Uncle Chip wrote:
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
Metabones has a great speedbooster for Sony e. I used to use it to shoot my Canon 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 50/1.2 on my 6500. It was really great!
Imagemaster wrote:
One with FF and one with APS-C, or one with APS-C and one with FF.
Different subject, lighting, lenses, etc.
Which one is better? They look similar enough to me that I could care less.
They are both shot in good light , nice blue sky's. So of course they are similar. Could have used a Rx10 under similar conditions with even smaller sensor
nhsonyshooter wrote:
They are both shot in good light , nice blue sky's. So of course they are similar. Could have used a Rx10 under similar conditions with even smaller sensor
Really? I guess your crystal ball is out of order. One was shot at ISO 5000, 1/250, f8 and one at ISO 1600, 1/125, f11, both in full shade.
Could have used MF with even larger sensor. So what?
Jun 24, 2019 at 10:08 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Imagemaster wrote:
One with FF and one with APS-C, or one with APS-C and one with FF.
Different subject, lighting, lenses, etc.
Which one is better? They look similar enough to me that I could care less.
I think they are both very nice shots, but for what it is worth I find the shot on the left to have a bit more detail than the shot on the right and although I like both I like the one on the right a little better. I don't know if that is the lens, the lighting, the ISO, how far the lens is stopped down or what.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think they are both very nice shots, but for what it is worth I find the shot on the left to have a bit more detail than the shot on the right and although I like both I like the one on the right a little better. I don't know if that is the lens, the lighting, the ISO, how far the lens is stopped down or what.
Which just goes to prove my point -- the term "better" is all relative. These FF versus APS-C debates go on ad nauseum. Neither is "better". One is just better for each individual photographer depending on what that photographer wants. Who cares what others think is better for them?
It is the same with lenses. I know what are the best lenses for me to use. Nobody else does.
Imagemaster wrote:
Really? I guess your crystal ball is out of order. One was shot at ISO 5000, 1/250, f8 and one at ISO 1600, 1/125, f11, both in full shade.
Could have used MF with even larger sensor. So what?
That's funny because the reflection in both eyes shows blue sky"s: ) No need for a crystal ball.
Imagemaster wrote:
So you think you can't photograph a subject in full shadow and have the blue sky background appear in the eyes?
Please don't put words in my mouth. I honestly don't care what anyone shoots. Really! As you said, FF vs APS-C is not about one being better. One just provides more flexibility
The question I was asking as the OP is "What changes in image characteristics, image quality, and light handling when one goes from full frame to aps-c?"
Asserting that neither one is better under all circumstances is pretty obvious and doesn't add to anyone's knowledge or understanding. The question is how are they different and how and when do the differences show up in images.
Of the two bird's heads, Steve sees more detail on the left, but likes the one on the right better. I like the one on the left because it has much more detail, which to me makes the bird seem more real, sharper, more predatory, and more dangerous. I have more of an emotional response to the image on the left, which is in significant degree a result of the technical characteristics of the photo. (Anyone who thinks creative artists don't care about technical characteristics and issues should read Walter Issacson's biography of Leonardo da Vinci, or anything about how da Vinci painted). (Also, the lighter iris makes the eye more visible in the bird on the left and to me gives the bird more presence.)
The differences in detail and color could be a result of the one on the left being ff and the one on the right being aps-c. But the differences could also result from differences in ISO, shutter speed, aperture, cropping, lighting, subject movement, movement of air that slightly moves the feathers, etc.
That is why I think it would be interesting to have comparative ff/aps-c images shot under various matched circumstances.
chiron wrote:
The question I was asking as the OP is "What changes in image characteristics, image quality, and light handling when one goes from full frame to aps-c?"
Asserting that neither one is better under all circumstances is pretty obvious and doesn't add to anyone's knowledge or understanding. The question is how are they different and how and when do the differences show up in images.
Of the two bird's heads, Steve sees more detail on the left, but likes the one on the right better. I like the one on the left because it has much more detail, which to me makes the bird seem more real, sharper, more predatory, and more dangerous. I have more of an emotional response to the image on the left, which is in significant degree a result of the technical characteristics of the photo. (Anyone who thinks creative artists don't care about technical characteristics and issues should read Walter Issacson's biography of Leonard da Vinci, or anything about how da Vinci painted). (Also, the lighter iris makes the eye more visible in the bird on the left and to me gives the bird more presence.)
The differences in detail and color could be a result of the one on the left being ff and the one on the right being aps-c. But the differences could also result from differences in ISO, shutter speed, lighting, subject movement, movement of air that slightly moves the feathers, etc.
That is why I think it would be interesting to have comparative ff/aps-c images shot under various matched circumstances. ...Show more →
I no longer own an aps-c, and the Google results are not satisfactory for various obvious reasons. I'm interested in current sensor results and the discussion from people on this forum. But don't feel obligated to post in the thread if you don't think the topic is worthwhile.
The only main advantage of FF from crop sensor cameras, I think, based from the bunch of youtube videos that I have seen are the lenses. Especially if we are trying to match the depth of field of full frame lenses shot at F1.4 and 1.8.
I shoot with a sony a6400 and if I get those good prime lenses that sigma has - 16, 30 and 56mm which are all 1.4’s, based from the crop factor (all came from the youtube videos I have seen) I will only get a depth of field of f2.1 or 2.2. Unless, the other companies like sigma, tamron and tokina will release lenses that are f1.2’s or f0.9’s and for what price.
chiron wrote:
I no longer own an aps-c, and the Google results are not satisfactory for various obvious reasons. I'm interested in current sensor results and the discussion from people on this forum. But don't feel obligated to post in the thread if you don't think the topic is worthwhile.
Edit: Poor wording on my end. This forum is mostly full frame focused and might reflect as such in responses.
You might have better results asking on DPReview forums, as they have more users from both Sony FF and APS-C systems, along with quite a few sensor technology experts.
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Well, to be honest, this is the wrong forum for asking such a question. Take a look at the threads. See a trend? This is a full frame forum with a Sony ornament slapped on the hood.
This thread here is like kicking a bees nest and trying to get objective answers while interviewing the angry bees about the attributes of dual-walled hives vs. single-walled hives.
You're better off just reading various pre-written articles and videos, or even *gasp* join DPReview which has a vastly larger user base of Sony APS-C shooters.
Really, only a full frame forum? I've seen plenty of interest on this forum for an APS-C A9. I've also seen quite a bit of talk about the A6400 as well as the 6500. Let's not turn this into a snobbish full frame only forum and keep it all Sony including the 1" sensor cameras and APS-C cameras.
lightskyland wrote:
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!
...Show more →
Since you quoted me, please point me to where I said apsc sucks...or where I implied that apsc owners standards suck.
I own the 6500 (I wouldn't own a product that I feel sucks), had an rx100 until recently and even use my mate 20x phone when it fits my needs.
So I sure hope you are not calling me a FF snob...
chez wrote:
Really, only a full frame forum? I've seen plenty of interest on this forum for an APS-C A9. I've also seen quite a bit of talk about the A6400 as well as the 6500. Let's not turn this into a snobbish full frame only forum and keep it all Sony including the 1" sensor cameras and APS-C cameras.
Poor wording on my part. Edited my post.
I only use a Sony a6300 and don't have any FF gear. Just pointing out that this forum is FF dominant, not trying to put the person down for asking a crop question in a "full frame" superior snobby forum. Totally not what I intended. Should have put a few. in there.
chiron wrote:
I no longer own an aps-c, and the Google results are not satisfactory for various obvious reasons. I'm interested in current sensor results and the discussion from people on this forum. But don't feel obligated to post in the thread if you don't think the topic is worthwhile.
To take a big step back, I think it might be worthwhile for you to revise your question, rather than ask for more answers.
Asking if there's differences in image quality related to sensor size is an extremely broad question. Do you mean pictures of people? If people do you mean studio portraits taken at or near base iso, or snapshots of family and friends, or street photography, or abstract close ups of irises and torsos, etc. Do you mean landscapes, at night, during the day, or nature or cities, oceans, snow, ice. Are you asking about photos that are taken in bad light and if so what do you mean by bad light (and if you mean just badly taken photos - I think you're going to have limited responses of people airing their worst images). A true test would be taking the exact same image with the exact same exposure settings, same lens, etc but in some cases that's impossible. I could go on but you get the drift.
Generally when you've received dozens of responses, but all of them aren't up to snuff, it makes sense to re-calibrate the question.
Totally not what I intended. Should have put a few. 
in there.