Full Frame or Crop

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18427276
"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/, but perhaps he is a troll too?

And another... https://www.lensrental​s.com …nsor-size-matters-part-2/

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)

Nobody is arguing about the exposure. That youtube troll can't tell the difference between "exposure", "light intensity", the "amount of light" and "image brightness", it's all the same to him. And you too, apparently . OK, a short lesson:
intensity = aperture
exposure = intensity * time
amount of light = exposure * area = intensity * time * area
image brightness = exposure * sensitivity (ISO) = intensity * time * sensitivity (ISO)
Now the important part, different sensors have different sensitivities at the same ISO numbers, because let's say 4µm dot cannot produce the same SNR as 6µm dot. When the dot size is the same, larger area provides much more dots and therefore much more data than the smaller area and the data is all that matters, even if the amount of noise is increasing along with the area. Information = Quality. More information - better quality.
Tony Northrup understands it much better, so you should watch his videos instead.

See .. that's what I'm talking about. All these tiny little snapshots do not represent the potential of a large sensor. They are all the same when you destroy all the extra data by downsizing the images so much. Bravo! You could have done it with your phone.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18427338
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.

Not that my words means anything LOL!!

The 6d2 seems to be built (By Canon) to fit the bill for previous happy 6D users, higher level consumer grade body for demanding usage, Full frame upgrade to current 80D users.

BUT a worthy photographer rockin' a 6dmk2 can still produce beautiful images compared to mediocre owners of 5dmk4, 1dxmk2, A9, D810 etc. This is "user" emphasis and not just hardware specs.

Hardware performance is extremely important!! I agree but this is where we also miss a valid point of the true working combination of photographer's skill set and hardware.

Truly at the end of the day the final image is what matters. How it is acquired sometimes is lost in translation as an iphone image can have more meaning than a photo taken with a crop sensor, FF or medium format body.

Vocal contributors to this topic should post pictures and allow the image to describe the wonders of how superior their sensor is LOL!!!!!

Picking the tools for best results is about IQ tolerance of the photographer as well as budget in hardware purchase. But as we can see it's much more complicated that that too!!

This is a 100% crop from a FF image
1/13 part of it
7.6% from the original resolution, which allows using much smaller optics than you'd need for the pre-cropped sensor cameras. Go figure

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/WrQd​NR

ecka wrote in post #18427325
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
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.

lol, K.

And yes, split hair difference, really Again, I shot both formats, I believed in the FF hype and "need" for several years and I was extremely hesitant to go fully into APS-C... I have no regrets what-so-ever.

And FF is absolutely more expensive and more cumbersome. Sony has definitely improved things in that regard, but my a7S and Zeiss 55/1.8 was still noticeably less comfortable to carry around all day (admittedly a lot of that has to do with the general shape and ergonomics of the camera as well, not just the weight) than my X-Pro2 and XF 35/1.4... and guess which one cost considerably less? I gained a good deal of cash when I sold my a7S and bought an X-Pro2.

ecka wrote in post #18427361
See .. that's what I'm talking about. All these tiny little snapshots do not represent the potential of a large sensor. They are all the same when you destroy all the extra data by downsizing the images so much. Bravo! You could have done it with your phone.

All of my images are available in full resolution on my flickr, I view all of them regularly on a 4k display, all look great. I'm sure you'll go sift through my shots now to find some that support your narrative, so be my guest

ecka wrote in post #18427376
This is a 100% crop from a FF image
1/13 part of it
7.6% from the original resolution, which allows using much smaller optics than you'd need for the pre-cropped sensor cameras. Go figure

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/WrQd​NR IMG_2161 by ecka84, on Flickr

Try doing that with your crop camera and feel the difference.

Thanks for deliberately failing to see my point and in fact basically proving my point all in one post

Mods; I apologize for this mess of a thread, if you'd like me to back out (rather than being banned) I'd be happy to do so.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18427457
lol, K.

And yes, split hair difference, really Again, I shot both formats, I believed in the FF hype and "need" for several years and I was extremely hesitant to go fully into APS-C... I have no regrets what-so-ever.

And FF is absolutely more expensive and more cumbersome. Sony has definitely improved things in that regard, but my a7S and Zeiss 55/1.8 was still noticeably less comfortable to carry around all day (admittedly a lot of that has to do with the general shape and ergonomics of the camera as well, not just the weight) than my X-Pro2 and XF 35/1.4... and guess which one cost considerably less? I gained a good deal of cash when I sold my a7S and bought an X-Pro2.

All of my images are available in full resolution on my flickr, I view all of them regularly on a 4k display, all look great. I'm sure you'll go sift through my shots now to find some that support your narrative, so be my guest

Thanks for deliberately failing to see my point and in fact basically proving my point all in one post

Mods; I apologize for this mess of a thread, if you'd like me to back out (rather than being banned) I'd be happy to do so.

at some point, you can apply that logic to APS-C vs M43 vs large sensor pns.

a7x and 55 is a higher level setup than anything fuji, that lens scores so high on the dxo charts, that fuji doesnt have anything to compete. Even the lowly FE 50 f1.8 can match/exceed the fuji 35 f1.4, and it costs less. Canon/Nikon also have budget 50's that can match the fuji 35, so it isnt some miracle setup. There's also a very high performing 28/85 for the budget conscious.

Taken last Saturday with the XF 35mm F/1.4 on my Fujifilm X-PRO2 - but of course full frame is 'Better' and apparently costs less and is less cumbersome and lighter too. It also makes you better looking or so I read on the internet...
Go Figure

Full image

Good enough to read "Pioneers in Coffee Excellence"... About as good detail rendering you will get!

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18427503
Taken last Saturday with the XF 35mm F/1.4 on my Fujifilm X-PRO2 - but of course full frame is 'Better' and apparently costs less and is less cumbersome and lighter too. It also makes you better looking or so I read on the internet...
Go Figure

Full image

Hosted photo: posted by Two Hot Shoes in
./showthread.php?p=184​27503&i=i185102328
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

And crop in

Hosted photo: posted by Two Hot Shoes in
./showthread.php?p=184​27503&i=i99860309
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

I was just pointing out FF misconceptions of being bigger and costlier. Often not the case

Finding a camera system that works for you is all that matters, people who bang one about this is better than that because this and that... whatever. You show those people an image from a Phase 100Mpx back and they just comment some excuse as to why it doesn't count. It's all a bit of fun down the pub [or on the internet/camera club where it much more heated it seems] but out in the real world, as in doing it for clients, all that matters is you exceed their expectations and deliver what was discussed. What system you do that with is up to you. Full frame is better and so is APS-C and so is Medium Format and so is a mobile Phone...

This is that shot of Dwayne Johnson by supremo photog Michael J. LeBrecht II for the cover of Sports Illustrated that was shot on a Mobile phone - looks mighty fine to me.

Although it's a bit of a misnomer: he used the Hasselblad True Zoom camera attachment attached to the Moto phone. Your average smart phone user also isn't going to have an expensive studio setup either.

davesrose wrote in post #18427564
Although it's a bit of a misnomer: he used the Hasselblad True Zoom camera attachment attached to the Moto phone. Your average smart phone user also isn't going to have an expensive studio setup either.

What, I have to buy an expensive studio too??

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18427457
lol, K.

And yes, split hair difference, really Again, I shot both formats, I believed in the FF hype and "need" for several years and I was extremely hesitant to go fully into APS-C... I have no regrets what-so-ever.

And FF is absolutely more expensive and more cumbersome. Sony has definitely improved things in that regard, but my a7S and Zeiss 55/1.8 was still noticeably less comfortable to carry around all day (admittedly a lot of that has to do with the general shape and ergonomics of the camera as well, not just the weight) than my X-Pro2 and XF 35/1.4... and guess which one cost considerably less? I gained a good deal of cash when I sold my a7S and bought an X-Pro2.

All of my images are available in full resolution on my flickr, I view all of them regularly on a 4k display, all look great. I'm sure you'll go sift through my shots now to find some that support your narrative, so be my guest

Thanks for deliberately failing to see my point and in fact basically proving my point all in one post

Mods; I apologize for this mess of a thread, if you'd like me to back out (rather than being banned) I'd be happy to do so.

Basically, the A7s is a 4K video camera. Which is why it has 12mp sensor and costs this much.
The FE 55/1.8 is like a premium XF 35/1.2. And guess how much would it cost and weight.
And there is nothing more cumbersome than the xTrans and X-Pro2 ergonomics . The A7II ($1500) is $200 cheaper than X-Pro2 ($1700).
Your FF images are so much nicer than Fuji. Believe it or not . I wouldn't lie to you. It is obvious. There's better detail and clarity, less sharpening artifacts, less mush and no xTrans smearing.
Fuji bad!

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18427503
Taken last Saturday with the XF 35mm F/1.4 on my Fujifilm X-PRO2 - but of course full frame is 'Better' and apparently costs less and is less cumbersome and lighter too. It also makes you better looking or so I read on the internet...
Go Figure

Full image

Hosted photo: posted by Two Hot Shoes in
./showthread.php?p=184​27503&i=i185102328
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

And crop in

Hosted photo: posted by Two Hot Shoes in
./showthread.php?p=184​27503&i=i99860309
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

See, that crop is no good

ecka wrote in post #18427621
Basically, the A7s is a 4K video camera. Which is why it has 12mp sensor and costs this much.
The FE 55/1.8 is like a premium XF 35/1.2. And guess how much would it cost and weight.
And there is nothing more cumbersome than the xTrans and X-Pro2 ergonomics . The A7II ($1500) is $200 cheaper than X-Pro2 ($1700).
Your FF images are so much nicer than Fuji. Believe it or not . I wouldn't lie to you. It is obvious. There's better detail and clarity, less sharpening artifacts, less mush and no xTrans smearing.
Fuji bad!

K.

Hilarious that you keep calling other people "trolls"