4 ms·

I think what happened is that larger sensors became cheaper, and companies also realized that people who buy dedicated cameras are willing to pay for them. Pers

by notJim 6y ago

I think what happened is that larger sensors became cheaper, and companies also realized that people who buy dedicated cameras are willing to pay for them. Personally, I shoot Fuji, and it's fantastic, but when I compare astro stuff between something like a Sony A7sii to my Fuji shots, the result is much cleaner due to the lower noise. It only really matters for astrophotography, but since I don't want to invest tens of thousands into multiple systems, it pushes me towards full frame.

centimeter 6y ago
It's not as simple as "FF has lower noise". There's a reasonable argument that once you factor in everything, most sensor size differences come out in the wash. In the case of low-light performance, you have situations like: APS-C + 35mm f/1.4 ~ FF + 50mm f/2. Yeah, you need a larger aperture in f-stop terms for equivalent optical properties, but the cost of that is probably offset by the cost of APS-C lenses being otherwise cheaper (having a narrower optical path). The two biggest actual advantages of FF, to my mind, are lower sensitivity to small inhomogeneities in lens glass (but this is not super important) and larger maximum FET capacitor size. The good astro shots you've seen are probably compositions of multiple photos. That is arguably the only way to get good low-noise shots with any consumer sensor technology, just due to the extremely high dynamic range of the sky and the physical realities of shot noise.
- notJim 6y ago
  I am already stacking the shots, as are the photographers I'm comparing to. It is also objectively true that noise is lower on FF cameras, specifically at higher ISO. You can see many comparisons of this online. The A7sii has larger pixels that gather more light compared to either the A7rii or an APS-C sensor.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    > It is also objectively true that noise is lower on FF cameras, specifically at higher ISO. This is a meaningless statement - there are too many free variables you’re ignoring. How large the pixels are is not all that relevant for how much light can be gathered - the actual physical constraint is (the angle subtended by the sensor & lens * physical aperture diameter)^2.

by notJim 6y ago

centimeter 6y ago

It's not as simple as "FF has lower noise". There's a reasonable argument that once you factor in everything, most sensor size differences come out in the wash. In the case of low-light performance, you have situations like: APS-C + 35mm f/1.4 ~ FF + 50mm f/2. Yeah, you need a larger aperture in f-stop terms for equivalent optical properties, but the cost of that is probably offset by the cost of APS-C lenses being otherwise cheaper (having a narrower optical path). The two biggest actual advantages of FF, to my mind, are lower sensitivity to small inhomogeneities in lens glass (but this is not super important) and larger maximum FET capacitor size. The good astro shots you've seen are probably compositions of multiple photos. That is arguably the only way to get good low-noise shots with any consumer sensor technology, just due to the extremely high dynamic range of the sky and the physical realities of shot noise.

notJim 6y ago
I am already stacking the shots, as are the photographers I'm comparing to. It is also objectively true that noise is lower on FF cameras, specifically at higher ISO. You can see many comparisons of this online. The A7sii has larger pixels that gather more light compared to either the A7rii or an APS-C sensor.
- centimeter 6y ago
  > It is also objectively true that noise is lower on FF cameras, specifically at higher ISO. This is a meaningless statement - there are too many free variables you’re ignoring. How large the pixels are is not all that relevant for how much light can be gathered - the actual physical constraint is (the angle subtended by the sensor & lens * physical aperture diameter)^2.