APS-C vs. 4/3 vs. FF Article

swintonphoto

Here is a very interesting article that gives arguments on behalf of APS-C vs. 4/3 vs. FF sensors.

They try to answer the question I have seen posed in these forums a zillion times: "Is it time to get a full-frame DSLR, or is a smaller sensor enough?"

I am only sharing this as interesting reading. It puts to bed some arguments people make on either side. I am not trying to spring up any controversial discussion, just an interesting read:

http://www.popphoto.com/Features/The-Full-Frame-Decision

Their conclusion states:
"If you’ve been tallying the scorecard, you’ve probably reached the same conclusion we have: that for most serious amateurs, and many pros, there is no compelling reason for going to a full-frame DSLR."

Another really interesting point they made:
"But now we come to the real world. In our tests in the Pop Photo Lab, the Nikon D700 and D300 produced very similar image-quality results. They were neck-and-neck in noise control through ISO 1600, with the D700 slightly better at ISO 3200 and 6400."
This highlights the fact that in most situations the difference is negligible. Makes sense to me - technology keeps on advancing.

pathfinder

Jonathon,

That was an interesting article, covering mostly points we have all seen discussed before.

FF better for wide angles and really large, detailed prints. Crop sensor based cameras with an advantage for wildlife and sports shooters due to the mag factor causing lenses to be more tele on smaller sensor sizes. One thing the article did not mention, that I find useful from time to time, is the INCREASED dof of smaller sensors, or the decreased dof of larger sensor based cameras. Can be useful in macro work.

I use ff, crop and p&s cameras. All are capable of good quality if used with a sensibility to their form factors. I have prints up to 16x20 with all of them in my home. No one who has ever looked at them has said, "that must be a print from a P&S, not a full frame", even if I can see the difference.

There has been another thread along this discussion here

ziggy53

I have, and still use, cameras from the 2/3rd format (crop 4x advanced digicam) through full frame 35mm digital SLR and I have applications for all. My favorite, for many reasons, are the crop 1.6x Canon cameras (mine) and crop 1.5x Nikon (my father's) camera bodies. They are a useful compromise.

I am looking forward to the Olympus "Micro 4/3rd" offerings as I think that format provides some very valuable new features for travel and family event photography and I will probably "have" to have one. (Panasonic was the first to market in this format but I will admit to a brand bias I have towards Olympus.)

JAMoore

Great article!

That really brought up some great points for both sides. Honestly, it makes me 'not so guilty' for deciding to stick with the APS-C Nikons. There really is a good reason for owning any of the formats.

Qarik

The article is basically stating that for serious ameteurs ..DX or FF no biggie. I basically agree with that statement. From a pure IQ POV it is difficult to tell.

I do disagree with what the article appears to state that FF has slightly better ISO performance then crop. The D700 is something like 2 stops better then the D300. That's considerable.

Also the choice between FF and DX is not either or. No where does the article mention the idea of having both and the flexibility of swapping lens to cover a myriad of zooms and prime focal lengths. If you buy a FF...Your prime collection just doubled with out buying single extra lens!

mercphoto

JAMoore wrote:

Great article!

That really brought up some great points for both sides. Honestly, it makes me 'not so guilty' for deciding to stick with the APS-C Nikons. There really is a good reason for owning any of the formats.

Indeed a great article. But I've never understood why anyone would feel guilty about staying with a crop camera in the first place. Guess I've never had full-frame envy. One thing I really, really like about the four-thirds system, though, is the fact that bodies and lenses are interchangeable across manufacturers. I like Canon, but I'm not fond of being "stuck" with a single manufacturer.

JAMoore

Qarik wrote:

Also the choice between FF and DX is not either or. No where does the article mention the idea of having both and the flexibility of swapping lens to cover a myriad of zooms and prime focal lengths. If you buy a FF...Your prime collection just doubled with out buying single extra lens!

Actually, on the second page on the right it had a 'side note' about owning both:

Sarah Tew, a professional portrait and wedding photographer, has no problem deciding between full-frame or APS-C Canon EOS models. She uses both.

Needing a backup body for her full-frame EOS 5D, but looking to economize, she decided on an EOS 40D. It proved a boon. “The 40D is very useful for my long lens—my 70–200mm—during the wedding ceremony,” she says. “I may be off to the side, or in the back of the church, depending on the restrictions, and I can get even closer on faces with the crop factor. And the quality is certainly up to professional standards.”

When it came time to add a superspeed optic to her lens kit, she opted for the 50mm f/1.2L Canon EF full-frame lens rather than the 85mm f/1.2L EF. “I had been tempted by the 85mm as a great fast portrait lens, especially useful at weddings. But then the 50mm is lighter and more versatile—if I want it to be like an 85mm, I can just throw it on the APS sensor camera.” An incidental benefit: At $1,400, street, the 50mm costs much less than the $1,870 85mm.

mercphoto wrote:

...But I've never understood why anyone would feel guilty about staying with a crop camera in the first place. Guess I've never had full-frame envy.

I just obsess over the best technology and the latest full-frame cameras have so many gadgets and slick features I love - that's all.

Qarik

Ahhh yes..I see the side note bit. That would appear to weaken the main point of the article it seems.

Tee Why

Having owned a APS-H, APS-C sized bodies and currently shooting with a FF and a 4/3 Olympus, I'd disagree with PopPhoto in some ways.

Big thing is the shallower dof you can get with a full frame. PopPhoto's test of noise tends to be very generous in my view. I'm not sure but I think they use JPEG and not RAW images to measure noise and heavy NR may produce what they consider a low noise level but at the loss of resolution.

Another big factor is the viewfinder. I like bigger viewfinders, what can I say.

Lastly, I find that the RAW images from FF body to offer more latitude in post processing than a comparable cropped body (I'm mainly comparing the Canon 30D vs the 5D).

Having said that, I think in real world terms, IQ in prints at about ISO 800 and lower is similar enough for anything around 11x14 or smaller among most if not all recent dslr's. Except for the dof.