with low light performance of the 5n, what is the appeal of full-frame?

Started Nov 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
blue_skies Forum Pro • Posts: 11,211

tesilab wrote:

ennemkay wrote:

is the dof difference really that significant?

And by psychology I mean more than one phenomenon at work:

1. The Standard: FF defines "normal"

35mm film had a long run, and defined what was normal. What you could expect to shoot with a 50mm lens, at what distance. Many of us, though shooting APS-C are always mentally converting every focal length into 35mm equivalents.

There is even a problem with the name. "Full Frame" makes it sound as if any smaller sensor is missing something.

2. Perfectionism: FF is always a bit better than APS-C no matter how good APS-C gets

There is the high ISO advantage. A few years ago, only an FF camera could get a decent shot at ISO 3200. We wanted it. Now even an MFT camera can get a pretty good ISO 3200 image. Doesn't matter, the FF cameras are also getting better, and can give you IS 12,800 shots you could use in a pinch.

Note that in some ways, FF cameras are worse. It isn't just the size. 35mm FF lenses have always struggled to provide good sharpness across the frame. Lenses designed for APS-C don't scale down as much as they could to deliver the same relative performance. Instead they scale down some, and typically provide better results across the entire frame. Focusing performance (with the same technology) also suffers with bigger size.

No way this talks me out of getting that RX1!

1. Is not psychology, it is the crop factor, when comparing same FL lens on crop sensor.

Everything changes when you change the crop factor. That is a fact, not psychology.

2. Is not psychology, you are stating facts why FF is better.

And you seemed to have yourself psyched up about getting an FF camera.

3. There is psychology involved, as most of us may not need the benefits that FF give us nor would use the FF in ways that it matters.

To clarify this more, FF cameras tend to be feature equiped to cater to pros. The Nex-7 lacks a number of such 'pro' features. But this is purely a camera, and not a sensor, issue.

The larger FF sensor allows high resolution with larger pixel sites. As photons are fixed in time and space, such larger pixel sites can capture more photons, giving the FF sensor all sorts of benefits. E.g. shooting at f/5.0 under indoor lighting, or shooting at 1/250sec indoors without creating image noise.

The psychology says FF is better, but so many parameters change that it becomes apples and oranges. Unless under extreme cases, APS-C nowadays is impressive and can cover a pretty wide range of uses quite well.

Under extreme cases, FF allows you to 'push' the camera settings to get faster shutter speeds, lesser DoF, wider FOV, than APS-C can. This is a fact, not psychology. But this rarely matters most of the time.

Unless you are a pro capturing sports or political events and have only so many changes to get a proper picture.

The psychology of FF is best can also be applied to Nex-7 versus the 6/5N. Which is truly better and why? In terms of sensor format, and not camera features. To so many, 'more' is better, but practically it doesn't matter. It does if you are cropping a 400mm image. But not if you are shooting with a zoom lens.

And as a fact, not psychology, to truly unlock the 'pixel level sharpness' of the 7 you better use a tripod or faster shutter speeds, otherwise the 6/5N would have taken a better image.

I trust that you can get impressive pictures with the RX1, but I will wait for PDAF. For casual snaps, I expect the Nex-6 or the LA2 to produce more keepers than the RX1. Also a fact, not psychology.

-- hide signature --


 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony Alpha 7 II Sony Alpha 7R II +35 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow