APSC vs Full Frame? Image quality differences?

[MikeNannie]

I'm not sure this is the appropriate forum for this type of question, but I thought I'd throw it out there to get some feedback since I am a Minolta/Sony shooter.

I currently own an a580 and my primary lens is my z16-80. I also have the new Tamron 70-300 zoom. and often use my Gitzo 1228 tripod with a RRS BH40 head. I do my post processing with Lightroom, and use PS occasionally. I do most of my photography in the Midwest, often in Michigan. My previous camera was a Minolta 7D.


I recently found a photographer who has some amazing images from Michigan. My images are not even close to the detail, color, and quality of his. Which brings me to my 'impossible to answer' questions.

Here is his website by the way. http://www.michigannutphotography.com/

(He uses Nikon equipment - D700 and new 800E)


And here is my (new) website: http://www.koenigfineartphotography.com/

I know I'm no where near the photographer and my composition skills have tons of room for improvement. But my questions are more from a technical perspective.

1. Are images like those from Michigan Nut possible from an a580 APS-C camera/lens or is a full frame camera required?

2. How much of a factor are post processing skills in creating images like those from Michigan Nut?

3. Does using a wide gamut monitor, or at least a calibrated monitor, make a huge difference in your post processing? (better detail/colors in the output?)


(I have neither at the moment, but I'm considering an upgrade and need to learn more about this topic for sure (I've been reading up on it a bit)) But, his images look awesome on my 'kit' Dell monitor.


4. If I had an a99 and G or Z lenses, and the skills, could I create images like Michigan Nut using this equipment? OR, (sigh) is the Nikon pro series of cameras / lenses that much better? (don't flame me, I'm just asking ) ( sub question - anyone know of similar landscape pro photographers using Alpha cameras that I could view for comparison? )

Again, I understand these are very wide open questions, but I'm curious what you think when you consider the answers?

My gut feeling is that the answer to better images is all of the above to some degree. If that is the case, which would make the biggest technical improvement in your opinion?

I also know that most feel that making great images is not about the equipment, it's about the skills of the photographer, and although I agree (mostly), I don't think you can throw out the value of a good camera and lens completely.


thanks for letting me 'stir the pot'

... Mike

 

[Nordstjernen]

Yes, you can do this kind of photography with an aps-c camera, and a 4/3 camera as well. You don't need a full frame camera.

Much more important than sensor size is camera technique and skills when capturing the scene and also when post processing the raw files.

When the exposure is optimised so that you take benefit of the full dynamic range of the sensor, there isn't much differences between smaller and larger sensors. You might see differences at serious underexposure (like using very high ISO settings), but there are a lot of photographic techniques to compensate for this.

When working with high quality photography you should always calibrate your monitor. You can do the kind of work you are linking to with any good monitor, even a decent laptop, but a wide gamut monitor (full Adobe RGB) is even better. For the pictures from this photographer, the colors are pumped up at post processing.

 

[Keit ll]

You will never get images from an A580 which are as good as those from a Nikon D800e provided the Nikon has a lens which matches the cameras high resolution sensor.

The difference in quality will beome more apparent on large displays or prints. Of course the photographer & his skill in PP will make a significant contribution but the two cameras in the hands of the same user wiil produce different results.

 

[Waardij]

For a start; the shown work is on a screen, in low resolution, less than 1Mp, so you do not much resolution for them. second, it looks like the artist uses neutral density grad filters to reduce contrast, so for most of the work not much dynamic range is needed. the work I have seen on the site can be made with a tripod, so sensitivity is not an issue. most of the work has a very deep depth of field, so ff is not needed to reduce depth of field.

I would say that aps-c is more then good enough for producing this kind of work. and it looks as if there has been a lot post processing skill put in. If the work is to be printed large, resolution and clean files become important, there the a99 will have an edge. even with very good glass on aps-c, the a99 will have, in most cases, more resolution (better per pixel sharpness) and when using iso50 incredibly clear files. but once again, only if you want to print large (20x30 and up).

 

[JerryCurtis]

MikeNannie wrote:



1. Are images like those from Michigan Nut possible from an a580 APS-C camera/lens or is a full frame camera required?

These kinds of results are totally possible from your A580 - FF camera definitely not required...

2. How much of a factor are post processing skills in creating images like those from Michigan Nut?

A lot! PP skills can make a decent picture (composed and exposed well) look awesome. Some of your shots are already awesome, some could do with WB correction and at lease one seems unsharp and probably not recoverable (swans).

3. Does using a wide gamut monitor, or at least a calibrated monitor, make a huge difference in your post processing? (better detail/colors in the output?)

Some, but not huge, probably. I use an uncalibrated laptop screen, and don'e have problems with colour renditions

(I have neither at the moment, but I'm considering an upgrade and need to learn more about this topic for sure (I've been reading up on it a bit)) But, his images look awesome on my 'kit' Dell monitor.

4. If I had an a99 and G or Z lenses, and the skills, could I create images like Michigan Nut using this equipment? OR, (sigh) is the Nikon pro series of cameras / lenses that much better? (don't flame me, I'm just asking ) ( sub question - anyone know of similar landscape pro photographers using Alpha cameras that I could view for comparison? )

Lenses can make quite a difference. The right range of f/ls and quality glass are important. Your 16-80 CZ is quite a good lens, though limited a bit on the aperture, so not as good for dropping out backgrounds as a wider aperture lens. You might want to add something super-wide, like 10-20 or 11-18, since the APS-C sensor has a narrower FOV than the FF, so your 18mm is really the same FOV as the 27mm on a FF camera. Some landscape shots could benefit from wider angle than the 18mm.

Again, I understand these are very wide open questions, but I'm curious what you think when you consider the answers?

My gut feeling is that the answer to better images is all of the above to some degree. If that is the case, which would make the biggest technical improvement in your opinion?

I also know that most feel that making great images is not about the equipment, it's about the skills of the photographer, and although I agree (mostly), I don't think you can throw out the value of a good camera and lens completely.

thanks for letting me 'stir the pot'

... Mike

 

[Endos]

It's all about skills, but a bigger the format is, better the image quality and resolution.

This guy shoots with an A900 and the Zeiss 16-35mm: http://www.flickr.com/people/bigsleep/

 

[Nordstjernen]

Keit ll wrote:

You will never get images from an A580 which are as good as those from a Nikon D800e provided the Nikon has a lens which matches the cameras high resolution sensor.

I think this is a widely spread misconception, since you will hardly be able see any differences at normal viewing distance even for 44 inches/1.1 meter wide prints. I have made a lot of tests with 12 mp aps-c vs 24 mp full frame for very detailed subjects.

What really matters for Commercial photography is content. The pictures the OP is linking to is taken at low ISO, tripod is normally used, the lens is stopped down, etc., which will make any format look good even from large format prints (4/3, aps-c, full frame).

For critical technical comparition mirror slam from the D800/D800e might affect fine detail so much that a camera like the 24 mp A65 or A77 will show similar or better detail!

 

[Michael Fritzen]

Keit ll wrote:

You will never get images from an A580 which are as good as those from a Nikon D800e provided the Nikon has a lens which matches the cameras high resolution sensor.

The difference in quality will beome more apparent on large displays or prints. Of course the photographer & his skill in PP will make a significant contribution but the two cameras in the hands of the same user wiil produce different results.

Hi,

as you said, when printing big - almost billboard sized. But as Nord already commented, there may be some subtile advantages of the FF when it comes to higher ISO performance due to the larger pixels - and for the 800e the absence of the AA filter and the MP count, but not necessarily related to the form factor APS-C vs. FF.

When I consider though which high ISO performance has been achieved on the tiny sensor (yet) of the RX100 with its 20MP I wouldn't been surprised when the next generation of APS-C sensors provides both better high ISO performance (probably a combination od sensor and processing devellopments) and higher MP. The choice among APS-C and FF is much more a convenience factor (everything smaller and lighter) than potentials / limitation in the image capture process.

 

[Draek]

I believe the differences are purely due to differences in skill, partly in shooting, and partly in processing; seems to me the key difference between you both is his masterful use of contrast, how he gets all of the scene's tonalities into the image, with subtlety and taste instead of the garish and distorted output of automated HDR programs---you on the other hand seem to focus too much on the midtones when determining exposure, sometimes letting highlights blow in that unpleasant way characteristic of digital and doing little to fix it. Compare your photo of the road beneath the trees with your own photos of the fisherman's wharf to see what I'm talking about, the smooth highlight rolloff in the latter give it a much more pleasing look than the blown grass on the former.

Unfortunately no, I don't know of any landscape photographer who shoots with Alpha cameras---Michael Reichmann of L-L fame used to shoot with an A900, but I believe he's switched since---but there's many who've put the Canon 5D Mark II to great use, a camera which according to DxO has the same bit depth and almost 1.5 EV disadvantage in DR relative to your A580. Much less noise in high-ISO of course, owing to its large, full-frame sensor, but then I doubt you're shooting your landscapes at ISO3200.

 

[splashy]

What you like about these pictures is not the quality, but the artist eye and the pp of the product, I think the FF is totally unimportant, you might even do it with a decent phonecamera..

 

[Meadown]

Holy crap batman




Those landscapes are amazing, I just got the 16-35 Z with some sony vouchers I won (to use with A99) but im amateur but im glad I saw those photos it really shows what someone much better than myself could do with my equipment :-O




The first one is stunning, whats the quickest way to view EXIF Data on flickr photos, is there a chrome addon or something that overlays them?

 

[OntarioJohn]

This is true. The a99 drops off in comparison when you make a print the size of a barn. Otherwise no pixel peeper in the world would ever actually see the difference. You could give them 100 shots and an off the shelf good monitor and at 60 inches or so you could never tell the difference in the resolution. If you can find that 200 foot by 180 foot monitor, I'll say maybe. But the Nikon probably has to deal with back focus and oil drops and other stuff.

Oh and you have to wonder if you got your settings right, unless you have light meter eyes, the Nikon will be hard to use.

The EVF on the Sony will let you see if you got the exposure right, And show things like the depth of field in AF-D mode with the right lens.

The line is blurring between all the devices available.

The devices are tools.

 

[Mark Turnbull]

Now I'm definitely no expert, in fact I've only been shooting with a "proper camera" for a few months (A57). And I'm just getting the hang of Lightroom 4. But I would say that the photographer you linked to gets most of his images looking like that in PP. Both the skies and the foreground seem too colourful and equally exposed to come directly from the camera.

I've really found that Lightroom can correct this...here is an example of a shot I took the other day of a scene I like.




This first image is straight from the camera. Sky over exposed, foreground underexposed...leaving both parts very underwhelming. I've noticed the skies in alot of your shots are like this.



The second image is after lightroom processing. I brought the highlights down, increased the shadows, increased clarity, vibrance and numerous other sliders. But just by bringing the highlights down and moving the shadows up, and increasing contrast and saturation can bring them to life....can make a dull sky look so dramatic. I think the skies in your photos could do with decreased highlights etc....this would make them just as detailed as the photographer you linked to.

This was taken handheld with the kit 18-55 lens.


Your photos really are fantastic.

 

[Kriekira]

The difference has nothing to do with APS-C vs. FF. As many have stated, you can get the same look with your equipment. (Especially for viewing via the low-resolution medium of computer displays.)

Make sure you _never_ blow anything but lustre-lights, and learn to bring some detail back into your higher lights.

A hardware-calibrated workflow is highly recommended.

The effect you are drawn to is done almost entirely in PP (starting with proper exposure). I much prefer your own photographs, which are quite pleasing and well observed (except where you seem to be pushing saturation too hard). The Michigander pictures are over-processed and treacly to my eye -- they are to satisfying landscape photography what Lucky Charms is to breakfast cereal. I prefer whole grains and granola. YMMV.

 

[dlkeller]

I agree with much of what has been said. Great results can be achieved by APS-C with proper exposure and skill in both composition and post processing.

Another fact, possibly even more important, is the really dedicated photographer makes the opportunity for great shots by being in the right place at the right time. Getting up before dawn and waiting for the right light for several mornings until it gives the effect you want, watching weather forcasts and gettting to the location for the storm that will give the clouds and lighting that makes the great photo, catching the skiff of snow on a canyon at dawn, etc. are examples of what the expert/professional does to make the truly spectacular shot we are really impressed by.

Sometimes the rest of us "luck into" such conditions but these guys oftem put a lot of effort into getting into position to increase their odds.

 

[stan_pustylnik]

John McCormick is well known master. He does fantastic work by knowing very well what to do with each particular scene. His tools include right optical filters from top makers like Singh-Ray, Tiffen. He uses CPL+ND combinations to acheve color/clarity effects he is going after.

Certanly he does post processing, but I find his style very natural.

His secret is not in FF camera or lens, but in skill to choose right set of tools/ exposure to achieve his vision of nature beauty.

 

[Alpha Doug]

As many previous posters have said, while a FF camera can give you a small advantage, you will get the most bang for your buck using your current equipment with better technique. Just by religiously following the "Rule of Thirds" your images will go from good to better. Lots of other issues relative to composition. In fact, excellent photography is mostly about composition and light. So if you study up on composition, and start trying to apply those rules one at a time, your photography will get better right away. And secondly, you must pay great attention to the color, quantity, direction, and quality of the light in the scene. And look for ways to maximize your exposures. Exposure is more than just calculating the right Aperture or Shutter speed. Think about where the light is coming from, where the shadows are, and optimize those for the best effect. Shoot a lot during the golden hours. Also, it appears that the referenced photographer uses a tripod religiously. And he takes a lot of long exposure, small aperture images. I suspect that he uses the "hyper focal" focusing technique to get maximum DOF. Can't tell if he uses a graduated ND filter, but others are correct in that he gets most of the Dynamic Range covered. You also can simulate this in LR. The only way to improve is to keep studying, keep practicing, and develop your "style" or "eye". Since you live in Michigan, pick one of the images you particularly like, then go to that site a bunch, at different times of the year or of the day, and try to "mimic" what the other photographer did to take that image. Try to duplicate it. In doing this, you will learn a lot.

 

[Keit ll]

I realise the OP framed his question in a manner which widens the scope for answers but to those who think that a good half frame setup can match a good FF outfit I would say ` Get your eyes tested !`

 

[Nordstjernen]

Keit ll wrote:

I realise the OP framed his question in a manner which widens the scope for answers but to those who think that a good half frame setup can match a good FF outfit I would say ` Get your eyes tested !`

Way too simple. When skipping pixel peeping, you really have to work with large formats and look at the photographs from a close distance to see any significant differences. I have worked a lot with FF and aps-c and know that for most work the "feeling" of using FF is more important than the real world differences.

I would appreciate if you could go deeper into your arguments. What are the perceptual differences and how does this affect real world photography? And under which conditions? This could make an interesting discussion.

 

[Ronald A Yorko]

I agree with all comments. However, the website you mentioned for comparison isn't a matter of full frame vs. smaller sensor. The photographer seems to have a great deal of experience shooting, and some of the images have some fairly extreme PP. Looking at your images on your website I saw several wonderful A+ shots with your gear. So, just keep at it, you are on the right track.