"Full Frame" sensors

Kodak Pro SLR/n


There was an assumption from many people that when the first somewhat mis-named "full-frame" or 35mm size sensors appeared that it signalled the end for the smaller APS-C format. This certainly hasn't happened and far from being the dominant format the 35mm sized sensor has been restricted to fairly expensive high-end cameras. The Canon 5DMkII and the two Sony models are the cheapest currently, but still cost more than their APS-C equivalents. 



Canon 5DMkII


The cameras so far released are:-

• Contax N Digital (2002)
• Canon EOS-1Ds (2002)
• Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003)
• Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n (2004)
• Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c (2004)
• Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II (2004)
• Canon EOS 5D (2005)
• Nikon D3 (2007)
• Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III (2007)
• Nikon D700 (2008)
• Sony α DSLR-A900 (2008)
• Canon EOS 5D Mark II (2008)
• Nikon D3X (2008)
• Sony α DSLR-A850 (2009)
• Nikon D3S (2009)
• Leica M9 (2009)

I've used quite a number of these, the ones in bold, and two of my four current cameras use this larger sensor. The Leica M9 and Sony a850. 

Leica M9

Sony a850

So why hasn't the 35mm sized sensor become the standard? It should provide better quality, being larger and for the most part having less pixel density. It also gives an opportunity for the use of super wide-angle lenses. 

Price is obviously a factor, and companies have invested heavily in their APS-C and 4/3 lens ranges, so these smaller formats aren't going to disappear, but I would have assumed by now that we would see more cameras with the larger format sensor than we have. If they had proved more popular by now perhaps we would have seen more "budget orientated" models. Its always surprised me that no-one ever tried this anyway. Currently even with discounts the cheapest you can buy a 35mm sized sensor camera for in the UK is around the £1600 mark, for a body only. If you're moving up from a smaller format, then lens costs have to be added in to this. 

I don't really have an answer as to why this has become a somewhat marginalised format. Certainly there have been great advances in APS-C and 4/3 technology but the ultimate non-MF image quality and indeed the best high ISO performance still comes from the "full-frame" models. They are usually larger and heavier, but the Canon 7D is a brute of a camera and still sells very well indeed. Maybe it is price that is the ultimate factor in determining how many cameras get sold, and maybe there are good reasons why manufacturers aren't able to offer the larger format at a smaller price. Whatever the reason, the sensor revolution that the Canon 5D seemed to indicate, hasn't happened.

Sony a850 - poor at high ISO - NOT! plus Fuji X100 samples.

Another myth. Sometimes I wonder exactly what certain camera review websites do with the cameras they get given to assess. Virtually everybody seems to think that the a850 has poor high ISO performance. I posted some shots at ISO 1600 and 3200 on an earlier post and thought they were actually OK. Since upgrading the firmware I've taken some more. Here's a selection at 3200-6400.


























These may look as if they were taken in good light, but they weren't. It was pretty dark. Very similar to the kind of poor natural light that might be encountered at a wedding or indoor event.
Do they look terrible to you? Is ISO 6400 unusable? Well they look pretty good to me. This is with the often criticised noise reduction turned on. These are raw files with a little bit of luminance smoothing in Photoshop ACR.


The immediate thing that strikes me is how sharp they are. Even with the in-camera noise reduction and that which I've added myself, there's still an excellent level of detail at the point of focus. 


Here's what a Canon 7D produced at a wedding at ISO 1250.

Here's a shot with a Canon 5DMkII at another wedding at ISO 2500.

The a850 images stand up pretty well to me. Plus they were taken in worse light, though it doesn't look it.  There's no doubt that a 5DMkII or Nikon D3S will give optimum high ISO results but as I wrote in a previous post, I would have no problem whatsoever using the a850 in a low-light situation. Nor on the evidence of the tests I've done would I be reluctant to use it at ISO 3200 or 6400. 


This of course makes me even more frustrated that I haven't been using Sony full-frame for the last 2 years. If had seen results like this when the a900 came out I would have bought one then. There would have been no D3X, 550D, 7D or K-5 and I would have saved myself a whole lot of money and hassle.


So what's going on? Does the a850 have a better sensor than the a900? Apparently its exactly the same. Has the new firmware made a difference? Well it's not supposed to have any effect on high ISO. 


Some of these issues and discrepancies are highlighted in the latest batch of samples from the Fuji X100 at Dpreview. http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11022510fujifilmx100betasamples.asp 
Some of these are are incredible, like the ISO 6400 shots which are so clean and sharp as to be almost unbelievable. However in common with some of the other sample sets that have been posted, there are some disappointing shots. Again there are far too many images that look soft and flat to me. 


The only real way to assess this properly is to see some raw files. I was virtually 100% sure that I was going to buy this camera, but now I'm not so sure. The retro chic design has me weak at the knees, but I'm reluctant to go down the Olympus E-P2 route again, when I buy a camera mostly because of its looks. The E-P2 is a gorgeous camera that takes decent pictures, though inferior to those produced on my Panasonics to my eyes, but its an absolute pig to use. It has a menu system from hell and the wonderful EVF and its potential for using manual focus lenses is sabotaged by an extremely difficult method of getting in and out of the magnified focusing screen. I put up with it for so long, because I enjoyed the look and feel of the E-P2, but eventually my patience wore out with it. 


Some posts from people who have used the X100 seem to be indicating that there is a fair amount of fiddling about to be done on the camera. One of the things I've enjoyed about the a850 is its simplicity. Also the M9, despite all its little idiosyncracies is very simple to use. 


The other thing that bothers me about the X100 is 12MP. Though its obviously much better at high ISO's, I've seen nothing in the images at low ISO's that are better than a GF1, and I've got one of those. This may sound like reasons to try and stop myself buying one, and that may be right. I'm not sure I can resist it. My head says no, but my heart is screaming buy it, buy it, buy it...... The latter usually wins, which is unfortunate for my bank account, but good for my soul!


David

Pentax K-5 - Three lenses, Low ISO performance.

A second day of bright sunshine and a further chance to work with the Pentax K-5. This time alongside the River Severn at Bewdley. I took the 15mm and 70mm lenses as yesterday, and also took along the 35mm f2.4.


In the Dpreview review of the K-5 there's a line in the conclusion amongst the plus points. "Exceptionally low shadow noise in RAW files at low ISOs" Reviews and discussions of cameras these days seem to concentrate on what a camera will do at high ISO's and how much noise there is at ISO 3200 etc. Often the performance at ISO 100 etc. is either ignored or assumed to be OK. However, for those of us who rarely use anything over ISO 200, it can be quite important. The importance of Dpreviews comment can be seen below.





The top image is the out of camera jpg. The shadow correction option is turned on, but the  foreground with the motorbikes is still too dark. The bottom image is after some work in Photoshop, and I have lightened the foreground substantially to show the bikes. This would normally generate a fair deal of noise, but in this case that hasn't happened. The bottom half of the image is very "clean" and shows no colour noise and only a very slight increase in luminance noise.


Here's another example.





I've never seen such "elasticity" in a camera before. The K-5 has an excellent dynamic range but its ability to produce files where shadows can be lifted to this extent without generating noise is incredibly useful. The fact that it can do this while still creating a very "punchy" image with terrific colour is a real bonus. Here's a couple of further examples of what it can do with little post shooting work on my part. These are taken in very bright sunlight.








This is getting very close to reproducing what we see with our eyes. 


Here's a sample of what happens when I lift the shadows in an image using a camera that has high shadow noise at low ISO's. This is from a Canon 5D Mk II at ISO 100.

This has always been a problem with this Canon sensor. So "full-frame" doesn't always have the low-noise advantage. 


For the K-5 to produce results like this is very impressive. One thing it lets me do is to expose for the highlights, knowing that I've got a good chance of recovering detail in the shadows, without generating extra noise.





In fact the files that I am creating from my K-5 are probably the best I've seen. I tried a few in Rawker,  the dcraw based raw conversion software I use to see what raw files are like without the software "fixes" that manufacturers add to their software. They came out very well indeed. Very clean, with no noise and very little CA and fringing. Excellent sharpness also. 


It seems that Pentax may have done very little to tweak the the sensor output. In an interview with Chris Pound from Pentax at Dpreview he said the following:- "When asked about how much input Pentax had into the design of the (Sony-built) sensor in the K-5, Pound explained: 'we had less input than we did in the previous generation, where we worked with Samsung.' He went on: 'Sony controlled the development [of the new sensor] but they have a very good history of that kind of design and it has proven very successful in the K-5."





Using the K-5 in these real-world shooting situations has led me being even more impressed with the camera, than I was before. It seems almost designed for me personally. Small, light, great colour, terrific low-ISO performance with good dynamic range, fast accurate AF, high quality lightweight lenses, producing sharp images. Everything I want really. I was beginning to think that I would never get this in a DSLR, and its been a pleasant surprise that I can.





On the lenses, the 35mm f2.4 is also a great little lens. For a Pentax prime its actually very cheap. The savings have obviously come in the construction, as its plastic through and through. However its excellent optically.





So a very successful couple of days. Firstly that I managed to get out and shoot some pictures and secondly that the Pentax K-5 lived up to, and in many ways exceeded, my expectations of it. I enjoyed using it, and looking at the results. The first of many such experiences I hope. 


Words - David
Images - David and Ann

Dynamic Range

In a recent forum discussion on the Panasonic GH2 samples, which look really good, someone rightly pointed out the concerns about dynamic range. This has always been a problem with m4/3 in particular and digital sensors in general. 


From time to time we do some property photography, for estate agent websites and brochures. Interiors are very hard and test a cameras dynamic range to the limit. 


Below are two examples from a bracketed sequence, taken with a Panasonic GH1 and a 7-14mm wide angle zoom.





The bottom shot is getting close to what is required for the interior, but the window is completely blown out and unrecoverable. So to get a satisfactory result we had to use the top version and lighten the dark areas both in camera raw and photoshop. We prefer this to using HDR as, for obvious reasons, a natural look is required. By working with the file we eventually came up with this.





The "look" is right. Nice light bright interior and some detail in the window. Some of the exterior is burnt out but it works quite nicely. However there is a large amount of noise generated by the lightening and for the final clients version we would do more work, getting rid of that. Probably by replacing areas within the room with sections cut and pasted from other lighter shots. The section on the left with the shelf is particularly nasty and would have to be substituted.


With a suitable budget and the time to do it, a better result could be obtained by using some flash heads, but the circumstances dictated that this had to be done quite quickly and cheaply!!


So some problems with m4/3, but shots like this are very difficult with any camera. They were difficult with film and they are difficult with larger sensors also.


Heres another from the same shoot. This is the camera jpg taken with a Canon 5D MK II and 20mm lens.





The range is slightly less than the first shot, as there is more light and less dark areas.


The final result after Photoshop work looked like this.





Again an OK result with a light interior and detail outdoors. However there is still a burnt out sky, and a considerable amount of noise which would have to be eliminated.


Interior shots like this are incredibly difficult. You only have to look at the problems movie makers have with situations like this. Unless they use banks of interior lights, they will suffer from the same problems as above. In many cases, it just has to be accepted. Currently we have no film nor camera sensor that comes close to what our eyes can cope with. Someone in a recent forum expressed the concern that manufacturers obsession with higher resolutions has led to the problems of dynamic range being largely ignored. He rightly made the point that by now we should have something better than we have. Even the very best film or sensor camera/lens combinations are a long way off recording what we see with our eyes. We can come up with solutions because we have to, but it would make things a lot easier if we didn't. I'm afraid in-camera or software HDR isn't the answer. Can be useful for static subjects, though we are not convinced by what we have seen, but completely useless when one shot is all you get. 


In terms of m4/3, yes dynamic range is more of a problem than with larger sensors, though we've not seen any great improvement from the APS-C sensors we've used, and in the really difficult situations other solutions have to be found. They have to found for full-frame sensors as well as m4/3, so the notion that somehow these larger sensors solve all your DR problems is somewhat inaccurate. They don't. They may be marginally better, but it is marginal and we need somebody to come up with a satisfactory solution. However it still seems a low priority for camera manufacturers.


Finally, going back to the GH2 samples, they did seem to be no worse in terms of DR than the GH1. The high ISO performance looked excellent, with samples at ISO 3200 and 6400 looking very similar to the Canon 550D, which is high praise indeed. The upsizing of the sensor seems to have worked very well, as would have been expected. Panasonic wouldn't have done it if they knew it was going to be inferior to what they have already. If the samples translate to real world performance then they really have come up with something special, and deserve to be regarded as at the forefront of current sensor technology. A little more concern about DR wouldn't go unappreciated however.


D & A

Canon Landscape

Canon 5D 

Over the years we had a number of Canon DSLR's. While appreciating their all round capabilities we have never used them very much for landscape.


Canon 350D


The large heavy "pro" models are somewhat difficult to carry for any length of time. The memory of taking a 1DS MkII plus 3 lenses up to the summit of a very steep sea cliff is still with me.


Canon 1DS Mk II

We have used many of the cheaper cameras as backups and usually tried them for landscape work. This has often been unsatisfactory, as up to the 500D we have generally found the images from these cameras to produce slightly soft results.



Canon 400D


The 500D was an improvement, and seemed to have both brighter colour straight out of the camera and more bite to the images.



Canon 500D

We liked both the 5D and 5D Mk II, and the full-frame sensor produced excellent results. The Mk II seemed like it could almost be the perfect camera, but was somewhat hampered by its noisy shadow area performance even at low ISO's.



Canon 5D Mk II


Both the 7D and 550D are the best yet in terms of all round image quality. The 18MP sensor produces excellent images at low ISO's. The 550D is also a very light camera and provided we don't carry heavy lenses is very usable as a landscape camera.



Canon 550D



Canon 7D


Many Landscape Photographers use Canon's as a matter of choice. One of our favourite photographers David Clapp is a long term Canon user and he gets superb results. And certainly we are pleased with the images posted here, though many needed a fair amount of work to make them representative of the reality. We are certainly very impressed with the 550D as a portable high quality camera and our somewhat ambivalent attitude may be becoming more positive. It is a camera that we have been very enthusiastic about ever since we got it. 


We haven't done much testing of the 7D as a landscape camera, mainly because of the weight, but have seen nothing from the results so far that indicate that its any better than the 550D. Since for landscape work we don't need the 7D's speed and all-round responsiveness, the 550D will be fine.


So we have a mellowing attitude towards the brand in general. 


Now if they would like to work on a mirrorless AF version of their old rangefinder designs with the 7D/550D sensor with some small light fast lenses..............

Words - A

Images - D & A

Video - Canon 5D Mk II

Video shot with Canon 5D Mk II

DSLR Video

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout

A terrific short (35 mins) movie comparing the video capabilities of Digital SLR's. This test includes the Canon 5D Mk II, 7D, 1D Mk IV Nikon D3S and Panasonic GH1. The test also includes a comparison with movie film.

Fascinating stuff.

Salton Sea Beach from Philip Bloom on Vimeo.

This is a Phillip Bloom video shot with the 550D.

His impressions of it here:-

http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/03/20/saltonsea/