Full Frame vs APS-C

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, Sep 18, 2008.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    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?
    measekite, Sep 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. measekite

    saycheez Guest

    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?
    saycheez, Sep 18, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. measekite

    measekite Guest

    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.
    measekite, Sep 18, 2008
    #3
  4. measekite

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:26:08 -0700, "saycheez" <>
    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
    Eric Stevens, Sep 18, 2008
    #4
  5. measekite

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 18, 8:06 am, measekite <> 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
    Scott W, Sep 18, 2008
    #5
  6. measekite

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> 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-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-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.
    nospam, Sep 18, 2008
    #6
  7. measekite

    Archibald Guest

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:15:27 +1200, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:26:08 -0700, "saycheez" <>
    >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
    Archibald, Sep 18, 2008
    #7
  8. measekite

    Archibald Guest

    On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:21:12 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
    <> 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
    Archibald, Sep 18, 2008
    #8
  9. measekite

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:43:20 GMT, Archibald <>
    wrote:

    >On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:15:27 +1200, Eric Stevens
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:26:08 -0700, "saycheez" <>
    >>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
    Eric Stevens, Sep 19, 2008
    #9
  10. measekite

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 18, 12:47 pm, Archibald <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:21:12 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
    >
    > <> 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
    Scott W, Sep 19, 2008
    #10
  11. measekite

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    Scott W <> wrote:

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


    zooms are what sell, not fixed focal length lenses. nevertheless,
    there are a few for cropped sensors, including the nikon 10.5mm fisheye
    and the sigma 30mm f/1.4. there's no advantage in making a crop sensor
    that isn't a wide angle lens.
    nospam, Sep 19, 2008
    #11
  12. measekite

    Ray Fischer Guest

    measekite <> 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?


    16x20

    >Under what circumstances will you see a significant noticeable difference?


    You're looking for it.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Sep 19, 2008
    #12
  13. measekite

    Me Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Me" <> wrote:
    >> I've used a 12mp APS-c /and/ a Fx sensor 12mp at the same time. Even
    >> Canon "L" lenses on Fx (17-40l) was no better than a Sigma 10-20mm on Dx.
    >> There was nothing "wrong" with the 17-40 lens, just that edge-softness and
    >> vignetting were /about/ the same as the 10-20.

    >
    > The 17-40 needs to be stopped down to f/16. At which point it's quite nice
    > on the 5D. Which means you need your tripod along more of the time.
    >

    It /seemed/ better than a 16-35l I tried - even at f4. Sure, you'd
    normally stop UWA lenses down anyway for compositional reasons, not just
    optical (edge) performance. My Sigma 10-20 is pretty darned good -
    though I think I may have been lucky.
    >> In that case the D300 offered an advantage in automatic and very
    >> efficient removal of visible chromatic aberration - which usually made the
    >> result better.

    >
    > Lightroom should be doing that for you with the 5D as well. But I don't have
    > CA problems with the 17-40, I have mushy corner problems at f/11 and wider.
    >

    I wasn't using LR at the time.
    >
    >> If you want to shoot wide and ultra-wide, then the potential with Fx is
    >> better. The Nikkor 14-24 zoom is extremely good - unequaled by any other
    >> zoom.

    >
    > At the cost of, as you mention, bulk and weight and a protruding front
    > element. I'll pass and go for the Zeiss 18/3.5.
    >
    >> The Sigma 12-24 is wider still (it would be equivalent to 8mm on Dx
    >> crop-sensor - and there are no 8mm rectilinear Dx lenses made).

    >
    > Mine's soft in the corners until f/16. Sigh. And not all that great at f/16.
    > But 12mm is seriously wide.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/79930134/large
    >

    Nice shot - well framed.
    >> Ultimately, Fx can be better.

    >
    > Yes. But unless the 5DII and Sony A900 cough up the performance implied by
    > their pixel counts, it's not the slam dunk it was when 8MP was the best you
    > could get other than the 5D (other than the D2x noisebox).
    >
    > Also, with APS-C at 12 and 15MP, and FX at 21 and 24MP, life with dSLRs is
    > going to get a lot more painful. f/2.8 on FF and f/4.0 on DX are going to be
    > softer than people want, and f/11 on DX and f/16 on FF will also be softer
    > than people want. And consumer zooms won't cut it.
    >

    Yep - though on Dx, some of Nikons consumer zooms aren't bad
    (18-70/16-85VR), and the Canon kit lenses are apparently quite good now too.
    The 5dII release has made me rethink the 5d. I might be able to pick up
    a cheap Mk 1 sometime. Although I'm now a Nikon user, the shallow DOF
    with Fx has appeal, and the image quality from the 5d can be quite
    awesome. I might get one to use with just a 50mm f1.4. US$3k for D700
    doesn't make sense to me.
    >
    >> Practically, it depends what you need, what you are prepared to pay, and
    >> what you are prepared to put up with. (ie - a 14-24mm Nikkor is
    >> expensive - perhaps not relative to performance - is heavy, and has no way
    >> to mount a filter in front of the bulging front element for protection.)

    >
    > The Zeiss 18/3.5 and 21/2.8 will save Canon's and Canon user's butts here.
    > Canon lenses are great down to 24mm. While it's sort of cheating, the 24TSE
    > has great corner sharpness at f/8 on FF. And the shift is usable as long as
    > you either don't shift too far or keep detail out of the far corners. Back
    > in my OM-1n days, 24mm was my "normal" lens, and it's become that way again.
    >
    >> When dx cameras first became the only game in town - unless you wanted to
    >> pay a fortune for a Kodak Fx dslr - choices for wide and ultra-wide lenses
    >> weren't good. Since those days, most makers offer good and excellent
    >> crop-sensor wide-normal zooms, and there is a good choice of OEM and third
    >> party ultra wide lenses available. But the echoes from the bleating 5
    >> years ago can still be heard - and often made by people who don't have the
    >> ability to use an ultra-wide lens anyway.

    >
    > Hey! I resemble that remark. But the Canon 10-22 was fun on the 300D.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/43504181/large
    >
    Me, Sep 19, 2008
    #13
  14. "measekite" <> wrote in message
    news:UMwAk.607$...

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


    Wrong question.

    > Under what circumstances will you see a significant noticeable difference?


    Much better. Other things being equal, the larger sensor will give you less
    depth of field and either less noise, more resolution, or both.

    For example, the recently released Nikon D700 gives a "normal" ISO range up
    to 6400. The D300, which is almost as recent, goes only up to ISO 3200.
    The number of pixels in each of these cameras' sensors is essentially the
    same, so the extra stop of sensitivity probably comes from the bigger
    sensor.

    > 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.


    Correct.

    > 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?


    Who cares? The real question is which is more important to *you*. If you
    go with the bigger sensor, you will have greater wide-angle capability, more
    low-light sensitivity, and more options for selective focus. If you pick
    the smaller sensor, you will have greater telephoto capability, more options
    for extended depth of field, and more money in your pocket, in exchange for
    which you will have to sacrifice some of that wide-angle and low-light
    capability.

    Which alternative makes more sense for you is not something that other
    people can usefully tell you.
    Andrew Koenig, Sep 19, 2008
    #14
  15. Archibald wrote:
    []
    > And wine tasting. The "experts" can't tell which wine is best unless
    > they can see the label.
    >
    > Archibald


    No. (a) this doesn't happen in normal competitions - the labels are
    hidden, and (b) everyone's definition of "best" will differ, at least to
    the extent that the wine which may be generally agreed to be the "finest"
    may not suit your own palette best.

    Another example closer to photography. Many people hold certain
    black-and-white movies in high regard, but I can't stand them.

    So you choose the best tool for your photographic task, knowing that a
    larger-area sensor has the capability of producing a better image, if you
    need it.

    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 19, 2008
    #15
  16. measekite wrote:
    []
    > I understand about low light but not about lens cost. Most of the
    > EF-S series of lenses cost less then the newer IS enabled EF lenses.
    > Plus most people who have a 5D or better will usually get a L series
    > lens and they for the most part cost more.


    Perhaps Nikon offer better value in some parts of the lens range?

    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 19, 2008
    #16
  17. measekite

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 18, 1:42 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > "Scott W" <> wrote:
    >
    > > 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.
    > <<<<<<<<<<<<
    >
    > There are a few: Stigma 30/1.4, Canon 60mm macro. And any telephoto prime
    > that will produce a sharp image with a 1.4x TC on FF (that is, any tele
    > prime) will produce a sharp image on an APS-C camera, so all the tele primes
    > are "APS-C lenses".


    I have not had luck with Sigma lenses, maybe is was just the one I got
    but I would have a hard time buying one.
    The tele primes work great on an APS-C camera, It is the wide angle
    lenses that I really need, like how about an 18mm f/1.8? I would even
    be happy with a 18mm f/2.8.

    Scott
    Scott W, Sep 19, 2008
    #17
  18. measekite

    Me Guest

    Andrew Koenig wrote:
    > "measekite" <> wrote in message
    > news:UMwAk.607$...
    >
    >> How big a print before you see a significant noticeable difference?

    >
    > Wrong question.
    >
    >> Under what circumstances will you see a significant noticeable difference?

    >
    > Much better. Other things being equal, the larger sensor will give you less
    > depth of field and either less noise, more resolution, or both.
    >
    > For example, the recently released Nikon D700 gives a "normal" ISO range up
    > to 6400. The D300, which is almost as recent, goes only up to ISO 3200.
    > The number of pixels in each of these cameras' sensors is essentially the
    > same, so the extra stop of sensitivity probably comes from the bigger
    > sensor.


    Yes - but, arguably at the same FOV and desired DOF, you need one stop
    /more/ with Fx - which means longer shutter speed or higher ISO,
    canceling out the gain that many measurebating theorists (many of whom
    don't take real photos) claim. So it's lucky that the advantage of the
    example you gave (D300 vs D700) is about a stop and a half - not one
    stop. Fx wins by a bit. But /if/ the difference was so huge, then
    clearly small sensor point and shoot cameras /must/ be totally hopeless.
    Strangely enough, many of them aren't, thereby proving that the
    difference can't be "huge".
    "one stop" is IMO a good approximate metric with which to quantify the
    Fx vs Dx advantage. As ever, that last one stop costs.
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > Correct.
    >
    >> 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?

    >
    > Who cares? The real question is which is more important to *you*. If you
    > go with the bigger sensor, you will have greater wide-angle capability, more
    > low-light sensitivity, and more options for selective focus. If you pick
    > the smaller sensor, you will have greater telephoto capability, more options
    > for extended depth of field, and more money in your pocket, in exchange for
    > which you will have to sacrifice some of that wide-angle and low-light
    > capability.


    No you're wrong there. Options for extended DOF are exactly the same!
    >
    > Which alternative makes more sense for you is not something that other
    > people can usefully tell you.
    >
    >
    Me, Sep 19, 2008
    #18
  19. measekite

    measekite Guest

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:19:39 +0000, Andrew Koenig wrote:

    > "measekite" <> wrote in message
    > news:UMwAk.607$...
    >
    >> How big a print before you see a significant noticeable difference?

    >
    > Wrong question.
    >
    >> Under what circumstances will you see a significant noticeable difference?

    >
    > Much better. Other things being equal, the larger sensor will give you less
    > depth of field and either less noise, more resolution, or both.
    >
    > For example, the recently released Nikon D700 gives a "normal" ISO range up
    > to 6400. The D300, which is almost as recent, goes only up to ISO 3200.
    > The number of pixels in each of these cameras' sensors is essentially the
    > same, so the extra stop of sensitivity probably comes from the bigger
    > sensor.
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > Correct.
    >
    >> 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?

    >
    > Who cares? The real question is which is more important to *you*. If you
    > go with the bigger sensor, you will have greater wide-angle capability, more
    > low-light sensitivity, and more options for selective focus. If you pick
    > the smaller sensor, you will have greater telephoto capability, more options
    > for extended depth of field, and more money in your pocket, in exchange for
    > which you will have to sacrifice some of that wide-angle and low-light
    > capability.
    >
    > Which alternative makes more sense for you is not something that other
    > people can usefully tell you.


    I understand except for the depth of field part.

    Also, what I would like to know is if you use both cameras with comparable
    lenses and take the same photo of a scenic landscape and then crop as
    needed to get a 16x20 print what differences can one see and will those
    differences be significant?
    measekite, Sep 19, 2008
    #19
  20. measekite

    dj_nme Guest

    measekite wrote:
    <Big snip to save your mouse's scroll wheel>
    >
    > I understand except for the depth of field part.
    >
    > Also, what I would like to know is if you use both cameras with comparable
    > lenses and take the same photo of a scenic landscape and then crop as
    > needed to get a 16x20 print what differences can one see and will those
    > differences be significant?


    If both cameras had a lens of the same focal length and aperture setting
    and both had pixels of the same size (IE: 6mp APS-c Vs 12mp FF), then
    the crop from the FF sensor camera should look almost identical to the
    un-cropped APS-c sensor camera.
    On the other hand: if both were printed to fit and only cropped to fit
    the long side of the page, then the APS-c sensor camera image would have
    less DoF because the image must be printed 50% larger to fit the same
    paper size and everything is made larger including the difference
    between "in focus" and "slightly out of focus".
    dj_nme, Sep 20, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. R2D2

    4/3 vs APS vs 35mm Full Frame Sensors

    R2D2, Feb 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    8,088
    John Navas
    Feb 20, 2004
  2. wylbur37
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,070
    Jukka Aho
    Nov 6, 2006
  3. Don and Liz Campbell

    1 Frame per second frame capture rate

    Don and Liz Campbell, Mar 24, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    362
  4. Paul Flackett

    Resolution with APS sensor vs. full-frame

    Paul Flackett, Sep 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    858
    Kennedy McEwen
    Oct 1, 2005
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    48
    Views:
    1,076
    John Turco
    Apr 30, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page