Talk:Full-frame DSLR

message: The term "full-frame" is controversial in that it only applies where a range of lenses are designed for a sensor that is equivalent in size to a 135 film negative, but also compatible with smaller sensors, except that the image is "cropped". This distinction not applicable to other systems such as Nikon or 4/3 where the lenses are designed for the particular size sensor, and therefore use the "full frame" of the image circle. The article has been amended accordingly. The following chunk has been removed: 
 
It follows from the above definition that cameras using a lens mount that was designed for digital SLRs (such as the Olympus Four Thirds System) are not full frame cameras. Similarly, a camera using a hypothetical new mount system and featuring a 24mm x 36mm sensor (the size of a 35mm film frame) would not be full frame. In practice, however, the term is often used to simply mean a camera having a sensor the same size as a full 35mm frame, while the applicability of the term to four thirds system cameras is a matter of much, often heated, debate.
The chief reason that digital SLRs have not been full frame is to do with the cost of producing such large sensors.  As chip sizes get larger, the yield gets drastically lower and thus the prices higher.  Moore's law does not apply here; most of the semiconductor industry's advances in affordability have been driven by the ability to make circuits smaller and smaller, but an imaging chip must remain large, and such large chips get cheaper only slowly.
The secondary reason is that digital imaging chips tend to have a much narrower range of acceptance angles than film.  Thus, the sensor will be less sensitive to light towards the edges of the image circle, where the light rays are likely to be further from perpendicular.  Adding to this, lenses tend to produce poorer results towards the edge of the circle in any case.  A smaller image sensor stays within the "sweet spot" of the lens and sensor combination with less difficulty.
While a digital camera for any format could be full frame, in practice most examples produced have been for 35mm format.  The first, fairly unsuccessful attempt was by Contax with a Philips sensor; Pentax worked with this sensor as well, producing a prototype MZ-D, but abandoned it before production.  Eastman Kodak produced three models of full-frame camera, but all are now discontinued.  The company that has had the most success with full-frame sensors is Canon Inc., whose full-frame sensor cameras have been very successful in the high-end professional photography field.  Their newly released model, the Canon EOS 5D, seeks to emulate that success at a much lower price point.''''
In general this section makes assertions that are not sourced and more in tune with debate across discussion forums rather than ascertainable technical or objective facts. 
Hmette
:Ouch. it's much too long. I think I've just covered most of this in a paragraph and a bit.Zombiflava 20:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Term "full-frame"

message: On further reflection - it may be that this article should be deleted on the basis that it comes under the category of neologisms. Does anyone have any coment before I add it to the list for deletions? --Hmette 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the policy on neologisms? Dicklyon 03:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wiki is a neologism. I've had a look at this article and added some bits. it looks as if it used to be "full frame", and has been moved to "full frame digital SLR". the problem is that if companies start making full frame cameras taht aren't SLRs (unlikely, but leica might do it), there would have to be a "full frame digital compact" article and a "full frame digital rangefinder" article, and that would be wasteful. Zombiflava 20:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Deletion

message: Are there now additional brandsand models available, including some of the top-of-the-line Nikons? DGG 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Nikon does not make one, as far as I know.  I don't know of any missing. Dicklyon 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why only list the Canon's in the currently available section? Perhaps it could be expanded to current & phased out cameras in order to incorporate Kodak's cameras etc. At any rate the EOS-1Ds Mk. I is perhaps considered obsolete by Canon nowadays or in the near future and as such does not fit in the section. Just a thought. 130.232.145.230 11:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: additional models

message: The AfD proposal had not gottten any support, but I added there the idea of some re-organization.  Since this article has bits about other uses of full-frame, and there are other full-frame digital cameras than SLRs, potentially, and since we've got articles on image sensor format and crop factor, why not rationalize all this? I'll start by making a full frame (disambiguation). To me, it makes most sense to redirect crop factor to image sensor format where there would be a section on it, and to also redirect this article there, and make one of the disambig links go there, and have sections explaining the full-frame format in relation to the other formats, and relation being the crop factor.  Comments? Dicklyon 16:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge, delete, etc. discussion

message: All the pictures in the article show Nikon cameras. This seems odd to me. Are there photos of other camera makes? Then we should include them instead. If not then we should remove at least one of the Nikon ones. Foreeye (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different makes of camera? 

message: JeffConrad -- I don't know if Nikon has a similar white paper discussing their cost of production, but I expect the costs would be similar if not worse.  Canon manufactures their own sensors rather than sourcing them from other fabs, so their prices might be less than paid by other camera companies.
The amount of information that Canon reveals in their paper is astounding.  For instance, just the wafer for the full frame sensor in the 5D and 1Ds Mark II is as high as $250 before any additional process steps are taken.  They also go into why CCD sensors are not manufactured in full-frame sizes due to the limitations of the size of the lithography mask (26x33mm) and the finer tolerances required for CCD compared to CMOS.  Also amusing is the lens used to focus the lithography laser -- almost 2 m tall and several hundred kg. -- Autopilot (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the Canon white paper is an excellent reference. But I think “expect” is the operative term for Nikon's costs, and think we err if we take Canon's statements as speaking for every manufacturer. JeffConrad (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Hmm, you're right.  Even if the wafer were square 200mm, only 14x9=126 would fit.  Maybe if it were a mythical double sided wafer or (more realistic) they meant digicam sensors? -- Autopilot (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P&S was my guess as well, but who knows? I think a tech writer neglected to have a real technical type proof the paper ... par for the course, unfortunately. I've reworked it a bit in attempt to address this. I've also slightly reworded the sentence claiming that FF is mainly for professional use, and removed the tag—see if these changes work. JeffConrad (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

text: LOL it appears that Canon's statement about 200 aps-sensor refers to 300 mm wafer, not 200 mm. Alliumnsk (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of producing full frame sensors 

message: "For example, a 200 mm lens on a camera with a crop factor of 1.5 has the same angle of view as a 300 mm lens on a full-frame camera. The extra "reach", for a given number of pixels, can be helpful in specific areas of photography such as wildlife or sports."
I believe this is misleading. If I buy a FF camera which generally has more pixels and I stick a 200 mm lens on it, then I can get the 300mm effect of the DX simply by cropping the image. The above assumes that an FF has the same number of pixels as a smaller DX but that is not always the case, and if the number of pixels is the same then they are smaller on the sensor anyway and the advantage is perhaps nullified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.122.63.6 (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantage? 

message: The  tag that I restored probably should be taken as applying to the entire paragraph, which seems to suggest that an APS-C format has optical quality advantages over FF because
* With the same focal length on both formats, the smaller format uses only the central part of the lens's coverage, so the corner sharpness is presumably better. Although this probably usually is true, the observation neglects the greater enlargement needed for the smaller format, so differences in the final results may be less obvious.
* That a lens designed specifically for the smaller format need not be a retrofocus design, leading to better optical quality. For lenses of the same focal length for both formats, this may be sometimes be true; however, for the same angle of view, the smaller format requires a shorter focal length, and both formats have comparable issues with clearance between the reflex mirror and the rear element of the lens, so a wide-angle lens for the smaller format must also be a retrofocus design.
Consequently, with all factors considered, I don't think the advantages are so clear cut. In any event, the paragraph should be more clear about what it's really saying rather than leaving it for the reader to guess. And if the intent is anything like what I've suggested above, each point should be supported by a reliable source, which currently isn't the case. JeffConrad (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optical quality implications 

message: Another advantage of Full-frame dSLRs over smaller formats is that Full-frame dSLRs have larger, more widely spaced PDAF sensors. This means that Full-frame dSLRs are more likely to have more accurate focus. Of course, because of their more shallow depth of field, they need it, but the fact remains. TCav (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Advantages and disadvantages of full-frame digital SLRs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Full-frame digital SLR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110041651/http://press.nikonusa.com/2008/11/nikon_unveils_a_digital_master.php to http://press.nikonusa.com/2008/11/nikon_unveils_a_digital_master.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110032225/http://press.nikonusa.com/2009/10/the_imaging_evolution_continue.php to http://press.nikonusa.com/2009/10/the_imaging_evolution_continue.php
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6ALEkQLz7?url=http://www.nikonusa.com/About-Nikon/Press-Room/Press-Release/h1jhd6hh/When-There-Is-No-Second-Chance%3A-The-New-Nikon-FX-Format-D4-Multi-Media-Digital-SLR-is-The-Definitive-Unification-Of-Speed-And-Precision.html to http://press.nikonusa.com/post/2012/01/05/when-there-is-no-second-chance-the-new-nikon-fx-format-d4-multi-media-digital-slr-is-the-definitive-unification-of-speed-and-precision/
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/60vYYNIh8?url=http://www.canon.ru/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_7D/ to http://press.nikonusa.com/post/2012/02/06/expectations-surpassed-the-36-3-megapixel-nikon-d800-is-the-multimedia-hd-slr-that-shatters-conventional-resolution-barriers-for-maximum-fidelity/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228134634/http://www.aohc.it/pressrelease/MR52e.htm to http://www.aohc.it/pressrelease/MR52e.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion