fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2

4 5 6 end

Archive 2019 · APS-C vs Full Frame

chiron
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #1 · APS-C vs Full Frame

I think it would be very interesting and useful if someone who owns both a 6300/6400/6500 and an a73 or a9 woud be willing to do some comparison test shots under 2-3 different but relevant circumstances (e.g, low light, deep shadows, balanced lighting, etc.), in much the same way that we sometimes post lens comparisons. I pick these cameras because I think the mpix should stay the same.

The idea would be not to "prove" that one is better than another, but to provide a chance to see what loks different and how different under relevant circumstances. Crops could be provided to approach 100% pixel peeping.

Anyone willing who has the gear?

Jun 23, 2019 at 12:39 PM

pwpub
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · APS-C vs Full Frame

I have used varying duo sets of Sony FF and APS-C cameras for a long time, since this setup fits best for my travels. A wider lens on FF and the tele mounted on the ASP-C body is just a perfectly flexible setup. And for adventurous (wet, muddy, exhausting) side trips, underwater excursions (plus UW case), or night-outs, the compact ASP-C body with a small wide such as 24/1.8 ZA, PC 16-50/3.5-5.6 or even 16-35/4 ZA will always fit.

Currently my setup is the A7R III coupled with A6400. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to produce and present some comparable test shots. But I always prefer the FF output. Better DR, better ISO performance, better DOF, and most importantly better image rendering - FF images just have more depth and breadth. Easily seen in post-processing. Maybe this is due to the 24MP crammed on a ASP-C sensor. As such, the FF body is always preferred for high-end/important shots such as landscapes, portraits, low light, etc. ASP-C's advantage is "always at hand" and more reach with tele lenses. Also, ASP-C lenses are substantially cheaper, even though I only use two currently.

I had a few brief flirts with 1-inch bodies as replacement for ASP-C, such as the RX100 variants and the very capable RX10 IV. RX100 output was below my acceptable threshold. RX10 IV with that marvelous 24-600 Zeiss lens delivered good image quality, indeed - especially for macro and tele shots, but the bridge concept with one fixed lens turned out as not flexible enough for my needs. Hence I'm back to FF/ASP-C combo, which allows to rotate and change lenses as the situation demands.

Jun 23, 2019 at 02:22 PM

lightskyland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · APS-C vs Full Frame

I could go on, but suffice it to say that in my shooting I find lots of times when having the ability to handle a high DR shooting environment makes a big difference.

I occasionally find such conditions for my landscape work. I have zero interest in getting rid of my A7R3, and am even contemplating purchase of a MF camera to supplement it for car/tripod work.

Nonetheless, I find it a joy to hike with the 6500 + 18-135 lens (with or without the CV10 in my pocket).

I find no such joy hiking with the A7R3 + 24-105, for very little IQ improvement!

Jun 23, 2019 at 02:31 PM

nandadevieast
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · APS-C vs Full Frame

I agree on FF and APSc combination. FF files do have a look about them that is hard to produce by smaller formats. But i feel that may be the function of faster available lenses for FF. I don�t see the similar look when i use my 28-70 or even with my 24-105 when i had it. I think if someone shoots FF, fast primes leverage the advantage i am talking about (the look).
I have bought RX10IV twice only to get rid of it later. I agree that there is compromise, but a great camera nevertheless.

Jun 23, 2019 at 02:33 PM

nandadevieast
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · APS-C vs Full Frame

What evidence do you want me to offer? Technical tests? I have already pointed out FF will win in such tests.

vdo1 wrote:
Deciding what constitutes "extraordinary claim" is a function of the audience, not the speaker.

So I'm asking again - do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Jun 23, 2019 at 02:35 PM

lightskyland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · APS-C vs Full Frame

I really like the RX100VI for when I really want to walk around and ignore photography unless a photo presents itself. Great, sharp lens, only a bit lacking in DR compared to larger sensors but otherwise delightful!

The RX10 IV is also an amazing camera with a stellar lens, and perfect for telephoto landscape opportunities. But again the DR just isn't as high as I would like for some landscape opportunities, so it doesn't get as much use as I would like to give it.

Jun 23, 2019 at 02:49 PM

sungphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · APS-C vs Full Frame

chiron wrote:
What changes in image characteristics, image quality, and light handling when one goes from full frame to aps-c? I know this is discussed in passing in various threads, but the information is not in one place.

I am seriously thinking about building a small aps-c kit for the sake of the smallness and lightness and for purposes of travel and easy-carry in everyday circumstances, e.g. just going for a walk. The appeal of the aps-c to me is that it gets closer to the experience of carrying a Leica or Contax G-2 or other small rangefinder, and that is very...Show more →

It's kind of a 1 step forward, 1 step back kind of situation in real world shooting having shot both full and crop sensor sony cameras quite a bit, often side by side. Ultimately, I think the thing (that you recognize) is that the sensor format is a pretty small part of final image output unless you're trying to print something 4x6 ft.

A few factors off the top of my head that make a pretty big impact outside of sensor output are:

-autofocus performance in challenging low light environments: I've primarily used the A6300 and A6500, and generally in very low light they tend to hunt more or have issues achieving focus lock at all, which obviously impacts your ability to even get the photo in the first place
-lens options and performance: Primarily on the wide end - sony doesn't have a great selection of crop lenses. The 10-18 f4 is just ok wide open, and in my experience doesn't really start to get sharp in the corners until around f8. Mild wide angle primes with fast apertures are also still going to be pretty big regardless (like the excellent 16 f1.4 and 30 f1.4 sigma). On the other hand teles are actually pretty solid - I've been impressed with the performance of the 55-210 kit lens
-user interface and EVF: Lack of an autofocus point joystick bugs me in the crop bodies, and I've found that I end up using center point and focusing and recomposing on the A6500 because I dislike the ergos have using the little directional menu pad for that. Also the EVF on the crop bodies are a bit cramped and don't have as effective hoods as the full frame bodies out of the box.
-post-processing technique and experience: This obviously has a huge impact, as just using in-camera noise reduction versus a more conscious approach in LR and photoshop can be a night and day difference.
-your subjective preferences in terms of what constitutes a "good" image, and acceptable levels of noise: I personally find that crop body high iso performance starts to fall apart around 3200 for my tastes, and at 6400 the noise looks more "digital" than full frame sensors of the same resolution.

These are a few photos taken with both full frame and crop sensor sonys. Can you pick which came from which?

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/599076f5cd39c3b3ad195047/580bac8e37c5818da2af5dac/1543867377734/DSC01936.jpg

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/56c0025d8259b52d1721ee88/5ac77d24f950b7346fcc8579/1559656943008/DSC05163.jpg

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/56c0025d8259b52d1721ee88/5ac77d26575d1fe03454b6df/1543867079539/IMG_1638.jpeg

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/599076f5cd39c3b3ad195047/5990774e6f4ca37e4c940d6f/1561221484980/IMG_9603.JPG

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/56c0025d8259b52d1721ee88/5ac77d251ae6cf25275c7510/1549039337655/IMG_1789.jpeg

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/599076f5cd39c3b3ad195047/59907780ebbd1a302a0a0902/1561221487255/DSC09094.jpg

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/56c0025d8259b52d1721ee88/5ac77d26352f539a7cade632/1559656942844/IMG_1413.jpeg

Jun 23, 2019 at 02:58 PM

chiron
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #8 · APS-C vs Full Frame

sungphoto wrote:
It's kind of a 1 step forward, 1 step back kind of situation in real world shooting having shot both full and crop sensor sony cameras quite a bit, often side by side. Ultimately, I think the thing (that you recognize) is that the sensor format is a pretty small part of final image output unless you're trying to print something 4x6 ft.

A few factors off the top of my head that make a pretty big impact outside of sensor output are:

-autofocus performance in challenging low light environments: I've primarily used the A6300 and A6500, and generally in very low...Show more →

Very nice images, Sung, and I appreciate the points you made in your discussion. But as far as guessing which sensor size was used for which picture, with such different subject matter, camera settings, lenses, and lighting, it is not meaningful to try to pick which is which.

One is really not isolating the factor of the sensor size but is just confusing the issue with so many unrelated variables. Holding everything constant while only varying the sensor would b more interesting and relevant in the context of this thread.

Jun 23, 2019 at 03:16 PM

JohanEickmeyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · APS-C vs Full Frame

Sony APS-C cameras have great sensors. I actually like using my a6300 for landscapes more than my old full frame gear.

Sadly, I think cameras like the a6xxx line are horrible ergonomically for anything other than landscapes and macro. It's not so much the size, but the dial layout is difficult to use when gripping the camera and using the EVF. Sony needs to turn the a6xxx cameras into mini versions of the a7 series with better front and rear dials at the minimum. The current shoulder dial is just incredibly awkward to turn and the back directional pad dial can be fiddly when trying to be fast and precise.

Jun 23, 2019 at 05:24 PM

RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · APS-C vs Full Frame

chiron wrote:
Very nice images, Sung, and I appreciate the points you made in your discussion. But as far as guessing which sensor size was used for which picture, with such different subject matter, camera settings, lenses, and lighting, it is not meaningful to try to pick which is which.

One is really not isolating the factor of the sensor size but is just confusing the issue with so many unrelated variables. Holding everything constant while only varying the sensor would b more interesting and relevant in the context of this thread.

That's an extremely depressing way to look at it. I think Sung has it just right, photography is about the art of catching light, and mood, and expressions, and making the viewer feel something. Anything else is just a clinical discussion about how one pixel looks compared to another pixel, which is the supreme death of the art. Plus, we have plenty of threads bemoaning how pixel A is slightly inferior to pixel B, the the inference that any photo from the lesser camera is suddenly inferior. It's such a nihilistic way to view photography.

Jun 23, 2019 at 05:47 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #11 · APS-C vs Full Frame

Jun 23, 2019 at 10:18 PM

chiron
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #12 · APS-C vs Full Frame

JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Sony APS-C cameras have great sensors. I actually like using my a6300 for landscapes more than my old full frame gear.

Sadly, I think cameras like the a6xxx line are horrible ergonomically for anything other than landscapes and macro. It's not so much the size, but the dial layout is difficult to use when gripping the camera and using the EVF. Sony needs to turn the a6xxx cameras into mini versions of the a7 series with better front and rear dials at the minimum. The current shoulder dial is just incredibly awkward to turn and the back directional pad dial can...Show more →

Yes. Oddly, I found the NEX-7 a pleasure to handle, but that may have been the thrill of using the new form-factor of the body when it first became available. It may be that the model that succeeds the a6500, if indeed it is something along the lines of a mini-a9, will be designed to a higher enthusiast/professional standard in terms of controls and ergonomics.

Jun 23, 2019 at 11:02 PM

chiron
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #13 · APS-C vs Full Frame

pwpub wrote:
I have used varying duo sets of Sony FF and APS-C cameras for a long time, since this setup fits best for my travels. A wider lens on FF and the tele mounted on the ASP-C body is just a perfectly flexible setup. And for adventurous (wet, muddy, exhausting) side trips, underwater excursions (plus UW case), or night-outs, the compact ASP-C body with a small wide such as 24/1.8 ZA, PC 16-50/3.5-5.6 or even 16-35/4 ZA will always fit.

Currently my setup is the A7R III coupled with A6400. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to produce and present some comparable test...Show more →

This is very close to my experience also. With the exception of stretching the reach of tele lenses and the weight advantage, it really is hard to argue for aps-c. The FF output always looks better, lusher, and visually deeper and more satisfying. This is much to my regret since I would really like the lighter kit that goes with aps-c. But as Steve Spencer noted, it is possible to devise a more lightweight FF kit by picking your lenses carefully. A 15mm CV, 28/2 or 35/2.8 Sony, a 55/1.8 Sony, and an 85/1.8 Sony are all pretty small and lightweight and, independent of weight, have a lot to recommend them as optics.

But I'd still like to see some comparison images of the same subject under the same conditions, just to spell out the visual differences.

Jun 23, 2019 at 11:14 PM

vdo1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · APS-C vs Full Frame

So for your test, what is the measurand, the measurement method, and what repeatability does it achieve?

sungphoto wrote:
It's kind of a 1 step forward, 1 step back kind of situation in real world shooting having shot both full and crop sensor sony cameras quite a bit, often side by side. Ultimately, I think the thing (that you recognize) is that the sensor format is a pretty small part of final image output unless you're trying to print something 4x6 ft.

A few factors off the top of my head that make a pretty big impact outside of sensor output are:

-autofocus performance in challenging low light environments: I've primarily used the A6300 and A6500, and generally in very low...Show more →

Jun 23, 2019 at 11:14 PM

chiron
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #15 · APS-C vs Full Frame

lightskyland wrote:
I occasionally find such conditions for my landscape work. I have zero interest in getting rid of my A7R3, and am even contemplating purchase of a MF camera to supplement it for car/tripod work.

Nonetheless, I find it a joy to hike with the 6500 + 18-135 lens (with or without the CV10 in my pocket).

I find no such joy hiking with the A7R3 + 24-105, for very little IQ improvement!

The weight (and the size) is the issue. It would be nice if Sony made a smaller, lighter FF body, like the RX1R2 but interchangeable, and some more smaller, lighter high quality lenses, like the 35/2.8 and the 55/18. Sony seems very aware of the weight issue, given their attention to it with the new super-tele lenses and their original design philosophy for mirrorless cameras.

Jun 23, 2019 at 11:23 PM

sungphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · APS-C vs Full Frame

The test was whether I could take photos with either. Test result is I got good photos with either. The measurement method was an extremely technical and novel approach called a keeper rate. Repeatability was achieved for my own personal standards.

vdo1 wrote:
So for your test, what is the measurand, the measurement method, and what repeatability does it achieve?

Jun 24, 2019 at 12:30 AM

vdo1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · APS-C vs Full Frame

Then your test can be described as �self-declared satisfaction degree of user sungphoto with his own photos�. Doesn�t address the �APS IQ = FF IQ� claim. Additionally is invalid as an independent tester cannot reproduce the results with any relevant accuracy.

sungphoto wrote:
The test was whether I could take photos with either. Test result is I got good photos with either. The measurement method was an extremely technical and novel approach called a keeper rate. Repeatability was achieved for my own personal standards.

Jun 24, 2019 at 01:08 AM

vdo1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · APS-C vs Full Frame

Let�s try reduction ad absurdum. If pixel count doesn�t matter, would you be happy with a 1 pixel camera? (a Sekonic light meter would do in a pinch).

RoamingScott wrote:
That's an extremely depressing way to look at it. I think Sung has it just right, photography is about the art of catching light, and mood, and expressions, and making the viewer feel something. Anything else is just a clinical discussion about how one pixel looks compared to another pixel, which is the supreme death of the art. Plus, we have plenty of threads bemoaning how pixel A is slightly inferior to pixel B, the the inference that any photo from the lesser camera is suddenly inferior. It's such a nihilistic way to view photography.

Jun 24, 2019 at 05:44 AM

Charlie N
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · APS-C vs Full Frame

chiron wrote:
Very nice images, Sung, and I appreciate the points you made in your discussion. But as far as guessing which sensor size was used for which picture, with such different subject matter, camera settings, lenses, and lighting, it is not meaningful to try to pick which is which.

One is really not isolating the factor of the sensor size but is just confusing the issue with so many unrelated variables. Holding everything constant while only varying the sensor would b more interesting and relevant in the context of this thread.
Totally agree. Photography is often about entire albums rather than your best pics you've amassed with the best lighting. Raw processing is important, and with troublesome lighting, FF shines comparatively. That said, I took a bunch of family snapshots, and aside from FF, the main difference was sharpness. It was for web sharing, in-laws, didn't need a super resolution, so I slapped on the 16-50 pancake, a truly tiny lens, and I'm comfortable with the IQ stopped down a tad.

Jun 24, 2019 at 06:07 AM

chiron
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #20 · APS-C vs Full Frame

Charlie N wrote:
Totally agree. Photography is often about entire albums rather than your best pics you've amassed with the best lighting. Raw processing is important, and with troublesome lighting, FF shines comparatively. That said, I took a bunch of family snapshots, and aside from FF, the main difference was sharpness. It was for web sharing, in-laws, didn't need a super resolution, so I slapped on the 16-50 pancake, a truly tiny lens, and I'm comfortable with the IQ stopped down a tad.

Yes, different tools for different jobs and different purposes, and especially at web sizes the differences are minimized. And it is not like aps-c is bad. But, after-the-fact and apart from the size/weight issues, I don't think I ever regretted having taken a picture in FF rather than aps-c (why would one?).

Jun 24, 2019 at 06:38 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 end