Sensor Size

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
4:09 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
A friend recently asked me about the difference between APS-c and full frame digital cameras. They were expecting me to talk about image quality, I think they were surprised when I said that the big differences were that APS-c cameras were cheaper and smaller. Yes, all other things being equal (and they often are not) full frame will have a slight edge in noise level, brightness range and detail. But, with today’s technology, that difference is not overwhelming and you have to work carefully to take advantage of it. So, yes, price and size are to me the big differences for most people.

And to the those wealthy amongst us at the RF Forum to whom price is unimportant, small is not just convenient for street, travel and family photography. It means the long lenses of the sports and wildlife worlds don’t have to be quite so long, and macro shots of the wealthy’s rare coin collections will have a little more depth-of-field.

Are there shots where that slight improvement in technical quality afforded by full frame are important? Of course, and it’s not just limited to the oft mentioned landscape, architectural and extreme low light photography. It’s whatever you think should be technically the best you can achieve.

But, as you know, you are going to have to work to gain the quality afforded by the larger sensor. That can mean a high shutter speed or tripod, a very good lens used at an optimum aperture, accurate focus - all-in-all a slower, more methodical photography, not so different from the changes film photographers make as they move to larger formats.

So what sensor size do you use and, by far, more important, why?
 
I prefer 35mm sized/full frame and up. I just find smaller formats make photos with less 'depth' in them. Comparitively my 6x7 photos feel like you could almost reach into them. I shot m4/3 for a while and have always regretted using it for my travels - just dont like the spacial qualities of the photos.
 
I got into mirrorless APS-c because it was a camera I could afford, at the time a used Nex-7, and I could adapt my manual lenses to it relatively cheaply.
I really wanted to use my lenses at their native focal lengths after a while so worked my way into a full frame camera.
I now shoot three full frames that are really very good cameras and feel lucky I can afford them. The old lenses work great on all of them and the native lenses are something else.
My first digital camera was a CoolPix 995. Not sure what that is 'classified' as sensor wise, but it had to be small.
I then moved on to Nikon DX cameras.
Now shooting Sony.
 
My wife uses an APS-C camera. I use her older APS-C camera for "scanning" my 35mm B&W film negatives. We have no issues with either application.
 
I have the Nikon D3x and the images it produces are great...I also love that a 50mm lens on it is a 50mm lens...I have no problem using a tripod as I normally use one anyway...slowing down usually means a better thought out image...4x5 cameras teach you that.
The D3x can use DX lenses and I can shoot in a DX format 24x16 with normal lenses.
I also shoot the Sony a6000...I like using the LCD screen for framing vs. the viewfinder and I get to use a whole lot of legacy lenses. I also use a tripod with this body.
Both produce great images, I can tell which is which in side by side comparisons. I use whichever camera I feel like hauling around on any given day...that's it...
 
My compositional skills are weak, no, Puny, nearly non existent. I shoot full frame and crop sensor and the ability to crop fiercely in my full frame is a big benefit in my mind. I do find that in both cameras that I do much better composing in the rear screen.
 
I finally bought a full frame camera last year, and at first I thought the larger sensor was the reason I could see improvement in the image quality over my APS-C model. But then I realized that it was at least one if not two generations apart from the APS-C camera so the full frame one had the advantage of newer technology and software.

I'll be happy to continue on with APS-C format as soon as Nikon gets the Z system settled out. I've got plenty of DX lenses to use.

PF
 
The only really noticeable difference I'm aware of is high ISO noise. I think all APS-C poops out after 12800.
While current FF sesoers are still alive and well @25000.

It is all irrelevant with use of flash, of course, but flash became taboo for hipsta gearheads.
I haven't used flash for two if not more years. For no real reason but been lazy.
APS-C with build in flash will give clean images @6400 and flash dialed down to -2.
And if flash is bunched @1/30 and @6400 it balancing well if indoor light and doesn't give deep shadows.
 
I use both and, quality-wise, I see very little difference. Main thing I like about full frame is that I don't have to do mental computations to know what focal lengths in APS-C equates to full frame. Plus there are a gazillion lenses out there made for Nikon in 135 format I can use without any grief. Sure, I can adapt them to my Fuji cameras but then I have to deal with that equivalency thing.

I don't use long lenses much but it's nice to be able to use them between full frame and APS-C bodies, depending on how much reach you want. Nikon never got around to building a nice set of APS-C primes. No matter. Fuji makes some of the best prime lenses I've ever used in any format.
 
I have a lot of lenses made for 35mm cameras. Using a sensor with 24x36 size is most compatible with these lenses, same FOV and DOF.
 
Quite happy with APS-C and 16MP. Had a 36x24 sensor camera for a bit but saw no difference in the actual photos that matter to me. I print small, generally; if anything really big is needed I'm sure software will handle it! APS-C cameras are also much smaller, which is important to me currently. If the camera bag gets used again, I would probably skip 36x24 and put medium format in it!:p
 
Dogman said:
... No matter. Fuji makes some of the best prime lenses I've ever used in any format.
Click to expand...

I loved my Fujinon screw mount lenses. Still would if I were still active in photography. Most people didn't seem to appreciate them and would look askance until about the last 10-15 years, as evidenced by when prices on them jumped up on ebay. Your fortunate to have them, in whatever format.
 
What If?

What If?

[FONT=&quot]I approach this issue from more of a philosophical point of view. Let’s suppose that back in the 20’s, cine film was 30mm wide instead of 35mm. Oscar Barnak comes along and adapts it to his new Leica camera. Image size becomes for sake of argument, 20mm x 30mm vs. the current FF size of 24mm x 36mm. Seventy or so years later, along comes the “new” APS-C format which becomes, let’s say 13.3mm x 20mm (vs. the current 15.7mm x 23.7mm) which permits the 1.5 crop factor. Fast forward to today. Would (some of) the “new” FF users extol the virtues of the 20mm x 30mm frame size over the “new” APS-C to the extent that they do today? Hmmm. Or take the scenario the other way. Suppose the original cine film was wider than 35mm, and again fast forward to find that the “new” APS-C format was heavens! 24mm x 36mm. What would the viewpoints be today? BTW, I use Fuji digital cameras and couldn’t be more pleased with image quality in all respects. [/FONT]
 
Always liked small and light so, 4:3 of course. Even in the film era had a special fondness for 35mm half frame (still do) and in fact still use 2 Oly Pen F plus a couple of Pen VF cameras. Just got a ‘Commie Cam’ from Ukraine, a Kiev 30 that uses 16mm film for a 13x18 frame, basically the old 110 size but with exposure and focus control.
Some folks turn out some doggone good work with an iPhone and what is the sensor in that, maybe 6x8mm (I don’t really know.)
 
I used to use a Nikon D700, then D750, for shooting indoor basketball. I went with full frame because I needed to shoot at high ISOs and I needed excellent AF performance. Now I use a Fuji X system because I'm no longer shooting sports. Compact and light wins for my current uses.

And I use a Mamiya 7II when I shoot film with decent lighting, and a Nikon SP for low light.
 
I mostly use FF because Sony promotes it most heavily and many of their most interesting lenses are specifically designed for it. And because there's no real penalty for using my FF camera in crop-sensor mode, in a way I'm always carrying an APS-C outfit. FF lenses are bigger, but much of my shooting is done with just 35 and 50 mm focal lengths, so I'm able to keep the size manageable.

But for higher magnification work, I turn to smaller sensors, because the larger and heavier the outfit becomes, the less likely I am to use it except on designated "photo safaris", but I am more of a casual everyday shooter, and I usually have no idea what I will be photographing on any particular day. Even Sony's HX99 compact camera interests me because it's small enough to carry around without a second thought, but the same cannot be said for a 700 mm FF lens! Quality-wise, it's small-sensor performance versus either a severe crop or nothing at all, so to my way of thinking, even a small sensor can have value.
 
I bought my first real digital camera eight or ten years ago. I didn't know much about them so I headed down to the camera store. They showed me a Nikon D800 and a Canon 5D. There was no way I was going to carry around one of those big blobs of plastic. I ended up with a Fuji. My dealer didn't carry Sony or I probably would have gotten one of those. Every once and a while I think I really need a full frame camera, but I get over it pretty quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top