I've finally found this group.
I'm planning to buy a DSLR camera. I figured out there are several
types of CCD size. Of course 1:1 CCD will be better than the crop. But
I am wonder how much it is better considering the high price.
Can you tell me what is the advantage and disadvantage to buy 1:1 CCD
DSLR?
Now, I have some money to buy a used 1:1 CCD DSLR but I am hesitating
because it is too expensive, although it is a used one.
Thanks in advance.
PS: Sorry for my broken English. It is not my mother language.
On Jun 25, 3:14 am, ghldnjsrk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> I've finally found this group.
> I'm planning to buy a DSLR camera. I figured out there are several
> types of CCD size. Of course 1:1 CCD will be better than the crop. But
> I am wonder how much it is better considering the high price.
> Can you tell me what is the advantage and disadvantage to buy 1:1 CCD
> DSLR?
>
> Now, I have some money to buy a used 1:1 CCD DSLR but I am hesitating
> because it is too expensive, although it is a used one.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> PS: Sorry for my broken English. It is not my mother language.
Not sure what you mean by a 1:1 CCD. Do you mean a square format,
like 120 film? That is, as opposed to the common 4:3 format for most
digitals or the 3:2 of 35mm film.
Don Stauffer wrote:
> On Jun 25, 3:14 am, ghldnjsrk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > I've finally found this group.
> > I'm planning to buy a DSLR camera. I figured out there are several
> > types of CCD size. Of course 1:1 CCD will be better than the crop. But
> > I am wonder how much it is better considering the high price.
> > Can you tell me what is the advantage and disadvantage to buy 1:1 CCD
> > DSLR?
> >
> > Now, I have some money to buy a used 1:1 CCD DSLR but I am hesitating
> > because it is too expensive, although it is a used one.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > PS: Sorry for my broken English. It is not my mother language.
>
> Not sure what you mean by a 1:1 CCD. Do you mean a square format,
> like 120 film? That is, as opposed to the common 4:3 format for most
> digitals or the 3:2 of 35mm film.
No, I think he means full frame CCD... I mean CMOS
Advantages:
- a lot more lenses available that are optimized for full frame than
for reduced frame
- inexpensive "standard" lenses
- shallower depth of field
- less image noise
- better build
- bigger viewfinder
- exchangeable focusing screens
(- higher practical megapixel limit)
(- definitely here to stay)
Disatvantages:
- expensive
- heavyer wide and tele lenses for equivalent angle of view
- more expensive wide and tele lenses for equivalent angle of view
- more dificult to get extreme telephoto
Bhogi <bhogi@siol.com> wrote:
>No, I think he means full frame CCD... I mean CMOS
>
>Advantages:
Your list of "advantages" is not a list that depends on the size
of the sensor. I can't figure out which it is that you are
claiming these "advantages" and "disadvantages" are for.
>- a lot more lenses available that are optimized for full frame than
>for reduced frame
That is true, but probably insignificant. The disadvantage is
that lenses for smaller sensors cannot be used with larger
sensors. Smaller sensors of course commonly do use lenses
designed for larger sensors.
>- inexpensive "standard" lenses
Not true for either larger or smaller sensors.
>- shallower depth of field
>- less image noise
A valid advantages for larger sensors
>- better build
>- bigger viewfinder
>- exchangeable focusing screens
>(- higher practical megapixel limit)
>(- definitely here to stay)
None of those are more or less true for either larger or smaller
sensors.
>Disatvantages:
>- expensive
Lenses for larger formats are in fact more expensive.
>- heavyer wide and tele lenses for equivalent angle of view
What? (See below.)
>- more expensive wide and tele lenses for equivalent angle of view
>- more dificult to get extreme telephoto
Wide angle lenses are a problem for smaller formats, and
telephoto lenses are a problem for larger formats.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Bhogi <bhogi@siol.com> wrote:
> >No, I think he means full frame CCD... I mean CMOS
> >
> >Advantages:
>
> Your list of "advantages" is not a list that depends on the size
> of the sensor. I can't figure out which it is that you are
> claiming these "advantages" and "disadvantages" are for.
All of them are for full frame.
Ok, as far as I can imagine he's either talking about canon 5d or one
of 1ds, so my guess is he's talking about 5d because it's cheaper. My
list revolves around 5d, not some hypothetical large sensor detached
from a body
But let's review my list.
> >- a lot more lenses available that are optimized for full frame than
> >for reduced frame
>
> That is true, but probably insignificant. The disadvantage is
> that lenses for smaller sensors cannot be used with larger
> sensors. Smaller sensors of course commonly do use lenses
> designed for larger sensors.
Lenses for full frame are heavyer then they need to be for use on APS-
C. They illuminate larger circle than needed so I'm sure image
contrast is also poorer on APS-C. Two benefits for APS-C are less
vignetting and more balanced center/border resolution.
> >- inexpensive "standard" lenses
>
> Not true for either larger or smaller sensors.
There's only one standard lens made for APS-C today, sigma 30 1.4.
There are at least two 50mm lenses that are cheaper and better.
Comparable 28mm full frame lenses are also more expensive and not as
good.
I'm not talking about standard zooms here which are at least one stop
slower and again more expensive.
> >- better build
> >- bigger viewfinder
> >- exchangeable focusing screens
> >(- higher practical megapixel limit)
> >(- definitely here to stay)
>
> None of those are more or less true for either larger or smaller
> sensors.
It is for 5d compared to 400d and even 30d. Generaly full frame
cameras are better built and have more accessories. There is no entry
level full frame camera.
The advantages in parenthesis were meant for the future models, that's
why I put them in parenthesis, it's just my opinion. Higher practical
megapixel limit is nevertheless simply a fact, the same way you'll
probably never see a 20Mp point and shoot camera.
> >- heavyer wide and tele lenses for equivalent angle of view
>
> What? (See below.)
>
> >- more expensive wide and tele lenses for equivalent angle of view
> >- more dificult to get extreme telephoto
>
> Wide angle lenses are a problem for smaller formats, and
> telephoto lenses are a problem for larger formats.
Canon EF 16-35 is an L lens, both heavier and more expensive than
equivalent EF-S 10-22. Wide angle is not a problem for smaller
formats, extreme wide angle is a problem.
Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 is an L lens, both heavier and more expensive
than "equivalent" sigma 50-150 2.8.
Telephoto lenses are not a problem on larger formats they are just
heavyer and more expensive for the same angle of view. Getting the
same extreme narrow angle of view of smaller formats is a problem.
I didn't compare cheap lenses here simpy because I can't imagine
someone buying a canon 5d and putting on a cheap zoom lens.
In article <1182812086.532219.232660@n60g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
Bhogi <bhogi@siol.com> wrote:
> Lenses for full frame are heavyer then they need to be for use on APS-
> C. They illuminate larger circle than needed so I'm sure image
> contrast is also poorer on APS-C. Two benefits for APS-C are less
> vignetting and more balanced center/border resolution.
totally wrong. the full frame lens covers a wider image circle, so
vignetting is *less* of a problem. also, contrast is not affected at
all.
> There's only one standard lens made for APS-C today, sigma 30 1.4.
28 & 35mm lenses are available in f/1.4, f/2 and f/2.8 and they all
work quite well on crop sensor cameras. most people, however, choose a
zoom for their 'standard' lens, several of which, include
stabilization.
> It is for 5d compared to 400d and even 30d. Generaly full frame
> cameras are better built and have more accessories. There is no entry
> level full frame camera.
the canon 5d is an entry level full frame camera and the eos 1ds mark
ii is the pro full frame version. the nikon d200 is better built than
the canon 5d, including weather sealing.
> > Wide angle lenses are a problem for smaller formats, and
> > telephoto lenses are a problem for larger formats.
>
> Canon EF 16-35 is an L lens, both heavier and more expensive than
> equivalent EF-S 10-22.
the canon 16-35 is a fixed aperture f/2.8 - of course its heavier and
more expensive than the 10-22. try comparing equivalent lenses next
time.
Bhogi <bhogi@siol.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> >- a lot more lenses available that are optimized for full frame than
>> >for reduced frame
>>
>> That is true, but probably insignificant. The disadvantage is
>> that lenses for smaller sensors cannot be used with larger
>> sensors. Smaller sensors of course commonly do use lenses
>> designed for larger sensors.
>
>Lenses for full frame are heavyer then they need to be for use on APS-
>C. They illuminate larger circle than needed so I'm sure image
>contrast is also poorer on APS-C. Two benefits for APS-C are less
>vignetting and more balanced center/border resolution.
But all of that is probably insignificant. I do agree that
image contrast might be slightly reduced, but likewise
resolution will be greater, as you note. It's a toss...
>> >- inexpensive "standard" lenses
>>
>> Not true for either larger or smaller sensors.
>
>There's only one standard lens made for APS-C today, sigma 30 1.4.
(Another poster discussed this...)
>There are at least two 50mm lenses that are cheaper and better.
But for any given camera model, that may or may not be true.
The fact that it is true for two, does not affect other models.
Besides, what is "standard" is a matter of personal taste, and
seems to have changed. While it once was true that a 43-60mm
fixed focal length lense was considered to be "standard" for the
35mm format (despite the fact that many people preferred either a
wider angle or a narrower angle), today the technology for
building zoom lenses has improved to where very few cameras
actually seem to be sold with *any* fixed focal length lense.
They all come with a "kit lens" that is a medium-wide to
medium-telephoto.
At that point it might be true enough that the average lenses
for smaller formats are less expensive, but that is almost
always because of the lower quality all around (they are
consumer market items) rather than being any artifact related to
the format.
>Comparable 28mm full frame lenses are also more expensive and not as
>good.
>I'm not talking about standard zooms here which are at least one stop
>slower and again more expensive.
But most of that is due to the targeted market (consumers rather
than professionals). And the problems with wide angle lenses
for smaller formats are countered by similar problems for
telephoto lenses for larger formats.
If we tip the scales one way or the other for small/large
formats, it will have to favor small formats when we look at the
price differentials for wide angle lenses (relatively cheap and
plentiful) compared to long telephoto lenses (fewer and
extremely expensive).
That is to say, it takes less money to equalize for the smaller
format compared to the larger format.
>> >- better build
>> >- bigger viewfinder
>> >- exchangeable focusing screens
>> >(- higher practical megapixel limit)
>> >(- definitely here to stay)
>>
>> None of those are more or less true for either larger or smaller
>> sensors.
>
>It is for 5d compared to 400d and even 30d.
But we are supposed to be comparing format requirements, not two
particular camera models. Your choice of cameras is not
representative of all models, nor of the requirements for either
format. Not that the comparisons aren't useful... just don't
describe them as between the two formats as opposed to being a
comparison of those two camera models.
>Generaly full frame
>cameras are better built and have more accessories. There is no entry
>level full frame camera.
(Another poster has discussed that in detail.)
>The advantages in parenthesis were meant for the future models, that's
>why I put them in parenthesis, it's just my opinion. Higher practical
>megapixel limit is nevertheless simply a fact, the same way you'll
>probably never see a 20Mp point and shoot camera.
Don't count on that. :-)
>> >- heavyer wide and tele lenses for equivalent angle of view
>>
>> What? (See below.)
>>
>> >- more expensive wide and tele lenses for equivalent angle of view
>> >- more dificult to get extreme telephoto
>>
>> Wide angle lenses are a problem for smaller formats, and
>> telephoto lenses are a problem for larger formats.
>
>Canon EF 16-35 is an L lens, both heavier and more expensive than
>equivalent EF-S 10-22. Wide angle is not a problem for smaller
>formats, extreme wide angle is a problem.
That is contradictory. The *same* wide angle is easier with
larger formats than smaller (which of course is balanced in the
opposite direction when considering long focal lengths). But
you are not comparing similar lenses, so your example isn't
valid.
>Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 is an L lens, both heavier and more expensive
>than "equivalent" sigma 50-150 2.8.
Are those equivalent???
>Telephoto lenses are not a problem on larger formats they are just
>heavyer and more expensive for the same angle of view. Getting the
If weight and expense is a problem with short focal length
lenses, then it must also be considered a problem when
encountered with long focal length lenses. You can't have it
both ways.
>same extreme narrow angle of view of smaller formats is a problem.
I assume that was a typo, and you meant to say that getting the
same wide angle with smaller formats is a problem, and getting
the same narrow angle with larger formats is too.
>I didn't compare cheap lenses here simpy because I can't imagine
>someone buying a canon 5d and putting on a cheap zoom lens.
Canon's cameras are not the only examples with which to compare
35mm format to smaller digital formats.
Whatever, I appreciate your list and think the ensuing
discussion to clear up exactly what you are saying, and
expanding it with other points of view and interest, is probably
useful for either the OP or the next person who has the same
question...
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
nospam wrote:
> In article <1182812086.532219.232660@n60g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
> Bhogi <bhogi@siol.com> wrote:
>
> > Lenses for full frame are heavyer then they need to be for use on APS-
> > C. They illuminate larger circle than needed so I'm sure image
> > contrast is also poorer on APS-C. Two benefits for APS-C are less
> > vignetting and more balanced center/border resolution.
>
> totally wrong. the full frame lens covers a wider image circle, so
> vignetting is *less* of a problem. also, contrast is not affected at
> all.
Sorry, benefits for APS-C when using the full frame lenses...
> > There's only one standard lens made for APS-C today, sigma 30 1.4.
>
> 28 & 35mm lenses are available in f/1.4, f/2 and f/2.8 and they all
> work quite well on crop sensor cameras. most people, however, choose a
> zoom for their 'standard' lens, several of which, include
> stabilization.
Compare their price to the price of 50mm f1.8 and f1.4, that was the
point.
> > It is for 5d compared to 400d and even 30d. Generaly full frame
> > cameras are better built and have more accessories. There is no entry
> > level full frame camera.
>
> the canon 5d is an entry level full frame camera and the eos 1ds mark
> ii is the pro full frame version. the nikon d200 is better built than
> the canon 5d, including weather sealing.
Oh, I see, 5d is like 400d.
> > > Wide angle lenses are a problem for smaller formats, and
> > > telephoto lenses are a problem for larger formats.
> >
> > Canon EF 16-35 is an L lens, both heavier and more expensive than
> > equivalent EF-S 10-22.
>
> the canon 16-35 is a fixed aperture f/2.8 - of course its heavier and
> more expensive than the 10-22. try comparing equivalent lenses next
> time.
Sigma 50-150 is equivalent to non IS canon 70-200. 10-22 is equivalent
to 16-35 f2.8. Unless you personaly have a source of L lenses designed
for APS-C you don't have a case other than there's a better set of
lenses for full frame available.
Floyd L. Davidson je napisal:
> Bhogi <bhogi@siol.com> wrote:
> >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> >> >- inexpensive "standard" lenses
> >>
> >> Not true for either larger or smaller sensors.
> >
> >There's only one standard lens made for APS-C today, sigma 30 1.4.
>
> (Another poster discussed this...)
Taken care of.
> >There are at least two 50mm lenses that are cheaper and better.
>
> But for any given camera model, that may or may not be true.
> The fact that it is true for two, does not affect other models.
Please give me one example where this is not true. Keep in mind it has
to be full frame digital, not some hypothetical future nikon model.
> Besides, what is "standard" is a matter of personal taste, and
> seems to have changed. While it once was true that a 43-60mm
> fixed focal length lense was considered to be "standard" for the
> 35mm format (despite the fact that many people preferred either a
> wider angle or a narrower angle), today the technology for
> building zoom lenses has improved to where very few cameras
> actually seem to be sold with *any* fixed focal length lense.
> They all come with a "kit lens" that is a medium-wide to
> medium-telephoto.
I meant what I said, "inexpensive standard lens" = inexpensive high
quality fast lens = 50mm f1.8!!! and 50mm f1.4. Lenses you mention
can't compete with image quality, price, weight, aperture. They are
more flexible though but I wasn't addressing this.
> At that point it might be true enough that the average lenses
> for smaller formats are less expensive, but that is almost
> always because of the lower quality all around (they are
> consumer market items) rather than being any artifact related to
> the format.
>
> >Comparable 28mm full frame lenses are also more expensive and not as
> >good.
> >I'm not talking about standard zooms here which are at least one stop
> >slower and again more expensive.
>
> But most of that is due to the targeted market (consumers rather
> than professionals). And the problems with wide angle lenses
> for smaller formats are countered by similar problems for
> telephoto lenses for larger formats.
Like I said, inexpensive "standard" lenses...
I don't think we're discussing marketing choices here.
> If we tip the scales one way or the other for small/large
> formats, it will have to favor small formats when we look at the
> price differentials for wide angle lenses (relatively cheap and
> plentiful) compared to long telephoto lenses (fewer and
> extremely expensive).
>
> That is to say, it takes less money to equalize for the smaller
> format compared to the larger format.
Much less I'd say. You can even get 400 f2.8 for much less than 600 f4
for just about the same performance even DOF-wise.
> >> >- better build
> >> >- bigger viewfinder
> >> >- exchangeable focusing screens
> >> >(- higher practical megapixel limit)
> >> >(- definitely here to stay)
> >>
> >> None of those are more or less true for either larger or smaller
> >> sensors.
> >
> >It is for 5d compared to 400d and even 30d.
>
> But we are supposed to be comparing format requirements, not two
> particular camera models. Your choice of cameras is not
> representative of all models, nor of the requirements for either
> format. Not that the comparisons aren't useful... just don't
> describe them as between the two formats as opposed to being a
> comparison of those two camera models.
My choice is very much representative: 400d is an antry level APS-C,
5d is an entry level full frame, 5d is much better built just like 1ds
is much better built than 30d. But that's just one point of view
possible. In general that will always be so, in my opinion.
I realy don't know why you argue my camera choice. There simply isn't
any other affordable full frame camera available. The OP is
considering buying a used camera remember?
> >Generaly full frame
> >cameras are better built and have more accessories. There is no entry
> >level full frame camera.
>
> (Another poster has discussed that in detail.)
Right, 5d is like 400d...
> >> >- heavyer wide and tele lenses for equivalent angle of view
> >>
> >> What? (See below.)
> >>
> >> >- more expensive wide and tele lenses for equivalent angle of view
> >> >- more dificult to get extreme telephoto
> >>
> >> Wide angle lenses are a problem for smaller formats, and
> >> telephoto lenses are a problem for larger formats.
> >
> >Canon EF 16-35 is an L lens, both heavier and more expensive than
> >equivalent EF-S 10-22. Wide angle is not a problem for smaller
> >formats, extreme wide angle is a problem.
>
> That is contradictory. The *same* wide angle is easier with
> larger formats than smaller (which of course is balanced in the
> opposite direction when considering long focal lengths). But
> you are not comparing similar lenses, so your example isn't
> valid.
Easier makes no sense now: it's available it's cheaper, it's lighter.
Please give me one example for real equivalent of 10-22 for full
frame. There is none! It's all professional gear, heavier more
expensive.
> >Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 is an L lens, both heavier and more expensive
> >than "equivalent" sigma 50-150 2.8.
>
> Are those equivalent???
YES! There is NO OTHER choice but a few third party lenses with
"equivalent" angles of view. My sigma is at least half the price and
half the weight of the 70-200 for equivalent angle of view.
> >Telephoto lenses are not a problem on larger formats they are just
> >heavyer and more expensive for the same angle of view. Getting the
>
> If weight and expense is a problem with short focal length
> lenses, then it must also be considered a problem when
> encountered with long focal length lenses. You can't have it
> both ways.
I don't understand your point. In both cases this is in favor of APS-
C.
> >I didn't compare cheap lenses here simpy because I can't imagine
> >someone buying a canon 5d and putting on a cheap zoom lens.
>
> Canon's cameras are not the only examples with which to compare
> 35mm format to smaller digital formats.
All my points still stand more or less for Nikon: normal lenses aside
all other "equivalent" gear is heavier and more expensive on full
frame.
> Whatever, I appreciate your list and think the ensuing
> discussion to clear up exactly what you are saying, and
> expanding it with other points of view and interest, is probably
> useful for either the OP or the next person who has the same
> question...
I agree. For future models my reasoning may not necessarily be correct
any more.
![[DSLR] 1:1 vs. crop?](http://www.howtofixcomputers.com/forums/iconimages/digital-photo/dslr-1-1-vs-crop_ltr.gif)
[DSLR] 1:1 vs. crop? 
Linear Mode
