ruthenium
Online
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Small Compact Camera A7C2 vs A7CR vs others | |
tsdevine wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
tsdevine wrote:
ruthenium wrote:
aCuria wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
Jonas B wrote:
I recall a strange test made by the guys at Lumnious landscape a couple of years ago when they compared a Canon pocket camera, perhaps with a 1" sensor, to a digital large format camera. It was a lot of discussion and some confusion. They made prints and several photographers looking ast the prints weren't able to tell the difference.
Lol. Later there were differences to be seen and when shooting at any other situation than bright light and contrasty targets the larger sensor was totally superior. Of course. They proved nothing but that a larger sensor is "better".
First off, no one is saying that a smaller sensor is "as good as" a larger sensor, much less better. What I'm saying is that the smaller sensors are quite good, and good enough that most photographers are not going to see any difference in most situations.
Context means a lot when we're making recommendations. In this thread we have a person using an older Canon DSLR model who is interested in the Sony A7CR and some of the smaller APS-C Fujifilm cameras.
It is useful for such a person to consider what they'll do with their photographs and how that balances with other factors that they might value. If this persons is, let's say, doing a ton of high ISO night photography and making very large prints, then it is very likely that the Sony FF camera would be the better choice. But if the person is not doing that but instead doing more typical handheld photography and perhaps not printing at all or perhaps only printing at very small sizes. the IQ plus (which is undeniable on the test bench) of a larger, higher-res FF system starts to mean less and less... and other factors start to matter more, potentially including interface preference, size, price, and so forth.
For years I was part of a small print review group among a group of friends and photographers, one of whom wrote several articles for Luminous Landscape as he considered moving from LF film to MF digital systems.
Our group consisted of serious photographers, several of whom are published and represented by respected galleries, and all of whom do their own printing. Among the group were users of everything from APS-C to FF and miniMF, Phase One backs, LF film, and even some really exotic and expensive digital systems.
Our practice at our generally monthly or so meetings was to share some prints with the group and then have feedback and discussion. Prints were positioned in good light and we all viewed them at typical distances and as close as we wanted.
We had one of those experiences like the one you mention at one meet-up. One of the group members put op a print on 13" x 19" paper and said, "there's something unusual about this print, and I wonder if anyone can see it?" We looked from a distance and close up, we discussed, we pondered. Perhaps the contest could have been a bit higher? Was the color shifted a bit toward cooler tones? Was it printed on a different paper? Regardless, it looked quite good.
The person finally revealed, "I shot it on my iPhone."
Now, I'm not going to claim that an iPhone can equal a Phase One back system, but I am going to say based on this and many similar experiences, that the differences among systems are often grossly exaggerated in photo forum discussions, and quite often values that might be appropriate for people regularly making 30" x 40" and larger "gallery prints" turn out to be inappropriate as decision points for many forum participants.
Who know? Perhaps our OP really does work where the fine Sony FF 60MP sensor will make a visible difference, for example in quite large prints. But it is certainly useful for those whose output will not be of that type to consider the possibility that they might be as well served by something smaller.
Finally, in our OP's case, I think a much bigger question might be whether or not the enticements of the very small X100vi will outweigh the lack of versatility of the fixed 23mm f/2 lens...
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
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 increasing the SS, or both. The size of the sensors isn't a factor here at all.
So are you saying, that if you take a full frame sensor and an APS-C sensor (let's say they have the same resolution).....the sensor with the larger pixel size can't hold more photons than the sensor with smaller pixels? You're saying the larger pixel has the same full well capacity as the smaller one?'
A sensor can only collect the light it can collect, but it is limited by the full well capacity of the pixels on the sensor no?
Just trying to understand your statements.
Hi Tim,
Full well capacity, comes into play at low ISO not high ISO and the typically greater full well capacity of full frame sensor is responsible for their higher dynamic range (DR) at base ISO. At higher ISOs, however, the sensors are not at full well capacity so that doesn't come into play and an equivalent lens (e.g., a 23 f/1.2 vs. a 35 f/1.8 in my kit) shot at the same shutter speed (meaning you have to turn the ISO up a stop on the FF lens if you shoot wide open) will have roughly equivalent DR as long as the sensors have similar technology. By equivalent photographic conditions ruthenium means the crop factor is applied to the focal length and aperture to match the lenses, and the ISO is adjusted to maintain the same shutter speed.
Thanks Steve. On the surface, that makes sense to me, since the pixel is basically starved for light. But it is still possible to blow highlights at high ISO and there does seem to be some implication to dynamic range...or at least in the context of measurements.
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20X100VI,Sony%20ILCE-7CM2
So are you saying that the change in focal length and aperture, it will equalize any difference?
Always trying to learn, often by skinning my knees...
This is what the photographic equivalence is all about: give the same amount of light(!) to two camera systems that are set side-by-side and have the same scene in the frame, and the photos should be indistinguishable (while ignoring the lens rendering), regardless of the sensor's size.
|
