ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #5 · Small Compact Camera A7C2 vs A7CR vs others | |
aCuria wrote:
I agree with much of what you said, especially about context. For most people, the iPhone has already become “good enough.” That’s exactly why the compact point-and-shoot market died years ago.
But for those of us still here, the ones comparing APS-C vs full frame, or even larger formats, clearly the iPhone wasn’t good enough. We’re still chasing that extra bit of quality, flexibility, or headroom that smaller sensors can’t give.
Sometimes APS-C is enough. I often use APS-C crop mode on my full-frame body instead of carrying extra primes and swapping them twice as often, that’s one of the perks of full frame. When APS-C quality is sufficient, I save both time and weight. And when it isn’t, I can put more lenses in the bag without changing camera systems.
For me, “good enough” is not the only factor, I also consider how much I value my time. Even if APS-C can produce acceptable results, why would I choose it when an A9iii / A1ii offers better image quality, faster autofocus, quicker burst and readout speeds, and a higher hit rate, with no real downsides?
“Good enough” also tends to hold only until it isn’t. Larger sensors simply collect more photons, has better SNR, smoother skin tones and wider dynamic range. One stop more dynamic range means the light has to be twice as bright before clipping highlights, which can save real-world shots (eg: the bride's gown is so often blown out), especially at high ISO where dynamic range collapses. That kind of “insurance” is worth something. And when the gap between an A6700 ($1500) and an A7IV ($2000) is just $500, paying for that insurance makes sense. It’s not like the old days when a 1Ds cost the equivalent of $15,000 and most pros just used a 10D.
The full-frame ecosystem simply goes further. Cameras like the A1 II and A9 III represent performance levels that don’t exist in APS-C, which means there are higher-end options to buy or rent when needed. Staying within the full-frame system lets us scale from entry level bodies to flagship speed and resolution without changing lenses.
For more casual photographers, it really comes down to the value proposition. On the low end no FF camera can compete with the Canon EOS R100 and kit lens ($559). However in the mid range APSC may cost about the same! A7IV ($2000), X-T5 ($2000), R6ii ($2100)
And sometimes, you can get away with less lenses with full frame which may save some money
35/1.4 GM ($1500)
APS-C crop mode: 53mm f/2 equivalent
23/1.4 LM WR ($1050, 35mm f/2 equivalent)
33/1.4 LM WR ($950, 50mm f/2 equivalent)
Total: $2000 ...Show more →
Regarding what you said above, quote
"Larger sensors simply collect more photons, has better SNR... One stop more dynamic range means the light has to be twice as bright before clipping highlights, which can save real-world shots... especially at high ISO where dynamic range collapses."
You either didn't express your thoughts succinctly; thus, the result sounds absurd (e.g., a sensor can collect only the light that falls on it, regardless of the sensor's size), or you are genuinely confused about the SNR and the dynamic range of a sensor. At high ISO, full-frame sensors have no advantage vs. cropped sensors in terms of the SNR and DR under photographically equivalent conditions.
At high ISO, if one sensor (be it FF or cropped, that is irrelevant) "collected more photons" (and, thus, has a better SNR and a better DR) this must have happened only because the photographer allowed more light to reach the sensor by either opening the lens or by decreasing the SS, or by both. The size of the sensors isn't a factor here at all.
Edited on Nov 06, 2025 at 09:59 AM · View previous versions
|
.