APS-C or Full Frame?

[Pepe-Lepue]

I rather like Zack Arias' take on it: http://petapixel.com/2014/07/28/cro...-world-look-at-the-crop-vs-full-frame-debate/
Enjoy

There is no doubt that (most) top end audio gear is better. But, for each small increment of improvement as you get better gear, the cost rises exponentially. Whether the improvement is worth the additional cost depends (snobbery aside) on the taste and pocket of the user and the use they have for the stuff. Exquisite sound in a very large room requires different gear to a smaller room. If you are going to show your pictures at post card size or at up to say A4, you have very different needs to someone who is doing large prints. Like audio, every small increases in IQ costs proportionally more. The advantages of ff over aspc are exactly the same. Some will never use, notice or need the advantages available from FF. For others, it is worth every cent.

 

[Dave Sanders]

...on my a7R and the results will be just like the Fujis.

Absolutely not, the results will look MUCH better on your A7R (APS-c mode) because you don't have that horrid X-trans sensor ;-)

What's horrid about the X-trans sensor?

Anything with foliage gets mushy and can lack distinct detail. Other RAW converters do a better job than LR/PS but then you have to modify your workflow. There is also the issue of overstated ISOs (about a stop) and the fact that 6400 appears to be cooked and offers waxy skin tones and above that is JPEG only. That said, I think Fuji makes excellent cameras and lenses and I really like them... but their image quality is the same as any other 16mp APS-C. Any comparisons to higher MP FF or MF are from paid shills or people who need glasses.
--
Dave Sanders

 

[stevo23]

...on my a7R and the results will be just like the Fujis.

Absolutely not, the results will look MUCH better on your A7R (APS-c mode) because you don't have that horrid X-trans sensor ;-)

What's horrid about the X-trans sensor?

Anything with foliage gets mushy and can lack distinct detail. Other RAW converters do a better job than LR/PS but then you have to modify your workflow. There is also the issue of overstated ISOs (about a stop) and the fact that 6400 appears to be cooked and offers waxy skin tones and above that is JPEG only. That said, I think Fuji makes excellent cameras and lenses and I really like them... but their image quality is the same as any other 16mp APS-C. Any comparisons to higher MP FF or MF are from paid shills or people who need glasses.

You're making me glad I didn't get the X-Pro1...

 

[Dave Sanders]

...on my a7R and the results will be just like the Fujis.

Absolutely not, the results will look MUCH better on your A7R (APS-c mode) because you don't have that horrid X-trans sensor ;-)

What's horrid about the X-trans sensor?

Anything with foliage gets mushy and can lack distinct detail. Other RAW converters do a better job than LR/PS but then you have to modify your workflow. There is also the issue of overstated ISOs (about a stop) and the fact that 6400 appears to be cooked and offers waxy skin tones and above that is JPEG only. That said, I think Fuji makes excellent cameras and lenses and I really like them... but their image quality is the same as any other 16mp APS-C. Any comparisons to higher MP FF or MF are from paid shills or people who need glasses.

You're making me glad I didn't get the X-Pro1...

They definitely have a dedicated following. The XT1 is a beauty. But the hyperbole surrounding what is pretty standard 16mp performance is galling. I shoot with an X100s and it wasn't till I began to visit the Fuji forum that I realized I was suppose to be seeing transformative sharpness and colour... In JPEG of course. The Fujis do produce an excellent JPEG but I still produce a better RAW. Shooting an X100s side-by-side with an RX1 was what made me realize that there was a lot fanboy hype in the IQ debate. Indeed, the Fuji Bayer sensors are as good or better than the XTrans.

Again, that's not to take away from their cameras and lenses, which are excellent. They are tops in many categories. I love the XT1. But it's IQ is no better than, say, a Ricoh GR, which can actually fit in my pocket.
--
Dave Sanders

 

[moimoi]

As true as that may be, there are kany people out there who:like the X-trans sensor very much, they even tell it comes close to much larger sensors, some even claims close to midframe...

Butlets not talk to kych about that, we think the same, that was the reason I put the smily ther...

I see. Yes it would be quite foolish to believe you can get the quaility of FF from an APS-C sensor, it is simply not possibly due to the nature of light. Photon count matters, and FF gathers more photons per unit time than APS-C sensor. Same for MF vs. FF, MF is the winner for the same reasons.

It all depends on the need of a photographer. Personally, I feel comfortable with FF. If I had tons of money, I would not hesitate to go with MF.

Cheers,

moimoi

 

[moimoi]

Yes, indeed. They use this forum frequently. Kind of like a bathroom when they need to get something off their 'chest'.

It's a known fact that fanboyism can increase perceived IQ by about 50% (and cause momentary loss of memory as to which forum you're in).

That's a very good one. Made me smile.

 

[captura]

As true as that may be, there are kany people out there who:like the X-trans sensor very much, they even tell it comes close to much larger sensors, some even claims close to midframe...

Butlets not talk to kych about that, we think the same, that was the reason I put the smily ther...

I see. Yes it would be quite foolish to believe you can get the quaility of FF from an APS-C sensor, it is simply not possibly due to the nature of light. Photon count matters, and FF gathers more photons per unit time than APS-C sensor. Same for MF vs. FF, MF is the winner for the same reasons.

It all depends on the need of a photographer. Personally, I feel comfortable with FF. If I had tons of money, I would not hesitate to go with MF.

Cheers,

moimoi

 

[Euell]

I rather like Zack Arias' take on it: http://petapixel.com/2014/07/28/cro...-world-look-at-the-crop-vs-full-frame-debate/
Enjoy

This was discussed ad nauseam somewhere else I think. There was a general disdain for the guy if I recall.

Well, I like his style. I had a good laugh watching his video. If others are not amused, oh well. Too bad for them.

Good for you. I happen to know the guy and he's not a very fun person.

Watched his video and he exhibits a great sense of humor. It was a fun watch.

 

[Barugon]

...on my a7R and the results will be just like the Fujis.

Absolutely not, the results will look MUCH better on your A7R (APS-c mode) because you don't have that horrid X-trans sensor ;-)

This is true but I can get my X-E2 to look pretty close.

 

[Barugon]

...on my a7R and the results will be just like the Fujis.

Absolutely not, the results will look MUCH better on your A7R (APS-c mode) because you don't have that horrid X-trans sensor ;-)

What's horrid about the X-trans sensor?

The color filter array pattern on the X-Tranny sensors makes it very difficult to demosaic. You end up with a lot of artifacts like false colors. To alleviate these artifacts, the decoder must do a lot of extra work, which can reduce detail in the image.

Ultimately, it's a brilliant marketing gimmick. Fujifilm spun the story about it so well in the beginning that there are masses of hard-core fan-boys who will defend it tooth and nail.

 

[Mike Fewster]

I rather like Zack Arias' take on it: http://petapixel.com/2014/07/28/cro...-world-look-at-the-crop-vs-full-frame-debate/
Enjoy

There is no doubt that (most) top end audio gear is better. But, for each small increment of improvement as you get better gear, the cost rises exponentially. Whether the improvement is worth the additional cost depends (snobbery aside) on the taste and pocket of the user and the use they have for the stuff. Exquisite sound in a very large room requires different gear to a smaller room. If you are going to show your pictures at post card size or at up to say A4, you have very different needs to someone who is doing large prints. Like audio, every small increases in IQ costs proportionally more. The advantages of ff over aspc are exactly the same. Some will never use, notice or need the advantages available from FF. For others, it is worth every cent.

 

[Euell]

I rather like Zack Arias' take on it: http://petapixel.com/2014/07/28/cro...-world-look-at-the-crop-vs-full-frame-debate/
Enjoy

There is no doubt that (most) top end audio gear is better. But, for each small increment of improvement as you get better gear, the cost rises exponentially. Whether the improvement is worth the additional cost depends (snobbery aside) on the taste and pocket of the user and the use they have for the stuff. Exquisite sound in a very large room requires different gear to a smaller room. If you are going to show your pictures at post card size or at up to say A4, you have very different needs to someone who is doing large prints. Like audio, every small increases in IQ costs proportionally more. The advantages of ff over aspc are exactly the same. Some will never use, notice or need the advantages available from FF. For others, it is worth every cent.

 

[Jesper Frickmann]

Good for you. I happen to know the guy and he's not a very fun person.

Oh dear - you have an axe to grind?

There is no doubt that (most) top end audio gear is better. But, for each small increment of improvement as you get better gear, the cost rises exponentially. Whether the improvement is worth the additional cost depends (snobbery aside) on the taste and pocket of the user and the use they have for the stuff. Exquisite sound in a very large room requires different gear to a smaller room. If you are going to show your pictures at post card size or at up to say A4, you have very different needs to someone who is doing large prints. Like audio, every small increases in IQ costs proportionally more. The advantages of ff over aspc are exactly the same. Some will never use, notice or need the advantages available from FF. For others, it is worth every cent.

 

[philip pj]

It will go FF in a hurry if Sony release a NEX FF, prices are dropping fast, and now there are small ones for cheaper than ever before. Sony might use this as a wedge against DSLRs which cannot be reduced much more. All the new FF lenses are designed for beautiful bokeh on FF, a huge difference. Very few prime lenses are made for APS-C, it is seen by makers as a transition/entry format. You learn to see the differences over time, just as with MF after FF - an easy drawing style with better tonality and (generally) DR. It is very nice to use lenses just as the designer intended, like a full anything, not 2/3 of anything.

 

[McQuestion]

It will go FF in a hurry if Sony release a NEX FF, prices are dropping fast, and now there are small ones for cheaper than ever before. Sony might use this as a wedge against DSLRs which cannot be reduced much more. All the new FF lenses are designed for beautiful bokeh on FF, a huge difference. Very few prime lenses are made for APS-C, it is seen by makers as a transition/entry format. You learn to see the differences over time, just as with MF after FF - an easy drawing style with better tonality and (generally) DR. It is very nice to use lenses just as the designer intended, like a full anything, not 2/3 of anything.

The A7 series is the "NEX FF".

 

[Pepe-Lepue]

It will go FF in a hurry if Sony release a NEX FF, prices are dropping fast, and now there are small ones for cheaper than ever before. Sony might use this as a wedge against DSLRs which cannot be reduced much more. All the new FF lenses are designed for beautiful bokeh on FF, a huge difference. Very few prime lenses are made for APS-C, it is seen by makers as a transition/entry format. You learn to see the differences over time, just as with MF after FF - an easy drawing style with better tonality and (generally) DR. It is very nice to use lenses just as the designer intended, like a full anything, not 2/3 of anything.

Are you forgetting the significant increase in cost of glass... And weight?
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

 

[Pepe-Lepue]

It will go FF in a hurry if Sony release a NEX FF, prices are dropping fast, and now there are small ones for cheaper than ever before. Sony might use this as a wedge against DSLRs which cannot be reduced much more. All the new FF lenses are designed for beautiful bokeh on FF, a huge difference. Very few prime lenses are made for APS-C, it is seen by makers as a transition/entry format. You learn to see the differences over time, just as with MF after FF - an easy drawing style with better tonality and (generally) DR. It is very nice to use lenses just as the designer intended, like a full anything, not 2/3 of anything.

And I'm enjoying my APS-C Zeiss Touit lenses. Great! Lightweight! And simply stellar results!
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

 

[dave46978]

Do as I do, get both and be happy. Each has its specific advantages.

 

[McQuestion]

I rather like Zack Arias' take on it: http://petapixel.com/2014/07/28/cro...-world-look-at-the-crop-vs-full-frame-debate/
Enjoy

Does it take thirteen minutes to communicate the idea that larger formats are larger and not necessarily better?

Mr. Arias seems so delighted with himself in seizing upon this idea that he repeats it again and again without actually developing it with any detail. There's no real discussion of the effects of scale on light gathering or how that translates to lens design, even though the concepts involved only require a middle school level of understanding of mathematics to comprehend. Sensor design might seem to be a little more complicated, but there are ways to illustrate the concepts so that even a child can grasp the basics. When these subjects do arise, he quickly dismisses them by flailing his phallus and patting himself on the back while reiterating his dumbed down analogy, emphasizing his counterculture affectations as a distraction from the lack of substance in his presentation.

For those who are content to imagine that the superficial cliches of a long chin beard and a stuffed animal convey individuality, and as such merit hand clapping, maybe that's enough. For anyone looking for substantive discussion, this tedious mini-film can be seen for what it is, a wholly vapid and pretentious display of self-adulation. At best the concept could have been communicated in a 30-second spot. Even that may be pushing it. The use of any more time than that suggests a serious lack of competence in the area of visual communication skills. Ironically, one would expect that to be the forte of a photographer. Arias would likely do better to focus his public displays on still and silent images that are limited to a subject other than himself.

 

[Dave Sanders]

It will go FF in a hurry if Sony release a NEX FF, prices are dropping fast, and now there are small ones for cheaper than ever before. Sony might use this as a wedge against DSLRs which cannot be reduced much more. All the new FF lenses are designed for beautiful bokeh on FF, a huge difference. Very few prime lenses are made for APS-C, it is seen by makers as a transition/entry format. You learn to see the differences over time, just as with MF after FF - an easy drawing style with better tonality and (generally) DR. It is very nice to use lenses just as the designer intended, like a full anything, not 2/3 of anything.

Are you forgetting the significant increase in cost of glass... And weight?

I don't think there's much difference between the Touit lenses you prefer and the current FE prime lineup. If one is really concerned about the cost/size of glass, then m4/3 is a better option. Lots of primes that are small, sharp and fast to focus.

Really, the quality of cameras available today is laughable. So few limitations can be chalked up to gear...a 24mp A6000 for $600 CDN? It's crazy that one can get IQ like that for a price like that. Adding a few Sony or a Zeiss prime(s) can yield a pretty stellar kit for not a lot of cash, especially if one looks around on their local Craigslist. The IQ I get from my A7 which I paid $1300 CDN for new is so very impressive. A great time to be a photographer.