Is the future going to be full frame?

[Corey Hayes]

Hey guys I am just wondering what you all think the future will hold for us that shoot wildlife?

I am somewhat worried with this full frame craze, yeah I know the benefits but I feel for the vast majority of wildlife photographers especially ones that shoot birds. Full frame is a big disadvantage unless you have deep pockets and can afford to upgrade to super telephotos. It just seems like nature photography will truly become unaffordable to the masses that can only afford a 300mm even 500mm seems short for FF.


thanks Corey

[Roger Clark]

Hey guys I am just wondering what you all think the future will hold for us that shoot wildlife?

I am somewhat worried with this full frame craze, yeah I no the benefits but I feel for the vast majority of wildlife photographers especially ones that shoot birds. Full frame is a big dis advantage unless you have deep pockets and can afford to upgrade to super telephotos. it just seems like nature photography will truly become unaffordable to the masses that can only afford a 300mm even 500mm seems short for FF.


thanks Corey

Hi Corey,

Certainly larger sensors will always cost more because the yield (sensors per wafer run in the foundry) is less for any size wafer. But the costs have been coming down. Full frame sensors of today are a lot lower cost than they used to be, and so are the cameras.

But in principle, I would rather have a full frame sensor as long as the speed was there, and with enough pixels. But I also want detail on the subject, which has nothing to do with sensor size. A full frame sensor also gives one room to catch those flight shots of very fast erratic birds. I would like to see a full frame sensor with 5-micron pixels operating at 10 frames per second. That would be a 34.5 megapixel camera with a speed only about twice the pixels/second of today's fast cameras. So we are getting close.

Pixels on subject is independent of sensor size when one is focal length limited.

Roger

[Tom Graham]

"....full frame craze...."
And I think that is basically what it is. Because it is "full" it must be better!!
This full frame format when first put into still cameras was called "miniature cameras".
Tom

[John Chardine]

Hi Corey- Following from what Roger said, you seem to be using the crop-factor (say 1.5 or 1.6) to say that using crop sensors is the same as putting a longer lens on your camera, or turned around, that a lens becomes shorter on a full-frame (FF) camera (how does the lens know by the way??!). All the crop sensor does is reduce your field of view by cutting-off the edges of the frame compared to what would be there with a FF camera. People tend to forget this important piece of information and assume that a 500mm on a crop camera magically turns into a 750mm lens, which if course it doesn't with respect to the more important parameter in focal-length limited situations of pixels on subject.

Tom- I think "full" is generally better. The average photographer out there is not imaging distant subjects and for them, a sensor that gives the full 35mm field of view dictated by the lens is important. I know the point you are making- that 35mm was considered crop once upon a time- but I think we are well past that now. 35mm format has a long history and it is ingrained in ours and the manufacturer's thinking (they still mark their lenses with the 35mm equivalent field of view, even for lenses designed for crop cameras- at least Canon and Nikon do).

As for the future, I think crop sensors in DSLRs and high-end mirrorless cameras will continue for a long time into the future. Manufacturers have far too much invested in lens line-ups to abandon the crop format.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Hi Corey,
The cameras with crop sensors will not be dropped in the near future. As Roger says, when the yield of large sensors improves, the price will keep on coming down. However, there is also a movement from compact cameras to DSLRs. So there will always be cameras at lower price points with crop sensors.

Also the technology is improving, so that cameras will have better ability to chose a part of the sensor and shoot. Technology is developing in multiple dimensions. Nothing to be worried about it. Rather we should feel happy.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi
PS: It is also to be noted that the standard in filming world is S35 which is very close to the 1.6 crop sensors.

[Gary Kinard]

I have a question about AF with the FF compared to 1.6 crop. With the same amount of AF points. And same sensitivity. Will the FF hit AF as fast since it is seeing a smaller target. Or is that not an issue? I really do not understand. I do know with a 500mm lens my subject is closer in the view finder and AF is spot on. When I mount a 300 2.8 it is much more difficult to obtain and hold good AF especially hand held. It seems to me any way. So back to the question. For small birds is the AF better, worse or the same on FF compared to a crop body?

[John Chardine]

Hi Gary- I should think it has absolutely nothing to do with crop factor. The fast (phase-detect) AF system in your camera works with the mirror down and has nothing to do with your sensor at all. Some light coming in through the lens is diverted and picked up by the AF sensor which is underneath your mirror. The focal length of the lens mounted will impact AF performance depending on how fast the lens is (f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6 etc) and of course the AF sensors are seeing image detail at different magnifications depending on the FL of the lens. All this again has nothing to do with the size of your sensor. In theory your 300 f/2.8 lens should AF better and quicker than the 500 f/4 because the AF sensor is receiving more light, all other things being equal (say comparing two version II Canon super-teles), and it's easier to keep the 300 on the desired AF point than with the 500.

As far as the slow, contrast-detect AF system you have available to you in Live View, this works on the sensor itself but again, I should think that pixel density and not sensor size could potentially impact AF performance.

[Gary Kinard]

Ok, thanks allot John. That clears it up.

[gareth thomson]

Hi


This topic is of interest to me, and I don't think I fully grasp everything that's been said here. So let me set up a scenario:


• 1.5 crop factor camera + 300mm lens
• ff camera + 300mm lens
• both sensors have the same pixel pitch or density (is that ever the case? and are those the correct terms? are they interchangeable?)
• same subject, same distance

Will the subject be the same size (pixel height/width) in both images? Or are there additional parameters to consider? Or am I simply way off the mark here?


Also can anyone please clarify Roger's remark, which I hear a lot: "Pixels on subject is independent of sensor size when one is focal length limited." Is there a precise definition or rule of thumb to determine what "focal length limited" means? How does that translate into actual practice. Suppose you had a crop sensor body and a ff body in the field and the same lens on both, can you outline a situation or scenario for which you would you switch from ff to crop and vice-versa?


Thanks, gt

[John Chardine]

Hi Gareth- Yes it is the case- for example, the Nikon D7000 and the D800 have about the same pixel pitch/density. It doesn't often happen but occasionally the same pixel density can be seen in different sized sensors. In general, pixel size has been positively correlated with sensor size because it is more costly to make a high-density, large sensor; this relationship may change in the future; see this thread:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/96630-Why-quot-crop-factor-quot-is-so-pervasive?highlight=chardine+myth

Regarding your last question, "focal-length limited" simply means that your subject accounts for a minor proportion of the the total pixels in the image (even a full-frame bird may only account for 50% or so of the pixels in an image, if that). Typically you might want to crop somewhat, to "zoom in" on the subject. Bird photographers usually find themselves in this situation and what is important for image quality is the number of pixels you lay over the subject. This is related to pixel density and not sensor size. For landscape photographers, field of view is important because your subject could be the entire scene- you are not focal length limited and you may not need to zoom that much. In these situations you may want to switch to the FF body which will be able to record the field of view projected by your EF/FX lens.

[gareth thomson]

John: Thanks for the explanation and for the link. But dang, this new piece of info to chew on only increases the range of options - as I have to dump my Pentax gear so I can buy into a system w/ good AF and some long teles. Oh for a D800 that shoots 10 fps... (gt)

[Roger Clark]

John: Thanks for the explanation and for the link. But dang, this new piece of info to chew on only increases the range of options - as I have to dump my Pentax gear so I can buy into a system w/ good AF and some long teles. Oh for a D800 that shoots 10 fps... (gt)


<tt>Hi </tt>Gareth
<tt>
There are a number of examples of different crop cameras having the
same pixel sizes. See this table 2 (sorted by pixel size) at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html#data

For example, the Canon 5D2 (full frame) and 30D (1.6 crop) both have 6.4 micron pixels.

More on crop factor at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/cropfactor/

Roger
</tt>