FF vs APS-C: being serious...

[Zoomstein]

Ok, so I've been pondering for a little while now about this FF hassle and the A900 rumors. I must admit I'm a bit biased as I've recently got my new A700 and getting a newer model released a month or so after You've bought "the top of the line" is a bummer. But I'm just a little bit biased, so pray bare with me.

Let's see what are the PROs and CONs of a FF camera (regardless of the brand and system):

The PROs of FF:

1) Larger sensor means better IQ. (It's rather questionable and we'll discuss that later).
2) No digital crop (i.e. better wide angle)
3) It would seem more professional.... (Although I think it's a lame argument)

The CONs of FF:

1) It costs more. Not only now, it'll always cost more, because it costs more to make.
2) No digital crop means shorter tele and macro.

3) Larger sensor means larger files, slower transfer, less fps than APS-C (at least at the moment).

So far FF does not seem such a good idea... Especially if the common belief that "Larger sensor means better IQ" is taken into serious consideration. Unfortunately this is not true. Let me explain why:

The APS-C sensor is more or less 25mm x 16mm. FF should be 36mm x 24mm which makes it 50% larger (hence the "digital crop"). Let's assume we have an 24MP FF sensor and a 12MP APS-C sensor and let's calculate "pixel density" per physical space. Turns out that:

APS-C density at 12MP: 31500 pixels per 1 sq. mm
FF density at 24MP: 29100 pixels per 1 sq. mm

So actually the pixel density on an FF sensor is lower. Which means that interpolation (i.e. the process that approximates RGB value for every pixel from combining several channels measurement) is less precise and hence is the actual colour, detail and sharpness. (If anything, I'd rather have a 12MP APS-C real RGB sensor like the one Sigma's working on, but that's a different kind of a story).

Another thing I actually dislike about FF is that it takes the tele-range back to the stone age, making it impossible to get good shots with "portable" glass. And given that a 100-450mm zoom costs much more than a 70-300, that's a big problem. Wide angle, on the other hand, does not cost that much even if digital crop is taken into consideration and is generally less useful. So "the blessing of digital crop" is actually an important issue.

Last, but not least - the lame belief that FF is "more professional"... I think it's some sort of a psychological block. Why 35mm is "professional"? Why is it "the best format"? Isn't it because back some 90 years ago it turned out to be (after some trials and failures) the best format for reasonably portable cameras? So if APS-C is becoming something of the same sort for DSLRs why is it wrong? If APS-C has given us a chance to take longer shots, have a larger variety of focal lengths in our backpack with less investment and granted us SSS and high-ISO noise reduction - why is it all to be tossed away in favor of a presumably better (only because it's larger) format?

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Omne solum forti patria est.

 

[Robert Lynch]

So far FF does not seem such a good idea... Especially if the common
belief that "Larger sensor means better IQ" is taken into serious
consideration. Unfortunately this is not true. Let me explain why:

If you are going to explain why, please get it right. "Larger sensor means better IQ" is for the same pixel count. That is why everyone drools over the output from the FF 12MP cameras on the market. Those big, fat light collecting pixels produce lower noise, higher IQ images.

APS-C density at 12MP: 31500 pixels per 1 sq. mm
FF density at 24MP: 29100 pixels per 1 sq. mm

Not exactly an earth shattering difference. The FF camera has 92% of the pixel density of the APS camera in your example. This is offset by (all other things being equal) lower noise attributes.

Another thing I actually dislike about FF is that it takes the
tele-range back to the stone age, making it impossible to get good
shots with "portable" glass. And given that a 100-450mm zoom costs
much more than a 70-300, that's a big problem. Wide angle, on the
other hand, does not cost that much even if digital crop is taken
into consideration and is generally less useful. So "the blessing of
digital crop" is actually an important issue.

Given the almost identical pixel densities of the A700 & A900, you can get your "digital crop" by actually cropping the center of the FF image down to 12 MP. Same shot, same lens.

Last, but not least - the lame belief that FF is "more
professional"...

I don't know anyone with a lick of sense of thinks that way. Besides, we all know that only Nikon and Canon make professional cameras. Why would anyone even consider Sony?

If APS-C has given us a chance to take longer shots, have a
larger variety of focal lengths in our backpack with less investment
and granted us SSS and high-ISO noise reduction - why is it all to be
tossed away in favor of a presumably better (only because it's
larger) format?

The A900 will have SSS, you aren't losing it.

You don't get a variety of focal lengths with APS, just a different range from APS to FF. Your "free" long range costs you at the short end. Pick your poison.

Why do you think that there will be any difference in high ISO handling (at least a change for the worse) with the FF camera?

 

[Two Truths]

With a 25MP full-frame sensor you get the both of best worlds;

You can crop down to 12MP and get an image that has approximately the same focal length multiplier and depth of field as an APS-C sensor would produce.
--- OR ---

You can keep the full 25MP image and get an image that is much wider and thus has more depth of field.
--- PLUS ---
You have flexibility about where you crop and how far you crop down by.

--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

 

[Zoomstein]

If you are going to explain why, please get it right. "Larger sensor
means better IQ" is for the same pixel count. That is why everyone
drools over the output from the FF 12MP cameras on the market. Those
big, fat light collecting pixels produce lower noise, higher IQ
images.

Lower noise? That's not exactly true actually. Let me try to explain:

1) The noise's out there and it is inevitable. Film or sensor - the light's noisy. That's something we can't avoid or complain about.

2) The techniques of noise reduction are based on collecting data over space. The larger the space and the lower the density - the less precise your results are.
3) The lesser the pixel density, the less noise You're going to bite on.

So what happens here is that the amount of noise will decrease as well as our ability to detect and annihilate it. The question is: are the two effects proportional? I'm afraid they're not. So basically the FF sensor camera will have "to think more" to achieve the same results APS-C camera has now. And the moment algorithms better, APS-C size will be again better and quicker...

Not exactly an earth shattering difference. The FF camera has 92% of
the pixel density of the APS camera in your example. This is offset
by (all other things being equal) lower noise attributes.

A350 with its 14MP is 21% more "dense" and 16-18MP aren't that far away... It's clear that keeping the same pixel density on FF costs a lot more in sensor, processing and file size terms. And given we're still talking about interpolation, there's actually a physical limit to what a sensor could do. I.e. at some point there's no difference if one has this or that million of pixels more or less - the result is the same.

Given the almost identical pixel densities of the A700 & A900, you
can get your "digital crop" by actually cropping the center of the FF
image down to 12 MP. Same shot, same lens.

Not exactly. Try cropping 6MP from a 12MP... And compare it with a 6MP shot... You'd be surprised

I don't know anyone with a lick of sense of thinks that way.
Besides, we all know that only Nikon and Canon make professional
cameras. Why would anyone even consider Sony?

I'd say Nikon makes professional cameras. Canon is not to be considered in my opinion)))

The A900 will have SSS, you aren't losing it.

It's going to cost a lot more in energy terms; it is going to give a lot less in practical terms; it is not going to be as efficient. The processing power needed to make an FF SSS work is simply going to cost too much I'm afraid. For now. And for the next 2 or 3 years...

You don't get a variety of focal lengths with APS, just a different
range from APS to FF. Your "free" long range costs you at the short
end. Pick your poison.

I've picked mine I have 11-18 in my bag and that's something I'd never use with an FF. Whilst 70-300 is rather useful with my APS-C and costs and weighs so much less than something that goes all the way to 450 with FF...

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Omne solum forti patria est.

 

[Zoomstein]

You can crop down to 12MP and get an image that has approximately the
same focal length multiplier and depth of field as an APS-C sensor
would produce.

Take a KM 7D and take a shot. Take A700 and take the same shot, but adjusting the focal length. Compare A700's 12MP cropped to 6MP to the shot made with KM7D... You'll see the difference. Interpolation isn't linear, it's not going to work that way

--- PLUS ---
You have flexibility about where you crop and how far you crop down by.

I think it's a psychological thing. An APS-C 24MP sensors would let you do the same. The current APS-C 12MP sensor's ok too. We've lived with 6 and 4MP fine, nobody complained. And once 24MP becomes a standard (just like 10-12MP is now), it won't seem "cropable" any more...

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Omne solum forti patria est.

 

[ph0t0man]

Ok, so I've been pondering for a little while now about this FF
hassle and the A900 rumors. I must admit I'm a bit biased as I've
recently got my new A700 and getting a newer model released a month
or so after You've bought "the top of the line" is a bummer. But I'm
just a little bit biased, so pray bare with me.

First off, these two models we speak of (a700 and a900) were first previewed TOGETHER at the same show over a year and a half ago... For you to be bummed that a new model is coming out just because you bought an a700 is silly and slightly selfish. I've got 2 a700s, and there is nothing I want more than another camera to choose from, especially if it is a full frame camera.

To say that you didn't know about the a900 coming out is just your lack of research into the system. Anyone who's been reading this (or any other major) forum for the last 6 months should have adequate knowledge of the a900.

snipped out all of your "arguments"

So far FF does not seem such a good idea... Especially if the common
belief that "Larger sensor means better IQ" is taken into serious
consideration. Unfortunately this is not true. Let me explain why:
The APS-C sensor is more or less 25mm x 16mm. FF should be 36mm x
24mm which makes it 50% larger (hence the "digital crop").

Actually, 36x24mm = 864mm^2; 25x16mm = 400mm^2, so in actuality, there is more than 100% additional square area, which is the correct way to compare two sensors, which are in essence, 2 dimensional. Comparing 1 dimension at a time is not going to get us very far.

Let's assume we have an 24MP FF sensor and a 12MP APS-C sensor and let's

calculate "pixel density" per physical space. Turns out that: APS-C density at > 12MP: 31500 pixels per 1 sq. mm FF density at 24MP: 29100 pixels per 1 sq. mm

I get numbers of 30000 pixels/mm and 27777 pixels/mm, but that not using the official specs of either sensor. To get exact amounts, you'd have to research the exact size of both sensing areas, as well as the exact pixel counts. I don't care to waste too much time, since we are having a theoretical debate anyway.

So actually the pixel density on an FF sensor is lower. Which means
that interpolation (i.e. the process that approximates RGB value for
every pixel from combining several channels measurement) is less
precise and hence is the actual colour, detail and sharpness.

You are completely missing the point here. You have higher quality pixels because of the lower pixel density. You expand your dynamic range, ability to shoot at higher ISOs, and very much likely the per-pixel sharpness AND color accuracy. By your logic, the smallest most densely packed sensors should produce the best image quality. Odd we haven't seen any $8000 compact digital cameras with 20 MP?

Again, this is all theoretical, and for all we know, Sony botched the a900 sensor and it could be junk compared to the 12mp CMOS in the a700 or 10mp CCD in the a100, but I highly doubt it...

Another thing I actually dislike about FF is that it takes the
tele-range back to the stone age, making it impossible to get good
shots with "portable" glass. And given that a 100-450mm zoom costs
much more than a 70-300, that's a big problem. Wide angle, on the
other hand, does not cost that much even if digital crop is taken
into consideration and is generally less useful. So "the blessing of
digital crop" is actually an important issue.

Less useful to who? You...? That doesn't have much effect on my photography now does it? Personally, I'm not a huge ultra-wide shooter myself either, but I will sure enjoy using my 24-70 as it was intended...a wide to long standard lens. Also, my 70-200 lenses will now become what they were intended to be too, portrait/short tele lenses. You are forgetting a couple of things. This high-resolution full frame sensor we are talking about is the best of both worlds...24mp is a huge file that can be very useful for certain types of photography. Having such high resolution on a FF sensor allows you to crop that sensor down to match an APS-C sized sensor, and still have a whopping 10mp of image data! The 12mp FF sensors in the D700 and D3 don't have much resolution left once you crop to APS-C, something around 6mp, which is still quite useful (after all, I started my DSLR phase with the wonderful and out-dated 7D).

Also, high quality ultra-wide angle lenses are very expensive...especially if one considers wide apertures important.

Last, but not least - the lame belief that FF is "more

snip so I can actually post my message

larger) format?

Who said we were getting rid of SSS, and why the comment about high-ISO noise reduction? You will need less of it on the new sensor because of the lower noise (in theory). That, or you will be able to shoot a stop, maybe even two, faster due to the new sensor. What's more professional about FF? The fact that almost all professional level lenses were (and still are) built for a FF sensor. This means that a 16-35/2.8 lens is an ultra-wide lens, not a wide-normal lens. The 24-70 becomes what it was designed for, a wide-short tele (or long-normal if you prefer). The 70-200 becomes a perfect portrait lens.

I'm not saying that there is not a use for APS-C. I like my a700s a lot, but I don't think they will get much use once the a900 gets here. I may even sell one to help lessen the blow. For some things like birding, APS-C has great advantages. Take that 50-500 lens, and wow, you can get some great shots. Take out the 400/4.5 with 1.4x TC and wow again... a 900mm-e/4 doesn't exist in FF...but wait, just crop your 24mp image down to 10mp, and voila, you've got it back again!
--
-Matt
Rent Alpha Mount Lenses! - http://www.alphalensrental.com
http://www.ouatphotography.com

 

[Robert Lynch]

The A900 will have SSS, you aren't losing it.

It's going to cost a lot more in energy terms; it is going to give a
lot less in practical terms; it is not going to be as efficient. The
processing power needed to make an FF SSS work is simply going to
cost too much I'm afraid. For now. And for the next 2 or 3 years...

I'm sorry, but I am not following you. Is it your contention that the A900 will not have SSS? Because if it is, you are wrong. Sony has already made it clear that it will, when the sensor was officially announced.

 

[cyainparadise]

If the 'rumor' that the A900 will be Full-Frame, then it's no 'rumor', nor has it been for over a year.

 

[qball]

If your given less pixel density, the image would be given less pitch in a focus area. If alll APSC shots were cropped to 50% youd retain pixel sharpness with all the af region.

What about on FF?

24mp with a sliightly narrowed af area system would maybe suffer from less pixel sharpness at over 18mp(estimate) but cropped at 50% in region pixel sharpness would just be as sharp.

You can't blame 24mp on this one.
--
∙Alex∙

 

[ck3]

Ok, so I've been pondering for a little while now about this FF
hassle and the A900 rumors. I must admit I'm a bit biased as I've
recently got my new A700 and getting a newer model released a month
or so after You've bought "the top of the line" is a bummer. But I'm
just a little bit biased, so pray bare with me.

Let's see what are the PROs and CONs of a FF camera (regardless of
the brand and system):

The PROs of FF:

1) Larger sensor means better IQ. (It's rather questionable and we'll
discuss that later).

No, it's not questionable (see below)

2) No digital crop (i.e. better wide angle)
3) It would seem more professional.... (Although I think it's a lame
argument)

Indeed, and that's why I never heard it - kind of a dummy argument.

The CONs of FF:

1) It costs more. Not only now, it'll always cost more, because it
costs more to make.
2) No digital crop means shorter tele and macro.
3) Larger sensor means larger files, slower transfer, less fps than
APS-C (at least at the moment).

Larger sensor doesn't mean larger files etc. - more MP means larger files etc. It's true though that the larger mirror makes the mechanics of higher FPS more difficult to construct. But I think the 10 FPS of the D3 should suffice even for professional use.

BTW your arguments are arguments for a small sensor low MP camera in general. So why bother with an DSLR?

So actually the pixel density on an FF sensor is lower. Which means
that interpolation (i.e. the process that approximates RGB value for
every pixel from combining several channels measurement) is less
precise and hence is the actual colour, detail and sharpness.

What is important in this regard is not pixel density but resolution. And 24 MP is more resolution than 12 MP. The larger the sensor, the more light gathered, which means more signal, which is a good thing.

(If anything, I'd rather have a 12MP APS-C real RGB sensor like the one
Sigma's working on, but that's a different kind of a story).

Indeed, a different story.

Another thing I actually dislike about FF is that it takes the
tele-range back to the stone age, making it impossible to get good
shots with "portable" glass. And given that a 100-450mm zoom costs
much more than a 70-300, that's a big problem. Wide angle, on the
other hand, does not cost that much even if digital crop is taken
into consideration and is generally less useful. So "the blessing of
digital crop" is actually an important issue.

Only if you think you need more reach (and I don't need it). Besides, as other posters have pointed out, you can always crop. And since the pixel density of the 24 MP sensor will roughly the same as that of the A700, you will get at least the same reach and IQ. As to your belief that a crop looks different than a "full size" image. That is only true for a given sensor size, where higher pixel density may lead to higher per pixel noise.

Last, but not least - the lame belief that FF is "more
professional"... I think it's some sort of a psychological block. Why
35mm is "professional"? Why is it "the best format"? Isn't it because
back some 90 years ago it turned out to be (after some trials and
failures) the best format for reasonably portable cameras?

Come one, that's a lame argument so why spend so much time discussing it? The pros that want FF want it because they want the better IQ FF delivers. MF delivers even better IQ but currently is too expensive/slow etc.

So if APS-C is becoming something of the same sort for DSLRs why is it
wrong? If APS-C has given us a chance to take longer shots, have a
larger variety of focal lengths in our backpack with less investment
and granted us SSS and high-ISO noise reduction - why is it all to be
tossed away in favor of a presumably better (only because it's
larger) format?

Sony confirmed that the A900 will have SSS, so you seem to be wrong in this regard. And if you want a smaller sensor - for the foreseeable future APS-C won't go away. There also is the Fourthirds standard - an even smaller sensor. Why didn't you buy an Olympus?

 

[RedFox88]

3) Larger sensor means larger files, slower transfer, less fps than
APS-C (at least at the moment).

Sensor size has nothing to do with data throughput. In fact I think the sony a350 13.5MP RAW files are larger than the Canon 5D RAW files. I also think the Canon 40D 14bit files are the same size or larger than the 5D with the 40D being 3 fewer MP and a smaller sensor.

So far FF does not seem such a good idea... Especially if the common
belief that "Larger sensor means better IQ" is taken into serious
consideration. Unfortunately this is not true. Let me explain why:

High iso is better on FF, just compare even the old Canon 5D against the a350.

The APS-C sensor is more or less 25mm x 16mm. FF should be 36mm x
24mm which makes it 50% larger (hence the "digital crop"). Let's
assume we have an 24MP FF sensor and a 12MP APS-C sensor and let's
calculate "pixel density" per physical space. Turns out that:

It depends on what you want to do with your photographs. Are you trying to always shoot something far away? If so aps-c is a good idea. But if you can properly composed your shots on a FF camera, then FF will have no disadvantage for having larger pixels.

Another thing I actually dislike about FF is that it takes the
tele-range back to the stone age, making it impossible to get good
shots with "portable" glass. And given that a 100-450mm zoom costs
much more than a 70-300, that's a big problem. Wide angle, on the
other hand, does not cost that much even if digital crop is taken
into consideration and is generally less useful. So "the blessing of
digital crop" is actually an important issue.

Why aren't you using a 18x P&S camera then? It's so much more portable and lighter than an SLR and big zoom lens, right?

Last, but not least - the lame belief that FF is "more
professional"... I think it's some sort of a psychological block. Why
35mm is "professional"? Why is it "the best format"? Isn't it because
back some 90 years ago it turned out to be (after some trials and
failures) the best format for reasonably portable cameras? So if
APS-C is becoming something of the same sort for DSLRs why is it
wrong? If APS-C has given us a chance to take longer shots, have a
larger variety of focal lengths in our backpack with less investment
and granted us SSS and high-ISO noise reduction - why is it all to be
tossed away in favor of a presumably better (only because it's
larger) format?

There is more agrument on this item, but there is good artistic benefit to a larger sensor such as a FF one because of the quality of the blurred background compared to even an aps-c or olympus dSLR background not to mention the huge DOF that a compact digital camera produces. You can get shallow DOF on an aps-c camera, but it is much easier to do on a FF/film SLR. Plus there are many people who expect the professionals should be using the best/most high end equipment instead of equipment that all consumers own.

 

[RedFox88]

Not exactly an earth shattering difference. The FF camera has 92% of
the pixel density of the APS camera in your example. This is offset
by (all other things being equal) lower noise attributes.

Are you trying to say that a FF sensor with the same pixels size as an aps-c sensor will have lower noise than that aps-c sensor? I doubt this would be true. Look at the 1Ds3 at 21MP. It does OK at high iso but the 5D and d3 do better because of bigger pixels.

 

[Jogger]

2) No digital crop means shorter tele and macro.

Just pretended that you have an apsc camera and use the centre part, its the exact same thing. At 25mp FF, an apsc crop is basically the same as what you are getting from the a700.

 

[headofdestiny]

Not exactly an earth shattering difference. The FF camera has 92% of
the pixel density of the APS camera in your example. This is offset
by (all other things being equal) lower noise attributes.

Are you trying to say that a FF sensor with the same pixels size as
an aps-c sensor will have lower noise than that aps-c sensor? I
doubt this would be true. Look at the 1Ds3 at 21MP. It does OK at
high iso but the 5D and d3 do better because of bigger pixels.

The 1Ds iii is actually pretty competitive in noise with the 5D if you view the files at the same size. Noise is more about sensor size and technology than pixel numbers, because you have to view or print files at the same size on order to compare.

 

[RedFox88]

Not exactly an earth shattering difference. The FF camera has 92% of
the pixel density of the APS camera in your example. This is offset
by (all other things being equal) lower noise attributes.

Are you trying to say that a FF sensor with the same pixels size as
an aps-c sensor will have lower noise than that aps-c sensor? I
doubt this would be true. Look at the 1Ds3 at 21MP. It does OK at
high iso but the 5D and d3 do better because of bigger pixels.

The 1Ds iii is actually pretty competitive in noise with the 5D if
you view the files at the same size. Noise is more about sensor size

So you're saying you reduce the 1Ds3 image to the same amount of pixels the 5D has, right? By doing that you are eliminating noise during downsizing. You cannot compare noise that way for two sensors with much different pixel counts, sorry.

 

[Kenneth B]

You can crop down to 12MP and get an image that has approximately the
same focal length multiplier and depth of field as an APS-C sensor
would produce.

Take a KM 7D and take a shot. Take A700 and take the same shot, but
adjusting the focal length. Compare A700's 12MP cropped to 6MP to the
shot made with KM7D... You'll see the difference. Interpolation isn't
linear, it's not going to work that way

Dude you're comparing apples to oranges. To do what you mentioned above you're fighting the quality of the glass more than the sensor. You're croping APS-C. With a FF sensor you can crop out the APS-C sized center of the image and you'll have similar or even identical results to what you would have with an APS-C sensor.

--- PLUS ---
You have flexibility about where you crop and how far you crop down by.

I think it's a psychological thing. An APS-C 24MP sensors would let
you do the same. The current APS-C 12MP sensor's ok too. We've lived
with 6 and 4MP fine, nobody complained. And once 24MP becomes a
standard (just like 10-12MP is now), it won't seem "cropable" any
more...

Again APS-C is not FF its the cropped or smaller sensor. Full Frame is APS.

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Omne solum forti patria est.

--
Kenneth Berntsen
A700 - KM 28-75 f/2.8 - 70-210 f/4 - 50 f/1.7
16 f/2.8 Fisheye Tamron 200-400 f/5.6
5600HS(D) - HVL-F56AM
KM Maxxum 7D - (Ret.)

 

[Henry Richardson]

So you're saying you reduce the 1Ds3 image to the same amount of
pixels the 5D has, right? By doing that you are eliminating noise
during downsizing. You cannot compare noise that way for two
sensors with much different pixel counts, sorry.

Why?

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[Luis Augusto]

Not exactly an earth shattering difference. The FF camera has 92% of
the pixel density of the APS camera in your example. This is offset
by (all other things being equal) lower noise attributes.

Are you trying to say that a FF sensor with the same pixels size as
an aps-c sensor will have lower noise than that aps-c sensor? I
doubt this would be true. Look at the 1Ds3 at 21MP. It does OK at
high iso but the 5D and d3 do better because of bigger pixels.

The 1Ds iii is actually pretty competitive in noise with the 5D if
you view the files at the same size. Noise is more about sensor size

So you're saying you reduce the 1Ds3 image to the same amount of
pixels the 5D has, right? By doing that you are eliminating noise
during downsizing. You cannot compare noise that way for two
sensors with much different pixel counts, sorry.

So you're basely saying that pixel-peeping is more important than actual results. Oh, god... How non sense.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Last, but not least - the lame belief that FF is "more
professional"... I think it's some sort of a psychological block. Why
35mm is "professional"? Why is it "the best format"? Isn't it because
back some 90 years ago it turned out to be (after some trials and
failures) the best format for reasonably portable cameras? So if
APS-C is becoming something of the same sort for DSLRs why is it
wrong? If APS-C has given us a chance to take longer shots, have a
larger variety of focal lengths in our backpack with less investment
and granted us SSS and high-ISO noise reduction - why is it all to be
tossed away in favor of a presumably better (only because it's
larger) format?

You sound like an Olympus user!

FTR, I never asked sony for a 24mp sensor, they just did it ;-)

12mp would be great for me on FF.

I see nothing wrong with APS, it's fine..no problems. I use 35mm FF at the moment, and its nice to get back to where I was on focal lengths.

So a FF digital (bar some technical issues, fall off etc. etc, we will see how this stacks up), is something I welcome.

You speak for yourself on some issues, if you shoot longer tele..APS or 4/3 would be great, I am much more WA to short tele myself..so I dont care about that side of it. And has been pointed out to you, crop your 24mp shots! If you want to.

The only objection I have to FF, is price...! Simple as. But I have no problems with the move to FF over time. APS is good too for digital, and will be around for ages if not forever
--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

 

[Dennis]

The PROs of FF:

1) Larger sensor means better IQ. (It's rather questionable and we'll
discuss that later).

It does. And it's not questionable. Though you need decent lenses to exploit it.

2) No digital crop (i.e. better wide angle)

Yep.

3) It would seem more professional.... (Although I think it's a lame
argument)

Who cares ?

The CONs of FF:

1) It costs more. Not only now, it'll always cost more, because it
costs more to make.

Yep. More money to make/buy; more money to get a lens lineup from wide to tele that does the sensor justice; more money for storage of larger image files.

2) No digital crop means shorter tele and macro.

Not really. As your math illustrated, the pixel density is very close. So you can shoot the same 300mm on FF that you'd shoot on APS-C and crop down to 12MP and have a close-to-identical image.

3) Larger sensor means larger files, slower transfer, less fps than
APS-C (at least at the moment).

Larger files in the case of the A900, not Nikon's D700 & D3. FPS on FF bodies tends to match up with APS-C bodies quite well; they just cost more. Though

So actually the pixel density on an FF sensor is lower. Which means
that interpolation (i.e. the process that approximates RGB value for
every pixel from combining several channels measurement) is less
precise and hence is the actual colour, detail and sharpness. (If
anything, I'd rather have a 12MP APS-C real RGB sensor like the one
Sigma's working on, but that's a different kind of a story).

Do you sell snake oil for a living ? I don't get how you conclude that a 24MP FF sensor is going to have worse color, detail and sharpness than a 12MP APS-C sensor because the pixel density is marginally lower. Seems like there must be at least a couple "then a miracle occurs" in the logic to get there.

Another thing I actually dislike about FF is that it takes the
tele-range back to the stone age , making it impossible to get good
shots with "portable" glass.

That's not really "another thing", it's the flip side of "no digital crop". Sensor size is what it is; it's arbitrary; you buy lenses to work with it. And again, 24MP FF allows you the ability to get wide FOV from a 20mm lens and crop down to APS-C. Best of both worlds.

And given that a 100-450mm zoom costs
much more than a 70-300, that's a big problem.

You already mentioned that FF costs more. Seems like you're trying hard to rationalize something that's really much simpler than you're making it out to be.

Wide angle, on the
other hand, does not cost that much even if digital crop is taken
into consideration and is generally less useful. So "the blessing of
digital crop" is actually an important issue.

No, it isn't, because you can always crop your high res FF down to APS-C.

Last, but not least - the lame belief that FF is "more
professional"...

It is. It's a more expensive, larger sensor currently available in high end bodies that gives you the ability to print bigger. I guess it's "lame" in the same sense that "medium format is more professional than 35mm" is lame.

If you don't need 24MP FF, who cares if it's more professional ? You don't sound like a professional, so why should it bother you ?

As I said, the decision should be blindingly simple: FF is a lot more money to take pictures you can print bigger. I sure as heck can't justify that, given that the A700 already shoots 12MP pictures that I can print bigger than I need to. I don't care if Sony puts out 3 or 4 cameras that are "better" than my A700 or if every pro in the world switches to FF. It doesn't affect me.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com