Poll: FF vs APS

[Chris101]

Yikes! I have both - Nikon D2x and D700. They are hardly equal cameras though. I prefer the D2 for handling and iso 100 performance. I prefer the D700 for everything else.

My answer to this poll depends on on what you mean by "desirable" Will. Does it mean "equivalent"? If so, then it doesn't matter, and I suppose that I wouldn't notice how big the sensor is. Either would do.

If it means 'desirable for the type of camera' then I can assume the image concerns that have been raised, the size considerations, and cost are still a factor. In those cases, I'd probably go for the larger, more expensive camera as long as the image issues were more favorable. I don't shoot long telephoto pictures, and that is probably the biggest benefit to aps sized cameras. I do shoot in 'available darkness', with wide angles, and wide open, so in those cases ff is 'better'.

Even though I like to vote for the underdog, and I love* my D2x more than the D700, I've got to vote FF.

* get on with better for the non-hyperbolic.

 

[hepcat]

I would pick FF as it allows me to harmonize my lens collection between digital and film. APS and FF image quality are so close that only pedants and people who need the bleeding edge of image quality would need FF. However, a 50mm being 50mm everywhere is priceless.

'xactly. The same set of lenses nicely cover my M4-P and M9-P where 50 mm is 50 mm. And I can use them on my M8 an my GX1 as well.

 

[Bob Michaels]

How many of you believe you can reliably discern the difference between photos made with FF and APS-C sensors?

Or, do the photos not matter?

 

[GaryLH]

Wanting it because of legacy glass in my mind is different then u need it because of the technical difference between the two sensor sizes is driving the choice.

Gary

 

[rivercityrocker]

How many of you believe you can reliably discern the difference between photos made with FF and APS-C sensors?

Or, do the photos not matter?

I bet 99% couldn't reliably pick which is which unless they were side-by-side, shot with a wide aperture, and the aperture setting information was provided.

 

[pvdhaar]

From the perspective of also shooting 6x6, the difference between FF and APS is too small to really bother with FF given the price and size hike over APS.

 

[Sid836]

I am about to move to FF. I have fed up using my favourite 50mm lenses but never get the field of view of 50mm! Never APS-C again!

 

[nongfuspring]

That surprised me... I voted full frame 'cause I prefer the rendering of 35mm over APS-C. But for pure street photography I don't see the advantage of full frame: the lighter and smaller camera (inherent to APS-C) and the bigger DoF makes it better suited. IMHO of course.

A lot of people have been mentioning how FF somehow has an inherent "look" or different rendering - it does not, there is no FF look, it is placebo effect and marketing - it's bollocks.

Everything an FF sensor can do and APSC can do as well, though from a technical perspective a FF sensor has more to work with to achieve a better signal to noise ratio relative to pixel count.

 

[daveleo]

I must be skeptical of the poll results, that show 85% of the responders here feel that FF systems are what they prefer.
That is simply not credible. If it were true then 85% of them would acually own FF systems, which I find hard to swallow.

Did everyone who "voted" for the FF system actually hand over their cash and buy one?

I know that some have, but to think that 85% of us own FF digital systems is kind of amazing.

I think most people voted on the benefits of FF vs APS, without regard to the penalties in weight, size, price. That's fine, but who the heck didn't know that to start with ?

 

[gavinlg]

A lot of people have been mentioning how FF somehow has an inherent "look" or different rendering - it does not, there is no FF look, it is placebo effect and marketing - it's bollocks.

Everything an FF sensor can do and APSC can do as well, though from a technical perspective a FF sensor has more to work with to achieve a better signal to noise ratio relative to pixel count.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Is a photo from a mobile phone indistinguishable from a photo from a 4x5? Its the same principal, just far less of a difference. The difference however is still there. Sensor size is king and will always be.

From an aps-c and FF user.

 

[Addy101]

A lot of people have been mentioning how FF somehow has an inherent "look" or different rendering - it does not, there is no FF look, it is placebo effect and marketing - it's bollocks.

Everything an FF sensor can do and APSC can do as well, though from a technical perspective a FF sensor has more to work with to achieve a better signal to noise ratio relative to pixel count.

Strong words - I never could understand why I preferred full-frame over APS-C until I saw a comparison between a Sony A99 and A77 at the same magnification and it became clear to me: there is a difference between the two. It won't show up in all photograph's, it might not be important to a lot of people, but there is a difference. And it isn't the noise, it is a different look. And you can make a full frame sensor look like an APS-C sensor by cropping, the other way round is a lot more difficult....

But then again, I probably am just a victim of marketing and a placebo effect :bang:

 

[nongfuspring]

Sorry, but you are wrong. Is a photo from a mobile phone indistinguishable from a photo from a 4x5? Its the same principal, just far less of a difference. The difference however is still there. Sensor size is king and will always be.

From an aps-c and FF user.

There is a difference, but not a difference that is a cause of sensor size, the difference is due to grain, resolution, tonality, dynamic range - none of which are inherent to a format. If you somehow managed to produce a tiny mobile sensor with the same resolution, colour and dynamic range of a 4x5 and used it with an equivalent lens at an equivalent aperture, then yes, they would be identical.

There is a lot of misinformation regarding differences in sensor format, which I think is due to the fact that generally larger format sensors produce better dynamic range, resolution and ISO performance than smaller sensors, but there is no "full frame look." What you're looking at is the look of a higher performing sensor, not the inherent properties of having greater surface area.

 

[gavinlg]

A lot of people have been mentioning how FF somehow has an inherent "look" or different rendering - it does not, there is no FF look, it is placebo effect and marketing - it's bollocks.

Everything an FF sensor can do and APSC can do as well, though from a technical perspective a FF sensor has more to work with to achieve a better signal to noise ratio relative to pixel count.

There is a difference, but not a difference that is a cause of sensor size, the difference is due to grain, resolution, tonality, dynamic range - none of which are inherent to a format. If you somehow managed to produce a tiny mobile sensor with the same resolution, colour and dynamic range of a 4x5 and used it with an equivalent lens at an equivalent aperture, then yes, they would be identical.

There is a lot of misinformation regarding differences in sensor format, which I think is due to the fact that generally larger format sensors produce better dynamic range, resolution and ISO performance than smaller sensors, but there is no "full frame look." What you're looking at is the look of a higher performing sensor, not the inherent properties of having greater surface area.

No, you are seriously quite wrong. I genuinely prefer the look from the canon 1ds mk1 to any aps-c or smaller sensor camera BAR the fuji x-trans sensors, and the 1ds1 is 10 years old technology. More in fact.

It has nothing to do with the technicalities of the image, and everything to to with the spacial qualities.

So you think you can make a cell phone photo and a 4x5 photo of the same subject at (say) 50mm equivalent focal length, and the result will look the same? Anyone that has used both formats will tell you that is just theoretical bull****. In reality the photos look nothing alike.

 

[nongfuspring]

No, you are seriously quite wrong. I genuinely prefer the look from the canon 1ds mk1 to any aps-c or smaller sensor camera BAR the fuji x-trans sensors, and the 1ds1 is 10 years old technology. More in fact.

It has nothing to do with the technicalities of the image, and everything to to with the spacial qualities.

So you think you can make a cell phone photo and a 4x5 photo of the same subject at (say) 50mm equivalent focal length, and the result will look the same? Anyone that has used both formats will tell you that is just theoretical bull****. In reality the photos look nothing alike.

What spatial qualities? I'm open to being proven wrong, but you'll have to provide empirical evidence. The relationships between distance, depth of field, aperture, lens length and sensor size is always linear and directly proportional regardless of format.

People are always talking about the FF "look" but never explaining it. What they're actually talking about is the gain in performance when you have extra sensor real estate, not the nature of the format itself. And especially in the digital age performance is usually but necessarily related to sensor area.

 

[gavinlg]

What spatial qualities? I'm open to being proven wrong, but you'll have to provide empirical evidence. The relationships between distance, depth of field, aperture, lens length and sensor size is always linear and directly proportional regardless of format.

People are always talking about the FF "look" but never explaining it. What they're actually talking about is the gain in performance when you have extra sensor real estate, not the nature of the format itself. And especially in the digital age performance is usually but necessarily related to sensor area.

A 50mm f2 lens on FF requires a 25mm f.095 lens on a m4/3 sensor to get an equivalent field of view and depth of field. The problem comes when a 50mm lens is more telephoto than a 25mm lens, and a 50mm f1.4 lens is going to be less optically stressed than a 25mm f.095 lens. So you end up with a sharper image wide open with more relaxed looking out of focus transitions, and less aberration. That is one VERY real element to it.

The other is to do with spacial qualities of having a big sensor. I don't know what they are in straight forward terms, but it is exactly the same effect as going from a half frame 35mm negative to a 645 negative. The larger one is undoubtably different in look. Not just less grain or whatever. The subject separation, the quality of colors and tonal transitions. It it more like seeing the subject in real life than looking through a little magnified box.

For instance - recreate this photo shot on 6x7 with a cellphone. I bet you can't.

 

[unixrevolution]

APS is good enough. I would answer full frame, but that's only so I don't have to do the mental juggling to figure out what kind of kit I have with me when I use this digital system with film cameras as a combined kit.

Personally, I think saying one sensor size is better than the other is like saying wrenches are always better than hammers. It's about what you want to do with it, and what you're trying to accomplish. Most of the time, APS is more than up to the challenge.

I use APS, FF, 1" (Rx100) and even the diminutive Pentax Q, with its laughably small 1/2.33" sensor, and they all have wonderful strengths and some weaknesses. I use film from 35mm all the way up to 8x10...I'd never claim 8x10 is always better for everything.

 

[rivercityrocker]

A 50mm f2 lens on FF requires a 25mm f.095 lens on a m4/3 sensor to get an equivalent field of view and depth of field. The problem comes when a 50mm lens is more telephoto than a 25mm lens, and a 50mm f1.4 lens is going to be less optically stressed than a 25mm f.095 lens. So you end up with a sharper image wide open with more relaxed looking out of focus transitions, and less aberration. That is one VERY real element to it.

The other is to do with spacial qualities of having a big sensor. I don't know what they are in straight forward terms, but it is exactly the same effect as going from a half frame 35mm negative to a 645 negative. The larger one is undoubtably different in look. Not just less grain or whatever. The subject separation, the quality of colors and tonal transitions. It it more like seeing the subject in real life than looking through a little magnified box.

For instance - recreate this photo shot on 6x7 with a cellphone. I bet you can't.

You compare 35mm to m43. Then 35mm to 645. Then 6X7 to a cellphone sensor. Those are all very different. APS-C vs. FF isn't as big of a leap.

Also, I'm not sure what the term "optically stressed" is supposed to mean. A lens is a lens. It does what it's designed to do. Making a 25mm lens that fits a m43 sesnor doesn't "stress" a lens. Just because the 50mm lens is bigger doesn't make it optically superior.

 

[willie_901]

Forget about sensors. We should be thinking about lenses.

So...

You slap a your favorite 35 mm lens on an APS-C camera and photograph a subject. Based on years of experience using this beloved lens with 35 mm film you know exactly where to stand to make the photograph your mind envisions - the photograph you want to make.

Oops. The angle of view is too narrow. No problem. You just walk further away from the subject and now the angle of view is what you envisioned.

But something still is not right. The lens to subject distance has changed. The perspective has changed. The apparent distance between objects in the frame is not what you envisioned. The relationship of these distances is all wrong. You have to decide between an unwanted angle of view or an aesthetically inferior relationship between the objects in the frame at different distances from the camera.

Then someone walks up to you takes your camera and mounts a 23 mm lens. You walk back to the original location. Not only is the angle of view is exactly what you expected, the perspective is now the perspective your mind envisioned.

But, you are no longer using your beloved 35 mm lens. And you have to buy the 23 mm lens. This could be create significant problems for a number of reasons. But none of these reasons has to do with measurable, objective parameters that determine how the lens renders a three-dimensional scene into a two-dimensional medium.

There is no fulll-frame look. There is no APS-C look. There is angle of view and perspective.

Forget about the sensor area. The lenses you want, need, must use are what determines the camera you buy. A 14/2.8 lens on an APS-C camera will perform identically to a 20/4 lens on a camera with a 24 X 36 mm sensor. Of course this assumes the lens transmission factors are identical as are the camera sensor, sensor filters, color-filter arrays and data-stream electronics

I intentionally ignored lens focal reduction attachments (a.k.a. speed boosters) because they actually change the effective focal length.

I also ignored subjective but important issues like out-of-focus rendering, and other aesthetic aspects of lens rendering that are very important to many of us. I have no idea how the subjective lens rendering traits translate for film to micro-lens array analog measurments.

 

[aizan]

there is a full frame look, but it is largely the result of self-consciously justifying the extra cost, along with competitiveness/conformity. it's easier to get shallow dof, so you see lots of fast primes shot wide open. same thing with resolution, noise, dynamic range, tonality, and raw headroom.

one thing to remember is that as the differences get smaller, people get more passionate about them. cellphones vs. mfdb are not controversial.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

there's no replacement for displacement.

Ill NEVER buy another camera that shoots smaller than 35mm full frame.

My perspective, exactly.

'Photographers' have grown overly lazy in recent years, expecting 'professional-level' quality in smaller and smaller cameras. Just read, yesterday, an article about people shooting weddings with camera phones. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Pretty pathetic.

So, yeah, i'll take a slightly larger camera with a larger sensor. I like the way things are going, with Sony's three FF cameras, and announcements about a Samsung, etc. But, Fuji's declaration that they won't soon be pursuing a FF X camera leaves me quite disappointed. In addition to 'requiring' a FF sensor, i really want an optical viewfinder. The Fuji hybrid seemed a valid option. But, with an APS-C, it's just disqualified again.