[JohnBee]

Yes... there is an IQ difference between Larger sensors to smaller sensors. Its been discussed many times all over various photo-related forums. There are so many factors here... from density of the photo-sites to signal to noise rations to loss of dynamic range. Do not forget that the sensor itself is not the only factor that translates to IQ

If we factor in the K-5/D7000 sensor, I'd say the noise and DR are pretty much neck in neck with most FF camera's.

Which isn't to say that we won't be seeing FF sensors cut off the same technology, but I think these APS-C sensors have been in circulation long enough to say that by the time a FF equivalent comes around, the next crop sensor generation will be upon us and the cycle continues. Which is all rather intriguing when you think of it as its usually been the other way around(FF leading the pack), however something tells me that the development associated with crop sensor technology makes it far more lucrative than with the FF counterparts.

[usayit]

Which isn't to say that we won't be seeing FF sensors cut off the same technology

Very important part of your response....

The same could be said about smaller sensors like micro 4/3rds and so on....

Its a technology rat race. Often, the initial design that leaves room for or addresses physical limitations leads the race for the majority of the time. Less contention and complexity to deal with. In this case, the more you pack into a small area the more you heat and noise you have to deal with later on. Also, the larger the image area the easier it is for optical design and resolution.

Consider the Leica M8 and M9 which have very similar sensors except for size (APS-H versus FF).

Consider many digital MF (Hasselblad), their high-ISO performance is HORRENDOUS. You would be hard pressed to find any studio photographer admit that IQ of a Nikon D3x or K5 can deliver superior IQ.

[rawr]

Sigh.

You've all been trolled.

[Emacs]

If we factor in the K-5/D7000 sensor, I'd say the noise and DR are pretty much neck in neck with most FF camera's.

Which isn't to say that we won't be seeing FF sensors cut off the same technology, but I think these APS-C sensors have been in circulation long enough to say that by the time a FF equivalent comes around, the next crop sensor generation will be upon us and the cycle continues. Which is all rather intriguing when you think of it as its usually been the other way around(FF leading the pack), however something tells me that the development associated with crop sensor technology makes it far more lucrative than with the FF counterparts.

You would beat me, but I don't think the K-5 has surpassed even old 5D in high ISO performance: may be K-5 have less noise, but 5D keeps more detail.

[Emacs]

I'm not going to get into your math, I'm not a mathematician.
From a real world perspective, I would say that your math is speculative theory at best.
I'm having no problem resolving sharp images at the pixel level with my K5.
How a 135 format (the term FF is meaningless) sensor is going to do better in this regard is beyond me. One of the guys in my studio is using a 135 format Nikon. My K5 provides more detail than his D3.
What you are complaining about in the first part has nothing to do with sensor size.

I don't expect to see a 135 format DSLR from Pentax. I expect they'll give it a pass on the theory that if you want a larger sensor camera, they have the 645 already.

My second statement was wrong actually. It only needs higher pixel density but not more pixels to reach the same theoretical resolution. So the real theoretical IQ degradation of crop is about [1,λ], not [λ,λ²]. But it's enough IMO. The difference is easily seen when shooting wide open.

About your comparison with D3: what lenses did you used? I guess the Nikon was with zoom but you were with prime, am I right?

[dgaies]

You would beat me, but I don't think the K-5 has surpassed even old 5D in high ISO performance: may be K-5 have less noise, but 5D keeps more detail.

Not true. I've used both the K-5 and 5D (MkI), and there is no question the K-5 performs better at high ISO, both in terms of noise and detail preservation.

[normhead]

How so much people here don't admit with FF IQ advantage?

Actually, during the time I've been here, no one has ever raised the issue. But as usual, I'm open to being convinced. Post some pictures, that will show me. The advantages to APS-c are clear. Lenses that are just as sharp, for cheaper. More DoF, at least as far as I understand it, the smaller the sensor, the more DoF, but still large enough to produce nice bokeh. But really... I have never used a full fram digital camera, so I'm really interested in seeing some side by side shots, an FF image beside a couple of smaller sensors, and even a 645 thrown in. I'd like to see same F-stop and distance shot in the same lighting settings etc.

It's really hard for me to admit to anything without raw data. I hate it when some moron expects me to take his word that something is true without giving me the opportunity to look at the images and make up my own mind. To me, that's not education, that's grandstanding.

I guess this is what you are talking about...

All other things being equal, a larger sensor captures images with greater dynamic range than a smaller sensor. The larger area provides a larger "well" in which photon-freed electrons can accumulate before overflow (highlight clipping) occurs.

NOtice it begins with the qualifyer.. "all other things being equal". Well... in real life, all other things are never equal.

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-15-2011 at 07:28 AM.

[jsherman999]

It's because about the only advantage that 135 format has over APS=C at the moment in the size of the viewfinder (which is no small thing).

Sorry

1.3 stops more DOF control at equivalent FOV and aperture, and still .7 to 1.5 stops better ISO performance, depending on who's measuring. (Then there's body performance, but that's not sensor-format specific and out of scope.)

And, yes, viewfinder.

aps-c has an advantage anywhere where size is really important and ultimate performance (or that extra stop) is not needed. Lots of applications fall into that criteria, in fact that probably covers most people's shooting scenarios.

Where aps-c really has an advantage over FF is in longer telephoto applications, if you take cost and lens size into account. It's hard to make the case for a FF birding kit, for example.

.

[JohnBee]

You would beat me, but I don't think the K-5 has surpassed even old 5D in high ISO performance: may be K-5 have less noise, but 5D keeps more detail.

May be possible, though I'd question the resolution differences and the effects of downsampling the K-5 to 12MP.

Along these same lines, I do recall a test conducted near the K-5 announcement date in which the 5D was included. And I think the K-5 held the upper hand up until ISO3200, at which point it took a hit due to low level NR. However... I think it still maintained a lead due to noise.

Might be worth a look.

[jsherman999]

Because Pentax has no 135 digital FF, period. By the time Pentax released one, if ever, they would start to praise how great it was.

If Pentax released a smallish-bodied FF camera for under $2500 that matched the D700 performance with maybe held a next-gen 18mp sensor, this forum would be full of folks defending FF until the cows came home. A lot of these arguments fall into typical human nature grooves. I used to be firmly in the 'FF is not worth it!' camp also.

It's a personal decision, really, based on wants and maybe a tiny bit on needs.


.

[usayit]

Isn't there like 5 years difference between the Canon 5d MI and Pentax K5?

[jsherman999]

Given your alias of 'Emacs' I presume you publish your photos under the GPL (v 3.0) and not the the Creative Commons licence. (I also admire Richard Stallman)

.

I do not want to hear an analogy that EMACS = FF and vim = aps-c. That would be a horrible analogy. (no-one should ever need anything more than vi, BTW.)


.

[normhead]

Really guys, just shut up and post some pictures. No one cares about theory, people only care about results. Odd , that in all the FF vs APS-C articles I found in google, not one with real world results from real world cameras. I saw bogus crops showing different crops off the same sensor, that doesn't count. People can argue the theory all they want. You still have to do at least one real world test to back up your theory, or it's not a theory, it's a notion.

Everyone understands that bigger is better, theoretically.. but to tell you the truth, 35 years ago in lens design class at Ryerson Polytech.. I decided I didn't give a crap about the theory, only the results. I'm willing to bet 99% of us are the same. This whole conversation seems to be all about theory and almost nothing about results. Now if there was a few pictures, I might be convinced somebody actually knows something useful about this.

[jackseh]

Really guys, just shut up and post some pictures. No one cares about theory, people only care about results. Odd , that in all the FF vs APS-C articles I found in google, not one with real world results from real world cameras. I saw bogus crops showing different crops off the same sensor, that doesn't count. People can argue the theory all they want. You still have to do at least one real world test to back up your theory, or it's not a theory, it's a notion.

Everyone understands that bigger is better, theoretically.. but to tell you the truth, 35 years ago in lens design class at Ryerson Polytech.. I decided I didn't give a crap about the theory, only the results. I'm willing to bet 99% of us are the same. This whole conversation seems to be all about theory and almost nothing about results. Now if there was a few pictures, I might be convinced somebody actually knows something useful about this.

You sound like an exec, bro. Gotta do KPIs, revenue generated, MBOs, haha ha

[jsherman999]

Really guys, just shut up and post some pictures. No one cares about theory, people only care about results. Odd , that in all the FF vs APS-C articles I found in google, not one with real world results from real world cameras. I saw bogus crops showing different crops off the same sensor, that doesn't count. People can argue the theory all they want. You still have to do at least one real world test to back up your theory, or it's not a theory, it's a notion.

Everyone understands that bigger is better, theoretically.. but to tell you the truth, 35 years ago in lens design class at Ryerson Polytech.. I decided I didn't give a crap about the theory, only the results. I'm willing to bet 99% of us are the same. This whole conversation seems to be all about theory and almost nothing about results. Now if there was a few pictures, I might be convinced somebody actually knows something useful about this.

.

Norm, sounds like you're a bit new to this particular argument

I don't know how many times I made a variation of your request back in 2008 or so, and rarely was anyone able to produce a web-sized image that convinced me of anything.

Really, I think it takes iterations. To really demonstrate it I'd need to shoot an aps-c equiv shot each and every time I shot a FF shot, and then the 'look' would start to be more apparent to you if I showed you these dozens of shots, every day. A two-image sample often gets mistaken for an attempt at a definitive example, and usually just brings a lot of 'so what' responses.

A quick analogy: in a blind test, how many people would care about the difference in images between the $200 DA 35 f/2.4 and $900 FA 31ltd? If a good photographer shot both and presented a few shots in a forum, most people might be able to tell the difference wide-open, but the same folks would say, "so what? That $900 lens doesn't seem like such a big deal to me, now."

Yet, if you personally were to shoot with both for a while, you'd probably start to notice subtle differences and might start to really prefer the 31ltd.

Same deal, kinda, with FF, but the difference it can make to your overall photography is even greater than the difference between the 31ltd and the DA 35 2.4.

In my case, I bought the D700 long before the K-5 was available, and nothing in aps-c came close to it with regard to IQ. Now, the K-5/D7000 is only about a stop behind in ISO, and exceeds it in DR (at base ISO.) I didn't buy it for the DOF control, but grew to appreciate that aspect more & more at a lot of different FLs.

I hate comparison test shooting, but here's one image combo that gives you an idea of what you would start to notice (slight framing difference, same distance to subject though) :

35mm f/2.8 on aps-c, 50mm f/2.8 on FF


.