Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Full Frame vs APS-C

Reply
Thread Tools

Full Frame vs APS-C

 
 
measekite
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2008
There are some who profess that a full frame sensor produces far better
images than the APS-C sensor.

There are other who profess that the full frame sensor only produces
better images under certain circumstances and only when enlarged to the
real big print.

My Questions:

How big a print before you see a significant noticeable difference?

Under what circumstances will you see a significant noticeable difference?

How much cropping needs to be done to see a significant noticeable
difference?

Opinions please!


For those who have used both; what differences do you see and where do you
see them?

The cost for a good APS-C sensor camera can range from about $800 to about
$1800 on the high end while the full frame sensor camera costs about
$3,000 plus the lenses are also more. In addition it is heavier and less
convenient.

It does have the advantage of better wide angle capability while the
smaller sensor has better telephoto range. Which is more important to
most people who want to create artistic scenic photographs?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
saycheez
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2008
It isn't what you see it is what you think you see that matters.
In the old days golden eared audiophiles would carp about the superiority of
high priced audio electronics (amplifiers, not speakers which can have
clearly audible differences).
However not one single double blind hearing test showed that these listeners
could identify the higher priced gear as superior. Some studies showed that
some listeners consistently discerned differences between mid-priced and
high priced electronics but could not reliably identify which was which.
The artistry (the vision thing) of the photographer and the skill of the
printer matter more than the gear.
Ever has it been ever shall it be.
Does anyone in their right mind, as opposed to those of us who frequent this
newsgroup, think it really matters if the umpteenth
wedding/advertising/snapshot image is captured with a 21 or a 6 mp sensor
when its all the same disposable junk imagery anyway?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
measekite
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2008
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:23:14 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

> measekite writes:
>
>> There are some who profess that a full frame sensor produces far better
>> images than the APS-C sensor.

>
> A larger surface will always produce a better image, all else being equal, and
> this is true for both digital and film.
>
>> My Questions:
>>
>> How big a print before you see a significant noticeable difference?
>>
>> Under what circumstances will you see a significant noticeable difference?
>>
>> How much cropping needs to be done to see a significant noticeable
>> difference?
>>
>> Opinions please!

>
> At normal viewing distances, a six-megapixel image approaches the limits of
> human vision. Higher resolutions do improve the image, but with rapidly
> diminishing returns. On the other hand, lower resolutions rapidly degrade the
> image, with individual pixels becoming so obvious that they are intrusive.
>
> "Normal viewing distance" means a viewing distance that is comparable to the
> diagonal of the image. If images will be examined more closely, more pixels
> are required; if they will only be seen from a distance or will be very small
> (like thumbnail images), few pixels are required.


I am not speaking about MP I am speaking about the size of the sensor and
where and under what circumstances a larger sensor can produce
substantially better images that are printed and again at what size.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Stevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2008
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:26:08 -0700, "saycheez" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>It isn't what you see it is what you think you see that matters.
>In the old days golden eared audiophiles would carp about the superiority of
>high priced audio electronics (amplifiers, not speakers which can have
>clearly audible differences).
>However not one single double blind hearing test showed that these listeners
>could identify the higher priced gear as superior. Some studies showed that
>some listeners consistently discerned differences between mid-priced and
>high priced electronics but could not reliably identify which was which.


There was one famous double-blind test organised by Peter Walker of
Quad in which he challenged critics to show that they could reliably
tell the difference between a Quad amplifier and a Naim. All of the
front line critics found reasons whey they couldn't take part.
Aspiring second line critics participated and were found to perform no
better than random chance.

Peter Walker then explained and demonstrated there was a difference in
sound and why that should be. He then made a small change to the Quad
and made it sound like a Naim, and vice versa.

Ultra crticism enters the relms of bullshit. The same applies to
photography.

>The artistry (the vision thing) of the photographer and the skill of the
>printer matter more than the gear.
>Ever has it been ever shall it be.
>Does anyone in their right mind, as opposed to those of us who frequent this
>newsgroup, think it really matters if the umpteenth
>wedding/advertising/snapshot image is captured with a 21 or a 6 mp sensor
>when its all the same disposable junk imagery anyway?




Eric Stevens
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2008
On Sep 18, 8:06*am, measekite <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> There are some who profess that a full frame sensor produces far better
> images than the APS-C sensor.
>
> There are other who profess that the full frame sensor only produces
> better images under certain circumstances and only when enlarged to the
> real big print.
>
> My Questions:
>
> How big a print before you see a significant noticeable difference?
>
> Under what circumstances will you see a significant noticeable difference?
>
> How much cropping needs to be done to see a significant noticeable
> difference?
>
> Opinions please!
>
> For those who have used both; what differences do you see and where do you
> see them?
>
> The cost for a good APS-C sensor camera can range from about $800 to about
> $1800 on the high end while the full frame sensor camera costs about
> $3,000 plus the lenses are also more. *In addition it is heavier and less
> convenient.
>
> It does have the advantage of better wide angle capability while the
> smaller sensor has better telephoto range. *Which is more important to
> most people who want to create artistic scenic photographs?


The larger sensor is going to give you the most bang for the buck in
low light conditions.

A larger sensor will use less expensive lenses, not more. For example
the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens is cost around $70, to get the same field of
view on a cropped sensor camera you would need something around 28mm,
a 28mm f/1.8 costs far more then the 50mm one.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> There was one famous double-blind test organised by Peter Walker of
> Quad in which he challenged critics to show that they could reliably
> tell the difference between a Quad amplifier and a Naim. All of the
> front line critics found reasons whey they couldn't take part.
> Aspiring second line critics participated and were found to perform no
> better than random chance.


my favourite is monster cable versus coat hangers:

<http://consumerist.com/362926/do-coa...od-monster-cab
les>

Seven different songs were played, each time heard with the speaker
hooked up to Monster Cables, and the other time, hooked up to coat
hanger wire. Nobody could determine which was the Monster Cable and
which was the coat hanger. The kicker? None of the subjects even knew
that coat hangers were going to be used.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Archibald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2008
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:15:27 +1200, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:26:08 -0700, "saycheez" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>It isn't what you see it is what you think you see that matters.
>>In the old days golden eared audiophiles would carp about the superiority of
>>high priced audio electronics (amplifiers, not speakers which can have
>>clearly audible differences).
>>However not one single double blind hearing test showed that these listeners
>>could identify the higher priced gear as superior. Some studies showed that
>>some listeners consistently discerned differences between mid-priced and
>>high priced electronics but could not reliably identify which was which.

>
>There was one famous double-blind test organised by Peter Walker of
>Quad in which he challenged critics to show that they could reliably
>tell the difference between a Quad amplifier and a Naim. All of the
>front line critics found reasons whey they couldn't take part.
>Aspiring second line critics participated and were found to perform no
>better than random chance.
>
>Peter Walker then explained and demonstrated there was a difference in
>sound and why that should be. He then made a small change to the Quad
>and made it sound like a Naim, and vice versa.
>
>Ultra crticism enters the relms of bullshit. The same applies to
>photography.


And wine tasting. The "experts" can't tell which wine is best unless
they can see the label.

Archibald
 
Reply With Quote
 
Archibald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2008
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:21:12 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>A larger sensor will use less expensive lenses, not more. For example
>the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens is cost around $70, to get the same field of
>view on a cropped sensor camera you would need something around 28mm,
>a 28mm f/1.8 costs far more then the 50mm one.
>
>Scott


That's because there isn't a 28mm f/1.8 made for the small sensor. If
there was, and once it was mass-produced, it would probably be cheaper
(and lighter) than the 50mm f/1.8.

Archibald
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Stevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2008
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:43:20 GMT, Archibald <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:15:27 +1200, Eric Stevens
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:26:08 -0700, "saycheez" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>It isn't what you see it is what you think you see that matters.
>>>In the old days golden eared audiophiles would carp about the superiority of
>>>high priced audio electronics (amplifiers, not speakers which can have
>>>clearly audible differences).
>>>However not one single double blind hearing test showed that these listeners
>>>could identify the higher priced gear as superior. Some studies showed that
>>>some listeners consistently discerned differences between mid-priced and
>>>high priced electronics but could not reliably identify which was which.

>>
>>There was one famous double-blind test organised by Peter Walker of
>>Quad in which he challenged critics to show that they could reliably
>>tell the difference between a Quad amplifier and a Naim. All of the
>>front line critics found reasons whey they couldn't take part.
>>Aspiring second line critics participated and were found to perform no
>>better than random chance.
>>
>>Peter Walker then explained and demonstrated there was a difference in
>>sound and why that should be. He then made a small change to the Quad
>>and made it sound like a Naim, and vice versa.
>>
>>Ultra crticism enters the relms of bullshit. The same applies to
>>photography.

>
>And wine tasting. The "experts" can't tell which wine is best unless
>they can see the label.
>

That doesn't happen in any wine competition of which I am aware. The
only visible labels on the bottles carry a number.



Eric Stevens
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2008
On Sep 18, 12:47*pm, Archibald <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:21:12 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >A larger sensor will use less expensive lenses, not more. *For example
> >the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens is cost around $70, to get the same field of
> >view on a cropped sensor camera you would need something around 28mm,
> >a 28mm f/1.8 costs far more then the 50mm one.

>
> >Scott

>
> That's because there isn't a 28mm f/1.8 made for the small sensor. If
> there was, and once it was mass-produced, it would probably be cheaper
> (and lighter) than the 50mm f/1.8.


True, it really bugs me that there are no prime lenses for the cropped
sensors.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[ANN] Debian ruby-full package - a full installation of Ruby vince.hetk@gmail.com Ruby 1 05-28-2007 05:08 PM
Re: XP Pro (Full) , X64 (Full) and Windows Server 2003 R2 TRIAL - which is latest ntldr ? - Bobb - Windows 64bit 9 12-14-2005 04:59 PM
Options for generic full-text search without using database-specific full-text engine? Samuel R. Neff ASP .Net 2 06-10-2005 06:53 PM
Nikon Pro Digital SLR with full 35mm frame sensor in the works? J. Sm Digital Photography 9 10-08-2003 07:17 PM
Re: no full frame cheap dslr on horizon. Charles Schuler Digital Photography 2 08-26-2003 09:06 PM



Advertisments