Fascination with full frame?

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From a manufacturing and handling point of view, the 35mm format is a sweet spot for most photographers. You don't see many Hasselblad or other MF systems being used handheld by tourists, for instance. They're just unwieldy in comparison with the 35mm format.

 

I've used film for much more than half of my 39-year-old life. When I considered a dslr I looked at Canons various offerings since I have many Canon lenses. I found the tunnel vision viewfinders on crop sensor cameras utterly appalling and simply could not understand or accept using such a camera.

 

In my humble opinion, camera manufacturers ran away from reason when they created crop sensor cameras and introduced newbie photographers to an erroneous way of perceiving the world. I know every focal length in my lens collection, from 17 to 400 mm. I think most experienced photographers will agree that they can immediately see which lens to capture the scene they're looking at. It is not about easily moving between formats - why do you need different formats? What you need is the appropriate lens.

 

Times move on, things change, usually for the worse RichC does have a point that "Full frame digital cameras are of minority interest". Absolutely - a 50mm lens today for the majority of the world's photographers is not 50mm.

 

Personally, however, I think it is a shame, even though most of those photographers in a way are blessed because their cameras only collect the best image information their lenses can produce. Lars has a point that smaller sensors will not use lenses to their full potential. That said, older lenses are usually crap in the corners compared to modern lenses so it is a truth with a certain modification. Leica as a brand is blessed with better older lenses than other brands, though. To achieve similar image quality across the frame one has to invest a lot of money in high performance lenses.

 

I have no plans to buy digital M bodies but were I ever to do so I know I won't even consider the M8 because I want my 50mm lenses to be 50mm. I don't want to change my perception, or have to buy super-wide to get a 21mm lens. Those who are happy to ignore the origins of the 24x36 frame and the photographic perception and restrictions which that system provides may certainly do so. But film is not dead and won't be for many decades to come. On that note - I respectfully disagree that "current high-end digital SLRs give similar results" as MF film or digital backs -- that is simply not true.

 

There will always be discerning photographers who are unwilling to give in to the alluring simplicity of digital. I did once, and used a full frame dslr for two years. Now I only take it out to experiment with it as a digitizer of my slides and negs.

 

But full frame is most definitely not a "fetish". At all. It is how photography is supposed to be.

 

P

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[erl]

All my cameras, and they are many and varied, have a VF defined by a frame. When I shoot I fill that frame. Simply put, I always shoot 'full frame.'

[IWC Doppel]

Interesting question

 

Look at film (I have been into home cinema for many years) and you can see the move to wider. Most films are now shot in 2.35:1, 2.4:1 and of course 1.78:1 (often 1.85:1 actually)

 

The old 1.33:1 is long gone. If still photography was to move to 'wider' there is a huge legacy of Leica glass that won't be designed to work well at the extremes, but if any sensor has corners within a 21mm radius I can't thnk oof a problem.

 

It's interesting that A4 paper is 1.42:1 and we have only gone 'wide' for motion pictures.

 

Ultimately why do I hanker after an M9 when I have an M8 ? well becuase I have glass designed specifically to cover that area.

 

One other point (which I think is correct) is the larger sensor will process more light for the same image, so the actual low light preformance will be improved with a larger sensor

[tobey bilek]

You can all opine how well smaller formats work and will overtake full frame, and smaller formats are getting better all the time, but the fact remains 24x36 is kind of a sweet spot between what you can move around with and quality. As sub format improves, so does full frame, therefore it can never catch up. What it can do is reach a "good enough status."

Most people never make a print over 8x10 and the subformats do this very well.

 

Good enough was never achieved with previous sub formats, disk, 110, APSC. I recall a Kodak seminar when APSC was announced, and the speaker was almost run off the podium. The place was filled with working pros who said it would never fly. It did not despite best efforts.

 

Subformat still does not have the full line of lenses available to it like full frame, think Nikon here. A few have been introduced, 35 1.8, 40 2.8, and some cheap consumer zooms, but there is no full line of fast primes because the market is not there. It is an amateur market or one dominated by zooms. Full frame cameras are way beyond the dollars that 99% of photographers are willing to spend, so perhaps that will drive smaller format in the end.

 

The next limitation is viewfinder image size. APSC is a tiny VF image even if it 100%.

Nikon`s new D800 addresses some of the cost, is full frame, lots of pixels, but they reduced the VF to 70% size. So it is a tiny tunnel like APSC. This they build into a camera that is specifically made for large prints. They have to be nuts and I can hope the spec sheet I read was wrong.

 

Perhaps the fact that full frame photo computers ( no longer cameras) have gotten so large people will shun then in favor of something smaller/lighter . How far do I want

to hike with a Nikon D3? Not far. But a Leica is the sweet spot again. So we have come full circle. Small enough, light enough, image quality more than enough, just expensive and only camera snobs will buy it. I never would have bought a M8 had I not had a bunch of existing lenses, Mandler ones at that. I have zero interest in X1, D Lux 5, V lux 2 or any rebadged cameras or consumer grade leicas. But that is me. They do sell and that is what counts.

[bocaburger]

The reason cropped sensors came into being in the first place was due to technology and economics. If they could have, they would have gone 24x36 right from the start. In the beginning, cropped sensors was a trade-off we accepted in return for the advantages of digital at an affordable price.

 

In the specific case of Leica, technology was the reason the DMR and M8 had cropped sensors despite their prices being at the level of top-end 24x36 DSLRs.

 

One of the ostensible reasons Leica lenses cost a fortune is because of the difficulty in designing them for stellar performance over the full 24x36 field, so I want to pair them with a camera which includes it. I'd call that logical. Calling it a fetish sounds like instigating, to me.

[pico]

Ah, the old philosophical question.

 

Is the frame half-full or is it half-empty?

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

sensor technology is increasing exponentially

 

No it isn't.

[pico]

Oh yes it is!

 

Well, OK, pudding overegged. But sensors and their associated components (including onboard processing) are most definitely increasing in performance and sophistication (e.g. see Clarkvision: Digital Camera Sensor Performance Summary), and decreasing in price - just think back to what digital computers were like just over a decade ago.

 

Rich, I am not simply arguing to win, but to learn. Exponential rise is mathematically the greatest possible, and a real stretch when describing digital imaging sensor tech. If it were true we would have 400 megapixels for FF by now. We don't, not really. I mention that to just put it behind us. Please. Moore's Law (an economic principle, really) suggests a doubling every 18-24 months of things like power, RAM, density of transistors. It's not, IMHO, quite appropriate to digital imaging which has to take into account the input which is optical, not discrete bits as we might find in general software. And new lenses to properly exploit FF are going to be very expensive. (I believe the new Noctilux is one lens designed to approach the denser sensor with it's optimal stop at about 5.6 - for a new sensor.

 

It remains less expensive to make larger sensors that work with conventional design lenses than to bring in every single thing a FF camera needs to exploit the same potential.

 

Personally, I think we are headed for a plateau - and a very fine one with great stuff, but no exponential growth, nor even Moore's Law. I'm no prophet, and I do not mind if I am wrong. If I were a prophet I'd be more than a millionaire today!

 

Thanks for considering my reply,

Pico the Pauper

[Ellie]

I wonder if the FF question would have been asked ten years ago? It seems to me the last couple of years focus on the sensor is a small part in the history of photography..

[pico]

I wonder if the FF question would have been asked ten years ago? It seems to me the last couple of years focus on the sensor is a small part in the history of photography..

 

Oh, it was discussed a great deal even only ten years ago, but I think you are right that it was more discussed earlier when films were not quite as good, and 35mm was competing with MF - that would be as early as the Thirties! If you ever have a chance to use a Super Ikonta 6x9 (or even 6x4.5) and compare it to 35mm it should be an eye-opener.

 

I am not sure where the dimensions of 35mm came from, but I suspect it was an economy strategy done by splitting 70mm film. (Early motion picture was as large as 70mm!)

[pgk]

The next limitation is viewfinder image size. APSC is a tiny VF image even if it 100%.

Absolutely. DSLRs with a small viewfinder are a pet hate of mine - I can't get on with any sub-full frame one myself. Although the M8 didn't have this problem, I'm glad it was only a 1.3 crop factor.

[pico]

The next limitation is viewfinder image size. [...]

 

http://www.digoliardi.net/large_finder_m9.jpg

 

??? over the top, eh ???

[AlanG]

If it were true we would have 400 megapixels for FF by now.

 

I think something like this could readily be the case if there was a benefit to it and a market to justify it. The idea of this type of sensor may not be to make larger files though. I think the new Nokia 808 41MP cell phone technology is very enlightening about what we can expect in small cameras in the future. For such a small inexpensive device, the sample images are simply staggering.

 

It seems to me that the existence of the Nokia means it would be a relatively simple matter to make an M4/3rds camera that uses maybe a 100MP sensor and similar pixel binning as in the Nokia phone to get better quality 16-24MP images. And since this market is where the hottest competition and innovation is happening, I expect to see it. If that happens, a small camera system might be all that most people want or need. (Yes, it will be a challenge to get shallow depth of field on them but at one time most photographers used 8x10.)

 

Another thought. How can small p&s and other small camera makers not be worried if cell phones such as the Nokia 808 and others are out performing them? (Yes I know that cameras have other features that make people use them instead of cell phones.)

[AlanG]

I am not sure where the dimensions of 35mm came from, but I suspect it was an economy strategy done by splitting 70mm film. (Early motion picture was as large as 70mm!)

 

The film size and the first aspect ratio for movies came from Thomas Edison. Then some early still cameras used this film size in different frame dimensions. One or more used the approximately double size 24x36mm format before Leica popularized it. There have been lots of 35mm film cameras that shot various aspect ratios on it.

[pico]

Another thought. How can small p&s and other small camera makers not be worried if cell phones such as the Nokia 808 and others are out performing them? (Yes I know that cameras have other features that make people use them instead of cell phones.)

 

The very definition of powerful disruptive technology. Awesome!

[Messsucherkamera]

Technically true, but in the real world(?) who actually notices this? I suggest it would only be the 'technocrats' who possible will not notice the creative content either way.

 

 

 

This possible only true if the cropping has been severe. Let's face it, cropping starts the moment you view through the VF of a camera. Subsequent cropping of the film or file is only an extension of this and presumable because it is decided as an improvement. I see the plusses of cropping as outweighing the minuses of same, when judiciously applied of course.

 

 

 

I have never viewed printing as a target for short or simplified cuts. The objective is to achieve the ultimate result, whatever it takes. If that involves more work, do it.

 

The above responses strike me as a whole lot of "Yes, but" thinking. No matter, though. Everyone is entitled to his/her own outlook on cropping.

 

It seems to me that cropping is best done before tripping the shutter, not after. That was the underlying philosophy of my original post.

 

I would have to agree with Philipus, who said:

In my humble opinion, camera manufacturers ran away from reason when they created crop sensor cameras and introduced newbie photographers to an erroneous way of perceiving the world.

And -

From a manufacturing and handling point of view, the 35mm format is a sweet spot for most photographers. You don't see many Hasselblad or other MF systems being used handheld by tourists, for instance. They're just unwieldy in comparison with the 35mm format.

[TomB_tx]

I think that you are forgetting the massive legacy of full frame lenses.

 

That's exactly my issue. I bought my M9 to use my old Leica lenses, not to buy new ones. With the M8 they would not have the same view, so I wasn't interested.

I also have a lot of 1970's Pentax lenses and would like to have a 24x36 body to use them on as well.

If I were starting fresh for camera and lenses, an APS-C dSLR like the K-5 would suit me well.

[AlanG]

"In my humble opinion, camera manufacturers ran away from reason when they created crop sensor cameras and introduced newbie photographers to an erroneous way of perceiving the world. "

 

I can't follow this at all. How does the format matter if you are taking in the same field of view? I once had a 21mm optical viewfinder that I used on a 35mm camera with a 21mm lens and also on a 6x9cm camera with a 47mm lens. Which was the erroneous way of perceiving the world?

 

As for legacy lenses... that is a big reason to stick with full frame. Or because certain lenses are only available for that format. But if a new smaller system came out with a very complete line of small great lenses that would be ideal for your work and you had no legacy lenses, it would be a viable option. This is where the market seems to be heading with APS DSLRs, M4/3rds, the Nex, Nikon 1, and others.

 

And as for not seeing many tourists using Hasselblads or MF systems... most tourists are not using 35mm FF cameras either but p&s cameras and cell phones. Looking at 2012 I only see a few FF digital models in the lineup - 2 by Nikon, 2 by Canon, 1 by Leica, and 1 or 2 by Sony. Whereas there are quite a few cameras (SLRs and technical cameras - old and new) that can use one or more of the approximately 21 MF digital backs currently in production. ANd I can't begin to count how many APS, M4/3rds and other cameras are out there.

 

There have always been a variety of formats and aspect ratios for people to choose from and none is the "right" way.

[giordano]

Furthermore if you want the same depth of field (3D isolation) then the size of the lens (diameter of the the front element) is the constant factor. So you would need to fix a 8 mm focal length lens with 50 mm diameter front element to your iPhone. This would defeat the point, while also being technically an insurmountable opportunity.

 

Stephen, please can you explain a little more clearly how the diameter of the front element is the constant factor in relation to depth of field?

 

Just for one thing, lenses with the same maximum aperture, focal length and field of view can have big differences in front element diameter. For example Leitz's own 50mm f/2 Summar, Summitar and Summicron, or the 21mm f/4 Super Angulon R and Voigtlander Color-Skopar. How does the diameter of the front element affect the depth of field - especially when they are stopped down?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Sp12]

Some lenses are over-engineered (with minimal justification IMO) beyond the the front diameter required for the FL and aperture. I'm pretty sure he was referring to the required apertures/FL for blur and the diameters they often use.