Full Frame Image Quality, Myth or Reality?

[En Trance]

Set up an FX camera with a 50mm lens at f/2, and an APS-C camera with a 35mm lens at f/2, and set them to frame the exact same scene with the same shutter speed aperture and gain.

The FX camera will admit 2.25x the number of photons as the APS-C camera.

More photons means more signal. It means more signal in relation to the electronic noise, which is relatively fixed. This means a higher signal-to-noise ratio.

This is the reason that noise measurements are made /per unit area of the sensor/. You will find that total noise is mostly fixed by the size of the sensor, regardless of how many pixels the sensor carries.

In order for them to frame the same scene, the FX must be closer to the subject/scene. This has a dramatic impact on the intensity of the light wave incident at the camera location.

Also be advised that photon theory (partical theory) and Inverse Square Law are not compatible because the Inverse Law applies to Wave Theory.

My firm belief is that when a scene is framed equally at different distances, that the light is identical except that the intensity is degraded at distance and that the degrading is very significant.

Of course when I say equally, I am aware that they are approximately equal. For my shooting style it is 6 inches above the model's head and 6 inches below her feet. So I am fully aware of the slightly different incident light caused by wider angles at shorter distances, but otherwise equal.

So FX receives more intense light. Current competitive designs mean that the FX also delivers less MP. Therefor the "Signal" is not equal. There is more noise when 24MP are delivered than 18MP. So what do you mean when you say s/n ratio?

 

[Luke Kaven]

Set up an FX camera with a 50mm lens at f/2, and an APS-C camera with a 35mm lens at f/2, and set them to frame the exact same scene with the same shutter speed aperture and gain.

The FX camera will admit 2.25x the number of photons as the APS-C camera.

More photons means more signal. It means more signal in relation to the electronic noise, which is relatively fixed. This means a higher signal-to-noise ratio.

This is the reason that noise measurements are made /per unit area of the sensor/. You will find that total noise is mostly fixed by the size of the sensor, regardless of how many pixels the sensor carries.

In order for them to frame the same scene, the FX must be closer to the subject/scene. This has a dramatic impact on the intensity of the light wave incident at the camera location.

Please note that I set the lenses respectively so that the subject distance would be the same.

So FX receives more intense light. Current competitive designs mean that the FX also delivers less MP. Therefor the "Signal" is not equal. There is more noise when 24MP are delivered than 18MP. So what do you mean when you say s/n ratio?

Noise is a function of area, not of the number of pixels.

A 16MP FX sensor has as much total noise as a 36MP FX sensor. That's an indication of total noise in the entire scene, and we've rigged the scene to be the same. The number of pixels (given the same pixel technology) does not matter in this equation. We're talking about total signal, so the signal is in fact equal.

 

[TimoK]

Also be advised that photon theory (partical theory) and Inverse Square Law are not compatible because the Inverse Law applies to Wave Theory.

The inverse square law is a geometrical property and will hold for photons in the sense that the average number of photons detected per unit area per unit time will decrease as the inverse of distance from a point source. However, this only strictly applies to a point source. The intensity detected from a uniformly radiating area much larger than the detector will not obey the inverse square law close to the source.

What this means that with a subject much smaller than the light gathering area of the lens, with equal framing, the inverse square law should apply. For a large building, not.

Best regards,

Timo

 

[MediaArchivist]

The math is pretty simple.

 

[Luke Kaven]

The story is that a very large image sensor with the Mystical, Magical size of 35mm film, has Image Quality that is Greatly Enhanced. The assumption is that pixels and voids are optimized for Image Quality.

Is this true? Or are some manufacturer's struggling to keep up with the sensor game and simply marketing their inferior, gigantic, sensor as a benefit, as they claim that Resolution (MP Rating) is not important for Digital Camera Design? (These aren't the Droids that you are looking for!)

Are crop sensors simply aimed at the lens sweet-spot and reaping the benefit of not using the more challenging periphery of the frame?

Please, no questions about the question. (What do you mean by Blue? What planet are you shooting on? When you say 35mm do you mean 35.00 or 35.00001? Because I need to know that before I give my script to the world.)

Interested in your thoughts..., Maybe!

The introduction of digital sensors had an impact on the usefulness of a photographers lens collection. FF gave them maximum usage of their old lenses. It is very doubtful that any of those ancient lenses can be fully utilized in today's digital cameras. The only real advantage of the FF is that it is the same size as the ancient 35mm film. Lucky for me, I do not own any 20 year old lenses. Bring on the MPs!

As you say, you don't own any 20 year old lenses.

I own quite a few, and they work very well on my D800. Those lenses were engineered for their aesthetic quality, and they still have it. My 28/2 AI is sharp across the frame and capable of rendering pixel-level details. So is my 105/2.5 AI. So is my 180/2.8D ED-IF. So is my 135/2 DC. So is my 75-150/3.5E.

If often reach for me 28/2 AI instead of the new 28/1.8G. The newer lens has no personality. And the older lens is plenty sharp.

The 35mm image size was and is a sweet spot in optical design. It isn't just an arbitrary size. It is a near-optimal size for choice of working aperture in day-night situations, ability to resolve detail, and size and weight.

 

[howardfuhrman]

From my experience - REALITY. While I have taken fabulous photos with my small sensor Panasonic LX7 (shooting at low ISO') and with my M4/3 cameras, the images from my 24mb FF sensor Sony RX1 are generally superior. My experience is consistent with reviews where they compared IQ of images taken with RX1 to APC sized camera.

I found that the differences were more subtle when photos were taken at low ISO, and more apparent at higher ISO's. While IQ is an important consideration in selecting a camera, there are other important considerations: size, weigh, features, what one does with their images after PP, handling, etc.

If one has the budget and physical strength and demands even better IQ than FF, get a MF like the Pentax 645Z - with a huge 51mb sensor.

Howard

http://www.photo.net/photos/howardfuhrman

 

[Marty4650]

When it comes to image quality bigger is always better.

This means a larger digital sensor will always outperform a smaller one (all other things being equal) just like a larger piece of photographic film will outperform a smaller one.



[IMG width="400px" alt="While we assume today that "full frame" is a very large size, in film days it was the smallest size available! It was originally called the "miniature format!" "]http://www.thephoblographer.com/wp-...lographer-Infographic-on-Film-sizes.jpg[/IMG]
While we assume today that "full frame" is a very large size, in film days it was the smallest size available! It was originally called the "miniature format!"

However, better image quality isn't the only consideration, because the smaller format might be good enough for the intended purpose. And if the smaller format is good enough then any money spent for larger and better image makers is wasted.

And the "better image makers" are always larger, heavier, more expensive, and less convenient to use.

So you just select the right tool for the job, and you won't need to worry about what is best for everyone all the time.

--
Marty

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132

Favorites

Explore this photo album by Marty4650 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6101/6318442842_7b93cb589b.jpg

 

[TacticDesigns]

...

So you just select the right tool for the job, and you won't need to worry about what is best for everyone all the time.

 

[DWilkinson]

It's mainly about how your lenses work. You can achieve more of 3D effect with FF. The same EF lenses will shoot with more shallow depth of field on FF rather on crop.

Also fullframe sensors usually provide better dynamic range and better colour halftones.

 

[En Trance]

Set up an FX camera with a 50mm lens at f/2, and an APS-C camera with a 35mm lens at f/2, and set them to frame the exact same scene with the same shutter speed aperture and gain.

The FX camera will admit 2.25x the number of photons as the APS-C camera.

More photons means more signal. It means more signal in relation to the electronic noise, which is relatively fixed. This means a higher signal-to-noise ratio.

This is the reason that noise measurements are made /per unit area of the sensor/. You will find that total noise is mostly fixed by the size of the sensor, regardless of how many pixels the sensor carries.

In order for them to frame the same scene, the FX must be closer to the subject/scene. This has a dramatic impact on the intensity of the light wave incident at the camera location.

Please note that I set the lenses respectively so that the subject distance would be the same.

So FX receives more intense light. Current competitive designs mean that the FX also delivers less MP. Therefor the "Signal" is not equal. There is more noise when 24MP are delivered than 18MP. So what do you mean when you say s/n ratio?

Noise is a function of area, not of the number of pixels.

A 16MP FX sensor has as much total noise as a 36MP FX sensor. That's an indication of total noise in the entire scene, and we've rigged the scene to be the same. The number of pixels (given the same pixel technology) does not matter in this equation. We're talking about total signal, so the signal is in fact equal.

Sorry, but I am not following you at all. If capturing the same scene at the same distance, then they receive equal light. (Within the parameters that you have set) The HX just focuses "The Light" on a smaller sensor area.

Not sure if I buy your idea that Signal Noise is only a factor of Sensor Area either. Sorry to be detached, but I can't find the crank here. My apologies.

 

[En Trance]

Also be advised that photon theory (partical theory) and Inverse Square Law are not compatible because the Inverse Law applies to Wave Theory.

The inverse square law is a geometrical property and will hold for photons in the sense that the average number of photons detected per unit area per unit time will decrease as the inverse of distance from a point source. However, this only strictly applies to a point source. The intensity detected from a uniformly radiating area much larger than the detector will not obey the inverse square law close to the source.

What this means that with a subject much smaller than the light gathering area of the lens, with equal framing, the inverse square law should apply. For a large building, not.

Best regards,

Timo

 

[Luke Kaven]

Set up an FX camera with a 50mm lens at f/2, and an APS-C camera with a 35mm lens at f/2, and set them to frame the exact same scene with the same shutter speed aperture and gain.

The FX camera will admit 2.25x the number of photons as the APS-C camera.

More photons means more signal. It means more signal in relation to the electronic noise, which is relatively fixed. This means a higher signal-to-noise ratio.

This is the reason that noise measurements are made /per unit area of the sensor/. You will find that total noise is mostly fixed by the size of the sensor, regardless of how many pixels the sensor carries.

In order for them to frame the same scene, the FX must be closer to the subject/scene. This has a dramatic impact on the intensity of the light wave incident at the camera location.

Please note that I set the lenses respectively so that the subject distance would be the same.

So FX receives more intense light. Current competitive designs mean that the FX also delivers less MP. Therefor the "Signal" is not equal. There is more noise when 24MP are delivered than 18MP. So what do you mean when you say s/n ratio?

Noise is a function of area, not of the number of pixels.

A 16MP FX sensor has as much total noise as a 36MP FX sensor. That's an indication of total noise in the entire scene, and we've rigged the scene to be the same. The number of pixels (given the same pixel technology) does not matter in this equation. We're talking about total signal, so the signal is in fact equal.

Sorry, but I am not following you at all. If capturing the same scene at the same distance, then they receive equal light. (Within the parameters that you have set) The HX just focuses "The Light" on a smaller sensor area.

Not sure if I buy your idea that Signal Noise is only a factor of Sensor Area either. Sorry to be detached, but I can't find the crank here. My apologies.

If you are capturing the same scene, at the same distance, using the camera set-up I described above, the full-frame sensor will receive 2.25x the number of photons at the same exposure and gain settings in comparison with the APS-C sensor.

Once you see that, everything will start to fall into place.

You might look at Emil Martinec's paper, where he explains the principles brilliantly.

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/

See page 3:

"Bottom line: Among the important measures of image quality are signal-to-noise ratio of the capture process, and resolution. It was shown that for fixed sensor format, the light collection efficiency per unit area is essentially independent of pixel size, over a huge range of pixel sizes from 2 microns to over 8 microns, and is therefore independent of the number of megapixels. Noise performance per unit area was seen to be only weakly dependent on pixel size. The S/N ratio per unit area is much the same over a wide range of pixel sizes. There is an advantage to big pixels in low light (high ISO) applications, where read noise is an important detractor from image quality, and big pixels currently have lower read noise than aggregations of small pixels of equal area. For low ISO applications, the situation is reversed in current implementations -- if anything, smaller pixels perform somewhat better in terms of S/N ratio (while offering more resolution). A further exploration of these issues can be found on the supplemental page. Rather than having strong dependence on the pixel size, the noise performance instead depends quite strongly on sensor size -- bigger sensors yield higher quality images, by capturing more signal (photons)."

Note however that his point about "big pixels" was later modified, since it was dependent on sensor architecture used at the time. In the case of the Sony sensors, there is little difference.

 

[En Trance]

I am still not clear on why better FF Picture Quality is a "Fact of Life".

Thanks.

in layman's terms

i do a lot of documentary work shooting extensively with the 40D and then the 7D ,macro etc so crop is great for details all those packed pixels give me a nice sharp look and good enough for publication as they are just bog standard record shots.

but i have also started to dabble in landscapes over the past few years while i get great results with crop there is something lacking i am missing the cleaner tonality and texture i can not get those deeper rich tones, luminance and the ethereal dreamy look of FF no matter what technique or lens i use .

now i can see the difference from just web shots and can pick out FF most of the time by the qualities above now i am not talking direct comparisons with bland test shots but an overall improvement when comparing fine art landscapes en-mass

that improvement is negligible from a documentary perspective and i am happy enough with crop for that aspect of my photography , and if you can not see the differences then your better off sticking with crop too

so folks am i right ?

I am certainly not arguing with you. What is definitely a myth is that some arbitrary, random dimension, 24mm x36mm, results in optimum s/n ratio. That is garbage talk to be quite honest.

That dimension was the best dimension to use to save an old shooter from the late 1990s some money on replacement lenses after he switched to digital. Nothing more.

The idea that any sensor with 24 x 36 dimension has lower noise than any crop sensor is totally absurd.

 

[En Trance]

The story is that a very large image sensor with the Mystical, Magical size of 35mm film, has Image Quality that is Greatly Enhanced. The assumption is that pixels and voids are optimized for Image Quality.

Is this true? Or are some manufacturer's struggling to keep up with the sensor game and simply marketing their inferior, gigantic, sensor as a benefit, as they claim that Resolution (MP Rating) is not important for Digital Camera Design? (These aren't the Droids that you are looking for!)

Are crop sensors simply aimed at the lens sweet-spot and reaping the benefit of not using the more challenging periphery of the frame?

Please, no questions about the question. (What do you mean by Blue? What planet are you shooting on? When you say 35mm do you mean 35.00 or 35.00001? Because I need to know that before I give my script to the world.)

Interested in your thoughts..., Maybe!

Oh goodie...another "Since I chose a smaller format, the benefits of a larger format must be purely mythical" rationalization thread.

Image quality of FF is better relative to smaller formats because the lenses would have to be much better for the smaller formats in order to keep pace. Specifically:

An APS-C lens needs 150% of the linear resolution of a FF lens, just to keep pace.

A FT/MFT sensor needs 200% of the linear resolution of a FF lens, just to keep pace.

And so on.

Basically, the smaller the sensor, the better the lenses have to be to keep up with the quality achievable with a larger sensor. The smaller format lenses aren't good enough on a relative basis to make up for size difference between FF and the smaller formats, and are not ever going to be, since the cost of such lens quality would make the price unacceptably high.

The "cropped" APS-C format owes its existence to the fact that FF 35mm sensors couldn't be made at affordable prices when digital imaging was a newly developing and immature product, nothing more. If they could have produced 35mm sensors for the same price as APS-C sensors when the first "affordable" DSLRs were introduced, you would have never seen an APS-C format DSLR. There was never any "advantage" to them aside from the small-enough-to-make-the-product-sellable price tag.

Technology will not "solve" the quality differences, because the same "tech" can be (and is) used in 35mm sensors as in APS-C and MFT sensors.

Now before anyone gets wound up, just to be clear...

I am NOT saying you can't take a good image with a smaller format.

I am NOT saying you can't take an excellent image with a smaller format.

I am simply saying that you will get an even better result with the larger format. The format you choose and the related compromises you make as respects image quality level that you accept as "good enough" is up to you. If you're happy with what you chose, be that APS-C, MFT, 1" or a f___ing thumbnail sensor, good for you. Just stop trying to rationalize your decision by suggesting that FF's quality advantage over those smaller formats is "mythical," when it is anything but.

PASSION is a good thing! You win the prize. But Reading is Fundamental. The Myth is that something is superior about 24x36 when in actuality it is merely a coincidence. There is nothing Magical about it.

No, there is most definitely something superior about 24x36 relative to smaller formats, it is no myth.

There is nothing "magical" about APS-C either, and its emergence as a digital format is even more of an "accident" or "coincidence" than the emergence of 35mm as a film format.

The thread digs a little deeper into the mindset of a manufacturer who can not do 24MP and then convinces an industry that Resolution is not an important aspect of Digital Camera Design!

No, this thread is rationalization and trolling by you.

If I am buying MP and someone can put 24 of them in a Half Container and their Competitor can put 22 of them in a Container that is twice as big, at best, and has to charge $twice as much money for that, then I may be led to believe that one manufacturer has his sensor game on point.

Hey - news flash - if MP is all you're buying than somebody already put 41MP in a sensor a fraction of the size of an APS-C camera (in a cell phone cam). So what's better about your APS-C camera sensor - sensor size?! LMAO I guess the argument is only valid for YOUR chosen format.

The half sensor ignores the additional light

And thus is at a distinct image quality disadvantage (noise). Applies only when taking pictures with different DOF though.

that you are claiming for the full sensor and that dirty little half sensor has to be forced to take it down the throat by using a wide angle lens.

Still like its $dirty, $little, $price.

Which has nothing to do with image quality.

A digital camera, lens, sensor combination that is optimized by design has much more merit than a sensor size that is designed to maintain use of some old film photographers lens collection.

You would be the troll who is making an unwanted appearance on my thread. Guess I will give you a pass since you appear to be hyper excitable. Maybe a shot of scotch will help you. Its Friday, have one on me.

 

[Luke Kaven]

I am still not clear on why better FF Picture Quality is a "Fact of Life".

Thanks.

in layman's terms

i do a lot of documentary work shooting extensively with the 40D and then the 7D ,macro etc so crop is great for details all those packed pixels give me a nice sharp look and good enough for publication as they are just bog standard record shots.

but i have also started to dabble in landscapes over the past few years while i get great results with crop there is something lacking i am missing the cleaner tonality and texture i can not get those deeper rich tones, luminance and the ethereal dreamy look of FF no matter what technique or lens i use .

now i can see the difference from just web shots and can pick out FF most of the time by the qualities above now i am not talking direct comparisons with bland test shots but an overall improvement when comparing fine art landscapes en-mass

that improvement is negligible from a documentary perspective and i am happy enough with crop for that aspect of my photography , and if you can not see the differences then your better off sticking with crop too

so folks am i right ?

I am certainly not arguing with you. What is definitely a myth is that some arbitrary, random dimension, 24mm x36mm, results in optimum s/n ratio. That is garbage talk to be quite honest.

That dimension was the best dimension to use to save an old shooter from the late 1990s some money on replacement lenses after he switched to digital. Nothing more.

The idea that any sensor with 24 x 36 dimension has lower noise than any crop sensor is totally absurd.

Read Emil Martinec's paper that I linked elsewhere in this thread. It's not as though there isn't a science in it. You won't believe these things with such certainty tomorrow as you do today.

There is a practical design optimum just around 24x36, all things considered -- in terms of overall optical and image quality at given enlargement sizes, ability to gather appropriate amounts of light, size and weight, cost of manufacturing.

 

[Luke Kaven]

A digital camera, lens, sensor combination that is optimized by design has much more merit than a sensor size that is designed to maintain use of some old film photographers lens collection.

You would be the troll who is making an unwanted appearance on my thread. Guess I will give you a pass since you appear to be hyper excitable. Maybe a shot of scotch will help you. Its Friday, have one on me.

The reason that sensor size was chosen in the very first place was because it was an optical design optimum with practical advantages. Give or take a millimeter or two.

This is first-year engineering stuff. You should not be so self-certain.

 

[En Trance]

When it comes to image quality bigger is always better.

This means a larger digital sensor will always outperform a smaller one (all other things being equal) just like a larger piece of photographic film will outperform a smaller one.

[IMG width="400px" alt="While we assume today that "full frame" is a very large size, in film days it was the smallest size available! It was originally called the "miniature format!""]http://www.thephoblographer.com/wp-...lographer-Infographic-on-Film-sizes.jpg[/IMG]
While we assume today that "full frame" is a very large size, in film days it was the smallest size available! It was originally called the "miniature format!"

However, better image quality isn't the only consideration, because the smaller format might be good enough for the intended purpose. And if the smaller format is good enough then any money spent for larger and better image makers is wasted.

And the "better image makers" are always larger, heavier, more expensive, and less convenient to use.

So you just select the right tool for the job, and you won't need to worry about what is best for everyone all the time.

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6101/6318442842_7b93cb589b.jpg

Only problem is that all other things are not equal. But I see your point.

 

[PK24X36NOW]

The story is that a very large image sensor with the Mystical, Magical size of 35mm film, has Image Quality that is Greatly Enhanced. The assumption is that pixels and voids are optimized for Image Quality.

Is this true? Or are some manufacturer's struggling to keep up with the sensor game and simply marketing their inferior, gigantic, sensor as a benefit, as they claim that Resolution (MP Rating) is not important for Digital Camera Design? (These aren't the Droids that you are looking for!)

Are crop sensors simply aimed at the lens sweet-spot and reaping the benefit of not using the more challenging periphery of the frame?

Please, no questions about the question. (What do you mean by Blue? What planet are you shooting on? When you say 35mm do you mean 35.00 or 35.00001? Because I need to know that before I give my script to the world.)

Interested in your thoughts..., Maybe!

Oh goodie...another "Since I chose a smaller format, the benefits of a larger format must be purely mythical" rationalization thread.

Image quality of FF is better relative to smaller formats because the lenses would have to be much better for the smaller formats in order to keep pace. Specifically:

An APS-C lens needs 150% of the linear resolution of a FF lens, just to keep pace.

A FT/MFT sensor needs 200% of the linear resolution of a FF lens, just to keep pace.

And so on.

Basically, the smaller the sensor, the better the lenses have to be to keep up with the quality achievable with a larger sensor. The smaller format lenses aren't good enough on a relative basis to make up for size difference between FF and the smaller formats, and are not ever going to be, since the cost of such lens quality would make the price unacceptably high.

The "cropped" APS-C format owes its existence to the fact that FF 35mm sensors couldn't be made at affordable prices when digital imaging was a newly developing and immature product, nothing more. If they could have produced 35mm sensors for the same price as APS-C sensors when the first "affordable" DSLRs were introduced, you would have never seen an APS-C format DSLR. There was never any "advantage" to them aside from the small-enough-to-make-the-product-sellable price tag.

Technology will not "solve" the quality differences, because the same "tech" can be (and is) used in 35mm sensors as in APS-C and MFT sensors.

Now before anyone gets wound up, just to be clear...

I am NOT saying you can't take a good image with a smaller format.

I am NOT saying you can't take an excellent image with a smaller format.

I am simply saying that you will get an even better result with the larger format. The format you choose and the related compromises you make as respects image quality level that you accept as "good enough" is up to you. If you're happy with what you chose, be that APS-C, MFT, 1" or a f___ing thumbnail sensor, good for you. Just stop trying to rationalize your decision by suggesting that FF's quality advantage over those smaller formats is "mythical," when it is anything but.

PASSION is a good thing! You win the prize. But Reading is Fundamental. The Myth is that something is superior about 24x36 when in actuality it is merely a coincidence. There is nothing Magical about it.

No, there is most definitely something superior about 24x36 relative to smaller formats, it is no myth.

There is nothing "magical" about APS-C either, and its emergence as a digital format is even more of an "accident" or "coincidence" than the emergence of 35mm as a film format.

The thread digs a little deeper into the mindset of a manufacturer who can not do 24MP and then convinces an industry that Resolution is not an important aspect of Digital Camera Design!

No, this thread is rationalization and trolling by you.

If I am buying MP and someone can put 24 of them in a Half Container and their Competitor can put 22 of them in a Container that is twice as big, at best, and has to charge $twice as much money for that, then I may be led to believe that one manufacturer has his sensor game on point.

Hey - news flash - if MP is all you're buying than somebody already put 41MP in a sensor a fraction of the size of an APS-C camera (in a cell phone cam). So what's better about your APS-C camera sensor - sensor size?! LMAO I guess the argument is only valid for YOUR chosen format.

The half sensor ignores the additional light

And thus is at a distinct image quality disadvantage (noise). Applies only when taking pictures with different DOF though.

that you are claiming for the full sensor and that dirty little half sensor has to be forced to take it down the throat by using a wide angle lens.

Still like its $dirty, $little, $price.

Which has nothing to do with image quality.

A digital camera, lens, sensor combination that is optimized by design has much more merit than a sensor size that is designed to maintain use of some old film photographers lens collection.

ROTFLMAO.

APS-C DSLRs are nothing more than FF cameras with undersized sensors in them. They were designed around existing 35mm lens mounts with existing 35mm register distances. There is absolutely NOTHING "optimzed" about APS-C DSLRs whatsoever.

Think Chevy Camaro with a 4-cylinder engine sitting in the engine bay designed for an 8-cylinder engine.

You would be the troll who is making an unwanted appearance on my thread. Guess I will give you a pass since you appear to be hyper excitable. Maybe a shot of scotch will help you. Its Friday, have one on me.

I'm no troll (that would be you from post numero uno in this thread), just someone who presents you with information that challenges your rationalizations, thereby causing you some apparent distress (that you begged for with this thread right from the start).

 

[En Trance]

I am still not clear on why better FF Picture Quality is a "Fact of Life".

Thanks.

in layman's terms

i do a lot of documentary work shooting extensively with the 40D and then the 7D ,macro etc so crop is great for details all those packed pixels give me a nice sharp look and good enough for publication as they are just bog standard record shots.

but i have also started to dabble in landscapes over the past few years while i get great results with crop there is something lacking i am missing the cleaner tonality and texture i can not get those deeper rich tones, luminance and the ethereal dreamy look of FF no matter what technique or lens i use .

now i can see the difference from just web shots and can pick out FF most of the time by the qualities above now i am not talking direct comparisons with bland test shots but an overall improvement when comparing fine art landscapes en-mass

that improvement is negligible from a documentary perspective and i am happy enough with crop for that aspect of my photography , and if you can not see the differences then your better off sticking with crop too

so folks am i right ?

I am certainly not arguing with you. What is definitely a myth is that some arbitrary, random dimension, 24mm x36mm, results in optimum s/n ratio. That is garbage talk to be quite honest.

That dimension was the best dimension to use to save an old shooter from the late 1990s some money on replacement lenses after he switched to digital. Nothing more.

The idea that any sensor with 24 x 36 dimension has lower noise than any crop sensor is totally absurd.

Read Emil Martinec's paper that I linked elsewhere in this thread. It's not as though there isn't a science in it. You won't believe these things with such certainty tomorrow as you do today.

There is a practical design optimum just around 24x36, all things considered -- in terms of overall optical and image quality at given enlargement sizes, ability to gather appropriate amounts of light, size and weight, cost of manufacturing.

I guess I would have to say absurd and pathetic also.

 

[En Trance]

A digital camera, lens, sensor combination that is optimized by design has much more merit than a sensor size that is designed to maintain use of some old film photographers lens collection.

You would be the troll who is making an unwanted appearance on my thread. Guess I will give you a pass since you appear to be hyper excitable. Maybe a shot of scotch will help you. Its Friday, have one on me.

The reason that sensor size was chosen in the very first place was because it was an optical design optimum with practical advantages. Give or take a millimeter or two.

This is first-year engineering stuff. You should not be so self-certain.

Yes, it is closely related to Kodak film rollers, emulsifiers, developers, drugstore shelf size, enlargers, canister makers tin cutters, and all sorts of ancient turn of the 19th century photographic innovation. But we are talking about digital cameras here, and it is the 3rd millennium.