In what way? Of course it doesn't increase detail or artistic image quality, but for the purpose of the discussion, it result in a good quality printUp-sampling is overrated
For an equivalent DOF, diffraction is the same. The disadvantage of having to stop down a FF more for the same DOF is the requirement of either a higher ISO or slower shutter speed. If shooting fast-moving subjects the slower shutter speed could be a problem or the higher ISO would negate the FF noise advantage.
Although it is popular to think of resolution as being pixel count, it is technically incorrect.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.
Negate the noise advantage, but would it actually turn it into a disadvantage? If not, then we’re back to weight and cost being the only true advantages of APS-C. Outside of a pocket of really wide angle and shallow depth of field, either format can equal the results of the other.
As I said previously it's possible for FF cameras to have a much higher resolution. It's the primary reason I replaced my 24mp APSC camera with a 42mp FF.
At the same angle of view, same aperture diameter, same shutter speed, and same subject, you get the "same" result.
I have to disagree with that post. I'm not talking about pixel density which has it's own drawbacks relative to noise. More noise requires more noise reduction which in turn reduces effective resolution. There's no way around it that a 42mp FF camera will reveal more detail than a 24mp APSC camera. That is a fact.
It does often seem that way!<>
Naturally, I'm 100% sure some experts, on these forums, will disagree with everything I've said. People have to justify their full frame, high megapixel cameras, and their new computers and monitors that can't display the resolution produced by their camera sensors.
Actually, in an 8" by 10" print, the 42 mp full frame camera may not reveal more detail that a 12 mp APS-C camera. The reason is that the limiting factor is the resolution of the printer and the human eye. You're not going to see more than 10 megapixels of detail in that 8" by 10" print.
Diffraction has become less of an issue. At least that is the case for my Canon cameras.
Good to read stuff by someone who actually knows the significance of aperture diameter as opposed to the dumbed-down (normalized) f-number.
I won't disagree with any of that but I'm talking about an absolute potential resolution that can make a difference in huge prints or a heavily cropped image. I love 42mp for the ability to crop and maintain a high enough resolution for large prints or pixel peeping examination. I also consider an 8x10 print small. I can do extreme cropping on a 42mp FF image and still have plenty for a good 8x10 print.
It sounds like 42 megapixels makes sense for you. Your images rely on fine details, you make very large prints, and those prints are viewed at close distances.I won't disagree with any of that but I'm talking about an absolute potential resolution that can make a difference in huge prints or a heavily cropped image. I love 42mp for the ability to crop and maintain a high enough resolution for large prints or pixel peeping examination. I also consider an 8x10 print small. I can do extreme cropping on a 42mp FF image and still have plenty for a good 8x10 print.
Before
After
I made an 8x10 print of this that looked great.
This is most refreshing!! It is a so nice to see a real image to illustrate your point clearly with little, but useful, prose. All of the other "photographers" seem more intent on providing that passed their highschool English composition exams. I hoped that people making strong statements about photography could illustrate exactly with images along with necessary verbal and description. I begin to question if they actually can do what they verbally espoused.I won't disagree with any of that but I'm talking about an absolute potential resolution that can make a difference in huge prints or a heavily cropped image. I love 42mp for the ability to crop and maintain a high enough resolution for large prints or pixel peeping examination. I also consider an 8x10 print small. I can do extreme cropping on a 42mp FF image and still have plenty for a good 8x10 print.
Before
After
I made an 8x10 print of this that looked great.
Thank You. Due to my technical background when writing I like to say as much as I can with as few words as possible. A writer I am not.
