Sweet robot Jesus.. well yeah, what’s the point (of photography and life) otherwise, and what have you contributed to the thread aside from Simpson’s comic book guy-esque snark? Bye
vdo1 wrote:
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.
In all seriousness though, wouldn’t you care more about the differences in sensor format on ones better images rather than their throwaways and snapshots? I mean I have boatloads of family pics but I’m pretty sure no ones aside from me wants to flip through those.
@chiron@ would it help if I showed you what the raw unprocessed image looks like of these? Almost all of them were taken in challenging light (aside from of course the studio images). I have another photo I didn’t post in this thread of a man hand fishing in Cienfuegos that was taken close to high noon in very challenging light on the a6500 and required a pretty big push on the shadows and reduction of highlights (processed on my phone if I recall correctly). In the unprocessed RAW, the details in the dog for example are almost completely indistinguishable
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.
It depends on your shooting preference. I gave up cropped APS-C sensor format when I switched to FF in 2009 with my first Canon 5D MkII. The main reasons for me to stick to FF are:
+ I shoot a lot of ultra-wide, for example 12 mm FL rectlinear. Impossible to do this with a cropped sensor.
+ Achieving circular field of view with 8 mm fisheye lens.
+ No crop factor. The focal length on the lens is what it states.
+ More shallow DoF (about one stop compared to APS-C)
+ Larger viewfinder in FF cameras.
I never really cared about difference between cropped and FF in low light since I rarely need this kind of performance for my photography.
sungphoto wrote:
In all seriousness though, wouldn’t you care more about the differences in sensor format on ones better images rather than their throwaways and snapshots? I mean I have boatloads of family pics but I’m pretty sure no ones aside from me wants to flip through those.
@chiron@ would it help if I showed you what the raw unprocessed image looks like of these? Almost all of them were taken in challenging light (aside from of course the studio images). The fisherman hand fishing in Cienfuegos for example was taken close to high noon on the a6500 and required a pretty big push on the shadows and reduction of highlights (processed on my phone if I recall correctly). In the unprocessed RAW, the details in the dog for example are almost completely indistinguishable
The posting that would be most interesting to me would be one that isolates the variable of sensor size from all the other factors that go into making an image. Sometimes people on the forum will compare lenses. Fred often does this to great good effect in understanding the precise differences between lenses, at different apertures and at different points in the frame. He always holds all other variables constant so that the only thing that is changing is the lens. One can learn a great deal from his comparative posts, not only about the differences between the lenses but even about how to evaluate a lens or an image. I think the same type of comparison between aps-c and ff would be illuminating and helpful--same scenes, same resolution, same aperture, same lack of processing, etc. One difficult variable in comparing formats is the lens/ fov on each sensor, but that is something the tester could experiment with or do as they like. Such a test, as with Fred's lens comparison, would make clear what the essential output differences are between the two.
image-making technologies (different sensor sizes) and what one is giving up or not giving up as a base case.
People worshipping full frame because of more resolution, dynamic range etc. regardless of equipment weight / size should be using the new Fuji 100MP medium format body.
I have a FF system but I carry the tiny APS-C body and lens most of the time because it is much more pleasant to carry around my neck on a jaunt through the mountains than a bigger FF body with much bigger FF lens.
There is something insidious in the whole forum, not just this thread. If someone doesn't want the last nth out of the best gear possible then that person is less of a photographer. "If it's good enough for you" leaves off the rest of the implied statement, "but it's not really good enough for a real photographer."
I am not a professional; I cannot afford $20,000, $30,000 $40,000 and up worth of equipment. I have downsized from the A7rIII to the A6500 and find I don't miss a lot except exclaiming "wow. . how sharp" when I pixel peep.
Don't get me wrong. I am not blaming anyone for this. This is a gear thread and it's inevitable to discuss what is best. I had GAS and when through the e-p1, e-p2, Panasonic G1, G2, GH1 Gh2, Nex 5, Nex 5n, Nex 7, A6000, A7, A7rII, A7rIII. Now I've backed down a little and don't think I have lost anything that really matters in a good photograph. Is there any camera that does not have compromises? What matters, what matters?
lightskyland wrote:
People worshipping full frame because of more resolution, dynamic range etc. regardless of equipment weight / size should be using the new Fuji 100MP medium format body.
I have a FF system but I carry the tiny APS-C body and lens most of the time because it is much more pleasant to carry around my neck on a jaunt through the mountains than a bigger FF body with much bigger FF lens.
You just described the reason I sold all my old Nikon equipment. So I feel the same way about my Sony FF you do about your Tiny APSC except I enjoy the low light, DR, Depth of field, etc... No worshipping needed.
lightskyland wrote:
People worshipping full frame because of more resolution, dynamic range etc. regardless of equipment weight / size should be using the new Fuji 100MP medium format body.
I have a FF system but I carry the tiny APS-C body and lens most of the time because it is much more pleasant to carry around my neck on a jaunt through the mountains than a bigger FF body with much bigger FF lens.
I guess you can take it even further. If weight is the utmost importance, the M43 system would be your top choice. I find the full frame mirrorless system a very good compromise between size / weight, image quality and price. I also have an A6000 and use it as a backup at times or when just out walking not focused on photography.
lightskyland wrote:
People worshipping full frame because of more resolution, dynamic range etc. regardless of equipment weight / size should be using the new Fuji 100MP medium format body.
I have a FF system but I carry the tiny APS-C body and lens most of the time because it is much more pleasant to carry around my neck on a jaunt through the mountains than a bigger FF body with much bigger FF lens.
True. You don't even have to go to the GFX 100 - IMO best deal now is to go for the GFX 50R for less than $4K used. Likely a trend in the future - larger sensors than FF become more affordable and slowly also bigger. Unfortunately the price tag for these kind of modern digital medium format sensors in cameras of backs will be > $10K for quite some time.
I also see the main advantage of cropped and smaller micro four-third sensors for travel and street photography purposes.
Why, just because you say so? Come on now.
This thread seems to belong more at dpr by the minute.
People seem to have big issues separating their own needs or preferences from actual facts.
Somehow in your view, is someone prefers the undeniable IQ advantages of FF over apsc then they should get a medium format instead... I mean seriously??
Why don't you shoot m43 then or 1". Is it because the superior IQ of apsc... cause in that case you should go for FF instead. See.. we can play this game all day.
I'm out of this thread.... lightskyland wrote:
People worshipping full frame because of more resolution, dynamic range etc. regardless of equipment weight / size should be using the new Fuji 100MP medium format body.
I have a FF system but I carry the tiny APS-C body and lens most of the time because it is much more pleasant to carry around my neck on a jaunt through the mountains than a bigger FF body with much bigger FF lens.
Some moments are different than others. Graduation, weddings, formal events, dance, birthdays, landscapes I want to have my FF there.
Video, another situation when FF is preferred.
Group shots, food, impromptu gatherings, I'm ok with crop, but I'm not going out of my way to get a dedicated camera for that. I'm ok with dedicated ultra small lenses instead. I can really get by with a simple A7R3, but I really enjoy gear, so that's not enough. Got to APS-C can save me a few hundred grams, but I lose the FF raws and look. It's a little compromise but acceptable. Still small enough even if a lot bigger than some setups like the EOS-M + 22, which I never got rid of. sungphoto wrote:
In all seriousness though, wouldn’t you care more about the differences in sensor format on ones better images rather than their throwaways and snapshots? I mean I have boatloads of family pics but I’m pretty sure no ones aside from me wants to flip through those.
@chiron@@ would it help if I showed you what the raw unprocessed image looks like of these? Almost all of them were taken in challenging light (aside from of course the studio images). I have another photo I didn’t post in this thread of a man hand fishing in Cienfuegos that was taken close to high noon in very challenging light on the a6500 and required a pretty big push on the shadows and reduction of highlights (processed on my phone if I recall correctly). In the unprocessed RAW, the details in the dog for example are almost completely indistinguishable
This conspicuously looks like a sister thread to the “softer lenses are as good as sharper ones” and “perspective on gear - older cameras are as good as modern ones” threads. They both needed moderator’s intervention, so thread carefully
Michael Everet wrote:
There is something insidious in the whole forum, not just this thread. If someone doesn't want the last nth out of the best gear possible then that person is less of a photographer. "If it's good enough for you" leaves off the rest of the implied statement, "but it's not really good enough for a real photographer."
I am not a professional; I cannot afford $20,000, $30,000 $40,000 and up worth of equipment. I have downsized from the A7rIII to the A6500 and find I don't miss a lot except exclaiming "wow. . how sharp" when I pixel peep.
Don't get me wrong. I am not blaming anyone for this. This is a gear thread and it's inevitable to discuss what is best. I had GAS and when through the e-p1, e-p2, Panasonic G1, G2, GH1 Gh2, Nex 5, Nex 5n, Nex 7, A6000, A7, A7rII, A7rIII. Now I've backed down a little and don't think I have lost anything that really matters in a good photograph. Is there any camera that does not have compromises? What matters, what matters?...Show more →
Try the Sigma 60mm DN Art on the a6500. AF isn't the best, but it sure has the full frame 3D sharp ultra pop that's hard to find even on good full frame lenses. Pretty decent bokeh for a 2.8 APS-C lens as well. Easily the best optics money can buy for the price IMO. Could easily slap a Zeiss sticker on it, change the outside a little and charge 8 times as much.
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Try the Sigma 60mm DN Art on the a6500. AF isn't the best, but it sure has the full frame 3D sharp ultra pop that's hard to find even on good full frame lenses. Pretty decent bokeh for a 2.8 APS-C lens as well. Easily the best optics money can buy for the price IMO. Could easily slap a Zeiss sticker on it, change the outside a little and charge 8 times as much.
Agreed - the Sigma 60mm, 30mm, and 19mm lenses are cheap, light, and very sharp. They were my favorites, along with the Sony Zeiss 24mm ZA, when I shot Sony APS-C.
This is a shot made during the wildfires in the southern Appalachian mountains in 2016. A7R2 in crop mode with the Sigma 60/2.8 DN Art...
chez wrote:
I guess you can take it even further. If weight is the utmost importance, the M43 system would be your top choice. I find the full frame mirrorless system a very good compromise between size / weight, image quality and price. I also have an A6000 and use it as a backup at times or when just out walking not focused on photography.
I honestly don't think a modern M43 system is really smaller than a 6500 + 18-135, but I could be wrong.
Not much is except the RX100 (which I also own and love, but has a lot of IQ compromises vs. FF for walkabout use).
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Why, just because you say so? Come on now.
This thread seems to belong more at dpr by the minute.
People seem to have big issues separating their own needs or preferences from actual facts.
Somehow in your view, is someone prefers the undeniable IQ advantages of FF over apsc then they should get a medium format instead... I mean seriously??
Why don't you shoot m43 then or 1". Is it because the superior IQ of apsc... cause in that case you should go for FF instead. See.. we can play this game all day.
I'm out of this thread....
People keep squawking every single time someone posts how they really like the Sony APS-C body combination of size and image quality with a small lens.
If the FF snobs would stop telling APS-C users that their camera isn't good enough in every single thread, there wouldn't be a debate.
I own an iPhone, multiple RX100 bodies, an RX10M4, two APS-C Sonys, and an A7R3. All of them get used at different times to different degrees. For walkaround image taking, the 6500 + 18-135 usually gets the nod (sometimes with the CV10).
I have a full stable of excellent glass for the A7R3 but I just enjoy the combination of a small body and excellent IQ I get from the APS-C Sony right now.
When photographing my son's wedding (after the professional photographer no-showed!), we leaned heavily on the A7R3 and it delivered the best images. The 6500 did well but definitely was under strain because of the high ISOs required. We also took a few images with the 1" cameras but they were grainy and best processed B/W.
Many of us don't appreciate being told that our standards suck because we are using an APS-C body!
I'm fairly new to photography. I started with an a6000 and recently picked up a7iii. I primarily shoot landscape and mountain bike action. Most of my landscape pics are done while hiking or backpacking. My backpacking kit is a a6000 with sigma 16mm f1.4, which is actually a bit heavier then if I brought the a7iii and 28mm f2. I'm tempted to switch my a6000 setup to the 18-135 and a laowa 9mm to get more versatility. I don't bring my FF with me on backpacking trips though because I would be pretty bummed at the cost hit if I wrecked a FF body due to weather or dropping it. The FF does result in better pics at sunrise/sunset when I need to really push the shadows though,so car camping or photo specific landscape missions I bring the FF. For action pics the AF is considerably better on the a7iii and the joystick is so much easier for putting focus on something.
Where I came stuck with Sony’s crop cameras was the lenses and iso capabilities,
The sigma 19mm was excellent but the comparable zooms didn’t match the FF equivalents, especially when you went into telephoto,
One thing I never understood is why they don’t do a speed booster when you use your FF lenses on the crop bodies, you can get them when you use canon/Nikon, that’s a full stop of light just illuminating nothing, so your 70-200 2.8 will give you 95-300 2.8
You need a longer registry lens to use with a speed booster.
Uncle Chip wrote:
One thing I never understood is why they don’t do a speed booster when you use your FF lenses on the crop bodies, you can get them when you use canon/Nikon, that’s a full stop of light just illuminating nothing, so your 70-200 2.8 will give you 95-300 2.8
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Try the Sigma 60mm DN Art on the a6500. AF isn't the best, but it sure has the full frame 3D sharp ultra pop that's hard to find even on good full frame lenses. Pretty decent bokeh for a 2.8 APS-C lens as well. Easily the best optics money can buy for the price IMO. Could easily slap a Zeiss sticker on it, change the outside a little and charge 8 times as much.
I once had the Sigma 60 DN and agree it is a great lens. This time around I just purchased the new Sigma 1.4 combination of 30 and 56mm. If the 56 is anything like the 60 and preliminary shots suggest it is, it will be revolutionary for Aps-C. (Please don't ask me to post any pictures as I had a total knee replacement the day the Sigmas arrived, and I'm obviously not going anywhere for a while).
No worshipping needed.
?? 
