Bill Pierce
Well-known
When it comes to sensor size, is bigger better? As a rule, full frame sensors mean bigger cameras and bigger lenses. A smaller APS-c camera equipped with smaller lenses is going to be a more discreet street camera and a more convenient keep-it-with-me camera for family and travel shots. And for sports, birds and wildlife (which could include the family pet), you can achieve an effective reach with a physically smaller lens. And with the improvement in sensor technology that has become readily available in the digital cameras of the last years, you will have no problem in producing high quality prints. Remember, we are talking prints, large or cropped, because unless you have a very, very large monitor, on screen you will not see the difference between APS-c and full frame.
There is one sensor size difference often written about that I find over emphasized. The importance that the smaller sensor gives macro photographers greater depth-of-field and the larger sensors gives portrait photographers shallower depth-of-field at the same f/-stop seems a little exaggerated when you can stop down, use a tilt-shift lens or focus stacking with your full frame camera and an f/1 lens with your APS-c camera.
But, of course, the same improvement in APS-c sensors is available in full frame sensors. Where does this pay off? Just to be a grouch, let me point out that it only pays off when all the other components of image quality are also optimized.
The Leica Q2 has a lens that when the camera is used at a high shutter speed or on a tripod or even with its shake reduction settings will allow you to crop significantly into the image and still make a good print. This and the relatively small size lets it compete with the APS-c cameras in the street and vacation work places (Can you have a vacation work place?) at the same time it can be used full frame for extremely sharp and detailed large prints of landscape and architectural work.
Now, in part, that ability to crop comes from the fact that the Q2 has a lot of pixels, 47.3 megapixels. That means smaller megapixels and should mean more noise. But in truth the noise and tonal range is not that different from the original Q with its lesser megapixels. Current full frame offers a blend of croppability and image quality.
If you look at the megapixel king, the Sony A7R IV at 61 megapixels, its noise and range levels are not that far behind those of the A7R III’s bigger pixels, certainly not enough to impair its low light shooting significantly. The claims that cameras like this don’t work well with lenses designed in the days of lesser megapixels is nonsense. That print is going to look just as good as it always did. If you are lucky, it may look a little better. But your new full framer combined with careful technique is going to show off that Apo-Lanthar or Loxia lens more than the full frames of yesteryear. It’s sort of like Edward Weston using a digital camera instead of an 8x10. And, for the money makers, it’s like using an 8x10 in the studio. It’s not necessary, but it sure is impressive- and fun.
When I was shooting film, 35mm earned the money and large format was fun. Today APS-c is the workhorse and full frame is the fun.
As always - your thoughts?
There is one sensor size difference often written about that I find over emphasized. The importance that the smaller sensor gives macro photographers greater depth-of-field and the larger sensors gives portrait photographers shallower depth-of-field at the same f/-stop seems a little exaggerated when you can stop down, use a tilt-shift lens or focus stacking with your full frame camera and an f/1 lens with your APS-c camera.
But, of course, the same improvement in APS-c sensors is available in full frame sensors. Where does this pay off? Just to be a grouch, let me point out that it only pays off when all the other components of image quality are also optimized.
The Leica Q2 has a lens that when the camera is used at a high shutter speed or on a tripod or even with its shake reduction settings will allow you to crop significantly into the image and still make a good print. This and the relatively small size lets it compete with the APS-c cameras in the street and vacation work places (Can you have a vacation work place?) at the same time it can be used full frame for extremely sharp and detailed large prints of landscape and architectural work.
Now, in part, that ability to crop comes from the fact that the Q2 has a lot of pixels, 47.3 megapixels. That means smaller megapixels and should mean more noise. But in truth the noise and tonal range is not that different from the original Q with its lesser megapixels. Current full frame offers a blend of croppability and image quality.
If you look at the megapixel king, the Sony A7R IV at 61 megapixels, its noise and range levels are not that far behind those of the A7R III’s bigger pixels, certainly not enough to impair its low light shooting significantly. The claims that cameras like this don’t work well with lenses designed in the days of lesser megapixels is nonsense. That print is going to look just as good as it always did. If you are lucky, it may look a little better. But your new full framer combined with careful technique is going to show off that Apo-Lanthar or Loxia lens more than the full frames of yesteryear. It’s sort of like Edward Weston using a digital camera instead of an 8x10. And, for the money makers, it’s like using an 8x10 in the studio. It’s not necessary, but it sure is impressive- and fun.
When I was shooting film, 35mm earned the money and large format was fun. Today APS-c is the workhorse and full frame is the fun.
As always - your thoughts?
