[gazonk]

Wrong
I meant:
1) Smaller pictures looks sharper than largers
2) When printed at the same format common part of the image taken with FF is lesser than on taken with APS-C. Thus it looks sharper.

And if it does, it's because of what I write, so I don't think we disagree...

[Eruditass]

You can get that effect even more readily using a tilt lens.

The tilt lens will change the orientation of the plane of focus. You can't keep a flat plane of focus and get that kind of isolation with a tilt lens. In some instances, you can crop and frame such that it appears that way, but not all.

And if it does, it's because of what I write, so I don't think we disagree...

I don't think you understand what he is saying. 100% crops are not relevant. It's similar to the enlargement factor of a full frame film to a 8x12" vs an aps-c film to 8x12".

[jsherman999]

Question, can you folks look at a photo and tell whether it was taken with a FF camera vs APS-C camera?

.

A single image with no context, without knowing the focal length, aperture and distance to subject, it would just be a guess. Even with that info, it would just be a slightly more educated guess.

However, put two shots side by side, aps-c & FF, taken with equivalent FOV and same aperture, and it would be pretty obvious (the FF shot would have a bit over a stop less DOF.) Put two shots with the same FOV and DOF (aps-c & FF) together and it's likely that the FF shot will look slightly sharper on the focal plane, because to achieve the same DOF there, it would be closed down 1.3 stops from the aps-c shot (but the sharpness would of course be lens-dependent, since to keep the FOV the same you'd need to zoom in 1.5x on FF or use another prime on FF that's longer (ie 50mm of FF = 35mm on aps-v for FOV)

One of these is FF, one aps-c - same aperture, same distance to subject (same FOV, although I accidentally altered the framing vertically.)


(50mm f/2.8 FF vs 35m f/2.8 aps-c)


So... All this adds up to the 'look' that people tend to (sometimes) prefer with FF. A good shot is a good shot, though, and many other things matter more than that 'look'.


.

[atlnq9]

So... All this adds up to the 'look' that people tend to (sometimes) prefer with FF. A good shot is a good shot, though, and many other things matter more than that 'look'.

Great example shots to show the difference. Hence why medium format is a even better format for subject isolation. I yearn to go back to 6x7 or 645.

I would take a 1.3x crop any day still though; actually this would be my preference for wildlife. No need for over 16MP, target high ISO performance over sensor resolution.

[Spare Tire]

I don't know why the small sensor systems don't just make lenses with super large apertures. It begs for it! You'd get the same kind of DOF than larger sensors, with a lens that's not any larger than one on a larger sensor, AND you'd get more light for darker environments.

[johnmflores]

.

A single image with no context, without knowing the focal length, aperture and distance to subject, it would just be a guess. Even with that info, it would just be a slightly more educated guess.

However, put two shots side by side, aps-c & FF, taken with equivalent FOV and same aperture, and it would be pretty obvious (the FF shot would have a bit over a stop less DOF.) Put two shots with the same FOV and DOF (aps-c & FF) together and it's likely that the FF shot will look slightly sharper on the focal plane, because to achieve the same DOF there, it would be closed down 1.3 stops from the aps-c shot (but the sharpness would of course be lens-dependent, since to keep the FOV the same you'd need to zoom in 1.5x on FF or use another prime on FF that's longer (ie 50mm of FF = 35mm on aps-v for FOV)

One of these is FF, one aps-c - same aperture, same distance to subject (same FOV, although I accidentally altered the framing vertically.)


(50mm f/2.8 FF vs 35m f/2.8 aps-c)


So... All this adds up to the 'look' that people tend to (sometimes) prefer with FF. A good shot is a good shot, though, and many other things matter more than that 'look'.


.

I'm not debating that there isn't a difference. There is. But if you can't look at a photo hanging at an art gallery and tell with 100% certainty whether it's FF or APS-C, doesn't that say something about how important sensor size is in the overall equation?

[jsherman999]

I'm not debating that there isn't a difference. There is. But if you can't look at a photo hanging at an art gallery and tell with 100% certainty whether it's FF or APS-C, doesn't that say something about how important sensor size is in the overall equation?

The problem with that reasoning is that it doesn't allow for any personal preference, really.

A well-composed, in focus shot taken with the $75 M 50 f/1.4 hanging on a wall could be mistaken for the same shot taken with the 43ltd (yes, it could and has, trust me ) If someone told you it came from the 43, you'd have no real reason to doubt them. However if you yourself shot with both the 43 and the M 50 1.4 for a couple days, week, or months, you'd probably start to prefer the 43, maybe by a great margin. In fact the actual differences would be subtle, but they'd start to mean a lot to you.

It's the same way with FF - talking a shot out of context and not allowing a choice between similar images to see which is preferred doesn't really prove much about the relative worth of the two formats.

P&S's, bridge cameras with varying small sensors, even phone cameras - all are represented in galleries now. You'd be hard pressed to 'know' a shot was taken with say a G12 vs a DSLR in many cases. That fact doesn't make the sensor size difference irrelevant, just not always relevant.

1.3 stops more DOF control at equivalent FOV and aperture, at least a stop better noise peformance (comparing 2008 FF wth 2011 aps-c) is what the sensor size difference brings in this case. Everyone needs to figure out for themselves how much those advantages would matter to their personal enjoyment of the hobby (or make their profession easier.)

For me, it's kind of a big deal to be able to shoot a $110 50 f/1.8 and have it 'look' like a 35 f/1.2 would on aps-c, or have a $300 20mm f/2.8 'look' like a 13mm f/1.8 would (if one existed,) or a 180 f/2.8 look like a 120mm f/1.8 (below)... etc. It's fun, useful, and when you add in that extra stop of ISO and the performance of the body, it's a rewarding format to shoot.










And I just can't get over my idea that Pentax could do it even better than Nikon in many ways. I'm convinced they could, with Ricoh's eventual blessing.


.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 10-16-2011 at 11:36 PM.

[jsherman999]

Great example shots to show the difference. Hence why medium format is a even better format for subject isolation. *I yearn to go back to 6x7 or 645*.

shareasale.com/r.cfm?b=889257&u=523490&m=66875&urllink=keh.com has everything you need (I always look at that equipment when I get my catalog and go, "hmmm....")



.

[gazonk]

I don't know why the small sensor systems don't just make lenses with super large apertures. It begs for it! You'd get the same kind of DOF than larger sensors, with a lens that's not any larger than one on a larger sensor, AND you'd get more light for darker environments.

Well, there's a reason why the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 Nokton for m43 is so popular. From all I hear of this lens, I guess it must be the most-sold manual focus lens in this millennium.

[GordonZA]

Well while Pentax users discuss the merits of DOF, it looks like Canon is about to release the next generation 1D... from the rumours I see it will have:
18MP
12-14FPS
61 AF points
FF or APS-C mode

Hopefully Pentax with Ricoh is planning of something similar?

The next generation Nikon D3 is also due out soon with similar specs...

Come on Pentax/Ricoh give us a proper sports/birding camera...

K5 is great as is the 645D but for those of us that do sports and or birding (some other forms of nature photography included), a proper sports camera would really cut it...

[Blue]

I just realized I misspelled it every time.....

Don't tell me and I won't know.

[Blue]

Well while Pentax users discuss the merits of DOF, it looks like Canon is about to release the next generation 1D... from the rumours I see it will have:
18MP
12-14FPS
61 AF points
FF or APS-C mode

Hopefully Pentax with Ricoh is planning of something similar?

The next generation Nikon D3 is also due out soon with similar specs...

Come on Pentax/Ricoh give us a proper sports/birding camera...

K5 is great as is the 645D but for those of us that do sports and or birding (some other forms of nature photography included), a proper sports camera would really cut it...

I think a sports camera the size of the K-5 but with a slightly bigger sensor would be the cat's meow if it had a better af system (not that the K-5 is a great improvement) and improved flash features. Its also important that such a sensor would be as good or better than the current sensor. My rational is that when I am out using a camera in the wild, the Canons are bigger than I would like. I think it would be possible to make a bigger sensor without losing the aps-c based lenses and not require any electronic trickery that would be required on a full frame lbody. On the other hand, if they can pull off a K-5 sized K-2 full frame that meets these criteria, I am all over it like a cheap suite.

[johnmflores]

The problem with that reasoning is that it doesn't allow for any personal preference, really.

A well-composed, in focus shot taken with the $75 M 50 f/1.4 hanging on a wall could be mistaken for the same shot taken with the 43ltd (yes, it could and has, trust me ) If someone told you it came from the 43, you'd have no real reason to doubt them. However if you yourself shot with both the 43 and the M 50 1.4 for a couple days, week, or months, you'd probably start to prefer the 43, maybe by a great margin. In fact the actual differences would be subtle, but they'd start to mean a lot to you.

It's the same way with FF - talking a shot out of context and not allowing a choice between similar images to see which is preferred doesn't really prove much about the relative worth of the two formats.

P&S's, bridge cameras with varying small sensors, even phone cameras - all are represented in galleries now. You'd be hard pressed to 'know' a shot was taken with say a G12 vs a DSLR in many cases. That fact doesn't make the sensor size difference irrelevant, just not always relevant.

1.3 stops more DOF control at equivalent FOV and aperture, at least a stop better noise peformance (comparing 2008 FF wth 2011 aps-c) is what the sensor size difference brings in this case. Everyone needs to figure out for themselves how much those advantages would matter to their personal enjoyment of the hobby (or make their profession easier.)

For me, it's kind of a big deal to be able to shoot a $110 50 f/1.8 and have it 'look' like a 35 f/1.2 would on aps-c, or have a $300 20mm f/2.8 'look' like a 13mm f/1.8 would (if one existed,) or a 180 f/2.8 look like a 120mm f/1.8 (below)... etc. It's fun, useful, and when you add in that extra stop of ISO and the performance of the body, it's a rewarding format to shoot.

And I just can't get over my idea that Pentax could do it even better than Nikon in many ways. I'm convinced they could, with Ricoh's eventual blessing.


.

All good points. I did not mean to exclude preference. Shoot what you like. Just don't turn a personal preference into a universal truth.

The bigger point that I'm trying to make is that we need to discuss this sensor size issue within the larger context. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses. There are times when you want to place the subject in a context.






And other times when you don't.



I get the impression that some see FF as the key to unlocking their photographic potential, when the reality that there are many other keys (composition, lighting, subject matter, concept, style, narrative, etc...) that could use some turning as well. Granted, I'm the kind of guy that works with what has, and maybe puts greater expectation on himself than his gear, sometimes (admittedly) to his own detriment.

Maybe it's the nature of forums like this that once you get to the 2nd or 3rd page of a discussion you've got dd sides firmly entrenched in their positions. With each passing page it feels more and more like a holy war.

btw, I always appreciate the shots of your kids. There was one, a couple months back, with your son on a hill with a tree in the background IIRC. Memorable stuff.

[Emacs]

FF or APS-C mode

FF, they've just refused from APS-H for their 1D series, not even mention APS-C .

[Emacs]

I get the impression that some see FF as the key to unlocking their photographic potential, when the reality that there are many other keys (composition, lighting, subject matter, concept, style, narrative, etc

The actual reality is better IQ in general for free (for the price of FF indeed )