Full Frame vs Aps-c: A "full frame" sensor has approx 864 sq mm of area. An "Aps-c" (Canon) sensor has about 329 sq mm of area. With those areas, a 22mp full frame sensor has about...

thg3 Loc: La Quinta, California

A "full frame" sensor has approx 864 sq mm of area.
An "Aps-c" (Canon) sensor has about 329 sq mm of area.

With those areas, a 22mp full frame sensor has about 26,000 pixels per square mm while a 18mp Aps-c (crop) sensor has about 55,000 pixels per square mm.

It would require a full frame sensor of 47.5mp to equal the pixel density of a Aps-c sensor.

With less than 1/2 the pixels per square mm, why is the full frame sensor thought to give better pictures?

I am assuming that a single pixel can only represent a single color/shade at any one time.

Tom

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

I really dont get why it matters honestly. Will understanding pixel math help you take better photos?

Art Grandpa Loc: Washougal, WA

Circle of confusion, noise, all basic topics... Bigger pixel buckets = better image. It's simple.

thg3 Loc: La Quinta, California

Musket wrote:

I really dont get why it matters honestly. Will understanding pixel math help you take better photos?

It's more a question of understanding why a lower pixel density would give you a better picture. You have to agree that a picture printed at 100dpi is not the quality of a picture printed at 300+dpi...

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

thg3 wrote:

A "full frame" sensor has approx 864 sq ... (show quote)

Noise, plain and simple.

The more pixels per given distance, the more cross-talk you have... that translates to noise.

The BIG advantage of APS-C sensors is the "multiplier" effect. Depending on which sensor, its from 1.4 or 1.5 times greater than a full frame.

So that 400mm zoom on a Full Frame becomes equivalent to a 600mm on an APS-C. Nothing to sneeze at when doing wildlife photography. :wink:

thg3 Loc: La Quinta, California

CHOLLY wrote:

Noise, plain and simple.

The more pixels per given distance, the more cross-talk you have... that translates to noise.

The BIG advantage of APS-C sensors is the "multiplier" effect. Depending on which sensor, its from 1.4 or 1.5 times greater than a full frame.

So that 400mm zoom on a Full Frame becomes equivalent to a 600mm on an APS-C. Nothing to sneeze at when doing wildlife photography. :wink:

Thanks , that all make sense...

Tom

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

thg3 wrote:

It's more a question of understanding why a lower pixel density would give you a better picture. You have to agree that a picture printed at 100dpi is not the quality of a picture printed at 300+dpi...

You should worry more about your skill level and improving it than to worry about trivial things such as pixel density/depth/sizes when the final product that is produced between these sensor sizes is hard to tell the difference between even at sizes like 40x32 in real world use.

Your take away here is that the only performance difference you will notice is in how clean your low light files are and that you didnt have to push your ISO higher.

Full Frame was head and shoulders above APS-c when the D3 first came out. Not the case anymore. They are now pretty close file output wise. There are of course reasons to go Full Frame over APS-C for things that matter like ultra wide angle lenses/field of view and better low light performance.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

thg3 wrote:

A "full frame" sensor has approx 864 sq ... (show quote)

If everything else is equal then the APS-C camera will provide higher quality photos. But usually there are other differences. The full frame camera typically has a better quality sensor which can more than offset the mp density. Full frame cameras typically have a better build quality to appeal to professionals. There are other differences (software for ex) that cloud comparison as well. But your thinking is on target.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Pixels are not the only factor in quality Almost all pictures have some flaws and when you enlarge the flaws the look worst. Since the full crop frame has to be enlarged over twice as much as the full frame to get the same size picture you are enlarging the flaws twice as much. In Ansil Adams day it would be the difference in using a 4X5 negative and a 8X10 negative. The 8X10 will give you a better print. Hope this is of some help. - Dave

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

thg3 wrote:

It's more a question of understanding why a lower pixel density would give you a better picture. You have to agree that a picture printed at 100dpi is not the quality of a picture printed at 300+dpi...

You are comparing apples to oranges, not apples to apples. All pixels are not created equal. Size, light gathering ability, etc. are usually not the same in FF and DX sensors.

KennyMac Loc: Lynchburg, VA

thg3 wrote:

A "full frame" sensor has approx 864 sq ... (show quote)

Tom, it's because each pixel is much larger and gathers more light and much better signal to noise ratio!

Ken

jimq Loc: Cape Cod, MA

CHOLLY makes the mistake of seeing a cropped image as the same as seeing a zoomed image. The only difference between a DX photo and an FF is the area of coverage. Noise (when your shooting in the dark) is the big difference.

nitrophil Loc: Dayton, Ohio

Bazinga!

thg3 wrote:

A "full frame" sensor has approx 864 sq ... (show quote)

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

nitrophil wrote:

Bazinga!

Again, not all pixels are created equal. The pixels in FF are usually bigger in size which makes a big difference in light and color collecting ability.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

ecobin wrote:

If everything else is equal then the APS-C camera will provide higher quality photos. But usually there are other differences. The full frame camera typically has a better quality sensor which can more than offset the mp density. Full frame cameras typically have a better build quality to appeal to professionals. There are other differences (software for ex) that cloud comparison as well. But your thinking is on target.

I think its higher resolution not higher quality.