Canon 5D with full frame sensor

How does the picture quality for this camera differ from other DSLR
with smaller size sensor?
I notice that Canon boasts this as the only full frame sensor (size of
sensor - 36 mmx 24mm) in their camera line.
Canon 1D has smaller size sensor (29x19mm). Other Canon DSLR (XT, XTi,
20D, 30D), as well as other DSLR cameras such as Nikon, Pentax and
Sony all has smaller size sensor (typically 22x15mm). High end point
and shoot cameras (such as Canon G7, Nikon P5000,etc) have much
smaller size sensor (7x5mm)
Is larger sensor a definite plus to produce much better quality
pictures, considering the picture qualities of these cameras are
generally close together?
Thanks for info.

wrote in message
oups.com...
How does the picture quality for this camera differ from other DSLR
with smaller size sensor?
I notice that Canon boasts this as the only full frame sensor (size of
sensor - 36 mmx 24mm) in their camera line.

Not true: the 1Ds and 1Ds II also have FF sensors.

Canon 1D has smaller size sensor (29x19mm). Other Canon DSLR (XT, XTi,
20D, 30D), as well as other DSLR cameras such as Nikon, Pentax and
Sony all has smaller size sensor (typically 22x15mm). High end point
and shoot cameras (such as Canon G7, Nikon P5000,etc) have much
smaller size sensor (7x5mm)
Is larger sensor a definite plus to produce much better quality
pictures, considering the picture qualities of these cameras are
generally close together?

The FF sensor allows for larger photo sites at equivilant resolutions, which
in turn allows for wider dynamic range and lower noise at high ISOs.
However, please keep in mind that a talented pro will usually produce
superior images using a Rebel XTi than I can with my 5D.

:-)

Thanks for info.

wrote:
How does the picture quality for this camera differ from other DSLR
with smaller size sensor?
I notice that Canon boasts this as the only full frame sensor (size of
sensor - 36 mmx 24mm) in their camera line.
Canon 1D has smaller size sensor (29x19mm). Other Canon DSLR (XT, XTi,
20D, 30D), as well as other DSLR cameras such as Nikon, Pentax and
Sony all has smaller size sensor (typically 22x15mm). High end point
and shoot cameras (such as Canon G7, Nikon P5000,etc) have much
smaller size sensor (7x5mm)
Is larger sensor a definite plus to produce much better quality
pictures, considering the picture qualities of these cameras are
generally close together?

Yes.

But how much "better", what defines that, and is it worth the price
increase over a smaller sensor are questions only you can answer.

It's not the only Canon with a full sensor; there's one in the 1D series.

--
John McWilliams

On Sun, 06 May 2007 16:11:12 -0700, aniramca wrote:

How does the picture quality for this camera differ from other DSLR
with smaller size sensor?
I notice that Canon boasts this as the only full frame sensor (size of
sensor - 36 mmx 24mm) in their camera line.
Canon 1D has smaller size sensor (29x19mm). Other Canon DSLR (XT, XTi,
20D, 30D), as well as other DSLR cameras such as Nikon, Pentax and
Sony all has smaller size sensor (typically 22x15mm). High end point
and shoot cameras (such as Canon G7, Nikon P5000,etc) have much
smaller size sensor (7x5mm)
Is larger sensor a definite plus to produce much better quality
pictures, considering the picture qualities of these cameras are
generally close together?
Thanks for info.

Canon eos 1d mk111 has a 1.3 'crop' size sensor so that really it is one
of the larger sensors.

--
Neil
reverse 'r' and'a' - delete 'l' for email

wrote in news:1178493072.610805.170880
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

How does the picture quality for this camera differ from other DSLR
with smaller size sensor?
I notice that Canon boasts this as the only full frame sensor (size of
sensor - 36 mmx 24mm) in their camera line.
Canon 1D has smaller size sensor (29x19mm). Other Canon DSLR (XT, XTi,
20D, 30D), as well as other DSLR cameras such as Nikon, Pentax and
Sony all has smaller size sensor (typically 22x15mm). High end point
and shoot cameras (such as Canon G7, Nikon P5000,etc) have much
smaller size sensor (7x5mm)
Is larger sensor a definite plus to produce much better quality
pictures, considering the picture qualities of these cameras are
generally close together?

A 5D is basically a 20D/30D with less pixels per unit of area in the
focal plane, but with more area and also, more pixels.

The great dividing point on which is better for a given situation, image-
quality-wise, is whether or not you have a good lens to fill your frame
with the subject the way you'd like to. If you have such a lens, then
the 5D is going to have a more detailed capture of the subject. If you
use the same lens, however, then the 5D is only better in that it has a
wider FOV; the capture of any area of the subject is going to be slightly
more detailed on the 20D/30D (and even further still, with the XTi), if
the lens is sharp enough and focus and diffraction allow.

At the pixel level (zoomed in to 100% pixel view), the 20D/30D and 5D are
nearly identical, noise-wise, except that the 5D is a little cleaner
around ISO 400, and the 5D has slightly more banding (line) noise at the
higher ISOs.

--


John P Sheehy

In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams wrote:
wrote:
How does the picture quality for this camera differ from other DSLR
with smaller size sensor?
I notice that Canon boasts this as the only full frame sensor (size of
sensor - 36 mmx 24mm) in their camera line.
Canon 1D has smaller size sensor (29x19mm). Other Canon DSLR (XT, XTi,
20D, 30D), as well as other DSLR cameras such as Nikon, Pentax and
Sony all has smaller size sensor (typically 22x15mm). High end point
and shoot cameras (such as Canon G7, Nikon P5000,etc) have much
smaller size sensor (7x5mm)
Is larger sensor a definite plus to produce much better quality
pictures, considering the picture qualities of these cameras are
generally close together?

Yes.

But how much "better", what defines that, and is it worth the price
increase over a smaller sensor are questions only you can answer.

It's not the only Canon with a full sensor; there's one in the 1D series.


Consider the difference between a point and shoot and an APS-C sensor size.
Now consider the difference between APS-C and 35mm. You gain a LOT going from
point and shoot to APS-C and not nearly as much going from APS-C to 35mm
[although still substantial].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

And lo, Kinon O'Cann emerged from the ether
and spake thus:

wrote in message
oups.com...
How does the picture quality for this camera differ from other DSLR
with smaller size sensor?
I notice that Canon boasts this as the only full frame sensor (size of
sensor - 36 mmx 24mm) in their camera line.

Not true: the 1Ds and 1Ds II also have FF sensors.

Canon 1D has smaller size sensor (29x19mm). Other Canon DSLR (XT, XTi,
20D, 30D), as well as other DSLR cameras such as Nikon, Pentax and
Sony all has smaller size sensor (typically 22x15mm). High end point
and shoot cameras (such as Canon G7, Nikon P5000,etc) have much
smaller size sensor (7x5mm)
Is larger sensor a definite plus to produce much better quality
pictures, considering the picture qualities of these cameras are
generally close together?

The FF sensor allows for larger photo sites at equivilant resolutions, which
in turn allows for wider dynamic range and lower noise at high ISOs.
However, please keep in mind that a talented pro will usually produce
superior images using a Rebel XTi than I can with my 5D.


I'd say that Kinon O'Cann is absolutely right. A more aesthetic way of
observing the difference between APS-C and full-frame sensors is to
look at the performance of a very wide lens with both types.

Here is a photo I made in Death Valley with the 5D and 15mm fisheye:
http://www.fisheyegallery.com/Places...Basin.jpg.html

The difference between the 10D (APS-C, 1.6x crop) and the 5D
(full-frame) is like night and day when viewed through the 15mm
fisheye lens. I was practically *startled* by how much more I could
see.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

In rec.photo.digital Aaron wrote:

I'd say that Kinon O'Cann is absolutely right. A more aesthetic way of
observing the difference between APS-C and full-frame sensors is to
look at the performance of a very wide lens with both types.

Here is a photo I made in Death Valley with the 5D and 15mm fisheye:
http://www.fisheyegallery.com/Places...Basin.jpg.html


Of course, the 15mm fisheye was designed for use on 35mm film or sensor and to
do a proper comparison you need to use a 9 or 10mm fisheye designed for a
APS-C sized sensor. Otherwise, you are not complaining about wide-angle
ability, but instead complaining about lens compatibility between the formats.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

And lo, Thomas T. Veldhouse emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
In rec.photo.digital Aaron wrote:

I'd say that Kinon O'Cann is absolutely right. A more aesthetic way of
observing the difference between APS-C and full-frame sensors is to
look at the performance of a very wide lens with both types.

Here is a photo I made in Death Valley with the 5D and 15mm fisheye:
http://www.fisheyegallery.com/Places...Basin.jpg.html


Of course, the 15mm fisheye was designed for use on 35mm film or sensor and to
do a proper comparison you need to use a 9 or 10mm fisheye designed for a
APS-C sized sensor. Otherwise, you are not complaining about wide-angle
ability, but instead complaining about lens compatibility between the formats.

A full-frame sensor gives you more field-of-view bang for your buck in
the lens marketplace. The 15mm fisheye is already a $550 lens, so you
probably want to be able to see as much as you can, especially
considering its high optical performance at the edges of the frame.

There are always APS-C focal length equivalents to do image quality
comparisons between different sensor sizes; my point was that a
full-frame sensor is a one-time investment that unlocks a lot of edge
visibility in the lenses you probably already own. While 24mm was
workable with my 10D, the 5D turns it into a truly formidable
landscape lens.

At the other end of the spectrum, 200mm on the 10D appears to be
320mm, so you wind up spending a bit more to go long with the 5D.
There are always tradeoffs.

Speaking entirely from an aesthetic standpoint, I do find the images
from the 5D to be more pleasing. The high-ISO noise, especially, looks
almost like film grain and is quite comfortable to look at.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com