Whats the point of crop sensors when we have 60mp full frame??

[Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn]

As a crop sensor shooter for almost 18 years now, started with Canon APS-C, moved on to Panasonic, then Samsung and then back to Panasonic after a while.

I started to accumulate quite the gear and a question popped into my head, we have 60 megapixel sensors since Sony A7r4, why not just crop in that? From a few tests online using Sony A7IV versus A6600, people seemed to get BETTER image quality on the A7IV now that could just be down to the AA filter on the A6600 being a lot more aggressive.

While I do not have a 60mp sensor full frame camera on me right now, DPReview at least has some tests we can see the sharpness.





In these examples the full frame 60 megapixel cameras are actually SHARPER.

Even the 40.1 megapixel sensor on the X-T5 is struggling to match the full frame.
And we know dynamic range is actually better on the full frame even if the noise floor is similar when you crop in. But even then, noise level on full frame is superior to crop sensors.



Notice how even at 6400 ISO, the 60 megapixel full frame sensor is superior.

So what do we get with a crop sensor actually? Weight saving?

Weight difference:

515g - Sony A7cR - 60mpx
665g - Sony A7r4 - 60mpx
723g - Sony A7r5 - 60mpx

438g - Fujifilm X-T50 - 40mpx 1.5x
557g - Fujifilm X-T5 - 40mpx 1.5x
658g - Panasonic G9M2 - 25mpx 2x
660g - Fujifilm X-H2 - 40mpx 1.5x

Okay, all the bodies seem strangely in the same ballpark, funny enough the biggest camera here on this list in physical size is the Panasonic G9M2 followed by X-H2 in second place for pure girth in size, these cameras are literally similar size to old Nikon DX DSLR's...

Okay, so the bodies, not so much size savings unless you want to shoot sub 25 megapixel crop sensor cameras, where the sharpness is further diminished.

Lenses:

409g - Sony FE 16-25mm F/2.8G (2 x crop = 32-50mm)
440g - Sony FE 24-50mm F/2.8G (2 x crop = 48-100mm)
470g - Sigma C 28-70mm F/2.8 DG DN (2 x crop = 56-140mm)

290g - Sigma C DN 18-50mm F/2.8 DC (FF FOV = 27-75mm)
310g - Fujifilm Fujinon XF18-55mm F/2.8-4R (FF FOV = 27-83mm)
530g - Tamron Di III 17-70mm F/2.8 (FF FOV = 26-105mm)

305g - Panasonic Lumix G 12-35mm F/2.8 (FF FOV = 24-70mm)
320g - Panasonic Leica DG 12-60mm F/2.8-4 (FF FOV = 24-120mm)
383g - Olympus M.Zuiko 12-40mm F/2.8 PRO (FF FOV = 24-80mm)

So, we do actually save about 100g~ in weight, but loose out on immense versatility, these full frame lenses are extremely sharp, are they expensive? Yes, more on that later.

So while zoom lenses, are not too impressive weight savings for the most common photography range, with telephoto we see even worse savings because of physics a 400mm F/4 lens will mostly be the same size on either systems just because of its aperture and focal length hence why crop sensors can save weight by making it a 200mm F/4 instead for same field of view as a full frame sensor.

MFT 335g - Panasonic Leica DG 12mm F/1.4 (FF FOV = 24mm)
APS-C 375g - Fujifilm Fujinon XF 16mm F/1.4R (FF FOV = 24mm)
APS-C 405g - Sigma C DN 16mm F/1.4 (FF FOV = 24mm)
FF 445g - Sony FE 24mm F/1.4 GM (1,5 & 2 x crop = 36-48mm)
FF 665g - Sigma A 24mm F/1.4 DG HSM (1,5 & 2 x crop = 36-48mm)
FF 1170g - Sigma A 14mm F/1.4 DG DN (1,5 & 2 x crop = 21-28mm)

APS-C 187g - Fujifilm Fujinon XF 35mm F/1.4R (FF FOV = 53mm)
MFT 200g - Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm F/1.4 (FF FOV = 50mm)
APS-C 264g - Sigma C DN 30mm F/1.4 DC (FF FOV = 45mm)
FF 516g - Sony FE 50mm F/1.4 GM (1,5 & 2 x crop = 75-100mm)
FF 524g - Sony FE 35mm F/1.4 GM (1,5 & 2 x crop = 53-70mm)
FF 778g - Sony FE Planar T* 50mm F/1.4 ZA (1,5 & 2 x crop = 75-100mm)

APS-C 280g - Sigma C DN 56mm F/1.4 DC (FF FOV = 84mm)
APS-C 405g - Fujifilm Fujinon XF 56mm F/1.2R (FF FOV = 84mm)
MFT 410g - Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm F/1.2 ED PRO (FF FOV = 90mm)
MFT 425g - Panasonic Leica DG 42.5mm F/1.2 (FF FOV 85mm)
FF 630g - Sigma A 85mm F/1.4 DG DN (1,5 & 2 x crop = 128-170mm)
FF 822g - Sony FE 85mm F/1.4 GM (1,5 & 2 x crop = 128-170mm)

So we can see the biggest savings, are actually in primes, and while you may seen me use wider zooms earlier on, thats the idea, you can crop in on a similar lens range as the crop sensor and get the same FOV, but the larger sensor also allows a wider field of view.

But with primes, its a different story, we see savings of 100 - 200g easily and as we see with m4/3 sensor there not really any good 85mm equivalent lens thats actually F1.4 but even at F1.2 equivalent FOV lenses, they are still lighter.

Another thing is crop sensors have speciality lenses, not on full frame, Sigma 18-35mm F1.8, 50-100mm F1.8 and Panasonic Leica 10-25mm F1.7 and 25-50mm F1.7.

Such super bright zooms are not available except the Sigma A 28-45mmm F/1.8 DG DN which is 1kg in weight, lets not beat around the bush here while Sigma 18-35mm is a whole 200g lighter, and the Panasonic Leica is 350g lighter!! For a similar field of view, actually the Panasonic Leica lens is not only WIDER, its also longer by 5mm giving you effective FF FOV of 20mm to 50mm at F1.7.

PRICE:

Lets just start with the fact that a mint Sony A7R IV goes for 1800 dollars on eBay and Sony G master 24mm and 50mm are 900~ and 1500~ dollars respectively on eBay, perhaps cheaper, perhaps more expensive in your regional used market.

The Sigma lenses are usually half that price which is also similar to what a lot of the APS-C and MFT lenses go around on used market, these are obviously going to be way more expensive brand new.

But as we can see, Sony A7R IV is around similar prices as a lot of the other crop sensor gear here used. And while A7R IV is a lot older, its still a good camera even today.

CONCLUSION:

So does a crop sensor even make sense if one can buy a high megapixel full frame body, a sensible priced but razor sharp Sigma lens and essentially use the crop modes to achieve the same field of view as a crop sensor, but SHARPER and better dynamic range with BETTER ISO performance???

For photography there not much sense otherwise, a crop sensor seems to only have savings in prime lenses which makes sense if you want the absolute lightest camera gear and do not care about IQ or similar performance, its also much cheaper, used market is littered with used crop sensor cameras for bargains left and right, Sony A7r2 is still around 900 dollars for a mint one. Which is not a bad deal, but its also more expensive than Panasonic G9 or Fujifilm X-H1.

There is also another area I want to touch on the crop sensor might beat the 60 megapixel sensor and thats video, in terms of rolling shutter and codec features, the GH6, G9M2 and the X-H2s are just rolling over every high megapixel camera out there.

For dynamic range you loose at most half a stop in video which is less noticeable compared to photo since most Sony 60 megapixel camera are not geared towards hybrid but prioritises photography.

My biggest gripe however overall, is that m4/3 cameras and lenses, seems hardly any smaller or lighter than APS-C stuff, thats kinda tragic.

--
The most important aspect of photography one needs to understand, are: LOCATION - LIGHTING - LENS

 

[ishwanu]

It's a combination of size, weight, features, and cost.

Sure, you can cite cases where those things are not dramatically different between full frame and smaller formats. But tell me how much I'd have to spend for a full frame camera that delivers 18MP on the area of a 1" sensor, and that can shoot RAW images at up to 60fps, like my Nikon V3 can do. And can I mount a tiny 10-100mm lens on it for 27-270mm equivalent coverage? And can I put it in my shirt pocket with a wideangle prime lens attached? If all the size, weight, features, and cost factors work out the same, I'll definitely check it out.

 

[gianstam]

CONCLUSION:

So does a crop sensor even make sense...

Yes

...if one can buy a high megapixel full frame body, a sensible priced but razor sharp Sigma lens and essentially use the crop modes to achieve the same field of view as a crop sensor, but SHARPER and better dynamic range with BETTER ISO performance???

 

[Bill Ferris]

Light is.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

As a crop sensor shooter for almost 18 years now, started with Canon APS-C, moved on to Panasonic, then Samsung and then back to Panasonic after a while.

I started to accumulate quite the gear and a question popped into my head, we have 60 megapixel sensors since Sony A7r4, why not just crop in that? From a few tests online using Sony A7IV versus A6600, people seemed to get BETTER image quality on the A7IV now that could just be down to the AA filter on the A6600 being a lot more aggressive.

While I do not have a 60mp sensor full frame camera on me right now, DPReview at least has some tests we can see the sharpness.





In these examples the full frame 60 megapixel cameras are actually SHARPER.

Even the 40.1 megapixel sensor on the X-T5 is struggling to match the full frame.
And we know dynamic range is actually better on the full frame even if the noise floor is similar when you crop in. But even then, noise level on full frame is superior to crop sensors.



Notice how even at 6400 ISO, the 60 megapixel full frame sensor is superior.

So what do we get with a crop sensor actually? Weight saving?

Weight difference:

515g - Sony A7cR - 60mpx
665g - Sony A7r4 - 60mpx
723g - Sony A7r5 - 60mpx

438g - Fujifilm X-T50 - 40mpx 1.5x
557g - Fujifilm X-T5 - 40mpx 1.5x
658g - Panasonic G9M2 - 25mpx 2x
660g - Fujifilm X-H2 - 40mpx 1.5x

Okay, all the bodies seem strangely in the same ballpark, funny enough the biggest camera here on this list in physical size is the Panasonic G9M2 followed by X-H2 in second place for pure girth in size, these cameras are literally similar size to old Nikon DX DSLR's...

Okay, so the bodies, not so much size savings unless you want to shoot sub 25 megapixel crop sensor cameras, where the sharpness is further diminished.

Lenses:

409g - Sony FE 16-25mm F/2.8G (2 x crop = 32-50mm)
440g - Sony FE 24-50mm F/2.8G (2 x crop = 48-100mm)
470g - Sigma C 28-70mm F/2.8 DG DN (2 x crop = 56-140mm)

290g - Sigma C DN 18-50mm F/2.8 DC (FF FOV = 27-75mm)
310g - Fujifilm Fujinon XF18-55mm F/2.8-4R (FF FOV = 27-83mm)
530g - Tamron Di III 17-70mm F/2.8 (FF FOV = 26-105mm)

305g - Panasonic Lumix G 12-35mm F/2.8 (FF FOV = 24-70mm)
320g - Panasonic Leica DG 12-60mm F/2.8-4 (FF FOV = 24-120mm)
383g - Olympus M.Zuiko 12-40mm F/2.8 PRO (FF FOV = 24-80mm)

So, we do actually save about 100g~ in weight, but loose out on immense versatility, these full frame lenses are extremely sharp, are they expensive? Yes, more on that later.

So while zoom lenses, are not too impressive weight savings for the most common photography range, with telephoto we see even worse savings because of physics a 400mm F/4 lens will mostly be the same size on either systems just because of its aperture and focal length hence why crop sensors can save weight by making it a 200mm F/4 instead for same field of view as a full frame sensor.

MFT 335g - Panasonic Leica DG 12mm F/1.4 (FF FOV = 24mm)
APS-C 375g - Fujifilm Fujinon XF 16mm F/1.4R (FF FOV = 24mm)
APS-C 405g - Sigma C DN 16mm F/1.4 (FF FOV = 24mm)
FF 445g - Sony FE 24mm F/1.4 GM (1,5 & 2 x crop = 36-48mm)
FF 665g - Sigma A 24mm F/1.4 DG HSM (1,5 & 2 x crop = 36-48mm)
FF 1170g - Sigma A 14mm F/1.4 DG DN (1,5 & 2 x crop = 21-28mm)

APS-C 187g - Fujifilm Fujinon XF 35mm F/1.4R (FF FOV = 53mm)
MFT 200g - Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm F/1.4 (FF FOV = 50mm)
APS-C 264g - Sigma C DN 30mm F/1.4 DC (FF FOV = 45mm)
FF 516g - Sony FE 50mm F/1.4 GM (1,5 & 2 x crop = 75-100mm)
FF 524g - Sony FE 35mm F/1.4 GM (1,5 & 2 x crop = 53-70mm)
FF 778g - Sony FE Planar T* 50mm F/1.4 ZA (1,5 & 2 x crop = 75-100mm)

APS-C 280g - Sigma C DN 56mm F/1.4 DC (FF FOV = 84mm)
APS-C 405g - Fujifilm Fujinon XF 56mm F/1.2R (FF FOV = 84mm)
MFT 410g - Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm F/1.2 ED PRO (FF FOV = 90mm)
MFT 425g - Panasonic Leica DG 42.5mm F/1.2 (FF FOV 85mm)
FF 630g - Sigma A 85mm F/1.4 DG DN (1,5 & 2 x crop = 128-170mm)
FF 822g - Sony FE 85mm F/1.4 GM (1,5 & 2 x crop = 128-170mm)

So we can see the biggest savings, are actually in primes, and while you may seen me use wider zooms earlier on, thats the idea, you can crop in on a similar lens range as the crop sensor and get the same FOV, but the larger sensor also allows a wider field of view.

But with primes, its a different story, we see savings of 100 - 200g easily and as we see with m4/3 sensor there not really any good 85mm equivalent lens thats actually F1.4 but even at F1.2 equivalent FOV lenses, they are still lighter.

Another thing is crop sensors have speciality lenses, not on full frame, Sigma 18-35mm F1.8, 50-100mm F1.8 and Panasonic Leica 10-25mm F1.7 and 25-50mm F1.7.

Such super bright zooms are not available except the Sigma A 28-45mmm F/1.8 DG DN which is 1kg in weight, lets not beat around the bush here while Sigma 18-35mm is a whole 200g lighter, and the Panasonic Leica is 350g lighter!! For a similar field of view, actually the Panasonic Leica lens is not only WIDER, its also longer by 5mm giving you effective FF FOV of 20mm to 50mm at F1.7.

PRICE:

Lets just start with the fact that a mint Sony A7R IV goes for 1800 dollars on eBay and Sony G master 24mm and 50mm are 900~ and 1500~ dollars respectively on eBay, perhaps cheaper, perhaps more expensive in your regional used market.

The Sigma lenses are usually half that price which is also similar to what a lot of the APS-C and MFT lenses go around on used market, these are obviously going to be way more expensive brand new.

But as we can see, Sony A7R IV is around similar prices as a lot of the other crop sensor gear here used. And while A7R IV is a lot older, its still a good camera even today.

CONCLUSION:

So does a crop sensor even make sense if one can buy a high megapixel full frame body, a sensible priced but razor sharp Sigma lens and essentially use the crop modes to achieve the same field of view as a crop sensor, but SHARPER and better dynamic range with BETTER ISO performance???

For photography there not much sense otherwise, a crop sensor seems to only have savings in prime lenses which makes sense if you want the absolute lightest camera gear and do not care about IQ or similar performance, its also much cheaper, used market is littered with used crop sensor cameras for bargains left and right, Sony A7r2 is still around 900 dollars for a mint one. Which is not a bad deal, but its also more expensive than Panasonic G9 or Fujifilm X-H1.

There is also another area I want to touch on the crop sensor might beat the 60 megapixel sensor and thats video, in terms of rolling shutter and codec features, the GH6, G9M2 and the X-H2s are just rolling over every high megapixel camera out there.

For dynamic range you loose at most half a stop in video which is less noticeable compared to photo since most Sony 60 megapixel camera are not geared towards hybrid but prioritises photography.

My biggest gripe however overall, is that m4/3 cameras and lenses, seems hardly any smaller or lighter than APS-C stuff, thats kinda tragic.

Well a couple things…

First off, for a full frame body to have the same pixel density as the R7, it would have to be closer t 85mp’s.

Secondly, as it was explained to me, a full frame camera is primarily designed (optimized) to be shot in full frame mode. Being able to shoot in crop mode is something you can do in a pinch. But it wasn’t really designed with that in mind. I kind of feel that way about teleconverters too. Like sure, once in a while if you have to. But if your having to do that all the time, your kit just isn’t long enough.

I used to own the R5, and I basically never had enough reach. Of course I did shoot in crop mode, because I pretty much had to. But once I got the R7, which is designed an optimized to always shoot in crop mode, I just did much better. So much so, that I sold the R5 and bought a second R7. Great decision. Never looked back.

--
Every day in the field is a blessing. Nice photos, of beautiful birds and wildlife are just a bonus.

Chris Wolfgram ✝️

Explore Chris Wolfgram ✝️’s 1,110 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

No time or attention given for negativity or trolls.

 

[FrancoD]

"I started to accumulate quite the gear and a question popped into my head, we have 60 megapixel sensors since Sony A7r4, why not just crop in that? From a few tests online using Sony A7IV versus A6600, people seemed to get BETTER image quality on the A7IV now that could just be down to the AA filter on the A6600 being a lot more aggressive."

A Sony A7 IV is $2300 in th US (plus tax)

The A6600 is $1000.

Believe it or not, to some that makes a difference.

 

[Dick Dastardly]

Clearly OP is a millionaire, but i hear some people aren't.

Let's do some poor people math. Right now the only camera at my disposal is an old Panasonic FZ72 camera with a microscopic sensor and a 20-1200mm lens. Of course, it wasn't my first camera choice but it's all I could get for $100.

Now let's assume i too was well off so money isn't an issue. I want the same setup, but with a full frame camera. The body would be what, around $3000? Then i'd need a wide angle zoom($1000) and a tele to cover the same range, how much is a really long lens for a FF camera, $8000? So here we are 3 minutes into this conversation and i'm already staring down a $12000 price difference for wanting a full frame sensor instead of what i have now. Does anybody really think the average Joe would sink that much cash into a camera system? Also, who's going to carry the 10kg bag of camera gear? The FZ72 weights 600 grams!

I've done the maths for various systems, right now the cheapest way to get things done is with a APSC DSLR and used lenses and i don't see how this could change in the next decade. The only modern, cheap FF lens worth getting is Canon's 50mm f1.8 STM, paid $75 for mine. Good luck finding anything similar or a zoom for less than $350(don't expect it to be sharp or anything). I can get 2-3 nice apsc lenses for the price of a single FF lens on the used market.


Shot from a moving truck. A FF camera with Pro lens could do slightly better, but not at this price point.

 

[ishwanu]

... So does a crop sensor even make sense if one can buy a high megapixel full frame body, a sensible priced but razor sharp Sigma lens and essentially use the crop modes to achieve the same field of view as a crop sensor, but SHARPER and better dynamic range with BETTER ISO performance???

Let's set something straight. If you're cropping a full frame sensor down to the dimensions of a smaller sensor, and you end up with the same pixel count as a result, you get no advantage of any kind. Not in sharpness, not in dynamic range, and not in low light performance. You have to use the larger area of the larger sensor to get those things.

If the cropped full frame sensor places more pixels under the cropped area than the smaller sensor does, you can gain some resolution benefit, but that's it. If it places fewer pixels under the cropped area than the smaller sensor does, the resolution benefit will be on the side of the smaller sensor.

The examples you posted from the DPR test scene mean nothing in this context because they're comparing cropped full frame sensors to cropped cropped sensors. Do you get the difference?

The AA filters and the lenses used are wild cards - as is the sensor technology itself, with newer generally being better.

 

[John Crowe]

There are those rare occasions when one can still get more MP on the subject when using APS-C, even with the longest and best lenses.

 

[bjn70]

It's still a question of cost, sometimes size and weight. One of the bodies that I use frequently is a Nikon D3300 with 24MP on a 1.5 crop factor sensor. That's the same pixel density as 54MP on full frame so the Sony beats it just a tiny bit. I paid $160 used for the D3300. If a person wants a fast body the D500 is pretty hard to beat. The high MP FF bodies are at a disadvantage for fast shooting because the increased file sizes take longer to process and save, that is unless money is no object.

 

[alcelc]

You might not wrong but the comparison could be varied depends on the person IMHO.

You might realize that you have picked one of the largest M43 body (2nd largest after EM1X which is large because of the integrated power grip). While there is a good reason for the size of EM1X or G9-m2 or the GH6/7, there are indeed a lot of much smaller M43 options for similar IQ, feature set and AF power.

I don't need the PDAF for my good old focus recompose style of operation (so rarely use AFC nor all avaliable focus points but using a single focus point at the center), I consider the lower end G85 (505g) or the smaller RF form factor GX9 (450g), or the OM5 (414g) be the more representative models of M43 to me for general shooting.

These non BIF/video specialized models might give another view of your conparison .

BTW, you might also have overlooked the fact that these latest flagship M43 are capable of High Resolution moden(e g. G9-m2 can do 100Mp output) and they all could do 2X in-camera cropping (not digital zoom) too as any other systems...

Therefore in the use case of me M43 is still holding the adventage of size and weight. YMMV.

--
Albert
** Please forgive my typo error.
** Please feel free to download my image and edit it as you like **
About my
G85: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63025800
GX850/GF9: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65326127
GX9: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67648667

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

Back when I owned the R5, 100% crops were the norm. Sometimes that still wasn't enough. Now that I shoot withe the R7's, I get so many more pixels on my bird, most of the time.

I do WAY better with my R7's than I ever did with my R5

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

Maybe for some folks. I'm pretty poor, but if the $3900 R5 was the best thing for my purposes, I'd still own it. Heck, if I needed an $8K body, I'd own that too.

Lucky for me, the $1500 R7 is best for my purposes regardless of cost

 

[bastibe]

Equivalency always goes both ways: Whats the point of full frame when we have 40mp crop sensors??

You can always construe situations where a particular FF body and lens are lighter, smaller, and cheaper than a particular crop body and lens. But on average, smaller sensors make for smaller, lighter, and more affordable systems. At the cost of some light gathering capacity.

 

[BartekG]

For wildlife:
A6700 costs 1400$, A7RV (same AF) costs 3500$. That's a sony 200-600 price difference and you'll crop most of the time throwing away the full frame advantage.

For landscapes:
Same price difference and you'll throw away the megapixel advantage by viewing the images full size on a display with maybe 8k resolution - that's 32 mpix, and a lot of people doesn't even have 4k ( 8 mpix) screen and even if they did they might not notice the difference.

Modern zoom lenses are so sharp that it's not possible to see the difference between FF and crop at the same resolution and framing without having two shots side by side.

The only advantage of 60mpix I see is for use as a digital binocular - for finding details we missed when taking the shot. It is similar to taking a binocular for a hike.

FF has had following advantages over aps-c:
field of view
DR
lower requirements for optical resolution

Field of view is negated with lenses like 10-18mm, optical resolution is negated by sharper lenses. That leaves just DR and you don't always need more than 11 EV of modern aps-c.

The advantages of aps-c over full frame are:
price
aps-c lenses (easier to design resulting in wider focal ranges, lower weight and smaller size).

Unless you shoot low light or want very shallow DOF I see no advantage of full frame.
The only advantage for 60mpix FF is cropping to 26mpix aps-c but that is most likely negated by wider focal range of aps-c lenses e.g. 24-105 F4 FF vs 17-70 F2.8 (26-105 eqiv.)

 

[jjbinx]

Easy answer . . .

I don’t want a Sony FF camera. Buying one just so that I can crop and still get less pixels than I have with my Canon APS-C and Olympus MFT makes no sense to me.

If you’re a big fan of Sony cameras then I can see your point, otherwise not for me.

jj

 

[MJ_Photo38]

the point of crop sensors are to not pay for the parts of the sensor you don't need / want.

I don't want a 60MP camera, and matter of fact I don't have the means to buy one. Those are 3000€+ brand new, if not 4000+ like te A7RV was.

A smaller sensor also means cheaper lenses (generally).

There is a place for APS-C sensors, just like there is a place for full frame high res sensors. I might add that the readout speed, burst rate and video performance of crop sensors is still better than full frame high res cameras in crop mode.

If you have a high res camera that you use mostly in crop mode and you're happy with it, more power to you, but this is CLEARLY not a solution for everybody.

(also I should point out that Fujifilm files processed by DPReview have pretty much always been softer than Bayer equivalents, and much softer than the same Fujifilm files processed in a RAW editor that is actually made to work well with X-Trans like CApture One)

 

[jjbinx]

Light is.

Hmm, if I crop a 24Mp FF to MFT size I end up with a 6Mp image compared to the 20Mp I would have with my MFT camera.

I’d call that a bigger issue for me than the loss of light.

Yes I could spend a lot more $$$ and get a higher Mp FF but . . .

jj

 

[Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn]

Let's set something straight. If you're cropping a full frame sensor down to the dimensions of a smaller sensor, and you end up with the same pixel count as a result, you get no advantage of any kind. Not in sharpness, not in dynamic range, and not in low light performance. You have to use the larger area of the larger sensor to get those things.

If the cropped full frame sensor places more pixels under the cropped area than the smaller sensor does, you can gain some resolution benefit, but that's it. If it places fewer pixels under the cropped area than the smaller sensor does, the resolution benefit will be on the side of the smaller sensor.

The examples you posted from the DPR test scene mean nothing in this context because they're comparing cropped full frame sensors to cropped cropped sensors. Do you get the difference?

The AA filters and the lenses used are wild cards - as is the sensor technology itself, with newer generally being better.

Thats the point of my post, you can use a 25mm prime on the full frame, crop twice and you get the 50mm field of view of a micro four thirds camera.

Dynamic range is tied to the pixel pitch size, there reason why super 16mm sensors can get 13 stops of DR way back in 2012 despite being even smaller than APS-C.

You do get similar noise levels, however in DPReview we still see better overall detail preservation in the noise floor on full frame versus the best crop sensors.

Shootout - Is the extra reach from crop factor becoming obsolete?

Let me just preface this discussion a bit. My journey went from Nikon DSLR's to MFT, then I added some Sony FF and then sold off all my MFT gear. Recently, I've picked back up some MFT gear after I was not happy with my HH video on the Sony from a recent family vacation and missed the...

www.mu-43.com

Take this for example, cropping twice yields a very similar result to m4/3 camera.
So of course the DPReview example is valid, its delusional to discard the results when they do not conform to agenda.

And of course there is a price difference between a 60 megapixel full frame camera versus a 20 megapixel m4/3 camera or even a 20 megapixel APS-C camera.

But I think its interesting that we can essentially have 3 lenses in a prime in full frame, with press of a button you can zoom in and essentially have the IQ of a crop sensor camera, for a price of course.

--
The most important aspect of photography one needs to understand, are: LOCATION - LIGHTING - LENS

 

[DirkPeh]

Maybe for some folks. I'm pretty poor, but if the $3900 R5 was the best thing for my purposes, I'd still own it. Heck, if I needed an $8K body, I'd own that too.

Lucky for me, the $1500 R7 is best for my purposes regardless of cost

We need a new definition of „pretty poor“.