to exhibit more diffraction at a given aperture than one from a 36MP full-frame sensor. This means the 36MP full-frame sensor has the potential (at smaller apertures) to out-resolve the 36MP DX sensor.

I think talk about diffraction cut-off frequency is more relevant to discussions regarding putting differing numbers of pixels on same-sized chips.

additionally, what is rarely mentioned in the noiseless-picture race is that DR still drops as ISO is raised, and until it doesn't, ISO 1600 won't replace ISO 100 (or 200), no matter how noiseless it is.

Quite right, I should've mentioned that.