FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages

Started Jun 11, 2012 | Discussions
tony field
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,804
Like?
FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages
Jun 11, 2012

One of the things I find interesting is the fascination people have for a full frame sensor. Personally, I really don't care what the sensor size is - it does not affect the vast majority of images I take - be it in the area of scenic, glamour/fashion, sports, wild life, or performing arts. I can always get a super fine 16x20 print from any format even if the pixel count is compromised - such as a 6mpix Nikon D100. My pixel count "boundary of choice" is about 12 mpix.

As far as I am concerned, the only difference among the format sizes is the nature of angle of view of a given lens and the degree of selective focus at wide apertures for a given lens. In other words, if I choose my lenses appropriately I can effectively duplicate these characteristics as needed (for at least 98% of the shots).

Why is everyone so FF - oriented ? ? ?
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Nikon D100
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 21,939
Like?
If you don't mind...
In reply to tony field, Jun 11, 2012

tony field wrote:

One of the things I find interesting is the fascination people have for a full frame sensor. Personally, I really don't care what the sensor size is - it does not affect the vast majority of images I take - be it in the area of scenic, glamour/fashion, sports, wild life, or performing arts. I can always get a super fine 16x20 print from any format even if the pixel count is compromised - such as a 6mpix Nikon D100. My pixel count "boundary of choice" is about 12 mpix.

As far as I am concerned, the only difference among the format sizes is the nature of angle of view of a given lens and the degree of selective focus at wide apertures for a given lens. In other words, if I choose my lenses appropriately I can effectively duplicate these characteristics as needed (for at least 98% of the shots).

Why is everyone so FF - oriented ? ? ?

...I'm going to beat around the bush for a minute. We all agree that the 70-200 / 4L IS is one of the best zooms, right? Well, on a 350D (8 MP):

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/196-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-is-test-report--review?start=1

it's resolving around 2100 lw/ph. That means that on a 16x20 inch print, it's resolving around 100 lw/in, which is pretty darned good, wouldn't you say? And that's with 8 MP. Modern 18 MP APS-C cameras will do even better.

As for differences in noise, well, for sensors of the same generation, the difference between APS-C and FF would be like using 1/100 ISO 1600 vs 1/200 ISO 3200. How often does that one stop difference really make or break the shot?

Also, as you say, it's the same difference for DOF. Is there really that big of a difference from f/2.8 to f/4? People who buy the 70-200 / 2.8L IS II over the 70-200 / 4L IS must think so.

And that brings me to a more direct answer to your question: the difference between APS-C and FF is not dissimilar to the difference between the 70-200 / 4L IS and the 70-200 / 2.8L II IS.

Then again, 100 lw/in is "only" 2 lp/mm, and the "standard" for a high IQ print is 5 lp/mm. So, that's only 40% the way to where it needs to be at 16x20 inches. Some print larger, making it that much greater a gap, many more print smaller (or simply display on the web), making the gap much smaller, or even exceeding the "standard".

But there are those that pay for an 85 / 1.2L over an 85 / 1.8, so there are those that will pay for a 5D3 over a 7D. The question is, who really looks at a pic from a 5D3 + 135 / 2L and thinks it's magnificent, but finds a pic from the 7D + 85 / 1.8 lacking?

Well, here on DPR, plenty. But outside DPR, really, how many care? I know some do, of course, but I mean, honestly, what percent of the population do you think that might be? 50%? 25%? Or 0.01%?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jaims
Senior MemberPosts: 2,069Gear list
Like?
Re: Primes
In reply to tony field, Jun 11, 2012

tony field wrote:

Why is everyone so FF - oriented ? ? ?

Primes.

There are those that want to use mostly primes, and there are several focal lengths that are important.

For instance, if I wanted to use only primes, I'd want to have 35mm, 50mm, 85mm for sure. There are options for these FLs that range from cheap to expensive.

But if you use these lenses with APSH, the apparent FLs (FOVs) change. You have equivalent FOVs of 45mm, 65mm and 110mm. It is that the same for practical purposes, given that you can always 'step back'?

With APSC, that results in 56mm, 80mm, 136. Now you need a prime that on APSC gives a FOV equivalent to 35 and you are covered for 35/50/85 35/56/80.

It is important to take pictures based in these arbitrary FLs? Is it possible to take the same good pictures with ie 45/65/110 instead?

I think that a good photographer will shoot amazing pictures with these primes and a APSH or APSC or whatever sensor, but I for one like to be 'restricted' to the standard FLs/FoVs 35/50/85. I think that that helps me.

OTOH, and taking for instance the 50mm/1.2, I tend to like a lot more the result when I use it with my 5D than with my 1D3 or 7D. Even if my 5Dc focuses worse (way worse with outer AF points ), the pictures tend to be nicer to my eyes (when I nail the focus).

More opinions on this?

 Jaims's gear list:Jaims's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tony field
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,804
Like?
Re: If you don't mind...
In reply to Great Bustard, Jun 11, 2012

Great Bustard wrote:

...I'm going to beat around the bush for a minute. We all agree that the 70-200 / 4L IS is one of the best zooms, right? Well, on a 350D (8 MP):
...

Your bush is well beaten. The concepts of sensor resolution, noise, and DOF rarely make or break the shot (but then these attributes are of little concern to my eyes - unless I am specifically addressing one of the attributes in a shot).

And that brings me to a more direct answer to your question: the difference between APS-C and FF is not dissimilar to the difference between the 70-200 / 4L IS and the 70-200 / 2.8L II IS.

Then again, 100 lw/in is "only" 2 lp/mm, and the "standard" for a high IQ print is 5 lp/mm. So, that's only 40% the way to where it needs to be at 16x20 inches. Some print larger, making it that much greater a gap, many more print smaller (or simply display on the web), making the gap much smaller, or even exceeding the "standard".

The degree of "high IQ" is of concern to some folks - and I can appreciate that. In the majority of cases, higher technical IQ is better than lower IQ - but that is strongly predicated on the nature/size/viewing distance of the specific image. IMHO, post-processing "presentation quality" is what separates a high quality image from a lesser image. This is often independent of the technical camera/lens tools used to capture the original image.

But there are those that pay for an 85 / 1.2L over an 85 / 1.8, so there are those that will pay for a 5D3 over a 7D. The question is, who really looks at a pic from a 5D3 + 135 / 2L and thinks it's magnificent, but finds a pic from the 7D + 85 / 1.8 lacking?

In fact, the vast majority of even technically very competent viewers could not identify one from the other, assuming the same quality of post-processing.

Well, here on DPR, plenty. But outside DPR, really, how many care? I know some do, of course, but I mean, honestly, what percent of the population do you think that might be? 50%? 25%? Or 0.01%?

me thinks, kind sir, that 0.01% is even on the high side however I do know some folks with brilliant eyes that can differentiate subtle difference - and most definitely I am not one of them.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Legion5
Senior MemberPosts: 1,047
Like?
Re: FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages
In reply to tony field, Jun 11, 2012

tony field wrote:

One of the things I find interesting is the fascination people have for a full frame sensor. Personally, I really don't care what the sensor size is - it does not affect the vast majority of images I take - be it in the area of scenic, glamour/fashion, sports, wild life, or performing arts. I can always get a super fine 16x20 print from any format even if the pixel count is compromised - such as a 6mpix Nikon D100. My pixel count "boundary of choice" is about 12 mpix.

As far as I am concerned, the only difference among the format sizes is the nature of angle of view of a given lens and the degree of selective focus at wide apertures for a given lens. In other words, if I choose my lenses appropriately I can effectively duplicate these characteristics as needed (for at least 98% of the shots).

Why is everyone so FF - oriented ? ? ?
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Full frame sensors because of their nature with regard to physics have much less noise, much more detail and much shallower DOF.

The noise difference can be more than 5 times less noise within the same generation. The resolution difference can be and usually is as much as double and the DOF is one and a half stops shallower.

Here is an example of an image shot with an identical lens at an identical aperture above the diffraction limit done by moving the camera back and forth. Focus was checked very carefully and 5D Mark II resized to 7D size:

Even when zoomed out a huge amount the difference is very obvious:

So again why is everyon so FF oriented? 5+ times less noise, twice the detail, and it makes all your lenses gain 1.5 stops.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tony field
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,804
Like?
Re: Primes
In reply to Jaims, Jun 11, 2012

Jaims wrote:

Primes.

There are those that want to use mostly primes, and there are several focal lengths that are important.

For instance, if I wanted to use only primes, I'd want to have 35mm, 50mm, 85mm for sure. There are options for these FLs that range from cheap to expensive.

Humm, sounds like this is a throw back to the good old days of film. I grew up with a Leica system in which the 35/50/90 lenses were the glass of choice and my mind has become accustomed to thinking in terms of the field of view presented.

But if you use these lenses with APSH , the apparent FLs (FOVs) change. You have equivalent FOVs of 45mm, 65mm and 110mm. It is that the same for practical purposes, given that you can always 'step back'?

With APSC, that results in 56mm, 80mm, 136. Now you need a prime that on APSC gives a FOV equivalent to 35 and you are covered for 35/50/85 35/56/80.

The simple solution for the various formats is to choose the 24/35/50/85/100/135mm combinations and you can randomly select your sensor size and field of view with a slight bit of foot zoom.

It is important to take pictures based in these arbitrary FLs? Is it possible to take the same good pictures with ie 45/65/110 instead?

I think that a good photographer will shoot amazing pictures with these primes and a APSH or APSC or whatever sensor, but I for one like to be 'restricted' to the standard FLs/FoVs 35/50/85. I think that that helps me.

Selecting this group of lenses is the equivalent forcing your mind into thinking in certain ways spatially. This is neither good nor bad - when I pick up my Leica, I automatically fall into this mode naturally since it feels "right". Shooting a reflex seems more natural to me when using zooms - and therefore am essentially independent of the sensor size.

OTOH, and taking for instance the 50mm/1.2, I tend to like a lot more the result when I use it with my 5D than with my 1D3 or 7D. Even if my 5Dc focuses worse (way worse with outer AF points ), the pictures tend to be nicer to my eyes (when I nail the focus).

certainly specialty lenses like that allow you to see "differently" and the sensor format can be important for your interpretations.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SUPERHOKIE
Contributing MemberPosts: 961
Like?
Re: FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages
In reply to Legion5, Jun 11, 2012

The 7D image has a focus error.
Go back to the blog and read it again.

The original poster made it clear that the reason why the 7D was fuzzy compared to the 5d was because it had the infamous 7D focus error.

Legion5 wrote:

tony field wrote:

One of the things I find interesting is the fascination people have for a full frame sensor. Personally, I really don't care what the sensor size is - it does not affect the vast majority of images I take - be it in the area of scenic, glamour/fashion, sports, wild life, or performing arts. I can always get a super fine 16x20 print from any format even if the pixel count is compromised - such as a 6mpix Nikon D100. My pixel count "boundary of choice" is about 12 mpix.

As far as I am concerned, the only difference among the format sizes is the nature of angle of view of a given lens and the degree of selective focus at wide apertures for a given lens. In other words, if I choose my lenses appropriately I can effectively duplicate these characteristics as needed (for at least 98% of the shots).

Why is everyone so FF - oriented ? ? ?
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Full frame sensors because of their nature with regard to physics have much less noise, much more detail and much shallower DOF.

The noise difference can be more than 5 times less noise within the same generation. The resolution difference can be and usually is as much as double and the DOF is one and a half stops shallower.

Here is an example of an image shot with an identical lens at an identical aperture above the diffraction limit done by moving the camera back and forth. Focus was checked very carefully and 5D Mark II resized to 7D size:

Even when zoomed out a huge amount the difference is very obvious:

So again why is everyon so FF oriented? 5+ times less noise, twice the detail, and it makes all your lenses gain 1.5 stops.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thelensmeister
Contributing MemberPosts: 866
Like?
Re: FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages
In reply to tony field, Jun 11, 2012

For me it's for a few reasons.

I hate APS-C and I'm probably a snob for it. I only ever owned one crop (that's what it is when you consider EF lens design) camera and that was the 10D. All my focal lengths changed and my 85 1.8 was too long, the 50 1.4 was too long indoors and i only had the 35 f/2 and i didn't like the look of that indoors plus it wasn't very fast.

I personally shoot wide open as much as possible and for me to lose that frame area of out of focus rendering is just not on. Why would I pay all that money for a 1.4 or 1.2 lens and then lose all that lovely bokeh to a crop sensor?

Maybe if you stop down alot or then sensor size isnt as important unless you get into the realms of Great Bustards explanation.
My reasons are for aesthetics rather than technical.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sparkling elk
Contributing MemberPosts: 800Gear list
Like?
Re: FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages
In reply to tony field, Jun 11, 2012

tony field wrote:

Why is everyone so FF - oriented ? ? ?

i think because one might think that the larger FF sensor gives you better pictures and makes you a little bit better photographer...

i abandoned APSC, came to APSH, tried and sold FF and sticked with APSH.

some lenses are better for some things (for me for people) on APSH, like the 50L or 24L. and of course i profit (not badly) from the 1.3 reach factor.

Some zooms and teles are definitely better (for me) on APSH (1635, 70300L).

The main reason i am still dreaming of a new FF body (me too !) is to capture more light, to get better results in critical light situations. for example, at events, i can shoot constantly at ca. iso1000 with the 1D4 and still get excellent IQ. To do the same thing with a camera that delivers the same IQ at iso2000 or iso2500 is nothing bad, or ?
2nd reason is to drive wide angle primes.
--
e.aland

 sparkling elk's gear list:sparkling elk's gear list
Ricoh GR Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Faintandfuzzy
Senior MemberPosts: 3,328Gear list
Like?
Re: FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages
In reply to Legion5, Jun 11, 2012

Legion5 wrote:

tony field wrote:

One of the things I find interesting is the fascination people have for a full frame sensor. Personally, I really don't care what the sensor size is - it does not affect the vast majority of images I take - be it in the area of scenic, glamour/fashion, sports, wild life, or performing arts. I can always get a super fine 16x20 print from any format even if the pixel count is compromised - such as a 6mpix Nikon D100. My pixel count "boundary of choice" is about 12 mpix.

As far as I am concerned, the only difference among the format sizes is the nature of angle of view of a given lens and the degree of selective focus at wide apertures for a given lens. In other words, if I choose my lenses appropriately I can effectively duplicate these characteristics as needed (for at least 98% of the shots).

Why is everyone so FF - oriented ? ? ?
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Full frame sensors because of their nature with regard to physics have much less noise, much more detail and much shallower DOF.

The noise difference can be more than 5 times less noise within the same generation. The resolution difference can be and usually is as much as double and the DOF is one and a half stops shallower.

Here is an example of an image shot with an identical lens at an identical aperture above the diffraction limit done by moving the camera back and forth. Focus was checked very carefully and 5D Mark II resized to 7D size:

Even when zoomed out a huge amount the difference is very obvious:

So again why is everyon so FF oriented? 5+ times less noise, twice the detail, and it makes all your lenses gain 1.5 stops.

Thanks for the laugh. It's always funny to read people spouting off like an authority when they can't even read that the focus was off. Five times less noise? Really? Twice the detail...not according to any review site on the planet....nor my experience with the equipment. Your lenses do not gain 1.5 stops.

On FF, you actually loose 1.5 stops. To maintain the same DOF with and equivalent FOV, you can open open the lens on the APS-C camera 1.5 stops more....thus allowing more light in. That's not a loss....it's a gain.

For a landscape shooter, at base iso, you won't see a difference in even a large print. Sorry.

 Faintandfuzzy's gear list:Faintandfuzzy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Olympus E-10 Nikon Coolpix 950 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS 7D +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mgrum
Contributing MemberPosts: 522
Like?
personal preference
In reply to tony field, Jun 11, 2012

Why is everyone so FF - oriented ? ? ?

I bought a 1D mkIV to replace my 5D. Thought long and hard about it, I wanted to improve upon the speed of the 5D, I wanted a better autofocus system, and a bunch of other things (weather sealing, dual card slots, video). I couldn't afford a 1Ds mkIII, so I started looking at the latest 1D. It had 16 megapixels, ticked all the other boxes, except for... sensor size.

I was able to finally concede that 1.3x crop actually makes a lot of sense, I could use my existing Canon 10-22 with a mod as a wide, I could still get shallow depth of field for a lot of shots, I could see the whole area of the frame more easily in the viewfinder, and the AF points cover a much higher percentage of the frame than with, for example, the 1Ds.

However after two years I'm selling the 1D4, I have just been craving FF, I started using my 5D along side the 1D4, then sometimes I would leave the 1D4 at home and just shoot with the 5D.

I like wide angle shallow depth of field shots, you simply cannot replicate the look of the 35 f/1.4 on APS-C, no 22mm f/0.9 has or ever will be made.

And when equivalent lenses do exist, they're almost always more expensive. To get the same angle of view and DOF as the 135 f/2.0 on APS-C you need an 84mm f/1.25 lens. Eureka such a lens actually exists for the Canon EF mount - the 85 f/1.2L, but, this lens is significantly more expensive, heavier, much slower to focus and softer than the 135 f/2.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jacques Cornell
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,442Gear list
Like?
Re: FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages
In reply to tony field, Jun 11, 2012

FF serves a specific purpose in my work - low-light wide-angle shots. I shoot events in low light with a 35mm f2 on my FF 1Ds2. To get the equivalent on an APS body, I'd need Canon's $1,600 24mm f1.4. Ouch.

OTOH, I love the 1.3x crop factor of my 1D3 with my 100mm f2. Also, it lets my 17-40 f4L double as a mid-range zoom.

Having both APS and FF bodies effectively doubles my lens arsenal.

-- hide signature --

'No matter where you go, there you are.'

 Jacques Cornell's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 +33 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
meland
Senior MemberPosts: 3,255
Like?
Because we came to digital from 35mm film
In reply to tony field, Jun 11, 2012

tony field wrote:

Why is everyone so FF - oriented ? ? ?

I suspect there are many like me who came to FF largely because they were moving from 35mm film.

Firstly I wanted the focal length lenses I had become accustomed to over many years, not 1.6 or 1.3 x those focal lengths. And I wanted true wide angle primes.

Second, having not been terribly impressed with small film formats like 110 and APS I had an inherent suspicion of the smaller digital format.

Third I felt I wanted the shallow depth of focus that I was already accustomed to.

But, apart from the last point most of this is really just a mindset now. The quality of crop sensors is now so good that for most of us they would more than suffice. The lens ranges available for crop bodies satisfy most needs, and for tele work are arguably more useful.

So whilst for some things FF may be still 'better', for many others you can equally well argue the case for crop bodies.

I suspect FF will for many become rather like a V8 engine in cars. Nice to have but too big and too expensive to make real sense for many.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael Thomas Mitchell
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,377
Like?
Re: FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages
In reply to tony field, Jun 11, 2012

I share your ?????

I shoot with all three of the major digital sensor size formats: full frame 35mm, 1.3x, APS-C (1.6x). Field of view has something to do with which one I choose, but mostly I just choose the camera for other features and functions. For example, I love the 1DIIN because it not only has incredible speed, performance, and spot-on auto focus, but it's also only 8MP, which is plenty for most of my stuff. Also, a 24-105L enjoys both its wide angle and tele capabilities on a sensor of its size. The 30D matches it very nicely for image quality, but gives my long lens a little more "reach". These two cameras make excellent companions with the aforementioned lenses for wedding ceremonies.

I love my full frame 1DsII, but admit that it's overkill for most of my needs.

But you're right... to me, sensor size is not everything, and it's likely highly overrated by many who probably just want it because it's more expensive.

tony field wrote:

One of the things I find interesting is the fascination people have for a full frame sensor. Personally, I really don't care what the sensor size is - it does not affect the vast majority of images I take - be it in the area of scenic, glamour/fashion, sports, wild life, or performing arts. I can always get a super fine 16x20 print from any format even if the pixel count is compromised - such as a 6mpix Nikon D100. My pixel count "boundary of choice" is about 12 mpix.

As far as I am concerned, the only difference among the format sizes is the nature of angle of view of a given lens and the degree of selective focus at wide apertures for a given lens. In other words, if I choose my lenses appropriately I can effectively duplicate these characteristics as needed (for at least 98% of the shots).

Why is everyone so FF - oriented ? ? ?
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rick880
Regular MemberPosts: 477
Like?
Re: FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages
In reply to Legion5, Jun 11, 2012

Legion5 wrote:

So again why is everyon so FF oriented? 5+ times less noise, twice the detail, and it makes all your lenses gain 1.5 stops.

I can understand the 1.5 stops of lense gain from the point of shadow DOF but how do you quantatize noise and detail difference in numbers such as 5+ times and twice?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter 13
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,301
Like?
Re: FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages
In reply to tony field, Jun 11, 2012

tony field wrote:

One of the things I find interesting is the fascination people have for a full frame sensor. Personally, I really don't care what the sensor size is - it does not affect the vast majority of images I take - be it in the area of scenic, glamour/fashion, sports, wild life, or performing arts. I can always get a super fine 16x20 print from any format even if the pixel count is compromised - such as a 6mpix Nikon D100. My pixel count "boundary of choice" is about 12 mpix.

As far as I am concerned, the only difference among the format sizes is the nature of angle of view of a given lens and the degree of selective focus at wide apertures for a given lens. In other words, if I choose my lenses appropriately I can effectively duplicate these characteristics as needed (for at least 98% of the shots)

It is better to understand this if you think in equivalent terms (ask GB if in doubt :)).

If you are using EF lenses, you make them 1 1/3 stop slower, and longer. People pay big bucks for fast lenses, why would you want to mount them on a slower body? GB gave a great example with the 70-200 lenses. With crop, you get more reach at the expense of IQ but that is another question.

Also, with FF, you can shoot at ISO that is equivalent to ISO 40 on crop. For critical images and heavy pp, this is important.

More resolution. Resolution is not just a factor of pixel count. The 5Dc can often outresolve the 7D. With crop, you enlarge the image more. The resolution advantage is maximized exactly when you need it most - when shooting with wide open primes. Annoying artifacts as PF wide open are reduced by almost 60%, which is a big deal (and you do not even need to open so much with FF).

A better lens match. The majority of the Canon lenses are designed for FF. There are some excellent EF-S lenses which reduce the difference to some extent though. I find the extensive EF lens collection to be both a blessing and a curse for the Canon crop bodies. This relieves Canon from the responsibility of developing more EF-S lenses. The m4/3 system is better in that respect. They have faster lenses and zooms (faster than the EF-S ones). Even Pentax has better thought lenses for crop users (a 55-135/2.8, for example). In equivalent terms, they are not really fast but at least they have done something about that format that Canon would not do.

Better low light performance. It comes at the expense of DOF (when you want more of it). On the other hand, very often, the DOF is more than needed. Depending on the distance to the subject and the FL, you can have very deep DOF even at f/1.4.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter 13
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,301
Like?
no text
In reply to tony field, Jun 11, 2012
n/t
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nekrosoft13
Regular MemberPosts: 340Gear list
Like?
Re: FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages
In reply to sparkling elk, Jun 11, 2012

sparkling elk wrote:

tony field wrote:

Why is everyone so FF - oriented ? ? ?

i think because one might think that the larger FF sensor gives you better pictures and makes you a little bit better photographer...

i abandoned APSC, came to APSH, tried and sold FF and sticked with APSH.

some lenses are better for some things (for me for people) on APSH, like the 50L or 24L. and of course i profit (not badly) from the 1.3 reach factor.

Some zooms and teles are definitely better (for me) on APSH (1635, 70300L).

The main reason i am still dreaming of a new FF body (me too !) is to capture more light, to get better results in critical light situations. for example, at events, i can shoot constantly at ca. iso1000 with the 1D4 and still get excellent IQ. To do the same thing with a camera that delivers the same IQ at iso2000 or iso2500 is nothing bad, or ?
2nd reason is to drive wide angle primes.
--
e.aland

is that they think they are better, the simple answer is that full frame is better, larger sensor will always capture more light, produce less noise.

 nekrosoft13's gear list:nekrosoft13's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tony field
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,804
Like?
Re: FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages
In reply to Peter 13, Jun 11, 2012

Peter, I certainly agree that the specific aspects of FF, APS-H, APS-C are all different at the detail level when you are pixel peeping. These can be analyzed in extreme technical detail. The real question is - can you see the difference when the print is on the wall? (Alternatively, can you see it in the picture when it is web sized for viewing?)

Is there any reason to be concerned about "equivalence"? I am not - as long as I have reasonable control of field of view, perspective, and DOF with my lenses, I can effectively "duplicate" the quality of image presentation desired. The images are not mathematically "equivalent", however they would be visually similar.

I have a number of 16x20 pictures on my wall taken with 4x5, 6x7, FF, APS-H and APS-C and (except for specific memory of which camera took the image) cannot tell what format was used - certainly for all my digital images, I really do not remember which camera was used and have to go to the digital archive exif information to identify the camera. The only thing that is actually visible is the angle of view as determined by using a wide angle lens vs. a tele (i.e. the visual perspective). Some technical aspects such as noise/grain can be obviously seen, but you still cannot determine the image format.

Interestingly, I have a couple of similar images taken on the 4x5 and the 5D-II, both of which are very clean indeed. Some photographers or models who visit cannot see any difference and assume both were taken with a digital contemporary camera.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter 13
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,301
Like?
Re: FF, APS-H, APS-C, etc advantages
In reply to tony field, Jun 11, 2012

tony field wrote:

Peter, I certainly agree that the specific aspects of FF, APS-H, APS-C are all different at the detail level when you are pixel peeping. These can be analyzed in extreme technical detail. The real question is - can you see the difference when the print is on the wall? (Alternatively, can you see it in the picture when it is web sized for viewing?)

With primes at f/1.4 - f/2.0, most definitely - yes. And I am talking about my 2mp monitor. Also, FF is less sensible to AF errors with such primes. A shot taken with FF at 85/2.0 will stand out compared to a shot taken with the 50L on crop.

Well stopped - the same thing but the difference is less obvious. I loved my 17-55 but for landscapes, it was lacking. My 24-105 on FF does much better on my 2mp screen, full size. It is visible. Of course, there are better options for landscapes but how the most used zooms perform is important.

Is there any reason to be concerned about "equivalence"? I am not - as long as I have reasonable control of field of view, perspective, and DOF with my lenses, I can effectively "duplicate" the quality of image presentation desired. The images are not mathematically "equivalent", however they would be visually similar.

They cannot be (all of them). Equivalence is a fact, like it or not. Certain shots with FF are just impossible on crop. This includes DOF and noise. Even when DOF is possible to match, close to wide open, the IQ is much higher. For example, a shot taken with the 35L at f/2.2 on FF can be almost matched by the 24LII on crop wide open, but the latter would be much softer (I own/used both).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads