APS-C IMAGE QUALITY VS fULL fRAME AT TESTING

Started Feb 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
MOD schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: APS-C IMAGE QUALITY VS fULL fRAME AT TESTING

MAC wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Redteg94 wrote:

You're not enlarging the FF image as much, so it isn't as "hard" on the lens in question. This allows an FF sensor to provide more resolution than APS-C even if it has less MP (as long as you frame the same/are not FL limited). For example, I've noticed that the 13MP 5D will give slightly better resolution than the 18MP sensor in my 7D if framed the same.

Sort of - though I fear you may be making the same error that a few others do here.

The 12.8MP 5D definitely does not resolve more than the 18MP 7D. The whole idea is ridiculous as the sensor has about 5 million pixels less resolution.

not according to dxo and gianp2k!

did we ever hear from Andy W.?

Though I think you could be correct, we need a "proper test"

To take a 50 and physically move closer to get the same framing - duh - moving closer my eyes see more resolution, more fine print, when I move closer.

The farther way to go to magnify from a small sensor vs the lesser way to go to magnify from a big sensor also has some impact.

the lens behaves differently on different cameras

the aa is different

lots of differences

I wouldn't use "definitely"

We need to see a proper test!

Just curious about ...

1. What was wrong with the test I posted earlier in that other thread? Do you consider it to be not "a proper test"?

2. If you think something was wrong, how would you design a test for comparing the resolving abilities of two different sensors?

But sharpness (which is NOT resolution) is a factor of more than resolution. The other big contributor is acutance. And it is this parameter that the 5D is ahead in, because the big pixels, which resolve less, provide better acutance. So overall, the sharpness may appear better even though the sensor is resolving less detail. This difference can largely be eliminated with use of proper sharpening though, leaving more detail resolved and very similar sharpness in the 7D image.

sharpening ain't a good thing - > more noise

better acutance is noticeable. others discount my claim of weak aa. probably weak aa AND those nice Big Pixels

Yeah - I didn't mean to be dismissive. The AA filter would have some effect (if, indeed, it does have a weak AA filter).

That's why I find it funny that people often say FF requires better lenses: the opposite is true both in a resolution and DOF standpoint. Even the much maligned 28-135IS on a 6D or 5D3 will give better results than a 17-55 on my 7D.

Yes - but then both the 6D and the 5D3 have higher resolution sensors than the 7D. Just as the 7D has a higher resolution sensor than the 5D.

...but how big does one need to go with this stuff? I make 20x30's and below. my 5dc, 60d, T4i are fine. One would be hard pressed to tell the difference iso100-400 between my 60d and your 5d3 at these sizes unless we are talking Dramatic Shallow DoF of your siggy F1.4 @ F1.4 - which I'll have soon for my 5dc - and then it will be difficult to tell the difference iso 3200 and below - except for the faster capture rate advantage of 5d3 of course

I agree completely. But stating that all these cameras will deliver great quality images seems to be quite controversial around here! Hehe!

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MAC
MOD schmegg
MAC
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MAC
MAC
MAC
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MAC
MOD schmegg
MAC
MOD schmegg
MAC
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow