Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Links and Resources
Why Sensor Size Matters - YOU DON'T always NEED a FULL FRAME camera?
Page 1 of 2 next>
Jul 10, 2021 11:44:03   #
gwilliams6
 
Why Sensor Size Matters - YOU DON'T always NEED a FULL FRAME camera?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ81v_kGCoE

Reply
Jul 10, 2021 12:47:09   #
Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA
 
For a given focal length lens, a larger sensor produces a wider angle and a smaller sensor produces a more telephoto angle. For 100% cropping I need at least a 1" sensor. For the best picture quality I use a medium format digital camera, but I don't always need the best quality. They are all tools. You use the best tool for the job.

Reply
Jul 10, 2021 12:53:00   #
User ID
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
Why Sensor Size Matters - YOU DON'T always NEED a FULL FRAME camera?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ81v_kGCoE


Thaz just a YouTube video.

Reply
 
 
Jul 10, 2021 13:04:51   #
David Martin Loc: Cary, NC
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
Why Sensor Size Matters - YOU DON'T always NEED a FULL FRAME camera?

Of course not "always." But when you do need one, it sure helps to have it.

Reply
Jul 10, 2021 17:09:08   #
gwilliams6
 
User ID wrote:
Thaz just a YouTube video.


Mike Smith is a well-known, well-respected professional photographer, who just like many other professional photographers make youtube videos to share their knowledge and experience.

What about this is not understood by you. lol

Take the time and watch some of his youtube videos and tutorials and enlighten yourself User ID. At last count Mike had made and posted about 380 separate youtube videos and tutorials, all available for your education.

https://www.youtube.com/user/tigerfoot945

https://www.youtube.com/c/MikeSmithphototutorials/videos

Cheers

Reply
Jul 10, 2021 17:32:22   #
BebuLamar
 
Sensor size does matter just like film size matter. You don't always need a certain size. The problem with full frame is that they called it full frame and make it important. So it's a must have only because they called it full frame. Any other sizes are not full frame (including sizes that are larger than full frame, what's an oxymoron?).

Reply
Jul 10, 2021 17:40:09   #
gwilliams6
 
BebuLamar wrote:
Sensor size does matter just like film size matter. You don't always need a certain size. The problem with full frame is that they called it full frame and make it important. So it's a must have only because they called it full frame. Any other sizes are not full frame (including sizes that are larger than full frame, what's an oxymoron?).


It was called full frame because the digital sensor size was approximately the same size as the popular 35mm film camera frame, that is the main reason. Some consider digital medium format as their "full frame" if they came from shooting "medium format" film cameras to medium format digital cameras, and even in "medium format" digital cameras there are a variety of different sensor sizes between some Fuji, Hasselblad and others .

Full frame wasn't "made" important. It is only important to those who choose it for its properties and advantages over other smaller size sensors. For some APS-C, or micro 4/3rds are the more important formats, and others will say "medium format" is even more important for its greater resolution.

Cheers

Reply
 
 
Jul 10, 2021 17:45:03   #
User ID
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
Mike Smith is a well-known, well-respected professional photographer, who just like many other professional photographers make youtube videos to share their knowledge and experience.

What about this is not understood by you. lol

Take the time and watch some of his youtube videos and tutorials and enlighten yourself User ID.

https://www.youtube.com/user/tigerfoot945

https://www.youtube.com/c/MikeSmithphototutorials/videos

Cheers

OK. I put on my nice guy hat and checked it out. No sooprizes at all. It’s simply just another yewtoob video, a page or two of basic info that gets stretched out to be a quarter hour of talking head. Quite typical of the genre.

Enlighten myself ? Big fat zero on that :-(

Reply
Jul 10, 2021 17:59:11   #
Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA
 
Youtube is like Google with movies and sound. Is your tub drain clogged? A youtube video told me how to clear the clog and never need draino again. Is your patio umbrella busted? Youtube told me how to fix it. Did the tire fall off your riding mower? Youtube told me how to get it back on the rim and inflate it. Youtube told me how to use Photoshop and Premiere Pro without having to read a manual. Youtube has great interviews of veterans of wars, historical figures, artists of all kind. It's probably the new 8th wonder of the world.

Reply
Jul 10, 2021 18:59:24   #
Ysarex
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
Mike Smith is a well-known, well-respected professional photographer, who just like many other professional photographers make youtube videos to share their knowledge and experience.

What about this is not understood by you. lol

Take the time and watch some of his youtube videos and tutorials and enlighten yourself User ID.

Nooooooo! He's not too bad as youtube idiots go but that doesn't say much. When he's right he's extremely superficial (his 1,2,3 minute quickies) but when he tries to get into the topic a bit more he's spouting misinformation with the worst of them. For example he made a video about ISO that's embarrassingly wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXm-5RZuB7Q Apparently he got called on it buy a lot of his viewers so he made another one that's also embarrassingly wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfyL3V5xn3Q Waiting for strike three now?
gwilliams6 wrote:
At last count Mike had made and posted about 380 separate youtube videos and tutorials, all available for your education.

https://www.youtube.com/user/tigerfoot945

https://www.youtube.com/c/MikeSmithphototutorials/videos

Cheers

Reply
Jul 10, 2021 19:08:55   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
A pound of luck isn't worth half as much as a full-frame camera.

Reply
 
 
Jul 11, 2021 01:50:55   #
n3eg Loc: West coast USA
 
I take photos with my micro four thirds camera that you cannot even TRY to shoot with a FF camera. Or if you try, you will crash your car. Trip to Philadelphia and back, 450 photos, zero accidents.

Reply
Jul 11, 2021 07:51:39   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
There is plenty to talk in this thread. Each sensor size has its advantages. It is hard to argue that "full frame" handles noise beautifully. It is hard to argue that a crop sensor offers excellent opportunities to wildlife photographers expanding the field of view of the lens.
I have been into the M43 system now for several years. I feel that I am not loosing anything when it comes to quality images. Tele or wide angle I am very well covered with my lenses from Olympus and Panasonic.

Bigger sensors are said to collect more light and offer a better noise performance. I guess something went wrong with the Nikon D2H and its 4.2 Mp. sensor. In spite of most probably having the largest photons at the time noise was visible even at ISO 400. That camera, that I owned, was very capable of excellent enlargements and the first generation colors it had were simply awesome. Although a full frame camera with the same number of megapixels of a crop sensor is supposed to yield a better image if using the same lens image quality will be identical.

Coming back to the M43 system I have been very happy with it. I do not know about the new Olympus cameras but my old cameras show noise after ISO 800. I am not a prolific low light shooter or a high ISO shooter but if I were I would be using a noise reduction software with these cameras. My tendency has been till now to use base ISO and camera on a tripod if I need to shoot in very low light. Let's not forget that for many photographers noise is not an issue.

I agree that each one of us should use what works in our photography. I have a dSLR full frame camera and I do not use it that often.

Reply
Jul 11, 2021 09:57:37   #
Ysarex
 
camerapapi wrote:
Although a full frame camera with the same number of megapixels of a crop sensor is supposed to yield a better image if using the same lens image quality will be identical.

The larger sensor camera (all else equal) will have better SNR because the sensor is larger and at the same exposure will be less noisy. Less noise is considered an image quality +.

Reply
Jul 11, 2021 10:05:21   #
JBRIII
 
People here seem to often get really worked up about things that are truly difficult to know for sure. Astro camera makers and discussions talk a lot about sensors, but include not only size, but discussions on well depth, type of sensor, amp glow, number of pixels, etc. even video versus non-video. Many are monochrome and use filter wheels.

The only way to really test things is to only change one thing at a time, i.e., same camera, lens, photo object etc., but different sensor pixel number. And repeat experiment several times. Even then only the sensor maker would know if the sensor is exactly the same except for cramming more pixels on the sensor. Doing this would require testing many different cameras, etc. and coming up with statistics which would say how important sensor type, lens, etc. was for doing X. Expensive, time consuming and beyond any but the wealthy to do.

Even then, theoritics and reality can be two different things. Kolari on their web site compared three macro lenses for UV photography, all regular camera lenses, not special quartz, CaF2, mixes made for UV ($$$$). They ranged from at least $600 to <$100. The cheapest failed on all comparisons except for actual UV photos! where was very little difference.
Three points, mine, 1. With a small wavelength range, chromatic aberration is less of a problem, two, lens coatings can drastically affect UV, as number of elements in lens and 3. the quality/size of objective needed for details varies with wavelenght. So in this case, what happens for visible, RGB photos told them little about usefulness in the UV.

For those not familiar with the UV, optical glass used in lenses absorbs some of the UV, modern anti-reflection coatings absorb UV much less than older 30's? coating, Bayer filter also absorbs some. Best are all quartz or quartz plus CaF2(subject to temperature shock fracture, I believe). Two companies make them, Nikon and Coastal optics?, around $6000-7000 new or used).

Just my two cents worth;
JimIII

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Links and Resources
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2021 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.