[osv]

This analogy when translated to sensor size means less noise(iso) or higher shutter speed or higher aperture so you could just crop the picture by 1.5x in pp and it will be the same. I have Both a 24mp aps-c and a 24mp FF. There is no IQ or "magnification" advantage to aps-c.

yes, the only advantage with crop sensor cameras is price, and possibly overall lens size... as in all things in life, you generally get what you pay for.

pay less for smaller sensor cameras, and you get less... that's why the 645z is so pricey.

[Sliver-Surfer]

You've just admitted, you're taking a loss in resolution. (Thumbs down)

I have both 24Mp APS-C and FF and always use APS-C for wildlife.

Resolution means squat unless you are printing a billboard noise plays a far larger role than MP when it comes to IQ.
I set both my FF and aps-c 24mp sonys up the same (FF in aps-c mode) used the same lens and took pictures you can see the FF (last 2 photos) looks same or better in the extreme crop.
both 1/750th 100iso 50mm f5.6 (aps-c crop in FF)
Keep also in mind this is Sony's top of the line aps-c Mirrorless vs sony's base model first gen FF mirrorless.

[clackers]

Resolution means squat unless you are printing a billboard noise plays a far larger role than MP when it comes to IQ.
I set both my FF and aps-c 24mp sonys up the same (FF in aps-c mode) used the same lens and took pictures you can see the FF (last 2 photos) looks same or better in the extreme crop. both 1/750th 100iso 50mm aps-c crop less noise in FF
Keep also in mind this is Sony's top of the line aps-c Mirrorless vs sony's base model first gen FF mirrorless.

Travis, that's a weird test you chose, with so little difference in the results people would have a right to query the extra money spent on FF!


Now, I also have a NEX-7 and an A7, if that's what you have.


If you really wanted to attempt to disprove conventional wisdom, put say the 55-200mm lens on both and take shots of far off wildlife occupying a fraction of the frame.


You'll see after throwing away half the pixels, then cropping, that Resolution Is King.


The increased number of pixels also improves noise/ISO performance.

[Nicolas06]

You don't show us 100% crop. In fact you are near 100% crop on the FF but at 50% crop on the APSC. You could display twice the detail on the APSC shoot if you have got your settings right.

If your FF shoot look slightly sharper this is because you messed up your downsampling of the APSC image, not because of any superiority of the FF format.

Anyway it is not like the outer pixel you cropped on the FF could have any influence on the center performance, your argumentation is based on flawed logic.

[Sliver-Surfer]

You don't show us 100% crop. In fact you are near 100% crop on the FF but at 50% crop on the APSC. You could display twice the detail on the APSC shoot if you have got your settings right.

If your FF shoot look slightly sharper this is because you messed up your downsampling of the APSC image, not because of any superiority of the FF format.

Anyway it is not like the outer pixel you cropped on the FF could have any influence on the center performance, your argumentation is based on flawed logic.

Sorry I was in a hurry I had my export set to 800px. Here is exported without any downsampling just the 2 100% and the enlarged FF sample. No sharpening
Sony a6000 100%


Sony A7 ~150 blowup


Sony a7 100% crop

[normhead]

Resolution means squat unless you are printing a billboard noise plays a far larger role than MP when it comes to IQ.
I set both my FF and aps-c 24mp sonys up the same (FF in aps-c mode) used the same lens and took pictures you can see the FF (last 2 photos) looks same or better in the extreme crop.
both 1/750th 100iso 50mm f5.6 (aps-c crop in FF)
Keep also in mind this is Sony's top of the line aps-c Mirrorless vs sony's base model first gen FF mirrorless.

You didn't normalize the DoF. You should have shot ƒ8 FF. That should have also normalized the noise. It's funny how all these folks who do these comparisons ignore DOF. Maybe that's the thing. People who don't value DoF, shoot FF. I you used the same lens for the same picture, then you were further away for the APS-c image, that does make a difference. Also, my image posted below was taken with a 35mm prime, but many zoom images were almost as good. I wonder if you're saying something about the quality of Sony glass. Almost all Pentax glass is clean on APS-c, even my old FA 35-80. Maybe Sony's glass isn't.

But given your gear and expertise, the FF is marginally better. Worth paying and extra $100 for, hard to say. I mean there's always going to be better... for a price. And if you pay more you expect more... so really, nothing to see here.

I wonder why my APS_c images are so much cleaner than yours... what lens did you use, I've heard weird stuff about in camera corrections to bad lenses and stuff.


https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/302815-35mm-find-prime.html

Long story short, I have no idea what I'm looking at, or how it might be relevant to me. Even if I thought I couldn't do better for the APS_c picture (and I'm sure I could) , it still wouldn't be enough to sell me a $2000 camera over a $600 camera.

[Sliver-Surfer]

You didn't normalize the DoF. You should have shot ƒ8 FF. That should have also normalized the noise. It's funny how all these folks who do these comparisons ignore DOF. Maybe that's the thing. People who don't value DoF, shoot FF.

They are both shot in APS-C Mode Why would I change DOF. They are both f5.6 and both aps-c
My point is A crop is a crop it's not the same as a magnification. The bigger Pixels on FF pose a light sensitivity benefit. You can even see the Dynamics in the FF APS-c crop are so much better.
If I did a comparison of FF to APS-C even with the dof "normalized" there would be no challenge. A7 would easily destroy the A6000.

---

Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 11-17-2015 at 09:04 AM.

[normhead]

They are both shot in APS-C Mode Why would I change DOF. They are both f5.6 and both aps-c
My point is A crop is a crop it's not the same as a magnification. The bigger Pixels on FF pose a light sensitivity benefit. You can even see the Dynamics in the FF APS-c crop are so much better.
If I did a comparison of FF to APS-C even with the dof "normalized" there would be no challenge. A7 would easily destroy the A6000.

OH, I mis-understood what you were doing, but that's even more confusing. Then it makes no sense at all if you have two APS_c images. So what you're saying is that Sony cripples their APS-c cameras, or uses inferior in camera processing algorithms or sensors in their APS_c cameras. Sounds like a good reason not to buy Sony APS-c.

Unlike Sony, Pentax to date has put their best tech into their APS-c. Clearly Sony doesn't.

At lest that would be my take.

[mrNewt]

I'm really curious if way back then, when the first SLR made is apparition on the market - and the twin reflex cameras were the biggest (physically as well) thing ever - people had the same "wars" of what is better? Or did they just enjoyed the extra option and just took photos and enjoyed life as photographer as it was?

I think a lot of you are getting to hang up into the this versus that and you forget to just enjoy the process...
Who cares what camera you are using if YOU GET the results YOU WANT? Like it or not, at the end of the day, your results speak more than the gear you are using.

[pathdoc]

I wasn't aware DSLRs were alive to begin with...they aren't going to start lobbying for equal rights, and lens mount divorce?

"That beastly Canon full-frame body - it promised me the joy of 24/7 use, and then when I agreed, its owner sliced off my aperture lever!! I am forever mutilated! Dysfunctional! I'll never work properly with a Pentax body again! I demand redress!!"

"Your honour, my Sony A7r contends that it is a victim of MILCophobia because the seventies-vintage Pentax, Canon and Nikon lenses being mounted on it aren't communicating with it."

[Rondec]

I'm really curious if way back then, when the first SLR made is apparition on the market - and the twin reflex cameras were the biggest (physically as well) thing ever - people had the same "wars" of what is better? Or did they just enjoyed the extra option and just took photos and enjoyed life as photographer as it was?

I think a lot of you are getting to hang up into the this versus that and you forget to just enjoy the process...
Who cares what camera you are using if YOU GET the results YOU WANT? Like it or not, at the end of the day, your results speak more than the gear you are using.

Well, the internet seems to inspire arguments, often for the saying of argument. Back in the old days people probably had discussions about what format was best in photography clubs, but there weren't a lot of fora where you could have had these sorts of technical discussions. But I know there were plenty of folks back then who felt that medium format was the minimal film size necessary to give a decent print. 35mm was viewed as only ok for snapshots.

That said, I think most people understand that every camera is a set of compromises. What you get depends on your budget, what you are willing to carry around, and what you perceive to give you "good enough" image quality. For some people that is a smart phone, while for others it is a 645z with 10,000 dollars worth of lenses. The hard part is when we try to push our own personal decisions onto others as best for them.

There is definitely a benefit from going with a larger sensor size. That goes without saying. The only question is how often you need that benefit. If you are posting to Facebook and printing to 8 by 10 max size, then there are a hundred cameras out there that would work for you. On the other hand, if you are shooting wildlife in low light settings, you are options will probably be more limited.

[pathdoc]

There is definitely a benefit from going with a larger sensor size. That goes without saying. The only question is how often you need that benefit. If you are posting to Facebook and printing to 8 by 10 max size, then there are a hundred cameras out there that would work for you.

Agreed, and the same thing could be said for ultra high ISO, bigger buffers, higher video and still frame rates, Limited or Star vs. standard lenses, etc. etc. etc. Ultimately, though, it's the personal responsibility of every photographer - whether happy-snapper to world-famous rolling-in-cash professional - to determine what their own requirements are, and to work out for themselves where need ends and want begins. (And hey, if you decide you have to have a brand new 645Z and all its lenses and accessories to post pictures of your cat to Facebook, sure it's overkill, but far be it from me to stop you.)

[Nicolas06]

Sorry I was in a hurry I had my export set to 800px. Here is exported without any downsampling just the 2 100% and the enlarged FF sample. No sharpening
Sony a6000 100%


Sony A7 ~150 blowup


Sony a7 100% crop

Sorry but I don't see anything here. Do other see the actual files or crop? Not the first one that are not really crop, but the supposed 100% crops?

[mrNewt]

Well, the internet seems to inspire arguments, often for the saying of argument. Back in the old days people probably had discussions about what format was best in photography clubs, but there weren't a lot of fora where you could have had these sorts of technical discussions. But I know there were plenty of folks back then who felt that medium format was the minimal film size necessary to give a decent print. 35mm was viewed as only ok for snapshots.

That said, I think most people understand that every camera is a set of compromises. What you get depends on your budget, what you are willing to carry around, and what you perceive to give you "good enough" image quality. For some people that is a smart phone, while for others it is a 645z with 10,000 dollars worth of lenses. The hard part is when we try to push our own personal decisions onto others as best for them.

There is definitely a benefit from going with a larger sensor size. That goes without saying. The only question is how often you need that benefit. If you are posting to Facebook and printing to 8 by 10 max size, then there are a hundred cameras out there that would work for you. On the other hand, if you are shooting wildlife in low light settings, you are options will probably be more limited.

And that is the part that I will never understand... why someone who likes something thinks the whole world should be like that? What works for one doesn't mean it works for everyone - the sooner we accept this, the sooner we will go back to a happy life .

I love options and diversity... give them all to me. I don't mind.

[Sliver-Surfer]

OH, I mis-understood what you were doing, but that's even more confusing. Then it makes no sense at all if you have two APS_c images. So what you're saying is that Sony cripples their APS-c cameras, or uses inferior in camera processing algorithms or sensors in their APS_c cameras. Sounds like a good reason not to buy Sony APS-c.

Unlike Sony, Pentax to date has put their best tech into their APS-c. Clearly Sony doesn't.

At lest that would be my take.

Simply put between a current 24mp aps-c and a 24mp FF a 400mm aps-c lens is going to transmit so close to the same quality image on both cameras. I'm not going to get into a brand war here because I like both brands. A6000 is far from a crippled camera read some reviews.

---------- Post added 11-17-15 at 01:40 PM ----------

I wonder why my APS_c images are so much cleaner than yours... what lens did you use, I've heard weird stuff about in camera corrections to bad lenses and stuff.


https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/302815-35mm-find-prime.html

Is that image 100% crop. There is alot of posterization and noise.