APS-C vs FF

KingOfAtlantis said:

Maybe just the A7R is filtered to more pro side of shooters rather than the snap happy cheap A6000 people?

Click to expand...

Bingo. A7r usually has more experienced users, not necessarily pro. The a6000, even with kit lenses, is extremely capable. Go ahead and search Flickr for selp1650 and see the amazing pics people get on the a6000 with kit lens

KingOfAtlantis said:

Whenever I type in "A7R" and "A6000" into flickr, the images look so much better on the A7R side. I am trying to work out what it is. Maybe the shallow DOF? Maybe just the A7R is filtered to more pro side of shooters rather than the snap happy cheap A6000 people? Everything just seems better on the A7R search results in general compared to the A6000. I love my A6000 images and it has got me wondering what they would be like had I used a full frame.

Click to expand...

I'd be really surprised if you can see a difference between images made with APS-C and FF cameras at web resolution (say 1200x800). providing the shots are taken equivalently (same FOV, one stop more open for the APS-C camera).

Jim.

someguy50 said:

KingOfAtlantis said:

Maybe just the A7R is filtered to more pro side of shooters rather than the snap happy cheap A6000 people?

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Click to expand...

Right; the differences between APS-C and FF should not be visible on a medium like flickr. Unless you're into extremely shallow DOF or looking at the rare shot where the APS-C sensor lacked dynamic range. Most often, you're looking at differences in photographers using the gear, and both their shooting and post processing skills. It's a percentage thing ... more A7r shots will be taken by very good photographers. You might see more shallow DOF shots with FF, whether due to the decisions of the photographers or because the FF owners are more likely to have lenses that can do shallow DOF, I have no idea.

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

thanks for the replies. I thought that might be the case

Pieterbaan said:

There are a lot of things about the FF cameras.

To start with FF cameras are more expensive then APS cameras. So more beginners will buy an APS camera then a FF camera. So people buying a FF camera are most of the time more experienced and know how to get the most out of the camera.

Then you paid a lot for your camera, so you are willing to pay more for your lenses too. So you will get the best lenses.

Then when you buy a FF camera you are willing to take more time to take your pictures (maybe you are a pro, maybe just an advanced amateur. When you take more time for a picture, you will get better pictures in the end.

The "better" DOF is just one thing, when comparing portraits it can realy make the difference, but often I see pictures here taken with a to shallow DOF, so just part of the face is sharp, the picture does not pop then for me. When doing landscapes (where you want a ot of DOF most of the time) a smaller sensor can be better. A FF camera is less good when doing telework, as the FOV is larger, so you will not "zoom in" as much ass with a crop sensor..

When you are doing low light work, most of the time the larger sensored camera will win.

In the end it is the photographer who takes the picture, it is that person who makes it pop or not.

When you are happy with the pictures from your A6000 stay with that camera, when you are not, it might be better to folow some photoclasses or read a book about how to take great pictures, that might help more then buying a new camera.

Click to expand...

The funny thing is that unless you need ultra-narrow DOF, there are precious few advantages of FF that couldn't be replicated on APS-C if there were the will to do it (better body construction, IBIS, touchscreen, larger EVF, etc. can be placed on APS-C just as easily as FF if Sony really wanted to). (This is assuming equal lenses, which isn't always a good assumption since many FF lenses don't do as well on APS-C and APS-C-only lenses tend to not have the ultra-high-quality stuff since lensmakers cater to FF more than APS-C. But we may see that change with mirrorless since Samsung, Fuji, and MFT are all wedded to below-FF sensor sizes and currently Canon is as well. So there may emerge a market for high-quality APS-C-only mirrorless lenses.)

What many people don't seem to understand is the tradeoff between DOF and light-gathering ability. You sacrifice DOF to get the extra stop of light. If you need that DOF back, then you need to stop down on FE and lose that stop.

Some people buy FF because they hear it's better in low light, but they might be better off buying a speedlite and/or tripod instead. Flashes and tripods are the great equalizers in all but astrophotography and sports-photography types of situations where stabilization and flash don't work as well.

SmoothGlass said:

What many people don't seem to understand is the tradeoff between DOF and light-gathering ability. You sacrifice DOF to get the extra stop of light. If you need that DOF back, then you need to stop down on FE and lose that stop.

Click to expand...

I agree that a lot of people don't consider this ... but it's also not always a consideration. A lot of photography is done at base ISO, whether from a tripod, using IS, or simply in good enough light to use fast shutter speeds, and you can stop down to your heart's content without having to raise ISO. Look at how much photography was done over the years preceding digital with Kodakchrome or Velvia.

I'm not saying that high ISO isn't a great thing - I shoot about 40% of my photos at or above ISO 1600. But depending on what you're shooting, you can exploit larger sensors and still have all the DOF you need.

SmoothGlass said:

Some people buy FF because they hear it's better in low light, but they might be better off buying a speedlite and/or tripod instead.

Click to expand...

Right. Most of my high ISO photography is done with a 70-200/2.8. If I were to go to FF, I'd end up either using a 1.4X TC or cropping a lot of my shots, eliminating or reducing the benefit of the larger sensor in those cases. But there are also times when I'm shooting f/1.8 primes and might be able to use f/1.8 primes on FF just as easily (no worry over DOF) and have less noise or faster shutter speeds. Tripod doesn't help when shooting people, and flash just changes everything. But I just choose not to be bothered by the noise, because in these low light situations without flash, nothing I'm shooting is worth printing big enough to make noise an issue. I think that some people shoot every day stuff in low light, then view it at 100% and object to the noise, even though it's destined for facebook or a family photo book. Flash photos would be technically better, but not always aesthetically better. You get better color, less noise, more contrast, but you lose the ambiance.

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

KingOfAtlantis said:

Whenever I type in "A7R" and "A6000" into flickr, the images look so much better on the A7R side.

Click to expand...

Haha !! I smell troll poo

nah not a troll, was very serious in my observations and wondering if there was anything that I had not considered.

Dennis said:

SmoothGlass said:

What many people don't seem to understand is the tradeoff between DOF and light-gathering ability. You sacrifice DOF to get the extra stop of light. If you need that DOF back, then you need to stop down on FE and lose that stop.

Click to expand...

I agree that a lot of people don't consider this ... but it's also not always a consideration. A lot of photography is done at base ISO, whether from a tripod, using IS, or simply in good enough light to use fast shutter speeds, and you can stop down to your heart's content without having to raise ISO. Look at how much photography was done over the years preceding digital with Kodakchrome or Velvia.

I'm not saying that high ISO isn't a great thing - I shoot about 40% of my photos at or above ISO 1600. But depending on what you're shooting, you can exploit larger sensors and still have all the DOF you need.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow your point unless you are arguing that full frame at ISO 100 is better tan APS-C at ISO 100, which is only barely true. Look at Samsung's or Nikon's most recent APS-C cameras' dynamic range for instance. Even the a6000's ISO 100 DR is very close to the a7 series.

Dennis said:

Dennis said:

Some people buy FF because they hear it's better in low light, but they might be better off buying a speedlite and/or tripod instead.

Click to expand...

Right. Most of my high ISO photography is done with a 70-200/2.8. If I were to go to FF, I'd end up either using a 1.4X TC or cropping a lot of my shots, eliminating or reducing the benefit of the larger sensor in those cases. But there are also times when I'm shooting f/1.8 primes and might be able to use f/1.8 primes on FF just as easily (no worry over DOF) and have less noise or faster shutter speeds. Tripod doesn't help when shooting people, and flash just changes everything. But I just choose not to be bothered by the noise, because in these low light situations without flash, nothing I'm shooting is worth printing big enough to make noise an issue. I think that some people shoot every day stuff in low light, then view it at 100% and object to the noise, even though it's destined for facebook or a family photo book. Flash photos would be technically better, but not always aesthetically better. You get better color, less noise, more contrast, but you lose the ambiance.

Click to expand...

I said "might be" and highlighted 2 cases where it wouldn't be true. You added another case where flash is not desired or allowed and where you are just posting at small sizes to the web anyway... sure, I can agree with that, but those kinds of casual shots tend to be unimportant in the first place.

I don't know if I'm just tired or what but I am not seeing the point you are making. My point was that not everyone would benefit from going to FF, given certain assumptions (that APS-C cameras can be built to high quality--I think MFT/Fuji/Samsung have proven that--and that the lenses are there; and that you aren't shooting fast-moving subjects with long lenses, or the night sky).

SmoothGlass said:

Dennis said:

SmoothGlass said:

What many people don't seem to understand is the tradeoff between DOF and light-gathering ability. You sacrifice DOF to get the extra stop of light. If you need that DOF back, then you need to stop down on FE and lose that stop.

Click to expand...

A lot of photography is done at base ISO, whether from a tripod, using IS, or simply in good enough light to use fast shutter speeds, and you can stop down to your heart's content without having to raise ISO.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow your point unless you are arguing that full frame at ISO 100 is better tan APS-C at ISO 100, which is only barely true.

Click to expand...

Well, let's put it this way ... you suggested that when you need the DOF, you "need to stop down on FE and lose that stop" suggesting that that stop of light gathering ability is a good thing.

If you don't believe there's an IQ advantage to a larger sensor, then all bets are off.

But in a nutshell, my point is that your "tradeoff between DOF and light-gathering ability" only applies when your shutter speeds are constrained.

You're arguing that FF offers few benefits, yet when you consider these cases:

1. You can shoot with the same f-stop on FF because the lenses are available/affordable and you don't mind the shallow DOF
2. You have to stop down on FF because the lenses are not available/affordable or you need the DOF and ...
   2a. You have to raise the ISO because you need a certain shutter speed
   2b. You don't have to raise the ISO because you don't need a certain shutter speed

I'd suggest that there are actually an awful lot of cases where people can benefit from FF. (FWIW, I shoot APS-C, simply because I don't print big enough to realize the benefits of a larger sensor).

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

SmoothGlass said:

Dennis said:

SmoothGlass said:

What many people don't seem to understand is the tradeoff between DOF and light-gathering ability. You sacrifice DOF to get the extra stop of light. If you need that DOF back, then you need to stop down on FE and lose that stop.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

There's no such a thing as 'sacrificing DoF' in a general sense. You can change distance, max aperture or FL to get the DoF you need, you don't have to adhere to the artificial construct of using the same lens with the same distance, FL or FoV.

There is no 'correct' or 'most desirable' DoF. It's as relative as your composition. The same way that there's no one correct FL.

There's also no 'FE'. That's just what Sony terms its lenses that are FF compatible. It's not a mount and it's not a sensor format reference like 'FX and DX'.

You can lose focal range if you go with an 18-55 compared to a 16-70, and there you actually do have a 'loss' of a tangible nature. Similarly, you can have a lens with smaller maximum aperture, like F4 vs. F2.8. Optical performance equal there, you're losing flexibility. But a FF body itself has a greater range for control over DoF, not less.

SmoothGlass said:

SmoothGlass said:

I agree that a lot of people don't consider this ... but it's also not always a consideration. A lot of photography is done at base ISO, whether from a tripod, using IS, or simply in good enough light to use fast shutter speeds, and you can stop down to your heart's content without having to raise ISO. Look at how much photography was done over the years preceding digital with Kodakchrome or Velvia.

I'm not saying that high ISO isn't a great thing - I shoot about 40% of my photos at or above ISO 1600. But depending on what you're shooting, you can exploit larger sensors and still have all the DOF you need.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow your point unless you are arguing that full frame at ISO 100 is better tan APS-C at ISO 100, which is only barely true. Look at Samsung's or Nikon's most recent APS-C cameras' dynamic range for instance. Even the a6000's ISO 100 DR is very close to the a7 series.

Click to expand...

It's close relative to prior generations of APS-C cameras and the gap is indeed narrowing, but it's still a detectable difference. The A7 series produces superior tonal, dynamic range and SnR across the ISO spectrum.







You can't change the physics of the larger capacity light wells.

There are certainly real reasons to go with smaller sensor cameras, but that's predominantly relating to size, weight and price. In the case of the A6000 vs A7 series, AF performance is better as well.

Dennis said:

SmoothGlass said:

Dennis said:

SmoothGlass said:

What many people don't seem to understand is the tradeoff between DOF and light-gathering ability. You sacrifice DOF to get the extra stop of light. If you need that DOF back, then you need to stop down on FE and lose that stop.

Click to expand...

A lot of photography is done at base ISO, whether from a tripod, using IS, or simply in good enough light to use fast shutter speeds, and you can stop down to your heart's content without having to raise ISO.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow your point unless you are arguing that full frame at ISO 100 is better tan APS-C at ISO 100, which is only barely true.

Click to expand...

Well, let's put it this way ... you suggested that when you need the DOF, you "need to stop down on FE and lose that stop" suggesting that that stop of light gathering ability is a good thing.

If you don't believe there's an IQ advantage to a larger sensor, then all bets are off.

But in a nutshell, my point is that your "tradeoff between DOF and light-gathering ability" only applies when your shutter speeds are constrained.

Click to expand...

I think you're overthinking what I wrote. See below.

Dennis said:

You're arguing that FF offers few benefits, yet when you consider these cases:

1. You can shoot with the same f-stop on FF because the lenses are available/affordable and you don't mind the shallow DOF
2. You have to stop down on FF because the lenses are not available/affordable or you need the DOF and ...
   2a. You have to raise the ISO because you need a certain shutter speed
   2b. You don't have to raise the ISO because you don't need a certain shutter speed

I'd suggest that there are actually an awful lot of cases where people can benefit from FF. (FWIW, I shoot APS-C, simply because I don't print big enough to realize the benefits of a larger sensor).

Click to expand...

I already highlighted the tradeoff between DOF and greater light gathered. I also highlighted a few cases where FF does benefit.

It depends on your use case. For astro, action shots with long lenses, etc. FF has a decided advantage because DOF doesn't factor in much and you can't use a flash or tripod or lengthen your shutter speed, so you have to boost ISO as necessary to reach acceptable shutter speed.

Many photographers do not shoot that much astro or telephoto that's long enough or in low enough light to make FF much of an advantage, especially if it means higher size/weight/costs.

My comment about how some people might be better off with a flash or tripod + APS-C is because a larger sensor is not always the most efficient solution. Flash is not always wanted or allowed, but it's a powerful solution to too-low levels of light. Why do you think studio and wedding photographers have so much lighting gear? Because the answer is not ever larger sensors and lenses, which only gets you maybe another stop or two (FF or MF). A flash, strobe, etc. can get you much more than just a stop or two and also allow you to do more interesting effects with lighting than simply capturing available-light photos. Similarly, for long exposures the answer is a tripod, not hand-holding a full frame camera and boosting ISO to try to compensate for handshake.

KingOfAtlantis said:

nah not a troll, was very serious in my observations and wondering if there was anything that I had not considered.

Click to expand...

What would you expect from a camera body that often performs best on a tripod, and requires more planning and thought to get the best out of it ?

SmoothGlass said:

I already highlighted the tradeoff between DOF and greater light gathered.

Click to expand...

And my contention is that this tradeoff only exists some of the time. You allude to that as well, but I think the tradeoff exists less often.

SmoothGlass said:

It depends on your use case.

Click to expand...

What about landscape ? Or street photography or architecture or any outdoor scenarios where base ISO is used because of a tripod or just because there's enough light.

SmoothGlass said:

A flash, strobe, etc. can get you much more than just a stop or two and also allow you to do more interesting effects with lighting than simply capturing available-light photos.

Click to expand...

Sure, I agree with that. I was just addressing that tradeoff between DOF and light-gathering ... you said that people looking to go FF don't understand it. I guess maybe you're just more focused on low light photography here than I gathered, because I see plenty of cases where FF would be beneficial outside of astrophotography or shallow DOF.

SmoothGlass said:

Similarly, for long exposures the answer is a tripod, not hand-holding a full frame camera and boosting ISO to try to compensate for handshake.

Click to expand...

Right - and that's how you can keep your DOF without giving up the light gathering benefit of the larger sensor.

At this point, it sounds like we don't really even have anything to disagree on; just irrelevant questions over what each of us is trying to say

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Dennis said:

SmoothGlass said:

I already highlighted the tradeoff between DOF and greater light gathered.

Click to expand...

And my contention is that this tradeoff only exists some of the time. You allude to that as well, but I think the tradeoff exists less often.

Click to expand...

I "allude" to that? Huh?? I clearly stated in my first post in this thread that IF you need more DOF then you need to stop down anyway.

Dennis said:

Dennis said:

It depends on your use case.

Click to expand...

What about landscape ? Or street photography or architecture or any outdoor scenarios where base ISO is used because of a tripod or just because there's enough light.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is debate about that in this thread including my response to you that at ISO 100 vs ISO 100 pitting the best APS-C vs best FF sensors, there isn't much advantage. You get maybe a little better DR or color depending on the exact sensor/camera model. I already discussed this and others have chimed in... basically today's best APS-C is so good that at ISO 100 it's really close to FF. That's not a knock on FF, it's a testament to how much sensors have improved over the years.

Dennis said:

Dennis said:

A flash, strobe, etc. can get you much more than just a stop or two and also allow you to do more interesting effects with lighting than simply capturing available-light photos.

Click to expand...

Sure, I agree with that. I was just addressing that tradeoff between DOF and light-gathering ... you said that people looking to go FF don't understand it. I guess maybe you're just more focused on low light photography here than I gathered, because I see plenty of cases where FF would be beneficial outside of astrophotography or shallow DOF.

Click to expand...

Actually, I said that some people might hear that FF is better in low light and get a FF camera without understanding the nuances. I talked about shallow DOF, astro, and long-telephoto-with-high-shutter-speed situations (which I think I abbreviated as sports/action photography). You added another case which is casual flashless shots posted at low resolution to social media sites, which is true, but as I stated earlier, those kinds of shots aren't often that important in the first place.

I would add one more scenario though: for emergencies, like if you would normally take a photo with flash but your flash breaks or something, then you may be forced to max aperture and crank up ISO, and FF is good for that.

Dennis said:

Dennis said:

Similarly, for long exposures the answer is a tripod, not hand-holding a full frame camera and boosting ISO to try to compensate for handshake.

Click to expand...

Right - and that's how you can keep your DOF without giving up the light gathering benefit of the larger sensor.

Click to expand...

See above comment about APS-C vs FF at ISO 100.

Dennis said:

At this point, it sounds like we don't really even have anything to disagree on; just irrelevant questions over what each of us is trying to say

Click to expand...

Yeah I am not even really arguing for or against FF, just pointing out that not all photos benefit from FF, and that in some cases you could do better with APS-C + flash and/or tripod instead of barehanded FF.

I'm definitely not arguing that FF doesn't have advantages in some instances, and I gave examples.

And I would say that if you ignore size/weight/cost, then FF is more flexible overall because it gives you more options to stop down or not, and you can use flash and tripod with FF as well. But size/weight/cost are big factors to many people.

Forgive me for not caring what you think after calling me a troll.

I find it really weird that your troll comment got so many likes. This forum seems to be more about fighting than being constructive. Are you all that miserable with yourselves that you have to try pull others down below you?

Why is it when I drive my BMW 6 series it always seems so much nicer than my Ford Focus?

Could it be that it costs 4 times as much?

Have you ever compared the A7ii with the a6000?

Now there's an amazing comparison for a camera that costs one third of the other.

The A7r is the only full-frame camera that I have considered buying because there IS a clear difference in quality, namely, resolution, DR and color gammut. But it would be as a second camera, mostly for landscapes and portraits. For everything else the a6000 is great!

Cheers

Put a wider aperture lens on an APS-C camera and it will equal a FF camera. The one place they would not be equal is at ISO100, but being honest there is no practical difference there either unless the picture was improperly exposed.

Since the A7r is such a dog focusing, in the proper hands I believe the A6000 (or almost any NEX) can obtain equal or possibly better results. The one difference would be resolution, but for Flickr 36MP means little.