POLL - Large or small in the digital era?

[Damien_Demolder]

In the olden days, things were a little more clear-cut. A big negative was always better than a small one. If you shot 6x4.5cm on 120 film, even if the lens wasn’t quite as sharp, you were going to get a more detailed and a more fine-grained image than you would if you had shot the same scene on 35mm – even if your film was a stop faster. Shooting on 5x4in sheet was better still, and, well, 10x8in guaranteed the best possible quality. Yet I wonder whether these same principles still apply in the digital age – does using a larger sensor really assure us better images?

Not that long ago we were pretty sure, but those were times when cameras were desperate for noise-reduction technology and pixels were in fierce competition with circuitry on the overcrowded surface of imaging sensors. Many things have changed – sensors are now so much less noisy that even cameras with smaller sensors can produce great images. The trend, though, is for larger, or full-frame, sensors, as Nikon and Sony have joined Canon with prestigious flagship models. When I asked last summer, 62% of you said full-frame sensors were still important to you. After reading Angela Nicholson’s report on pages 40-43, I wonder whether the answer will be the same.

Is having a full-frame sensor important to you?

Thanks for taking part

Damien

[alanS]

I don't know. I used to think that I'd be first in the queue for a FF camera with anti dust technology and better low light ability but I don't know now. These days I read the reports and reviews and what catches my eye is the talk of ever more powerful noise reduction algorithms.

Are sensors less noisy these days or are they noisier but with more powerful noise reduction that you can't truly turn off even when you select "off" in the menu?

Another thing that worries me, perhaps with reason, perhaps irrationally, is the ever decreasing diffraction limit. f7.6 on the 50D? Even the 5DII is down from the f13.2 of the 5D to f10.3. Some say it matters and is obvious in prints and some say it doesn't matter. Surely at some point it must?

[Nod]

Yes, not so much for the improved high ISO performance and the sensor cleaning technology (although both are a welcome bonus for me!) as for giving me back the wide angles that I got used to and still used 35mm for. Were I not impatient, I suppose I could still use 35mm for the wides but I want to be able to see the results sooner and not have to pay for EVERY shot to be printed for maybe 2 or 3 keepers out of 37/8 shots!

[Zou]

Yes and no. Ultimate image quality is what I want, but 35mm full frame isn't per se important. If I can afford it, I'd take larger again. A digital 645 'full frame' with the pixel density of a 35mm full frame sensor would doubtless be 'better' - so size does still matter.

Just as it always has been with film, you have to decide where to compromise based on your own needs.

[alanS]

The wider angle aspect worries me as with that come longer lengths at the other end of the range to obtain the same reach as APS-C and possibly smaller apertures too depending upon your interest and dof requirement and that leads me back to pondering the decreasing DLA.

If we carry on down this route I could imagine aperture ranges being effectively limited to limit the impact of a low DLA and with slower lenses the optimum aperture range will be very limited.

Put a slower lens on a 50D and in a worst case scenario the optimum aperture for the lens could be beyond the optimum for the sensor so which do you go with?

[Roger_Provins]

I like FF as my wide lenses are wide and yet, should I choose, I can still have the "APS-C advantage" with telephotos by simply cropping the FF image or using the APS-C crop via the menu. With the Sony (or Nikon) FF 24.6mp sensor an APS-C crop is still about the same size and resolution as a Sony a700 (or Nikon D300) native image.

Effectively two cameras in one

[jchrisc]

I'm with Nod. I do most of my photography with a Canon 5D and the comfort of being able to transfer directly the hard earned lessons of 35mm framing is very helpful. I do see that this is probably special pleading by an old dog and that it may not bother those brought up on cropped formats.

Having said that, most of my sports photography is done with a 1DII, but that usually involves only one long lens so I know what I am getting.

If I were to buy another camera body I would certainly put full-frame capability high on the list of selection criteria.

[alanS]

But what do you regard as being wide?

20mm on FF might have been wide years ago but these days you can fit a 10-20mm on an APS-C. I've looked through my 12-24mm on FF but to be honest if I went FF I think that it would probably cease being my most used lens and would probably be replaced by my 20-35mm.

[Roger_Provins]

But what do you regard as being wide?

The 20mm and 35mm, which are not really wide on APS-C, suit me fine on FF.

12mm f2.8 and 17mm f1.4 for the equivalent on APS-C ... do they exist?

[Wheelu]

I remain a large sensor enthusiast after reading Angela's article. I would like to see smaller camera bodies with full frame sensors, that would be a worthwhile development. Get rid of some of the hardly used bells and whistles and provide a simple compact camera that has the capability of producing outstanding image quality. I look again at my Pentax MX and Olympus OM1 cameras, with their neat compact full frame bodies, why can't we do this 40 years on?

[alanS]

"12mm f2.8 and 17mm f1.4 for the equivalent on APS-C ... do they exist?"

You can get a 11-16mm f2.8 and 17mm f2.8's are common enough, there's 4.5mm f2.8 fisheye too. I think that you'd have to stretch the 17mm f1.4 to 20mm f1.8 though to be spoilt for choice. There are lenses today that give a wider view than I got with my 35mm SLR as from what I remember 20mm was considered very wide on FF years ago. I had a 28mm back then.

Like you, I'd probably find myself between 20 and 35mm on FF, just like I find myself between 12 and 24mm today.

[daft_biker]

Put a slower lens on a 50D and in a worst case scenario the optimum aperture for the lens could be beyond the optimum for the sensor so which do you go with?

Stick a MP-E 65mm on any camera and I think it's effectively diffraction limited even when wide open at 5:1. Diffraction is also magnified because the image is magnified.....so when folk talk of diffraction limiting apertures what magnification are they talking about? I'd expect diffraction would effect a telephoto at minimum focus more than it would a wide angle at infinity focus.

As most of my subjects are much smaller than my sensor I've no wish for a full frame camera. Full frame would mean even higher magnifications and even smaller apertures - I believe that there is a compromise between sensor size and subject size in macro to arrive at the highest quality result. If compacts had high quaility fixed focal length macro lenses on them and a TTL (optical)viewfinder I'd likely be interested in trying one.

Maybe for landscapes on really wide lenses or for really shallow DoF I'd want a FF camera for the choice in lenses but otherwise I'd want a smaller sensor for smaller subjects, moving subjects and distant subjects and a bigger than FF sensor for bigger subjects.

[Steve]

Bit of a tricky question to answer really...

Is full-frame important to me now? No...simply because a) I don't own one, b) I can't afford one and c) I haven't even come close to unlocking the full potential of my current APS-C camera.

Would I like a full-frame camera? Absolutely! And if I actually had the money, then it would definitely be an important feature.

[alanS]

"I'd expect diffraction would effect a telephoto at minimum focus more than it would a wide angle at infinity focus."

Yup. I sort of said something like that. With a 12-24mm on my APS-C everything is in focus at reasonable aperture settings and within the DLA of my camera. That might not be the case with another camera and lens combination taking the same shot.

The reducing DLA interests me and I've read conflicting reviews.

[DaveS]

TBH I don't know. I think I'll go FF on my next DSLR, because it may well be a 5DII, though (And I know I'll get a kicking here) cine is a big part of my choice, and the 5DII's cine ability is pretty awesome, once you put a manual lens on it.
The "I don't know" bit is because I may look at the GH1, which is a 4/3 sized sensor. Angela Nicholson’s tests were pretty encouraging for the smaller sensor at low ISOs though of course a 5DII will out-resolve any of the cameras under test, at any ISO.
Dave

[LargeFormat]

I used 5x4 because I wanted something better. Same reason with full frame. Just occasionally I want to print something largish and then the difference starts to show.

If you are really suggesting that small sensors can be as good you're inviting someone to repond with a lecture on quantum mechanics

I'm begining to think Dave has a point with video. Sloping verticals are really starting to bother me. Think, shift lens on a 5Dii doing video.

[Benchista]

My views haven't changed - just you can get more pixels on a full-frame sensor than before.

[beejaybee]

Yes. The laws of physics don't change. As the pixel count inexorably rises the need for physically larger sensors increases.

[TimF]

Yes, for several reasons. One, having my wide angle lenses at their proper angle of view; two, seeing as I prefer manual to autofocus a decent size viewfinder is important. The cropped frame cameras have almost certainly improved (I've not looked through an APS type DSLR for some years now), but I'll bet the tunnel vision effect is still there to a degree.

For the moment I can live with x1.33 on the M8 as the cropping isn't excessive. The old 1Ds I currently have is decent enough, but the screen is deadly dim compared to my R8

[daft_biker]

Tim, the tunnel vision thing went out with the 30D - at least IMO and with Canon's xxD series. If anything they've over corrected and made the lack of eye relief even more of an issue

Try looking through a 40D or 50D if you can...it's not like peering down a periscope any more. It's probably more like sitting in the front row of a cinema and having to twist to see the sides of the image!