Full Frame or Crop

ksbal wrote in post #18423024
Because, when I want a shallower DOF with a particular lens, I put it on the 5D3

When I need better image quality at 12,800 iso, I grab the 5D3

Sometimes, what I need is a big buffer and I grab the 7D2 no matter what. Sometimes, I need more dof at a certain aperture, and I go for the 7D2.

Those are two separate criteria *I* use to determine which camera I use, and I don't always factor both of them in for any given situation.

If your shooting style has those two things as equals, all the time, then hey, that works for you!

My point is that you do not get less noise, generically, from a larger sensor without also using shallower DOF. The larger sensor alone does not do it, unless you're shooting at base ISO in Av mode and shutter speed is not important.

It is not necessarily relevant that a FF camera has 2/3 stop less noise, generically, at the same ISO, because you will not use the same ISO, unless you are using a shallower DOF with the larger sensor.

If you have the same FOV and DOF, the sensor size has nothing to do with how much light can be collected per millisecond. If you do not normalize FOV, such as in focal-length-limited situations, the FF does not collect more light for the APS-C-sized crop that you make from it.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18425120
My point is that you do not get less noise, generically, from a larger sensor without also using shallower DOF. The larger sensor alone does not do it, unless you're shooting at base ISO in Av mode and shutter speed is not important.

It is not necessarily relevant that a FF camera has 2/3 stop less noise, generically, at the same ISO, because you will not use the same ISO, unless you are using a shallower DOF with the larger sensor.

If you have the same FOV and DOF, the sensor size has nothing to do with how much light can be collected per millisecond. If you do not normalize FOV, such as in focal-length-limited situations, the FF does not collect more light for the APS-C-sized crop that you make from it.

This reminds me of 'Orange Barrel' from the early '70s. One day in the summer of '72, someone stole my motorcycle I never owned. Poor guy died when he crashed it into a tree that didn't exist. We eventually became good buddies.

Bassat wrote in post #18425148
This reminds me of 'Orange Barrel' from the early '70s. One day in the summer of '72, someone stole my motorcycle I never owned. Poor guy died when he crashed it into a tree that didn't exist. We eventually became good buddies.

I remember Orange Barrel.

Full frame you won't regret it

hait0622 wrote in post #18425277
Full frame you won't regret it

I didn't necessarily regret going full frame, but I for sure was happy to move fully to APS-C Fuji and don't regret abandoning full frame one bit

John Sheehy wrote in post #18425120
My point is that you do not get less noise, generically, from a larger sensor without also using shallower DOF. The larger sensor alone does not do it, unless you're shooting at base ISO in Av mode and shutter speed is not important.

It is not necessarily relevant that a FF camera has 2/3 stop less noise, generically, at the same ISO, because you will not use the same ISO, unless you are using a shallower DOF with the larger sensor.

If you have the same FOV and DOF, the sensor size has nothing to do with how much light can be collected per millisecond. If you do not normalize FOV, such as in focal-length-limited situations, the FF does not collect more light for the APS-C-sized crop that you make from it.

I think you are right, but it is very hard to understand unless you give an example.

Generalities are beautiful, but are way harder to understand than specifics.

Well DOF is a factor of aperture. I think it's easier to think of reciprocity of exposure in terms of aperture. It's all relative. At one specific aperture, a larger sensor has more surface area...and if a larger pixel pitch, more photons will hit the photo site (thereby less noise). Since the aperture setting is part of exposure, it's also relative to DOF. To get the same DOF with a crop you have to open the aperture by 1.6x (thereby also allowing more light in: all things equal, then it has the same noise as the FF). This sort of reciprocity, IMO, is what should be getting folks wanting faster APS sized lenses. The Sigma Art 18-35mm 1.8 is an exceptional zoom lens for APS: other fast options are primes.

In this day and age of digital cameras, debating the relative merits of sensor size to noise is about as pointless as you can get. Modern cameras are capable of incredible, high-ISO, really clean results. If you are not getting them, don't blame the camera. I suck at post-processing compared to a lot of POTN users, and I've posted essentially noise free shots from a crop camera (80D) at ISO 16,000, and just a bit better looking from full frame (6D) at ISO 25,600. And this ain't new, folks. My family is rife with framed, noise-free ISO 6400 8"x10" prints from older bodies like the 500D & 60D.

The debate about aperture/DOF/sensor size/noise through the last couple of pages is so silly as to be meaningless. The two formats are different. If you are not defining ALL the parameters, any comparison is totally without meaning. If you frame the same, you either have to change distance or focal length, rendering any direct comparison impossible. And, once again, aperture and distance affect DOF; sensor size has no effect of DOF. While I'm chasing my tail, please humor me and try to understand that aperture has no effect on noise. F/1.2 is no better or worse than f/22, with respect to noise.

ETS wrote in post #18425276
I remember Orange Barrel.

Hey! Did you steal the motorcycle I never owned and die crashing it into a tree that didn't exist? Where ya been for 40+ years? Good times, eh Bud? More proof that those who remember the '60s weren't there.

Bonus points if you can remember what PMD stands for! Though I think that was several years later.

Bassat wrote in post #18425495
Hey! Did you steal the motorcycle I never owned and die crashing it into a tree that didn't exist? Where ya been for 40+ years? Good times, eh Bud? More proof that those who remember the '60s weren't there.

Bonus points if you can remember what PMD stands for! Though I think that was several years later.

PMD doesn't ring any bells. but 72 was pretty much the end of that era for me anyway.

Purple Micro Dot. Very popular in US in from mid-60s through the '70s. Still going strong in Europe, it appears. Very good for weekend getaways. Take a trip, and never leave the farm.

Bassat wrote in post #18425754
Purple Micro Dot. Very popular in US in from mid-60s through the '70s. Still going strong in Europe, it appears. Very good for weekend getaways. Take a trip, and never leave the farm.

Ah, so many years, so many abbreviations. But yeah I DO remember that.

This is post #268 and I think we have written the book on full frame vs. crop. Will it ever end? I don't think the OP has posted since May 8th so we have answered his question or confused him.

The only time it might end is if camera manufacturers phased out a given format (and even then, there would be folks being nostalgic about it)! The real litmus test is if this thread hybernates and then is resurrected in 5 years, and then continues (I've noticed that's a trend as well).

davesrose wrote in post #18425385
Well DOF is a factor of aperture. I think it's easier to think of reciprocity of exposure in terms of aperture. It's all relative. At one specific aperture, a larger sensor has more surface area...and if a larger pixel pitch, more photons will hit the photo site (thereby less noise). Since the aperture setting is part of exposure, it's also relative to DOF. To get the same DOF with a crop you have to open the aperture by 1.6x (thereby also allowing more light in: all things equal, then it has the same noise as the FF). This sort of reciprocity, IMO, is what should be getting folks wanting faster APS sized lenses. The Sigma Art 18-35mm 1.8 is an exceptional zoom lens for APS: other fast options are primes.

And the Sigma Art 50-100mm f/1,8