New vs old sensor tech?

[crashpc]

The extra enlargement needed to produce a displayed image of a given size from an APS-C C sensor more than negates the Fujifilm's pixel count advantage.

The enlargment argument is not a valid argument, at least theorically. Equivalence works in every aspect and this includes sharpness. The only exception is that you have more possibilities with FF so you can optionnally use a wider aperture which means less diffraction.

Even if you use the same lens for FF and APS-C (let's consider this is a zoom), for the same picture with equivalent settings aps-c will use a lower f#. The theorical resolution per mm will be higher with APS-C and the final resolution will be similar after enlargement.

There is a difference in practice because it is more challenging to build a good lens with low f# (due to higher angle of light) while with FF you can get the same result with a higher equivalent f# which usually means higher IQ in practice This has absolutely nothing to do with enlargement... Enlargement is not the root cause. Otherwise, the small sensors we have in the smartphones would have a very very bad IQ considering the huge enlargement needed.

Personnally, this is the main reason I switched to FF recently. I did like my f/2.8 aps-c zoom lens, but I prefer a f/4 FF zoom lens, IQ can be slightly better (sharpness, vignetting,..)

But smaller sensors do have lower image quality, per image...

 

[chrisfisheye]

The extra enlargement needed to produce a displayed image of a given size from an APS-C C sensor more than negates the Fujifilm's pixel count advantage.

The enlargment argument is not a valid argument, at least theorically. Equivalence works in every aspect and this includes sharpness. The only exception is that you have more possibilities with FF so you can optionnally use a wider aperture which means less diffraction.

Even if you use the same lens for FF and APS-C (let's consider this is a zoom), for the same picture with equivalent settings aps-c will use a lower f#. The theorical resolution per mm will be higher with APS-C and the final resolution will be similar after enlargement.

There is a difference in practice because it is more challenging to build a good lens with low f# (due to higher angle of light) while with FF you can get the same result with a higher equivalent f# which usually means higher IQ in practice This has absolutely nothing to do with enlargement... Enlargement is not the root cause. Otherwise, the small sensors we have in the smartphones would have a very very bad IQ considering the huge enlargement needed.

Personnally, this is the main reason I switched to FF recently. I did like my f/2.8 aps-c zoom lens, but I prefer a f/4 FF zoom lens, IQ can be slightly better (sharpness, vignetting,..)

But smaller sensors do have lower image quality, per image...

In theory, not really (except when you use wider max aperture).

Ok, what is important is not theory but practice but what this means is that small sensors can potentially reach the same IQ (at equivalent settings). This is more challenging I admit.

 

[FingerPainter]

The extra enlargement needed to produce a displayed image of a given size from an APS-C C sensor more than negates the Fujifilm's pixel count advantage.

The enlargment argument is not a valid argument, at least theorically. Equivalence works in every aspect and this includes sharpness.

No, it doesn't.

The only exception is that you have more possibilities with FF so you can optionnally use a wider aperture which means less diffraction.

It also means more aberration blur.

Even if you use the same lens for FF and APS-C (let's consider this is a zoom), for the same picture with equivalent settings aps-c will use a lower f#.

Yes.

The theorical resolution per mm will be higher with APS-C

No. It could be higher or lower per mm, depending on where the f-number used is, relative to the lens' sweet spot.

But res per mm isn't what determines the apparent sharpness of a displayed image. Resolution per picture height is. From a given lp/mm, a FF sensor will get 1.5 times the lp/ph . Or to put it another way, for an APS-C image to be sharper than a FF image, the lens on APS-C will have to cast an analog image that is more than 50% sharper then the image cast on the FF sensor, assuming same pixel counts. Very few lenses lose an average of 1/3 of their resolution when they stop down one stop. But FF sensors often have higher pixel counts, so they will make even sharper images.

and the final resolution will be similar after enlargement.

That's just not true. Once again you are making things up, just like your claim about the dictionary definition of "overexposed".

There is a difference in practice because it is more challenging to build a good lens with low f# (due to higher angle of light) while with FF you can get the same result with a higher equivalent f# which usually means higher IQ in practice This has absolutely nothing to do with enlargement... Enlargement is not the root cause.

A lens and sensor produce a number of lines per mm. In the APS-C height of the sensor that number might be n. In the FF height it will be greater than n. When you make a displayed image of a given size from that APS-C image, you will enlarge it 50% more than you will enlarge the FF image to make a displayed image. Since the final displayed images are the same, size, the FF image incorporate other line pairs that aren't present in the APS-C image, The displayed image from the FF sensor is therefore sharper.

Further, more. If you crop an image and then display it at the same size as the original image, the crop will always look less sharp, because the retained part of the image is enlarged more and has fewer line pairs over the height of the image.

Otherwise, the small sensors we have in the smartphones would have a very very bad IQ considering the huge enlargement needed.

Generally lenses for smaller formats tend to be sharper in terms of lp/mm. The smaller they are, the easier it is to make a closer to perfect lens.

...

 

[FingerPainter]

The extra enlargement needed to produce a displayed image of a given size from an APS-C C sensor more than negates the Fujifilm's pixel count advantage.

The enlargment argument is not a valid argument, at least theorically. Equivalence works in every aspect and this includes sharpness. The only exception is that you have more possibilities with FF so you can optionnally use a wider aperture which means less diffraction.

Even if you use the same lens for FF and APS-C (let's consider this is a zoom), for the same picture with equivalent settings aps-c will use a lower f#. The theorical resolution per mm will be higher with APS-C and the final resolution will be similar after enlargement.

There is a difference in practice because it is more challenging to build a good lens with low f# (due to higher angle of light) while with FF you can get the same result with a higher equivalent f# which usually means higher IQ in practice This has absolutely nothing to do with enlargement... Enlargement is not the root cause. Otherwise, the small sensors we have in the smartphones would have a very very bad IQ considering the huge enlargement needed.

Personnally, this is the main reason I switched to FF recently. I did like my f/2.8 aps-c zoom lens, but I prefer a f/4 FF zoom lens, IQ can be slightly better (sharpness, vignetting,..)

But smaller sensors do have lower image quality, per image...

In theory, not really (except when you use wider max aperture).

You are just making things up. Just look at MTF tests on lenses that have been tested in front of FF and APS-C sensors, Even at same pixel counts, and equivalent f-numbers, the performance tends to be better on FF.

Ok, what is important is not theory

You don't seem to understand the theory.

but practice but what this means is that small sensors can potentially reach the same IQ (at equivalent settings). This is more challenging I admit.

I practice. your misapprehension of theory does not apply.

 

[BackToNature1]

I've recently rekindled my interest in photography so I dug out the trusty old work horse... my Canon 5Dii. It's still fine for a lot of what I do but I think id like to come in to more current times and go mirrorless but I have 1 simple question I can't seem to find the answer to.

How does a modern stacked APS-C sensor compare to my old 5Dii cmos? As much as technology has advanced since my old rig was primo I'd assume a modern apsc would pretty much walk all over it in all aspects of performance. Not really interested in stacked full frame info as I'm pretty positive there's no comparison really. Just trying to gather info to help me decide on which route I'd like to go in my purchase.

Thanks in advance for taking your time to read and reply.

Fuji is the only company that I am aware of that has a Stacked, APS-C sensor. I highly doubt anyone has done a Real World Comparison between that and your camera. Companies don't create Technology equally, so all these Theoretical comparisons are basically useless. But yes, in overall performance, I think it's more than safe to Assume, that in most aspects, it would trash thoroughly, well over Decade Old Tech.

 

[User4286416121]

In film cameras, enlargement made a big difference. In digital, different factors come in to play.

Some, lp/mm, have similarities. Others, no analog comparison.

 

[chrisfisheye]

I've recently rekindled my interest in photography so I dug out the trusty old work horse... my Canon 5Dii. It's still fine for a lot of what I do but I think id like to come in to more current times and go mirrorless but I have 1 simple question I can't seem to find the answer to.

How does a modern stacked APS-C sensor compare to my old 5Dii cmos? As much as technology has advanced since my old rig was primo I'd assume a modern apsc would pretty much walk all over it in all aspects of performance. Not really interested in stacked full frame info as I'm pretty positive there's no comparison really. Just trying to gather info to help me decide on which route I'd like to go in my purchase.

Thanks in advance for taking your time to read and reply.

Hello,

The Canon sensor is not really good, Canon was really behind Sony sensors (used by Fuji for instance) , I think now the gap now is much smaller:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-5D-Mark-II

For instance consider the low light ISO score, 1815. Though higher than common APS-C sensors (around 1500); it is very low for FF, it should be 1 stop better (around 3300). This means that the sensor is less efficient and in many use cases, the current APS-C sensors will be better !

The dynamic range is also very low for FF (11.9)...

Of course, the sensor is not all and you Canon with the canon FF lenses is certainly really good.

I consider that in the long term, it is better to invest in FF because it becomes the new standard.

With APS-C, I would consider only Fuji, this remains a good choice. Fuji continues to invest in their system while other brands focus more on FF.

Just my opinion,

 

[tbcass]

It seems that in the last generations (Son anyways) quite a lot of emphasis is put on speed, and less so in the sensor output quality performance. Sony A7R IV,V, Sony A7IV seem to produce more noise than older models. Not happy about it, as I do not shoot bursts...

The difference in noise is very small and easily removed through post processing resulting in identical visible noise. Regardless the noise performance is much better than his 5Dii.

 

[sybersitizen]

The extra enlargement needed to produce a displayed image of a given size from an APS-C C sensor more than negates the Fujifilm's pixel count advantage.

The enlargment argument is not a valid argument, at least theorically.

It might be valid when the sentence that preceded the one you quoted is retained:

"Despite these advantages in pixel count and low-ISO PDR, the X-H2S is likely to produce less sharp images when the two cameras are used with equally sharp lenses. The extra enlargement needed to produce a displayed image of a given size from an APS-C C sensor more than negates the Fujifilm's pixel count advantage."

Do you still think that's not a valid argument? If in doubt, I could do some testing with a full frame camera and APS-C camera, both with similar sensor technology, both with 24MP, and both with the same lens mount.

 

[chrisfisheye]

The extra enlargement needed to produce a displayed image of a given size from an APS-C C sensor more than negates the Fujifilm's pixel count advantage.

The enlargment argument is not a valid argument, at least theorically.

It might be valid when the sentence that preceded the one you quoted is retained:

"Despite these advantages in pixel count and low-ISO PDR, the X-H2S is likely to produce less sharp images when the two cameras are used with equally sharp lenses. The extra enlargement needed to produce a displayed image of a given size from an APS-C C sensor more than negates the Fujifilm's pixel count advantage."

Do you still think that's not a valid argument?

Theorically, with perfect lenses, FF have no advantages over APS-C at equivalent settings.

For instance consider a small sensor with smatphones, like 1/1.7" sensor , one could expect than an enlargement about 5 times higher would give so much better IQ !!! Well sorry but this is not the case... And no surprise for me.

This is why people are astonished when they realise how close an image shot with a smartphone can be (even without AI processing).

Of course it depends on the use case, and if you shoot only paintings where no dof is required, you can certainly get more effective resolution. Honestly; I do not shoot paintings only.

If in doubt, I could do some testing with a full frame camera and APS-C camera, both with similar sensor technology, both with 24MP, and both with the same lens mount.

No need

Consider an hypothetical aps-c perfect f2.8 lens versus a f4.4 FF lens.

Of course in theory they have the same resolution per mm at the same f#, They would be equally sharp. I hope you agree !

Absolutely no advantage in theory betwwen these 2 systems !!!

Practice is different from theory but it will converge more and more with the theory.

 

[sybersitizen]

The extra enlargement needed to produce a displayed image of a given size from an APS-C C sensor more than negates the Fujifilm's pixel count advantage.

The enlargment argument is not a valid argument, at least theorically.

It might be valid when the sentence that preceded the one you quoted is retained:

"Despite these advantages in pixel count and low-ISO PDR, the X-H2S is likely to produce less sharp images when the two cameras are used with equally sharp lenses. The extra enlargement needed to produce a displayed image of a given size from an APS-C C sensor more than negates the Fujifilm's pixel count advantage."

Do you still think that's not a valid argument?

Theorically, with perfect lenses, FF have no advantages over APS-C at equivalent settings.

So your point was to describe what would be valid in a theoretical situation.

For instance consider a small sensor with smatphones, like 1/1.7" sensor , one could expect than an enlargement about 5 times higher would give so much better IQ !!! Well sorry but this is not the case... And no surprise for me.

This is why people are astonished when they realise how close an image shot with a smartphone can be (even without AI processing).

Of course it depends on the use case, and if you shoot only paintings where no dof is required, you can certainly get more effective resolution. Honestly; I do not shoot paintings only.

If in doubt, I could do some testing with a full frame camera and APS-C camera, both with similar sensor technology, both with 24MP, and both with the same lens mount.

No need

Consider an hypothetical aps-c perfect f2.8 lens versus a f4.4 FF lens.

Of course in theory they have the same resolution per mm at the same f#, They would be equally sharp. I hope you agree !

I agree. Perfect lenses would be not just equally sharp - they could be almost infinitely sharp, maybe limited only by the nature of light and matter.

Absolutely no advantage in theory betwwen these 2 systems !!!

Practice is different from theory but it will converge more and more with the theory.

Until they converge, I assume you agree that the practical differences are real and valid.

 

[TE-28]

I've recently rekindled my interest in photography so I dug out the trusty old work horse... my Canon 5Dii. It's still fine for a lot of what I do but I think id like to come in to more current times and go mirrorless but I have 1 simple question I can't seem to find the answer to.

How does a modern stacked APS-C sensor compare to my old 5Dii cmos? As much as technology has advanced since my old rig was primo I'd assume a modern apsc would pretty much walk all over it in all aspects of performance. Not really interested in stacked full frame info as I'm pretty positive there's no comparison really. Just trying to gather info to help me decide on which route I'd like to go in my purchase.

Thanks in advance for taking your time to read and reply.

There have been 4 major technological advances since your 5Dii was introduced.

1. On-sensor analog to digital conversion which resulted in a significant improvement in the signal-to-noise ratio (less noise).

2. Back Side Illumination (BSI) which further reduced the noise.

3. Stacked sensors which greatly speeded up sensor readout resulting in faster burst rates and less rolling shutter.

4. On-sensor PDAF/Dual Pixel autofocus which spreads focus points over a much wider area and, combined with faster processors, greatly improves the subject tracking abilities.

also the high speed readout from the sensor allows for much better AF, plus all the eye detection...people, pets, birds!

fast accurate focus is a tremendous evolution in it's own right

Fast accurate AF is my #1 reason for looking for an upgrade as 95% of my shooting is as I'm walking/moving and shooting "from the hip" vs actually stopping and setting up a shot. I enjoy being discreet when taking photos and not drawing attention to myself as that makes surrounding people aware of what I'm doing and they don't look natural.

 

[TE-28]

Ok many have mentioned it. My main reason for looking for an upgrade is the autofocus… while the old 5d2 does fine if I stop and properly compose a shot that’s not how I operate. I shoot mostly from the hip as I’m walking or driving/riding in the car. I like to remain discreet when shooting because when you stop and raise a camera to your eye it draws attention and people aren’t natural at that point. However if your just a guy walking with a camera in your hand no one suspects anything and they carry on about their day.



that said my main features I’m looking to upgrade is

1 a faster more accurate autofocus

2 slightly faster burst rate (I’d be more than satisfied with 8fps)

3 a little better high iso performance (if I could get up to 3200 clear that’s do all I need)

the vast majority of my stuff is black and white anyways as once you remove the color you also remove the time of something within reason. A bunch of modern stuff in black and white is obviously still recognized as modern but a lot of stuff made B&W could easily be from yesterday or 60 years ago.

 

[chrisfisheye]

Until they converge, I assume you agree that the practical differences are real and valid.

Yes of course we agree, no problems.

 

[chrisfisheye]

that said my main features I’m looking to upgrade is

1 a faster more accurate autofocus

2 slightly faster burst rate (I’d be more than satisfied with 8fps)

3 a little better high iso performance (if I could get up to 3200 clear that’s do all I need)

There are tons of cameras which will fullfill your requirements...

With APS-C I recommend Fuji and with FF any brand will do the job.

 

[crashpc]

It seems that in the last generations (Son anyways) quite a lot of emphasis is put on speed, and less so in the sensor output quality performance. Sony A7R IV,V, Sony A7IV seem to produce more noise than older models. Not happy about it, as I do not shoot bursts...

The difference in noise is very small and easily removed through post processing resulting in identical visible noise. Regardless the noise performance is much better than his 5Dii.

Everything and everybody has a limit. Indeed it is not a complete dealbreaker, but for example if I wanted to upgrade, I would have no reason. There is nothing for customer such as me, wanting just a box with a shutter button, and best sensor performance... There are reasons for the current situation, of course, it´s just noteworthy that not everything gets better, and yes, statistically, it might be best choice for the manufacturer, but some people might skip for that reason. But of course, upgrades are not always balanced. Once it is FPS upgrade, once it is quality upgrade, and so on. It is healthy for the manufacturer to not give it all at once.

 

[TE-28]

that said my main features I’m looking to upgrade is

1 a faster more accurate autofocus

2 slightly faster burst rate (I’d be more than satisfied with 8fps)

3 a little better high iso performance (if I could get up to 3200 clear that’s do all I need)

There are tons of cameras which will fullfill your requirements...

With APS-C I recommend Fuji and with FF any brand will do the job.

The new R8 kind of has my attention currently. I know it's not apsc like I inquired about but was just curious if they could be considered as a smaller more discreet option. Also considering just finding a low milage 5D4 body. In the youtube videos though even the budget RF glass seems miles ahead of my old stuff. (With the exception of the old trusty 24-70 2.8 and 85 1.2)

 

[crashpc]

that said my main features I’m looking to upgrade is

1 a faster more accurate autofocus

2 slightly faster burst rate (I’d be more than satisfied with 8fps)

3 a little better high iso performance (if I could get up to 3200 clear that’s do all I need)

Then indeed, a modern BSI sensor would help you tremendously, as it has much faster, much more sophisticated AF, and more FPS on top of that.

Things can be more than black and white though - will clicking of the fast machine provoke people? Are you happy with shooting blindly, while stealth? I don´t men from a moral stand point, but from the keeper rate point. It is too random way. Composition, focus, point of view. I hope you know what are you doing, and that you don´t expect all issues to be gone with the new camera. There will always be something to resent on the new camera.

Otherwise, yes. Again. Newest bodies are lightyears ahead. Very recommended. With better sensor and IBIS, you might get 1-3 stops of more performance as a cherry on top. With AI denoise, another stop or two. That will be given. As showed before.

 

[chrisfisheye]

that said my main features I’m looking to upgrade is

1 a faster more accurate autofocus

2 slightly faster burst rate (I’d be more than satisfied with 8fps)

3 a little better high iso performance (if I could get up to 3200 clear that’s do all I need)

There are tons of cameras which will fullfill your requirements...

With APS-C I recommend Fuji and with FF any brand will do the job.

The new R8 kind of has my attention currently.

Looks good to me !

I know it's not apsc like I inquired about but was just curious if they could be considered as a smaller more discreet option. Also considering just finding a low milage 5D4 body. In the youtube videos though even the budget RF glass seems miles ahead of my old stuff. (With the exception of the old trusty 24-70 2.8 and 85 1.2)

I suggest you forget DSLR, it will loose its value.. It is, in my opinion, a huge error and I do not understand at all the current prices.

If you know exactly what you do, you know you won't need to upgrade later, you won't need smaller/lighter system, why not.. It may be a question of money but if later you try to sell your gear to buy a new system, your gear will have lost lot's of value..

Honestly it is really really difficult to recommend to buy DSLR today..

But again this is my opinion, nothing else !

 

[RubenJ]

that said my main features I’m looking to upgrade is

1 a faster more accurate autofocus

2 slightly faster burst rate (I’d be more than satisfied with 8fps)

3 a little better high iso performance (if I could get up to 3200 clear that’s do all I need)

There are tons of cameras which will fullfill your requirements...

With APS-C I recommend Fuji and with FF any brand will do the job.

The new R8 kind of has my attention currently.

Looks good to me !

I know it's not apsc like I inquired about but was just curious if they could be considered as a smaller more discreet option. Also considering just finding a low milage 5D4 body. In the youtube videos though even the budget RF glass seems miles ahead of my old stuff. (With the exception of the old trusty 24-70 2.8 and 85 1.2)

I suggest you forget DSLR, it will loose its value.. It is, in my opinion, a huge error and I do not understand at all the current prices.

If you know exactly what you do, you know you won't need to upgrade later, you won't need smaller/lighter system, why not.. It may be a question of money but if later you try to sell your gear to buy a new system, your gear will have lost lot's of value..

Honestly it is really really difficult to recommend to buy DSLR today..

But again this is my opinion, nothing else !

If one already has professional Canon lenses I don't know why you wouldn't recommend a 5D iv - the best DSLR Canon produced after all . The sensor is still great and in 10 years it will still work fantastically.