Bill Pierce
Well-known
Every once in a while you run across an article that counters a more accepted view - and is informative and useful. I encourage everybody to read
https://petapixel.com/2019/08/09/full-frame-vs-everyone-else-searching-for-the-ideal-image-sensor/
It’s sort of the digital equivalent of an age old argument in the film world. Let me know what you think.
https://petapixel.com/2019/08/09/full-frame-vs-everyone-else-searching-for-the-ideal-image-sensor/
It’s sort of the digital equivalent of an age old argument in the film world. Let me know what you think.
I've come to find that the sweet spot for me is APSC, though I do like to use FF occasionally. APSC is the perfect balance of depth of field wide open at F2 when I need it on the street (not too shallow, but some separation while what needs to be in focus is in focus), but also allowing me to blow the background out when I need to at faster apertures. The Fuji system with the 35mm F2 is great for street, while the 56mm 1.2 allows for a FF like 85mm 1.8 lens experience wide open. I also use a Sony A7R II and like when my 50mm F1.8 looks like a 50mm 1.8 that I was used to in film days. I could use both forever and be satisfied. However, APSC offers the best compromise between size, weight, price, and high ISO abilities IMO. I don't like the 4:3 ratio so M43 isn't my thing and 1" sensors are only ok in great light IMO and are a little flat in the depth of field department.
I doubt MF or larger format film would be for me ever again. I'm a small camera, small lens guy.
I doubt MF or larger format film would be for me ever again. I'm a small camera, small lens guy.
Dogman
Veteran
I just bought a used Nikon D800. My first full frame digital. But I'm not keen on carrying it around--I plan on using it to digitize some of my old negatives and transparencies. It may be overkill but I thought the extra resolution would be a plus.
APS-C has been my sweet spot since I began using digital cameras. Full frame cameras were too expensive and the pro models were definitely overkill and much too complicated for simpletons like me. The APS-C cameras fit my needs totally but the big problem at the time was lenses--there were few really high quality lenses made for the format. Today, with Fuji, that's no longer a problem for me. The lenses are truly outstanding and matched perfectly to the format. In fact, I see the lenses being more of a problem for the full frame cameras. While mirrorless models make it possible to build small full frame camera bodies, the best full frame lenses are now too damn big, heavy and bulky. APS-C again just feels right to me.
I was an early adopter of the Micro 4/3 format. But it really doesn't offer me much today. I see the strength of Micro 4/3 as being in long lenses. It's like a free 2x extender with every focal length. But I'm not really a telephoto guy. My sweet spot in focal lengths are in the wide to slightly longer than normal range.
APS-C has been my sweet spot since I began using digital cameras. Full frame cameras were too expensive and the pro models were definitely overkill and much too complicated for simpletons like me. The APS-C cameras fit my needs totally but the big problem at the time was lenses--there were few really high quality lenses made for the format. Today, with Fuji, that's no longer a problem for me. The lenses are truly outstanding and matched perfectly to the format. In fact, I see the lenses being more of a problem for the full frame cameras. While mirrorless models make it possible to build small full frame camera bodies, the best full frame lenses are now too damn big, heavy and bulky. APS-C again just feels right to me.
I was an early adopter of the Micro 4/3 format. But it really doesn't offer me much today. I see the strength of Micro 4/3 as being in long lenses. It's like a free 2x extender with every focal length. But I'm not really a telephoto guy. My sweet spot in focal lengths are in the wide to slightly longer than normal range.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I went for a walk today to try and figure out the HDR on my FF. I just wasn't as fun as a walk with my APS-C mirrorless.
I’ve said for years that APS-C is the new full frame. Fuji skipped full frame even; good move, they weren’t forced to support it like N and C.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Regarding the article Bill linked to... I no longer see any point in those kinds of discussions. The biggest flaw in them, in my opinion, is that its impossible to SHOW what is meant by "better image quality". I'd love to see an article like this where the participants make big beautiful prints using files from their favorite gear, put them up on a wall and then invite an audience to 'judge' the images. THEN lets hear what they have to say about "the ideal sensor".
[Oops... this is a response to Bill's original post, not splitimageview's. Sorry]
[Oops... this is a response to Bill's original post, not splitimageview's. Sorry]
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
FF vs Crop is dead horse, which went from maggots stage to dust already.
I have yet to be disappointed with a shot taken with APS-C because it had too much DOF, and sensors are so close to each other now, that IQ differences are so trivial as to be meaningless.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Jamie - I think you’re more than right when it comes to evaluating image quality on the web or, indeed, on a computer screen. When the Fuji GFX 100 came out, I got a hold of some raw files and made prints myself. In what you think of as conventional sizes, in this case 11x14 paper, I couldn’t ever see the difference between medium format and APS-c. In really big prints I couldn’t see the difference unless I got very close to very well executed image. This was something I couldn’t determine without making prints myself. But doing that saved me a lot of money and made me very happy with my APS-c cameras.
but then again 11x14” hasn’t been big for a long time. The average photo printer does 13x19” ... is consider that to be the new common size.
peterm1
Veteran
I like full frame in principle because I find that better dynamic range and ability to handle dim lighting conditions without excessive noise is highly desirable for me, and most FF sensors excel in these areas.
Having said that I have owned M4/3 cameras for several years now and find that its image quality in "normal" lighting conditions is excellent and especially if shooting RAW (which I now always do) has more than enough virtues to take care of 90% of my shooting needs - in a much smaller and lighter package. And these smaller format camera sensors have closed in on FF cameras (especially older ones) in recent years. If I travel - especially if I travel overseas with all the air travel nonsense and pain this now involves (thank you very damned much airlines for squeezing more an more of us sardines into your damned tin cans and making us pay for the privilege of you carrying our baggage) I usually carry a smaller, lighter more portable M4/3 camera. I regret it a little occasionally when shooting in exceedingly poor light but the trade off is usually worth it. And the crop factor is seldom an issue for me in fact it can be a benefit given that 90% of my shots are with normal lenses or longer. And when I know that I really am going to need it in advance, either because of anticipated lighting conditions or because I know I will need something a little wider, I can always carry a Sony APSC camera for those moments without much grief.
Of course Sony A series camera bodies are pretty small by comparison with my Nikon D700 but the thing is its pro lenses are pretty large - not that much smaller than some Nikkor ones. (Physics! Go figure).
Having said that I have owned M4/3 cameras for several years now and find that its image quality in "normal" lighting conditions is excellent and especially if shooting RAW (which I now always do) has more than enough virtues to take care of 90% of my shooting needs - in a much smaller and lighter package. And these smaller format camera sensors have closed in on FF cameras (especially older ones) in recent years. If I travel - especially if I travel overseas with all the air travel nonsense and pain this now involves (thank you very damned much airlines for squeezing more an more of us sardines into your damned tin cans and making us pay for the privilege of you carrying our baggage) I usually carry a smaller, lighter more portable M4/3 camera. I regret it a little occasionally when shooting in exceedingly poor light but the trade off is usually worth it. And the crop factor is seldom an issue for me in fact it can be a benefit given that 90% of my shots are with normal lenses or longer. And when I know that I really am going to need it in advance, either because of anticipated lighting conditions or because I know I will need something a little wider, I can always carry a Sony APSC camera for those moments without much grief.
Of course Sony A series camera bodies are pretty small by comparison with my Nikon D700 but the thing is its pro lenses are pretty large - not that much smaller than some Nikkor ones. (Physics! Go figure).
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Judging the sharpness, I was holding the 11x14 prints in my hands and looking quite closely. Where I saw the difference was on 17x22 and 17x25 papers. Couldn't hold them in front of me, but I still had to get close to see a difference. I don't think the difference would be obvious at normal viewing distance.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
For me it was simple, I shot for 30+ years with 35mm film cameras before I got my first digital. I'm comfortable with the lenses I had acquired and thought in those focal lengths. I tried a Leica M8 for a bit, but it drove me crazy when I saw a shot and instantly in my mind I thinking 35mm lens FOV, but my 35mm Summicron is more like 50mm FOV. I was constantly doing conversions in my head, and when I brought the M8 along with my M6, I needed different lenses for the FF M6 and APCish M8 sensor to work the way I'm comfortable. So it just became simpler to go FF with digital and keep all my focal lengths straight.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
farlymac
PF McFarland
It's funny, but I've been ruminating about this very subject for the past few days. I was considering whether I should get a digital Leica M(whatever), or upgrade to Nikon Z. Or both!
Right now cost is a big factor, and I may just get something more convenient to haul around, like a Fuji X100F. But then I don't want to be limited to that 35mm FOV, plus getting an M model would take advantage of the lenses I already have.
And as far as my Nikon gear, I shoot APS-C digital with a D300s that I really like, but am not particularly happy with the lenses. I've a bunch of D and G lenses I could use on the Z bodies (most likely would get a 6) to gain the IBIS, so once again it's a matter of recycling the lenses to a new platform.
But the resulting increase in file size going to "full frame" will require another computer system upgrade, thus driving up the total cost.
It sometimes is just too much to get my head around.
PF
Right now cost is a big factor, and I may just get something more convenient to haul around, like a Fuji X100F. But then I don't want to be limited to that 35mm FOV, plus getting an M model would take advantage of the lenses I already have.
And as far as my Nikon gear, I shoot APS-C digital with a D300s that I really like, but am not particularly happy with the lenses. I've a bunch of D and G lenses I could use on the Z bodies (most likely would get a 6) to gain the IBIS, so once again it's a matter of recycling the lenses to a new platform.
But the resulting increase in file size going to "full frame" will require another computer system upgrade, thus driving up the total cost.
It sometimes is just too much to get my head around.
PF
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
robert blu
quiet photographer
The only reason I oft make photos with a full frame camera is that I can use the camera and the lenses exactly in the same way as I shoot my film camera (m10 and m7)
As for the image quality (technical point of view, sharpness etc etc...) in my opinion APS-C is more than ok. In fact I still take photo (and print) which I later print with my 9 years old Leica x1 (12 MP
). Modern APS sensors should be even better.
But I do not print billboard and I'm not a pixel peeper ...
robert
As for the image quality (technical point of view, sharpness etc etc...) in my opinion APS-C is more than ok. In fact I still take photo (and print) which I later print with my 9 years old Leica x1 (12 MP
). Modern APS sensors should be even better.But I do not print billboard and I'm not a pixel peeper ...
robert
Axel
singleshooter
Yes, thankfully it is.
The main question for me is (when) does (sensor-) size matter?
And the answer is as individual as we photographers are.
It depends.
Having all my lenses on their original field of view is a big argument for "no crop".
Getting shallower depth of field may be nice sometimes but the opposite situation of deciding for only one sharp element in the photo can be annoying also.
And all these statements which should justify big sensors with the simple hint to "image quality" are empty phrases as long as there is no dedicated description of the reason why this allegedly should matter in the photos someone takes.
Just my 5..
Godfrey
somewhat colored
APS-C has once again become my standard digital format. It works well for me in current cameras with modern 24 Mpixel sensors like the Leica CL, and does particularly well as focal lengths go longer, from 28mm up. This is because fast but compact and light-weight lenses are easily doable in the 35-200mm range; it is also nice because it nets more DoF at a larger lens opening, useful for use with longer lenses. I'd prefer 3:4 format proportion over 2:3 (18x24 rather than 16x24 mm), but that's a minor, personal preference.
For shorter focal lengths, a larger sensor and more pixel resolution would be better from the point of DoF control and detail resolution. FF is not big enough, really; what I want is the current "small" MFD: 33x44 mm @ 50 Mpixel seems almost ideal to me. That's about 4x the sensor area with 2x the resolution, so it has larger photosites with hopefully more dynamic range. This nets greater DoF control with shorter focal length lenses, along with the greater resolution that wide angle photography needs for capture of high resolution detail; and lenses in the 15 to 75mm range that are reasonably light, fast, and compact are not too difficult to make.
My ideal system would be two camera bodies of modest size, one with an APS-C sensor and one with a small-MFD sensor, and one set of lenses that covered both formats with focal lengths from about 15mm to about 300mm. That would net the most capable and flexible complete system for my photographic ideas. No such single system exists today, but I keep hoping.
G
For shorter focal lengths, a larger sensor and more pixel resolution would be better from the point of DoF control and detail resolution. FF is not big enough, really; what I want is the current "small" MFD: 33x44 mm @ 50 Mpixel seems almost ideal to me. That's about 4x the sensor area with 2x the resolution, so it has larger photosites with hopefully more dynamic range. This nets greater DoF control with shorter focal length lenses, along with the greater resolution that wide angle photography needs for capture of high resolution detail; and lenses in the 15 to 75mm range that are reasonably light, fast, and compact are not too difficult to make.
My ideal system would be two camera bodies of modest size, one with an APS-C sensor and one with a small-MFD sensor, and one set of lenses that covered both formats with focal lengths from about 15mm to about 300mm. That would net the most capable and flexible complete system for my photographic ideas. No such single system exists today, but I keep hoping.
G
Out to Lunch
Ventor
All things considered, your audience does not care which sensor was used in your picture...all they care about is what is in the frame.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
This is very true. The issue isn't about what the audience knows about how you made the image, it is what you want/need to make it.
G