Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF

[mackguyver]

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.

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).

 

[dtaylor]

2. That said, if I do scrutinize, it's not hard to tell the superiority of FF images over APS-C and M43,

Yeah it is actually. The problem with this debate is 99.9% of the people debating have never been forced to pick between unlabeled prints. Much like wine experts discover when they are blindfolded, our ability to "scrutinize" photos is not nearly what we believe it to be when labels are in front of us.

ISO 100-800 (probably throw in 1600 for Sony sensors)...all other factors being equal (MP; lens IQ) with optimal processing for both...you're not going to identify the format between APS-C and FF even in big prints.

Above that...FF starts to walk away, and the difference is significant enough that you can't post process it away, and it's visible in large prints. FF is the low light king. But the difference is becoming less and less important as sensor tech improves and IS finds its way into more scenarios.

FF can of course achieve less DoF, though I honestly feel like APS-C is the sweet spot here. Moving at all will throw a normal/mild tele at f/1.4 out of focus on FF. And by moving at all I mean random quantum fluctuations seem to be sufficient to shift the plane of focus and ruin the shot. Even on APS-C I'm often stopping down to f/2 to make sure I have some DoF. One in focus eyelash is not appealing to me.

I will admit there are lenses which beg to be shot on FF (Canon's T/S and 24/35L's).

But that's about it. The differences are really not what they're often made out to be unless you need to shoot at really high ISOs or you can make use of the 36 MP from a D810 or A7R (so...really big prints). Or you like one focused eyelash surrounded by bokeh.

I still don't get all the fuss over Fuji's x APS-C sensors.

Neither do I. Their one Bayer model seems to have the same IQ but with slightly different color rendition that could be equalized in post pretty easily.

 

[3kramd5]

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.

 

[fish_shooter]

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

 

[sdsr]

2. That said, if I do scrutinize, it's not hard to tell the superiority of FF images over APS-C and M43,

Yeah it is actually. The problem with this debate is 99.9% of the people debating have never been forced to pick between unlabeled prints. Much like wine experts discover when they are blindfolded, our ability to "scrutinize" photos is not nearly what we believe it to be when labels are in front of us.

ISO 100-800 (probably throw in 1600 for Sony sensors)...all other factors being equal (MP; lens IQ) with optimal processing for both...you're not going to identify the format between APS-C and FF even in big prints.

I guess you may be right if "optimal processing" is applied, and I dare say I don't do it. At any rate, if I look at images on a monitor at 100% (which is what I had in mind by "scrutinize"), I see more noise even at ISO 100 on APS-C than FF (regardless of whether it's Canon or Sony), and of course with m43 there's the "problem" that ISO starts at 200. Would I see it if I weren't looking for it? Probably not. Would I see it at less than 100%? Probably not. Does it matter? No (well, not for me, anyway, unless I want to boost shadows a lot, and even then it's usually not noticeable). Would I bother applying NR? No. Anyway, I doubt we're disagreeing about much, if anything.

Anyway, I've now seen the video and am not impressed either. All he says is that the difference in sensor size between FF and APSC is trivial compared to the difference in sensor size between FF and large format (etc.), and that the differences between FF and APSC have become insignificant. That could be said in less than 30 seconds. It may or may not be true (it all depends on what you think is significant), but he does nothing at all to prove his point besides waving a stick at a series of photos of sensors over and over again. I rather doubt this is a Fuji ad - wouldn't their publicity department come up with something better?

 

[sdsr]

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.

 

[zlatko]

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]

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.

 

[3kramd5]

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.

 

[sdsr]

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]

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.

 

[Etienne]

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.

 

[3kramd5]

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

 

[kennephoto]

[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.

 

[ecka]

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.

 

[c.d.embrey]

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]

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)

 

[dtaylor]

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.

 

[ecka]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBhxzqYJnN4

 

[m]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBhxzqYJnN4

"mark my words", lol. The internet never forgets.