APS-C Beats FULL-FRAME!
Jan 28, 2023 17:08:23 #
GreigCam wrote:
I was amused by the outrage from the luddites in the group over the notion of quality from sensors smaller than their own.
Then I remembered -- lo those many years ago -- when I was a young man shooting 35mm and being scoffed at by the 2 1/4 Old Farts.
Technology is forever improving mechanical things. But it doesn't do jack for human nature.
Then I remembered -- lo those many years ago -- when I was a young man shooting 35mm and being scoffed at by the 2 1/4 Old Farts.
Technology is forever improving mechanical things. But it doesn't do jack for human nature.
Those Luddites you’re referring to are the majority of professional photographers who shoot FF for a reason. And while there were many advantages to 35mm vs MF (smaller size, lighter weight, film cassettes with longer rolls, etc), the fact is that the larger negatives of MF were superior to 35mm, hence the reason they were favored by many portrait and group photographers where size/weight and # of exposures didn’t matter.
Jan 28, 2023 17:09:40 #
TriX wrote:
Didn’t intend to provide a platform for yet another Sony ad…
Just showing that not all FF cameras are twice the size and weight of APS-C. I am sure that Nikon and Canon also have some smaller fullframe mirrorless cameras now that aren't that much heavier than some of their mirrorless APS-C cameras.
Please Nikon and Canon users feel free to show us some of those FF vs APS-C weight and size comparisons as examples.
Cheers, take care, and best to you.
Jan 28, 2023 17:21:07 #
larryepage wrote:
For me, the choice is not one format or the other.... (show quote)
I wont mention a brand anymore in this discussion as they sets some folks off right away here in UHH, lol.
Both my two higher megapixel FF cameras (50mp and 61mp) can shoot in APS-C mode in raw and jpeg, reducing the file sizes; and they also can shoot in Medium and Small Raw file sizes and smaller jpeg sizes also reducing the file sizes.
I am never "enslaved" to my high megapixel files sizes if I dont need them for a particular subject or shoot. No need to have two different size format cameras anymore for me. I guess I am fortunate to have the best of both formats in each single camera when it comes to file sizes available to me.
Cheers and best to you.
Jan 28, 2023 17:23:31 #
Klickitatdave
Loc: Seattle Washington
GreigCam wrote:
I was amused by the outrage from the luddites in the group over the notion of quality from sensors smaller than their own.
Then I remembered -- lo those many years ago -- when I was a young man shooting 35mm and being scoffed at by the 2 1/4 Old Farts.
Technology is forever improving mechanical things. But it doesn't do jack for human nature.
Then I remembered -- lo those many years ago -- when I was a young man shooting 35mm and being scoffed at by the 2 1/4 Old Farts.
Technology is forever improving mechanical things. But it doesn't do jack for human nature.
Evolution takes care of that, it might seem to be interminably slow but it does get the job done.
Jan 28, 2023 17:26:37 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
gwilliams6 wrote:
I wont mention a brand as they sets some folks off right away here in UHH, lol.
My higher megapixel FF cameras can shoot in APS-C mode in raw and jpeg, reducing the file sizes; and they also can shoot in Medium and Small Raw file sizes also reducing the file sizes. I am never "enslaved" to my high megapixel files sizes if I dont need them for a particular subject or shoot. No need to have two different size format cameras anymore.
Cheers and best to you.
My higher megapixel FF cameras can shoot in APS-C mode in raw and jpeg, reducing the file sizes; and they also can shoot in Medium and Small Raw file sizes also reducing the file sizes. I am never "enslaved" to my high megapixel files sizes if I dont need them for a particular subject or shoot. No need to have two different size format cameras anymore.
Cheers and best to you.
Mine too, and I've used it that way. But my APS-C camera also has some ergonomic advantages and is just nicer to shoot than the full frame camera. It's also noticeably quicker and more limber, besides being a little lighter in weight.
Jan 28, 2023 17:32:43 #
The quantity of light a sensor receives is depending on the size of it photostats. The more light the better the signal to noise ratio.
This is physics. The rest is wishful thinking marketing and journalism.
This is physics. The rest is wishful thinking marketing and journalism.
Jan 28, 2023 17:35:55 #
larryepage wrote:
Mine too, and I've used it that way. But my APS-C camera also has some ergonomic advantages and is just nicer to shoot than the full frame camera. It's also noticeably quicker and more limber, besides being a little lighter in weight.
I wont even go there about which you prefer to use. Use what suits you best and be happy. You dont have to justify that to anyone.
For me my FF cameras are just as "quick and limber" as my APS-C camera was from the same brand, with higher resolution EVFs, one with a blackout-free EVF, and much faster frame rates, capable of more AF and exposure calculations per second, better AI tracking, larger buffers, and more.
Cheers and best to you.
Jan 28, 2023 17:44:58 #
Jan 28, 2023 18:14:09 #
Fredrick wrote:
Please don't shoot the messenger! I'm not suggest... (show quote)
After reading all the replies, the only thing I can conclude about "APS is better than FF" is that it should be changed to something like "APS can sometimes be an acceptable alternative to FF".
I have FF. And I have APS. And I have m4/3. And I have 1" sensor. And I have 1/2.3". It all boils down to what do I want use for a given situation. Sometimes small and light weight is important. Sometimes distant imaging is important. Sometimes low light is important. Sometimes best IQ is important.
Jan 28, 2023 18:32:57 #
Arad wrote:
The quantity of light a sensor receives is depending on the size of it photostats. The more light the better the signal to noise ratio.
This is physics. The rest is wishful thinking marketing and journalism.
This is physics. The rest is wishful thinking marketing and journalism.
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)
Jan 28, 2023 18:34:17 #
Don't forget to differentiate between people who are referencing things may be referring to professional requirements v. aficionados v. hobbyists v. technical obsessed v. pixel peepers v. ...
There are different desires, beliefs, and understandings between all of those groups.
But it always seems that people believe that everyone is concerned in the same way.
Not everyone requires the absitively posilutely the best, whichever it may be.
There are different desires, beliefs, and understandings between all of those groups.
But it always seems that people believe that everyone is concerned in the same way.
Not everyone requires the absitively posilutely the best, whichever it may be.
Jan 28, 2023 18:55:37 #
As I said, never getting rid of my FF, but this illustrates why I have an APS-C Fuji (which I REALLY like)
X-T2 Fuji vs Canon 5D4 (similar FL lenses)
Jan 28, 2023 19:06:41 #
Jan 28, 2023 19:39:44 #
gwilliams6 wrote:
I wont mention a brand anymore in this discussion ... (show quote)
I believe my outdated D850 also has those features, but with smaller file sizes
---
Jan 28, 2023 19:42:25 #
mg1962 wrote:
I hope you know what they say about opinions!!
Yup, they're like as....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.