Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera
Thread started 08 May 2017 (Monday) 20:07
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Full Frame or Crop

 
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
2,930 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Atlanta, GA
Aug 13, 2017 22:06 |  #271

Ah-keong wrote in post #18426981 (external link)
And the Sigma Art 50-100mm f/1,8

 :p

Ah, thanks for informing me about that lens. Now will Sigma fill the 35-50mmm gap and make some fast longer telephotos? ;-)a Unfortunately, it's an uphill battle of folks favoring slower and lighter lenses that tax higher ISOs.


Canon 5D mk III , 7D mk II
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Ah-keong
Senior Member
Ah-keong's Avatar
Joined Apr 2016
Aug 13, 2017 22:16 |  #272

davesrose wrote in post #18426991 (external link)
Ah, thanks for informing me about that lens. Now will Sigma fill the 35-50mmm gap and make some fast longer telephotos? ;-)a Unfortunately, it's an uphill battle of folks favoring slower and lighter lenses that tax higher ISOs.

Initially, I thought Sigma would make a 35-85mm f/1,8 Art.
Current cropped sensors can still can get quite good results at high ISOs....

Hope Sigma would release a 08-16mm f/1,8 Art for cropped sensors?  :p

IMAGE: http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/images/sigma_8-16mm_lens.JPG

Canon 7D Mark II | BG-E16 | Canon EF-S 10-18mm | Sigma DC 18-35mm ART |
Canon Speedlite 430EX III-RT |
Olympus E-PL3 | M.Zuiko ED 7-14mm PRO
Manfrotto BeFree Travel Tripod |
Tenba DNA 15 Messenger | Think Tank Photo Digital Holster 40v2.0 | Speed Changer v2.0

LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
2,930 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Atlanta, GA
Aug 13, 2017 22:32 as a reply to Ah-keong's post |  #273

The issue of high ISO photography is relative. While digital cameras do have much better high ISOs then film had, I still see that acceptable perceptual resolution decreases with high ISO (as well as dynamic range). Current sensor technology is incrementally getting better with high ISO (Canon's tech has really improved at low ISO DR). A current generation FF camera still has better high ISO then a crop. My 7D2, while not the latest for good low ISO DR, is still supposed to have good high ISO for a crop. I still reach for my 5D3 for any of those applications.


Canon 5D mk III , 7D mk II
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
ecka
Senior Member
ecka's Avatar
Joined Oct 2009
Aug 14, 2017 03:47 |  #274
banned

Ah-keong wrote in post #18426997 (external link)
Initially, I thought Sigma would make a 35-85mm f/1,8 Art.
Current cropped sensors can still can get quite good results at high ISOs....

Hope Sigma would release a 08-16mm f/1,8 Art for cropped sensors?  :p

QUOTED IMAGE

Have you seen the 14mm F1.8 Art? Do you really want something even bigger? :)


Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~ flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Ah-keong
Senior Member
Ah-keong's Avatar
Joined Apr 2016
Aug 14, 2017 04:07 |  #275

ecka wrote in post #18427120 (external link)
Have you seen the 14mm F1.8 Art? Do you really want something even bigger? :)

Looking at the design philosophy of the Art line and the duet 18-35mm, 50-100mm. I believe this UWA would not be small.....

 :p


IMAGE: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2017/07/Sigma-14mm-Lens-Sharpness-Test-1.jpg

Canon 7D Mark II | BG-E16 | Canon EF-S 10-18mm | Sigma DC 18-35mm ART |
Canon Speedlite 430EX III-RT |
Olympus E-PL3 | M.Zuiko ED 7-14mm PRO
Manfrotto BeFree Travel Tripod |
Tenba DNA 15 Messenger | Think Tank Photo Digital Holster 40v2.0 | Speed Changer v2.0

LOG IN TO REPLY
ecka
Senior Member
ecka's Avatar
Joined Oct 2009
Aug 14, 2017 04:32 |  #276
banned

To be honest, for some tasks, even some FF cameras can be not good enough, not clean enough at base ISO, too low-res, lacking DR, etc. While it seems like most people think that all cameras are the same at ISO 100. They are not the same and there is plenty of noise at low ISOs, which is relatively easy to filter, but not without compromises. There is no end to this debate, because some people are shooting tiny little snapshots (for social networks and stuff) and some people are more demanding, they want to view it large, large prints, poster size - wall size, high quality, or crop-in to the extremes. Crop sensor potential fails much sooner at much smaller sizes, despite that it surpasses film quality, because FF potential is more than twice superior. You can try to measure and compare all kinds of photographically relevant qualities, like DoF, sharpness, contrast, color, dynamic range, bit depth, etc. But in reality there is only one (to rule them all :D ), it's the ability to gather as much correct data as possible - THE image quality. It doesn't matter if you need all of it or you don't, it will always be the benchmark. Given the same level of technology, larger sensor area will always gather more light to produce more information. All that waiting for APS-C to win is like waiting for '2' to become more than '5', which will never happen.


Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~ flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,425 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 4 months ago by TeamSpeed. 9 edits done in total.
Aug 14, 2017 07:26 |  #277

A FF sensor itself as a whole will gather over twice the total amount of light over an APS-C (purely due to sensor area). However I fail to see why that makes a difference in IQ (related to ISO), and why it has to be said each time somebody tries to make a point about FF vs APS-C?

That sensor is made of many small photosensors, and depending on what FF you compare to what APS-C, they could be very close to the same size, and therefore record the same amount of exposure in that particular area of sensor. For example, compare the 7D2 to the 5DS (nearly 1:1) or a 5D4 to a 40D (completely different answer).

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=fvVzO1Xz2sM (external link) (the baby/rug analogy is a an interesting one)

ecka wrote in post #18427139 (external link)
To be honest, for some tasks, even some FF cameras can be not good enough, not clean enough at base ISO, too low-res, lacking DR, etc. While it seems like most people think that all cameras are the same at ISO 100. They are not the same and there is plenty of noise at low ISOs, which is relatively easy to filter, but not without compromises. There is no end to this debate, because some people are shooting tiny little snapshots (for social networks and stuff) and some people are more demanding, they want to view it large, large prints, poster size - wall size, high quality, or crop-in to the extremes. Crop sensor potential fails much sooner at much smaller sizes, despite that it surpasses film quality, because FF potential is more than twice superior. You can try to measure and compare all kinds of photographically relevant qualities, like DoF, sharpness, contrast, color, dynamic range, bit depth, etc. But in reality there is only one (to rule them all :D ), it's the ability to gather as much correct data as possible - THE image quality. It doesn't matter if you need all of it or you don't, it will always be the benchmark. Given the same level of technology, larger sensor area will always gather more light to produce more information. All that waiting for APS-C to win is like waiting for '2' to become more than '5', which will never happen.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Canon announced a 100Mpx version of the 5DS tomorrow? Then compare the ISO levels of that to the 80D for example...


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
ecka
Senior Member
ecka's Avatar
Joined Oct 2009
Aug 14, 2017 09:07 |  #278
banned

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18427205 (external link)
A FF sensor itself as a whole will gather over twice the total amount of light over an APS-C (purely due to sensor area). However I fail to see why that makes a difference in IQ (related to ISO), and why it has to be said each time somebody tries to make a point about FF vs APS-C?

That sensor is made of many small photosensors, and depending on what FF you compare to what APS-C, they could be very close to the same size, and therefore record the same amount of exposure in that particular area of sensor. For example, compare the 7D2 to the 5DS (nearly 1:1) or a 5D4 to a 40D (completely different answer).

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=fvVzO1Xz2sM (external link) (the baby/rug analogy is a an interesting one)

Wouldn't it be interesting if Canon announced a 100Mpx version of the 5DS tomorrow? Then compare the ISO levels of that to the 80D for example...

Size is what makes the difference, always, because larger sensor wins either because of the larger pixels, or because there is more of them, or both. Printing larger chips with the same amount of pixels of the same size as on smaller chips (but with larger gaps between them) would just be an economically stupid decision. If you have the technology to print 24mp APS-C, then you can use that technology to print 60mp FF, if it turns out to be the optimal resolution to meet consumer demands. I'm not sure about 100mp, but it is possible that the next 5Ds update will have over 60mp sensor.
And, I'm sorry, but that video belongs to one of the worst photography ignoranuses on youtube. He is one of the reasons why we have so much stupid nonsense floating around the Internet these days. Maybe he's doing it on purpose, I have no idea. I tried to reason with him, but every time when he is losing the argument he removes all my comments and stays ignorant at all costs. I assume that he does the same thing to all of the rational criticism. So, don't waste your time on this troll, he's not worth it.


Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~ flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,425 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 4 months ago by TeamSpeed. 21 edits done in total.
Aug 14, 2017 09:44 as a reply to ecka's post |  #279

"More of them" means nothing when looking at what a photosite captures on a sensor in regards to exposure. So exactly where is the source for all this internet nonsense?

A photosite doesn't magically record more photons just because it has more siblings around it. A 4.7micon photosite, whether participating on a larger FF sensor or on a smaller APS-C, should capture the same amount of signal, within an error tolerance. The light doesn't hit it differently or for a different amount of time, it would hit both equally if using the same lens and same aperture/shutter speed, correct?

If you disagree, then present good argumentative material, instead of attacks, jabs and the general internet bully-ing. Maybe he removes your comments due to tone and attitude? :)

Another fairly easy article to read: http://reedhoffmann.co​m ...r-especially-with-pixels/ (external link), but perhaps he is a troll too?

And another... https://www.lensrental​s.com ...nsor-size-matters-part-2/ (external link)

Overall sensor area doesn't contribute to the pixel-level ISO performance as the size of each photosite itself would. The reason this was touted back 10 years ago was that we had at no point a FF sensor with the same photosite sizes as an APS-C, so it was easier to say "a big sensor is better than a little sensor" then to get into technical discussions on photosite sizes. These days, we now have FF and APS-C sharing almost the same sized photosites, so the decade-old "lazy answer" simply doesn't hold true any longer.

When comparing a FF to an APS-C, and one knows the resolution of both, then the FF should perform ISO-wise better at the pixel level if a) the technology of the 2 sensors is of the same generation and capability and b) if FFres / (1.6 x 1.6) < APSCres.

(I think I have that equation right anyways)

If I shine the same flashlight for the same duration over these 3 sensors, the FF-B at the pixel level will nearly identically match the APS-C, provided the sensor designs (including ADC) are equal. The photosites measured (with the star) don't behave differently because they have more or fewer siblings around them. You can see the similarities (and differences) between these 3 sensors from analytics as well.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
EverydayGetaway's Avatar
Joined Oct 2012
Bowie, MD
Post has been edited 4 months ago by EverydayGetaway.
Aug 14, 2017 09:57 |  #280

ecka wrote in post #18427139 (external link)
To be honest, for some tasks, even some FF cameras can be not good enough, not clean enough at base ISO, too low-res, lacking DR, etc. While it seems like most people think that all cameras are the same at ISO 100. They are not the same and there is plenty of noise at low ISOs, which is relatively easy to filter, but not without compromises. There is no end to this debate, because some people are shooting tiny little snapshots (for social networks and stuff) and some people are more demanding, they want to view it large, large prints, poster size - wall size, high quality, or crop-in to the extremes. Crop sensor potential fails much sooner at much smaller sizes, despite that it surpasses film quality, because FF potential is more than twice superior. You can try to measure and compare all kinds of photographically relevant qualities, like DoF, sharpness, contrast, color, dynamic range, bit depth, etc. But in reality there is only one (to rule them all :D ), it's the ability to gather as much correct data as possible - THE image quality. It doesn't matter if you need all of it or you don't, it will always be the benchmark. Given the same level of technology, larger sensor area will always gather more light to produce more information. All that waiting for APS-C to win is like waiting for '2' to become more than '5', which will never happen.

Again, the point is, for most users the difference is so slight that it's not even worth mentioning. The technology has gotten so good that it's hard to imagine needing more than the IQ you can get from an 80D for most subjects/uses, thus arguing over which tech has the split hair difference of better "quality" doesn't really matter to most end users, but because they read stuff like the above they spiral themselves down a rabbit hole of expensive and cumbersome FF cameras and lenses because they believe it's the "right" choice. I, as well as many others have gone down this path before, it's not necessary.

The only quality that I could actually (on some occasions) see a difference between my FF and APS-C cameras was when it came to wider angle shallow DOF shots. If that's something that you find very important, great, it may be worth the downsides for you. For that matter, all the other stuff might actually matter to you, but to pass it off like it's a massive leap over APS-C is just misleading.

I've brought it up a billion times before, but I have a 20x30 poster from my EOS 20D hanging in my living room and it looks fantastic. It draws the attention of everyone who comes to my house and receives compliments from pretty much anyone who sees it. And that print is from a 13 year old 8mp APS-C camera... tech has only gotten better.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
ecka
Senior Member
ecka's Avatar
Joined Oct 2009
Aug 14, 2017 10:52 |  #281
banned

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18427290 (external link)
Again, the point is, for most users the difference is so slight that it's not even worth mentioning. The technology has gotten so good that it's hard to imagine needing more than the IQ you can get from an 80D for most subjects/uses, thus arguing over which tech has the split hair difference of better "quality" doesn't really matter to most end users, but because they read stuff like the above they spiral themselves down a rabbit hole of expensive and cumbersome FF cameras and lenses because they believe it's the "right" choice. I, as well as many others have gone down this path before, it's not necessary.

The only quality that I could actually (on some occasions) see a difference between my FF and APS-C cameras was when it came to wider angle shallow DOF shots. If that's something that you find very important, great, it may be worth the downsides for you. For that matter, all the other stuff might actually matter to you, but to pass it off like it's a massive leap over APS-C is just misleading.

I've brought it up a billion times before, but I have a 20x30 poster from my EOS 20D hanging in my living room and it looks fantastic. It draws the attention of everyone who comes to my house and receives compliments from pretty much anyone who sees it. And that print is from a 13 year old 8mp APS-C camera... tech has only gotten better.

Well, those most users should not preach nonsense to the rest of us. If you don't care about the difference or maybe you can't see it, physically, but this doesn't mean there is none. Period.
Just stop telling everyone that they should stop caring and degrade to your level of tolerance or blindness or whatever is wrong with your ego. Why can't you realize the madness of it?
Split hair difference? Really? I'd say, too many blind people in photography must be the problem :cry:
Most end users don't even need a big sensor camera. You just can't use its potential efficiently. Which explains why you are into Fuji sooo much. You like the "fast food" it spits out. I'm actually OK with whatever works for you guys. The problem is that you get overconfident and start spreading all sorts of nonsensical beliefs, stupid ideas and superstitious populism. It's not that hard to learn the truth. Why don't you?
FF isn't more expensive and it's not cumbersome. Where is this BS coming from? Actually, your Fuji is more expensive and more cumbersome than my FF. Learn the freaking equivalence and you'll understand why. Repeating the same nonsense a billion times won't make it true.
Again. What's enough for you, may not be enough for everyone else. You are not the perfect example for the rest of humanity to follow.


Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~ flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,425 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Aug 14, 2017 10:54 |  #282

Yup, it's the tone and attitude... that's definitely it! I get the same feeling when I am on DPReview boards. :(


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Aug 14, 2017 11:04 |  #283

I'll have to say that this topic is never ending :)

For my application I know i can achieve better image quality in terms of detail and high iso performance with a Full frame sensor. A new 5dmk4 clearly is better than my Fuji X-t2 or Canon 80D.

I can see a difference between my aging 5dmk3 vs my Fuji or Canon 80D.

I would have to say it's always easier "talk" about stuff but actions always speaks louder than "internet words" :)

The way I look at camera's is how it renders the real world with it's unique character. Fuji renders differently than Canon. My mirrored camera's create different star/sunburst's as different lenses are found by different manufacturers.

Crop vs Full frame is more than just "Size" to me. Camera's are tools for specific uses and how I want the images to look like.

My personal preference is Full frame mirrored bodies as I feel my Canon gear delivers autofocus differently than my Fuji crop sensor. My Canon 5dmk3 full frame actually renders a different look than my Canon 80D crop sensor.

As you can see less emphasis should be on "dumb, mindless hardware". The application as a skilled operator with specific tools should be the biggest concern to deliver the final image.

Crop: Fuji X-T2 with 10-24mm UWA lens

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



Full Frame: Canon 5dmk3 with 16-35 f/2.8 mk2

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

The images just look different on my IPS panel at home. However on print or internet these photos look good enough. Oddly when I do events I do prefer my Canon images to an extent due to how I acquire the photos and digital images. Fuji files to my eyes are fantastic but I just seem to get more keepers for events work.

The internet babbles about FF vs Crop is actually more complicated....or call it more specific to ones desired needs in sensor performance and body AF performance.

5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,425 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 4 months ago by TeamSpeed. 2 edits done in total.
Aug 14, 2017 11:11 as a reply to AlanU's post |  #284

For end results yes, but like any other subject out there, when you drill into technical details, accuracy in those details are pretty important, from either marketing or from an end result standpoint.

If they didn't matter, we wouldn't have all the hoopla around the 6D2. :) The rule that "a FF sensor yields better results (at least from an ISO perspective) than any APS-C because that sensor has more area than an APS-C" isn't a rule. It was at most a guideline in the past, and not so much that any more either.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Aug 14, 2017 11:24 |  #285

Canon 5dmk3

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Fuji X-T2


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Both compliments one another. The Fuji with Fuji 56mm f/1.2 prime truly almost feels like I'm using a mini Canon 85Lmk2 and the Fuji 16mm f/1.4 has a feel of using a 24Lmk1 on a full frame.

As you can tell I'm talking about camera usage/experience and not exactly how the image renders from the sensor size. Fuji simply renders different than Sony, Nikon and Canon.

My only reason I bring up Fuji is because I'm explaining my personal experience with the gear I presently own. As you can see I'm not even discussing the skill set of photographer. I've seen some dreadful images from FF and crop sensor users. The partnership of user/operator and gear is more critical than hardware specs alone. However a phenomenal skilled photographer with the latest high tech full frame gear in extremely challenging light "should" produce better overall image quality due to better performing sensor. No one can dispute hardware performance but it seems no one ever discusses photographer's skills as one of the most crucial parts of the equation!!

Another note is "WE POTN" member should really have no concern what others use. Post your photos and let it speak for itself. We all know talk is simply "talk" :P

5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

27,712 views & 351 likes for this thread
Full Frame or Crop
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00232 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.08s
Latest registered member is FluffyHotcakes
1009 guests, 499 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017