Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 4, 2007, 7:49 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

Are all FF cameras prone to artifacts like vignetting? Is it avoidable? Or is it a fact of life of owning a FF camera like the Canon 5D, Canon 1Ds Mk2/M3 and the Nikon D3?

If it is part of owning a FF camera why are they so sought after by some photographers? I know they do produce pics with low noise. But now there are more and more DSLRs able to produce clean pics at high ISO speeds as well (e.g. Nikon D300/D3).

Thanks.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 4, 2007, 9:54 PM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

What you're describing is a problem with what goes in front of the camera and not behind it!

You can have a cropped camera vignette too if a poor lens is mounted in front of it...
-> Full-frame cameras just require more expensive lenses that cover the frame better :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2007, 10:25 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
What you're describing is a problem with what goes in front of the camera and not behind it!

You can have a cropped camera vignette too if a poor lens is mounted in front of it...
-> Full-frame cameras just require more expensive lenses that cover the frame better :idea:


Hiya NHL,

Well, it just seems to me upon reading many test reports on http://www.slrgear.com, that artifacts like vignetting is usually present on FF DSLR cameras from maximum aperture on. No matter what lens is being tested. Or much earlier than you would notice it on a sub-frame camera. Whereas, with a sub-frame camera you could drop the f-stop down one (assuming we're talking about the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS from Canon) to f/4 and any visible vignetting would be "gone".

For example, click on the FF tab and read the first paragraph...

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...ct/1000/cat/10

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/158/cat/10

Based on examples like those I was wondering if artifacts like vignetting is not only just moreprevalent on FF DSLR camerasbut also a fact of life.And, if there was any way for a FF DSLR owner to "get around it" just short of using photo editing software to correct it (e.g. from DXO).

Doesn't seem so. But please correct me if I'm wrong. :-)




DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2007, 1:41 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

Full frame DSLRs are as prone to vignetting as 35mm film cameras. They pick up more of the image circle from the lens and therefore there's more light falloff towards the edges. How significant it is depends on the lens, but a smaller sensor would always have less falloff using the same lens since it's not picking up as much towards the edges. Keep in mind that the vignetting that is measured in these tests often isn't noticeable in normal shooting situations.
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2007, 1:45 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

Corpsy wrote:
Quote:
Full frame DSLRs are as prone to vignetting as 35mm film cameras. They pick up more of the image circle from the lens and therefore there's more light falloff towards the edges. How significant it is depends on the lens, but a smaller sensor would always have less falloff using the same lens since it's not picking up as much towards the edges. Keep in mind that the vignetting that is measured in these tests often isn't noticeable in normal shooting situations.
Thanks for the explaination Corpsy. Answered my questions. Much appreciated!

On to other things...
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2007, 8:06 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

I'd like to expand a little on what Corpsy said.

Film reacts to light that it receives from any angle, but image sensors in digital cameras don't react as much to light that isn't projected almost straight at them. This means that vignetting occurs sooner and is more pronounced in a full frame dSLR than it is in a film SLR WITH THE VERY SAME LENS.

Newer lens designs take this into account, but older lenses that appeared before the advent of digital image sensors, don't. They project the light in a way that the film could handle it, but in a way that much of the light is lost to a digital image sensor.

That's why these older lenses are still quite valuable for use on dSLRs with smaller image sensors (because the areas where vignetting would be most pronounced are beyond the image sensor), but don't work as well on full frame dSLRs as they doon film SLRs.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2007, 1:24 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
That's why these older lenses are still quite valuable for use on dSLRs with smaller image sensors (because the areas where vignetting would be most pronounced are beyond the image sensor), but don't work as well on full frame dSLRs as they doon film SLRs.
Just a bit more: the vignetting problem tends to be exacerbated with wider angle lenses, as the angle of incidence to the sensor becomes more acute at the edges. Another issue with the old legacy (film) lenses is that they in general were not designed to handle the resolution requirements of high-density, less-than-35mm-FF-size sensors. The new made-for-digital lenses usually take that into account as well.

Norm in Fujino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2007, 9:57 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Norm in Fujino wrote:
Quote:
... Another issue with the old legacy (film) lenses is that they in general were not designed to handle the resolution requirements of high-density, less-than-35mm-FF-size sensors. The new made-for-digital lenses usually take that into account as well.
I don't know that I agree with that. I've got a KM DT 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 (a rebranded Tamron) and a collection of used Minolta lenses, some are designs from over 20 years ago. Each one of them is sharper and has less distortion than the DT 18-200 at every focal length and at every aperture.

Now, maybe I've got a klinker, and maybe they took it into account but didn't do anything about it.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:23 PM.