pluton
Well-known
Except for occasionally playing around with a tele lens, I'm an 'everything In focus' documentary photographer.
You'd think that APS-C would be fine for that kind of work, but, alas...What I'm seeing is that on APS-C, photos shot at f/11 and f/16 (remember, I like everything in focus to the greatest extent possible) are more likely to suffer apparent image degradation from diffraction effects than with 24x36.
I don't want it to be true, but that's what I'm seeing.
You'd think that APS-C would be fine for that kind of work, but, alas...What I'm seeing is that on APS-C, photos shot at f/11 and f/16 (remember, I like everything in focus to the greatest extent possible) are more likely to suffer apparent image degradation from diffraction effects than with 24x36.
I don't want it to be true, but that's what I'm seeing.
agentlossing
Well-known
I'm going to give a bit of a left-field opinion here: Micro Four Thirds is the new old analogue full frame. The more I shoot 35mm film, and yes I tend to shoot somewhat grainy B&W film or similar consumer color negative a lot of the time, my low-grain film of choice right now is Foma 100 which often as not I'm shooting at 200 so a bit grainier to capture fast-moving people. It might be different if I were shooting low-speed films in controlled lighting for lowest grain and scanning with multi-exposure at the highest DPI settings... but I'm not. I'm shooting film the way a street photographer or enthusiast film user would have twenty years ago... or does now, for that matter.
So, for my use, I rarely shoot to be able to pull a single smaller detail or a texture out of the world - it's more to capture a scene as a whole, either composing shots of people with a small aperture and fairly high shutter speed so I can account for subject movement and passing into/out of plane of focus, or capturing a vista in front of me handheld at an acceptable aperture and shutter speed, without a tripod. When this is the main way you shoot film, you find that what you get with Micro Four Thirds is in fact very similar in quality and look and feel. High-ISO noise is well-controlled with IBIS for slower shutter speeds handheld, but when shooting on the street, an aperture of f5.6 or f8 max and a shutter of at least 1/250 (usually 1/500 or 1/1000) allows me to use base 200 ISO nearly all the time and get great results. And noise patterns on the more modern M4/3 sensors look very grain-like and tolerable as long as you shoot RAW. RAW means more time afterwards spent "developing" but that is again like film, albeit much faster and more convenient.
I suppose you could substitute APS-C for M4/3 in this analogy, with better noise performance and a bump in IQ, to be sure, in many cases. But often you are dealing with an increase in size (not with my tiny GRII) and weight and often expense, given how affordable M4/3 cameras that are a few years old now have become. My point is more that M4/3 functions about as well as 35mm film did for many people. Digital full frame is really more like medium format in film, in terms of size, weight, IQ and everything else. Of course there is a depth of field conversation to be had as well, and yes, I am ignoring that entirely, because I think in analogue days limited DoF was (and is) a bigger problem that the corresponding problem of greater DoF ever is today with digital sensors.
Where does this leave APS-C? it's kind of an in-between, often better IQ than 35mm film but less than 120 film. Of course that's a simplification, but it's my simplification, and where I'm at right now.
So, for my use, I rarely shoot to be able to pull a single smaller detail or a texture out of the world - it's more to capture a scene as a whole, either composing shots of people with a small aperture and fairly high shutter speed so I can account for subject movement and passing into/out of plane of focus, or capturing a vista in front of me handheld at an acceptable aperture and shutter speed, without a tripod. When this is the main way you shoot film, you find that what you get with Micro Four Thirds is in fact very similar in quality and look and feel. High-ISO noise is well-controlled with IBIS for slower shutter speeds handheld, but when shooting on the street, an aperture of f5.6 or f8 max and a shutter of at least 1/250 (usually 1/500 or 1/1000) allows me to use base 200 ISO nearly all the time and get great results. And noise patterns on the more modern M4/3 sensors look very grain-like and tolerable as long as you shoot RAW. RAW means more time afterwards spent "developing" but that is again like film, albeit much faster and more convenient.
I suppose you could substitute APS-C for M4/3 in this analogy, with better noise performance and a bump in IQ, to be sure, in many cases. But often you are dealing with an increase in size (not with my tiny GRII) and weight and often expense, given how affordable M4/3 cameras that are a few years old now have become. My point is more that M4/3 functions about as well as 35mm film did for many people. Digital full frame is really more like medium format in film, in terms of size, weight, IQ and everything else. Of course there is a depth of field conversation to be had as well, and yes, I am ignoring that entirely, because I think in analogue days limited DoF was (and is) a bigger problem that the corresponding problem of greater DoF ever is today with digital sensors.
Where does this leave APS-C? it's kind of an in-between, often better IQ than 35mm film but less than 120 film. Of course that's a simplification, but it's my simplification, and where I'm at right now.
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Ever since 2003, when I did a bridal portrait with a six-megapixel Canon 10D that was indistinguishable in a 16x20 print from a Pentax 6x7 print of the same size shot on Fuji's NPH, I have not worried about these issues. I showed the prints to a number of pro photographers and art directors, and only one was able to tell which was which. (The digital photo had more depth of field.)
More recently, I have made 48-inch-wide prints from16 megapixel files from an Olympus OM-D E-M5 that looked almost three-dimensional.
More recently, I have made 48-inch-wide prints from16 megapixel files from an Olympus OM-D E-M5 that looked almost three-dimensional.
FranZ
Established
Printing big is no issue nowadays
Printing big is no issue nowadays
Since I printed a 10 MP File from my Olympus E3 with the size of 100 x 133 cm, I don't think sensor size is a limiting factor.
I own a few very different (Sony) cameras, well suited for various circumstances.
1) for serious photography where I can bring a big bag, I use my A7r3 with some primes and zoom lenses.
2) for sicial, city and museums I carry my stealthy RX1rII, giving me the best possible IQ in a small form factor.
3) on my hiking trips I carry my RX10 m IV, with its 24-600 mm range lens and an 1 " sensor good for daylight shooting.
4) otherwise I carry my RX100m6 as me carry allwas camera.
With this setup I have every situation covered and I am pleased with their results.
Btw, I seldom print nowadays, so size is no issue for showing my work on screens.
Printing big is no issue nowadays
Since I printed a 10 MP File from my Olympus E3 with the size of 100 x 133 cm, I don't think sensor size is a limiting factor.
I own a few very different (Sony) cameras, well suited for various circumstances.
1) for serious photography where I can bring a big bag, I use my A7r3 with some primes and zoom lenses.
2) for sicial, city and museums I carry my stealthy RX1rII, giving me the best possible IQ in a small form factor.
3) on my hiking trips I carry my RX10 m IV, with its 24-600 mm range lens and an 1 " sensor good for daylight shooting.
4) otherwise I carry my RX100m6 as me carry allwas camera.
With this setup I have every situation covered and I am pleased with their results.
Btw, I seldom print nowadays, so size is no issue for showing my work on screens.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Well… we all know how hard it is to get a sharp photo with a handheld Pentax 6x7
There are too many potential variables in the above comparison; if resolution were the only thing that mattered, in a well-controlled test a 6x7cm negative should easily have more detail than a 6MP image. Even a good 35mm image should.
But I know a wedding photographer, a young woman, who has been using Nikon D50’s (6.1 MP) for over 10 years. She’s an amazing photographer- her images and ability to get beautiful choreography is stunning. Clearly, the camera is good enough and there’s no reason for her to ever “upgrade”.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I have the luxury of photography as a hobby and so I do not need to worry about image quality as much as a pro photographer might. So, the base answer, for me, is sensor size doesn't matter very much after a pretty minimal level.
The photo attached is of my Dad. It was taken in '75 or '76. Almost certainly shot on Tri-X and likely shot with my Step-mom's AE-1.
Objectively, pretty poor technical quality. I have no idea how or when it was scanned, highlights are blown, and focus is indifferent. But this photo is my favorite photograph. Ever.
It reminds me of so many things about my Dad that it is still, occasionally, too much to look at. It brings back what he smelled like, it helps me recall his voice. And it shows me, again, the value he gave to work and to finishing what we start.
I have a few later photos of him shot on several different cameras and while those photos don't resonate with me nearly as strongly, none of that has anything to do with the sensor sizes.
I know there must be many similar photos "out there" shot by people who are not photographers and who's main camera is their phone. And those photos, almost regardless of technical/image quality absolutely will evoke similar emotions when those people look at those photos.
Rob
EDIT: I just noticed on the corner of the photo that it was taken in '77.
The photo attached is of my Dad. It was taken in '75 or '76. Almost certainly shot on Tri-X and likely shot with my Step-mom's AE-1.
Objectively, pretty poor technical quality. I have no idea how or when it was scanned, highlights are blown, and focus is indifferent. But this photo is my favorite photograph. Ever.
It reminds me of so many things about my Dad that it is still, occasionally, too much to look at. It brings back what he smelled like, it helps me recall his voice. And it shows me, again, the value he gave to work and to finishing what we start.
I have a few later photos of him shot on several different cameras and while those photos don't resonate with me nearly as strongly, none of that has anything to do with the sensor sizes.
I know there must be many similar photos "out there" shot by people who are not photographers and who's main camera is their phone. And those photos, almost regardless of technical/image quality absolutely will evoke similar emotions when those people look at those photos.
Rob
EDIT: I just noticed on the corner of the photo that it was taken in '77.
Attachments
farlymac
PF McFarland
I thought that too when I got my first D80. I liked it so much I bought a second one for a back-up (both of them from the used market). Then the back-up died. Found out it was a common problem with the D80, usually resulting in the main PC board or the AF guts needing to be replaced, what we used to call in my old line of work "an economically non-feasible" repair.
So I looked around and was told that the D300s was considered "bullet proof". Got two of those. And it wasn't the image detail I was impressed by so much, but the reduction in post-production work needed. Same thing when I got the D610.
But now I don't think I need to go any further than those. I've got D lenses for the D610, and a bunch of DX lenses for the D300s's. After thinking about it for a few days I've decided not to get into the Z system for a while longer. It has many advantages, but the cost is a bit more than I'm willing to put up in the short term. Maybe when I wear out the cameras I have.
PF
agentlossing
Well-known
That is an absolutely fantastic photograph. I feel like I can catch a sense of your dad's personality just from looking at it, and what a strong pose, expression and everything else. Would it be "better" if it were a higher-resolution photo, perhaps a digital photo? I don't think so.
With phone photos, the real concern is that those images are properly backed up and not lost somewhere along the way via transfers of hardware. Maybe making prints would be a good idea.
willie_901
Veteran
Equipment Choice
Equipment Choice
What affected my choice of equipment was:
The impact of APS-C and 24 x 36 mm sensor surface area differences were less important.
After using APS-C sensor cameras for a decade I have no regrets. In terms of technical image quality (analog signal-to-noise ratio) I discovered thinking about sensor area alone is only part of the story. The signal depends on both the sensor area and lens aperture (also area). Neither APS-V nor 24 x 36 mm sensors have a read noise advantage.
In extreme low light (~ EV -4 to -5) a 24 X 36 mm sensor does maximize signal because lenses for APS-C with wide enough apertures are impractical (expensive, large and heavy). A 24 X 36mm sensor will always deliver the maximum possible exposure because APS-C lenses with similar fields of view and apertures wider than 1.4 are large, heavy and expensive.
If you can sort your digital image library/archive by aperture, look at what percentage of all your images were made with apertures wider than f 2.8. The higher the percentage, the more a 24 X 36 mm sensor increases value in term os of technical image quality. Why f 2.8? Because f 2 aperture APS-C lenses are the most practical in terms of cost, size and weight.
It is useful to repurpose lenses. When this is a priority everything changes. Lenses manufactured for use with 135 format film are annoying to use with APS-C cameras.
Equipment Choice
What affected my choice of equipment was:
- Avoid Leica products
- A finder like my Zeiss Ikon ZM and Canon Canonet QL17 GIII finders - being able to compose while taking into account what's outside the frame
- 2X3 image aspect ratio
The impact of APS-C and 24 x 36 mm sensor surface area differences were less important.
After using APS-C sensor cameras for a decade I have no regrets. In terms of technical image quality (analog signal-to-noise ratio) I discovered thinking about sensor area alone is only part of the story. The signal depends on both the sensor area and lens aperture (also area). Neither APS-V nor 24 x 36 mm sensors have a read noise advantage.
In extreme low light (~ EV -4 to -5) a 24 X 36 mm sensor does maximize signal because lenses for APS-C with wide enough apertures are impractical (expensive, large and heavy). A 24 X 36mm sensor will always deliver the maximum possible exposure because APS-C lenses with similar fields of view and apertures wider than 1.4 are large, heavy and expensive.
If you can sort your digital image library/archive by aperture, look at what percentage of all your images were made with apertures wider than f 2.8. The higher the percentage, the more a 24 X 36 mm sensor increases value in term os of technical image quality. Why f 2.8? Because f 2 aperture APS-C lenses are the most practical in terms of cost, size and weight.
It is useful to repurpose lenses. When this is a priority everything changes. Lenses manufactured for use with 135 format film are annoying to use with APS-C cameras.
I find that hard to believe... I mean 6mp is good for about a 7x10" print at 300dpi...at 16x20" we are under 150dpi. 120 film is better than that. Now maybe if we are talking about from 8 feet away... I could agree.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Being a hobbyist rather than a professional that needs to make money, I don’t care about format. In film, I have everything from Minox 8x11mm to 4x5”. What I use most are the cameras I find most enjoyable and format doesn’t matter.
Digital? My only full frame is the D700. Of my two APS-C cameras (X-Pro1 and K10D), the K10D is so enjoyable and fun to use - it’s actually my favorite digital camera.
Digital? My only full frame is the D700. Of my two APS-C cameras (X-Pro1 and K10D), the K10D is so enjoyable and fun to use - it’s actually my favorite digital camera.
Ronald M
Veteran
M 8 is actually a great camera. M10R is same size and is a great great great camera.
APS C will do great photos and for most the images are way more than good enough. For travel and party pics, it is wonderful
APS C will do great photos and for most the images are way more than good enough. For travel and party pics, it is wonderful
Michalm
Well-known
I was never able to adjust to smaller then than full frame sensor , It is to do with different look of the image, full frame looks more multidimensional to me even when looking on the computer screen.