Poll: FF vs APS

[Chris101]

... 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.

Remember that, right before announcing the D3, Nikon had a big press conference saying that they were not actively pursuing full frame either, and that they saw professional DX to be the way of the future.

Then, like 3 months later, BAM.

 

[Addy101]

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.

Maybe the opposite is true: as you can't afford FF you rationalize away the difference between APS-C and FF.....
I'm sure there is a real difference between APS-C and FF, I can see it. If you don't see it, no problem, keep your money and buy an APS-C camera 😀

Some might find this interesting: Luminous Landscape and the FF myth.

 

[nongfuspring]

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.

Mate, I think you've totally misunderstood what I said from the beginning, and you still haven't explained the "difference" in look due to sensor size. The cellphone sized sensor vs 6x7 business you've again totally taken the wrong way, of course you can't take that photo with an iphone, but you can't take that photo because of lack of RELATIVE lens speed and lack of sensor performance, NOT because of lack of sensor real estate.

Also in your first paragraph, what is "optical stress"? It's worth mentioning that it is hard to make a small sensor wide aperture lens because of the manufacturing difficulties in doing so, but again, this is unrelated to sensor size. This is a very big generalisation, but just as small sensor cameras experience diffraction at lower apertures than larger sensors, so too are they (hypothetically) capable of performing with greater sharpness at wider apertures. Again though, this has everything to do with the lens, not the sensor.

I completely agree with Willie, when we talk about sensor sizes we should really be talking about lenses instead. The appearance of depth separation and FOV is all about the lens, not the sensor.

 

[hepcat]

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?

Oh, c'mon... of course the images don't matter... this is a GEAR forum! 😉

And, if you can tell what kind of camera/sensor/lens took a specific photo (or you think you can... or you're even trying to...) then the image itself isn't very interesting.

 

[noimmunity]

In the end, given the impossibly hypothetical nature of the question, I think the poll is just a way for the OP to legitimize his own resentment, envy and jealousy.

"A vs. B type comparison" threads and posts can sometimes be valuable and interesting, but most of them are just about scoring points in a pyrrhic victory.

 

[Rodchenko]

Given APS-C and Full Frame, I've made my choice: Micro Four-Thirds!

 

[gavinlg]

Yeah Im out of this one, people want me to draw up a bar graph or some sort of data analysis or something. I don't do that sort of stuff, I go by what I use. Half of you people saying apsc and ff sensors are the same probably don't even use a camera with a full frame sensor. I use both. There is a difference. If you don't think so, then good - use the smaller sensor and save yourself some money. All the pros across the world using 5ds and d800s should sell them for 7ds and d300s because theres no real difference. Right?

 

[gavinlg]

Also in your first paragraph, what is "optical stress"? It's worth mentioning that it is hard to make a small sensor wide aperture lens because of the manufacturing difficulties in doing so, but again, this is unrelated to sensor size.

No, it is completely related to sensor size. They rely on each other. How many bad 50mm lenses are there? None. How many bad 28mm lenses are there? A few. How many bad 20-24mm lenses are there? A lot. Conversely, 85mm lenses tend to be extremely good (even the cheap ones)and telephoto lenses 150mm and up tend to be the sharpest and most technically perfect lenses.

The smaller the format, the more stressed the lenses are. The takumar 105mm f2.4 for 67 format is my favorite lens on a pentax 67. On a canon 5d (the old one - 12mp) it was rubbish. The $90 canon 50mm f1.8 was better.

M4/3 is the exception to this rule because the 4/3 aspect sensor allows them to design more tele centric optical path.

 

[gavinlg]

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. .

It is an illustrative example. If there is a difference between the above, there will be a difference between FF and apsc as well. It will be smaller yes. Wether it is worth it to you is your choice. It is to me.

 

[Margu]

Given APS-C and Full Frame, I've made my choice: Micro Four-Thirds!

4:3 aspect ratio is great for street photography because you can add more of the buildings without tilting the lens upward.

 

[aizan]

The ease or difficulty of designing a given lens is something I've never been totally clear about. I've heard that lenses are easier to make for smaller formats, and I've heard that larger formats put less demands on lens designs but are harder to manufacture, and that narrower angles of view are easier than wider angles of view (it's not the focal length), etc. Any lens designers out there?

 

[Addy101]

4:3 aspect ratio is great for street photography because you can add more of the buildings without tilting the lens upward.

Unless it is a wide building instead of a high building, then you get less of the building 😀

Edit: just realised, also with a high building 2:3 is better as you can make a vertical shot - gee, it seems I can rationalize my preference of the 2:3 aspect ratio over the 4:3 😉

 

[aizan]

ugh, buildings. when is there going to be a shift lens for m4/3?

 

[dblrifle]

Since reduced frame was introduced I have always preferred that. I feel I get more lens for the same cost. While I like wide it has never been the lense of final choice. This was extremely important in DSLR for two reasons more reach for the dollar and same reach in smaller package. With a RF this is not so Important as longs don't so much enter the picture so full frame becomes a much more sensible choice and with Leica's finder lines become important. As the proper one is usually brought up by the lense mount it was not till the M8 that it was selected by electronics. I never understood why the lever on my earlier M's didn't just change the frames . Seems all it would need was a stop in the lever.

 

[nongfuspring]

Yeah Im out of this one, people want me to draw up a bar graph or some sort of data analysis or something. I don't do that sort of stuff, I go by what I use. Half of you people saying apsc and ff sensors are the same probably don't even use a camera with a full frame sensor. I use both. There is a difference. If you don't think so, then good - use the smaller sensor and save yourself some money. All the pros across the world using 5ds and d800s should sell them for 7ds and d300s because theres no real difference. Right?

Yes you do have to give an actual argument for it if you start claiming someone else is wrong. Your optical stress idea also doesn't make much sense, not least since you undermine yourself by saying m43 is an exception - btw as far as I know almost all lenses designed for digital are telecentric, but this is because digital sensors without microlenses do badly with acute angles of incidence, and telecentric lenses give a more perpendicular angle to the sensor, it has nothing to do with aspect ratio (since lenses cast image circles, not oblongs). No doubt making precision optics at a smaller scale is harder, but this isn't the argument you're trying to make.

I don't know enough about lens manufacture to comment on your statement about certain lengths, but I do know that equivalent lenses (no matter the format) generally have similar designs; take for example how a 50mm Zeiss planar made for 35mm film uses the same optic formula as the (equivalent) 80mm Zeiss planar for medium format, yet you'll never find an 80mm planar for 35mm film.

You must be wilfully misunderstanding me because I'm making myself very clear: I'm not saying there is no difference, I'm saying the difference is in PERFORMANCE, not a special "look" due to some kind of unique DOF and framing properties FF sensors achieve and other sensors cannot.

This is a pretty good explanation of equivalence: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#6

Do you get it? I'm not saying your FF sensor isn't worth paying extra for or isn't better in certain ways, I'm saying that you can achieve the same DOF and FOV with a smaller (or larger) sensor by using an equivalent lens.

 

[shadowfox]

It's a moot question. With two cameras with equal desirability in all factors other than sensor size then of course everyone will say FF.

As you can see from the poll, the number of people choosing APS-sized sensor is not zero.

"Imagine a desirable camera kit (with lenses). It is desirable in terms of design, size, controls, build and optical quality, and price. Now you are to choose *only one* between two models available, the only difference is: One has APS and the other FF sensor, with the same sensor technology."

Duh... of course FF would be the choice. Too bad this particular situation is irrelevant because these two cameras do not exist.

That's exactly my point. I'm in the position where I will of course choose an FF sensor.

But I'd like to hear why some people said that FF doesn't matter, that APS is all they need. And they did chime in. Isn't that what a poll supposed to do?

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?

Of course the photo is important, but I'm not asking about the photo.

I'm asking if FF matter to you personally or not?
If it doesn't matter to you, then don't vote.

In the end, given the impossibly hypothetical nature of the question, I think the poll is just a way for the OP to legitimize his own resentment, envy and jealousy.

"A vs. B type comparison" threads and posts can sometimes be valuable and interesting, but most of them are just about scoring points in a pyrrhic victory.

Strange, I've never noticed you as someone who is offensive and imflammatory... Oh well, I guess there is a start to everything 😀

 

[gavinlg]

Yes you do have to give an actual argument for it if you start claiming someone else is wrong. Your optical stress idea also doesn't make much sense, not least since you undermine yourself by saying m43 is an exception - btw as far as I know almost all lenses designed for digital are telecentric, but this is because digital sensors without microlenses do badly with acute angles of incidence, and telecentric lenses give a more perpendicular angle to the sensor, it has nothing to do with aspect ratio (since lenses cast image circles, not oblongs). No doubt making precision optics at a smaller scale is harder, but this isn't the argument you're trying to make.

I don't know enough about lens manufacture to comment on your statement about certain lengths, but I do know that equivalent lenses (no matter the format) generally have similar designs; take for example how a 50mm Zeiss planar made for 35mm film uses the same optic formula as the (equivalent) 80mm Zeiss planar for medium format, yet you'll never find an 80mm planar for 35mm film.

You must be wilfully misunderstanding me because I'm making myself very clear: I'm not saying there is no difference, I'm saying the difference is in PERFORMANCE, not a special "look" due to some kind of unique DOF and framing properties FF sensors achieve and other sensors cannot.

This is a pretty good explanation of equivalence: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#6

Do you get it? I'm not saying your FF sensor isn't worth paying extra for or isn't better in certain ways, I'm saying that you can achieve the same DOF and FOV with a smaller (or larger) sensor by using an equivalent lens.

Here is a 85mm planar for 35mm:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583976-REG/Zeiss_1677_838_Telephoto_85mm_f_1_4_ZE.html

I get entirely what you are saying. You are looking at it from a theoretical angle. Theoretically given exActly the same sensor performance and exactly the same equivalent lens performance there shouldn't be a difference. In practice though this doesn't hold true. There is a big enough difference for me to prefer 35mm over aps-c - and apparently 2/3 the people who voted in this poll too. I don't really care what the exact factors are that do this, but it is the same factors that make me prefer medium format film over 35mm film. Equivalence is theoretical. Theoretical is trumped by what actually happens.

 

[Monochrom]

totally FF sensor.

FF It´s even cheaper...in m9 i can use any of the large amount of great inexpensive 50´s ranging from the jupiters to the elmar familly, not to mention crons and sonnars!

I don´t like crop factor since i have to use a short focal length to get the desired fov... with crop sensors i miss wide angles field and have to accept larger base dof & perspective distortion...

In obvious conclusion....with FF i use the lens as they´re intended for.

😉

 

[Bob Michaels]

........
Of course the photo is important, but I'm not asking about the photo.

I'm asking if FF matter to you personally or not?
If it doesn't matter to you, then don't vote.
........

Actually I did not vote. There was no "it does not matter" choice.

Important things about cameras to me:
1) image quality must exceed a minimum threshold.
2) cheaper is better than more expensive.
3) lighter is better than heavy.
4) smaller is better than bigger.
5) reliable is better than unreliable.
If there is a 6) I cannot think of it. But it is definitely not the size of the sensor any more than it is the brand name or finish color of the camera.

 

[rivercityrocker]

I'm wondering why this argument is still going on? Why does one have to be better than the other? Each format has strengths and weaknesses, from large format on down to cellphone cameras.