|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
04-29-2018, 05:22 AM
|
| |
The one image I've seen, an environmental portrait of young boy on his tricycle in near darkness using a 50 on FF and a 35 on APS_c, there was a clear difference. I don't know of any other focal length where using am APS_c camera and lens and the equivalent FF camera and lens, you could look at those images and say "this one is the APS_c and this one is the FF" By 50-70 or 30-20 that difference is gone.
It's moot for me because I prefer 70+mm on FF or 50mm+ on APS-c, so for the way I shoot, I don't really care. But if you're that guy, who prefers shooting with 50mm on FF, you might not like 35mm on APS-c. That's pretty small exception.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
04-28-2018, 06:35 PM
|
| |
The viewfinder covers 95%+ of the frame no matter what camera you are using, but on the full frame it's a bigger viewfinder.
Now my next question is: When shooting with let's say a K-1, is the IQ better than a non full frame camera?
That depends totally on circumstances. My tests have run up to 3840 x 2160 (4k). Both the K-3 and K-1 oversample the image and there is essentially no difference between them.
There is a theoretical notion that at some level of print or display, the K-1 will be better. I have absolutely no idea where that might be. People have lots of ideas about it, but fact is, no one has really determined with what media and at what resolution a difference can be detected. But detection is only part of the issue, it comes down to which image does an unbiased observer prefer. In that case there is no testing I know of that says the K-1 is more desirable than an APS-c camera.
What is better is in cases that test the Dynamic range of the camera the K-1 will be better. That would be sunsets and sunrises, or even shooting in the midday sun with harsh shadows, the K-1 will be better.
For my wildlife images you can't tell which is which at normal viewing sizes.
 2018-02-15-Gray-Jay-4 by Norm Head, on Flickr
 2018-01-29-park-Gray-Jays-1 by Norm Head, on Flickr
 2018-01-29-park-Gray-Jays-4 by Norm Head, on Flickr
 2018-01-29-park-Gray-Jays-5 by Norm Head, on Flickr
Some K-3 and K-1 images. Is there a difference in IQ? Can you even tell which is which?
It is possible there are small differences, but is it enough to care about?
The whole thing about one being a crop of the other is nonsense. When the diagram above is shown, it makes it appear like ASP-c gives you less of the frame. It doesn't. You use a different focal length to achieve the same framing. What they should be showing you is the smaller lens you can use on APS-c to get the same framing.A 200mm ƒ2.8 APS-c lens is 300 mm 2.8 equivalent. My 200 2.8 is 1.5 pounds. My 300 2.8 is 6 pounds. One I can hand hold, one I Need a good tripod to have any hope at all.
With the FF, you trade marginal increases in IQ for major increases in weight. Which is worth it, if and only if, you need or desire the extra IQ. The only people I've heard claim the extra IQ will matter would be people shooting for 60" prints or larger. And I tend to have trouble believing those people actually exist. People claim to do prints that size, but I know what they cost, so unless they sell prints at that size I'm dubious/ People can say whatever they want on the internet, for many reasons other than it's the truth.. Most of us rarely use the capacity we get from APS_c. But that doesn't mean we don't want ti there, but mostly because we all believe sooner or later we are going to take that stunning image we can sell for $60,000 or more. And when we do, we want the best print quality we can afford.
But, 1. it's never going to happen,
and
2. You'll never know if the same image was taken with an smaller sensor type camera, wouldn't have also made you $60.000. The fact that so and so great professional photographer took this picture with a full frame, rarely means he couldn't have taken the same picture with a smaller format, and made just as much for it. People claim to know this stuff, by reading specs. As far as I know, no one has actually done the work to know at what size an FF gives better image quality.
|
