A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

So, Why FF ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 14th 18, 09:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default So, Why FF ?

Seems to me that FF is all about connectng back to the old 35 mm film
format, and very little else, since smaller sensors with the same
pixcel count in conjunction with shorter lenses could do the same
thing, BUT smaller and lighter. What part have I got wrong ?
  #2  
Old September 14th 18, 09:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default So, Why FF ?

In article ,
wrote:

Seems to me that FF is all about connectng back to the old 35 mm film
format, and very little else, since smaller sensors with the same
pixcel count in conjunction with shorter lenses could do the same
thing, BUT smaller and lighter. What part have I got wrong ?


just about everything.

full frame sensors produce images with higher image quality, lower
noise, wider dynamic range and/or higher resolution, and the lenses
aren't necessarily bigger.

so no, a crop sensor can't 'do the same thing'.

some people might not notice or care, but that's something else
entirely.
  #4  
Old September 14th 18, 09:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default So, Why FF ?


just about everything.

full frame sensors produce images with higher image quality


But why ?

lower noise


That might be, but why ?

wider dynamic range and/or higher resolution


If the pixcel numbers are the same and the aspect ratios are the same,
then the resolutions are equal. My question assumes shorter lenses to
yield the same image. Nothing cropped.

and the lenses aren't necessarily bigger.

Not true, under the above premise.
  #5  
Old September 14th 18, 09:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default So, Why FF ?

Good info, thanks.
  #6  
Old September 14th 18, 10:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default So, Why FF ?

In article ,
wrote:


just about everything.

full frame sensors produce images with higher image quality


But why ?


physics.

lower noise


That might be, but why ?


it is, and again, physics.

bigger sensors collect more light, thus lower noise.

wider dynamic range and/or higher resolution


If the pixcel numbers are the same and the aspect ratios are the same,
then the resolutions are equal.


for the same number of pixels, a larger sensor will have larger
individual pixels, resulting in lower noise and higher image quality.

if the pixels are the same size on both sensors, then a larger sensor
will have more pixels.

either way, full frame wins.

My question assumes shorter lenses to
yield the same image. Nothing cropped.

and the lenses aren't necessarily bigger.

Not true, under the above premise.


there are many variables, most of which people ignore.

for the same image quality, a micro 4/3rds sensor lens must be two
stops faster than its full frame counterpart, making it bigger and more
expensive, and in some cases, physically impossible.
  #7  
Old September 15th 18, 12:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default So, Why FF ?

In article ,
RichA wrote:


FF does produce slightly better images than APS,


more than slightly. ff is 1 stop better than aps, aotbe.
it also typically gets the latest sensor technologies first.

mostly it shows where noise
might be an issue. But it's a much bigger commitment in-terms of lens cost,


not necessarily.
  #9  
Old September 15th 18, 12:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default So, Why FF ?

In article , Neil
wrote:

Seems to me that FF is all about connectng back to the old 35 mm film
format, and very little else, since smaller sensors with the same
pixcel count in conjunction with shorter lenses could do the same
thing, BUT smaller and lighter. What part have I got wrong ?

I think it's connecting back to the 35mm lenses that people have and
like


that part is true.

but are compromised when used with smaller sensors.


that part is not.

there is no compromise in using a full frame lens on a smaller sensor.
it's actually *better*.

Although the
larger sensor cell area has a better signal to noise ratio, most prints
won't expose those differences if the pixel counts are the same.


some do, and prints aren't the only output medium. hdr displays come to
mind.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.