3 ms·

Better question: Full Frame vs APS-C ? I've read things saying that after accounting for things like focal length and Crop factor that FF doesn't offer higher

by platz 5y ago

Better question: Full Frame vs APS-C ? I've read things saying that after accounting for things like focal length and Crop factor that FF doesn't offer higher quality than APS-C. Is there any advantage to FF then?

deusum 5y ago
Low light. Also, when you measure the sensor size, you can imply that it's proportionate to your genitals.
vmception 5y ago
Quality? A sensor size doesnt affect quality, it affects what you can see and how many photons can be collected in a time period. So the only quality would be that full frame can assist in lower light scenarios without increasing the electrical gain (which causes noise) The point of full frame would be more flexibility at lower focal lengths, and the high correlation to being put inside of more fully featured and sturdier camera bodies with faster I/O. It doesn't have to be that way, it just is since the wafer cost is already higher and already segmenting customers by price, they just give a greater package to the remaining people that would pay more.
ekianjo 5y ago
Low light quality and depth of field are very different. And also this brings a lot more choice for vintage lenses when you go FF with a FF body.
namibj 5y ago
There is a harsh limit to the incidence angle at the sensor, and this (steradian, as horizontal and vertical angle count) multiplied with the area is a limit for what focal length/aperture combinations you can reach on the object end of the lens. And yes, lenses increase in cost faster than the sensor area they illuminate, assuming they retain the same wide aperture/large incidence angles at the sensor end. Thankfully, as a photographer you don't have to think about those optical restrictions. It's enough to know that there is a hard limit at f/0.5 that can't be reached with normal lenses (microscope objectives get much closer, though). Practically, everything below f/1.0 is disproportionally expensive. A 50mm/f1.0 medium format lens would be far better than what APS-C could possibly do, just because you'd hit the f/0.5 wall before you'd reach APS-C. The downside of larger sensors is that they are more expensive to make (less fit on a wafer, and the chance of catching a bad pixel is higher), and the optics are inherently heavier and larger, as well as often (but not always, if you can get away with a simpler optical design due to needing a less-open aperture) more expensive. Thankfully, this only matters in two situations: using lenses that reach maximum resolution below f/2.0 with high-density sensors, or operating in darkness/with very short exposures. Both that very-high-resolution scenario, as well as the darkness scenario benefit from larger sensors. The former from better frame-relative resolving power when diffraction limited, the latter from offering wider crop-factor-corrected apertures and thus capturing more light.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
BeetleB 5y ago
Shooting the Milky Way. FF sensors have less noise, and it's easier/cheaper to do wide angle on them - both of which are crucial to a good Milky Way shot. In general, FF is better for wide angle (e.g. 14mm). To a lesser extent - if you want a really narrow DOF, it's easier with FF sensors. Otherwise - no real benefit.
Espressosaurus 5y ago
Full frame lets you either collect more light per pixel, achieve a wider field of view, or achieve a narrower depth of focus (more bokeh!) for the same pixel density. In general better glass is available on full frame since camera manufacturers produce pro full frame lenses, but infrequently do so with APS-C lenses. There are exceptions, such as Fuji, but in general the best glass is for full frame sensors. Because full frame includes the high end, you can get features on full frame cameras that are not available on APS-C cameras. APS-C's advantage is in lighter, cheaper glass for a given field of view. This is important when hiking! Another option is the m43 format, which has half the sensor area of APS-C, but in turn allows for even smaller and lighter glass and cameras. It's all trade-offs. Full frame sensors will be less noisy and allow for wider fields of view with better quality glass. But you pay for that monetarily and in size/weight. Is the tradeoff worth it to you? Perhaps not. Or perhaps there is a killer feature that is only available on FF cameras from the manufacturer of your choice that you want, so you're willing to pay the monetary and size cost to get it. If you're really after narrow depth of field, low noise, or extremes of pixels, medium format is there and willing to suck as much money up as you've got available.
SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
Depends on the particular FF and APS-C cameras. MOST FF sensors have bigger pixels (larger pixel pitch) than APS-C cameras. Noise tends to increase as pixel size decreases. If you crop a FF image down to APS-C size, it'll end up with lower resolution. So the narrower angle of view that an APS-C gets you gives an apparent zoom that can't be achieved with such a FF sensor. Whereas a FF sensor can take wide-angle shots better and has lower sensor noise. There are exceptions to this. Notably the Sony a7R III, a7R IV, a1, and the Cannon R5 are FF cameras with small enough pixel pitches that they're actually higher resolution after cropping to APS-C than most APS-C cameras. So in these cases, there's no difference between shooting with the FF camera in APS-C mode and an actual APS-C camera.

by platz 5y ago

deusum 5y ago

Low light. Also, when you measure the sensor size, you can imply that it's proportionate to your genitals.

vmception 5y ago

Quality? A sensor size doesnt affect quality, it affects what you can see and how many photons can be collected in a time period. So the only quality would be that full frame can assist in lower light scenarios without increasing the electrical gain (which causes noise) The point of full frame would be more flexibility at lower focal lengths, and the high correlation to being put inside of more fully featured and sturdier camera bodies with faster I/O. It doesn't have to be that way, it just is since the wafer cost is already higher and already segmenting customers by price, they just give a greater package to the remaining people that would pay more.

ekianjo 5y ago

Low light quality and depth of field are very different. And also this brings a lot more choice for vintage lenses when you go FF with a FF body.

namibj 5y ago

There is a harsh limit to the incidence angle at the sensor, and this (steradian, as horizontal and vertical angle count) multiplied with the area is a limit for what focal length/aperture combinations you can reach on the object end of the lens. And yes, lenses increase in cost faster than the sensor area they illuminate, assuming they retain the same wide aperture/large incidence angles at the sensor end. Thankfully, as a photographer you don't have to think about those optical restrictions. It's enough to know that there is a hard limit at f/0.5 that can't be reached with normal lenses (microscope objectives get much closer, though). Practically, everything below f/1.0 is disproportionally expensive. A 50mm/f1.0 medium format lens would be far better than what APS-C could possibly do, just because you'd hit the f/0.5 wall before you'd reach APS-C. The downside of larger sensors is that they are more expensive to make (less fit on a wafer, and the chance of catching a bad pixel is higher), and the optics are inherently heavier and larger, as well as often (but not always, if you can get away with a simpler optical design due to needing a less-open aperture) more expensive. Thankfully, this only matters in two situations: using lenses that reach maximum resolution below f/2.0 with high-density sensors, or operating in darkness/with very short exposures. Both that very-high-resolution scenario, as well as the darkness scenario benefit from larger sensors. The former from better frame-relative resolving power when diffraction limited, the latter from offering wider crop-factor-corrected apertures and thus capturing more light.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

BeetleB 5y ago

Shooting the Milky Way. FF sensors have less noise, and it's easier/cheaper to do wide angle on them - both of which are crucial to a good Milky Way shot. In general, FF is better for wide angle (e.g. 14mm). To a lesser extent - if you want a really narrow DOF, it's easier with FF sensors. Otherwise - no real benefit.

Espressosaurus 5y ago

Full frame lets you either collect more light per pixel, achieve a wider field of view, or achieve a narrower depth of focus (more bokeh!) for the same pixel density. In general better glass is available on full frame since camera manufacturers produce pro full frame lenses, but infrequently do so with APS-C lenses. There are exceptions, such as Fuji, but in general the best glass is for full frame sensors. Because full frame includes the high end, you can get features on full frame cameras that are not available on APS-C cameras. APS-C's advantage is in lighter, cheaper glass for a given field of view. This is important when hiking! Another option is the m43 format, which has half the sensor area of APS-C, but in turn allows for even smaller and lighter glass and cameras. It's all trade-offs. Full frame sensors will be less noisy and allow for wider fields of view with better quality glass. But you pay for that monetarily and in size/weight. Is the tradeoff worth it to you? Perhaps not. Or perhaps there is a killer feature that is only available on FF cameras from the manufacturer of your choice that you want, so you're willing to pay the monetary and size cost to get it. If you're really after narrow depth of field, low noise, or extremes of pixels, medium format is there and willing to suck as much money up as you've got available.

SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago

Depends on the particular FF and APS-C cameras. MOST FF sensors have bigger pixels (larger pixel pitch) than APS-C cameras. Noise tends to increase as pixel size decreases. If you crop a FF image down to APS-C size, it'll end up with lower resolution. So the narrower angle of view that an APS-C gets you gives an apparent zoom that can't be achieved with such a FF sensor. Whereas a FF sensor can take wide-angle shots better and has lower sensor noise. There are exceptions to this. Notably the Sony a7R III, a7R IV, a1, and the Cannon R5 are FF cameras with small enough pixel pitches that they're actually higher resolution after cropping to APS-C than most APS-C cameras. So in these cases, there's no difference between shooting with the FF camera in APS-C mode and an actual APS-C camera.