Yes, this happened: I became a FF snob

[[email protected]]

I have very much enjoyed my M5, tooling around with it in the past couple of weeks. I think it's 80 percent there, and has already supplanted my 7D2 on many photo missions.

But in analyzing the results from it, I've been disappointed with the low light performance and grain. I finally figured out what happened: I've been using the 5D4 for a few months, and I've gotten used to the full frame image quality (and the 5D4's in particular), and now a crop sensor that is every bit as good and then some as my 7D2 is looking ragged. It's quite unfair to the M5, I realize in retrospect. I'm seriously considering selling the 7 series to start a fund for a 5D4 backup body. I have the 1.4x TC III glued to the 5D4, so the crop factor isn't much of a big deal.

The very good f/8 autofocusing made the world turn upside down, allowing the negation of the crop advantage of the 7D2, especially coupled with the significantly higher number of pixels. The only thing I miss now is the 10 frames per second.

I used to think I needed a full frame body and also a crop body for distance-limited photography, such as wildlife. Now I think I need the full frame and another full frame attached to a teleconverter.

 

[Zeidora]

Larger pixels = less noise. Pretty simple, really.
However, I'd only use the 1.4TC if you really need it. Rather use primes of the appropriate focal length on FF to really take advantage of the full potential of your FF body. The 1.4TC is very good, but putting it on a 35 mm lens to make it a 50 is just not the way to go. Rather get a 50, and use the 35 for wider angle framings.

 

[privatebydesign]

Larger pixels = less noise. Pretty simple, really.

No, larger sensor = less noise.

On a same sized image basis the size of the pixels is nowhere near as important as the area of the sensor, if you more than double that area, as in APS-C to FF, then you get at least one stop of improvement all else being equal, that is just straight physics and obvious.

 

[Zeidora]

Larger pixels = less noise. Pretty simple, really.

No, larger sensor = less noise.

On a same sized image basis the size of the pixels is nowhere near as important as the area of the sensor, if you more than double that area, as in APS-C to FF, then you get at least one stop of improvement all else being equal, that is just straight physics and obvious.

Same image size = same MP count?
Then larger sensor = larger pixels, simple geometry.
Larger pixels gets more photons per pixel, and by statistics, error goes down with increased sample size (= number of photons). At same photon flux, larger pixel gets more photons per unit time.

For noise, pixel size is more important than sensor size; all other things assumed equal. For detail, it's the other way around (within limits). That's also the basis for binning in microscope cameras. Take 2x2 or 3x3 pixels, and make them into one large, low noise image point.

 

[privatebydesign]

Larger pixels = less noise. Pretty simple, really.

No, larger sensor = less noise.

On a same sized image basis the size of the pixels is nowhere near as important as the area of the sensor, if you more than double that area, as in APS-C to FF, then you get at least one stop of improvement all else being equal, that is just straight physics and obvious.

Same image size = same MP count?
Then larger sensor = larger pixels, simple geometry.
Larger pixels gets more photons per pixel, and by statistics, error goes down with increased sample size (= number of photons). At same photon flux, larger pixel gets more photons per unit time.

For noise, pixel size is more important than sensor size; all other things assumed equal. For detail, it's the other way around (within limits). That's also the basis for binning in microscope cameras. Take 2x2 or 3x3 pixels, and make them into one large, low noise image point.

Only if you compare pixel to pixel, which is a stupidly irrelevant 'comparison'. If you compare same sized images the pixel size has been shown many times to be essentially irrelevant as the noisier smaller pixels average out to the same quality as a single larger pixel.

All assuming same generation sensors.

 

[Don Haines]

Larger pixels = less noise. Pretty simple, really.

No, larger sensor = less noise.

On a same sized image basis the size of the pixels is nowhere near as important as the area of the sensor, if you more than double that area, as in APS-C to FF, then you get at least one stop of improvement all else being equal, that is just straight physics and obvious.

Same image size = same MP count?
Then larger sensor = larger pixels, simple geometry.
Larger pixels gets more photons per pixel, and by statistics, error goes down with increased sample size (= number of photons). At same photon flux, larger pixel gets more photons per unit time.

For noise, pixel size is more important than sensor size; all other things assumed equal. For detail, it's the other way around (within limits). That's also the basis for binning in microscope cameras. Take 2x2 or 3x3 pixels, and make them into one large, low noise image point.

Only if you compare pixel to pixel, which is a stupidly irrelevant 'comparison'. If you compare same sized images the pixel size has been shown many times to be essentially irrelevant as the noisier smaller pixels average out to the same quality as a single larger pixel.

All assuming same generation sensors.

ultimately, it comes down to how much light you have gathered..... and a FF sensor gathers 2.5 times more light than a crop sensor.

 

[privatebydesign]

Larger pixels = less noise. Pretty simple, really.

No, larger sensor = less noise.

On a same sized image basis the size of the pixels is nowhere near as important as the area of the sensor, if you more than double that area, as in APS-C to FF, then you get at least one stop of improvement all else being equal, that is just straight physics and obvious.

Same image size = same MP count?
Then larger sensor = larger pixels, simple geometry.
Larger pixels gets more photons per pixel, and by statistics, error goes down with increased sample size (= number of photons). At same photon flux, larger pixel gets more photons per unit time.

For noise, pixel size is more important than sensor size; all other things assumed equal. For detail, it's the other way around (within limits). That's also the basis for binning in microscope cameras. Take 2x2 or 3x3 pixels, and make them into one large, low noise image point.

Only if you compare pixel to pixel, which is a stupidly irrelevant 'comparison'. If you compare same sized images the pixel size has been shown many times to be essentially irrelevant as the noisier smaller pixels average out to the same quality as a single larger pixel.

All assuming same generation sensors.

ultimately, it comes down to how much light you have gathered..... and a FF sensor gathers 2.5 times more light than a crop sensor.

Exactly.

Hence the "On a same sized image basis the size of the pixels is nowhere near as important as the area of the sensor, if you more than double that area, as in APS-C to FF, then you get at least one stop of improvement all else being equal, that is just straight physics and obvious." comment.

 

[YuengLinger]

Semantics dead end. Yes, FF is cleaner, smoother, silkier, less noisy (so potentially sharper) than cropped.

Cropped sensor + ef 400mm f/5.6L = poor man's bird rig. Ok.

 

[JMZawodny]

Larger pixels = less noise. Pretty simple, really.
However, I'd only use the 1.4TC if you really need it. Rather use primes of the appropriate focal length on FF to really take advantage of the full potential of your FF body. The 1.4TC is very good, but putting it on a 35 mm lens to make it a 50 is just not the way to go. Rather get a 50, and use the 35 for wider angle framings.

You are correct. The larger the pixel the less noise (for a given lens and object distance). Now if you want the same number of those larger pixels as you have in other options, then you'll be needing a FF or MF camera. When it is about noise, it is ONLY about the size of the pixels. (assuming the same sensor/ADC design and fab tech).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

After buying a FF DSLR, it became increasingly difficult to use my crop bodies, even though they were good, I kept turning to FF.

I'm not knocking crop bodies, I have a G1X II, and find it handy for quick snapshots or travel where the big DSLR is too much. I did take my 7D to a class reunion 7 years ago, and left my 5D MK II in my room. That was a big mistake, The photos were not memorable at all. Last year for my 55th HS reunion, I took my 5D MK III. What a difference in quality,

 

[Fleetie]

With respect, the FF light advantage is not "obvious". (Unless you already understand it.)


It's taken me a good long while to understand this. Neuro used to go on about it at some length, and finally it sunk in for me.


The FF sensor, for Canon, gathers 2.56 (=1.6^2) times more light for the same framing, so that when you print it at say, 12" x 8", you stretch the image, and the photons constituting it, less than you do for 1.6x crop.


For crop, by stretching apart the photons you've gathered 1.6x more, i.e. you make them spatially more sparse, you increase the noise.


The FF is rich with photons, and stretching those to the print size doesn't introduce as much noise.


Your FF photo has 2.56x as many photons in it.


My point is, it's not at all "obvious" to a lot of people.


And even now, it still has me scratching my head a bit, when I think about it! :-[

 

[YuengLinger]

With respect, the FF light advantage is not "obvious". (Unless you already understand it.)


It's taken me a good long while to understand this. Neuro used to go on about it at some length, and finally it sunk in for me.


The FF sensor, for Canon, gathers 2.56 (=1.6^2) times more light for the same framing, so that when you print it at say, 12" x 8", you stretch the image, and the photons constituting it, less than you do for 1.6x crop.


For crop, by stretching apart the photons you've gathered 1.6x more, i.e. you make them spatially more sparse, you increase the noise.


The FF is rich with photons, and stretching those to the print size doesn't introduce as much noise.


Your FF photo has 2.56x as many photons in it.


My point is, it's not at all "obvious" to a lot of people.


And even now, it still has me scratching my head a bit, when I think about it! :-[

Me too, which is why I use H&S!

Ok, seriously, why is Olympus, with a micro 4/3, so popular? This has me scratching my head. Friends who have them admit they aren't great for prints bigger than 5x7, maybe 8x10 with a great capture. Is that a nod to reality? Most of our photos are shown on the web or in very small prints?

 

[Sabaki]

Well! I'm not in the same category as some of the others here and perhaps it's down to my full frame body being the somewhat AF lite 6D.

I have specific uses for specific cameras.

My 'poor man's birding' with my 400 f/5.6 stays on my 7Dii, as does my macro work. The odd bit of motor sports and wildlife I also keep for the 7Dii.

Everything else I do on the 6D, including events, landscapes, people

With every piece of kit, there's a need to work around it's shortfalls. With crop, you need good light

 

[Ozarker]

I used to think I needed a full frame body and also a crop body for distance-limited photography, such as wildlife. Now I think I need the full frame and another full frame attached to a teleconverter.

I have the Canon EF 2x III, but what full frame revealed to me with the very first shot, after the angels quit singing, was that I could sell my 70D with a clear conscience and that I need to buy great whites (Hasn't happened yet.) to make up for the crop difference.

I'm with you... two FF cameras.

 

[dak723]

Ok, seriously, why is Olympus, with a micro 4/3, so popular? This has me scratching my head. Friends who have them admit they aren't great for prints bigger than 5x7, maybe 8x10 with a great capture. Is that a nod to reality? Most of our photos are shown on the web or in very small prints?

Not sure who your friends are , but my results are totally different. I have taken comparison shots with my Olympus E-M1 and my 6D. At 8 x 10 size, they are indistinguishable. At 11 x 17 size, one MIGHT be able to tell which camera took the shot. Shots were taken in daylight, so, yes, you might have different results in low light.

Having owned MFT, crop and FF, I do notice the increased noise with crop and MFT in lower light. But since I shoot almost always in daylight at ISO 200, the 6D was sold and the MFT and new crop (M5) are what I have in the bag for now.

 

[YuengLinger]

Ok, seriously, why is Olympus, with a micro 4/3, so popular? This has me scratching my head. Friends who have them admit they aren't great for prints bigger than 5x7, maybe 8x10 with a great capture. Is that a nod to reality? Most of our photos are shown on the web or in very small prints?

Not sure who your friends are , but my results are totally different. I have taken comparison shots with my Olympus E-M1 and my 6D. At 8 x 10 size, they are indistinguishable. At 11 x 17 size, one MIGHT be able to tell which camera took the shot. Shots were taken in daylight, so, yes, you might have different results in low light.

Having owned MFT, crop and FF, I do notice the increased noise with crop and MFT in lower light. But since I shoot almost always in daylight at ISO 200, the 6D was sold and the MFT and new crop (M5) are what I have in the bag for now.

Good to hear. Those little cameras are so tempting.

And, really, are any of us sure of who our friends are?