Old debate and possibly done to death?

H

harper

Messages
31
Name
Adrian Norris
Edit My Images
Yes
Crop sensor Vs. full frame.

I trying to move away from a crop sensor camera because in here in dull grey UK, I think the crop sensor camera has a disadvantage compare with a full frame sensor camera, regarding light.

What are opinions?

Thanks.
 
harper said:
Crop sensor Vs. full frame.

I trying to move away from a crop sensor camera because in here in dull grey UK, I think the crop sensor camera has a disadvantage compare with a full frame sensor camera, regarding light.

What are opinions?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

When you look at a photograph you cannot tell what size sensor was used to capture the image so why worry about it.
 
If you move to full frame, everything is bigger. You get a larger sensor sure, but the lenses you require become heavier, larger and more expensive. I had full-frame for decades with massive cameras and lenses I could barely carry. As I got older, I finally realised that unless I was photographing in a cave or projecting my images onto the side of a building, I just didn't need full-frame, high pixel-count and probably never did; eventually I moved to MFT with an OM-5. I bought the camera new but all my lenses for it are used and I have a full kit of primes and zooms for less than two grand including a 100-400mm which has a full-frame equivalent of 200-800mm. Try carrying an 800mm full-frame lens -- Nikon do one for about five grand and it weighs 2.3kg! Yes I know, horses for courses but for the average amateur, I have found that MFT more than fulfils my needs and my back and arms have been thanking me for it.
 
No not really.

I use 35mm sensor, MFT, 1.6 & 1.3 crop and never had any problem shooting in the UK and it glorious grey skies.

The only really advantage of using 35mm sensors is if you work at really high ISO a lot, like north of 10000 or if you are wanting to get that '3D pop' of your subject, I do find easier with 35mm sensor.
 
Even though my cameras are over 10 years old, I don't see any issues shooting MFT during british daytime.
My FF body is actually my newest and while I enjoy using it there's no big advantage other than it having some spare resolution.

Last week out in the evening with our camera club I used MFT & the Pentax Q to stretch my 1000mm lens to the maximum. The only issue was I couldn't see the screen on the Q sufficiently for framing/focusing (both tricky at over 5500mm equivalent. When using a native lens the tiny Q still produced reasonable results.
 
I have a crop sensor D500, and 2 full-frame Nikons - D850 and Z8. Plus a Pentax K-1. If you do action or wildlife stick with crop; despite my 3 full-frames the D500 gets most use. If you are into anything needing wide-angle or to pixel peep landscape, architecture or portraits for example then full-frame has more advantages.

Full-frame lenses can be used without limitation on crop cameras but on some systems lenses optimised for APS-c are incompatible with full-frame cameras and in others work with limitations.... So if you have Nikon DX, Canon EF-S or Pentax DA lenses I suggest stick with APS-c (crop).
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Looks like the general opinion is "it doesn't matter". :naughty:
Click to expand...

I think it's better to say "It depends if you care about the differences."

I went for film compacts, SLR's and RF's to APS-C and than FF DSLR's and MFT and then on to 1", MFT, APS-C mirrorless and FF mirrorless. I have FF and MFT now.

I think that both APS-C and MFT can be very nice until you compare them to FF and then if you go looking for the differences they'll be there and difficult to unsee if you have problems unseeing things. People might decide that either MFT or APS-C is still for them but I think we have to accept that bigger systems give better IQ. This should be the case as with bigger systems the image needs to be magnified less and thus everything related to that feeds in. We now also have "MF" digital but I think for reasons of cost and some usage and practical issues FF is the best for me.

The size differences between MFT, APS-C and FF are not always in the smaller formats favour, for example there are some MFT and APS-C camera bodies which are bigger than some FF bodies so we need to look at specific camera and lens combinations. Same with costs, you have to look at specific combinations. I mostly use primes in the 24-50mm sort of range and when using equivalent lenses on MFT there aren't any significant savings in bulk or weight but when longer primes and zooms come into it MFT still has size advantages. APS-C might too.

When I changed my old Sony A7 FF camera for a newer A7III and later added an A7cII the differences between those newer FF cameras and my MFT became more obvious. I took my A7cII and 40mm and Panasonic MFT camera and 14mm on a cruise and when processing the shots side by side the difference in IQ was obvious and I'm now only using MFT for social when I think I might need a flash and for my long zooms.
 
In good light, not much difference. As long as the picture is well exposed, high iso doesn't matter with a camera made after about 2014.

Cheap APSC lenses are often a bit mediocre but only photographers notice. Expensive APSC lenses can be very good.
 
woof woof said:
I think it's better to say "It depends if you care about the differences."

I went for film compacts, SLR's and RF's to APS-C and than FF DSLR's and MFT and then on to 1", MFT, APS-C mirrorless and FF mirrorless. I have FF and MFT now.

I think that both APS-C and MFT can be very nice until you compare them to FF and then if you go looking for the differences they'll be there and difficult to unsee if you have problems unseeing things. People might decide that either MFT or APS-C is still for them but I think we have to accept that bigger systems give better IQ. This should be the case as with bigger systems the image needs to be magnified less and thus everything related to that feeds in. We now also have "MF" digital but I think for reasons of cost and some usage and practical issues FF is the best for me.

The size differences between MFT, APS-C and FF are not always in the smaller formats favour, for example there are some MFT and APS-C camera bodies which are bigger than some FF bodies so we need to look at specific camera and lens combinations. Same with costs, you have to look at specific combinations. I mostly use primes in the 24-50mm sort of range and when using equivalent lenses on MFT there aren't any significant savings in bulk or weight but when longer primes and zooms come into it MFT still has size advantages. APS-C might too.

When I changed my old Sony A7 FF camera for a newer A7III and later added an A7cII the differences between those newer FF cameras and my MFT became more obvious. I took my A7cII and 40mm and Panasonic MFT camera and 14mm on a cruise and when processing the shots side by side the difference in IQ was obvious and I'm now only using MFT for social when I think I might need a flash and for my long zooms.
Click to expand...
With respect Alan, the Sony is a much newer camera than your MFT - unless you've changed it recently.
 
harper said:
Crop sensor Vs. full frame.

I trying to move away from a crop sensor camera because in here in dull grey UK, I think the crop sensor camera has a disadvantage compare with a full frame sensor camera, regarding light.

What are opinions?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes. Done to death. ;)
 
I have a few different systems (too many some would say) and what I can say is that once the files are processed and resized for use it's really hard to tell the difference between my 50 MP Fuji GFX shots (MF), my 24 MP Fuji X-T2 shots (APSC), my 18 MP Leica M9 shots (FF) and my smallest arouns 12-16 MP (depending on aspect ratio) Leica D-Lux Typ 109 (M43). The images attached are from the different platforms at forum upload size. I will say though there is a world f diference if I just process and save them even as full res JPGs never mind TIFFs but for most uses I can't see any real difference.

005 Emsworthy Rocks 02-1797 PS Adj Upload.jpg

006 Emsworthy Rocks (Tree) 03-1010716 PS Adj Upload.jpg

008 Emsworthy Rocks (Tree) 05-9995 PS Adj Upload.jpg

008 Emsworthy Rocks Lone Tree 01-1000864 PS Adj Upload.jpg

011 Emsworthy Rocks (Lone Tree) 04-1001 PS Adj Upload.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dryce said:
Well even that can be debateable.

I would suspect that 99% of people who think they need FF probably don't.
Click to expand...
It depends in part on what you mean by 'need' - photography for me is a hobby - so in that sense I don't "need" my expensive camera and lenses - but it gives me enjoyment and is thus of benefit to my mental health.
As to whether I need a FF camera rather than APS-C - I actually have both, the APS-C kit for when I'm travelling, and photography is more for a record of a family trip, and FF for when I'm not constrained by size and weight. Capability wise, the FF far exceeds the APS-C kit - both in terms of lenses but also the body - being FF it has more controls, better dynamic range, and better high ISO.
How important is the 'FF advantage' - my A7iv can give clean images at ISO 12800, while my A6000 tops out at 3200 (it's an older camera, as well as APS-C), and 12800 is sufficient to take well exposed images indoors under typical lighting without needing flash - which is a significant benefit, in my view (the other advantages are more incremental, but that's a clear cut case of a common use where the FF body can take shots the APS-C cannot).
 
Erty said:
In good light, not much difference. As long as the picture is well exposed, high iso doesn't matter with a camera made after about 2014.

Cheap APSC lenses are often a bit mediocre but only photographers notice. Expensive APSC lenses can be very good.
Click to expand...
I'd probably go further back than that given in a recent camera club competition one of the winning entries was taken on a Pentax *istD (all 6MP of it).
 
Faldrax said:
Capability wise, the FF far exceeds the APS-C kit - both in terms of lenses but also the body - being FF it has more controls, better dynamic range, and better high ISO.
Click to expand...

I'm going to be quite strident.

In the real world there is almost no tangible advantage. Hobbyist or pro. And even in parts of the pro world where FF might be needed for client work the client that would demand it probably doesn't actually need it.

There is no 'far exceeds'. There is at best an incremental advantage in the real world. If you pixel peep you can spot anything.
 
harper said:
Crop sensor Vs. full frame.

I trying to move away from a crop sensor camera because in here in dull grey UK, I think the crop sensor camera has a disadvantage compare with a full frame sensor camera, regarding light.

What are opinions?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

As above, it all depends on what you photograph and what limitations, if any, you’re hitting.

That said, no camera is going to solve dull grey UK weather, so if that is your main reason for changing, I wouldn’t bother.
 
A larger sensor has an advantage in terms of light collected. And no, modern technology, AI editing, etc, has not mitigated that (or rather, it has improved for all).

But it's also probably just as easy/cost effective to get a better/faster lens for the camera you already have. So if you are not already using lenses that are f/4 or faster, then I would probably look at that first... not only will it improve the light capability, it will probably give a resolution/performance increase as well. And if your upgrade lens is also FF compatible; you will already have it if you choose to change bodies later on.
 
welshwizard645 said:
I'd probably go further back than that given in a recent camera club competition one of the winning entries was taken on a Pentax *istD (all 6MP of it).
Click to expand...
I agree. 10 megapixels is enough for most pictures (2005 on). A good picture is still a good picture at 6 megapixels (2002 on). ISO performance jumped in about 2009 but Cannon lagged behind so I said 2014.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top