Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Differences in 35mm FF and smaller formats  (Read 4114 times)

Paul Kay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
    • http://
Differences in 35mm FF and smaller formats
« on: May 17, 2007, 08:28:51 am »

When I have compared similar images shot with my 35mm FF sensor dSLR camera and my smaller than FF 35mm dSLR camera, I have come to the conclusion that the FF camera produces images with smoother gradation in tonality – especially in the out-of-focus background. This is frustrating because the FF dSLR is far heavier (as are its batteries) than the smaller format camera and for the obvious reasons of portability the smaller camera appeals.

So I’ve been trying to figure out why this may be!

I’d be very interested in hearing other photographer’s views on this, firstly, as to whether others agree (several of my friends do, and some with considerable experience, but.....), and secondly as to why this might be the case, and what mechanisms are the cause, if they do agree.

Can I make it VERY clear that I am not instigating a Nikon vs. Canon argument, nor do I want to start any pixel wars!!! But it is a serious question – I do have my own hypotheses but have come across arguments which could be seen to substantially counter these.

Any comments?
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Differences in 35mm FF and smaller formats
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2007, 09:43:54 am »

In my view, the image with the greater number of pixels will tend to have smoother tonal gradations, just as medium Format has smoother tonal gradations than 35mm and just as large format has smoother gradations than MF.

I haven't done any detailed analysis and comparison of this, though.
Logged

mahleu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 585
    • 500px
Differences in 35mm FF and smaller formats
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2007, 10:30:43 am »

I think it has a lot to do with the physical size of the pixels. Larger pixels (you can fit larger ones on a FF sensor) can capture a wider range of information. ie 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2 rather than 1, 2
Logged
________________________________________

MarkH5D

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Differences in 35mm FF and smaller formats
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2007, 10:53:12 am »

Quote
I have come to the conclusion that the FF camera produces images with smoother gradation in tonality – especially in the out-of-focus background.
I’d be very interested in hearing other photographer’s views on this, firstly, as to whether others agree (several of my friends do, and some with considerable experience, but.....), and secondly as to why this might be the case, and what mechanisms are the cause, if they do agree.


I'm afraid I can only answer the first part of your question with any certainty. I agree that FF sensors appear to provide a smoother graduation in tonality. I have seen it referred to as a more 'film-like' quality which I think describes it well. Comparing images from my 5D and 400D shows the difference well. Both images are excellent but the smaller sensor is more 'digital' looking.

I can only assume that as the sensor is larger, each sensor is physically larger and is capable of resolving luminance values more effectively. Just a guess.

Regards

Mark
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Differences in 35mm FF and smaller formats
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2007, 11:22:09 am »

It seems a common and natural trend that larger formats can give finer tonal graduations in prints of the same size, with both film and electronic sensors. Larger photosites should do this (at equal ISO) due to higher signal to noise ratio; but perhaps more importantly, more pixels should should also do this, due to being able to get the same sized print at a higher PPI, producing better "dithering".

Dithering is the effect that allows even images made of solid black dots on white paper to show fine graduations of gray, because the dots are so small that what the eye sees at each location is a blurring together of numerous dots and the numerous small white spaces between them, perceived as a shade of gray depending on the density of the black dots on that part of the image. In fact, traditional black and white photographic film and prints are like this: under a microscope, you see clumps of black silver oxide on white paper with no intermediate shades of gray at all!


With film, using the same emulsion in a larger format gives final tonal graduations (one of the often stated pleasures of viewing large format prints), and that is equivalent to using a sensor with more photosites of the same design and size to get more PPI on the print.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2007, 11:23:21 am by BJL »
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Differences in 35mm FF and smaller formats
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2007, 12:00:13 pm »

Quote
In my view, the image with the greater number of pixels will tend to have smoother tonal gradations, just as medium Format has smoother tonal gradations than 35mm and just as large format has smoother gradations than MF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118173\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

The number of pixels does not necessarily relate to the size of the sensor. You can get 12 MP from the Canon 5D or the Nikon D2X. Any difference in tonal gradations between these cameras would not be related to the number of pixels. Noise and bit depth may be involved. Certainly, a noisy image does not appear to have smooth tonal gradations, and the greater bit depth of the medium format digital cameras gives them more tone levels to work with. In his essay Michael talked about "micro contrast" or "strain on the camera's lens". However, I think that scientific answers to these questions await further research.

Bill
Logged

Alexis Alvarez

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/madame_suzuki
Differences in 35mm FF and smaller formats
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2007, 07:58:52 pm »

What does "FF" stand for?

aa
Something of a techno-idiot?

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Differences in 35mm FF and smaller formats
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2007, 08:54:06 pm »

Quote
What does "FF" stand for?

aa
Something of a techno-idiot?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118287\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In the 35mm world, FF means "Full Frame" and refers to a sensor or negative size of 24x36mm. Most digital cameras that use lenses for "35mm" cameras have a sensor size that is a good bit smaller than this (all Nikons and most Canons, except for the 5D and 1-series, for example).

In the Medium Format world, where film sizes can be 6x4.5 cm, 6x6 cm, 6x7 cm, or even 6x9 cm, the term "full frame" seems to mean just about anything bigger than 24x36mm.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Differences in 35mm FF and smaller formats
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2007, 09:29:20 pm »

Quote
Ray,

The number of pixels does not necessarily relate to the size of the sensor. You can get 12 MP from the Canon 5D or the Nikon D2X. Any difference in tonal gradations between these cameras would not be related to the number of pixels. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118213\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bill,
Perhaps we should mention this on the 'Canon versus Nikon' thread. Not only does the 5D have lower noise at high ISO than the D2X, but also produces smoother tonal gradations at base ISO.  

I don't know if such differences are noticeable, but it certainly makes sense that theorectically this is probably the case.

Of course you must have realised by now, Bill, that I am aware that pixel count does not determine sensor size    , but I thought my answer was fairly safe in the absence of any scientific comparisons because larger sensors usually do have a greater pixel count.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Differences in 35mm FF and smaller formats
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2007, 06:41:31 am »

Difficult to say as you didn't mention what camera you used.

If you compared a 5D to a 20D, the smoother gradations could be the result of the 5D having more pixels.

When comparing my D2x to my Mamiya ZD, I see a clear advantage to the ZD in very bright highlights transitions, but not much difference in most of the other tones. I have never done a rigirous comparison though.

Regards,
Bernard

Paul Kay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
    • http://
Differences in 35mm FF and smaller formats
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2007, 07:44:17 am »

I didn’t mention the cameras because my query was intended to be more overview than brand specific.

I might as well present my own hypothesis and ask if anyone can suggest why it might not be true though.

My theory is that a Full frame sensor simply has more data to work with – either in terms of pixels if it has the same pixel size/density as a smaller format camera, or because with larger pixels it is actually utilising more light to determine the values assigned to each pixel within an image and the resultant data is simply more accurate. In the first scenario, for any given enlargement of the image there will be more discrete information to work from and hence smoother tonality. In the second, the accuracy of the information should be better although I am not certain in this case as to how image ‘noise’ interacts with this – although logically it should be suppressed I would have thought. It may be (supposition here) that smaller pixels may give an impression of no greater ‘noise’ than larger ones, but that the noise that they do give has a greater variance from the ‘actual’ , and that this translates into less smooth tonal variation.

And why should all this be of interest? Well I just wonder if there is a ‘sweet spot’ whereby a certain pixel size and density for a given format and use may produce a more pleasing result to the eye than an increased pixel density and reduced pixel size could. Might this be the reason that some dSLRs produce a more ‘filmic’ feel to their images?
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Differences in 35mm FF and smaller formats
« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2007, 10:37:48 am »

Quote
Perhaps we should mention this on the 'Canon versus Nikon' thread. Not only does the 5D have lower noise at high ISO than the D2X, but also produces smoother tonal gradations at base ISO.   

I don't know if such differences are noticeable, but it certainly makes sense that theorectically this is probably the case.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118293\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I try to stay away from that thread, since some participants get too emotionally involved when discussing their favorite brand of camera. There is no doubt that the 5D has better high ISO performance than the D2X, but I think that your assertion that it has "smoother tonal gradations at base ISO" is unsubstantiated. Rather than hyperventilating about whose camera is best, I think that it is better to learn how to make the best use of the equipment that you do have.


Quote
Of course you must have realised by now, Bill, that I am aware that pixel count does not determine sensor size    , but I thought my answer was fairly safe in the absence of any scientific comparisons because larger sensors usually do have a greater pixel count.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118293\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course, I know that. However, your syntax was a bit sloppy.  
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up