[dtmateojr]

Yes, that is another way to state what I have said.





That's wrong though.

You want the math?

[ElJamoquio]

No. I know the math. Do experiments and we'll talk.

[dtmateojr]

If you won't even accept something as objective as physics and math then I don't want to discuss anything with you. It's futile. Keep the delusions to yourself.

[ElJamoquio]

If you won't even accept something as objective as physics and math then I don't want to discuss anything with you. It's futile. Keep the delusions to yourself.

I fully grasp both the physics and math involved. Your error is your implicit assertion that there's no resolvable information at a dimension smaller than the airy disk diameter. That's patently false, and I think you won't accept it until you conduct the experiments yourself.

[dtmateojr]

If an "experiment" conflicts with physics then one of them must be wrong. I know which one I'm believing.

[ElJamoquio]

If an "experiment" conflicts with physics then one of them must be wrong. I know which one I'm believing.

Your assumptions. Neither the experiment nor the physics is wrong.

[magkelly]

Wonder how that observation would play out if you were shown random photos without having any indication what kind of camera they were taken with. As it sits, confirmation bias seems evident.

This is one of the reasons I now try to remove all EXIF info regarding what camera, what lens etc on any photo that matters to me before I upload it to share anywhere. If it's still there and people can read it then it's just a snapshot to me and I don't care, but for my more serious work I honestly don't want people to know what camera, what lens, etc. I strip it except for my ID info. Why? Because I don't want which gear I used to be more important than the photo itself. I don't want my photo disregarded as something just my camera produced. Or worse yet completely disregarded because I'm not shooting with the latest and greatest Nikon or Canon whatever.

To some people that data it really is all that seems to matter. They will not be happy if they can't tell by the EXIF exactly what lens, what camera, what settings you used. I've had people say to me so many times "Oh, you used such and such a lens, so THAT'S why that shot looks so good." Well yeah, the lens I chose is a part of the reason that shot looks so good, sure, but I'M the main reason it does and I could probably have taken that same shot with another body or more than one lens in my kit. I love my cameras, each and every one of them, and I like most of my lenses too, but gosh darn it in the end they are just TOOLS, and I can swap them out, back and forth, and still make some pretty fine photographs regardless, THANK YOU.

Using a full frame camera, which is my case means film, does give me a bit more in terms of photographic real estate. Yes, sometimes the results will seem bigger and a bit more expansive, but in terms of actual picture quality I don't really see any appreciable increase in that just because I am using film. Shots with film can be slightly more panoramic than digital, and the film grain adds a bit of a pleasing effect too but it's nothing I can't add in Photoshop if I wanted to. If I really wanted to shoot digital and get basically the same shot I could. It would just take a bit more work. Shooting FF and film is something I do now because I just happen to like going there, using old cameras, and film sometimes. I don't even need my FF film cameras anymore. I just like them and continue to use them for sentimental reasons mostly.

Most of my cameras are so advanced now technologically that it scarcely matters which one I choose to use at any given time. I don't even think about it. I can get equally pleasing photos out of any of them really. All I need to do is pick one up and go. The fact that I have both a DSLR and a M43 set up is mostly about my physical limitations now. Sometimes I'm in so much pain I find it hard to lug my DSLR and lenses around. It's also about wanting to go about photographing stealth sometimes sans a very noticeable and covet worthy DSLR. I can actually take photos with the more cropped sensor that most people would never notice were made by one unless they knew for sure via the EXIF. I have some decent primes for my M43 kit and I'm comfortable with it. No, the sensor is not as big as the one one my K-30 but you'd never know it from the shots I've taken with it. I find anything above 12-16MP's it really doesn't matter so much how big the sensor is. So long as the lens I use isn't total crap, a coke bottle bottom pretending to be a camera lens, I'm going to do just fine.

I've had people tell me more than once that I can't advance photographically until I invest in a "serious" camera like Nikon or a Canon. That I can't advance until I am willing to consider a FF Nikon or whatever at that. I just smile, say "Uhuh..." and keep on using my Pentax gear. Most of them they don't have a clue as to what I or my cameras are capable of and when they do see that they're the ones who end up eating crow, not me. I'm shooting pro with a K-30. I shot pro with a K-x. No, I wasn't out there trying to shoot NFL games, but that's not my thing anyway and I don't need a camera that is capable of that type shooting. I could shoot a wedding though, with what I've got, if I ever wanted to (NOT!) and that's something I'm told I "can't possibly do without a proper Nikon, Canon, FF, whatever..."

I don't have anything against FF. I find it fun and pleasing at times to shoot film but there's nothing at this point in time that my film cameras can do that my digital ones can't. We're beyond that now with digital and just about any sensor. Only people who are into and who need extremely high end capacity still need to go with a bigger sensor, a medium or FF format camera. Personally I don't think it's worth the money for someone at my level, doing what I do, or for most hobbyists in general. It's pretty much overkill until you get to doing very high end work professionally. (That's also why I didn't pay over a grand for a K-3 instead of a K-5II or a K-30 when I just got a new DSLR. I simply did not need it. It was overkill, way too much camera for my current needs. I don't need 20 MP, 2 card slots etc, etc...) But to each his or her own. Some people they just like FF and have to have that regardless. Honestly I think it's more than they need, but that's their call to make not mine and it's their money they're willing to burn...

[dtmateojr]

Your assumptions. Neither the experiment nor the physics is wrong.

You mean the experiment where they showed how f/5.6 and f/22 have the same resolution? ROFL!! Pass the stick. I want to smoke it as well.

[Nicolas06]

It's completely 'founded'. It's based on the fact that the image won't be magnified as much, so the airy disk diameter can be larger before it impacts the image.

When you compare at a pixel level, you're enlarging the image on FF more than on APS-C. You're looking closer. That's why it doesn't matter in a practical sense.

I'll present differently... If I have a 16MP FF & 16MPAPSC, in the end I will not be able to get more than 16MP worth of detail from the FF, For practical purpose, if I print large enough and look close enough, I'll start to see the limitation of the number of pixels. This size will be the same for APSC & FF for the same number of pixels.

If I have more pixels, I can enlarge more or look even closer. That independant of the sensor size... as soon as the lense I use is able to resolve this resolution at the used settings. This may include diffraction problem for why the lense can't resolve.

For practical purposes, on both APSC & FF, the lens start to be limited significantly with f/11 or smaller appertures. Both on APSC & FF. So if I have an FF, as for APSC, if I select f/11 or more I get less details than at f/8. There details may be of no use in some condition but there are lost anyway.

[ElJamoquio]

I understand what you're saying. Some of it is wrong. You won't lose any more details at F11 on full frame compared to aps-c at f/8.

[Lowell Goudge]

I'll present differently... If I have a 16MP FF & 16MPAPSC, in the end I will not be able to get more than 16MP worth of detail from the FF, For practical purpose, if I print large enough and look close enough, I'll start to see the limitation of the number of pixels. This size will be the same for APSC & FF for the same number of pixels.

If I have more pixels, I can enlarge more or look even closer. That independant of the sensor size... as soon as the lense I use is able to resolve this resolution at the used settings. This may include diffraction problem for why the lense can't resolve.

For practical purposes, on both APSC & FF, the lens start to be limited significantly with f/11 or smaller appertures. Both on APSC & FF. So if I have an FF, as for APSC, if I select f/11 or more I get less details than at f/8. There details may be of no use in some condition but there are lost anyway.

But the point of full frame, as so many argue is to get the shallower depth of field,when shooting wide open. Shooting at F8 or F11 to me is a useless argument. I doubt there would be many who could distinguish between those shots at all. And since you are stopping down significantly shallow depth of field is not a concern, and while at the instant they are released an equivalent MegaPixel full frame may have lower noise than the APS-C camera, the time between releases of full frame bodies, allows the APS-C bodies to advance 2-3 generations of sensor technology, so full frame can be outdated even in image quality very quickly, except for the depth of field debate. So for me, unless you live shooting at below F2, full frame is a waste of money. If I need ultra low noise full frame shots, I take out my PZ1, and load the slowest finest grained color film i can get

[ElJamoquio]

FF and aps-c have had the same sensor technology since 2012. Withthe A7S you could argue that aps-c is a generation behind.

FF still has is sharper and often/usually has cheaper lenses when they're specd to do the same thing.

[Nicolas06]

FF and aps-c have had the same sensor technology since 2012. Withthe A7S you could argue that aps-c is a generation behind.

FF still has is sharper and often/usually has cheaper lenses when they're specd to do the same thing.

A photographer that has an FF should not give a shit to what would be the perf if he had an APSC because he is using an FF.

So using his FF he should avoid when possible f/11 and futher more f/16 and f/22 because the performance is not as good. The FF lenses see performance degradation starting at f/11.

It also happen that APSC sensor start to see performance degration at f/11 too compared to the same lens at f/8 on same sensor... So the APSC shoot should also try to avoid f/11 or futher more f/16 and f/22 when possible too.

That you could have better absolute performance with an FF when you are at f/11 than APSC at f/11 (or even f/8) is of no interrested when you have an APSC sensor. And again that absolutely of no interrest for the FF shooter to know the APSC shooter would have worse performance.


As a practical example of most scenes I shoot and where I want all planes to be in focus, I select f/8... It tend to work very well: all planes are in focus... And also I get near the max performance of the lense for my body. That a very good compromise for me then.

---------- Post added 08-29-14 at 07:44 PM ----------

FF and aps-c have had the same sensor technology since 2012. Withthe A7S you could argue that aps-c is a generation behind.

FF still has is sharper and often/usually has cheaper lenses when they're specd to do the same thing.

A7s is typically half of 24MP sensors used for FF measurements. This mean it's max sharpness is at 71% of the max sharpness of the 24MP FF sensor. It give 2750 max of MTF... What a K5 provide in practice.

So expect your A7s to get same sharpness as K5 and less sharpness as K3. Less also than latest entry level 24MP APSC Nikon.

In term of dynamic range, A7s is inferior to K5 and equivalent of K3.

In term of high iso, A7s is far better (but not much more than any good high iso FF like D600/D800/D4S familly). No real news here but it is of real interrest only past iso 800 where APSC noise start to be visible or 25600 iso where the improved sensor start to show some difference with other FF.

The problem through is in term of lenses availabilities. Available lenses for A7s are f/4 for zooms and 1 f/2.8 lens and one f/1.8 55mm lense. Taking one of the native Sony zoom compared to a basic f/2.8 APSC zoom will allow for half the iso while having similar deph of field. That's a draw. A draw achieved for 700€ (400€ body, 300€ f/2.8 tamron lense). Using a prime, on can get more easily native f/1.4 prime on K mount than one on native A7 Sony mount. And Pentax is not really seen has a wide apperture lover.

In term of deph of field the lenses catalog also limit the possibilities of narrower deph of field. You can only hope for better transitions rendering and that's all.

I'am not impressed, sorry. While the sensor is slightly better for high isos and worse for all the rest, the echosystem to really use the more deph of field control and low light capabilities to the max is not ready.

You can get more out of your A7s by pairing some good lenses, maybe not even Sony lenses with manual focussing... But that would work on any FF camera as good then... With some wide apperture lenses available.

If you want to stay in A7 familly choose the A7: far cheaper, more shaprness, similar high iso performance... Still the lenses problem, but at least it was less expensive and provide more.

[ElJamoquio]

A photographer that has an FF should not give a shit to what would be the perf if he had an APSC because he is using an FF.

I have a K-5. I have a D600. Should I not give a shit as to when I use one versus the other?

You also say a FF has degradation at F/11. I agree, for most reasonably good lenses (exceptions being, for example, the Sigma 150-500, which improves from F/8 to F/11).

But, fundamentally, if a FF has degradation at F/11, you'll have the same degradation by going to F/8 on APS-C. If your lenses are good enough you'll see that same difference.


FYI, I don't have an A7S. I have an A7R. Doesn't matter, though, the SNR of the A7S shows a fundamental improvement over the SNR of the A7R or any APS-C sensor.

FF is, at worst, at the same sensor generation as APS-C. In some metrics, FF is a generation ahead of APS-C. In only one metric - pixel density - is APS-C ahead.

[noser]

Also, FWIW, on digital f/64 would be a horrible, horrible choice. You'd be so far past the sweet spot on almost any lens you would probably have been better off shooting the scene wide open. Even f/16 is pushing things with a digital setup.

That's why I said 'big'. As in sheet film