sungphoto wrote:
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....Show more →
Ditto. Unfortunately, the OP is not willing to accept that he is not getting the info he wants in this thread, and finds it offensive when anyone tries to direct him to other possible sources.
Imagemaster wrote:
Ditto. Unfortunately, the OP is not willing to accept that he is not getting the info he wants in this thread, and finds it offensive when anyone tries to direct him to other possible sources.
Won't waste my time any further trying to help.
To be fair, I think the OP has been more diplomatic with responses compared to the peanut gallery comments from less helpful posters, who perhaps have more experience making posts on forums than making photos. If your BIF examples aren't good enough, I don't really know what is.
I mean, I understand the reason behind the question, but unless you're taking locked down photos of static objects in a studio, the real world isn't as forgiving or willing - the entropic nature of the universe and murphy's law being a constant. Also, no offense to the OP (and no assumption on his or her level of skill/technique), but it ignores the skill/experience required to reproduce some of the better photos posted here, which is completely independent of sensor size. A larger sensor can't cure bad technique or bad light (for the most part).
sungphoto wrote:
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....Show more →
Thanks for the suggestion, but threads have long lives, and I'm sure something useful will turn up. I've already gotten a lot from some of the more pertinent and on-topic posts.
sungphoto wrote:
To be fair, I think the OP has been more diplomatic with responses compared to the peanut gallery comments from less helpful posters, who perhaps have more experience making posts on forums than making photos. If your BIF examples aren't good enough, I don't really know what is.
I mean, I understand the reason behind the question, but unless you're taking locked down photos of static objects in a studio, the real world isn't as forgiving or willing - the entropic nature of the universe and murphy's law being a constant. Also, no offense to the OP (and no assumption on his or her level of skill/technique), but it ignores the skill/experience required to reproduce some of the better photos posted here, which is completely independent of sensor size. A larger sensor can't cure bad technique or bad light (for the most part)....Show more →
Birding is a FLL activity and even then, you need to find a sweet spot, otherwise you're shooting with a 2/3" sensor for the most "reach". Most other forms of photography are not like that.
chiron wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion, but threads have long lives, and I'm sure something useful will turn up. I've already gotten a lot from some of the more pertinent and on-topic posts.
I admire your polite responses to all the comments you got, some of which may not have merited such diplomatic responses. I will try to emulate your example when I am aggravated.
dclark wrote:
I admire your polite responses to all the comments you got, some of which may not have merited such diplomatic responses. I will try to emulate your example when I am aggravated.
Dave
Thank you. I would hate for this forum to drift toward the atmosphere of some of the other online photography forums. I think that this is a special place and that most people here try to be truly helpful and generous with their expertise. I have learned a lot from people here.
chiron wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion, but threads have long lives, and I'm sure something useful will turn up. I've already gotten a lot from some of the more pertinent and on-topic posts.
No problem. To be honest, I don't really see the point of this question without more specifics about the problem you're trying to solve.
Imagemaster wrote:
Ditto. Unfortunately, the OP is not willing to accept that he is not getting the info he wants in this thread, and finds it offensive when anyone tries to direct him to other possible sources.
Won't waste my time any further trying to help.
Another way to deal with always unfriendly and unhelpful posts is to HIDE the user.
I’m going to try it out on ”Imagemaster”
PhilthePhrame wrote:
Sold my a6300 and 10-18 and regretted it. At the time I thought I’d get the a6500 for ibis, but decided I don’t need ibis. Dragging my heels on the a6400, awaiting the mythical a7000, but I think I just talked myself into the a6400. But, I will be keeping the a7riii as my main body.
The 6400 is quite a camera, with very desirable characteristics. I can see why you would want to get one now.
I am assuming that Sony is holding the successor to the 6500 because it really is a mini a9--and more probably a mini a9II--and they want the a9II to be out before the mini a9II. This is all speculative, of course, but Sony has described the next iteration of their upcoming models as revolutionary and going beyond expectations.
To me, that suggests a global electronic shutter or at least a very fast electronic shutter, beyond the 1/150 second on the current a9. It might also mean enhanced image quality on both aps-c and full frame sensors. I'm not sure I see them pushing resolution much on either model, but who knows.
chiron wrote:
The 6400 is quite a camera, with very desirable characteristics. I can see why you would want to get one now.
I am assuming that Sony is holding the successor to the 6500 because it really is a mini a9--and more probably a mini a9II--and they want the a9II to be out before the mini a9II. This is all speculative, of course, but Sony has described the next iteration of their upcoming models as revolutionary and going beyond expectations.
To me, that suggests a global electronic shutter or at least a very fast electronic shutter, beyond the 1/150 second on the current a9. It might also mean enhanced image quality on both aps-c and full frame sensors. I'm not sure I see them pushing resolution much on either model, but who knows.
naturephoto1 wrote:
I hope that Sony will have the A9II and the A7000/Mini A9/Mini A9II on display at PhotoPlus in NYC October 24-26, I to intend to attend on October 24.
Rich
I am surprised by all the blather in this thread. The OP asked a simple question and very few if any have answered it. I am not staying I am answering it but at least I am addressing his question.
For starters full frame sensors capture more information, have more ability to crop, better Dynamic Range, better low light and higher ISO performance. Those are some pretty compelling advantages in my book.
That said, full frame camera systems offer several distinct advantages over APS-C sensors. For starters, you’ll have more control over the depth of field because you’ll need to move in closer to your subject. This could be important for portraits or if you want to create other aesthetic effects.
A full frame camera/lens combination also delivers better image quality. The reason is the pixel pitch: a larger sensor with the same number of pixels means each individual pixel is larger; this allows more light to be captured. Hence, full frame systems also perform better when the light is weak, enabling you to confidently raise your ISO settings. For night photography, full frame sensors win hands down over APS-C sensors.
Full frame systems also produce more finer details because the pixels are larger, creating a better dynamic range than an APS-C sensor would with the same number of pixels. Because of a full frame sensor’s larger size and the larger field of view it projects, a full frame lens/camera combination is also more suitable for wide-angle shots, which is relevant for architectural, landscape or product photography.
A full frame camera and lens is the best choice for wide-angle landscape images.
added 6 27 19
I forgot the most important part. The images look better than my APS-C images do just as my a7rIII images look better than my A9 images.
Without getting super analytical and scientific from my eyes full frame (with a good/great lens) just looks better than apc (with a good/great lens).... but full frame with a kit lens vs apc with a great prime isn't as much of a difference and might even go to the apc. Lens is so important.
trstahly wrote:
I am surprised by all the blather in this thread. The OP asked a simple question and very few if any have answered it. I am not staying I am answering it but at least I am addressing his question.
For starters full frame sensors capture more information, have more ability to crop, better Dynamic Range, better low light and higher ISO performance. Those are some pretty compelling advantages in my book.
That said, full frame camera systems offer several distinct advantages over APS-C sensors. For starters, you’ll have more control over the depth of field because you’ll need to move in closer to your subject. This could be important for portraits or if you want to create other aesthetic effects.
A full frame camera/lens combination also delivers better image quality. The reason is the pixel pitch: a larger sensor with the same number of pixels means each individual pixel is larger; this allows more light to be captured. Hence, full frame systems also perform better when the light is weak, enabling you to confidently raise your ISO settings. For night photography, full frame sensors win hands down over APS-C sensors.
Full frame systems also produce more finer details because the pixels are larger, creating a better dynamic range than an APS-C sensor would with the same number of pixels. Because of a full frame sensor’s larger size and the larger field of view it projects, a full frame lens/camera combination is also more suitable for wide-angle shots, which is relevant for architectural, landscape or product photography.
A full frame camera and lens is the best choice for wide-angle landscape images....Show more →
I too would like to see the comparison chiron first asked for, along the lines of Fred's with lens comparisons.
Of course getting everything equal would not be easy. Would the same lens be used on each camera, or a lens that gave the same field of view on each? The latter would add another variable, but I'm still interested to see, if someone could get it as close as possible.
When I changed from Canon 5DII to Sony A7 in 2014, I also bought a Nikon D5300 to see which I preferred. It was really only the lack of good lens support for the apsc, that caused me to definitely decide on the A7. (I FAR preferred the D5300's articulated 3.2" monitor.)
Thank you. I would hate for this forum to drift toward the atmosphere of some of the other online photography forums. I think that this is a special place and that most people here try to be truly helpful and generous with their expertise. I have learned a lot from people here.