Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

[TheSuede]

good gravy people..... there is no practical answer to the question... cameras are systems.... it's not just the sensor.... You have sensors, lenses, and software. In theory, a simillarly designed lens of the appropriate focal length, F stop, shutter, materials, and build for APS-C and one for FF, should act the same..... but good luck finding a pair. Every model of camera will have different algorithms.....
(.../some shortening applied/...)
And assuming you were able to find find two truly comparable systems, just what do you mean by sharpness?
Are you talking sharpness of a pixel, sharpness of an image, or sharpness per mm of sensor? These are going to give you three different answers. If you are talking about sharpness per mm of sensor my iPad beats any FF or APS-C sensor hands down.... An argument without defined parameters is just an exercise in frustration and hurt feelings.

This is the practical, sane and pragmatic answer. I whole-heartedly agree

It's up to each and every one for themselves to find the SYSTEM that suits their needs.
For me that "best answer" is sometimes APS, sometimes 1" sensors and sometimes also digital medium format (though that need has fallen drastically the latest three or four years, since the arrival of 20MP+ FF cameras).

 

[bdunbar79]

Well if I can answer with a question. When you look at your picture at 100% on your computer do you think you are looking at the pixels from your sensor ?

Why would you answer with a question?

Socrates used to.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Nope that's not what I'm seeing comparing the same shots between a 5D3 and a 7D. The 5D3 cropped to the same size as the 7D resolves a tad more detail in RAW comparisons. I dont even use the 7D anymore.

This assumes that you also always print the full frame. For some cropping is always required. If you crop the same image to the same composition your results may vary. We don't always have the luxury of filling the frame especially when using a prime lens in less than adequate quarters.

If you're shooting side-by-side with a 7D and a 20mm prime, a 5DIII and a 35mm prime, and an 8x10 view camera and a 250mm prime, you're going to be cropping away the same proportional amount to get the same composition from each, rendering the cropping point moot.

If you're distance-limited, sure, it can make a difference...but generally not at much as most people tend to think. If that little birdie only fills an eighth of your frame with the 800mm f/5.6 on the 5DIII, you'll get better results putting the lens on the 7D, but not hugely better. The real answer is to improve your tracking skills so you can get closer and fill the frame, with whatever camera / lens combination.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Don Haines]

it does until Canon brings out a 24x36 camera with high pixel density then you can crop as it suits you

yes, but if you built an APS-c sensor at the same pixel density as the sensor in an Ipad you could have an 216Mpixel sensor......

 

[AprilForever]

APS-C solves a lot of problems full frame creates...

 

[Meh]

Well if I can answer with a question. When you look at your picture at 100% on your computer do you think you are looking at the pixels from your sensor ?

Why would you answer with a question?

Socrates used to.

Socrates gets some leeway. People who make unclear or unsubstantiated statements aren't generally afforded the luxury of evading questions in that fashion.

 

[Meh]

Some of you are confusing enlargement and sensor resolution. Do you know who you are?

well it is a optical question and it is hard to get a APS lens that are 1,6 times better than a 24x36mm lens regarding resolution, contrast etc. If there was one there will not be any differences results wise between a 24MP APS sensor and a 24Mp 24x36mm sensor and if the signal/noise ratio was the same from the two sensors

What exactly do you mean by an "APS lens that is 1.6 times better than 24x36mm lens"? Are you talking about two different lenses (e.g. an EF-S lens and an EF lens) or the same lens on different bodies?

Under what circumstances do you suppose the SNR would be the same for an APS-C sensor and a FF sensor that each had the same number of pixels?

please read again what Im saying. I do not suppose anything.I describe parameters who must be alike to compare the different sensors, and what kind of qualities the lens for the APS size must have if we are comparing the two sensor sizes and resolution/contrast.
and please also read The Suedes answer if you wonder something

I have read your comments and the Suede's comments and I find them confusing. Hence I asked questions in hopes of being enlightened and all I get is defensiveness and avoidance.

 

[serendipidy]

Well if I can answer with a question. When you look at your picture at 100% on your computer do you think you are looking at the pixels from your sensor ?

Why would you answer with a question?

Socrates used to.

Look where that got him

 

[Meh]

what is it you are wondering about?
And let me tell you that my english is not the best in the world, but I try.

For one, I asked you what exactly you meant by "the APS-C lens has to be better than the FF lens"?

I followedd that up with a clarifying question asking if you were talking about two different lenses such as one EF-S lens and one EF lens.

 

[Sporgon]

Well if I can answer with a question. When you look at your picture at 100% on your computer do you think you are looking at the pixels from your sensor ?

Why would you answer with a question?

Socrates used to.

Socrates gets some leeway. People who make unclear or unsubstantiated statements aren't generally afforded the luxury of evading questions in that fashion.

I can see where you are coming from in terms of the image projected onto a larger sensor is larger. This is where the potential improvements in IQ come from, and I suppose is the basis of this whole thread. An image that is recorded at a larger level has the potential to record more detail given the limitation of lenses and pixels. This is where Mikael is coming from. It's simple physics. However it is wrong to believe that the data from a smaller sensor has to be "enlarged" or "blown up" more than a larger one of equal digital capacity. The image you will see in pixels created by your computer program is the same size from an 18MP 7D as it is from an 18MP 1DX. The pixels created by your computer program, using the information recorded by the camera chip, are the same size for each camera, irrespective of how big or small the original pixels were on the chip.

I have understood from your previous posts that you believe that in order to achieve a digital picture of a given size you have to enlarge each pixel from your sensor until you have the image size you require.

That's plain wrong - there's nothing to substantiate !

 

[al-toidz photography]

You guys are wasting your time with this pixel peeping bullshit and sensor shit that you guys are talking about. First, not because you have a full frame sensor does not mean that you can produce a better picture than someone that has APSC size sensor. Second, lens matters. Even if you have full frame camera but has only a mediocre lens in front of the sensor, the resulting image is not as good as let's say, a T2i with 85mm 1.2L or a 70-200 IS II. And lastly, if you are really a good photographer if not great, then any of this camera and lens shit, will mean nothing to you. What do I mean by this? There's a lot of ingredients that involves in photography more than just a camera and a lens. One does not make a good photo just because he/she has the top of the line camera and lens.

 

[Plainsman]

If you can get close enough to your subject with a 36x24 sensor camera to fill the viewfinder then FF camera is to be preferred. If the image is small in frame with lots of cropping eg aircraft in flight or BIF then the APS-C format is just as good. There are other considerations of course such as pixel size, lens quality etc etc.

In film days the bigger the format the better eg my Mamiya 645 (56x42mm neg size) always beat Nikon/Canon SLR (36x24mm neg size) - for quality large prints - and a Pentax 6x7 (70x56mm neg size) would always beat a Mamiya 645 etc The same analogy applies to digital.

I suspect that in the long term the APS-C format may disappear - but maybe not!

 

[AlanF]

There is a famous old New Yorker cartoon with one professor saying to another: "The reason why university politics is so bitter is because the stakes are so small.". Substitute 'photographer' for professor and 'FF vs crop debate' for university politics................

 

[yablonsky]

Nope that's not what I'm seeing comparing the same shots between a 5D3 and a 7D. The 5D3 cropped to the same size as the 7D resolves a tad more detail in RAW comparisons. I dont even use the 7D anymore.

Right.

I used the same lenses on the 50D and later on the 5D2 (RAW). 100% crops from the APS-C could not be used.
The image looks like scrambled pixels. Now with the 5D2 the 100% crops are great. A lot of detail and tack sharp.

 

[p666]

Images talk much better than words when you are talking about photography. I decided to test it myself, and took my 60D, and 5D Mark II, and attached the same 35mm prime lens, and took the same shot. The 5D image of 5616 x 3744 I cropped to 1.6, which gave me 3510 x 2340. I then downsampled the 60D image to the same size, and took a 100% crop of both for screen.

Look very similar to me other than the slight DOF differences, so in terms of image quality really there is no advantage whatsoever in the "crop" sensor, other than having to manually crop the image on FF to get that special "crop factor" you get by default.

The 60D:



The 5D Mk2:

 

[tortilla]

I suspect that in the long term the APS-C format may disappear - but maybe not!

Canon doesn't think so, they just came up with the M mount which can only be used for APS-C. APS-C has it's advantages, like less size and weight, which is a plus for traveling or photojournalism (supposing one doesn't want to do very large prints).

But indeed, I would also not be surprised when they will stop releasing EF-S mount cameras and lenses in 10 years or so.

 

[dtaylor]

If we were stuck with 35mm and APS-C film, you would have a point.

We're not. We have sharpening settings in camera, and multiple sharpening options in our RAW converters and image processors (PS, Lightroom, etc).

APS-C sensors take more sharpening. Since sharpening is not an unlimited good, it's possible to equalize the two at ISOs where noise is not emphasized by the greater degree of sharpening required for APS-C. This is true through about ISO 800.

For the same reasons small differences between lenses are simply not worth worrying about any more. In the film days lens sharpness and contrast were of paramount importance because you were typically stuck with the result. Now if two lenses are close, USM and local contrast enhancement can make up the difference.

Knowing how to optimize your images in post for a particular application/print size trumps many of the equipment differences people love to obsess about.

 

[dtaylor]

Images talk much better than words when you are talking about photography. I decided to test it myself, and took my 60D, and 5D Mark II, and attached the same 35mm prime lens, and took the same shot. The 5D image of 5616 x 3744 I cropped to 1.6, which gave me 3510 x 2340. I then downsampled the 60D image to the same size, and took a 100% crop of both for screen.

So you threw away any detail resolved by the 60D but not by the cropped center of the 5D2. Why would you expect a different result then the one you got?

I'll be the first to say that with current bodies the crop reach advantage only comes into play if you're making large prints from files which are cropped even further than APS-C. It is there. I've got 9-10 MP, 16x20, 7D sports prints that would not have worked with the roughly 3 MP left over had I been shooting a 5D2. But if you're making 13x19's that aren't cropped any further, you'll never see a difference.

But that still doesn't excuse performing your test in a manner which purposely throws away any detail gain in the 60D file. Would you do that in real life? (Same question for the test which started this thread: would you produce prints with no sharpening? Or do you blindly apply equal sharpening to everything regardless of subject / lighting / lens / sensor / final application and view size?)

 

[Rocky]

The original post talks about "sharpness". A few posts are comparing DR, noise between the two formats. These are "picture quality", not sharpness only. Some poster throw in "post production", that is not a valid arguement either. My take on this subject are:
1. For the same pixel count on both formats, both can be as sharp as each other, assuming that the lens can out resolve both sensor in the imaging area. That will put a lot of stress on the lens for APS-C sensor. The lens need 1.6 time reolving power compare to the FF.
2. There are isolated incident that the APS-C can actually sharper than the FF if the lens use for FF have a severe problem in curvature of field or severe unsharp conrners. Since APS-C snesor only using the center part of the FOV of the lens. These problem may not exist. Therefore the APS-C is actually sharper.
3. FF will be sharper if the lens cannot out resolve the APS-C sensor but it will out resolve the FF.
4. There is no doubt that FF will have better picture quality than thre APS-C, due to less noise, better DR.
5. The above piont is assuming that the lens is not being diffraction limited. The DOF is not affecting the sharpness either
6. In print, most of the difference will not be obvious due to the printing process.
7. How many people can tell the difference in music between amplifier with 0.01% distotion and amplifier with 0.005 % distortion??

 

[Sporgon]

nr4
there are APS with the same DR as 24x36, example D7000 and D800

And Pentax K5, K30, K-x - all Sony chip