APSC vs Full Frame? Image quality differences?

[Rexel99]

Wow, what a variety of answers and outright conflicts of advice to the questions posed.

Looks like everybody is experiencing different answers to these problems themselves and as such are presenting their opinions from a variety of different points of view. I am not saying they are wrong at all but some may or may not apply to you MikeNannie.

In my opinion...

Is it all about the camera and equipment? No.
I would say perhaps that this could be 20% of the potential, 5% sensor and 15% lens quality.

Skills are the rest... 80% of the image quality and visual impact is talent. Some of this talent is natural and some can be learnt, all can be improved with practice, training and education.

Is a better sensor important.. A little. It will receive more light per pixel and improve the quality but it is not critical. This will be more apparent on larger prints etc, but it also does have a bit of an effect on the image presented on the web.

Dont buy a new lens yet, consider what the flaws in your lens may be and ignore these issues, does it vignette a lot, does it not really have crisp focus, too short or too long.. Understand this (in time) and then work around it, work with it and generally avoid this as an issue. Later you will use this info toward the reasons for getting a new lens and what decisions this will involve.

Postprocessing is something that improved my photography over the last year, also in return my photography has improved and the amount of corrections I do in post are now minimised. The post software I use (lightroom) and the way I use it contribute to my style and photographic results.

Skills..? Well i wont go into these too much, that is practice and reflecting on your results and making changes to the process.
I would add a dose of patience. Take the time to go out to your subject, think about a shot, plan it, think about it (again) and how its looking within the environment, how is the light affecting it and how is this changing as the day passes...

Challenge yourself: Example task, go out with a meetup group and do some landscape, evening/night photography. Do this a few times and make some new friends.. Then when your comfortable with that challenge yourself. Task 1 - Take 1 (One) shot. Go out in the evening cold or whatever and get 1 good shot, use the whole night to do it.

OK, I am rambling, have fun with the above and photography, do what you do with what you have. Chase Jarvis: The best camera is the one you have with you.

 

[Michigan Nut]

Mike, how do you get to that vantage point in your DH Day Historic farm and barn Shot , (Sleeping Bear Dunes).. Thanks for linking to my website..

 

[MikeNannie]

Michigan Nut wrote:

Mike, how do you get to that vantage point in your DH Day Historic farm and barn Shot , (Sleeping Bear Dunes).. Thanks for linking to my website..

John, you're most welcome. You have a true gift and I would love to learn to do what you do!


My DH Day Farm images are from a lookout along the drive through Sleeping Bear Dunes National Park. I think it's about the 3rd or 4th stop. Before you get to the big dune. It's a pretty significant stop along the drive through the park and there is a pretty good parking lot adjacent to this lookout. Sorry, I can't remember the specifics because we were there last October. I'm sure you can find it.

Any thoughts on my original questions?

thanks

 

[MCromer]

Unfortunately no, I don't know of any landscape photographer who shoots with Alpha cameras

There are lots of us who are landscape photographers and use Alpha cameras.

Here is my website:

http://lightskyland.com

 

[MikeNannie]

JerryCurtis wrote:

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).

Yep, the second of the 2 swans is out of focus. I should have stopped down my lens more for that shot. Maybe next year I'll review my images for the white balance corrections. I find getting the right WB difficult in LR for some reason. I wish the eye dropper tool would just let you click on something that should be white instead of something gray.

thanks Jerry.

 

[MikeNannie]

Draek wrote:

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.

You should have seen the blown out grass before my PP. I was a little too early for the fall colors too. I'll take your feedback into consideration in the future. Thanks.

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.

 

[MikeNannie]

MCromer wrote:

Unfortunately no, I don't know of any landscape photographer who shoots with Alpha cameras

There are lots of us who are landscape photographers and use Alpha cameras.

Here is my website:

http://lightskyland.com

Matthew, nice website and images. thanks for the link.

I use to be a software engineer as well by the way.

 

[JerryCurtis]

with the eyedropper for WB correction - I can click white, black or grey in Paint Shop Pro and Aftershot Pro (the Corel equivalents of PS and LR)

 

[MikeNannie]

dlkeller wrote:

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.

 

[MikeNannie]

JerryCurtis wrote:

with the eyedropper for WB correction - I can click white, black or grey in Paint Shop Pro and Aftershot Pro (the Corel equivalents of PS and LR)

 

[JerryCurtis]

It's just Paint Shop Pro that allows clicking on either of the three... Aftershot Pro is just white, along with choosing all the normal presets and K-temp. I always get the best results in clicking on what should be white in both programs, though, or accepting the auto-fix, which always picks the whitest area of the image.

 

[Michigan Nut]

Mike,





1. You surely don't need an FX camera to get great photos ; although in my experience, you get more latitude in exposure / tonal range adjustments, while maintaining image quality.




2. (Post processing a big factor ?) I'd say no, getting the exposure right in the camera is key, and proper focus. I like the rule "expose to the right" when shooting raw. I watch the Histogram close, and dial it in with the exposure compensation making sure the highlights are getting full signal but not pushed so far as to clip them ,maximizing dynamic tonal shade range, and signal to noise ratio.

3. (Monitors ?) I have a wide gamut monitor by NEC. Love it, I'm not the expert to ask about monitors though. But the funny part is, I edit my raw photos in the sRGB color space. I used to edit and work in adobe RGB and then convert the files to sRGB when exporting, but I really did not notice much if any advantage(with landscapes anyway) ; in fact it can be a big disadvantage if you accidentally embed the wrong one.

4. (Equipment questions ?) One of my best lenses is the "Nifty Fifty" 50mm f/1.8

I recently picked up a copy of the newly released Nikon 70-200 f/4 , I am blown away by this lens coupled with the D800E.. Pixel peepers dream come true!

Most all of my wide angle shots were taken with the Nikon 16-35mm. This lens is working fantastic with the D800E as well. there are good lens and camera combinations with all the brands and the don't have to be "pro-series". Research the characteristics of your lens so you know where it's sweet spots are. Don't stop down further than necessary, avoiding diffraction. (Bracket your apertures) and point of focus.

Someone mentioned I probably use ND filters : >I use the large 4x6 ND's and hand hold them. For my sunrise/sunsets I use a 4x6 .9 reverse ND, the majority of the time. If I'm shooting waterfalls or other scenes where the sky is bright, I use a 2 stop 4x6 ND soft grad.

Thanks again for referencing my website,





-John

 

[Endos]

Meadown wrote:

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?

I don't know for chrome, there are plugins for firefox, but to see the exif data easily, and the lens and filters as well, go to his 500px account: 500px.com/alonsodr

 

[MikeNannie]

Michigan Nut wrote:

Mike,

1. You surely don't need an FX camera to get great photos ; although in my experience, you get more latitude in exposure / tonal range adjustments, while maintaining image quality.

2. (Post processing a big factor ?) I'd say no, getting the exposure right in the camera is key, and proper focus. I like the rule "expose to the right" when shooting raw. I watch the Histogram close, and dial it in with the exposure compensation making sure the highlights are getting full signal but not pushed so far as to clip them ,maximizing dynamic tonal shade range, and signal to noise ratio.

3. (Monitors ?) I have a wide gamut monitor by NEC. Love it, I'm not the expert to ask about monitors though. But the funny part is, I edit my raw photos in the sRGB color space. I used to edit and work in adobe RGB and then convert the files to sRGB when exporting, but I really did not notice much if any advantage(with landscapes anyway) ; in fact it can be a big disadvantage if you accidentally embed the wrong one.

4. (Equipment questions ?) One of my best lenses is the "Nifty Fifty" 50mm f/1.8

I recently picked up a copy of the newly released Nikon 70-200 f/4 , I am blown away by this lens coupled with the D800E.. Pixel peepers dream come true!

Most all of my wide angle shots were taken with the Nikon 16-35mm. This lens is working fantastic with the D800E as well. there are good lens and camera combinations with all the brands and the don't have to be "pro-series". Research the characteristics of your lens so you know where it's sweet spots are. Don't stop down further than necessary, avoiding diffraction. (Bracket your apertures) and point of focus.

Someone mentioned I probably use ND filters : >I use the large 4x6 ND's and hand hold them. For my sunrise/sunsets I use a 4x6 .9 reverse ND, the majority of the time. If I'm shooting waterfalls or other scenes where the sky is bright, I use a 2 stop 4x6 ND soft grad.

Thanks again for referencing my website,

-John

Thanks for all the input John, much appreciated.

I do try to expose to the right, as you mentioned, and understand that technique. I'll likely upgrade my monitor in the coming months but it's good to know that you're using sRGB.

I don't have a lens yet that's as wide as your 16-35, so that might be a good addition as well. Others in this thread have also suggested this addition.

I'll have to look into ND filters especially for sunsets which are most challenging without. I had one years ago, back in my film days (Minolta x-700 and then an 800si), but I haven't used one for a long time. And, I can't even remember how many stops that filter had . I like the idea of hand holding them - I think Moose Peterson does the same thing.

Perhaps our paths will cross one day while shooting in the great state of Michigan. thx

 

[Frenske]

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?

No question about it. An APS-C camera can do excellent landscape pictures. When there is a very shallow depth of field is required well then the FF has the advantage.

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

From what I have seen from him: quiet a lot. It would not surprise me if you also uses filters e.g. half-neutral density filters, polarizers during the shoot. He may have spend a hours perfectioning the picture.

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

Sorry I cannot answer this really, but whatever monitor the photographer is using you are viewing the pictures on your "crappy" monitor and like them. There is no particular reason why you would not be able to reproduce it on your monitor. If you can see it, you can do it!

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? )

Expensive camera and lenses does not equal better pictures. Technique and experience are more important. I once saw amazing pictures made with a lomo camera.

 

[Dave Oddie]

dlkeller wrote:

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.

 

[Mark K W]

I will write only about my own experiences, because others have given you the technical answer, which is that pretty-much anything you can do with FF, you can do with APS-C; the only technical difference between the two (assuming proportionate MP for sensor area) is really angle-of-view.

-

Personally, for landscapes though, I would say my FF has an advantage. Simply because I get that wider angle-of-view for a given lens, and also because the viewfinder (mine's OVF) is bright and large. Those two things sort of psychologically work to make me make "better" thought-out landscape images with my FF than with my APS-C.

[ I have A700 and A900, CZ24-70/2.8, CZ16-35/2.8, and Minolta 80-200/2.8 as my main lenses ].

Technically both sensors in my cameras are the same generation, so same signal-to-noise and dynamic-range, but I just find I get more "wow" pictures off the A900 because of how I use it for landscapes vs how I use the A700 (which is used more for picking off detail things with the 80-200).

So, I would say it's not the sensor-size as such, but more intangible things start to come into play, like somehow FF and wide-angle just makes me use my tripod more, makes me think and frame-up more accurately. Also for me with A900, I have grid-focussing screen, so again that just makes me set-up to take better pictures with that camera. The A900 body is bigger, and again, that just makes me think to use it more deliberately.

Sure, I can make great-great images with A700, but somehow the psychology of a bigger more-pro-feel FF camera like A900 just makes me put a little bit more time into what I shoot with the A900.

So - there's not image quality differences because of APS-C vs FF sensor-size per-se, there's perhaps usage/location/scene differences you may find when you have the choice of an FF body with a wide-angle mounted on it.

[ Obviously, others responding here are getting fantastic things from APS-C, and of course you can, and everythng I say I do with FF can be done with APS-C, but I just wanted to share my own experience based on how I find it with the two previous generation Sony models used side-by-side. I also do a lot of PP, and know how absolutely critical that is to make landscape images - of the kind you link to - really "work". ].

 

[rusticus]

Differences in image quality: no!

 

[Christoph Stephan]

Your pics are excellent compositions.


Whereas photographic skills, technique are always more important than equipment, I wonder whether indeed some things may boil down to your equipment.

The Sony SLT design is great for video (autofocus in video mode) but compromises still photo capability because....

it robs light. Part of the light goes through the translucent mirror and benefits the image, another part is needed for the viewfinder. Not so n Canon / Nikon / Pentax: ALL the light is either used for the finder, or, once the mirror flips up, for the image (a tiny bit is used for autofocus sensors, but this applies to all cameras).

Of course this is mainly of importance in low light situations.


You may have invested too heavily in the Sony system, and if you do video as well, the advantages may outweigh the disadvantages. I do have to admit that I would always consider Canon / Nikon / Pentax over Sony...

 

[MikeNannie]

Frenske wrote:

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?

No question about it. An APS-C camera can do excellent landscape pictures. When there is a very shallow depth of field is required well then the FF has the advantage.

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

From what I have seen from him: quiet a lot. It would not surprise me if you also uses filters e.g. half-neutral density filters, polarizers during the shoot. He may have spend a hours perfectioning the picture.

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

Sorry I cannot answer this really, but whatever monitor the photographer is using you are viewing the pictures on your "crappy" monitor and like them. There is no particular reason why you would not be able to reproduce it on your monitor. If you can see it, you can do it!

Ha, I thought the same thing as I wrote the question, but I'm not sure that you can correctly draw that conclusion. A better monitor may show better detail, or allow finer image adjustments that are much more apparent when the final output isn't a computer screen.