Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Cropped Frame or Full Frame????
Page <<first <prev 5 of 6 next>
Aug 24, 2016 14:27:07   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
Gdelvecc wrote:
...Billboard size might be a problem though..


Only if you climb up onto the billboard's catwalk and pixel-peep the billboard image!

It will look fine from the street or highway.

Doubters, please understand that more pixels don't necessarily translate into a better large print viewing experience.

If I have a 16 MP image, 4608x3456 pixels, then at "minimum photo print resolution" of 240 PPI, that makes a 19.2 X 14.4 inch image that can be "pixel peeped" at a distance of 13 inches. You won't see any pixels, and you will see the image at about maximum perceivable resolution under such conditions.

But the *closest* standard viewing distance for any print is normally its diagonal dimension, or 24" for this hypothetical 19.2 X 14.4 inch print! Now if I scale that image to 76.8 X 57.6 inches, and back up to view it from 96", my eyes see EXACTLY the same amount of detail as they did 24" away from the 19.2 X 14.4 inch image. And I can "pixel peep" that large image at 52" to see the same details I saw in the smaller one.

Reply
Aug 24, 2016 14:31:49   #
BebuLamar
 
Billboard doesn't really require a lot of pixels. An 5x7 displayed in a gallery is more critical than billboard. Not only billboard is viewed far away it's often viewed only a few seconds.

Reply
Aug 24, 2016 14:42:40   #
Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI
 
BebuLamar wrote:
Billboard doesn't really require a lot of pixels. An 5x7 displayed in a gallery is more critical than billboard. Not only billboard is viewed far away it's often viewed only a few seconds.


Shot on an E-5 (12 mpx)...this was my first image used on a billboard...looked great at 75mph.



Reply
 
 
Aug 24, 2016 15:56:11   #
Steve g Loc: Logtown, CA
 
Particularly with the newer cameras, glass matters more than the sensor size does. If you plan on printing larger than say, 16x20 then a full frame size might be a good investment. Beyond that criteria, just get what feels good in your hand and the best glass that is offered for that choice.

Reply
Aug 24, 2016 16:04:15   #
Steve g Loc: Logtown, CA
 
Particularly with the newer cameras, glass matters more than the sensor size does. If you plan on printing larger than say, 16x20 then a full frame size might be a good investment. Beyond that criteria, just get what feels good in your hand and the best glass that is offered for that choice.

Reply
Aug 24, 2016 16:04:49   #
Steve g Loc: Logtown, CA
 
Oops. Sorry for the dupe. S

Reply
Aug 24, 2016 16:18:22   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
dandi wrote:
Excellent post, thank you very much for taking your time to write it.


Well, I figured the thread needed a reality check! Thank-you.

Reply
 
 
Aug 24, 2016 16:30:38   #
ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana
 


burkphoto wrote:
Sinead, this thread is just riddled with inaccuracies, false statements, and general errors.

First, there are no such things as “35mm sensors," unless you're talking about film.

A full frame sensor is NOMINALLY 36mm wide by 24mm tall.

An APS-C Canon sensor is NOMINALLY 22.5mm by 15mm. A Nikon DX or Sony or Fujifilm APS-C sensor is slightly larger.

A Micro 4/3 or Four Thirds sensor is 17.3 x 13 mm.

The format used by Panasonic and Olympus is called Micro Four Thirds, Micro 4/3, or m4/3 or m43… NOT Micro 2/3. The Four Thirds dSLR format is defunct, but the sensor size carried over into m4/3.

A change in sensor size NEVER affects the focal length of a lens… It only changes its perceived magnification, or the field of view recorded. A given lens focal length projects the same image over the same area. A lens may be designed to cover an 8x10 sheet of film, or a Micro 4/3 sensor, but it can be 300mm in both cases. Only the field of view changes! And it is the same over the same area. Oh, the image circle projected by the lens is wider on larger formats, but then so are the lenses! A 300mm lens made for 8x10 is pretty large, compared to a 300mm lens made for m43.

Depth of field does not increase due to a reduction in sensor size. It does increase when you reduce the focal length of your lens to match what you would have used on a larger sensor! In other words, f/2.8 on Micro 4/3 at 25mm provides about the same depth of field as f/5.6 at 50mm on full frame film. And the field of view is about the same, too. To match that “look” on APS-C, you would need a 35mm lens used at about f/4.

Bokeh is not hard to achieve on smaller sensors IF you use a lens with a wider maximum aperture. It needs to be one stop wider on APS-C and two stops wider on Micro 4/3 (compared to full frame). This is why lenses with maximum apertures of f/0.95 or f/1.2 are popular with Micro 4/3 users! No, you’re not going to get the absolute most bokeh on any of these formats… For that, you’ll need a huge view camera, a very long lens, and 20x24 inch sheet film!

“Crop” sensors do not limit the size of a print you can make from their images! You can make a 40 inch by 30 inch print of the same scene from an iPhone or a Canon 5Dsr or a Nikon D7200. They won’t have the same resolution, but you can make them! The only limits on print size are the limits we have in our minds. I have seen many Apple billboards that were made with iPhones. I’ve seen plenty of crappy 8x10s made from full frame dSLR images. There is MUCH more to image quality than just sensor size! Whole books have been written about it, along with endless rants on the Internet.

A crop sensor dSLR only samples a small area of the image circle of a *lens designed for full frame*. But if you put a DX lens on a DX body, you’re cropping *a lot less,* because the smaller, lighter lens designed for DX projects a smaller image circle! Put that lens on an FX (full frame) Nikon, and you get vignetting or fewer usable pixels… because the projected image circle of a DX lens won't cover an FX sensor.

Full frame/FX sensors, APS-C/DX sensors, and Micro 4/3 sensors are all designed for different purposes… for different blends of capabilities, possibilities, and applications. One format is only better than another in a relative sense, because it is only ONE PART of a larger, broader system! If your sensor is the largest available, with the widest dynamic range, lowest noise, etc., BUT you’re not printing on a high end Epson or Canon photo printer, directly from Lightroom (etc.), from raw files adjusted on a calibrated monitor capable of 100% Adobe RGB color gamut, are you realizing the full potential of your camera? No... regardless of the camera format, brand, etc. (If you took Humanities in college, and studied Plato's Forms, you know what I mean.)

Those who fixate religiously on sensor size dogma are often incapable of seeing beyond the camera technology to the true purposes of imaging, and the importance of the entire imaging SYSTEM. They’re too busy *gloating* about owning full frame bodies to actually go out and use the things!

Consider this: WAY over 90% of today’s images will be viewed ONLY on screens — tablets, smart phones, computers, 4K and HDTV monitors. Very few of those screens have a resolution of over 1920x1080 pixels, and those that do are mostly 4K TV sets with 3840x2160 resolution. A 60” wide screen HDTV or 4K monitor looks GREAT when viewed six feet away.

Yes, prints can look much better. But to really eke out the most from a Nikon D810 or Canon 5Dsr image, you need to make a really big print on a state-of-the-art inkjet printer. Do you make prints like that on a regular basis? Do you own one of those big Epson or Canon printers, or work with a service bureau that does?

Use the right tool for the job. But don’t think you have to lug a full frame body and heavy lenses 100% of the time, when 90% of the time, it won’t make a visible difference in what people see in your photography!

Photography is a broad field with many applications — nearly as many as there are photographers. Don't be so hung up on the technology of it all that you forget to record the images you started out to make. You're writing with light. The MESSAGE is far more important than the medium.
Sinead, this thread is just riddled with inaccurac... (show quote)



Reply
Aug 24, 2016 16:33:09   #
Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA
 
jmizera wrote:
This refers to a "full sized" 35mm sensor vs a range of sensors that are a fraction of the size. Micro 2/3, APS-C, and so on. It affects the focal length of your lenses, and technically increases your depth of field. Bokeh or the blurred background is harder to achieve on smaller sensors. Larger sensors on average perform better in low light.

It's a mistake (IMHO) that a full frame camera is automatically superior to a crop sensor camera.




For me, YMMV, the sweet spot is the aps-c sensor. Jmizera is basically correct. Actually it does not change the focal length of a lens. It simply changes the intercept angle. The smaller sensor sees more of the center of the lens, so the angle of view of a 100mm with an aps-c sensor is narrower. Put the same 100mm on a FF sensor and it is more like a wide angle. Otherwise, everything he says is perfect.

I find that with the aps-c (Nikon d7200, Sony a6300, etc.) I can do some significant cropping, then print up to aboiut 20x30 for framing for my walls. Even occasionally up to 30x40 (With careful processing and "Perfect Resize")

Reply
Aug 24, 2016 16:38:33   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
Cdouthitt wrote:
Shot on an E-5 (12 mpx)...this was my first image used on a billboard...looked great at 75mph.


Works for me!

Heck, Clint, you could have photographed the scene with an old 5.33 MP Nikon D1x and used it. Wouldn't have made much — if any discernible — difference.

Most people who have seen one of the new LED billboards up close (a few feet away) are shocked when they see the size of the pixels on those things... For that matter, viewing a conventional printed billboard image from a few feet away, you would not think it would be sharp enough when viewed from the road. But it is!

Reply
Aug 24, 2016 19:02:45   #
Jim Bob
 
Cdouthitt wrote:
Shot on an E-5 (12 mpx)...this was my first image used on a billboard...looked great at 75mph.


Thank God for speed.

Reply
 
 
Aug 24, 2016 19:11:34   #
Gdelvecc Loc: Dallas, TX
 
Agreed! 16x20 max then move to full frame? Really? Does he work in a camera store? What crap...

Reply
Aug 24, 2016 19:30:27   #
Zeke4351 Loc: Kentucky
 
I have both cameras and I love both cameras. The Nikon D750 I haven't had too long. I wanted a second body and already had the Nikon D7200 which is a very fine crop sensor camera so I decided to add the full frame. I have pictures posted on Flickr under the name Hargas Funk posted using both cameras. There is a night football picture shot with the D7200 at ISO 20,000 that is very clean and clear. I wouldn't want to try and make a huge print of the picture but it is very good for a crop sensor at that high ISO. Do your home work and buy either but I recommend you only buy full frame lenses no matter which sensor size you decide on. When all is said and done its all about the glass. I do like the extra reach I get with the crop sensor. You can go to Flickr and search and see pictures made with any camera or lens and see for yourself. Lots of free advice passed around the web but the pictures tell it all. I will add one other thing. You can wind up with a bad copy of any camera or lens made and that is where you find reviews that don't exactly match the true quality of the product. I bought a new lens and thought it was great. Bought another lens just like it on sale and the picture quality from it made the first one look bad.

Reply
Aug 24, 2016 19:58:49   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
Zeke4351 wrote:
...You can wind up with a bad copy of any camera or lens made and that is where you find reviews that don't exactly match the true quality of the product. I bought a new lens and thought it was great. Bought another lens just like it on sale and the picture quality from it made the first one look bad.


Usually a manufacturing variance mismatch between body and lens. If your camera supports micro-calibration, you can fix it with a menu setting.

Mirrorless systems don't need micro-adjustment because they focus using the imaging sensor.

Reply
Aug 24, 2016 23:55:14   #
SteveR Loc: Michigan
 
Cdouthitt wrote:
However, if you have to ask the question, then chances are FF is not for you :-)


I basically said the same thing when I said that "a good crop camera is probably best for somebody who doesn't know the difference." Since my first digital camera was a D7000, I'll stick by that statement, and I think that those who think Cdouthitt's statement is wrong are, indeed, wrong themselves.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 6 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.