How much of an improvment would you get going from a cropped sensor to fullframe?

odd jim said:
Never heard that gem before. What semi pro Canon or Nikon bodies are bereft of features? Most of the time it's the other way around.
Click to expand...
Sorry I didn't make myself clear. It wasn't lack of features I was criticising, it was lack of the latest sensor technology. Canon for example tend to introduce their latest sensor technology first in full frame, only later in crop sensor. So the difference in image quality between their full frame and crop sensor cameras is increased. Whereas a manufacturer who implements the latest technology first in the smaller sensor reduces the difference.
 
chris malcolm said:
Sorry I didn't make myself clear. It wasn't lack of features I was criticising, it was lack of the latest sensor technology. Canon for example tend to introduce their latest sensor technology first in full frame, only later in crop sensor. So the difference in image quality between their full frame and crop sensor cameras is increased. Whereas a manufacturer who implements the latest technology first in the smaller sensor reduces the difference.
Click to expand...
Which technology is this?

Which company has reduced the gap between crop and FF IQ by implementing this technology in their smaller sensors first?
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
If you have to ask...
Click to expand...
Don't get it?

The fact is there isn't new technology being held back for crop bodies (and being employed in FF bodies), if anything, this is the area most companies are trying their best to improve.

I don't understand why some people are arguing against the science of this. Photography is all about light gathering. A bigger light gathering pane, with larger light receptors is going to gather more light, and will need to amplify the converted signal far less than a smaller pane with smaller receptors. The larger one being far more efficient at doing the job with less effort. That's always been the case and its never going to change.

Which is why brand new crop sensor designs still can't match the IQ of larger sensors from 7 plus years ago.
 
Last edited:
Depends if people are happy with the quality of the gear they have. Unless you shoot in low light, dusky conditions and don't make large prints (I do all 3) a smaller sensor is fine.

I've got 24x16 prints and they look great off the D800. I had some ones off my APSC camera done that size and unless you stand well back, they look a bit naff.

Money no object, my camera would have a much larger sensor than "full frame" but I like big prints and shooting in blue hours where there can be a massive dynamic range.
 
My 650d was noisy but usable at 1600, 3200 tops if I was shooting black and white. My 6d at 10,000 is cleaner than 1600 on the 650d
 
ST4 said:
Depends if people are happy with the quality of the gear they have. Unless you shoot in low light, dusky conditions and don't make large prints (I do all 3) a smaller sensor is fine.

I've got 24x16 prints and they look great off the D800. I had some ones off my APSC camera done that size and unless you stand well back, they look a bit naff.

Money no object, my camera would have a much larger sensor than "full frame" but I like big prints and shooting in blue hours where there can be a massive dynamic range.
Click to expand...
No ones saying that crops don't give good images, if they didn't I'd have sold all of mine!

My point relates to the science of all this, and why old larger sensors still produce better images than new tech crops or 4/3. Someone made a Point of suggesting waiting a generation for crop to catch up and that's simply not going to happen. It's easy to forget about the physics and science behind this and think technology can solve everything but when it comes to physics it can only do so much.
 
odd jim said:
No ones saying that crops don't give good images, if they didn't I'd have sold all of mine!

My point relates to the science of all this, and why old larger sensors still produce better images than new tech crops or 4/3. Someone made a Point of suggesting waiting a generation for crop to catch up and that's simply not going to happen. It's easy to forget about the physics and science behind this and think technology can solve everything but when it comes to physics it can only do so much.
Click to expand...

Pixel density and the size of the pixels. You want large pixels, and lots of them. Bigger = better.
 
ST4 said:
Pixel density and the size of the pixels. You want large pixels, and lots of them. Bigger = better.
Click to expand...

Better only in respect of light gathering. Compare the true resolution of the 18MP Canon 1DX with that of the 18MP 7D, you will see that the smaller pixels of the 7D resolve more fine detail.
 
Brachytron said:
Better only in respect of light gathering. Compare the true resolution of the 18MP Canon 1DX with that of the 18MP 7D, you will see that the smaller pixels of the 7D resolve more fine detail.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's the other way around.

Individual pixels themselves don't actually 'resolve detail' as they only record light and colour. Cramming them together on a smaller sensor increases signal noise and acts as interference, as does the need to boost the signal further. On a larger sensor with larger pixels the signal noise is less, so more detail is resolved as the image is less compromised.

Regardless of the above, the 7d does not resolve more detail than a 1dx!
 
Last edited:
Brachytron said:
Better only in respect of light gathering. Compare the true resolution of the 18MP Canon 1DX with that of the 18MP 7D, you will see that the smaller pixels of the 7D resolve more fine detail.
Click to expand...

No.

odd jim said:
Actually, it's the other way around.

Individual pixels themselves don't actually 'resolve detail' as they only record light and colour. Cramming them together on a smaller sensor increases signal noise and acts as interference, as does the need to boost the signal further. On a larger sensor with larger pixels the signal noise is less, so more detail is resolved as the image is less compromised.

Regardless of the above, the 7d does not resolve more detail than a 1dx!
Click to expand...

Yes, but there's more to it than that.

The main reason full-frame gives better image quality (ie sharpness) than APS-C, is lens performance - MTF, Modulation Transfer Function, those squiggly graphs that lens manufacturers put out. Sharpness is about a) resolution (the fineness of detail) and b) contrast (how clearly that detail is shown). And it's contrast that is the more important component as far as perceived sharpness is concerned.

A fact of physics is that when a lens is asked to deliver greater resolution, contrast reduces. It's a bit like a car that will do 0-60 in ten seconds, but takes twice as long to go from 60-120. On APS-C, the lens has to resolve 1.5x (or 1.6x) finer detail, eg 36 lines-per-mm rather than 24 lines-per-mm on a resolution chart. That means a corresponding drop in contrast, so the image appears less sharp.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
No.



Yes, but there's more to it than that.

The main reason full-frame gives better image quality (ie sharpness) than APS-C, is lens performance - MTF, Modulation Transfer Function, those squiggly graphs that lens manufacturers put out. Sharpness is about a) resolution (the fineness of detail) and b) contrast (how clearly that detail is shown). And it's contrast that is the more important component as far as perceived sharpness is concerned.

A fact of physics is that when a lens is asked to deliver greater resolution, contrast reduces. It's a bit like a car that will do 0-60 in ten seconds, but takes twice as long to go from 60-120. On APS-C, the lens has to resolve 1.5x (or 1.6x) finer detail, eg 36 lines-per-mm rather than 24 lines-per-mm on a resolution chart. That means a corresponding drop in contrast, so the image appears less sharp.
Click to expand...

I've thinking about this in relation to the new Canon 5DR, which has pixels very in similar size to the original 7D, yet is being touted as high detail resolution. Surely in this case, the signal to noise ratio that @odd jim rightly talks about will be the same as the 7D therefore, by this argument the 1DX has higher detail resolution than the 5DS???
 
Brachytron said:
I've thinking about this in relation to the new Canon 5DR, which has pixels very in similar size to the original 7D, yet is being touted as high detail resolution. Surely in this case, the signal to noise ratio that @odd jim rightly talks about will be the same as the 7D therefore, by this argument the 1DX has higher detail resolution than the 5DS???
Click to expand...
No, as per Hoppy's post it is more complicated than that.

Think of it simply - think of tuning an engine. It's much easier to tune a big engine and compromise it less than a smaller engine when looking for the same result!

That said, I do suspect the 50mp 5ds/r will have a higher signal to noise ratio than the 6d or 5d3 but with the right lens will resolve stunning levels of detail.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
No, as per Hoppy's post it is more complicated than that.

Think of it simply - think of tuning an engine. It's much easier to tune a big engine and compromise it less than a smaller engine when looking for the same result!

That said, I do suspect the 50mp 5ds/r will have a higher signal to noise ratio than the 6d or 5d3 but with the right lens will resolve stunning levels of detail.
Click to expand...

Why would the 5DS have a higher signal-to-noise ration? The pixels are much smaller?
 
Even more reason.
 
Brachytron said:
I've thinking about this in relation to the new Canon 5DR, which has pixels very in similar size to the original 7D, yet is being touted as high detail resolution. Surely in this case, the signal to noise ratio that @odd jim rightly talks about will be the same as the 7D therefore, by this argument the 1DX has higher detail resolution than the 5DS???
Click to expand...

Signal-to-noise ratio and resolution are unrelated.

Signal-to-noise ratio can affect sharpness (because it affects contrast) but is only significant at high ISO. I've not seen a comparison, but I'd expect images from a 1DX to look sharper* than a 5DR at say ISO6400.

*Edit: at least shadow detail. 5DS/R should still show more in the highlights.
 
Last edited:
Michael D Beckwith said:
Just out of curiosity how much of a gain in improvement would get going from a cropped APS-C sensor to a full frame with regards to ISO performance? Would you get 1 full stop of difference, or even more like 2?
Click to expand...

Watch it and take note ;)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top