I'm sure you're right. I used billboard as an example because I can't imagine any normal person printing larger than that.
APS-C is a very reasonable, and popular choice.
Don't forget that a smaller sensor requires more enlargement (ratio of print size to sensor size). Therefore a lens on an APS-C has to be sharper (in terms of lines per mm on the sensor) than a lens for a full frame.
It's not "a bit" if we're talking about same sensor tech with different size of sensor. Difference is very significant. That's why reportage shooters never use APS-C. Situation with lack of light would make shooting on APS-C with decent quality nearly impossible.
It depends. If you need to stop down for sufficient depth of field to keep your subject in focus, then APS-C has the same low light performance as full frame.
It's generally one stop (for same generation technology). People can decide if that's significant or not.
I'll bet many could use APS-C considering that reportage today means largely web-based small images, or maybe 8MP for a 4K signal. Even phones are used for reportage now.
People can also decide what the terms decent quality and nearly impossible mean to them.
One stop is seldom that significant. People's ability to hand-hold, or the effectiveness of image stabilisation, can vary by far more than that. Moreover, most public news images don't have to be great quality.
Actually, at the same angle of view, and same depth of field, the difference is about zero stops.
The selection of gear used by reporters is typically a business decision made with little input from the photographers. Generally it has to do with volume discounts and repair agreements.
Yes. For instance if you need f/8 on your full frame to get the whole subject in focus, you can easily match the low light performance by using f/5.6 on your APS-C.
If that is appropriate to capture the image, of course. Higher ISO on APSC is also most reasonable.Why would you shoot an APS-C camera at the same ISO as a full frame?My wife has APS-C. I have Full Frame. There’s a ton of overlap in usage.
In terms of resolution, her camera has more megapixel’s than mine, but it’s the highest resolution APS-C sensor currently made at 32.5 megapixels. I’m at a lowly 26 or so.
I don’t know about all the test charts, but mine visibly performs better above ISO 1,600. Otherwise, with similar framing and angle of view, I think they’re pretty equal.
Her system is far more compact than mine, which suits our hand size and what we’re willing to carry around.
Equivalence is explicitave and generally useless photographically unless you have some reason to compare camera of different formats purely for technical entertainment.
Yup
It's clearly that you didn't shot at night much. I'm into night street photography for more than 10 years. Let me tell you something. When you're - for an example at f8, difference on APS-C and FF depth of field would be nearly invisible, while you still get much better ISO perfomance. Also, even if you shoot with narrow depth of field you still ABLE to shoot at high ISOs, even if it 1.4 or 2.8, while on APS-C, yes, you'd get wider depth of field, but you'd still won't be able to shoot due to very high level of noise. it's not like "I gonna get better images with a fullframe", NO. It's rather - "if I gonna make a shot at all or not". And wider depth of field on APS-C is not that wider as how much ISO on FF is better. So, it's not about whether APS-C or fullframe is better. It's all about the ability to get the shot or get nothing, and who cares at this point whether it would be narrow depth of field on 1.4 on FF or it wouldn't - while the picture would be taken, and would be taken in DECENT image quality with ability to post-process shot, because on modern FF even at high ISOs - DR is still pretty nice. At this point, in such types of photography - nobody cares how narrow would be depth of field, because it's not about depth of field at all. It's literally only about ability to take the shot itself. With FF you go home with a nice pictures, and with APS-C you going home with a noisy mess. It's what night street photography is. I bet, reportage shooters, who're working in the field a lot and shooting at night can tell you completely same things.
It's about less than 1% use MFT and APS-C between top professional shooters. It's not one step difference. It's the ability to get at least something worthy in ultra lowlight at high ISOs, I mean, with latest FF low MP bodies you can make a shot at 20K ISO (and even higher), and still being able to use it after some editing and reducing the noise. While with APS-C it's literally impossible. This is very significant difference we're talking about, it's going much further than just "what images would be noisier", it's not about that. It's about "how far I can push towards the limits to get usable shots, even if noise would be pretty high"- because on FF noise is looking less messy and more pleasant, due to much bigger size of photodiodes. Of course it's all apply only to low MP latest FF cameras, I'm not talking about 60mp Sony A7R4 here. It's all not about the "quality of the picture", it's all about the existence of the picture itself or its absence.
Yes, we know there is an envelope in which either format can produce essentially the same result. We also know that the sensor area matters when DOF isn't important (and sometimes it isn't), so there does come a point at which the full frame shooting envelope exceeds the APS-C shooting envelope by about one stop.
Don't say that to the photographers who shot Nikon D2h and d2 etc or Canon APSH for low light news, performing Arts, and others. There are many ways to characterize quality.
I guess it's the reason Nikon ditched APS-C very fast on professional cameras... Not to mention that nearly 99.99% of top professional shooters are now on latest FF cameras. You can't to talk about the things you only heard off, mate, I'm into night street photography for many years, and I'm talking about what is real and what is not. Low MP FF camera provides much more light on same sensor tech due to MUCH BIGGER photodiodes and that's it. It's about technology, not about preferences. And we can also start discussing good old times of Large Format Cameras if you want, but that's wouldn't be relatable at all also, just because in an age of D2h sensors cost a fortune and all companies tried to save money on production means. Also not to mention that in the era when Nikon used only APS-C nearly all of professionals (I mean - most of them) moved to Canon's fullframe sensors and sales of Nikon pro bodies was significantly lower at that time. That's it.
Please offer proof of that.
How does your being a night street photographer make you an expert on the world of professional shooters?
Uh-oh, now we see that a sensible discussion is probably hopeless. Not worth wasting my time anymore.
Please offer proof that the grass is green.
Because night street photography and night reportage outdoors shooting is basically one thing whatsoever.
Going away when you hearing unknown word [photodiodes] is shameful practice. The funny thing is that photodiodes is the heart of digital photography, and they define it all, so if you ain't familiar with photodiodes technology - you basically have no right to speak about digital photography's technologies at all.
Yes. The full frame shooting envelope exceeds APS-C by one stop. But you need to keep in mind that the one stop of less noise is tied to one stop less depth of field.
I don't dispute that full frame offers low light advantages. I am merely pointing out that you only get those advantages when you are shooting at a depth of field that is narrower than what you can get with APS-C.
I suspect that of the current pro cameras are FF for general quality reasons. Higher ISO happens to benefit.
Yet, people here are comparing image noise between APS-C and full frame at the same ISO.If that is appropriate to capture the image, of course. Higher ISO on APSC is also most reasonable.Why would you shoot an APS-C camera at the same ISO as a full frame?My wife has APS-C. I have Full Frame. There’s a ton of overlap in usage.
In terms of resolution, her camera has more megapixel’s than mine, but it’s the highest resolution APS-C sensor currently made at 32.5 megapixels. I’m at a lowly 26 or so.
I don’t know about all the test charts, but mine visibly performs better above ISO 1,600. Otherwise, with similar framing and angle of view, I think they’re pretty equal.
Her system is far more compact than mine, which suits our hand size and what we’re willing to carry around.
Equivalence is explicitave and generally useless photographically unless you have some reason to compare camera of different formats purely for technical entertainment.
