File :-(, x, )
So... Anonymous
Why the heck is full frame "pro" and not mainstream?
Why even bother making a smaller sensor, let alone whole systems based around them?
Why aren't we using 35mm sensors in every camera? Random picture for your trouble.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-510Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution314 dpiVertical Resolution314 dpiImage Created2008:06:04 19:37:07Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramCreativeISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length14.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1200Image Height900RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
Because they're expensive.
>> Anonymous
this is funny coming from a 4/3 user
>> Anonymous
because FAGGOTS
>> Anonymous
What DC said, it was too expensive to make back then.
>> Anonymous
I still want my cheap 6mp low noise, high ISO, full frame.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>197965

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9765820-39.html
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>197999
nm, this is the only important part
>"The larger die (chips) are much more expensive, roughly in the ratio of their area," said Semico Research analyst Morry Marshall. Doing the math, Nikon's full-frame FX sensors, at roughly 36x24mm imaging area, have more than twice the surface area of a 24x16mm DX sensor. On top of that, "The larger the die, the more likely you are to have a defect."
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>198002
>Canon and Nikon full-frame sensors, both manufactured with complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) processes, are gigantic by the standards of the chip manufacturing industry. Canon can fit only 20 sensors onto a circular silicon wafer, and the manufacturing cost is roughly the same as a wafer that can produce many more smaller sensors.
>> Anonymous
>>197965
learn2bonfire
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP here. I know that a larger sensor would be more expensive... but you have to wonder how much of that extra cost is just for the "pro" status label. OR... why can't we make a zero-noise sensor already?
>>197979
I use an E-510 as a replacement for a point-and-shoot that was stolen. Using it is what got me wondering about the sensor size issue. =p
>>198076
This is part of the bonfire, yes.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-510Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution314 dpiVertical Resolution314 dpiImage Created2008:06:04 22:15:19Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/9.0Exposure ProgramCreativeISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceFine WeatherFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length14.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1200Image Height900RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>198090how much of that extra cost is just for the "pro" status label
Very little. The cost differential between developing an APS-C sensor and a FF sensor is massive, and they produce fewer of them. Also, I'm not aware of a FF DSLR that doesn't also have more features than its APS-C brandmates. See 30D/5D, D300/D3.
>why can't we make a zero-noise sensor already?
Why can't we make antigravity or a cure for cancer already?
sage for retarded views on technological progress.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>198090
Sensors are manufactured on wafers. All the black ones in the picture are usable, the others are not. Since you can fit more APS-C sensors than 35mm sensors on a single wafer, they cost less. Also, the rate of defective 35mm sensors are higher, since they contain more wafer area.

Noise is generated in a couple of ways. One is from heat. Since a sensor pixel records light into an electron, it's susceptible to heat interference. You could technically have a very-low sensitivity sensor that's supercooled that would have almost no noise. Again, expensive.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>198107
>> Anonymous
I want to use full frame for the wider angle of view and lower noise sensors.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>198121
Okay.
>> Anonymous
I want to use full frame for the bigger viewfinders
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
I want to use full frame to brag on /p/
>> Anonymous
Neglecting cost, do you think point and shoots will ever get sensors around the size of APS-C sensors? Or will they not fit? 35mm isn't that big, but they may be bulkier in the camera.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>198138
As time progresses, the cost of manufacturing wafers decreases, so, given enough time, digital SLRs will feature sensors comparable to today's large-format, and point and shoots can enjoy the full-frame advantage.

Pic related.
>> Anonymous
As I understand it, the size of the sensor affects the size of the required lenses in front of it. So if you want a compact point and shoot, you'd need a lot more glass there for an APS-C than the typical sensor size. But I'm probably wrong...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP here again. Hooray for random pictures.
>>198124
AUGH! That's the thing that really gets to me using this E-510. The viewfinder is like looking through a dim little tunnel. =(

Thanks for the replies all. Anyone want to help build a supercooled DSLR? I'll bring the liquid helium, you bring the knowhow. hehe.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-510Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution314 dpiVertical Resolution314 dpiImage Created2008:06:04 22:41:41Exposure Time1/8 secF-Numberf/4.4Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length61.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1200Image Height900RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Meese !iZn5BCIpug
>>198147
or you could use some DO
>> Anonymous
>>198138
Yes. They will and they have. First was the Sony DSC-R1, second is the Sigma DP-1.

Also, arguably, digital rangefinders like the Epson RD-1 and Leica M8 count, too. The market will come in for an affordable hybrid LCD and EVF point and shoot/digital rangefinder, with a larger sensor; it's already there, but people are just making do with point and shoots for now. Ricoh will probably do it, because they already have an EVF that goes into the hotshoe of their cameras and are the ones most committed to non-SLR digital cameras for serious photographers, besides Leica, of course. Just make a GR-M, a larger (to fit the RF), larger sensor GR with an M-mount (and a small lines of autofocus lenses to go with it) with an attachable shoe EVF and that'd be the perfect camera for anyone who does documentary/street/etc, before Leica adds live view to the M8 (2,000 euros for the upgrade, please) and a shoe EVF to go with it (900 euros extra, but we assure you, [insertmarketingspeakhere].)
>> Anonymous
>>198146
>As time progresses, the cost of manufacturing wafers decreases
Sadly, this process is very, very slow compared to the increase in megapixels, megahertz or millions of transistors. For example, the die sizes of mainstream PC processors have been drifting from 100mm2 to 200mm2 for more than a decade now.

>point and shoots can enjoy the full-frame advantage
I think most point-and-shoots will still have sensors smaller than APS-C. The usual 3x zoom lens will be at least 10cm long on full-frame, which means it won't fit into a pocket even if made retractable.
>> Anonymous
>>198168
>they already have an EVF that goes into the hotshoe
What? They have an optical viewfinder, not an EVF.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>198191
OH HAI.

The GX100, essentially a GR-D with a fixed zoom lens, had this feature.
>> Anonymous
>>198198
Oh, and animooted (!), and from the dpreview review of it.
>> Anonymous
>>198198
OM NOM NOM
>> Anonymous
Smaller sensor = Smaller, lighter cameras (Olympus e-410), better telephoto reach (crop factor), more DoF, more noise at higher ISOs, cheaper bodies and lenses, sharper and brighter corners of images, because of less focal distance between sensor and lens any lens made for a larger format can be fitted onto a smaller format, and faster auto-focus (Olympus e-3 supposedly has the world's fasted auto focus).
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>198207
Small sensor = less DOF

>better telephoto reach
Same telephote reach as a larger sensor cropped.

>sharper and brighter corners of images, because of less focal distance between sensor and lens
Corners are sharper and brighter because the center of the lens is cropped, nothing to do with focal distances.

where did you get so terribly misinformed?
>> Anonymous
>>198210
In fact, shorter flange focal distance can cause light falloff with digital. It took a bunch of wizardry to get the M8 not to have that problem, for instance, having a thinner IR filter on the sensor.

There you go, DC, just get an M8 and glue on a really thick IR filter to the sensor and tear off the "offset microlenses" on it and you won't even need Photoshop to get vignetting!

(Kidding, kidding.)
>> Anonymous
>>198210
>Small sensor = less DOF
fail
>> Anonymous
>>198207
AF speed has nothing to do with sensor size. SLRs have separate autofocus sensors in the bottom of the mirror chamber.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>198210
What are you, an idiot? No, don't answer that.

And yes, it's a crop factor. With a 4/3s 10MP sensor, you get all 10MP at 300mm with a 150mm lens. With a 10MP full-frame sensor, you get 5MP of that 300mm when you crop from 150mm.

And no, it's more DoF. Your f2 increases to something higher (smaller aperture) giving you more DoF. Where the flying fuck do you get YOUR misinformation at? Go back to posting your shit so I can tell you what you did wrong and how to be a better photographer and you can (obviously) not learn anything from it.
>> Anonymous
>>198210
Uhh.. wrong interpretation, DC.
smaller sensor = greater depth of field (DOF), which means a greater distance from the lens will be within focus.

The larger the sensor area ,the shallower focus gets. Take a look at some medium format pictures shot at f2.8. They have more bokeh than you'd dream to get with an F1 lens on 35mm.
>> Anonymous
>>198217
>With a 10MP full-frame sensor, you get 2.5MP of that 300mm when you crop from 150mm.
Fixed.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>198215

>DOF is inversely proportional to format size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_vs._format_size

Fucking idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>198210

Oh and one more thing. I was saying because of the smaller distance between sensor and lens, you can mount anything from a larger format to a smaller format with an adapter, but can't the other way around.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>198218
>Take a look at some medium format pictures shot at f2.8. They have more bokeh than you'd dream to get with an F1 lens on 35mm.

Hence, the smaller the format, the more depth of field, or the less bokeh.

A small sensor will have less bokeh is what I meant to say, sorry.
>> Anonymous
>>198220
Reading comprehension, do you have it?

"_Inversely_ proportional" = "Smaller format equals larger DoF"
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>198224
Yeah, yeah, that's what I meant. It's 3 a.m., I'm a little slow.
>> Anonymous
>>198226
I guess I can quit raging and forgive you a little. But seriously though, what I said about smaller sensors is all true.

And I thought smaller sensor = faster autofocus...
>> Anonymous
>>198232
It is, because tolerances arent as strict.
>> Anonymous
>>198236
I guess, but you're surmising that based on the E-3 having the fastest. It could be due to some technology Olympus has, or shorter lenses, since less distance to move the glass- related to a smaller sensor, but if a 20mm lens on full frame would go just as fast as a 20mm on four-thirds, then it isn't really the sensor, although one could say "faster autofocus for the same field of view," e.g. 20mm versus 40mm.

Also, they just claim that with some specific lenses, right? Maybe those lenses were designed specifically for fast autofocus (compromise on minimum focusing distance? I don't know.) so they could claim that, or just because pros want fast autofocus and they were, "wow, this is the world's fastest autofocus, let's put it in our spam, er, advertising campaigns!"
>> Anonymous
>>198239
>or just because pros want fast autofocus and they were, "wow, this is the world's fastest autofocus, let's put it in our spam, er, advertising campaigns!"
Most likely, really. They don't have the edge on a comparable system.... then again, some say that the sensor isnt all that smaller, so maybe there -is- something about the technology being used.
>> Anonymous
>>198239
Dual cross AF sensors + ring-type USM in lenses + less glass to move compared to full-frame lenses = "world's fastest AF".

According to E-3 owners, though, it's blazingly fast only in good light.
>> Anonymous
>>198239
>a 20mm lens on full frame would go just as fast as a 20mm on four-thirds

A 20mm full-frame lens has to produce an image circle twice as large, thus it will have more glass and will be harder to move quickly.
>> Anonymous
>>198241
What's a cross AF sensor?
>> Anonymous
I might as well ask about this while DOF is the subject. How different would DOF be if my sensor was 24mm x 24mm VS a 36x24mm as in full frame? Considering the same lens, of course.
>> Anonymous
>>198245

Good point. More ~3 AM thinking here.
>> Anonymous
>>198247
exact same lens? you'd have the exact same photo only one of them will have cropped sides
>> Anonymous
>>198255
Okay, thought as much. Thanks
>> Anonymous
>>198255
That is not true.
You WILL have more DoF, but I don't know how much exactly.
>> Anonymous
I'm still waiting for a camera that has both an aps-c and a full frame sensor with a switch to control which one's gonna get some action now.
Don't ask me how, or if, that could work but I'm sure it would be an awesome feature. And I know that at least I would be willing to spend some money on it.
Just imagine the possibilities.. Every prime would effectively have two focal lengths. Fuck, this is so great, my mind can't comprehend the awesomeness of this idea.
>> Anonymous
>>198277
Protip: It's called cropping, and the D3 does it automatically with an option already.
>> Anonymous
>>198246
The original phase-detect AF sensor was composed of a photosensitive cells arranged in a single row, like this:

- or |

This allowed it to use only vertical or only horizontal patterns in the image to focus on, which obviously lead to problems with objects like striped shirts. To fix this, most AF sensors nowadays have two strips per focus point, one vertical and one horizontal, and choose whichever of them detects a more appropriate pattern:

+

This is called a cross-type AF sensor.

To increase the chances of finding a good pattern even more, some manufacturers put four strips in the most important focus points (like the center one) or even in all of them:

#

This is called a dual cross AF sensor.
>> Anonymous
>>198216
Mine are in the top of the chamber. NYAAHHH
>> Anonymous
>>198223
You really don't know what bokeh is, now do you?
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>198280
So what are canon's "High precision AF sensor on 2.8 or faster lenses" points?
>> Anonymous
>>198293

DC is right. With a smaller sensor, you have a greater DOF. With a greater DOF, you have less bokeh.

What would be wrong about that?
>> Anonymous
>>198303
Probably just Canon saying it works better with brighter lenses... and to not be surprised if AF doesnt work for shit in low light or with a slow lens.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>198353

he's a backpedaling retard

oh wait, it was 3 AM, he can be a retard because it was late
>> Anonymous
>>198303So what are canon's "High precision AF sensor on 2.8 or faster lenses" points?

cross type sensor that works only on lenses faster than 2.8
>> Anonymous
>>198303
I guess there's an extra sensor strip that's optimized for fast lenses.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
I'm sorta thinking the points are generally vertical or horizontal. Then, the center point is cross-type. And finally, the center point becomes #-type perhaps? Or maybe just "better" cross-type?

In any case, the end result is that the 450d focuses awesomely with center point on fast primes like the Sigma 30mm 1.4 (or to a lesser degree 50mm primes) wheras the older Rebels failed miserably.
>> Anonymous
>>198551
>he's a backpedaling retard

I don't think he's retarded, he just always feels like he has to chime in even when nobody asked him to and when he doesn't know what he's taking about.
>> Anonymous
>>198773wheras the older Rebels failed miserably.

that's because only the xti and newer have the 2.8 af point