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

[bdunbar79]

You're still not answering the question. I read your posts and it's like, which is sharper, the 5D Mark III with the 35 f/2 lens, or the 7D with the 16-35L II lens set at 22mm. Who cares? That doesn't answer which sensor is sharper.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

You're still not answering the question. I read your posts and it's like, which is sharper, the 5D Mark III with the 35 f/2 lens, or the 7D with the 16-35L II lens set at 22mm. Who cares? That doesn't answer which sensor is sharper.

Are we comparing silicon chips set up to poorly mimic photocopiers, or are we comparing camera systems used to make photographs?

See, i was under the impression that this is a gathering place for photographers, and that photographers would know that one matches lens focal length to format. Thus, the understanding would be that a comparison between APS-C and 135 wouldn't be of one isolated component in the camera, but rather of the whole system -- a true comparison of 135 format with APS-C format. And, as such, you'd compare an APS-C camera with a normal lens to a 135 camera with a normal lens. And, as all photographers should know, a normal lens is defined as one with a focal length roughly the same as the diameter of the imaging area -- 43mm for 135, and 27mm for APS-C. (And 7mm for 1/2.5", 300mm for 8x10, and so on.) What you wouldn't do is compare APS-C with a short telephoto lens (50mm) to 135 with a normal lens (also 50mm). Even if you could physically mount the same lens to both cameras. You certainly wouldn't compare 1/2.5" with a long telephoto lens (50mm) against APS-C with a short telephoto lens (50mm) against 135 with a normal lens (50mm) against a physically impossible 270° fisheye lens (50mm) on 8x10.

But, no. Apparently this is a gathering place for some very confused photocopy techs who think that "photographic sharpness" has something to do with how well you can adapt one isolated component of a camera to serve as a woefully inadequate photocopy machine. My mistrake....

b&

 

[RLPhoto]

14 pages later, how hard is it to believe that FF is sharper than APS-C? ???

 

[bdunbar79]

You're still not answering the question. I read your posts and it's like, which is sharper, the 5D Mark III with the 35 f/2 lens, or the 7D with the 16-35L II lens set at 22mm. Who cares? That doesn't answer which sensor is sharper.

Are we comparing silicon chips set up to poorly mimic photocopiers, or are we comparing camera systems used to make photographs?

See, i was under the impression that this is a gathering place for photographers, and that photographers would know that one matches lens focal length to format. Thus, the understanding would be that a comparison between APS-C and 135 wouldn't be of one isolated component in the camera, but rather of the whole system -- a true comparison of 135 format with APS-C format. And, as such, you'd compare an APS-C camera with a normal lens to a 135 camera with a normal lens. And, as all photographers should know, a normal lens is defined as one with a focal length roughly the same as the diameter of the imaging area -- 43mm for 135, and 27mm for APS-C. (And 7mm for 1/2.5", 300mm for 8x10, and so on.) What you wouldn't do is compare APS-C with a short telephoto lens (50mm) to 135 with a normal lens (also 50mm). Even if you could physically mount the same lens to both cameras. You certainly wouldn't compare 1/2.5" with a long telephoto lens (50mm) against APS-C with a short telephoto lens (50mm) against 135 with a normal lens (50mm) against a physically impossible 270° fisheye lens (50mm) on 8x10.

But, no. Apparently this is a gathering place for some very confused photocopy techs who think that "photographic sharpness" has something to do with how well you can adapt one isolated component of a camera to serve as a woefully inadequate photocopy machine. My mistrake....

b&

Then start your own thread, because this thread ISN'T about any of that.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Then start your own thread, because this thread ISN'T about any of that.

ORLY?

Where, exactly, did NormanBates express a desire to use his cameras as a rich man's bad photocopier?

Indeed, the whole point of his original post was that he wanted to spend his money on the sharpest photographic system.

Of course, he did his tests by poorly photocopying dollar bills. Fortunately for him, his test wasn't so deeply flawed as to reach the worng conclusion.

Indeed, NormanBates, if you're still hanging in there, I would suggest doing some tests with a still life scene rather than a dollar bill. Set it all up with the 90 on the 5DII, get everything all nicely framed, and glue the tripod (and the tabletop!) to the floor. Shoot the scene at several apertures and adjust ISO to keep exposure constant. (You can do the same but adjust shutter speed, of course...but you'll find the results more informative if you keep shutter speed constant.) Then, leave the tripod alone and swap the 5DII with the 90 for the 550D with the 50 and repeat the experiment, being sure to use the same combinations of shutter speed and aperture, with an overlapping range of apertures to capture the same depth of field and background magnification with both camera systems.

That way, you'll be comparing 135 format with a short telephoto to APS-C with a very similar short telephoto -- exactly as you'd do in the real world if you were, say, doing a comparison with a portrait shoot. You wouldn't use a 50 for both shots and shove the camera up the model's nose with the 135 format, so why perform your test that way?

Cheers,

b&

 

[zim]

Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/lKR-AKLM3HQ

 

[AlanF]

To be honest, this thread is starting to smell a lot like another recent thread, with the part of 'intransigent, insult-delivering antagonist' played by a different actor, only the insults are more frequent and rude and there's apparently not even the excuse of a language barrier in your case. Accordingly, given that my normal limit is one such 'debate' per week, I'm done. If it would help your ego to view this as a forfeit on my part, and you want to infer that means your inappropriate 'test' was somehow a properly relevant one, you go right ahead.

Hi TrumpetPower! Are you the same TrumpetPower! who writes in Wikipedia and is discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talkaul_Barlow/Archive_2 where it is written:

“Hello, I don't know if you agree, but imo TrumpetPower! seems to be reaching a point of obnoxiousness that might warrant some kind of action. Any thoughts? john k 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)”

 

[TrumpetPower!]

To be honest, this thread is starting to smell a lot like another recent thread, with the part of 'intransigent, insult-delivering antagonist' played by a different actor, only the insults are more frequent and rude and there's apparently not even the excuse of a language barrier in your case. Accordingly, given that my normal limit is one such 'debate' per week, I'm done. If it would help your ego to view this as a forfeit on my part, and you want to infer that means your inappropriate 'test' was somehow a properly relevant one, you go right ahead.

Hi TrumpetPower! Are you the same TrumpetPower! who writes in Wikipedia and is discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talkaul_Barlow/Archive_2 where it is written:

“Hello, I don't know if you agree, but imo TrumpetPower! seems to be reaching a point of obnoxiousness that might warrant some kind of action. Any thoughts? john k 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)”

Really? You have nothing better to add to the discussion than to dig up a 27-word seven-year-old comment on a person's private Wikipedia space complaining about my participation in an edit war on an article on a religious topic, and to post it to a discussion on a Canon rumors forum?

Okay....

b&

 

[bdunbar79]

I'm just not getting this: I'm sorry, I'm still back on this point. But, suppose I want to measure sensor sharpness. Why, I don't know, but this thread is about sensor sharpness. I use a 5D Mark III with a 35 f/1.4L. I then use a 7D, with a 16-35 f/2.8L II at 22mm, hypothetically.

How is this not apples to oranges? You switched lenses?? Which is sharper, the FF or the APS-C? I don't know, because I don't know if it's the lens, or the sensor, or both, or neither.

Neuro's test, to me at least, isolates sensor sharpness only, and leaves no other, or fewer, variables that could influence the test other than pure sensor sharpness.

Nothing personal, I'm just not getting what you are doing.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I'm just not getting this: I'm sorry, I'm still back on this point. But, suppose I want to measure sensor sharpness. Why, I don't know, but this thread is about sensor sharpness.

Strange. I thought it was about format sharpness, of which the abstract dimensionless notion of sensor sharpness is just one rather insignificant part.

Perhaps if you could explain what you mean by the difference between a sharp sensor as opposed to a sharp camera we could make some progress.

Is a sharp sensor something that makes the sharpest images of newspapers taped to a wall, doing whatever you need to to maximize the sharpness of said newspaper?

If so...who cares? Why would you not be more interested in how sharp the camera system as a whole is when used the way cameras are actually used?

Let's say you rubbed a lamp and got three wishes and used one of them for the sharpest sensor in the world. But the trickster genie gave you a sensor that only produced sharp images when used at a distance of 1" from its subject. What good would that do you?

Unless, of course, all you do is photograph newspapers taped to walls...in which case, I gotta tell you, there are much better ways to make sharp images of a newspaper than by taping it to a wall and photographing it with a camera....

b&

 

[bdunbar79]

I'm just not getting this: I'm sorry, I'm still back on this point. But, suppose I want to measure sensor sharpness. Why, I don't know, but this thread is about sensor sharpness.

Strange. I thought it was about format sharpness, of which the abstract dimensionless notion of sensor sharpness is just one rather insignificant part.

Perhaps if you could explain what you mean by the difference between a sharp sensor as opposed to a sharp camera we could make some progress.

Is a sharp sensor something that makes the sharpest images of newspapers taped to a wall, doing whatever you need to to maximize the sharpness of said newspaper?

If so...who cares? Why would you not be more interested in how sharp the camera system as a whole is when used the way cameras are actually used?

Let's say you rubbed a lamp and got three wishes and used one of them for the sharpest sensor in the world. But the trickster genie gave you a sensor that only produced sharp images when used at a distance of 1" from its subject. What good would that do you?

Unless, of course, all you do is photograph newspapers taped to walls...in which case, I gotta tell you, there are much better ways to make sharp images of a newspaper than by taping it to a wall and photographing it with a camera....

b&

Right, so why would you change lenses?

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Right, so why would you change lenses?

Let's pretend you're a student in a photography course, and the teacher gives you an assignment. "Here're three cameras, and I want you to use each of them make an attractive passport-style headshot portrait of our model for her acting portfolio. All three photos should have the model's whole face in focus but her hair should be a bit (but not excessively) on the dreamily soft side. Pick any lenses in the school's inventory you want for the assignment."

The three cameras are a 4/3 MILC, a Hasselblad loaded with 120 film, and a beat-up old Graflex Crown Graphic 4x5.

Which lenses do you pick for each camera, what apertures do you shoot them at, what distance do you shoot them from, and why?

When you can answer that, you will understand why I structured my experiment the way I did.

Cheers,

b&

 

[TheSuede]

Right, so why would you change lenses?

Because... If I shot the same lens on an APS camera as I would have used if I was holding one of my FF cameras, images would look like this:

-And that would be kind of embarrassing.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Right, so why would you change lenses?

Because... If I shot the same lens as I would have used if I was holding one of my FF cameras, images would look like this:

Looks good to me -- shrinkwrap them and slap on a price sticker!

b&

 

[bdunbar79]

Right, so why would you change lenses?

Because... If I shot the same lens on an APS camera as I would have used if I was holding one of my FF cameras, images would look like this:

-And that would be kind of embarrassing.

But I thought the test was one of format sharpness, not properly composed photography. Again, maybe I'm missing the point of the thread, but it seems so silly, so I'll move on. Thank you for your replies.

 

[Passport]

If the object is to compare sensors of equal number of pixels for sharpness and nothing else, why not provide a colimated light soure to adjacent pixels in a checkerboard pattern such that neighbors get alternately 0 photons and photons beyond saturation. Take the digital data and blow it up any number of times, 5, 10, 1000, or a billion. Sensor size is immaterial if you remove all the optical variables. The digital data will be identical regardless of sensor size. Prints made from either sensor will be identical.

Pick a limited number of variables and you could have the alleged photocopier.

Pick a realistic number of variables and we are beginning to talk photography. Pick your poison and make your pitch.

Generally, system resolution is calculated by taking the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocals of the elements of the system. For simplicity, if you have film or a sensor that will resolve 100 line pairs per millimitre and a lens that will resolve 100 line pairs per millimitre, the best that can be hoped for is (1/100+1/100)^-1. That is 50 line pairs per millimitre. In reality you need to add contrast factors, paper resolution, printer resolution. Back in the day I added enlarger lens resolution to the calculations.

Take a lens that has infinite resolution and a sensor that has 100 lp/mm and you get 100 out of the system. Take a sensor with 100 billion pixels and feed it an image with 100 lp/mm lens and you get a resolution approaching 100 lp/mm out. A larger sensor has more millimitres than the small one hence a higher total number of line pairs.

Numerous factors including optical diffraction limits, lens abberations and sensor noise give larger sensor of comparable technology with identical pixel count and proportionately larger pixels an advantage in resolving detail. Mechanical accuracy of mount alignment and distance to sensor proportionately favours the larger sensor as well.

 

[kanonpokajanen]

I believe Passport beat me to it but here is a simple, albeit imperfect, test

-Take two cameras with identical processors, flange distance, pixel count, and lens, but with camera A having full-frame, and camera B, an APS-C sized sensor.

-Place a high-res blowup of the first page of War and Peace on the wall, and take a photo with each camera, at the same shutter speed and aperture, from the same distance away (at an optimal exposure, of course), so that the page fills the frame of camera A.

-Make a 200x enlargement [print] of each photo [file].(camera A = 360mmX240mm, and camera B = 222mmX148mm)

Take a pair of scissors, and cut down the camera A print so that it matches the framing (size) of the camera B print.

Compare prints for sharpness.

Finish reading War and Peace.

 

[serendipidy]

Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C?

After Way Too Much Time spent reading this thread, I still don't know

 

[TrumpetPower!]

But I thought the test was one of format sharpness, not properly composed photography. Again, maybe I'm missing the point of the thread, but it seems so silly, so I'll move on. Thank you for your replies.

Let's say you have two very similar cars with two significantly different powerplants. Both engines have the same horsepower and torque at maximum RPM, but one engine (electric) has constant torque over the entire speed range and therefore a simple transmission while the other (gasoline) only produces maximum torque at maximum RPM and therefore has a geared transmission. Everything else -- chassis, curb weight, suspension, range with full fuel, etc. -- is the same.

The photocopyists in this thread will say that there's no difference between the two engines because they both output the same theoretical maximum capability.

The photographers in this thread will say that the car with constant torque will eat the other car's lunch because it'll handily win the race.

To further confuse matters, the same name applies to both the car model and its engine.

(I'm not a car nut so apologies if I got the technical details of the analogy worng. But, hey -- everybody loves car analogies, right?)

b&

 

[RLPhoto]

Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C?

After Way Too Much Time spent reading this thread, I still don't know

It's quite simple. A larger sensor/film will be less critical of the flaws in the lens infront of it. IE: it's make bad lenses not look so bad.