Jump to content

full frame vs aps-c....


 Share

Recommended Posts

Just thought I'd share my most recent blog post for anyone interested..

 

Testing side by side raw file image quality of the Sony A7riii vs the Sony A6300.... is full frame worth the difference?

 

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/07/20/aps-c-vs-full-frame-raw-files/

 

 

Full image comparisons in the link above. I've shot full frame for years, always feeling like I was getting better image quality. This was my first time really trying to examine side by side. I was playing with mid-ISO files (ISO 2000-4000) mostly.. I was processing raw files, some extensively. The results were closer than I expected but there benefits of full frame were still real, in almost every head to head comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Testing side by side raw file image quality of the Sony A7riii vs the Sony A6300.... is full frame worth the difference?

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/07/20/aps-c-vs-full-frame-raw-files/

 

Thanks for the reference.

 

I can understand why you and Dave are so high on the full-frame A7riii.

 

On the other hand (with my lousy hand strength), I'm pleased that my A6300s don't suffer that much in comparison.

 

Thanks again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice job!

 

Ideally, I'd have both. lol

 

Primarily, I want full frame because it gets me wide angle easier? Cheaper? But also very important, I do need that flexibility because when I'm on vacation, sometimes I have to take shots way under/over exposed due to time or other situation and just have to fix in post.

 

I'd like a real compact APS-C for the portability and built in zoom though.

 

I definitely get why pros carry around two bodies to events now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice article Adam.

 

Owning both the A73 and the A6300, I will state again for the record that the best camera for all situations is two cameras.

 

:)

 

This is why I'm a Sony fan. If you can afford full-frame, their latest generation is world class at a competitive price point and a significant savings in size and weight. If you don't want to spend quite as much or want to save even more weight with minimal sacrifice in image quality, their APS-C cameras are at the all-around top of their class. I'm saying this as a fan, not a fanboy. A variety of cameras will best the Sonys in one spec or another but not by much and as a total package, the price/performance combo is very hard to beat.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice article Adam.

 

Owning both the A73 and the A6300, I will state again for the record that the best camera for all situations is two cameras.

 

:)

 

This is why I'm a Sony fan. If you can afford full-frame, their latest generation is world class at a competitive price point and a significant savings in size and weight. If you don't want to spend quite as much or want to save even more weight with minimal sacrifice in image quality, their APS-C cameras are at the all-around top of their class. I'm saying this as a fan, not a fanboy. A variety of cameras will best the Sonys in one spec or another but not by much and as a total package, the price/performance combo is very hard to beat.

 

Dave

 

This was the first time I pulled out the A6300 in months... made the ergonomics feel really terrible, especially moving the af point. (Having to remember to press the control pad before can start moving the af point).

 

But in terms of IQ, it definitely holds up well.

 

I’ve gotten to toy with the Canon M50, in a lot of respects I like it more than the A6300. I’m hoping Sony brings better ergonomics to the a6700.

 

I expect the FF mirrorless playing field will get a whole lot more crowded very soon.

 

And Nikon, at a minimum, will have a very competitive body with some advantages over Sony (lossless compressed raw, better menu system).

 

Sony has gotten a big head start. But some of the best racers are getting ready to leave the gate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Primarily, I want full frame because it gets me wide angle easier? Cheaper? But also very important, I do need that flexibility because when I'm on vacation, sometimes I have to take shots way under/over exposed due to time or other situation and just have to fix in post.

Back in the day, I'd point out that a Canon 5D + a 16-35/2.8 was roughly double the price of a crop body and EF-S 10-22, which is functionally equivalent to a 16-35 on FF. However, those 10-22s are a lot more distorted, and the crop body doesn't have the high ISO ability. And the 14/2.8 or newer 11-24 are expensive, should you want really, really wide.

 

That said, why do you "have to" take shots way under/over exposed anyway? Use a semi-automatic mode like aperture priority and let the meter at least get you close.

 

 

I definitely get why pros carry around two bodies to events now.

Except it's rarely one FF and one crop; it's usually two identical cameras, or at least not mixed crop factor. With pro usage, stuff's going to break. A great line from the movie GI Jane goes something like this: "we always take backups. two means one, one means none." That one camera and three lenses gets VERY heavy fast if it dies, but if you start with two cameras and one dies along the way, you can still shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, why do you "have to" take shots way under/over exposed anyway? Use a semi-automatic mode like aperture priority and let the meter at least get you close.

 

One example is sitting in the audience of an outdoor show. Depending on the orientation of the sun and stage, you can have some horrific lighting situations. Basically, when travelling, I may not be able to move to try and better my lighting situation. Can have some spots where one subject is in shadow or way too bright when something else I want to capture is in the opposite lighting.

 

On Nikon, we typically shoot in Aperture mode anyways. Camera helps some. Still figuring out Sony, because it's Aperture mode doesn't act the same way as Nikon.

 

In any case, we just take the shot anyways and fix in post. Haven't played with the Sony files (hurry up Luminar), but the D750 gives you a TON of leeway to fix in post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the day, I'd point out that a Canon 5D + a 16-35/2.8 was roughly double the price of a crop body and EF-S 10-22, which is functionally equivalent to a 16-35 on FF. However, those 10-22s are a lot more distorted, and the crop body doesn't have the high ISO ability. And the 14/2.8 or newer 11-24 are expensive, should you want really, really wide.

 

That said, why do you "have to" take shots way under/over exposed anyway? Use a semi-automatic mode like aperture priority and let the meter at least get you close.

 

Simple — to protect the highlights. With ISO invariance and great dynamic range, you can get High dynamic range shots from a single image —— just protect the highlights. Canon sensors aren’t able to do it in the same way as Nikon and Sony. But with some Nikon/Sony sensors, you can effectively take every image at ISO 100... then raise the exposure in post, and it won’t look any worse than simply taking the image at ISO 1600 in the first place, but you had the benefit of protecting the highlights.

 

I’ll post an example in the next day or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple — to protect the highlights. With ISO invariance and great dynamic range, you can get High dynamic range shots from a single image —— just protect the highlights. Canon sensors aren’t able to do it in the same way as Nikon and Sony. But with some Nikon/Sony sensors, you can effectively take every image at ISO 100... then raise the exposure in post, and it won’t look any worse than simply taking the image at ISO 1600 in the first place, but you had the benefit of protecting the highlights.

 

I’ll post an example in the next day or two.

 

Intentionally "under" exposed -- actually exposed for the highlights:

43528012042_a052392280_h.jpguntitled (264 of 350).jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Which then allowed this after processing:

 

42669490535_4c0ba27b59_h.jpguntitled (264 of 350)-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for mansplaining that to me...

 

 

One other reason to go FF: lens design. As I'd read elsewhere prior to going FF, a lot of lenses just "make more sense" on FF because they were designed for FF. Case in point: Canon's 85/1.2. It's designed for portrait work, and hence you want a reasonable working distance, roughly 5'. However, 85mm * a 1.5x or 1.6x crop factor puts it at about 135mm, and at 5' working distance you end up with an overly tight crop, or a distance where (IMHO) the lens isn't as magic. Likewise a 14mm ultra-wide on a crop camera just loses its luster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...