PhotoTeach2 wrote:
Great Bustard wrote:
PhotoTeach2 wrote:
The point is that I do NOT CARE about NOISE (until it becomes noticeably objectionable).
Isn't that something of a red herring? That is, has anyone ever claimed otherwise?
Absolutely, every time they object to smaller sensors because they are noisy.
So you're saying that people care too much about noise because 1" sensors never take photos that have "noticeably objectionable" noise with respect to a larger sensor?
And I do NOT CARE about DOF because there are both advantages and disadvantages to both shallow and deep DOF. But overall I prefer deeper DOF because I can create shallow-DOF when needed, (selectively and controllably.
So is this about your personal preferences, or the reality of the matter? Also, can you give an example of a DOF 1" can shoot that APS-C cannot?
I can shoot a RX10-IV @ f/16, or 1/2.3" @ f/8 and it would require f/45 or f/64 to equal, (ignoring diffraction). But those f/stops are not-available on most lenses.
If you typically (or even occasionally) shoot f/45 and f/64 equivalent, then, for sure, I agree. However, I think it's rather rare (even for macrophotographers) for people who care about IQ to do that, since the resolution lost to diffraction is pretty high. Instead, they will focus stack.
In low-light, I can shoot @ f/2.8 with deeper-DOF than a FF @ f/2.8, (considering typical kit lenses are f/3.5-4).
But why do you have to shoot f/2.8 on FF when you care more about deeper DOF than noise? Wouldn't you just stop down to, say, f/8 on FF and get the same noise as f/2.8 on 1" (for the same scene and exposure time), if deeper DOF meant more than a less noisy photo? Of course, if you're always doing that, then, for sure, the 1" sensor camera is likely the better option (due to differences in size, weight, and price).
At f/1.8 I can use either a lower-ISO (for less noise if that is a factor).
The lower ISO setting simply results in the camera using a wider aperture and/or longer exposure time, either of which results in more light being projected on the sensor, thus a less noisy photo.
What the lower ISO setting does NOT do, is tell you that a lower ISO setting on 1" results in a less noisy photo than a higher ISO setting on APS-C.
or
I can use 2-stops faster shutter-speed, (which may often be very critical).
It does not. Whatever exposure time you can use on 1", at whatever f-number you want, you can use the same exposure time on APS-C.
At higher ISO, (more noise and lower-DR).
Not compared to the smaller sensor. For the same scene, DOF, and exposure time, the same total amount of light is projected on the sensor for *all* systems, thus the same noise for roughly the same tech.
I BINGO that too-many here are obsessed w/ noise and (shallow) DOF.
When they matter. If they don't matter, no one obsesses over them.
What is this entire thread about ???
f/1.8 on 1" vs f/3.5 on APS-C. Not FF. Not your preference for a deeper DOF in every circumstance. I mean, we can discuss those, sure, but you asked what the entire thread was about, and it was f/1.8 on 1" vs f/3.5 on APS-C.
I support the ability to shoot at higher-SS @ lowest ISO, (for greater DR).
For a given system and if DOF does not matter. But this is not so when comparing between formats and/or when DOF is a factor.
FF is an inherent advantage if you want/need shallow-DOF,
FF also has an "inherent advantage" for a great deal of deep DOF photography, such as landscape photography. It just has no "inherent advantage" for the same DOF and exposure time over smaller formats, but there are plenty of non-trivial situations where you can get all the DOF you need (and more) with a "fast enough" exposure time at base ISO.
In short, while larger sensor systems are usually at a disadvantage with regards to size, weight, and price, they typically have superior IQ throughout both the entire DOF range and the entire light range.
(unless you might prefer the advantage of selective/controllable DOF via PP).
Well, you can do the same with FF, too, but it's not an advantage -- just as with smaller formats, even if the "controllable DOF via PP" looks good, it results in a more noisy photo.
For whatever reason, you *actively refuse* to understand that DOF, noise, and motion blur go hand-in-hand, and refuse to acknowledge that larger sensor systems are absolutely not at a disadvantage for deep DOF photography, as you so often falsely claim.
