October 21, 2014, 03:05:25 PM

Author Topic: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF  (Read 12135 times)

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 685
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #45 on: July 31, 2014, 03:23:37 PM »
The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.

I think you'll find that most reviewers and users are of the opinion that the difference in image quality between m43 and APS-C is very small indeed except at higher ISOs.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #45 on: July 31, 2014, 03:23:37 PM »

zlatko

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 345
    • View Profile
    • http://www.zlatkobatistich.com
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #46 on: July 31, 2014, 03:32:02 PM »
3. I still don't get all the fuss over Fuji's x APS-C sensors.  Before Christmas I bought an XE1 and returned it a couple of weeks later, assuming that the unsharp results, especially in photos where the subject wasn't close, were the result of a defect in the camera or lens, but I don't think they were - I've looked at countless images online taken by fans of these cameras (not to mention the comparisons you can make at dpreview) and seen much the same lack of sharpness.  There may be less noise than on images taken with other APS-C bodies, but there's less detail.  Frankly, I prefer the images I get from my SL1, extra noise and all.  Again, the differences aren't so noticeable if you don't scrutinize closely, and if you care more about noise than detail it won't matter, but if you do....  (Even some Fuji fans acknowledge this - e.g. whatsisname at soundimageplus says they're his favorite cameras to use, but he much prefers the images from his a6000, not to mention a7& a7r.)

I agree about the SL1.  Fuji offers less noise but less detail too, at least using Lightroom.

While some praise Fuji's color because they have all of that film experience, I frankly did not see excellent color from the XPro1 or the X100S (don't know about the XT1).  The color from their RAW files was always much better than from their in-camera jpegs.

zlatko

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 345
    • View Profile
    • http://www.zlatkobatistich.com
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #47 on: July 31, 2014, 03:35:46 PM »

IMHO the 7D shouldn't even be mentioned with the  5D III,  6D,  1DX, or the 5D II for wildlife.

OTOH Poul Souders took his prize winning polar bear pic with a 7D and 10-22m lens:
http://worldfoto.blogspot.com/2013/10/2013-bbc-wildlife-photographer-of-year.html
http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/2013-national-geographic-photography-contest-winners/#!bshaEo

It is all about technique, especially spending the time.
Tom

And having a boat.  :)  And being willing to get within 15 feet (?) of a polar bear in the wild.  :)

Some World Press Photo award winning photos were also made with the 7D.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2014, 03:38:07 PM by zlatko »

3kramd5

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 447
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #48 on: July 31, 2014, 03:36:47 PM »
The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.

I think you'll find that most reviewers and users are of the opinion that the difference in image quality between m43 and APS-C is very small indeed except at higher ISOs.

Sure, but where does the "very small" end? If the difference between FF and APS-C is very small, and the difference between APS-C and m4/3 is very small, and the difference between m4/3 and 1" is small, is the difference between FF and 1" some degree of small?

Maybe it is, but without quantifying what "small" is, it's a bit of a useless comparison, and in a world where people report for example dynamic range in tenth-stop precision, maybe small from the general lexicon doesn't apply.
5D3, 5D2, 40D; Various lenses

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 685
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #49 on: July 31, 2014, 04:43:46 PM »
The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.

I think you'll find that most reviewers and users are of the opinion that the difference in image quality between m43 and APS-C is very small indeed except at higher ISOs.

Sure, but where does the "very small" end? If the difference between FF and APS-C is very small, and the difference between APS-C and m4/3 is very small, and the difference between m4/3 and 1" is small, is the difference between FF and 1" some degree of small?

Maybe it is, but without quantifying what "small" is, it's a bit of a useless comparison, and in a world where people report for example dynamic range in tenth-stop precision, maybe small from the general lexicon doesn't apply.

You're right, of course, that as a general proposition it's useless - for one thing, even assuming the differences can be measured, what's "small" for me mightn't be for you, and vice versa, and the only way to know is to use the different formats in question and see if you notice any differences that matter to you given the uses to which you put them (or find useful comparisons online).  I'm not sure, though, what the point is you're trying to make with your invocation of slippery slopes.

slclick

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • I've got a sharp artifact for you!
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #50 on: July 31, 2014, 04:48:00 PM »
That small amount of difference can and usually is the game changer for some to take their game to the next level of detail, sharpness, color rendition and print sizes.

But what do I know, I like pinhole photography, which he failed to mention.
5d3+ Sigma 24-105, Sigma 35, Canon 40, Canon 70-200L 2.8 ll, Canon 100L Macro, Kenko 1.4 Extender

Etienne

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
    • Photography by Steve Brule
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #51 on: July 31, 2014, 06:04:09 PM »
I have both but full frame rules as an all-round format: shallow DOF capability (even at f2.8 ) , better colors (at least in Canon), better low light performance.
As you shrink the sensor you need to improve the glass: it needs better resolution because of smaller pixel pitch, and wider aperture to achieve the same DOF.
Anyway, if there was an APS-C solution as good as full frame, but cheaper and/or lighter, I'd go for it. But it doesn't exist.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #51 on: July 31, 2014, 06:04:09 PM »

3kramd5

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 447
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #52 on: July 31, 2014, 06:06:16 PM »
I'm not sure, though, what the point is you're trying to make with your invocation of slippery slopes.

Basically the point at which one concludes that sensor size is irrelevant because incremental steps down in size are regarded as irrelevant. But I fully admit that my commentary is worth less than the amount you paid to read it :P
5D3, 5D2, 40D; Various lenses

kennephoto

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #53 on: July 31, 2014, 09:52:41 PM »
[quote
Well said, DRR!  I visit blogs that are specific to certain types of photography and hear so much animus and ignorance out there.  Crop is all you need, primes rule, natural light is for idiots, L lenses are overpriced, only shoot with L lenses, etc., etc.

Each genre of photography has its own requirements and while any gear can be used, some gear works better than others.  For example, shooting sports with a 3fps camera with limited AF is very difficult, but the same camera can produce amazing portraits.  Large aperture lenses are wasted on landscape photographers, but necessary for sports & wildlife.  A 85L is a horrible choice for most shots other than portraits, but can be used for other things.  The list goes on and on and on....

To argue that any one technology, system, lens, or anything else is perfect (or pointless) is pure ignorance (or blatant commercialism supporting a sponsor).

Now that's well said. Thank you! More people need to think like this, because cameras are tools and many people can use them in many different ways. Some tools are better than others but in the right hands basic tools can accomplish amazing things.
Canon 5d Mark II Canon 1D classic EOSM 20-35 2.8L 50 1.2L 135 2.0L 80-200 2.8L 40 Pancake and a bunch of old film cameras

ecka

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 663
  • Size matters ;)
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #54 on: July 31, 2014, 10:17:49 PM »
There may be many reasons for not seeing FF advantages clearly, like bad vision, small snapshots (too small to care), money, herd effect, bokeh'fobia or other psychological conditions. :) None of those can beat physics.
FF + primes !

c.d.embrey

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #55 on: July 31, 2014, 11:32:04 PM »
Who cares what Zack Arias has to say. His main talent is self-promotion, i.e. he's not much of a photographer. His major source of income seems to come from being a guru/media whore/pitchman. If he wants to maintain that income he has to stop acting like a hopped-up loon.

His understanding of photo history leaves much to be desired. Back in the day many magazine covers were shot with 35mm cameras (gotta love Kodachrome). Photojournalists stopped using 4x5 and 6x6 during the Vietnam War era.

Now-a-days no-one except pixel peepers care about sensor size. No. One. Cares. Got that -- No. One. Cares.

Professionals are shooting paying work with everything from iPhones to 8x10. The impossible Project is now making New 8x10 Polaroid film  https://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/film/8x10inch/fi_8x10_1_imp_2_mum

So please don't bore me with senseless sensor wars. No. One (except you). Cares.

ecka

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 663
  • Size matters ;)
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #56 on: August 01, 2014, 06:17:45 AM »
Who cares what Zack Arias has to say. His main talent is self-promotion, i.e. he's not much of a photographer. His major source of income seems to come from being a guru/media whore/pitchman. If he wants to maintain that income he has to stop acting like a hopped-up loon.

His understanding of photo history leaves much to be desired. Back in the day many magazine covers were shot with 35mm cameras (gotta love Kodachrome). Photojournalists stopped using 4x5 and 6x6 during the Vietnam War era.

Now-a-days no-one except pixel peepers care about sensor size. No. One. Cares. Got that -- No. One. Cares.

Professionals are shooting paying work with everything from iPhones to 8x10. The impossible Project is now making New 8x10 Polaroid film  https://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/film/8x10inch/fi_8x10_1_imp_2_mum

So please don't bore me with senseless sensor wars. No. One (except you). Cares.

:)
Why should we care what careless people think? (except when their carelessness affects our quality of life)
Why careless people need others to support their careless beliefs? (except when they do it for money)
Why bother fighting for carelessness? It makes no sense. (except when you're a troll or doing it for money)
FF + primes !

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 788
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #57 on: August 02, 2014, 03:02:09 PM »
The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.

It's not "barely better" at high ISOs. That's where the surface area and therefore light gathering come into play. At ISO 6400, 12800, 25600 it is much, much better. I'm comfortable shooting FF 3 stops higher then APS-C. I won't shoot APS-C above 3200, but I will shoot FF above 3200.

But at ISO 400? Meh. Differences are insignificant because noise isn't an issue at those light levels for either size sensor.

There seems to be this meme that FF is always and forever better at all things, Amen. That's what Zack was ranting against. Where FF advantages come into play they are large. They just don't come into play all the time.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #57 on: August 02, 2014, 03:02:09 PM »

ecka

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 663
  • Size matters ;)
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #58 on: August 02, 2014, 04:54:43 PM »
FF + primes !

m

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #59 on: August 02, 2014, 05:56:26 PM »
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 06:02:04 PM by m »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« Reply #59 on: August 02, 2014, 05:56:26 PM »