Jump to content

Full-frame or APS-C?


pierces
 Share

Recommended Posts

An interesting video that compares real-world portrait shooting with full-frame vs. APS-C. The photographer makes some good points and I tend to agree with the outcome. Lighting, composition and processing has a far larger impact on the final result than the size of the sensor. Full frame has advantages in dynamic range and bokeh (with the same lens and f/stop) but are the advantages worth the typical 3x the price? Your mileage may vary.

 

And, yes, I will probably go full-frame someday for the resolution but I am not expecting it to suddenly make me into a great photographer and am still in no big hurry.

 

DP Review video: https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0851604943/video-full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-portrait-shootout

 

Your thoughts?

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, since I do a lot of long range shooting, I will happily trade some bokeh etc for the additional range a crop gives me. Every so often I find it limiting when I want to do a REALLY wide shot, but that's about it.

 

For portrait work I might look to full frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crop really can be limiting on the wide end. I had the disappointing experience of a mix of APS-H (Canon's wacky 1.3x crop factor, that I called "half-crop") and APS-C (Canon's 1.6x stuff: Rebel, 40D, 7D). Best I could do for wide on the APS-C was the EF-S 10-22 (16-35 effective) back then, whereas for the APS-H, the best I could do was 14mm prime (18mm effective). Once we went FF, everything just seemed to fall into place, as so many lenses "made sense" all of a sudden: 16-35 really was wide, 24-70 really was usable as a first-out lens, 85 primes really did work for tighter portraiture but you didn't have to yell, 50 primes made sense (as opposed to a cheap crop alternative for the 85mm effective focal length), etc. Even the 70-200 made different sense, though I did all of a sudden have a need for something longer.

 

And although I realize it's not for everybody, the 50mp Canon 5DsR means I can often survive with just a 16-35 (and crop for a ways into the shot, and still be happy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A large majority of my shooting tends towards longer distance or smaller subjects requiring lots of telephoto - so for me, APS-C is the easy winner. Not to say I don't shoot wide and enjoy it, it's just that I shoot long much more than wide - so if I have to compromise somewhere, it's easier for me to adapt the wide with some compromise (a 10-18mm UWA will do the job well enough) and make sure I have the reach (up to 1,500mm equivalent with focal and TCs combined). I've considered how the high resolution full frame cameras can crop to match the APS-C framing, which is true - but they're not quite there yet with resolution - the 42MP full-frame sensors when cropped to APS-C have 18MP remaining...having 24MP on APS-C is still an advantage for me...and that's not even getting into cost,since the high-res full framers do cost considerably more. I'm already spending on the big lenses, so better for me to stick to the most resolution I can get from the camera body for a reasonable budget. If full-framers get up to 60MP, and higher, to where the cropped APS-C results are coming in at or higher than 24MP...then I start seriously considering them, but even then, I need to weigh whether a slight IQ advantage can justify 4 - 8x the expense.

 

For the foreseeable future, I'm an APS-C guy - I love the popular and highly-used Sony 24MP sensor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the foreseeable future, I'm an APS-C guy - I love the popular and highly-used Sony 24MP sensor.

 

If the sensor tech in the A9 trickles down to APS-C and APS-C gets any resolution bump at all, I may renege on my "I will probably go full-frame someday" statement. After I wrote that I was unpacking the travel kit and putting lenses away. I picked up my trusty old A77 and totally fell in love with the A6x00 cameras again. The size of the Sony APS-C cameras is just remarkable considering what they can do.

 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts..

 

First off, you can play this game at every level. Is APS-C really an advantage over m4:3? Is m4:3 really an advantage over 1-inch sensors? Are 1-inch sensors really an advantage over smart phones?

And on the other side, is medium format really better than full frame?

These are each steps... No 1 step has the magical earth shattering difference in quality and performance. For everyone, it's a compromise of price, weight, needs and image quality. There is no right or wrong spot to find that perfect compromise spot.

 

My own subjective thoughts -- I see clear advantages of full frame and greatly prefer it over aps-c, but I recognize that photographer skill, composition, lenses, lighting, etc... all mean a lot more than the sensor size. For most casual shooters, I would not urge them to go full frame.

 

For me, the advantages of full frame are numerous:

1 -- Though not commonly noted, you get more perceived resolution on full frame. I'm not even talking about 42-50mp sensors. On a full frame 24mp sensor, you will get greater perceived resolution than on aps-c, with the same or comparable lens. I definitely notice my D750 images are sharper with more detail than my A6300 images, and they are both 24mp.

2-- Full frame typically has more dynamic range. Though many will say it's a small difference, I find the difference very noticeable in my day to day shooting. On my D750, I will often push shadows up +90 or more in lightroom, and I get beautiful extra detail without sacrifice. On my A6300, I generally dare not go beyond about +60-+70.. after which things get ugly.

3--Full frame has 1-2 more stops of usable ISO. Testing will often say it is a 1 stop difference. In my real world use, I find it is closer to 2, though it depends on the circumstances. But being able to nudge ISO up from 3200 to 6400 can become a great benefit.

4--Far better control over bokeh and narrow depth of field. I often shoot in the 1.8-2.8 range. For portraits and "art" style shooting, I appreciate the far better ability to get narrow depth of field.

5-- I like wide. I've been playing with an Irix 11mm. So on full frame, it is.... 11mm!!! Not fisheye.. rectilinear 11mm. There are now lots of lens choices between 11 and 14mm for full frame. On aps-c, you have no options that will get you a result any wider than about 15-16mm. And that's a pretty bit difference!

 

A word on the extra "reach" of aps-c.... It's a mixture of truth and fiction in my experience. Certainly, the same lenses are giving you greater reach straight out of the camera. But then when you combine it with the other factors...

 

I've often pulled out my A6300 for telephoto needs, with the very good 70-200/4 lens, to get effective 300mm of 24mp.

But at times, I've used the Nikon 70-200/4 on my D750, and just cropped the 200mm reach.

With all the advantages of full frame... I often find I prefer the cropped D750 image over the "uncropped" aps-c image.

The superior image quality of the D750 will often let me crop to 100% and retain a sharp detailed image. I've never been able to crop an aps-c image to 100% without it starting to get soft.

So while shooting aps-c does give you an extra 50% of reach in theory (60% on Canon), in practice, I find you are getting less extra than that.

 

Now, for most casual shooters.. I'll re-emphasize, full frame is probably not worth the cost. But if you an enthusiast/pro/semi-pro and you've become a bit of an image quality pixel-peeping snob.... if you can afford full frame, go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still maintain that it's the end result that counts. The perceived difference in a 24 x 36 print shot well on either format and viewed at a normal distance is insignificant (never mind that it is far more likely that images will be viewed on a phone or tablet). I have yet to have someone look at a print of mine and ask for the original image so they can peep it at 100% to see if they really like the shot. ;)

 

I would also note that APS-C isn't only for "casual" photographers in the same way that full-frame isn't just for "serious" photographers or "pros". I have seen awesome images milked from a point & shoot and some serious crap from a $10k rig. A lot of serious crap. Some in museums and galleries. Both APS-C and Full-Fame have gotten so good in the last few years that it really does boil down to personal preference, regardless of your "seriousness".

 

Besides with the end result being so close for the difference in price, I'd rather go to some exotic locale with my A6300 than sit at home and photograph my cat with my A9 or A7r II.

 

Happy Shooting! (Regardless of format...)

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still maintain that it's the end result that counts. The perceived difference in a 24 x 36 print shot well on either format and viewed at a normal distance is insignificant (never mind that it is far more likely that images will be viewed on a phone or tablet). I have yet to have someone look at a print of mine and ask for the original image so they can peep it at 100% to see if they really like the shot. ;)

 

I would also note that APS-C isn't only for "casual" photographers in the same way that full-frame isn't just for "serious" photographers or "pros". I have seen awesome images milked from a point & shoot and some serious crap from a $10k rig. A lot of serious crap. Some in museums and galleries. Both APS-C and Full-Fame have gotten so good in the last few years that it really does boil down to personal preference, regardless of your "seriousness".

 

Besides with the end result being so close for the difference in price, I'd rather go to some exotic locale with my A6300 than sit at home and photograph my cat with my A9 or A7r II.

 

Happy Shooting! (Regardless of format...)

 

Dave

 

1– Yes, it’s the end results that count. And most of my shooting is for my own satisfaction. So to my eye, I do notice the differences in my end results. Not like I can look at an image and immediately know which is which sensor. And some of my aps-c images are far better than some of my poor FF images. But over the course of taking thousands of images, overall... I do personally notice the many superiorities of full frame. My eye is more trained than most viewers.

So I don’t care whether other views can appreciate the difference — I can appreciate it.

And truthfully... my clients and other viewers appreciate it as well. They may not articulate it in the same way. But they are more likely to be wowed by the FF images than the APS-C images. My portrait clients appreciate the narrower DOF. Overall sharper FF images are more likely to impress.

 

2– I never meant to imply that APS-C is solely for casual shooters. I was saying APS-C is fine for most shooters — including many enthusiasts and some pros — it’s fine for most people who aren’t pixel peeping IQ snobs. I am a pixel peeping IQ snob (not proud to admit it), so FF is for me.

So it’s not a question of “serious,” it’s a question of what you prioritize. If milking out the best possible IQ, especially in challenging light, is a priority, then full frame is a great way to go. If you’re more a fair weather photographer, who doesn’t care too much about DOF, and you don’t pixel peep much.... there is little reason to go FF.

 

3–I agree, I wouldn’t pick a FF camera over the chance to take a nice trip with an APS-C camera. But that all depends on personal budget. If my budget choices were trip+phone camera, versus aps-c... then I wouldn’t take aps-c either.

 

But a little story — I took my FF Nikon D750 with 11mm lens to Volcano Bay/Universal. Took a nice shot of the Volcano Wave pool.

I could NOT have gotten the image with aps-c. It would have been physically impossible to get the 11mm perspective with aps-c.

Additionally, I got far more detailed resolution than I would have gotten with aps-c.

 

When I got home, I sold the image to the company that made the wave pool for several hundred dollars. I couldn’t have done it with aps-c.

 

Absolutely... I could have gotten a very nice 15mm image with my aps-c camera. It would have been “good enough” for most people and most situations. But the FF gave me even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add "personal priorities" to the prior "boils down to" evaluation.

 

My main goal in photography is to have fun and shoot pictures that make me happy. Maybe my retirement job will involve selling images or prints. Maybe I'll open a micro-brewery. Maybe a portrait studio that serves beer...that I make. And cupcakes.

 

Getting late it seems.

 

:D

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1– Yes, it’s the end results that count. And most of my shooting is for my own satisfaction. So to my eye, I do notice the differences in my end results. Not like I can look at an image and immediately know which is which sensor. And some of my aps-c images are far better than some of my poor FF images. But over the course of taking thousands of images, overall... I do personally notice the many superiorities of full frame. My eye is more trained than most viewers. So I don’t care whether other views can appreciate the difference — I can appreciate it.

 

 

So it’s not a question of “serious,” it’s a question of what you prioritize. If milking out the best possible IQ, especially in challenging light, is a priority, then full frame is a great way to go. If you’re more a fair weather photographer, who doesn’t care too much about DOF, and you don’t pixel peep much.... there is little reason to go FF.

Fully agree. I used to not care. Then I rented a 1Dx, and "it was over": we ditched APS-C within a year.

 

Back to the concept of shooting for enjoyment: lenses like the 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2, etc. are simply a lot more fun on FF than crop. Sure, a 50/1.2 behaves almost like an 85 on crop, but it's not the same: a 50 is usually made for that classic "normal prime" look, whereas an 85 is often made to be a portrait lens (think bokeh, focus performance, vignetting, etc.). A 14 is made to be ultra-wide; using it at 21mm EFL just isn't the same. I would say that the 200/2 is a unique exception: that one has been a blast to shoot on any camera.

 

As far as I know, nobody makes an APS-C DSLR without an AA filter: that seems to be the realm of the Canon 5DsR and a couple of Nikons. Once you go without an AA filter, you're not going to want to go back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fully agree. I used to not care. Then I rented a 1Dx, and "it was over": we ditched APS-C within a year.

 

Back to the concept of shooting for enjoyment: lenses like the 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2, etc. are simply a lot more fun on FF than crop. Sure, a 50/1.2 behaves almost like an 85 on crop, but it's not the same: a 50 is usually made for that classic "normal prime" look, whereas an 85 is often made to be a portrait lens (think bokeh, focus performance, vignetting, etc.). A 14 is made to be ultra-wide; using it at 21mm EFL just isn't the same. I would say that the 200/2 is a unique exception: that one has been a blast to shoot on any camera.

 

As far as I know, nobody makes an APS-C DSLR without an AA filter: that seems to be the realm of the Canon 5DsR and a couple of Nikons. Once you go without an AA filter, you're not going to want to go back.

 

The last statement is very telling. Very few people that go full frame ever go back. Those that go to pro lenses, seldom go back to consumer lenses.

 

Unless you believe all these users aren’t rational...

There clearly are significant advantages.

 

I’ve seen some people claim there is no reason to upgrade from a kit lens. As evidence, they point to a mid-frame crop taken at f8 on a sunny day.

To someone always shooting at f8 on sunny days— there may not be significant advantages of better lenses.

 

the significance of the advantages aren’t the same for every photographer. And then balancing the advantages against weight, price and potential disadvantages, each photographer settles on their own gear.

 

You pointed to your 200mm being equally good on all cameras. For telephoto shooting, I don’t see many advantages of full frame.

 

I strongly considered upgrading to the Nikon d850– lack of AA filter, 46mp, and other advantages would almost certainly be “significant.”

 

But I ultimately decided that all things considered, the advantages weren’t significant enough for me to pay the extra money and carry the extra weight.

Though I suspect if I started using the D850 for a few weeks or months, it would be hard for me to “go back.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The significance of the advantages aren’t the same for every photographer. And then balancing the advantages against weight, price and potential disadvantages, each photographer settles on their own gear...

 

We all seem to keep coming back to that... :)

 

...But I ultimately decided that all things considered, the advantages weren’t significant enough for me to pay the extra money and carry the extra weight.

 

Ah-ha!

 

Again a point. If you are happy with the kit lens and see no need to upgrade, "Personal preference". I have been moving up the ladder of lens quality and when I reach a level, It's not that I wouldn't go back but rather I can't see a reason to. I've spent the money and have the lens. I will, however use the pretty-darned-good kit lens for when I don't want to haul the always bigger and heavier "better" lens on a business trip. So, sort of going back and I don't feel all that irrational. ;) I'd probably make the same decision about taking a somewhat larger A7 series camera along on a non-photo trip and pack the APS-C. There's a reason the A6000 is the largest selling interchangeable lens camera ever and I suspect part of that is the attraction of having a smaller option that doesn't give up much in the way of IQ.

 

For years, I've said that the best camera for all situations is two (or three!) cameras. :)

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love my full frame dSLR but tha5 doesn’t mean I don’t at times find my other gear better for the job. Maybe a “c” sensor, maybe a mirrorless perhaps a go pro or even a medium format. In reality not much different than back when I shot film,

 

It really comes down to horses for courses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the years I accumulated a closetful of photo equipment. Liquidating much of that gave me the chance to try a few options. So in the last 3 years I have had (Pentax) APS-C (the K-3 most recently), Full Frame (K-1), and Medium Format (645Z). Setting aside $$$$ issues for the moment, all other things equal, I would shoot only with the 645Z. The image quality, the tonality, dynamic range, the feel of the camera in my hand, heavenly. But I don't always use a tripod, the 645Z unlike the other Pentax bodies does not have in-body image stabilization/shake reduction and I never was able to buy the 2-3 newer lenses that have SR in the lens. Also, no lens available wider than a 24mm (35mm format equivalent FOV.) The K-3 was super in all respects: usability, durability, image quality. But as an APS-C, few if any options for wide angle. The K-1 Full Frame with a 15-30/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 is a large heavy kit that is equal or better in terms of image quality compared to the other two. And obviously wide is not an issue. (A nice 11/4.0 is available if I want to go that far.)

 

So, APS-C vs. Full Frame (vs medium format)? For me the Full Frame FOV and in-body shake reduction balances out against the cost and weight. (Which is not that different from the 645 system.) If Pentax/Ricoh went belly-up and I had to switch, then the Nikon UI and in other respects seems most like what I am used to with Pentax, and I would probably explore FF offerings there. Or buy a stockpile of 645 bodies and lenses and make do with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there was the fantastic video posted by photographer Manny Ortiz (and his lovely model/wife) comparing portraits with the A6300 with portraits with the A9. So getting 24mp portraits with each....

He was making the point that you *could* get identical photos with each.

 

Unfortunately, he kinda footnoted the differences.

 

In order to get identical appearing images -- First off, he used different lenses. 55mm on the A6300 and 85mm on the A9.

Not that big a deal.. we know you have to correct for crop factor.

 

But then this is the critical difference -- He shot the A6300 wide open at F1.8. He stopped the A9 down to F2.8 in most of the images, in order to get identical depth of field.

That's a MAJOR CHEAT. That's like racing a professional race car against a Chevy Malibu.... Racing the Malibu at full speed, but intentionally only going half-speed on the race car... and then proclaiming the race ended in a tie!

 

By stopping down the full frame..... it gave you inferior DOF separation and bokeh than you could have gotten. It also required you to use a higher ISO than on the A6300!

Yes... the image shot on the A6300, at 55mm, F1.8, ISO 3200... may have been virtually identical to the image taken on the A9 at F2.8 ISO6400!

But how would the A6300-1.8-ISO3200 have compared to the A9 at 1.8/ISO3200? The images would no longer been identical.... the A9 would have had significantly narrower depth of field, better bokeh, less noise, more dynamic range.

 

Also, going back to using different lenses --- No big deal if you are shooting at an effective focal length of 85mm. But what if you want to shoot at an effective focal length of 11mm-14mm? There are no equivalent lenses that exist for APS-C.

 

So I agree with his general point -- You can get fantastic portraits from APS-C. Not everyone would *need* full frame. And under the right circumstances, the APS-C portraits may indeed be virtually identical to full frame portraits.

 

But there are also many circumstances where full frame can give a clear advantage. And at the end of the video, he acknowledges those advantages (including what I said about more resolution coming out of full frame even when both cameras are 24mp). And he explains that he does indeed use full frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again a point. If you are happy with the kit lens and see no need to upgrade, "Personal preference". I have been moving up the ladder of lens quality and when I reach a level, It's not that I wouldn't go back but rather I can't see a reason to. I've spent the money and have the lens. I will, however use the pretty-darned-good kit lens for when I don't want to haul the always bigger and heavier "better" lens on a business trip. So, sort of going back and I don't feel all that irrational. ;)

 

On the first point -- If any camera gear that I buy does not give me a significantly advantage, I return it! As an example.... I sold off my Sony SEL 16-70/4 and the 16-50 -- Neither of them were giving me the quality that I prefer. So I decided to just to primes for most of that range. (I have the 10-18, the 35m/1.8 and the 50/.18... then moving up to the 70-200/4). I didn't feel the 16-70/4 was giving me a significant advantage over those lenses, so I got rid of it.

 

For you, your lens switching is not irrational at all -- If you find the 16-70/4 to be superior to the 16-50. You are just using the different lenses for different advantages. When you want to go small, you are sacrificing the superior image quality, in order to keep size down. When size is less of an issue, you use the superior lens.

You would be very irrational -- If you found the 16-70/4 was no better than the 16-50... if you found they gave identical IQ, and gave identical uses (if the focal length was the exact same too!), and yet you still kept the more expensive lens.

 

I know you well enough to know you are indeed very rational -- The reason you keep the new lens, isn't just because it's there... you keep it because you do find it gives you some advantages over what you had before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...