Nikon FF v APS-C image comparison

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Donald B
Donald B Veteran Member • Posts: 8,313
Re: Don't jump to conclusions......

Rod McD wrote:


Roger, a rhetorical question or two -  why don't you sell your APSC camera and buy a 16mpx compact?  Who needs APSC?

I think we need to be really careful of the argument that says "well it's only an X% increase in sensor size, the mpx are the same, so all this talk of IQ improvement is overrated, and it's not worth the expense".  If that were true, then it applies at smaller sensor sizes too.  You can easily imagine a Micro Four Thirds user using the same argument to say that he shouldn't go to APSC.  And then you can imagine a 1" user using the same argument to say that he shouldn't go to MFT (etc, etc). There is a wide and gradual range of sensor sizes (for any given mpx) and each is a modest step up from the last.  If you applied this argument at each step up, no increase in sensor size would be worth it - which is obviously absurd.  As a technology scales up, one sometimes has to be satisfied with incrementally smaller improvements, but perhaps they're still worth having.

To me, the question is exactly that - are they worth having?  Where do we individually set our preferences about resolution, enlargement, and print IQ?  There are only personal answers to this question - no right ones - and at least part of the reason for that is that we all have different desires, different budgets and different intentions for our photography.

This isn't new......I'm reminded about my film days.  Dedicated users of the best 35mm equipment would scoff at the concept of buying into medium format.  They would produce all sorts of arguments about their satisfaction with their large prints.  Leica owners would proudly say that they'd blown them up to six foot by four foot and they looked great.......  But none of it, except their own satisfaction with their own prints, was true.  Side by side, medium format won the IQ battle hands down.  And large format beat that hands down.  (Obviously this is for photography where all formats could be used - in my case landscape prints.  Larger formats certainly had their limitations eg poor for portability, sports and wildlife, exactly where 35mm had its strengths).

Plus, there may be other reasons for considering FF as I suggested in my earlier post in this thread.  (eg Higher resolution sensors of the same photosite density, better DR, DOF control, TS lenses, better VFs, etc).

It is all food for thought though......a good and timely discussion



i just looked at tech radar and at base iso the fuji x20 can nearly resolve the same as the sony ff rx1 compact. 2400 vers 2600 boy i was supprised by this comparrision. sure high iso goes easily to the ff but if you dont shoot low light sports at 6400 then it realy doesnt matter. $550 comparred to $3g.

cheers don

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

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