Old debate and possibly done to death?

[Phil V]

Is it though? If we go back to the 'physics' then all things being equal there would be no way to tell right,

Let's break this down to a specific example to shine a light on the physics. and consider this problem statement:

My camera is FF and only around 20 mpix (unfortunate side effect of this size sensor with low res being it's awesome in low light ), and my favourite lens is the Canon EF135 f2 .

To recreate the DoF with an APSC sensor would require an 85mm 1.4 lens - fortunately that's doable - but the low light performance would be nowhere close,. Theoretically an APSC sensor with around 10mpix would be as clean, but I don't think anyone is selling them, and if they did, they'd then lack the detail of the FF 20 mpix.

if we go down to M43, then we'd need something like a 65mm f1 lens, it's possible to build one, but I don't think anyone does. And all things being equal, you'd need lower res to match the low light performance (I've not done the maths, but maybe 5 mpix?

 

[thedistrictline]

Let's break this down to a specific example to shine a light on the physics. and consider this problem statement:

My camera is FF and only around 20 mpix (unfortunate side effect of this size sensor with low res being it's awesome in low light ), and my favourite lens is the Canon EF135 f2 .

To recreate the DoF with an APSC sensor would require an 85mm 1.4 lens - fortunately that's doable - but the low light performance would be nowhere close,. Theoretically an APSC sensor with around 10mpix would be as clean, but I don't think anyone is selling them, and if they did, they'd then lack the detail of the FF 20 mpix.

if we go down to M43, then we'd need something like a 65mm f1 lens, it's possible to build one, but I don't think anyone does. And all things being equal, you'd need lower res to match the low light performance (I've not done the maths, but maybe 5 mpix?

Large prints and low light absolutely thats where sensor size makes a difference, Where I disagree on is the idea of a larger format look. Ignoring whats actually on the market and purely hypothetical my money is on no one being able to tell the difference between an 8x10 apsc vs full frame vs mf digital at 'hypothetical' equivalent settings.

If I even win the euromillions I'll fund a peer reviewed study to test my hypothesis. Until then i'll continue to shoot all 3! (not medium mf - I cant afford it)

 

[Phil V]

Large prints and low light absolutely thats where sensor size makes a difference, Where I disagree on is the idea of a larger format look. Ignoring whats actually on the market and purely hypothetical my money is on no one being able to tell the difference between an 8x10 apsc vs full frame vs mf digital at 'hypothetical' equivalent settings

But the world isn’t hypothetical. I can take an image now with the above kit that you’d struggle to match with APSC, and couldn’t match with M43.

And we all know that the DoF of a large format camera can’t be matched by my ‘small’ full frame camera with any available lens.

If all you shoot is landscapes and you prize having front to back focus, then a smaller sensor is beneficial with the caveat that there’s a relationship between sensor size and maximum print size.

But some of us don’t shoot landscapes, and we value the benefits of shallow DoF (bigger sensors, better control) and low light performance.

 

[thedistrictline]

Absolutely we all have different needs, all I’m really disagreeing on is that there is no objective larger format ‘look’, and we agree to disagree else we will carry on in circles

 

[Phil V]

Absolutely we all have different needs, all I’m really disagreeing on is that there is no objective larger format ‘look’, and we agree to disagree else we will carry on in circles

I gave an actual physical example, you ignored the detail and offered an untested hypothesis in response.

Physics is physics, and until computational photography gets a lot better, we’re still reliant on the laws of physics.

I can see a future where a camera will offer ‘digital aperture’ to replicate larger apertures than the lens is capable of, in the same way they do ‘digital zoom’, but till then we’re stuck with physics.

 

[Eucris]

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.

It's not what you use, but how you use it.

 

[LeeRatters]

It's not what you use, but how you use it.

Sometimes......

 

[Topsy]

For all those who believe they can tell the difference, look back at my earlier post #14 and tell us which is which, there's MF, FF, APSC & M43 in the mix one format has 2 shots in the 5.

 

[ancient_mariner]

For all those who believe they can tell the difference, look back at my earlier post #14 and tell us which is which, there's MF, FF, APSC & M43 in the mix one format has 2 shots in the 5.

I'll do that when I'm not on the phone.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

For any givin f stop and any format the light captured is at the same intensity.
The format size gives other more obvious advantages.
The larger the sensor the more detail it is likely to capture. Larger sensors tend to capture wider tonal ranges,
They also make for larger and heavier bodies, lenses and accessories.

Aps and M2/3 cameras, lenses and accessories,tend to be smaller and lighter.

If you are likely to need giant wall sized enlargements larger format like medium format have distinct advantages as to ultimate image quality. However much of this advantage it's lost to convenience and ease of operation.
The main advantage of larger formats is in the control of depth of field. However many lenses for the smaller formats now come with very large apertures. These give very good separation of subject matter.

Every year fewer and fewer photographers have experience of film full frame cameras, they no longer miss or even know the distinctive feel of full frame film image quality, as smaller digital formats generally exceed anything previous film cameras could produce.

I suppose it is true that most photographers have an itch to try out formats that they have never used. This is understandable, but should not be confused by believing that one is better than the other for their general needs. Changing might even be a backwood step.

If you only ever view your images on the screen or in prints up to A3, then there will be little if any advantage in going to larger formats.
A4 image in the hand or screenshot that looks good, would look equally good enlarged to any size, when viewed at the appropriate viewing distance

 

[Phil V]

For all those who believe they can tell the difference, look back at my earlier post #14 and tell us which is which, there's MF, FF, APSC & M43 in the mix one format has 2 shots in the 5.

Show a human being at 10 feet away on a medium telephoto where you want shallow DoF.

And you’ll see a marked difference.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

In my humble opinion, if you or others don't think your images are interesting, it's nothing to do with what camera you're using, nor what lens you have on the front of it.

 

[LeeRatters]

In my humble opinion, if you or others don't think your images are interesting, it's nothing to do with what camera you're using, nor what lens you have on the front of it.

'Interesting' is a different subject though than any M43/apsc/FF/MF topics.

 

[myotis]

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.

If you feel the "need" to go full frame, then you should just go for it.

No number of opinions from others is going to stop you wondering if a particular photograph at a particular time might have been better, if it had only been on full frame. Especially, If you are making "important" pictures at moderate to high ISOs and "filling the frame" so you actually benefit from using the larger sensor size,

But, there is always the added wrinkle that for the same depth of field, you will need to use an ISO in the FF camera that is twice the ISO in the cropped camera. And, if you underexpose, this will push the noise up.

All told, the benefits of FF over APSC (or vice versa), for most uses, aren't simple, and I think you need "scratch the itch" and decide for yourself.

It's probably worth thinking about the number of professional photographers around the world doing travel, documentary, street, and "reportage" style wedding photographs, often in low light, successfully with APSC Fuji cameras. And the number of professional wildlife photographers making a living with M43 cameras. In itself, this isn't a good argument against FF, but it's worth thinking about when asking about the need for full frame.

Over the years, I've compared several "good quality" 1", M43, APSC, FF, and a cropped medium format sensors, and in like for like comparisons, on the computer at 100%, the larger the sensor, the better the overall potential quality AND the easier the files are to process. I now only have APSC, FF and cropped medium format (Nikon and Fuji)

Beyond that generalisation, it's much more complicated, especially as I also make comparisons with A4 prints, and not just on the computer.

Most of the time, sensor size almost certainly doesn't matter (which isn't the same as saying there is no difference). Rarely does the success of a picture depend on the sensor size.

Sometimes, however, I feel the benefits of using a larger sensor are valuable. This has more to do with subtle tonal and colour gradation than any major quality improvements.

More so, for me, the leap from FF to cropped medium format than the leap from APSC to FF.

As an example of FF and APSC differences, I regularly use a Nikon 26mm on a Z8, and use a function key to toggle between FF and APSC. This allows me to switch between a 26mm field of view and a 42mm field of view, which I find useful for composition. Albeit the latter only gives me an APSC size file.

When I'm processing these files (unless it's obvious from the perspective) I need to check with the exif to see if a file is FF or APSC.

But I can easily see the difference in quality, on both the computer and in print, when processing the 50MP Fuji GFX files, and the NikonZ8 45MP files.

So whether it's worth your while going to FF really depends on you, what you photograph, and what you want from your photographs.

But, I wouldn't waste any "photography" energy thinking about it. Look at the costs, size, weight, lens availability etc, and if it all seems favourable, get a FF.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

'Interesting' is a different subject though than any M43/apsc/FF/MF topics.

Everything, as the ecologists tell us, is interconnected.

It probably doesn't harm to consider whether our opinion of a particular connection is, or is not, correct. In my opinion, there is a very limited connection between the type of camera we use and the outcome of using it.

 

[LeeRatters]

Everything, as the ecologists tell us, is interconnected.

It probably doesn't harm to consider whether our opinion of a particular connection is, or is not, correct. In my opinion, there is a very limited connection between the type of camera we use and the outcome of using it.

There can be a big difference in the gear used vs the outcome.

And equally, the gear used can have no bearing on how 'interesting' the contents of photo is. It can affect the look, the rendering, the IQ etc but not really the former.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

There can be a big difference in the gear used vs the outcome.

I agree with you that this is true in specific types of photography, such as architectural or scientific photography. In general amateur photography, however, the type of equipment has only a limited effect on the outcome, in my opinion.

And equally, the gear used can have no bearing on how 'interesting' the contents of photo is. It can affect the look, the rendering, the IQ etc but not really the former.

Which was, indeed, my point.

 

[Ed Sutton]

There can be a big difference in the gear used vs the outcome.

And equally, the gear used can have no bearing on how 'interesting' the contents of photo is. It can affect the look, the rendering, the IQ etc but not really the former.

Only photo nerds are interested in "the look, the rendering, the IQ etc" over the 'interest' in a photograph. Everyone else looks at the subject matter first.

I think someone said something to the effect that it doesn't matter how technically good your pictures are if nobody looks at them because they are boring aren't interesting.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I think someone said something to the effect that it doesn't matter how technically good your pictures are if nobody looks at them because they are boring aren't interesting.

It's also true that if the first thing they noticed about your picture is it's technical shortcomings then your picture is a failure.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I think someone said something to the effect that it doesn't matter how technically good your pictures are if nobody looks at them because they are boring aren't interesting.

When I first started doing local press photography, I was in the lucky position of actually working for a newspaper, albeit on the advertising side.

I asked the newspaper's two photographers, who were surprisingly friendly to an eighteen year old junior space salesman, how to get into newspaper photography. Their unanimous advice was "take lots of pictures and get lots of faces in those pictures". Subsequent events showed me that they were entirely correct!

 

[LeeRatters]

Only photo nerds are interested in "the look, the rendering, the IQ etc" over the 'interest' in a photograph. Everyone else looks at the subject matter first.

I think someone said something to the effect that it doesn't matter how technically good your pictures are if nobody looks at them because they are boring aren't interesting.

No they aren't. I've shown non photographers selections of images and they've often picked a favourite because it looks nicer

There can be a big difference in how an image may 'look' (which may in turn make it look even more 'interesting') depending on what gear is used.

And this isn't a thread about 'interesting' photos as I've already mentioned. It's about formats and their benefits.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

And this isn't a thread about 'interesting' photos as I've already mentioned. It's about formats and their benefits.

The fact is that all threads wander whence they will. That's one of the nicer things about a forum, in my opinion.

 

[Sangoma]

I now only us M43, but about a year ago I tried at night in the street with the M43 and a Canon full frame, with street lamps on and with them off.

I was looking for colour, and noise, looking at numberplates to see which numbers looked clearer.

The M43 was best all round, at the time I found it unbelievable that either camera even got a picture, let alone a useable one. With processing, the M43 was much better.

However, at dusk where you could almost see things by eye, the Canon had less noise, but not by much.

 

[myotis]

Only photo nerds are interested in "the look, the rendering, the IQ etc" over the 'interest' in a photograph. Everyone else looks at the subject matter first.

I think someone said something to the effect that it doesn't matter how technically good your pictures are if nobody looks at them because they are boring aren't interesting.

I feel compelled to disagree with the detail here, even if I agree with the sentiment. If you had just left it at Image Quality and technically good, I would have been fine, but I see the look and rendering as something different to "technical" quality.

While I don't think "everyone else" assesses the sharpness, noise, or dynamic range of a photograph in the way nerdy photographers might do, I am confident the "ordinary person " is very sensitive to the "look" of a photograph.

I know from non-photographers browsing through my photo books that many are surprised at how much they like photographs of uninteresting subjects that have been photographed in an interesting way, which has turned them into interesting photographs for them.

Weston's peppers are an example, but there are lots of examples of peeling paint, tarmac, cutlery etc which are made interesting by the "look" and rendering of the tones, colours and geometry.

My other experience comes from when I was making comparisons between Capture One, Lightroom and DXO (before it became Photolab).

I made A4 prints from 11 different subjects with each of the programs. I spent several weeks on this, trying to match the prints across the different programs. The eventual prints were well matched, but each program also seemed to have its own very subtle "look".

I took the prints into work, and asked nine non-photographers to choose which of the three prints they liked best. With one exception (one person, one print) everyone chose the prints from Capture One, with comments like "looks more natural", "looks 3D" "looks more real" "just seems nicer".

The actual comparison is irrelevant here, but it does show that non-photographers can be very sensitive to very subtle differences in terms of the "look" of the photograph.

 

[Ed Sutton]

The actual comparison is irrelevant here, but it does show that non-photographers can be very sensitive to very subtle differences in terms of the "look" of the photograph.

No they aren't. I've shown non photographers selections of images and they've often picked a favourite because it looks nicer

There can be a big difference in how an image may 'look' (which may in turn make it look even more 'interesting') depending on what gear is used.

Have you never shown someone two photos, one clearly out of focus, of the same subject and had the OOF one preferred? I have. Many times.

If we're talking 'rendering' etc., then I think that is subject dependent.

 

[myotis]

Have you never shown someone two photos, one clearly out of focus, of the same subject and had the OOF one preferred? I have. Many times.

If we're talking 'rendering' etc., then I think that is subject dependent.

I'm not sure I understand your point, being out of focus can make a perfect;ly valid contribution to the "look" of a picture.

In fact ICM pictures are possibly a good example where the overall "look" of the blurred shapes and colours can make the original subject irrelevant.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I'm not sure I understand your point, being out of focus can make a perfect;ly valid contribution to the "look" of a picture.

I mean a photo of someone's pet, for example, where many here would pick the sharp picture but the pet's owner might select on the subject's expression.

ICM photography doesn't count as it's shallow and pointless decor photography.

 

[myotis]

I mean a photo of someone's pet, for example, where many here would pick the sharp picture but the pet's owner might select on the subject's expression.

But that is an example of where there is a clear connection and reason for the subject being of interest to the viewer of the photograph. And as such, irrelevant to the point I was making.

However, as with your initial post I agree with the sentiment, and it's something I have thought about when reading about AI culling programs, that cull pictures if the subject's eyes are shut, or if the picture is out of focus. The "best" picture that capture the subject, or the "moment" may well be the slightly misfocused one where the eyes are shut.

ICM photography doesn't count as it's shallow and pointless decor photography.

It counts for me, as an example where ordinary people like pictures, not because of interest in the subject, but because of what the photographer has done with the subject.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I think these last few messages are about the distinction between "photography as a tool" and "photography as an art form".

On the "tool" side, we have everything from scientific uses to newspaper images. On the other side there's some types of portraiture to semi or completely abstract images made using, for example, camera movement and selective focus. And then, there's everything in between...

It's really hard to pin photography down, because it's both a technique and a form.

 

[Topsy]

Show a human being at 10 feet away on a medium telephoto where you want shallow DoF.

And you’ll see a marked difference.

Can't argure with that example Phil but I don't do portraits anymore. When I did I used 120 MF film cameras rather than 35mm even though the 35mm had far faster lenses than the MF. However for many other genres the differences are IMO insignificant, maybe even unnoticable. I certainly don't think with today's sensors the jump between APSC and FF makes a significant difference to lower light shooting which is what the OP was asking (and my example did nothing to answer his question since all the shots are in good light) but I posted them to illustrate how getting a bigger sensor camera won't make a huge difference and most folk can't tell the difference in photos posted or hung on the wall and viewed at the correct viewing distances.

 

[myotis]

I think these last few messages are about the distinction between "photography as a tool" and "photography as an art form".

On the "tool" side, we have everything from scientific uses to newspaper images. On the other side there's some types of portraiture to semi or completely abstract images made using, for example, camera movement and selective focus. And then, there's everything in between...

It's really hard to pin photography down, because it's both a technique and a form.

I've said it before, but I split photography, albeit with very fuzzy boundaries, into three categories: descriptive, documentary, and expressive.

Descriptive is an accurate rendition of what something looks like (e.g. scientific and record photography).

Documentary is trying to show what the subject looks like, but also trying to go beyond the descriptive, e.g. the difference between a passport photograph and a portrait. Photographs in this category are strongly focussed on the subject and the subject's "story". Even if the photographer's view can influence how the "story" is told.

Expressive photography is more about the photographer and how they "see" the world. The relationship between the subject and photographer is still important, but with expressive photography it's as much, or more, about the photographer than the subject.

I'm avoiding the "art" word, as all three categories could well end up as "art" even if that wasn't the intention.

 

[woof woof]

In my humble opinion, if you or others don't think your images are interesting, it's nothing to do with what camera you're using, nor what lens you have on the front of it.

Oh good grief. Do people really believe this?

If you do anything beyond taking pictures of static objects in perfect conditions to print the size of a postage stamp of course kit matters. Unsuitable kit can get in the way and become too much of a factor in the picture or stop you taking the picture at all.

Just look at your own pictures or the ones taken by others you like and decide if they could have been taken with a wooden box with a hole in the front or some awful keychain digital from years ago. Likely they couldn't have been. The kit has to be able to at least let you if not help you to get the picture you want and believing it's all down to the photographer is just fanciful unless your needs are so basic that a wooden box or a digital keychain are enough. If kit doesn't matter you might as well just give up photography and take up drawing and painting as you'll have more chance of capturing an image than with some kit and it'll be a lot more interesting.

And BTW. Who cares what other people think? If you're relying on photography to put food on your plate then I suppose you need to but other than that? Nupe. I don't care.

Better kit is on a sliding scale with each improvement making it easier to get better results more consistently and reliably. The best camera I've had is my Sony A7cII. It has its issues but it also enables me to take pictures and do it quicker and more reliably than any other camera I've ever had. Of course kit matters.

 

[LeeRatters]

Have you never shown someone two photos, one clearly out of focus, of the same subject and had the OOF one preferred? I have. Many times.

Nope. Because I don't take out of focus photos.

 

[myotis]

Nope. Because I don't take out of focus photos.

If only I could make the same claim

 

[woof woof]

Just on showing people pictures...

One thing that I have issues coping with is people not having issues with what I have issue with... Like people watching TV's in the wrong aspect ratio, and they don't seem to notice. That's the sort of thing that drives me ranting from the room. Just goes to show that some things that seem... obvious isn't strong enough a word... to some people are invisible to others.

The fact that some people can't conceive that kit matters and believe that it's all down to the photographer magically getting such an interesting result despite the kit and the kit doesn't matter at all does baffle me a bit but there are different levels of consciousness and TBH nothing surprises me.

 

[thedistrictline]

Like people watching TV's in the wrong aspect ratio, and they don't seem to notice

Or the SD version of the channel haha

 

[Stephen L]

Just on showing people pictures...

One thing that I have issues coping with is people not having issues with what I have issue with... Like people watching TV's in the wrong aspect ratio, and they don't seem to notice. That's the sort of thing that drives me ranting from the room. Just goes to show that some things that seem... obvious isn't strong enough a word... to some people are invisible to others.

The fact that some people can't conceive that kit matters and believe that it's all down to the photographer magically getting such an interesting result despite the kit and the kit doesn't matter at all does baffle me a bit but there are different levels of consciousness and TBH nothing surprises me.

That’s a matter of tolerance/respect or otherwise of a person’s personal preferences.

And absolutely nothing to do with the OP’s question.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No they aren't. I've shown non photographers selections of images and they've often picked a favourite because it looks nicer

There can be a big difference in how an image may 'look' (which may in turn make it look even more 'interesting') depending on what gear is used.

And this isn't a thread about 'interesting' photos as I've already mentioned. It's about formats and their benefits.

You are more likely to capture interesting images with a camera that you are familiar with and can use instinctively. As it lets you concentrate on the subject, and not be distracted by technicalities.
This is definitely a factor in camera choice..

 

[Ed Sutton]

Nope. Because I don't take out of focus photos.

As Bob Dylan famously said,"I don't believe you!"

 

[whyone]

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.

So, people have taken a lot of time to provide (many!) opinions.

Are you any clearer on a way forward?

If not, why not borrow a couple of the bodies you are interested in (Canon have a loan scheme)....I feel this is a much more reliable way to make an informed decision which is right for you.