APS-C Beats FULL-FRAME! (Page 13): Funnily enough I get a wider AoV on my crop cameras than on my FF ones if we exclude lenses that fail to cover the format. Often I want a narrower...

petrochemist Loc: UK

ken_stern wrote:

I never considered an APS-C camera since I didn't want to compromise my existing lenses

It's not size -- It's angle of view

Funnily enough I get a wider AoV on my crop cameras than on my FF ones if we exclude lenses that fail to cover the format.
Often I want a narrower FOV & using the legacy lenses on crop bodies readily gives that. When I want wider there are plenty of affordable crop lenses that give that.
Legacy FF lenses rarely manage wide as todays lenses do wider than 24mm was quite unusual.

My current FF goes down to a 14mm rectilinear, very similar to the APSC 10mm I have, but both APSC & MFT have affordable fisheyes that can reach 180 degrees I can't afford to get that wide on my FF.

APSC doesn't best FF, but neither does it lag behind. Each has advantages, like so many things it's horses for courses.

whitehall Loc: Canada

For certain applications even a 4/3 format works better. I have the Canon r5 but if I want to lighten my load as in bird photography, provided there is good light, I am happy to work with an Olympus 5M mk iii with a 100-400 (effective 200-800) lens.

gwilliams6

davyboy wrote:

Sorry that’s not true ! Proven by no Panasonic or Olympus on da list

davyboy, you need to check your glasses. The OM system OM-1 is on the top twenty sales for the year list at #12. How did you miss that? OM system is what is the former Olympus. Olympus Cameras were sold and now release under the OM brand name.

Cheers and best to you

gwilliams6

TriX wrote:

Exactly. A newly designed APS-C sensor may be the equal of last gen FF sensors, but a FF with larger photo sites of the same Gen technology will, as you say, have a better S/N which equates to a better DR and low light/high ISO performance. Sometimes bigger is better (but less than the best may be good enough, depending on the application)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

TriX wrote:

Exactly. A newly designed APS-C sensor may be the equal of last gen FF sensors, but a FF with larger photo sites of the same Gen technology will, as you say, have a better S/N which equates to a better DR and low light/high ISO performance. Sometimes bigger is better (but less than the best may be good enough, depending on the application)

Once we select a particular set of qualifiers we can make the case for either side.

Wide DR and low light performance favor full frame but once we remove them the comparison changes.

For daylight images of landscapes, flowers, etc., DR is seldom an issue. There are only a couple of more stops before DR starts to become a problem even for full frame.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

TriX wrote:

Exactly. A newly designed APS-C sensor may be the equal of last gen FF sensors, but a FF with larger photo sites of the same Gen technology will, as you say, have a better S/N which equates to a better DR and low light/high ISO performance. Sometimes bigger is better (but less than the best may be good enough, depending on the application)

The actual trend now is that the photosites tend to be about the same size on full-frame and crop frame sensors. It's been this way for a while. I've been avoiding specific makes and models, but now we are going to have to talk about them. The density of a D500 sensor (at 21 MP) is only trivially different from that of a D850 at 46 MP. And if you say "that's not fair," it's also quite close to that of a D810 (at 36 MP) for all practical purposes. It is easy to make the same comparison between 32MP and ~60MP sensors of later model cameras. In knowing hands, the D500 will produce output indistinguishable from a D810. There is only a small "generational" difference between the D500 and the D850, and I doubt that most people can see it either.

What I have observed, though, is that folks who go to the trouble and expense of buying a full frame camera seem to be more likely to learn that camera's capabilities and how to get the best results from it. So the result is that they do get better results from it. I've worked with several people who claimed that their D500 was not capable of doing the job for them. In every case, the problem was found to be photographer shortcoming, not camera shortcoming and was fixed relatively easily.

I moved from a D300 to a D810 when I took up night sky photography. I added a D850 because the lighted control panel is very beneficial when shooting in the absolute dark. My D500 came last, because a lot of the time, the full frame cameras were just complete overkill, and the D300 is missing too many of the functions available on the newer cameras. I'm very happy with all my cameras, but especially the D500. It is just like the D850, except way more fun to handle and shoot. It is significantly more agile than any of my other cameras. And it does a great job. It would be a very tough situation if I were forced to get rid of all but one of my cameras.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

Klickitatdave wrote:

Sad isn't it? Just another example of a rush to ju... (show quote)

But… alas, most (including me) tend to seek out information that supports conclusions already made. At some point if we don’t see something dramatic or telling from a known reliable source, we jump and as long we don’t spot the issues, we’re happy.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

47greyfox wrote:

But… alas, most (including me) tend to seek out information that supports conclusions already made. At some point if we don’t see something dramatic or telling from a known reliable source, we jump and as long we don’t spot the issues, we’re happy.

Or conclusions that one likes.....

old poet

It's not the camera, its the creative mind of the one using it. Revisit Ansel Adams.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

Longshadow wrote:

Or conclusions that one likes.....

👍👍👍

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

old poet wrote:

It's not the camera, its the creative mind of the one using it. Revisit Ansel Adams.

Many people get caught up in the characteristics of the equipment,
of which the image viewer won't give a hoot.
They'll either like the image or not.
THAT's where my concentration resides,
not on what made the image.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

larryepage wrote:

The actual trend now is that the photosites tend to be about the same size on full-frame and crop frame sensors.

When the D800 showed up in 2012 it had almost exactly the same pixel size as my D7000 that I got in 2011. The difference in MP is almost exactly 2.25:1, the same as the area.

Since 24MP is a popular size for APS-C sensors a 54MP full frame sensor should be feasible. The Z7/D850 sensor is 15% smaller than that for reasons known only to Nikon.

old poet

Longshadow wrote:

Many people get caught up in the characteristics of the equipment,
of which the image viewer won't give a hoot.
They'll either like the image or not.
THAT's where my concentration resides,
not on what made the image.

dkeysser Loc: Minneapolis

Consider that the same tech advances helping APS-C sensors are also helping FF cameras. The FF world is not sitting still while the APS world advances. In the long run, there will always be an advantage to the larger sensors. Look at how medium format sensors have improved. At the same time, I agree that the newer APS cameras are more than sufficient for most purposes, and there is no really good argument against using them in the majority of situations. I shoot both APS and FF, and appreciate the difference.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

CHG_CANON wrote:

You are what your equipment says you are.

Depends on what "equipment" you' re talking about