sensor size: In film we wanted to work with a big negative. In short, a Haselbad or a Pentax 645 was a most desired camera. The reason being negative size. Why doesn't the same hold...

ole sarg Loc: south florida

In film we wanted to work with a big negative. In short, a Haselbad or a Pentax 645 was a most desired camera. The reason being negative size.

Why doesn't the same hold true for sensor size. A FF vs a crop sensor. Why would one prefer a crop sensor over a FF sensor?

After all isn't it all about capturing data?

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

ole sarg wrote:

In film we wanted to work with a big negative. In short, a Haselbad or a Pentax 645 was a most desired camera. The reason being negative size.

Why doesn't the same hold true for sensor size. A FF vs a crop sensor. Why would one prefer a crop sensor over a FF sensor?

After all isn't it all about capturing data?

It's still true. Larger sensors capture more detail and finer details.

I don't know why one would prefer a cropped sensor camera...but I KNOW that this is going to spark the "longer reach" debate...just wait and see :)

acutance Loc: New Hampshire

Well, as a sports shooter I am frequently shooting at the long range of my zoom (70-400) and looking for more. On a crop frame sensor, I'm getting 600mm equivalent, and loving it. On the other hand, for a nice landscape with a wide angle lens, I'll put my 20mm on my full frame camera, because it would be 30mm equivalent on the crop frame camera. The crop frames have gotten pretty good, too. I think you'd have to go to 16 X 20 to see any difference. In low light the larger sensor also produces less noise. And the smaller sensor means a smaller camera, one that you're more likely to have with you when a pictorial opportunity arises. I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu with this thread!

Curtis_Lowe Loc: Georgia

ole sarg wrote:

In film we wanted to work with a big negative. In short, a Haselbad or a Pentax 645 was a most desired camera. The reason being negative size.

Why doesn't the same hold true for sensor size. A FF vs a crop sensor. Why would one prefer a crop sensor over a FF sensor?

After all isn't it all about capturing data?

The reach argument is valid for those that seek reach.
There is a cost differential as well to consider.
And along with the cost differential is the FPS issue. Bigger sensor generally means slower FPS without additional cost!

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

It all comes down to $$$$ and physical camera size.
Until mfgs bring the size of the cameras down to the size of the current "crop sensor" versions, and reduce the $$, they will have an advantage.

I don't think there is any real reason that they couldn't make a "bridge" camera with a full-frame sensor, maybe even a compact P&S.

As far as "reach" is concerned, on the full frame camera, just crop the picture to get the effect of the "crop" sensor! That should not really be an issue.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Its all about price. No other reason to use one really.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

acutance wrote:

On a crop frame sensor, I'm getting 600mm equivalent, and loving it.

Well...not actually. You are seeing a "crop" of what would be the full frame...you are only getting 400mm but cropping the center down in camera is all.

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

I'd jump hurlers for Full Frame or Medium Format. My bank manager would jump higher and come down heavier - on me.

I do have 5x4" plate camera, converted to take sheet film, but the burst mode is about 2 shots in ten minutes. Quality is not that great either. I will have to stick with crop sensor and bridge cameras.

What is the "FPS" issue?

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Searcher wrote:

I'd jump hurlers for Full Frame or Medium Format. My bank manager would jump higher and come down heavier - on me.

I do have 5x4" plate camera, converted to take sheet film, but the burst mode is about 2 shots in ten minutes. Quality is not that great either. I will have to stick with crop sensor and bridge cameras.

What is the "FPS" issue?

I can't wait for the day that they can cram a medium format sensor into a 5D Mark III

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

rpavich wrote:

I can't wait for the day that they can cram a medium format sensor into a 5D Mark III

Then I would save some pennies and change to Canon.

Curtis_Lowe Loc: Georgia

Searcher wrote:

I'd jump hurlers for Full Frame or Medium Format. My bank manager would jump higher and come down heavier - on me.

I do have 5x4" plate camera, converted to take sheet film, but the burst mode is about 2 shots in ten minutes. Quality is not that great either. I will have to stick with crop sensor and bridge cameras.

What is the "FPS" issue?

I am not sure that it is an issue, it is just that a crop senser camera generally has or can have a very quick FPS or Frames per Second. I assume [don't design cameras and dont really know] this is due to the shutter mech being smaller and the data transfered through processor to memeory being smaller. I know that top rate pro cameras with very fast FPS have smaller sensors than FF at least in the cannon line up. Or that use to be true, I am not sure with new 1DX, Way out of my league anyway.

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

Curtis_Lowe wrote:

br I am not sure that it is an issue, it is just ... (show quote)

FPS = Frames per second - Thanks.

Zero_Equals_Infinity Loc: Canada

One tends to think of a crop sensor as offering an equivalent of a longer lens. What it really comes down to is pixel pitch / density. If a crop sensor, full frame and medium format camera all have the same pixel pitch, then the difference is solely one of the surface area of a sensor. (e.g. Nikon D7000 at 16MP, D800 at 36MP and Phase One IQ180 at 80MP all have the same pixel pitch.)

What the larger sensor offers is a larger capture for a lens of the same focal length, more detail (by changing lens) for a capture of the same composition with a shallower depth of field.

ASR666 Loc: Singapore

Mainly because crop sensors are cheaper and allow you to used FF lens. They offer 'apparently' equivalent image quality to a FF. However, from all that I've read and used, FF quality remains far above any crop.

ole sarg wrote:

In film we wanted to work with a big negative. In short, a Haselbad or a Pentax 645 was a most desired camera. The reason being negative size.

Why doesn't the same hold true for sensor size. A FF vs a crop sensor. Why would one prefer a crop sensor over a FF sensor?

After all isn't it all about capturing data?

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

ASR666 wrote:

However, from all that I've read and used, FF quality remains far above any crop.

I don't know how "far" above they are but the reason that i bought a FF camera was the article by Ken Rockwell showing shots of the same subject and it's clear that there is far more detail in the FF shots of the same subject; until you see them side by side you may not really realize it.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm