p.2 #1 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
It is intuitively appealing and also accurate to say that the differences in same-sized images created by a smaller sensor and a larger sensor result from the different degrees of magnification required to produce each image.
p.2 #2 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
chiron wrote:
It is intuitively appealing and also accurate to say that the differences in same-sized images created by a smaller sensor and a larger sensor result from the different degrees of magnification required to produce each image.
In the 300mm example I presented both APS-C and FF produce the same-sized image of a duck.
Trying to distill equivalence into simpler terms has been attempted by minds greater than ours. There's simply too much nuance for it to be done without sacrificing accuracy or clarity. IMO the best way to explain the differences are to outline the specific scenarios where they're different and why. That conveys both practical application of the knowledge while also explaining the technical concepts behind it.
p.2 #3 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
Shooting the same lens in APS-C and FF at the same distance, at the same pixel pitch, will yield the “same” image on the portion that is in view for the shot. It becomes different when you try to match the field of view, either by switching FLs or shooting position.
p.2 #4 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
chiron wrote:
It is intuitively appealing and also accurate to say that the differences in same-sized images created by a smaller sensor and a larger sensor result from the different degrees of magnification required to produce each image.
Accurate statements require clear and unambiguous language. The "magnification required to produce each image" sounds confusing to me, as it is not clear what is magnified?
One can acquire images using different cameras. These images, when similarly framed, can be equivalent or not. The conditions and requirements of equivalence are relatively simple and well-understood. It is best to work with the numbers (aperture, ISO, focal length, shutter speed). There's no need to magnify any images.
p.2 #5 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
tsdevine wrote:
Shooting the same lens in APS-C and FF at the same distance, at the same pixel pitch, will yield the “same” image on the portion that is in view for the shot. It becomes different when you try to match the field of view, either by switching FLs or shooting position.
That’s the easiest way for me to think about it.
Indeed, a cropped sensor gives a crop of the full frame image, under the described conditions. There are different ways of cropping: in post, with a TC, or using a cropped sensor. A crop is a crop is a crop...
p.2 #6 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
All this analysis is interesting but I think in practical terms it comes down to these questions:
Do you want to make big prints as technically perfect as possible? All of these differences in resolution, noise, and color are very hard to discern until you print something bigger than 12x18. In ideal conditions you can go much bigger than that before differences are noticeable.
Can you find the lenses that you want for the format/mount?
p.2 #7 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
I don't know if it was mentioned before, but another advantage to APS-C camera is when used with Full Frames lenses, the corners that are often soft on Full Frame are not a factor on an APS-C Camera. This is particularly helpful with rangefinder lenses, as they are small Full Frame lenses, and often exhibit corner smearing on FF cameras. Of course this doesn't help if a lens has midzone dip in resolution, but that affects Full Frame cameras as well.
p.2 #8 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
This subject has been thoroughly and carefully discussed by Joseph James, http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
This thread has many statements that are insufficiently qualified and in some cases are incorrect.
Some of the "myths" as discussed by James are repeated here.
Going through James' discussion takes some careful reading but is worth the effort if you want to understand the sensor size trade-offs.
p.2 #10 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
Robin Smith wrote:
Yes to Chiron. The same logic applies to m43. There you get effectively two stops of extra depth of field and 2 stops worse noise, but counterbalancing this, because most shots require more rather than less depth of field (unless you are obsessed with shooting at f1.4 for everything) you gain back the 2-stops of light because you can open the lens up two stops for the same depth of field. Only when you are at the limits of ISO sensitivity does the FF advantage come to the fore (in very dim environments and you have a requirement to stop action so have to set a fast shutter speed)....Show more →
This is incorrect. A smaller sensor does not give you more depth of field, because a crop sensor lens is softened by diffraction at lower apertures.
Shooting at f11 on FF and f5.6 on MFT gives the same depth of field and the same level of diffraction. You normally don't want to shoot at more than f4 on a MFT for this reason.
All in all, aside from crop sensors being cheaper to produce than full frame sensors, they do not have any benefits.
p.2 #11 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
dclark wrote:
What do you mean by "color depth" and why do you get a stop less?
Because the base/minimum noise level (ISO) in a shot is 2x on an APS-C and 4x on a MFT (compared to full frame). Even though it might say "ISO 100" on your crop camera doesn't actually mean it is equivalent to the 100 ISO noise on a full frame camera. It has twice as much noise and half as much information, no matter what number the ISO shows.
p.2 #12 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
So you just don't shoot at smaller/slower apertures than f5.6 if you don't like FF level f11 diffraction. So what? It is completely true that there is more depth of field with a smaller sensor for a lens that provides the same field of view. There's no point pretending there isn't.
p.2 #13 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
jaygould wrote:
This is incorrect. A smaller sensor does not give you more depth of field, because a crop sensor lens is softened by diffraction at lower apertures.
Diffraction doesn't reduce depth of field. An image on FF at f/22 will have more depth of field than one at 5.6 but it won't be as critically sharp. Those are 2 different things.
Jun 30, 2023 at 10:59 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #14 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
It doesn't take much of a crop to get to aps. 60-70% crop of FF and you're basically using aps.
p.2 #15 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
dclark wrote:
This subject has been thoroughly and carefully discussed by Joseph James, http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
This thread has many statements that are insufficiently qualified and in some cases are incorrect. (...)
p.2 #16 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
Robin Smith wrote:
So you just don't shoot at smaller/slower apertures than f5.6 if you don't like FF level f11 diffraction. So what? It is completely true that there is more depth of field with a smaller sensor for a lens that provides the same field of view. There's no point pretending there isn't.
This is often true, but not "completely" true that "there is more depth of field with a smaller sensor for a lens that provides the same field of view." For example, M.ZUIKO ED 17MM F1.2 PRO lens, used wide open, on a MFT camera should give a more shallow DOF compared to a FF 35 mm lens closed to F2.8 or more.
Thus, one must consider the aperture. An F2.8 MFT lens used wide-open and a FF lens closed to F5.6 should give the same DOF.
In practical terms, most photography done from F8 to F11 to F16 on a 24MP FF camera can be equally well done on a cropped-sensor camera, APS-C or MFT. Things get different when using the faster FF glass. This is where FF camera systems differ from the cropped-sensor systems, in addition to the high-MP count that allows cropping in post when so desired.
p.2 #17 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
Robin Smith wrote:
So you just don't shoot at smaller/slower apertures than f5.6 if you don't like FF level f11 diffraction. So what? It is completely true that there is more depth of field with a smaller sensor for a lens that provides the same field of view. There's no point pretending there isn't.
There is more depth of field at f8 on a MFT compared to f8 on a FF, yes. But there is also much more diffraction (same as f16 on a full frame). So if you want the same depth of field on your full frame as on your MFT, you can simply stop down to f16, and you will get the same depth of field and the same level of diffraction.
p.2 #18 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
jwpstl wrote:
Diffraction doesn't reduce depth of field. An image on FF at f/22 will have more depth of field than one at 5.6 but it won't be as critically sharp. Those are 2 different things.
I never said that f22 will be as sharp as f5.6. But f11 on full frame is as sharp as f5.6 on MFT based on diffraction. Therefore there is no advantage in terms of "more depth of field" on a smaller sensor.
p.2 #20 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
The OP started this question by guessing that the Sony a6700 will be a "better" camera than the Fuji X-T5. Possibly, depending upon how you measure "better", but what I know is that you will buy into a better system with Fuji if you decide to go APS-C. There are simply more and better lens choices for Fuji than Sony for APS-C.
I mainly shoot Sony FF, and when I look at my personal lens lineup, the only lens that has an equivalent light and depth of field gathering capacity on Fuji is my humble FE85, which is matched in both total light and narrow DOF capability by the various Fuji 56 f/1.2 primes, which are considerably more expensive. For everything else, my full frame lenses are brighter (aggregate light delivery to the sensor), have shallower DOF and are noticeably more expensive. But in all cases for the same focal lengths (ignoring the Sony FF light gathering advantage), Fuji is smaller, lighter and less expensive. For zooms, Fuji has more reach, particularly when comparing the 150-600 Fuji vs the 200-600G.
I did get a chance to shoot exclusively with my Fuji X-e3 for 3 days this week at the Ibis Oakridge Migration. I used a $100 TT Artisan 23MM f/1.4 manual focus lens, and it would be very difficult to argue that my $1400 35GM is $1300 better. I love the 35GM, but no way was my A9 and the GM going to fit into my mountain bike pack, whereas the Fuji X-e3 and the TT artisan easily made a home there. Pixel peeping, I could see many issues with the TTartisan, but I think an uninformed viewer would not find technical issues detracted from the photos taken.
