kbg32
neo-romanticist
True Keith. I wouldn't pit my Canon 5D2 against my OMD. My 5D2 goes with me on professional jobs where the highest IQ is required. Other then that, I wouldn't be caught dead toting that thing around on the street or on a holiday. I recently had a 10 hour event to shoot and I was physically exhausted from carrying the 5D2, flash, and 2 zooms. My OMD gives me what I need for myself and I am extremely happy with that!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Five years ago that might have been true. Today it's generally not true.
GaryLH
Veteran
The raw files from the Fuji. The original jpg did not show the hidden shadow info, the LR 4.1 conversion from raw did not show it, the RPP covert to tiff showed a hint of it.. Then I ran the tiff thru silver fx and it pulled over a stops worth of info out of the picture that I did not c before.
It gets down to how much dynamic range is retained in the raw file that can be pulled out with the right tool.. Does the dynamic range capability get better as sensor goes up? I don't know..but i suspect it gets down to how good your base ISO quality is. In the past sensor size made a difference here.. Any just some speculation on my part.. The guys who know sensor technology can mostly likely set me straight.
Btw I still don't like LR
Gary
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
There's two distinct groups clamouring for full frame IMO. The ones who want the control of depth of field and the associated file superiority and the other half that wants it because it's the latest and greatest, though they'll likely never exploit its advantages.
It reminds me of the cars and motorcycles that used to come with DOHC (double overhead camshaft) somewhere on them in bold letters. Who really understood what the advantages of an engine with this configuration were ... that didn't matter because everyone wanted it. Now virtually all vehicle's engines are DOHC ... it's the industry standard and no one gives a sh!t because they're more interested in whether it has sat-nav or traction control or whatever.
It reminds me of the cars and motorcycles that used to come with DOHC (double overhead camshaft) somewhere on them in bold letters. Who really understood what the advantages of an engine with this configuration were ... that didn't matter because everyone wanted it. Now virtually all vehicle's engines are DOHC ... it's the industry standard and no one gives a sh!t because they're more interested in whether it has sat-nav or traction control or whatever.
Adanac
Well-known
We could look at this another way - for $2,800 you can buy a full frame Sony RX1 compact camera with a fixed lens. For $7,000 you could buy a full frame Leica M9 and a lens or two depending on what you purchase and whether you buy new or pre-owned.
For $6,000 you can buy from Hasselblad, unless their idea dies with the laughter it has generated, a Sony NEX-7 with a 1.5 crop frame sensor it and a kit zoom lens. You'll get no new photographic capabilities over the unadorned NEX-7 but at least you'll get $4,700 dollars worth of markup to pay for the Rich Corinthian Leather and various artisanal wood touches. But no full frame.
For $6,000 you can buy from Hasselblad, unless their idea dies with the laughter it has generated, a Sony NEX-7 with a 1.5 crop frame sensor it and a kit zoom lens. You'll get no new photographic capabilities over the unadorned NEX-7 but at least you'll get $4,700 dollars worth of markup to pay for the Rich Corinthian Leather and various artisanal wood touches. But no full frame.
RichW
Established
Maybe it's just that I personally much prefer the look of film then
, I have been studying example after example of digtal camera images on flickr (looking to get a Nex-5n at some point!) and my own images even with my full frame Canon 5D and I just can't see that same quality (maybe quality isn't the right word here - i'm not just talking about resolution) that I can see with my 35mm film camerasCheers, Richard
robert blu
quiet photographer
Personally I would not be interested in FF because of better quality, I'm absolutely sure the aps-c (and maybe even m4/3) can deliver good enough pictures (at least for me and for many other, not everyone of course). But shooting very much wide angles I would like to be able to use my 35 as a 35 and not having to buy a 24 (more expensive!) in order to have similar view. Unless to enter a new system (OM-D?) and buying appropriate lenses.
robert
PS: my X1 with aps.c sensor is satisfying me enough...
robert
PS: my X1 with aps.c sensor is satisfying me enough...
gavinlg
Veteran
I have owned and used m4/3, 4/3, aps-c, dx, 35mm sensor sized digital cameras. I can say with certainty that with every sensor size up, the overall 'look' of images from the camera changes. It becomes more dimensional, more tonally 'complete', more interesting.
Asking why people have so much interest in FF is like asking why people would have so much interest in medium format - the answer is the same - It's a different 'look'. And if you like that look, you will love the larger format. And if that larger format comes in the same sized body, I can't think of any real disadvantages besides price.
In my experience m4/3 to aps-c is about the same quality jump as aps-c to 35mm, which is about the same quality jump as 35mm to 6x4.5, which is about the same from 6x4.5 to 6x7.
It literally has nothing to do with megapixels or noise performance (was totally happy with my original 5d for noise performance) or resolution numbers or pixel density, it's just how the larger format translates what's in front of the lens. FWIW If I could afford it, I'd buy a pentax 645d or a Pentax S2 right now.
To say aps-c has the same resolution and noise performance as FF sensors is missing the point. It's like saying a camry with a modified supra motor can match a porsche in outright speed so the porsche has no point. The two would do the same thing quite differently.
Asking why people have so much interest in FF is like asking why people would have so much interest in medium format - the answer is the same - It's a different 'look'. And if you like that look, you will love the larger format. And if that larger format comes in the same sized body, I can't think of any real disadvantages besides price.
In my experience m4/3 to aps-c is about the same quality jump as aps-c to 35mm, which is about the same quality jump as 35mm to 6x4.5, which is about the same from 6x4.5 to 6x7.
It literally has nothing to do with megapixels or noise performance (was totally happy with my original 5d for noise performance) or resolution numbers or pixel density, it's just how the larger format translates what's in front of the lens. FWIW If I could afford it, I'd buy a pentax 645d or a Pentax S2 right now.
To say aps-c has the same resolution and noise performance as FF sensors is missing the point. It's like saying a camry with a modified supra motor can match a porsche in outright speed so the porsche has no point. The two would do the same thing quite differently.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
First, if you use lenses meant for FF on APS-C, you are only using the sweet spot of the lens, which is actually a good thing. But lens manufacturers like Leica and Zeiss have a certain look in mind for each lens, including some natural vignetting wide open, even some corner softness in some cases, they all contribute to the specific lens drawing style and look, and that you loose when you use only the image center.
Second, every sensor format has a specific look that you may use for deliberate effects. Small sensors have illimited DOF and a very low diffraction threshold, large sensors have shallow DOF and very high diffraction threshold. They tend to have better tonality than smaller sensors. Sometimes I love how I can get everything in focus from 1cm to infinity with my mobile phone camera. Some other times I also appreciate it that no matter how much I stopped down, some parts of the image are never critically sharp on a 35mm sensor.
This said, I find 35mm FF to be the best compromise between small and large.
Second, every sensor format has a specific look that you may use for deliberate effects. Small sensors have illimited DOF and a very low diffraction threshold, large sensors have shallow DOF and very high diffraction threshold. They tend to have better tonality than smaller sensors. Sometimes I love how I can get everything in focus from 1cm to infinity with my mobile phone camera. Some other times I also appreciate it that no matter how much I stopped down, some parts of the image are never critically sharp on a 35mm sensor.
This said, I find 35mm FF to be the best compromise between small and large.
gavinlg
Veteran
I haven't found the first part of that to be true - I have found the opposite in faster lenses on smaller formats. Try a regular 50mm f1.4 wide open on m4/3 or aps-c and compare it to the results from a 5d. The smaller format stresses the lens performance more and will look glowy and soft. The 5d is still likely to be sharp.
Full format sensors are actually more gentle on lenses than smaller sensors IMO.
The second part I agree with.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Interesting explanation which sounds logic. I'm curious to know if in your experience this "different look" is visible on medium or small prints (a4 or a3) or only in large prints (as the ones now in fashion in the art market).
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
I haven't found the first part of that to be true - I have found the opposite in faster lenses on smaller formats. Try a regular 50mm f1.4 wide open on m4/3 or aps-c and compare it to the results from a 5d. The smaller format stresses the lens performance more and will look glowy and soft. The 5d is still likely to be sharp.
Full format sensors are actually more gentle on lenses than smaller sensors IMO.
The second part I agree with.
That is also true, but lenses like the ZM 25 that have the highest center resolution ever measured at over 400 line pairs per mm are not scared by that
But don't underestimate the lens design on the format it was designed for. Many Leica and Zeiss lenses loose their magic when used on a crop sensor. Especially the 3D and the subtle tonality is lost on the smaller sensor.
gavinlg
Veteran
I can personally see it in large prints, small prints, and even 900px long side web images.
gavinlg
Veteran
Definitely - wonderful lenses certainly lose a lot of character on a small sensor.
kennylovrin
Well-known
I actually swapped from APS-C to FF last winter, and that wasn't because of better noise performance, sharpness or anything like that.
Rather it was because FF just looks "correct". I think it has to do with the fact that all my life I've seen photos shot on film, meaning full frame, and therefore I find full frame cameras to look "right". The fact is that a smaller sensor will never look like a full frame sensor. A smaller sensor will always look like what it actually is, a crop of a wider focal length than the FF equivalent. It's very small differences, but I'd say they are there in the back of your mind when you look at a shot.
It doesn't mean one is better than the other, but for me it has more to do with the look of it than any potential technical gains.
Rather it was because FF just looks "correct". I think it has to do with the fact that all my life I've seen photos shot on film, meaning full frame, and therefore I find full frame cameras to look "right". The fact is that a smaller sensor will never look like a full frame sensor. A smaller sensor will always look like what it actually is, a crop of a wider focal length than the FF equivalent. It's very small differences, but I'd say they are there in the back of your mind when you look at a shot.
It doesn't mean one is better than the other, but for me it has more to do with the look of it than any potential technical gains.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
It's a nice conversation, still I am not completely convinced. Maybe eventually 24x36 sensor will become the standard (I don't see why it should this be but probably it will) and for sure for all those printing routinely in folio on a Durst Lambda a large sensor has its advantages, also it is clear that a lens which was designed for a certain format is better used on that format (duh!), but I am still not convinced of all the fuss from most people about FF cameras. Maybe I would if there was the same attention (or should I say _when_ the photographer speaking give the same attention?) to the rest of the chain: light, software and printer. Ah, yep, I do use also a FF camera sometimes but other times I just use a APS and can't see a definite quality difference once printed at the size I print for most of the pictures I take. After all I doubt that pro digital like the D1H would have been the success if film had had such a clear edge in quality. (No, I am not speaking of graphic journalists printing in newspaper, a D1H was used by McNally for the first all-digital in National Geographic Magazine.)
GLF
GLF
Murchu
Well-known
Legacy lenses. If I had a digital rangefinder, I would want my 50 to act like it does currently, etc. Outside that, don't care, and given I shoot fast primes, the extra depth of field wide open is quite welcome.
Murchu
Well-known
I haven't found the first part of that to be true - I have found the opposite in faster lenses on smaller formats. Try a regular 50mm f1.4 wide open on m4/3 or aps-c and compare it to the results from a 5d. The smaller format stresses the lens performance more and will look glowy and soft. The 5d is still likely to be sharp.
Full format sensors are actually more gentle on lenses than smaller sensors IMO.
The second part I agree with.
The D800 is none too gentle on lenses from what I read, and think its more to do with pixel density.
BobYIL
Well-known
Especially the D800E with Phase One Capture One 6... reveals everything, all weaknesses and faults. I was so happy with my R lenses however after receiving the D800E the magic gone, I was amazed with the deficiencies surfaced with almost each one. (For the same reason Zeiss is introducing a new hi-res series lenses for the D800/E.)