1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Old full frame or new APS-C?

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by mikechopragant, Jan 25, 2013.

  1. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath

    This is the APS-C only owners fiercely defending their "horses" over the people who have both and can give of their experience. I note that 19 people have looked at my two photos and, despite someone coming over all scientific about same photo on same day etc, not one single person has commented and said the APS-C photo has the same quality as the full frame, or more quality, or less quality - THEY JUST HAVEN'T RISEN TO THE CHALLENGE.
     
  2. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Indeed, not since I was a teenager. Learnt a lot at uni studying engineering though, such as the benefits of good design and technology, and to look beyond the spec sheet to see what really matters.

    I much prefer "real world" testing to studio test shots, but if you can kindly have a look at any comparisons at ooh, 3200 and over (oops, it doesn't go further than that!) you can see the advantage of technology over your 'full frame physics'...
     
  3. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    It would have been even more instructive if you had been able to put up identical scenes from both cameras but I separate can not distinguish the images in terms of IQ

    Roger
     
  4. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath

    Trouble is the D700 is so far ahead of the D90 in quality of image (it's depth, low noise, range of colour differentiation etc that I don't use the D90 any more - so no same subject photos.
     
  5. AlexMonro

    AlexMonro Old Grand Part Deux

    Hard to say really since they are of rather different subjects, but to my eye the D90 picture has slightly better quality in terms of colour and detail.

    In a blind test without the captions and EXIF saying which was which, I doubt I would have been able to tell.

    However, while I would certainly expect full frame to produce noticeably better images in some conditions, e.g. low light / high ISO, we don't really know what aspects are most important to the OP.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
  6. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath

    Thanks for actually commenting on the comparisons between the two photos Alex. My view is that the D90 is very good still but lacks the subtelty of the D700 - it's colours are more poster colour - the D700 has more gradation of colour which makes the materials look more realistic - more touchable The full frame is at 800 ASA - and the D90 image is at 200 ASA.
     
  7. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    This would have been a much more useful exercise if the topic had been "recently replaced full frame or ancient APS-C?" ;)

    Seriously though, no-one is saying that APS-C is superior in all ways to so-called full frame. There are some things it does better and some it struggles on. Which performance criteria are important is down to user needs and preference, that's all.

    It's disappointing that some feel the need to look down on others for a perceived lack of experience or knowledge. Such arrogance is quite unnecessary. Ironic that if the same folk had been championing 36*24mm eighty years ago they'd be the uneducated inexperienced holiday snappers.
     
  8. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath

    It's not arrogance Zou - the poster actually asked the question. I note your point about 36 x 24 presumably versus full plate and you are right that 36 x 24 advocates were challenged. I don't think this is quite the same question though. Full plate images still look stunning, even if taken in 1910 - because they had less grains (pixels) per square inch than 35mm film taken thirty years later. APS-C I think started because the sensors cost a lot per square metre of material - and thus camera cost was kept down by using less of it - lenses could already cover a full frame format so it wasn't a lens limitation. Presumably the D600 and the EOS 6D exist now because that cost has come down.
     
  9. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Ditto :)
     
  10. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath


    This is arguing about physics. I will leave that to the -------------------- now what's the word ?
     
  11. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I do know quite a lot about both physics and the scientific method and one of the things I know is that it is pure arrogance to support an argument with exagerated assertions and not to compare like with like.

    Just for the record I do believe that FF will give better IQ than any crop sensor but at nothing like the level you suggest.

    Roger
     
  12. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath

    My stance is that it is better to look at real images. The arguments put forward so far have been based on assumption - a bit like when hi-fi pre or power amplifiers were measured scientifically - and then the conclusion was something like "I would think this amplifier would produce a forward sound with a slight regression in the treble which might bear matching with a soft sounding speaker". Nowadays the testers actually listen to music through them as well and can really tell you what they sound like. To take this argument to a conclusion there is a general assumption from posters that more megapixels irrespective of the size of the sensor makes a better camera for a specific user. By the same argument the Naim Nait amplifier should have been worse than the Amstrad IC2000 - but only until you had actualy listened to both irrespective of the actual discs played.

    Last post on this thread from me.
     
  13. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Showing two different images proves nothing, two of the same subject with equivalent focal length lenses of comparable optical performance just might.

    Another dodgy analogy, you don't really need to listen to those two amps to know which is worst, it's quite obvious...
     
  14. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    not generally the case on the AP forum....it may be in some very exceptional cases but the general concensus is that more isn't always best
     
  15. Wheelu

    Wheelu Well-Known Member

    Hers's an interesting comparison, a 5D Mk1 shot and a Sony Nex 6. the Sony photo at ISO 3200 and the 5D shots at 1600.

    Click for an enlargement.

    I have also owned a 20D and a 450D, the NEX is in another league in terms of high ISO performance and dynamic range. Things move on!
     
  16. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Indeed. Unless I have missed something nobody has stated "the APS-C will be better because it has more megapixels" in this thread. :confused:
     
  17. ianwaite

    ianwaite Well-Known Member

    With due regard that is crap, more pixels on small sensor is detrimental, I can't believe your still spouting such rubbish!
     
  18. ianwaite

    ianwaite Well-Known Member

    Physics, physics, physics!
     
  19. ianwaite

    ianwaite Well-Known Member

    megapixels does not equate to quality and never will, sorry Zao go back to shooting film and Think about it!
     
  20. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    If I may, it has been suggested that, although the 5D Mk1 was good in it's day it has been overtaken there for the Pentax will be a better performer.

    The 5D Mk1 is a good performer, its performance has not deteriorated just because it isn't a current model, it is just that newer cameras may have lower noise levels and better dynamic range. None of which makes the 5D Mk1 a bad camera.

    My preference would always be for the full frame sensor even if it means buying used simply because I like the depth of field control and predictability of lens performance that go with it.

    That doesn't mean that cropped sensor cameras can't produce high quality images, they can. As someone who has equivalent DX and FX bodies I can, potentially, take the same image on both and demonstrate the differences. I can, but I won't because the fundamental issue isn't about sensor size, it is about whether the OP prefers the handling of Canon or Pentax.

    I have already said that if he can't get along with the Canon handling sensor size becomes a non issue because Pentax don't have a full frame sensor model.

    Firs comes handling, then, and only then, can the OP make a decision on which model from his chosen manufacturer to buy.
     

Share This Page