Full frame vs APS-C/Four Thirds sensor. Better IQ ?

[shokeen25]

Hello all,

It is a simple question which might have discussed it her brief, but I might have missed to understand it. A full frame sensor is better in low light, it will give a shallower depth of field and it will capture bigger part of frame while taking picture (It will cover more area). These are three major advantage of full frame sensor in comparison to APS-C or four thirds sensor. What may be other major benefit to use expensive full frame camera ? If it is broad daylight, will full frame produce significant better picture/IQ also ?

 

[MinAZ]

In broad daylight the advantage of using a bigger sensor is reduced.

 

[peterharvey]

Hello all,

It is a simple question which might have discussed it her brief, but I might have missed to understand it. A full frame sensor is better in low light, it will give a shallower depth of field and it will capture bigger part of frame while taking picture (It will cover more area). These are three major advantage of full frame sensor in comparison to APS-C or four thirds sensor. What may be other major benefit to use expensive full frame camera ? If it is broad daylight, will full frame produce significant better picture/IQ also ?

A full frame size sensor will capture a wider area "when the same focal length is used".

However, 3/4 size APS-C, midsize micro 4/3, and 1/4 size 1" type sensor cameras usually use matching lenses with successively shorter focal lengths to match the sensor size to give the same field of view - so your third listed advantage of a full frame camera will not be an advantage.

Apart from superior low light performance due to a larger surface area, and a shallower depth of field, other advantages of full frame cameras include:

1) Full frame sensor size cameras have a larger range of lenses to choose from, eg ultrawide f/2.8, fish eyes, primes etc. Whereas APS-C sensor sizes often don't have as wide a range of lenses to choose from. Micro 4/3 sensor size cameras have an even smaller range of lenses to choose from, than APS-C size.

2) Full frame sensor size cameras are often fitted with more features.

Of course, the manufacturers can make a larger range of lenses for the smaller sensors cameras too, and they can equip the smaller sensor cameras with more features too - if they wanted to, but they normally choose not to...

 

[D Cox]

In broad daylight the advantage of using a bigger sensor is reduced.

True.

A major advantage of FF for some users is that it is better suited to legacy lenses, most of which were designed for full frame 35mm film.

There is currently a difference in the number of Megapixels available: M4/3 cameras go up to 16 Mp, APS-C up to 24 Mp, and FF up to 36 Megapixels. This will only affect those who want to make very detailed photos or to crop heavily.

If you don't plan to use legacy lenses, I think APS-C is a very good compromise.

 

[shokeen25]

If you don't plan to use legacy lenses, I think APS-C is a very good compromise.

How about a decent mirrorless camera ? I can see mirrorless starting from 300$ to 1800$. (Just to reduce weight)

 

[Fraulain Uebermueller]

Hello all,

It is a simple question which might have discussed it her brief, but I might have missed to understand it. A full frame sensor is better in low light, it will give a shallower depth of field and it will capture bigger part of frame while taking picture (It will cover more area). These are three major advantage of full frame sensor in comparison to APS-C or four thirds sensor. What may be other major benefit to use expensive full frame camera ? If it is broad daylight, will full frame produce significant better picture/IQ also ?

If the exposure allows, the larger formats can collect more light and more light means a higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), which means higher image quality.

The reason for this is theat light itself is noisy by nature, and it is by far the largest contributor of noise in pictures (outside of very deepest shadows).

Additionally the image drawn by the lens will be enlarged less on a larger format than a smaller one, thus the flaws of the lens will also be enlarged less, thus the image quality is also better because of this (for any given lens). (Example: from 36mm wide image (full frame) you need to enlarge it by factor of 10 to get a 36cm wide picture, but a 24mm wide image (APS-C) you need to enlarge it by factor of 15 to get a 36cm wide picture.

The (partial) exception is that if you want to create a specific image and it limits the exposure so that you can't take advantage of the large-format potential, it offers no sensor advantage (though does the enlargement advantage). For example if you need to have certain depth of field and motion stopping which dictate for example APS-C to have 1/100s and f/8, the full frame would have to use 1/100s and f/12 to get the same image, capture the same photons.

 

[Fraulain Uebermueller]

If you don't plan to use legacy lenses, I think APS-C is a very good compromise.

How about a decent mirrorless camera ? I can see mirrorless starting from 300$ to 1800$. (Just to reduce weight)

The mirror is not relevant for the image quality itself and the future is mirrorless. (There are usability differences though.)

I would recomment to pick a camera with a viewfinder. Without it sunny weather can be problematic, though of course no-one shoots in broad daylight wiith the hars shadows and all, right ;-)

 

[GodSpeaks]

If you don't plan to use legacy lenses, I think APS-C is a very good compromise.

Better yet, MFT (micro four thirds). Small and lighter overall than APS, although slightly larger than Nikon 1.

 

[baloo_buc]

If you don't plan to use legacy lenses, I think APS-C is a very good compromise.

How about a decent mirrorless camera ? I can see mirrorless starting from 300$ to 1800$. (Just to reduce weight)

The mirror is not relevant for the image quality itself and the future is mirrorless. (There are usability differences though.)

Although mirror is not relevant for the image quality in itself it is relevant for AF speed that may be an issue for the final photo.

Maybe the mirrorless will be the future. The same line was used by Olympus and Panasonic for their dSLRs with smaller sensors. We are not in that future yet although the advances in the mirrorless realm have narrowed the gap. Still the sensor size counts so MFT are worse than Sony Alpha or Fuji X.

I would recomment to pick a camera with a viewfinder. Without it sunny weather can be problematic, though of course no-one shoots in broad daylight wiith the hars shadows and all, right ;-)

Good advice. With mirrorless you have the choice of EVF or no EVF (just the back display). Although the EVFs are way worse than the OVF the use of them stabilizes the camera and make your camera usable in broad daylight.

 

[darklamp]

It is a simple question which might have discussed it her brief, but I might have missed to understand it.

These arguments about sensor sizes are never simple. There are some people who become very belligerent about their position. Expect the same here.

A full frame sensor is better in low light, it will give a shallower depth of field

This is not precisely true. Other things being equal ( and equal is hard to define in a way everyone will agree on ) they can be better, but just being full frame does not automatically make them better in low light.

Likewise shallow depth of field.

There's also the issue of size. Full frame lenses of similar quality to the crop frame lenses have to be bigger ( in general ). That's part of the compromise you make. There's no free lunch here.

and it will capture bigger part of frame while taking picture (It will cover more area).

No.

If you're on a full frame system you use a lens designed to cover the image circle required for that system. If you're on crop frame you use a lens designed for that system. A kit lens for a full frame system might be 28-70 and for a crop frame 18-55, but they both cover roughly the same field of views on the appropriate system.

These are three major advantage of full frame sensor in comparison to APS-C or four thirds sensor.

Well they're only advantages if they're useful to you and you're willing to accept the downsizes of s full frame system ( cost, size of lenses ).

You may think shallower depth of field is an upside, but in practical shooting the more shallow you get you loose two things : precise focus is harder to get ( shallow depth of field can get razor thin on crop frame systems, never mind full frame ) and in compositional terms people overdo the out of focus blur thing. It's a hard lesson to learn and many don't, but if it was as trivial as that to make a good picture cameras wouldn't have aperture control at all.

Your third issue is simply a misconception on your part.

What may be other major benefit to use expensive full frame camera ?

The maker's get more money for both the cameras and the lenses. That's a "major advantage" for them. Not for users, but for them.

For some people there's an ego boost in owning full frame. I suspect this is why some of them become so aggressive in their promotion of full frame.

If it is broad daylight, will full frame produce significant better picture/IQ also ?

Not even under a microscope.

A lesson I try and teach beginners is that about 90%+ of their "image quality" is down to the composition, tonality and "emotional content" of the image. This is what registers with the vast majority of viewers. Hardly anyone registers details and if you get those things right they'll almost universally not care about the details.

 

[newmikey]

General IQ differences at base ISO and good light will me almost impossible to see even at 100% pixel-level.

 

[Alphoid]

For most purposes, in good light, unless you want low depth-of-field, full frame has no practical overall advantage over smaller sensors.

Full frame buys you:

1. Bigger equivalent apertures available. This is only relevant if you either want extremely narrow depth-of-field, or are working in very low light and need to tolerate extremely narrow depth-of-field.
2. More dynamic range. This was a huge advantage even 5 years ago, but at this point, sensors down to around 1" have enough dynamic range it doesn't matter anymore.
3. Higher sensor resolution. Again, doesn't matter.
4. Fewer (heavier) pieces of gear. For example, you can get a single 24-105 f/4 zoom for full-frame. This covers the most useful focal ranges at a useful equivalent aperture in one camera+lens. To have the same versatility in MFT, you'd probably want three bodies, each with a different f/1.8 prime. Of course, the three MFT cameras with primes would still weigh much less combined than the FF setup.
5. Often, better ergonomics and similar. For example, my a99 has a battery grip that lets me carry a total of three batteries in the camera. I may get roasted for this, but ironically, this is the major advantage of that camera over smaller ones for my purposes.

One issue is that there is only one full frame camera on the market (the Sony a99) which has in-body stabilization. For many beginners, who won't use flash or tripod, either due to lack of skill or to biases and preconceptions, a fast prime with a $200 Olympus body will beat FF cameras for low light.

If it is broad daylight, will full frame produce significant better picture/IQ also ?

Not even under a microscope.

A lesson I try and teach beginners is that about 90%+ of their "image quality" is down to the composition, tonality and "emotional content" of the image. This is what registers with the vast majority of viewers. Hardly anyone registers details and if you get those things right they'll almost universally not care about the details.

+1

There were serious advantages to full frame just a half-decade ago, primarily with regards to having sufficient dynamic range. That translated into an improvement in image quality which, to non-technical photographers, felt pretty magical and intangible. Much of that reputation still sticks around today, even though it's no longer relevant. Today's 1" state-of-the-art sensors have the same or better dynamic range than the classic 5D MKII.

 

[shokeen25]

Still the sensor size counts so MFT are worse than Sony Alpha or Fuji X.

Does it explains, Sony Alpha and Fuji X will have better IQ than MFT cameras ?

If I have to choose, I can skip DSLR (due to weight) and can find something in Sony Alpha or Fuji X series (instead of MFT) ? Though when I checked, there was not a big weight difference in Fuji and 5200/3300. May be zoom lens can contribute.

 

[Alphoid]

baloo_buc wrote:
Although mirror is not relevant for the image quality in itself it is relevant for AF speed that may be an issue for the final photo.

Yes. Older mirrorless had slower focus speed than dSLRs, although somewhat better focus accuracy. Latest generation are similar for speed. It looks like next generation will likely be faster. In a mirrorless, the main sensor is also the autofocus sensor, so receives 100% of the light (not a fraction, as on dSLRs), and does not have alignment issues, mitigating back/front focus issues.

Good advice. With mirrorless you have the choice of EVF or no EVF (just the back display). Although the EVFs are way worse than the OVF the use of them stabilizes the camera and make your camera usable in broad daylight.

Depending on viewfinder.

Early EVFs were horrible. Modern ones are very good. Low-end dSLRs have atrocious OVFs, while full frame ones tend to have pretty good ones. Modern low-end EVFs cream low-end OVFs. On the high-end, it's personal preference and what you're using it for. OVFs are better for sports (where EVF blackouts can be an issue). EVFs are better for manual modes (where you can see exposure changes), for learning (where you can immediate review photos), and similar. EVFs are also much lighter in weight.

 

[MinAZ]

Still the sensor size counts so MFT are worse than Sony Alpha or Fuji X.

Does it explains, Sony Alpha and Fuji X will have better IQ than MFT cameras ?

If I have to choose, I can skip DSLR (due to weight) and can find something in Sony Alpha or Fuji X series (instead of MFT) ? Though when I checked, there was not a big weight difference in Fuji and 5200/3300. May be zoom lens can contribute.

Technically, the Sony APS-C sensor will give better image quality than m4/3. In practice, I think that the difference is not that obvious. Be aware though that the more expensive Sony mirrorless cameras use a FF sensor.

 

[EXX]

Watch this video:

 

[Ido Scharf]

1) Full frame sensor size cameras have a larger range of lenses to choose from, eg ultrawide f/2.8, fish eyes, primes etc. Whereas APS-C sensor sizes often don't have as wide a range of lenses to choose from. Micro 4/3 sensor size cameras have an even smaller range of lenses to choose from, than APS-C size.

2) Full frame sensor size cameras are often fitted with more features.

Both points are mostly true for companies that manufacture camera in several sensor size formats, most common are 35mm frame and APS-C, as the 3 biggest companies (Canon, Nikon and Sony) do that.

Fuji, for example, has quite the lineup on most fronts. The wide angle end is covered very well, with Fuji's own 14mm f/2.8, 18mm f/2 and the upcoming 16mm f/1.4, the ZEISS 12mm f/2.8 and the manual focus-only Samyang 12mm f/2. There's also a zoom, 10-24mm f/4, which seems like quite an outstanding lens.

Micro Four Thirds is lacking a bit in the prime lens department at the wide end, with the widest (non-fisheye) I'm aware of being the Olympus 12mm (24mm equivalent) f/2. There are rumors of wider primes from both Olympus and Panasonic, and we'll probably know more by or during Photokina. That being said, the ultra-wide end is covered quite well with zoom lenses: Olympus 9-18mm f/4-5.6 at the low-end (heard wonderful things), Panasonic 7-14mm f/4 currently atop the hill, and the upcoming Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO should overtake its place (though it will, quite obviously, be heavier).

 

[D Cox]

The best way to answer this question is to look at plenty of photos, taken with various cameras, and viewed at the largest possible size.

Ideally you would download the original files and print them out at A2 size. But you could crop to a quarter of the area and print on A4 to save money.

You will probably find that the image quality overlaps: that is, the best M4/3 shots are better than the worst FF shots. But the average quality will be better from a larger sensor.

 

[D Cox]

If you don't plan to use legacy lenses, I think APS-C is a very good compromise.

How about a decent mirrorless camera ? I can see mirrorless starting from 300$ to 1800$. (Just to reduce weight)

Either DSLR or mirrorless. Image quality will be the same.

 

[shokeen25]

If you don't plan to use legacy lenses, I think APS-C is a very good compromise.

How about a decent mirrorless camera ? I can see mirrorless starting from 300$ to 1800$. (Just to reduce weight)

Either DSLR or mirrorless. Image quality will be the same.

Please help me to understand it more. If I narrow down to mirrorless, having said that IQ will be same in most modern camera, cost factor driven majorly by features provided by that manufacturer and ease of functions ? For example, price difference is huge between Fujifilm XT-1/Sony Alpha A7 and Panasonic DMC-G3 (if we just keep sensor size aside).