rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Having been a full frame 35mm photographer for years, I jumped at the chance to get a digital camera with a sensor the same size as the 35mm film I was using. That only made sense. After seeing numerous comments about noise, which is the digital equivalent of grain, I did some extensive research on noise in digital imaging. Here's part of the article I wrote and posted here on UHH.

Effects of Sensor Size
Here's some bad news for adherents of using less than full frame sensors. The size of the sensor area is the largest determinant of signal levels that will determine signal-to-noise ratio. These apparent noise levels assume the aperture area is proportional to the sensor area, or the f-stop or focal-plane illuminance is held constant. What this means is that for a constant f-number, the sensitivity of an image sensor scales approximately with the sensor area. Larger sensors typically create lower noise in images when compared to smaller sensors.

Where images are bright enough to fall in the shot noise restricted level, and are scaled to the same size on the screen, or printed the same size, pixel count makes little difference to perceptible noise levels. The noise depends primarily on the sensor area. It does not depend on how this area is divided into pixels.

For example, the noise level produced by a 4/3 sensor at ISO 800 is approximately equivalent to the noise level produced by an FX sensor at ISO 3200. As an aside, the ability to produce quality images at high ISOs is a major factor in the desirability of FX DSLR cameras, which use larger sensors than compact point and shoots. Examples exist that show a FX DSLR producing less noise at ISO 400 than a point and shoot at ISO 100.

With this in mind, I was glad I waited and purchased an FF digital camera.
--Bob

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Good points and one of the primary reasons for choosing FF. I often find myself shooting indoors in available light at ISOs from 6400 to 10,000, and I'm telling you, the high ISO, low noise performance of the FF is worth its weight in gold if you shoot in those circumstances.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Bob and TriX, please tell me what is a full frame...

As long as we let this misnomer being used you can type all you want it makes no sense. User wider sensor, 36mm sensors, whatever but full frame? ALL cameras are full frame.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I have an awesome collection of cameras and lenses. I don't know how anyone that owns a D500 could possibly be disappointed. It's and incredibly good camera. It doesn't hurt my images one iota to switch back and forth as I often do. I do love my D810 but the D500 is no slouch. It's never disappointed me. Only "me" ever disappoints me.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

How long ago was that written?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Ron, you know full well what we mean and so does (almost) everyone else. Do we need to spell it out for you - 36x24 mm. Is this just a semantics discussion, or do you just want to be obtuse or argue?

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I wholeheartedly agree!

Smudgey Loc: Ohio, Calif, Now Arizona

If you were ever a film photographer, you know that if everything else is equal, the larger the film format the higher the image quality -- 35mm film size was better than 110 and 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 film size was better than 35mm and 4x5 was better than 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 and gave you better quality than all the others. The same is true with sensors in a digital camera. The larger the sensor is the higher the image quality. There are indeed other factors as well, but this is a general rule of thumb. This is why the camera manufactures make them. I have a Canon 5D SR full frame 50 mega pixel camera and the combination of full frame and high MP allows me to crop down to 25% of the frame and still get a high quality image. Full Frame cameras are more expensive, but for me worth the cost as image quality is primary for me.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

Great answer. For most people, this is the only reason to buy the so-called full-frame. (Real full frame would be at least like the Hassie or Pentax 4x5.)

For me, the sweetspot is the aps-c sensor in 20-24mpxls. I can go to 1600 iso with no significant noise (and getting better) and I regularly print 20x30 and 16x24 with beautiful results.

I actually don't call the 35mm sensors "full-frame" or the aps-c, "crop sensors". My 50mm lens is just 50mm, whatever the camera and sensor. The term full-frame and crop were invented by marketers to appeal to those of us who used to shoot 35mm. There is no law of nature that 35mm has heavenly sanction.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Like it was said many times before...all you really need is a crop camera, L lens and a protective filter...I think I read that? (chuckle)

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

LOL!

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Why does this bother you? Just don't look at these. Let people ask what they want.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I think maybe we sometime forget about all the newer members and become needlessly too dismissive. In my view,we have three options,skip the thread,join the thread,or gently joke. Many are here for entertainment as well as learning. A topic like using filter for protection is a great example.

I have tried the "Search" option numerous times and rarely found current or satisfactory information. My advice to anyone is to pose that query!

2Much Loc: WA

I looked at those pics as a play on the word "crop" (peppers, tomatoes....).