Performance Difference between APS-C and Full frame digital cameras
Jul 9, 2018 10:03:52 #
gvarner wrote:
I've read that bigger sensors are better in low light ability because it's pixels are bigger in order to cover the entire surface area. But I may be wrong. 😜
Yes, bigger "eyeballs" capture more light. This is the main reason for example, Nikon keeps the single digit "pro" models at conservative MP levels (20 MP or less currently) - bigger eyeballs = better low light performance and more DR. On a smaller APSC sensor at 24MP the eyeballs will be smaller due to real estate on the chip. As technology progresses this may change for the better.
Jul 9, 2018 10:24:57 #
Thank you Gene51 for pointing out the obvious. I'm sorry I have to explain my comment is correct given the use of the 'same' lens. However selmslies' comment was also wrong on the multiplication aspect. A crop sensor does not magnify the image. It is ONLY the viewing angle that changes.
Jul 9, 2018 10:32:38 #
chrisg-optical wrote:
Yes, bigger "eyeballs" capture more light. This is the main reason for example, Nikon keeps the single digit "pro" models at conservative MP levels (20 MP or less currently) - bigger eyeballs = better low light performance and more DR. On a smaller APSC sensor at 24MP the eyeballs will be smaller due to real estate on the chip. As technology progresses this may change for the better.
The difference will still be there though. An improvement in technology will be applied to all sizes.Jul 9, 2018 10:32:40 #
selmslie wrote:
... I will create a separate thread on this question because it needs a fairly detailed answer. ....
Here is the detail: Performance Difference between APS-C and Full frame digital cameras - Resolution. It may take some effort to follow the logic.
Unless you are shooting landscapes where you want everything to be sharp and you are making large prints, the difference in resolution may not be critical.
Resolution may not be the most important consideration but there are lots of other reasons why FX may be better than DX.
Yet DX and even CX have several clear advantages - smaller, lighter and less expensive cameras.
Jul 9, 2018 10:35:57 #
Clapperboard wrote:
... A crop sensor does not magnify the image. It is ONLY the viewing angle that changes.
You can't see the image when it's no larger than the sensor.
Both DX and FX get magnified when you print or view. DX just needs to be magnified 1.5x more than FX.
Jul 9, 2018 11:07:42 #
I am thinking of buying the Sigma 30mm, 1.4 but for my NEX-6 camera but have heard some problems with the focusing on this lens. Have you experienced this?
Thanks,
Bill
Thanks,
Bill
Jul 9, 2018 11:18:05 #
How often do you shoot at high ISO (>1000), or how often do you shoot contrasty scenes and post-process to pull out shadow detail and cloud detail? That's where the big sensor is valuable.
The magnification argument is a red herring, since you would just choose a different lens on an APS-C sensor to get the same effect.
The real argument is light capture - the bigger the sensor, the more light you can capture. That manifests as more dynamic range (more bits of data) in the captured data, which is important whenever you are shooting at ISO higher than the camera's base level, which is typically ISO 100. Each time you double the ISO, you are effectively multiplying the pixel values in the sensor x 2, which means that the noise floor is also multiplied x 2.
Top of the line full-frame sensors such as the Sony backlit sensors (Sony makes the sensors in some Nikon and other cameras, btw) get about 14 bits of dynamic range at ISO 100. Anything less than 8-10 bits is clearly visible in your captures, more if you have a contrasty scene and you are post processing to pull details out of the shadows and clouds. So you have about 4 stops of room to increase ISO without overly degrading the image - ISO 1600.
Put that same sensor in APS-C format, and it's half the area, lose one stop of dynamic range, and your max ISO is 800 without too much loss of quality.
Put it in 1-inch, half the size again, max is ISO 400.
Put it in a cellphone, half again, and you are down to ISO 200. Or lots of noise in dark shots.
The magnification argument is a red herring, since you would just choose a different lens on an APS-C sensor to get the same effect.
The real argument is light capture - the bigger the sensor, the more light you can capture. That manifests as more dynamic range (more bits of data) in the captured data, which is important whenever you are shooting at ISO higher than the camera's base level, which is typically ISO 100. Each time you double the ISO, you are effectively multiplying the pixel values in the sensor x 2, which means that the noise floor is also multiplied x 2.
Top of the line full-frame sensors such as the Sony backlit sensors (Sony makes the sensors in some Nikon and other cameras, btw) get about 14 bits of dynamic range at ISO 100. Anything less than 8-10 bits is clearly visible in your captures, more if you have a contrasty scene and you are post processing to pull details out of the shadows and clouds. So you have about 4 stops of room to increase ISO without overly degrading the image - ISO 1600.
Put that same sensor in APS-C format, and it's half the area, lose one stop of dynamic range, and your max ISO is 800 without too much loss of quality.
Put it in 1-inch, half the size again, max is ISO 400.
Put it in a cellphone, half again, and you are down to ISO 200. Or lots of noise in dark shots.
Jul 9, 2018 11:33:06 #
Bob Locher wrote:
First, please, I am NOT trying to start a flame wa... (show quote)
Yes, all — ALL — other things being equal, larger sensors will capture more detail than smaller ones of the same design and pixel count.
On a purely practical level, you need to make tests to determine whether a given piece of gear, and/or a given *system*, will meet your needs.
For most of what I do, for instance, Micro 4/3 absolutely suits me best. I record lots of video with important, single-system, onboard audio, and lots of stills. The results are most likely to wind up on smartphones, tablets, computer screens, projection screens, TVs, and video monitors. The results may also be viewed as PDF files, or printed to letter-size documents. I rarely print larger than 20x16 inches.
So full frame dSLR? Not enough AV options. APS-C dSLR? Same. Other mirrorless? Sony could work well, but would mean carrying a heavier and bulkier kit that would yield an insignificant difference in the work I do. And I HATE Sony’s menus.
But... for LANDSCAPES, a full-frame or even a medium-format system would be much better than m4/3 or APS-C, especially if you make large prints (30x20 or 60x40 inches). Even though the “standard” viewing distance for any print is 1x to 1.5x its diagonal dimension, more pixels and more details allow closer inspection. Joe Public probably won’t notice, or care. But the format nazis at your local camera club probably will!
Jul 9, 2018 11:40:31 #
[quote=burkphoto Joe Public probably won’t notice, or care. But the format nazis at your local camera club probably will![/quote]
LOL 
..
LOL ..
Jul 9, 2018 11:58:23 #
Clapperboard wrote:
Thank you Gene51 for pointing out the obvious. I'm sorry I have to explain my comment is correct given the use of the 'same' lens. However selmslies' comment was also wrong on the multiplication aspect. A crop sensor does not magnify the image. It is ONLY the viewing angle that changes.
Same lens? Which lens If you use an FX lens then you use only the center when you put it on a DX camera, as you correctly stated. Otherwise your explanation is unclear.
And Scotty is also correct - the smaller sensor must be magnified by a factor of 1.5X to get to the same output size - be it print, projection or screen. That extra 50% magnification does indeed have an effect on image quality, in particular, sharpness and noise. So while you are not wrong when you say that the lens does not increase magnification, at some point the image from a smaller sensor needs to be magnified, and therein is were there is a loss of image quality.
Crop sensors do in fact change than just the viewing angle. The depth of field also changes when you use a cropped sensor, decreasing it when compared with FX using the same lens at the same aperture and distance . That is because of the difference in the size of the circle of confusion, which for all intents and purposes, is .03mm for FX and .02mm for DX (Nikon, and others). This, in turn, affects depth of field, hyperfocal distance, and the overall perception of sharpness at a given print size for an image with the same number of megapixels.
The only thing that is obvious is that this is a frequently misunderstood concept, it is definitely not obvious, and you are not alone in that misunderstanding.
Jul 9, 2018 12:05:09 #
In comparing the Nikon D500 to the Nikon D5 I can state that the D5 handles low light in a much better fashion. FF sensors, in general, follow that pattern. Having not use any Sony, I can't comment further. Best of luck.
Jul 9, 2018 12:11:20 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
robertjerl wrote:
However when you put a FF lens on an APS-C body they do not magically get smaller and lighter.
Maybe.
I see to dearly love my Nikkor 300 2.8 on a NIKON F4s.
A Nikkor 80-200 2.8 on a D7200 does the same things but better, and the weight difference is astounding.
Jul 9, 2018 12:16:05 #
Jul 9, 2018 12:30:12 #
therwol
Loc: USA
Bob Locher wrote:
First, please, I am NOT trying to start a flame wa... (show quote)
One other consideration. If you use a lens on APS-C and an "equivalent" lens on full frame to get the same perspective, you will get greater depth of field with APS-C. (Say 35mm lens on APS-C and 50mm lens on full frame. This will give you similar perspective, but there will be greater depth of field at a given aperture with the 35mm lens on APS-C) This can matter depending on what you're shooting.
Jul 9, 2018 12:30:28 #
There is not any difference in performance. Sony has a good selection of e-mount lens. Some lens are made for ASC sensors and others are made for FF. You can use a crop sensor lens on FF and vice-versa. Sony has menu settings for what allows crop lenses to use the FF sensor.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.