Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
- Thread starter ahsanford
- Start date
I've read enough here on on PP that make me want to never watch this video. I shoot wildlife in very low light and the 1D X absolutely destroys what I was able to do with the 7D, and to a lesser extent with the 5DIII. I'm just talking about the sensor here.
For people who shoot under ISO 1600 on crop sensors, on the other hand, the difference is very minor, but I still like having the choice of wide lenses.
For people who shoot under ISO 1600 on crop sensors, on the other hand, the difference is very minor, but I still like having the choice of wide lenses.
Upvote
0
slclick said:
IMHO the 7D shouldn't even be mentioned with the 5D III, 6D, 1DX, or the 5D II for wildlife. The 7D produces grainy, rough images with drab colors. The slab of margarine known as the AA filter doesn't help, either. Blue channel noise at low ISO's is especially disturbing for landscapes or bird backgrounds.
In the absolute best of light, the 7D does fine. But then, so does a cell phone.
I find the 70D to be a far superior wildlife camera, too.
Upvote
0
I have my preference and that's what I use. I don't disparage others who have different needs.
One thing I noticed though, when he's got his lightbox up and comparing sensor sizes, the one he refers to as "APS-C" is much too large in comparison to the FF sensor. Grab a still and compare for yourself.
While I don't necessarily disagree with the points he's trying to make, I don't think he should be cheating to get those points across. I have no evidence to prove that he did this intentionally, but go ahead and grab a frame if you don't believe me. The difference between the "APS-C" example he puts up and the "full frame" example are pretty minimal. It looks more like APS-H to me. Overlay with actual mm measurements of what an APS-C sensor should be, and you'll see the example he uses is about 20-30% larger than actual APS-C, whether it's Canon standard (1.6x) or Nikon standard (1.5x)
One thing I noticed though, when he's got his lightbox up and comparing sensor sizes, the one he refers to as "APS-C" is much too large in comparison to the FF sensor. Grab a still and compare for yourself.
While I don't necessarily disagree with the points he's trying to make, I don't think he should be cheating to get those points across. I have no evidence to prove that he did this intentionally, but go ahead and grab a frame if you don't believe me. The difference between the "APS-C" example he puts up and the "full frame" example are pretty minimal. It looks more like APS-H to me. Overlay with actual mm measurements of what an APS-C sensor should be, and you'll see the example he uses is about 20-30% larger than actual APS-C, whether it's Canon standard (1.6x) or Nikon standard (1.5x)
Upvote
0
Hi DRR.
I'm glad you raise that point, I thought it looked too large as well, the only difference is, I was by that point so annoyed with the presentation that I couldn't find the inclination to mess with it any more! If I had confirmed APS-C to FF I would have then been checking the ratios of the rest just in case, they were wrong too!
Cheers Graham.
I'm glad you raise that point, I thought it looked too large as well, the only difference is, I was by that point so annoyed with the presentation that I couldn't find the inclination to mess with it any more! If I had confirmed APS-C to FF I would have then been checking the ratios of the rest just in case, they were wrong too!
Cheers Graham.
DRR said:
Upvote
0
When Zack implies that shooting APS-C is a good as Nikon full frame, that doesn't automatically apply to Canon APS-C sensors. We're lagging behind. But when you look at other modern sensors (such as Fuji) that are being put into camera systems in which quality lenses are being specifically designed for APS-C sensors (such as Fuji), you'd be surprised at the high image quality. Modern APS-C sensors are excellent. Rather than being defensive and negative, we should become proactive and demand Canon pick up their game.
Upvote
0
Maybe in the context of what he is shooting the difference is negligible. Maybe he is at bright lights, always less than ISO 400 and bokeh/noise do not matter. Maybe his clients do not perceive or require a difference.
Those contexts exist, sure. But I use 1 camera for all the different contexts in which I shoot. The 5DIII. And I like the images I get from it better than my excellent 7D.
Those contexts exist, sure. But I use 1 camera for all the different contexts in which I shoot. The 5DIII. And I like the images I get from it better than my excellent 7D.
Upvote
0
I can only compare the 6D and 60D, but I have compared them a lot, mostly ISO 100-1000 with a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and Sigma 180 f/2.8. The 6D is very much better.
Upvote
0
Comparisons are "interesting" to say the least..... People love to stack the deck when making comparisons. An APS-C fanboy will compare a new Nikon APS-C against a 5D2.... and there isn't a whole lot of difference. The FF fanboy will compare a new Nikon FF against a 7D and the FF is miles ahead. You can't compare new technology to old and you can't compare different technologies.
A fair comparison is the same technology of the same age.... and good luck finding it because technology is not static and unlike the automotive world, Sony, Canon, or Nikon don't release all their 2014 models at the same time.... releases are staggered and there are changes between releases.
In theory, if the two cameras had the exact same pixel count and the exact same level of technology, you would expect the FF would have a 1 1/3 stop advantage over the APS-C camera. Yes that is a difference, but it is not earth shattering. That's the difference we saw going from the 5D2 to the 6D.
The reality is that todays cameras are far superior to those of the past. My first DSLR produced terrible images at ISO800 and the upper limit of ISO1600 produced garbage... years go by and I end up with a 60D that shoots all the way up to ISO12800... still a crop camera, but at ISO12800 produced superior images to my E-300 at ISO400, despite the pixels of the 60D only being half the size.... that's about 6 stops of improvement and if I were to rush out and buy a new Nikon crop camera I could get another 2 stops.
Today, cameras are stabilizing. In the crop world there is about 2 stop of difference between new models of similar pixel count of different manufacturers, and that is mostly because Canon is still using old technology in their sensors. It is believed that they are switching over to new designs and new manufacturing processes, so expect that gap to disappear. As things stand now, we are approaching the theoretical limits of current technology so unless there is some new magic technology that erupts on the scene, expect things to get even closer.... and as Sony has just shown us, pixel count has more impact in a stable market than swapping between FF and crop.
A fair comparison is the same technology of the same age.... and good luck finding it because technology is not static and unlike the automotive world, Sony, Canon, or Nikon don't release all their 2014 models at the same time.... releases are staggered and there are changes between releases.
In theory, if the two cameras had the exact same pixel count and the exact same level of technology, you would expect the FF would have a 1 1/3 stop advantage over the APS-C camera. Yes that is a difference, but it is not earth shattering. That's the difference we saw going from the 5D2 to the 6D.
The reality is that todays cameras are far superior to those of the past. My first DSLR produced terrible images at ISO800 and the upper limit of ISO1600 produced garbage... years go by and I end up with a 60D that shoots all the way up to ISO12800... still a crop camera, but at ISO12800 produced superior images to my E-300 at ISO400, despite the pixels of the 60D only being half the size.... that's about 6 stops of improvement and if I were to rush out and buy a new Nikon crop camera I could get another 2 stops.
Today, cameras are stabilizing. In the crop world there is about 2 stop of difference between new models of similar pixel count of different manufacturers, and that is mostly because Canon is still using old technology in their sensors. It is believed that they are switching over to new designs and new manufacturing processes, so expect that gap to disappear. As things stand now, we are approaching the theoretical limits of current technology so unless there is some new magic technology that erupts on the scene, expect things to get even closer.... and as Sony has just shown us, pixel count has more impact in a stable market than swapping between FF and crop.
Upvote
0
Dont like all the repeats, brainwashing.
Dont like this kind of religious argumentation at all.
I still like the sensor in my Fuji X100s, but Mr. Arias less now.
Dont like this kind of religious argumentation at all.
I still like the sensor in my Fuji X100s, but Mr. Arias less now.
Upvote
0
Hillsilly said:
I was about to make that point about the lenses. Nearly 15 years into the digital age, neither Canon nor Nikon has bupkiss for APS lens lineups. Unless you absolutely love 18-xxx megazooms. Still no fast portrait lens. Still no fast normals. Still no fast short telephoto zooms (70-200 equivalent). Fuji and m4/3 have fleshed-out lens lineups already. And Pentax has some amazing APS format lenses. Small and sharp. Professional lenses.
What does Canon have? A bunch of idiot parrots saying "Use an L lens." Well yes, if you're using FF. But for APS format cameras, they have absolutely nothing, despite having an awesome camera in the 7D. A pro grade camera with no pro grade lenses. Lovely.
I'm probably going to move to the Fuji or a M4/3 at some point. Not that I don't love my Mk III and high end lenses. But at some point, you get tired of lugging around heavy gear. I have a great assistant, for now. Once these smaller formats catch up -- and they will -- the FF format will look like a dinosaur. N and C have had a huge head start, but they've been resting on their laurels. Shame on them.
Upvote
0
m said:
I think he makes some good points, but the point about 4x5 and 8x10 is a bit silly because those aren't just different formats ... they're film. You can't get those formats in digital. So yes they are a lot bigger, but they aren't ready substitutes for a lot of the work that photographers do.
The XT1 looks wonderful as a camera design — great size & controls — but I was surprised to see that it offers noticeably less sharpness than other APS-C cameras in DPReview's studio comparison scene. Comparing the RAW at various ISO's, the XT1 just lacked some detail that was evident in the same scene in images from the 70D and D7100, for example. It may be that DPReview is using a RAW converter that doesn't yet properly convert the Fuji RAW files, or it may just be less sharp. It *should* be just as sharp as any other APS-C camera.
Also, ZA has the luxury of ditching FF because he has a super expensive medium format digital. For those who don't have a super expensive medium format digital, FF is still pretty compelling, i.e. the next-best thing to medium format digital (and much cheaper).
Upvote
0
Stephen Melvin said:
You're assuming FF tech will remain static in that time.
----
The video could have been done better but he gets the point across, in an annoying kind if way! For me FF is a lot better when trying to pull details out of RAW files, there's a lot more flexibility. Files tend to take more punishment when correcting exposure errors.
There's nothing wrong with modern APS-C sensors though and even my humble EOS M produces more than adequate quality in good light. I get that the difference is minor in some cases but I wouldn't say neg-lig-ible! Damn that was annoying!!
Upvote
0
Hillsilly said:
A few observations:
1. Whether one is "as good as" another rather depends on what your criteria are - what you photograph, how you view images, how fussy you are about what one should probably refer to as small differences (though that's hardly objective either - differences that matter to me may not even be noticed by you and vice versa), etc. I own several different cameras (too many; I should do some pruning...) - FF (Canon 5DIII & 6D, Sony A7r), APS-C (Canon SL1 & Sony a6000) and M43 (Olympus OMD-EM5), with lenses all over the map, from rather elderly manual Russian lenses to high-end current ones. I'm often tempted to think that even viewing on a 30" monitor, if I don't pixel peep, and don't go out of my way to look for differences, there are many images I've taken with various combinations of equipment which, if I (or anyone else) looked at the images in succession, I would have a hard time matching up accurately with the images, and perhaps a harder time forming a preference.
2. That said, if I do scrutinize, it's not hard to tell the superiority of FF images over APS-C and M43, and not just when comparing Sony/Nikon ff to Canon APS-C. It may be that the a6000 makes better images than the SL1, but it's also true that the a7r makes better images than the a6000, just as the 5DIII and 6D make better images than the SL1.
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.)
4. I've not seen the video yet....
Upvote
0
Also not the first time he's ranted on about Fuji vs DSLRs:
https://fstoppers.com/location/zack-arias-claims-dslr-dead-result-fuji-x100s-3406
To me, someone declaring DSLRs dead or that APS-C is just as good as FF, is just as bad as the opposite - the person that spouts out that DSLRs are king or the FF is the only "real" format.
Both of these are uneducated viewpoints and contribute nothing. In fact I think of Arias less of a knowledgeable photographer now that I've seen that video.
Not all photography is the same, and as a result it requires different equipment. Different equipment requires different tradeoffs. Choose what's best for you, not what someone else declares to be better or worse.
https://fstoppers.com/location/zack-arias-claims-dslr-dead-result-fuji-x100s-3406
To me, someone declaring DSLRs dead or that APS-C is just as good as FF, is just as bad as the opposite - the person that spouts out that DSLRs are king or the FF is the only "real" format.
Both of these are uneducated viewpoints and contribute nothing. In fact I think of Arias less of a knowledgeable photographer now that I've seen that video.
Not all photography is the same, and as a result it requires different equipment. Different equipment requires different tradeoffs. Choose what's best for you, not what someone else declares to be better or worse.
Upvote
0
