smussler wrote:
Wow, quite informative. I wish I saw it before I bought my first DSLR back in March. I bought cropped sensor because I wanted a lighter camera. Now I feel much better on my choice - the right one for me. Only thing I don't like about my D5600 is the lack of weather proofing.
And right after that video. youtube shows this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAdI5BBgFHQand then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFORF18gQ_cSo main difference - more background blur on Full Frame. Good or Bad depending on one's desired results.
I notice when looking at camera specs, FF cameras often support higher ISO, therefor better in low light?
OP should be thoroughly confused . . .
Wow, quite informative. I wish I saw it before I ... (
show quote)
Bigger sensels (sensor elements โ the light sensitive, monochrome light detectors on the sensor that are covered with colored filters) convert more photons into electrons. That increases "signal to noise ratio." S/N is what defines dynamic range. The wider the dynamic range between full saturation of the sensels and the tiniest signal that can be considered evidence of light, the more detail that can be recorded from a high dynamic range daylight scene.
The difference between a full frame sensor's low light performance and APS-C/DX is about one full f/stop, give or take 1/3 stop. The difference between a full frame sensor's low light performance and Micro 4/3 is about two full f/stops, give or take 1/3 stop. So a low light scene will have roughly the same noise when a full frame camera image is made at ISO 12800, an APS-C/DX image is made at ISO 6400, and a Micro 4/3 image is made at ISO 3200.
That basically means that full frame cameras ARE good in low light, but they also are great for landscape scenes photographed in daylight, because they can record more highlight and shadow details.
The difference in background blur (bokeh) is generally due to the use of different focal lengths to record the same scene from the same distance. For instance, here is a comparison of three "20MP class" cameras of roughly the same sensor vintage:
A 25mm lens at f/4 at 10' on Micro 4/3 (Panasonic Lumix DC-G9) has a depth of field of 6.1 feet.
A 35mm lens at f/5.6 at 10' on APS-C/DX (Nikon D500) has a depth of field of 6.04 feet.
A 50mm lens at f/8 at 10' on full frame (Nikon D5) has a depth of field of 6.4 feet.
Yet, all three of these normal lenses (normal for their sensor sizes) yield roughly the same field of view. FOCAL LENGTH controls magnification. The higher the magnification, the smaller the aperture needed to maintain the same depth of field. It's directly proportional to the area of the sensor, and how wide the circles of confusion get as you use a longer lens.
So why doesn't everyone use a full frame camera?
Full frame cameras are expensive and heavy.
Full frame lenses are expensive, big, and heavy.
APS-C dedicated lenses used for the same field of view (such as Nikon DX or Canon EF-S) are less expensive, smaller, and lighter. When made to pro specs, they may perform better on APS-C than do full frame lenses.
Micro 4/3 native lenses used for the same field of view are half the cost, 1/3 to 1/4 the size, and 1/2 to 1/4 the weight of full frame lenses. Because they are designed specifically for that format, they are optimized for sharpness, contrast, bokeh...
Sometimes, traveling light is more important in the general scheme of things.
Sometimes you need MORE depth of field at a given aperture.
Life and photography are full of little trade-offs. There is no perfect camera! There is just the right camera for right now, the one that fulfills your needs, wants, hopes, dreams, desires, budget, and circumstances.
It's sort of like this: My daily driver is a Prius. But every now and then, when I need a van or a truck, I'll borrow or rent one. It's a lot less hassle and cost than owning one. The guy down the street is a contractor. He needs his F150 supercab pickup every day. But his wife drives a hybrid Highlander, the "mommymobile."