p.3 #1 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
All I know is, I had an A6400 once and photos taken with it were significantly less impressive than the A7III. Why? Enter technical talk They were lacking oomph, indoors and outdoors. I stuck with full frame from then on.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · 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?
As I said in the full post above, what I see is that when I shoot at a lower ISO, I like the color of the images better than when I shoot at a higher ISO. It gets really noticeable at 3 stops higher ISO, but over the years when I compare APS-C to Full frame I notice the difference between, for example, of FF ISO 100 and APS-C 400 as being similar to FF ISO 100 and FF ISO 800. So, I am calling that difference I see in color performance color depth. That may not be the right term, but I think I can see the difference.
p.3 #4 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
Steve Spencer wrote:
As I said in the full post above, what I see is that when I shoot at a lower ISO, I like the color of the images better than when I shoot at a higher ISO. It gets really noticeable at 3 stops higher ISO, but over the years when I compare APS-C to Full frame I notice the difference between, for example, of FF ISO 100 and APS-C 400 as being similar to FF ISO 100 and FF ISO 800. So, I am calling that difference I see in color performance color depth. That may not be the right term, but I think I can see the difference....Show more →
Thanks for the explanation.
Jul 01, 2023 at 04:23 PM
duncang Offline • • • [X]
p.3 #5 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
ruthenium wrote:
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...
Since when is using a TC cropping
Jul 01, 2023 at 07:53 PM
duncang Offline • • • [X]
p.3 #6 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
You're not going to tell me using a zoom is cropping too are you
Jul 01, 2023 at 07:54 PM
duncang Offline • • • [X]
p.3 #7 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
I hate cropping
Jul 01, 2023 at 07:55 PM
duncang Offline • • • [X]
p.3 #8 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
p.3 #10 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
duncang wrote:
Since when is using a TC cropping
As was mentioned by Dave (see his post on p. 2)
"This subject has been thoroughly and carefully discussed by Joseph James," http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
Images obtained with a TC attached to a lens and similarly framed, by cropping in post, images of the same lens without a TC have the same f number and the same DOF, and approximately the same total amount of light (while ignoring any loss of light in the TC). Thus, using a TC is a one way of cropping. Its main advantage is in retaining the MP count of the sensor. This advantage is most likely seen only when pixel peeping, and not always.
p.3 #11 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
Steve Spencer wrote:
As I said in the full post above, what I see is that when I shoot at a lower ISO, I like the color of the images better than when I shoot at a higher ISO. It gets really noticeable at 3 stops higher ISO, but over the years when I compare APS-C to Full frame I notice the difference between, for example, of FF ISO 100 and APS-C 400 as being similar to FF ISO 100 and FF ISO 800. So, I am calling that difference I see in color performance color depth. That may not be the right term, but I think I can see the difference....Show more →
Whatever color depth it doesn't seem to be quantifiable. If you see differences that's all that matters, but I don't think it can be used to actually describe the differences between FF and APSC. Is it possible you're talking about manufacturers color science?
p.3 #13 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
gunmetal wrote:
Whatever color depth it doesn't seem to be quantifiable. If you see differences that's all that matters, but I don't think it can be used to actually describe the differences between FF and APSC. Is it possible you're talking about manufacturers color science?
You can try shooting a set of images yourself, starting from ISO 100 and going up to 51,200. You will see that eventually, colors will start to degrade.
p.3 #14 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
jaygould wrote:
You can try shooting a set of images yourself, starting from ISO 100 and going up to 51,200. You will see that eventually, colors will start to degrade.
That's ISO performance, not 'color depth'. And as many have already pointed out software has mitigated much of the deficiencies of smaller sensors in that area. I think 'color depth' is either something people want to see or just manufacturer color science.
p.3 #16 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
sonofjesse2010 wrote:
However I enjoy the lenses making correct sense to my 35mm brain (28-70mm makes more sense to me than a 17-35mm for a standard zoom)
Agree. So much is about knowing your kit and being able to respond quickly and instinctively to a photo opportunity with the right choices.
When I changed to Sony A7R4, the last Leica camera I owned was a CL (APS-C, 24Mp). The pics from the CL were terrific, particularly with the best of the Leica lenses (the 35/1.4 Summilux). Even today I sometimes have to check whether a particular shot was before or after the change to Sony FF, when viewed at HD resolution on my iMac 27" screen.
That said, the difference does show up if I start to crop heavily. Then my A7R4 pulls ahead pretty quickly.
With that background experience, I am quite happy to shoot the A7R4 in APS-C mode when the situation warrants it. Mostly though I stick to FF simply because I can, and I never know for sure when I might want the flexibility in post-processing.
As a footnote, I would also say the noise handling of the A7R4 sensor really surprised me. I had expected a large Mp sensor to be more noisy, which indeed is what reviewers were saying, but in practice the sensor has been great and the noise performance has been better than the CL.
p.3 #18 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
A.Y. wrote: http://www.alyudesign.com/images/fb/apscff.gif
In an era when AI softwares can easily overcome several stops of differences, bridging the 1-stop gap between FF and APS-C is just TOO EASY. This is why I'm eagerly waiting for my A6700 (or whatever the name will be) to come in the near future.
People mentioned no APS-C ultra-wides Laowa 9mm (13.5mm FF)!!!
p.3 #19 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
gunmetal wrote:
That's ISO performance, not 'color depth'. And as many have already pointed out software has mitigated much of the deficiencies of smaller sensors in that area. I think 'color depth' is either something people want to see or just manufacturer color science.
They are interlinked (ISO and color). ISO affects color.
No, software cannot correct something that isn't captured by the sensor. Well, maybe you can now with AI, but then we are not discussing photography anymore.
p.3 #20 · The main (theoretical) differences between APS-C and Full-Frame?
jaygould wrote:
They are interlinked (ISO and color). ISO affects color.
No, software cannot correct something that isn't captured by the sensor. Well, maybe you can now with AI, but then we are not discussing photography anymore.
ISO does not itself directly affect color. ISO is a measure of the amount of light per unit sensor surface. In low light (at high ISO), the sensor signal to noise ratio is low; thus, the signal from many pixels becomes random. I don't think this loss of information to random noise should be refered to as a change in "color depth".
Laowa 9mm (13.5mm FF)!!!