Full Frame vs APS-C

There are some who profess that a full frame sensor produces far better
images than the APS-C sensor.

There are other who profess that the full frame sensor only produces
better images under certain circumstances and only when enlarged to the
real big print.

My Questions:

How big a print before you see a significant noticeable difference?

Under what circumstances will you see a significant noticeable difference?

How much cropping needs to be done to see a significant noticeable
difference?

Opinions please!


For those who have used both; what differences do you see and where do you
see them?

The cost for a good APS-C sensor camera can range from about $800 to about
$1800 on the high end while the full frame sensor camera costs about
$3,000 plus the lenses are also more. In addition it is heavier and less
convenient.

It does have the advantage of better wide angle capability while the
smaller sensor has better telephoto range. Which is more important to
most people who want to create artistic scenic photographs?

It isn't what you see it is what you think you see that matters.
In the old days golden eared audiophiles would carp about the superiority of
high priced audio electronics (amplifiers, not speakers which can have
clearly audible differences).
However not one single double blind hearing test showed that these listeners
could identify the higher priced gear as superior. Some studies showed that
some listeners consistently discerned differences between mid-priced and
high priced electronics but could not reliably identify which was which.
The artistry (the vision thing) of the photographer and the skill of the
printer matter more than the gear.
Ever has it been ever shall it be.
Does anyone in their right mind, as opposed to those of us who frequent this
newsgroup, think it really matters if the umpteenth
wedding/advertising/snapshot image is captured with a 21 or a 6 mp sensor
when its all the same disposable junk imagery anyway?

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:23:14 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

measekite writes:

There are some who profess that a full frame sensor produces far better
images than the APS-C sensor.

A larger surface will always produce a better image, all else being equal, and
this is true for both digital and film.

My Questions:

How big a print before you see a significant noticeable difference?

Under what circumstances will you see a significant noticeable difference?

How much cropping needs to be done to see a significant noticeable
difference?

Opinions please!

At normal viewing distances, a six-megapixel image approaches the limits of
human vision. Higher resolutions do improve the image, but with rapidly
diminishing returns. On the other hand, lower resolutions rapidly degrade the
image, with individual pixels becoming so obvious that they are intrusive.

"Normal viewing distance" means a viewing distance that is comparable to the
diagonal of the image. If images will be examined more closely, more pixels
are required; if they will only be seen from a distance or will be very small
(like thumbnail images), few pixels are required.

I am not speaking about MP I am speaking about the size of the sensor and
where and under what circumstances a larger sensor can produce
substantially better images that are printed and again at what size.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:26:08 -0700, "saycheez"
wrote:

It isn't what you see it is what you think you see that matters.
In the old days golden eared audiophiles would carp about the superiority of
high priced audio electronics (amplifiers, not speakers which can have
clearly audible differences).
However not one single double blind hearing test showed that these listeners
could identify the higher priced gear as superior. Some studies showed that
some listeners consistently discerned differences between mid-priced and
high priced electronics but could not reliably identify which was which.

There was one famous double-blind test organised by Peter Walker of
Quad in which he challenged critics to show that they could reliably
tell the difference between a Quad amplifier and a Naim. All of the
front line critics found reasons whey they couldn't take part.
Aspiring second line critics participated and were found to perform no
better than random chance.

Peter Walker then explained and demonstrated there was a difference in
sound and why that should be. He then made a small change to the Quad
and made it sound like a Naim, and vice versa.

Ultra crticism enters the relms of bull****. The same applies to
photography.

The artistry (the vision thing) of the photographer and the skill of the
printer matter more than the gear.
Ever has it been ever shall it be.
Does anyone in their right mind, as opposed to those of us who frequent this
newsgroup, think it really matters if the umpteenth
wedding/advertising/snapshot image is captured with a 21 or a 6 mp sensor
when its all the same disposable junk imagery anyway?



Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There was one famous double-blind test organised by Peter Walker of
Quad in which he challenged critics to show that they could reliably
tell the difference between a Quad amplifier and a Naim. All of the
front line critics found reasons whey they couldn't take part.
Aspiring second line critics participated and were found to perform no
better than random chance.

my favourite is monster cable versus coat hangers:

http://consumerist.com/362926/do-coa...od-monster-cab
les

Seven different songs were played, each time heard with the speaker
hooked up to Monster Cables, and the other time, hooked up to coat
hanger wire. Nobody could determine which was the Monster Cable and
which was the coat hanger. The kicker? None of the subjects even knew
that coat hangers were going to be used.

"measekite" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:23:14 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

measekite writes:

There are some who profess that a full frame sensor produces far better
images than the APS-C sensor.

A larger surface will always produce a better image, all else being
equal, and
this is true for both digital and film.

My Questions:

How big a print before you see a significant noticeable difference?

Under what circumstances will you see a significant noticeable
difference?

How much cropping needs to be done to see a significant noticeable
difference?

Opinions please!

At normal viewing distances, a six-megapixel image approaches the limits
of
human vision. Higher resolutions do improve the image, but with rapidly
diminishing returns. On the other hand, lower resolutions rapidly
degrade the
image, with individual pixels becoming so obvious that they are
intrusive.

"Normal viewing distance" means a viewing distance that is comparable to
the
diagonal of the image. If images will be examined more closely, more
pixels
are required; if they will only be seen from a distance or will be very
small
(like thumbnail images), few pixels are required.

I am not speaking about MP I am speaking about the size of the sensor and
where and under what circumstances a larger sensor can produce
substantially better images that are printed and again at what size.

Bigger is always better, but costs more. Sensor size and MP are linked.
Big sensors can produce more MP with reasonable noise (dynamic range).
Increasing MP on smaller sensors can incur tradeoffs that are not acceptable
to all photographers.

Medium and large format film will live on for several years.

Print size is a difficult issue. Generally, 200 DPI works very well.
However, large prints are normally viewed back a few steps and less
resolution (than 200) can work very well.

Your question is actually very difficult to answer.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:15:27 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:26:08 -0700, "saycheez"
wrote:

It isn't what you see it is what you think you see that matters.
In the old days golden eared audiophiles would carp about the superiority of
high priced audio electronics (amplifiers, not speakers which can have
clearly audible differences).
However not one single double blind hearing test showed that these listeners
could identify the higher priced gear as superior. Some studies showed that
some listeners consistently discerned differences between mid-priced and
high priced electronics but could not reliably identify which was which.

There was one famous double-blind test organised by Peter Walker of
Quad in which he challenged critics to show that they could reliably
tell the difference between a Quad amplifier and a Naim. All of the
front line critics found reasons whey they couldn't take part.
Aspiring second line critics participated and were found to perform no
better than random chance.

Peter Walker then explained and demonstrated there was a difference in
sound and why that should be. He then made a small change to the Quad
and made it sound like a Naim, and vice versa.

Ultra crticism enters the relms of bull****. The same applies to
photography.

And wine tasting. The "experts" can't tell which wine is best unless
they can see the label.

Archibald

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:21:12 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
wrote:

A larger sensor will use less expensive lenses, not more. For example
the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens is cost around $70, to get the same field of
view on a cropped sensor camera you would need something around 28mm,
a 28mm f/1.8 costs far more then the 50mm one.

Scott

That's because there isn't a 28mm f/1.8 made for the small sensor. If
there was, and once it was mass-produced, it would probably be cheaper
(and lighter) than the 50mm f/1.8.

Archibald

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:43:20 GMT, Archibald
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:15:27 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:26:08 -0700, "saycheez"
wrote:

It isn't what you see it is what you think you see that matters.
In the old days golden eared audiophiles would carp about the superiority of
high priced audio electronics (amplifiers, not speakers which can have
clearly audible differences).
However not one single double blind hearing test showed that these listeners
could identify the higher priced gear as superior. Some studies showed that
some listeners consistently discerned differences between mid-priced and
high priced electronics but could not reliably identify which was which.

There was one famous double-blind test organised by Peter Walker of
Quad in which he challenged critics to show that they could reliably
tell the difference between a Quad amplifier and a Naim. All of the
front line critics found reasons whey they couldn't take part.
Aspiring second line critics participated and were found to perform no
better than random chance.

Peter Walker then explained and demonstrated there was a difference in
sound and why that should be. He then made a small change to the Quad
and made it sound like a Naim, and vice versa.

Ultra crticism enters the relms of bull****. The same applies to
photography.

And wine tasting. The "experts" can't tell which wine is best unless
they can see the label.

That doesn't happen in any wine competition of which I am aware. The
only visible labels on the bottles carry a number.



Eric Stevens

Archibald wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:21:12 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
wrote:

A larger sensor will use less expensive lenses, not more. For example
the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens is cost around $70, to get the same field of
view on a cropped sensor camera you would need something around 28mm,
a 28mm f/1.8 costs far more then the 50mm one.

Scott

That's because there isn't a 28mm f/1.8 made for the small sensor. If
there was, and once it was mass-produced, it would probably be cheaper
(and lighter) than the 50mm f/1.8.

Archibald

But a 28 mm f/1.8 lens will not
duplicate the image of the 50 mm f/1.8 on the full frame camera.

To get the same image you need the same apparent entrance pupil
diameter, which means a 28mm f/1.2 lens.

Doug McDonald