Bill Pierce
Well-known
Fuji, Nikon, Pentax and Sony all make APS-C cameras with 24 megapixel sensors. Canon’s 7D is a little behind that, but not by much. In the past, that many pixels, tiny pixels in a limited area, meant a noisy image, especially at high ISO’s. But the truth is that today’s APS-C sensors can often outperform full frame sensors of the past, not only in limiting noise, but in providing a greater dynamic range. Are full frame cameras still necessary? I’m looking at some images from a highly regarded, full frame camera introduced in 2007 with images from an APS-C camera that is brand new. They’re not identical test images, but I think the new “half frame” camera has higher image quality than the older full frame.
I wish I had some experience with Micro 4/3’s and one inch sensor cameras. I’m told that even some one inchers do a good job at their lower ISO’s. What does this all mean? Well, APS-C cameras are usually cheaper than full frame cameras. And mirrorless APS-C cameras are a lot cheaper than full frame DSLR’s. If a camera that costs less can give you everything you want - that’s nice. And if it’s smaller, that’s nice except when you’re showing off at the local camera club or coffee shop.
Any thoughts? Any experience that seems pertinent?
I wish I had some experience with Micro 4/3’s and one inch sensor cameras. I’m told that even some one inchers do a good job at their lower ISO’s. What does this all mean? Well, APS-C cameras are usually cheaper than full frame cameras. And mirrorless APS-C cameras are a lot cheaper than full frame DSLR’s. If a camera that costs less can give you everything you want - that’s nice. And if it’s smaller, that’s nice except when you’re showing off at the local camera club or coffee shop.
Any thoughts? Any experience that seems pertinent?
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Since you like a camera the size of an M but also have liked cameras with an APC sized sensor, take a look at the Fuji X Pro 2. It may not have the beautiful finish of an M, nor quite the weight, but it does have a similar size and feel in the hands.
cz23
-
I've lately been printing a lot for a photo wall in my home. Many 12 x 18" B&W prints of places we've been and people we've met, from a variety of cameras: m4/3, APS-C, FF - and multiple cameras of each format.
My conclusion? Content and lighting trump everything else.
From a technical standpoint, the biggest surprise is how amazing are prints from the GR. This adventure has me seriously considering unloading my MM. At this print size, I'm just not seeing the difference, and they are all so good I could live with any of them.
John
My conclusion? Content and lighting trump everything else.
From a technical standpoint, the biggest surprise is how amazing are prints from the GR. This adventure has me seriously considering unloading my MM. At this print size, I'm just not seeing the difference, and they are all so good I could live with any of them.
John
uhoh7
Veteran
On paper maybe, in these two limited categories. In reality with the right lenses the great FF cameras make nicer images in most circumstances. Certainly no APS-C can rival the M9 in output, unless things are very funky. Once you get about 1000 ISO everything starts getting noisy except the Sony A7S and that giant Nikon DSLR.
Fujis are really nice, but you take a close look compared to M9?
But the fuji is smaller, lighter and cheaper.
Anyway this subject has been done to death in many forms, m/43 etc. The best negatives are big and so are the best sensors. But so what? Everybody has their own priorites, and balls out performance is only one.
Half the formula for really high quality images is the glass. What are the best lenses? We know what they are, in general. And they can look pretty good on APS-C, but they are better on FF in more circumstances.
Again so what?
Maybe the size is most important to you and the nice performance at that size is fine. Nothing wrong with that.
I don't pretend my M9 will out shoot a Leica S 006 or 007. It won't. But it's good enough for me. And it's way smaller and cheaper
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I want a FF sensor, so I can get the depth of field I like, but I want it in the size of an APS-C or 1" sensor body. I still love shooting with bright primes, which means having more than one body, and as I age, lugging around these heavy FF DSLR's is getting tough on my back and knees. If I could only get the image quality I get from the D4, in a camera the size of the Nikon 1 V2. Then I'd be really happy. (Oh Yeah, and world peace, that too) then I'd be really happy.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I just sold my 5D witch was one of the first FF.
If you are geahead who counts mega pixels, looking for noise, yes, new crop cameras are way better. But for many of us 5D is called Classic for reason. It gives different images, no crop will ever give. I have MKII now and while it is less special, I see the difference. I have crop cameras as well.
Any way, I wrote it many times, only few people are able to feel the difference between FF and crop, doesn't matter how old, new cameras are.
I don't know how to describe it. It is obvious if you look at entire image or should I say try to feel it. FF is room with air and nice, soft light and natural colors. Crop, well, it is not exactly the closet, but less roomy, light is artificial and colors are little bit more aggressive it should be.
Price... I paid $600 for fresh 5D MKII, I could get 6D, new, for slightly above 1K. The high ISO of 6D will leave in dust any crop camera. Including, new fancy ones for same price.
Enjoy your Fuji. Nothing is wrong with them for sure.
Cheers, Ko.
If you are geahead who counts mega pixels, looking for noise, yes, new crop cameras are way better. But for many of us 5D is called Classic for reason. It gives different images, no crop will ever give. I have MKII now and while it is less special, I see the difference. I have crop cameras as well.
Any way, I wrote it many times, only few people are able to feel the difference between FF and crop, doesn't matter how old, new cameras are.
I don't know how to describe it. It is obvious if you look at entire image or should I say try to feel it. FF is room with air and nice, soft light and natural colors. Crop, well, it is not exactly the closet, but less roomy, light is artificial and colors are little bit more aggressive it should be.
Price... I paid $600 for fresh 5D MKII, I could get 6D, new, for slightly above 1K. The high ISO of 6D will leave in dust any crop camera. Including, new fancy ones for same price.
Enjoy your Fuji. Nothing is wrong with them for sure.
Cheers, Ko.
GaryLH
Veteran
Well said.. Plus one.
I might be a gear head..but it's from a tech standpoint not a pixel peeping one where mega pixels or super high ISO counts. I'm an engineer by training and a embedded sw engineer by profession, so I'll always be a gear head..
. From a gear head perspective...
I've always felt once we turned the corner at over 16mp, for the the size of prints I make (max of 13x19), it was more than enough. I've got prints hanging on my wall they I'm perfectly happy w/ that came from 10 and 12 mp cameras.
I've come to the conclusion that anything above 24 mp is just a waste for me..I just don't make prints big enough to justify it.
Though I use Sigma sensor cameras for detail work, in reality, the real print mp size is no bigger than about a 20mp sensor but they can provide far more detail than any 20mp sensor camera due to the tech not employing a Bayer or Xtran array..plus no aa filter just an ir. I find that I'm perfectly happy shooting w/ my Fuji or Panasonic cameras. I actually rarely use my Sony FF a7 camera. It really there for when I want to play around w/ legacy lenses.
Today's sensor tech is amazing. To my eye, the main difference between 1 inch and m43 and apsc and FF is more to do with
- dynamic range (but the gap is closing every year) if they ever get the organic sensor to market (Fuji/Panasonic consortium) w/ it's over 100db dynamic range and SNR...wow
- high ISO - bigger the chip the better in general but ultimately depends on pixel density and how well the heat disappation is managed.
- mp count - smaller the sensor, the harder to make high pixel counts w/o impacting dynamic range and ISO related obstacles. Will need a jump in tech..
For me..I'm already happy w/ what I've got. APSc is the sweet spot today in terms of price performance. As a gear head, I can't help but think that with such a wide variety of camera platform as out there, there has got to be a camera out there for everyone.. Sony and others are pushing the mp wars and we see great tech come out of it.
That's the tech/gear head side of me speaking. The other side already knows I've got everything I need to get the pictures I'm after...it just doesn't stop me from exploring the tech though or getting gas
. Gary
Last edited:
Lss
Well-known
Prints is one thing, although a very important thing given it is often the end product. I don't generally print so large that the 10 megapixels from my M8 wouldn't be enough. The what if argument for shooting every frame at maximum possible resolution does not really have much value for me. I get good enough and big enough prints. When I target a larger print, or the what if possibility of one, I plan ahead and choose a camera or method that fits the requirement. Even then, higher pixel count is certainly useful, and I tend to agree 24 is enough for prints for me, too.
However, screen viewing and editing is already close to pushing that level. If you use a 5k iMac, 16 megapixels is "not enough" for full screen viewing and editing (due to aspect ratio). Again, 24 is enough. No doubt resolution and screen sizes keep going up. It's just nice and useful, not necessarily needed.
The current head-mounted displays do not impress, but they may become relevant for traditional 2D still photography within a few years. It's pure speculation what resolution is sufficient for that. It will depend on the use cases.
GaryLH
Veteran
Guess I'm a bit of a traditionalist.. I don't view my stuff on a display outside of the time I doing the post processing and selection for printing.. I do tend to do a bunch of printing and then the printer can sit as long as 4-8 months sometimes before I do another bunch.
Gary
Gary
mdarnton
Well-known
Though for fun I'm all film, Leica, Nikon, and 8x10, for work I use digital. I have had a Nikon D300 since 2008, and was well aware of where it fell short; just recently I bought a D7200, and have been amazed at how far digital has come. Virtually of my problems with the D300 are gone with the D7200. I had been thinking of going full frame, but now I'm not. Of course, FF will always be a step ahead of smaller formats--that has to be--but I don't think the advantage is as necessary as it was before. For me it's not all about resolution: dynamic range was the biggest issue I had with the D300, followed by the effect of the AA filter. The D7200 has neither problem. People who only have to have the best, even if they don't use it, will always be lusting for more, no matter how much you give them. The fact of things is that we live in a culture that's fed more by greed than need.
willie_901
Veteran
More pixels means more quality for larger prints. For those who rely upon post-productuion cropping as a composition or framing tool, this is important. The issue is what's the largest print size one would make and how often would one do it?
Sensor surface area is an important factor. However, thinking about sensor size alone is incomplete. The sensor-lens combination tells the complete story. As far as thin DOF goes, it is hard to beat 24 X 36 mm sensors right now because one can use f 1.2 (or faster lenses). Extreme subject isolation will never be the strong point of systems with smaller sensor areas. The lens physics limits practical solutions (i.e. f 0.7 or lower!). Otherwise, fast lenses designed for APS-C or m4/3 sensors can produce similar (if not identical) results to the majority of lenses designed for and used with 24 X 36 mm sensors.
Sensor surface area is an important factor. However, thinking about sensor size alone is incomplete. The sensor-lens combination tells the complete story. As far as thin DOF goes, it is hard to beat 24 X 36 mm sensors right now because one can use f 1.2 (or faster lenses). Extreme subject isolation will never be the strong point of systems with smaller sensor areas. The lens physics limits practical solutions (i.e. f 0.7 or lower!). Otherwise, fast lenses designed for APS-C or m4/3 sensors can produce similar (if not identical) results to the majority of lenses designed for and used with 24 X 36 mm sensors.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
A gazillion wonderful photos were made using miniature (i.e., 35mm) film cameras that were initially deemed too small to produce "good" work compared to sheet and roll film cameras. Film improved, lenses improved, chemistry improved, paper improved, technique improved.
While I would be interested in a "full frame" (that phrase is actually obsolete, but whatever,) sensor in an OM body (others will have there own favourite,) it's not likely to happen. Timmyjoe's request for world peace is more likely to be fulfilled first.
For me the Fuji FX line is the sweet spot - sensor performance, body size(s) and handling, lens range and support from the manufacturer. I doubt I will ever need or want to produce really large prints, i.e. billboard size. But if it can be done with my iPhone 6s, then I'm more than comfortable with a Fuji APS-C sensor and the ease of use that is worlds better than an iPhone or any other smartphone camera.
I am also comfortable maintaining a film practice, including 4x5. It's a different metier. There are pros who sill use film in many formats.
For me size does matter precisely because the sensor size war is essentially over. A good sensor of any size can produce outstanding quality relative to the conditions and the purpose of the final work.
So that lets me focus (see what I did there? :angel on the tools (body, lenses, accessories) that are both comfortable and appropriate.
While I would be interested in a "full frame" (that phrase is actually obsolete, but whatever,) sensor in an OM body (others will have there own favourite,) it's not likely to happen. Timmyjoe's request for world peace is more likely to be fulfilled first.
For me the Fuji FX line is the sweet spot - sensor performance, body size(s) and handling, lens range and support from the manufacturer. I doubt I will ever need or want to produce really large prints, i.e. billboard size. But if it can be done with my iPhone 6s, then I'm more than comfortable with a Fuji APS-C sensor and the ease of use that is worlds better than an iPhone or any other smartphone camera.
I am also comfortable maintaining a film practice, including 4x5. It's a different metier. There are pros who sill use film in many formats.
For me size does matter precisely because the sensor size war is essentially over. A good sensor of any size can produce outstanding quality relative to the conditions and the purpose of the final work.
So that lets me focus (see what I did there? :angel
on the tools (body, lenses, accessories) that are both comfortable and appropriate.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
An interesting thread.
I say FF wins when you are trying to print big or really-really big, but this a different spin on where size matters.
Interesting to hear how good the technology has gotten.
Cal
I say FF wins when you are trying to print big or really-really big, but this a different spin on where size matters.
Interesting to hear how good the technology has gotten.
Cal
Sony RX1R II is very close... different, but close.
As far as the topic, I think the answer is - it depends on many factors and what is important to you personally. All of these cameras are capable of allowing for a great photograph with regards to capturing content and allowing for great framing. The rest is all minutia that photographers tend to appreciate but the average viewer might not notice. We all make decisions in regards to compromises and the level of work we want to put into the various aspects of finishing a photo. What matters is that you find what works for you. I find FF digital to be a good overall compromise. That said, I'll use APSC and feel fine about it. There is no one size fits all in photography.
cz23
-
Second noble truth.
Indeed. But "those who want the best" don't have a monopoly on lusting after more. It's pretty much wired into our genes.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Willie,
True in the way you framed it, but sometimes it is the size of the pixel verses how many pixels. Sometimes it is tonal response that gives a high IQ.
No doubt that the M-246 has more dynamic range, better high ISO performance, smoother rolloff of the highlights, more shadow detail, and creates and records more data than a Monochrom, but the CCD sensor of the Monochrom with less megapixels has the midrange won and in many images this defines IQ.
Not sure which camera will print bigger, but that might be moot because I already can print crazy big with the original Monochrom. At this point why print bigger?
Cal
cz23
-
A question for those of you who print.
Excluding large prints, do you see qualitative differences in prints between APS-C and full frame? Or between one camera's print output and another's?
I do not. I think I see a different between prints from cameras with and without AA filters. But when comparing 12 x 18" prints from my GR, X-Pro1, and MM, nothing jumps out at me. It seems to me that the print is the great equalizer.
John
Excluding large prints, do you see qualitative differences in prints between APS-C and full frame? Or between one camera's print output and another's?
I do not. I think I see a different between prints from cameras with and without AA filters. But when comparing 12 x 18" prints from my GR, X-Pro1, and MM, nothing jumps out at me. It seems to me that the print is the great equalizer.
John
John,
I would think at 12x18" it's going to be hard to tell since all of the cameras are 16mp or more (and are at their native print size basically). This is the size I print too and I don't see anything that makes me want to stop using APSC and FF.
cz23
-
I guess I thought there might be more to print quality than pixel count, such as acuity, tonality, whites roll-off, and other sensor rendering characteristics. But with the cameras I own, I'm not seeing it in prints.