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, 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.
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, 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.
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, 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.
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.
Jun 25, 2019 at 07:53 AM
Previous versions of chiron's message #14891875 « APS-C vs Full Frame »
