APSC vs FF

Started 8 months ago | Questions thread
Euell
Senior MemberPosts: 1,016Gear list
Like?
Re: APSC vs FF
In reply to SQLGuy, 8 months ago

SQLGuy wrote:

Euell wrote:

SQLGuy wrote:

You really should have searched and read some threads here. This has been discussed extensively.

But:

A full frame sensor is about twice the area of an APS-C sensor. That means it needs twice as much light to illuminate it. Correspondingly, a lens of the same field of view, and similar physical size, will probably be a stop slower. In terms of noise and IQ, you get a good one stop advantage on FF over APS-C, so it's a wash.

For me, the big advantages are in using legacy lenses. I get full use out of a 55/1.2, instead of wasting half the light that comes through it, and my 14mm is once again an ultra-wide-angle instead of a 21mm equivalent. A full frame sensor also allows for shorter depth of field for better subject isolation. A lot of fast lenses, especially the more affordable ones, get soft and glowy wide open. Full frame allows you to stop these down a bit for better sharpness and still have good subject isolation and low light capability.

If you're shooting more telephoto, you may be less interested in these benefits, as the APS-C crop factor is a cheaper and (IMO) better way of extending the reach of a long lens than a focal multiplier; and long, fast, full frame lenses are big and expensive.

-- hide signature --

A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

A full frame lens can be used with a tilting adapter for an APSC camera, but not generally on a full frame camera. This, of course, only applies to non-emount lenses, E-mount lenses do not require an adapter.

Sure, but how often does someone actually do it? It's a lot more common to want to use lenses for regular photo taking than on tilting or shifting adapters. Add to that reports that the cheap shifting adapters are pretty much worthless...

Regarding RonFrank's comment about little difference in ISO capability, here's the actual DXO comparison of the A7 and NEX-7. Same resolution, more than a stop difference in high ISO noise: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7-versus-Sony-NEX-7___916_736

This shot was at ISO 5000 on the A7. Before the A7, I had a NEX-7... it wouldn't touch this at 3200, let alone 6400 (which was the next step it could hit):

-- hide signature --

A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

Don't we expect the NEX 7 successor to be a bit better at high ISO? I would rather hope so. Of course, iit can never be as good as a technologically equivalent full frame sensor, but it can get very close. As far as tilt is concerned, I actually can use the scheimflug advantage a fair amount and am thinking of acquiring just such an adapter. If you've never shot large format, then you simply can't appreciate what tilt can do for you in expanding DOF.

 Euell's gear list:Euell's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6000 Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow