11-01-2010, 04:21 PM
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1288616310' post='3868']
After reading most of the threads, I'm still not 100% sure how come a cropped sensor (e.g. APS-C) can have advantages over an FF sensor in the bottomline, except for macro and other tele usage like bird shooting. [/quote]
Not for macro, actually, 1:1 is 1:1 whether you use FF or APS-C. The difference is that you have a 22 mm wide image on APS-C and a 36 mm wide image on FF, the difference being that at 1:1 you capture more on FF than on APS-C of the same subject. And DoF wise there is no diffeence, as DoF with macro is limited effectively by magnification alone.
For tele use, yes.
However, I was thinking abou that today, during the 3 hour drive I had to undergo, and my 21 MP 5D II actually provides me with a 8 MP crop at APS-C size, and I have a few 60 cm X 90 cm prints made from my old trusty 8 MP 350D on my wall. Hmmm. I've started wonderign now how much of an advantage this actually is <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
There is no advantage IMO, see above <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
That's actually a moot point. In order to get the same DoF you need to use an equivalent aperture, 1.6X smaller, so diffraction hits you at the same DoF equivalent whatever format you use.
This is something I doubt. Optical vignetting is exponentially related to AoV. Any other vignetting is due to design, optically and mechanically, hence the current trend to build UWA lenses with very large, bulging front elements to maximize corner IQ for the large AoV required and to cater for the retrofucus design as much as possible.
Yep. You need larger glass, generally speaking, hence more expensive. Up the quality as well, and it gets even more expensive.
DX sensor bodies can be build smaller. The mirror housing can be smaller, which allows for extra space underneath the mirror housing to fit some of the circuitry, f.e., and it can be narrower too, making the body in principle less wide, everything else staying the same.
To me, that is the biggest advantage.
However, once you get to 40d, 50D or 7D size, IMO you could just as well go for a 5D or 5D II. Same size, better sensor. Unless of course you need the speed (fps) of these bodies (more room means that faster mechanisms could be housed in the body, f.e.), or the extra reach. And it probably is no different for Nikon.
Kind regards, Wim
After reading most of the threads, I'm still not 100% sure how come a cropped sensor (e.g. APS-C) can have advantages over an FF sensor in the bottomline, except for macro and other tele usage like bird shooting. [/quote]
Not for macro, actually, 1:1 is 1:1 whether you use FF or APS-C. The difference is that you have a 22 mm wide image on APS-C and a 36 mm wide image on FF, the difference being that at 1:1 you capture more on FF than on APS-C of the same subject. And DoF wise there is no diffeence, as DoF with macro is limited effectively by magnification alone.
For tele use, yes.
However, I was thinking abou that today, during the 3 hour drive I had to undergo, and my 21 MP 5D II actually provides me with a 8 MP crop at APS-C size, and I have a few 60 cm X 90 cm prints made from my old trusty 8 MP 350D on my wall. Hmmm. I've started wonderign now how much of an advantage this actually is <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Quote:And still, the abilities in macro usage can be discussed, because sensors may have pros/contras based on various criterias. For example if we compare 16.2 MP APS-C with 12MP FF, the fine detail in post-cropped image vs. the tonal & dynamic range produced by FF sensor...
There is no advantage IMO, see above <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Quote:OTOH, I think FF sensors are better in landscape photography even in terms of DoF because I can use smaller apertures before they become diffraction limited.
That's actually a moot point. In order to get the same DoF you need to use an equivalent aperture, 1.6X smaller, so diffraction hits you at the same DoF equivalent whatever format you use.
Quote:There are many wide angle lens choices (ok I admit it, a bit more expensive than the APS-C compatible ones but we left the budget out of the IQ discussion). One thing which can be mentioned on the negative side is the vignetting. Bu rather than "wide aperture vignetting", I'd say darker corners because of multiple filter usage on wider FLs.
This is something I doubt. Optical vignetting is exponentially related to AoV. Any other vignetting is due to design, optically and mechanically, hence the current trend to build UWA lenses with very large, bulging front elements to maximize corner IQ for the large AoV required and to cater for the retrofucus design as much as possible.
Quote:It's clear that using a FF compatible wide angle on a cropped sensor has it's advantages in terms of vignetting and IQ on the edges/corners. But if you pay the price, you'll get a better quality on FF...
Yep. You need larger glass, generally speaking, hence more expensive. Up the quality as well, and it gets even more expensive.
Quote:Regarding portrait shots; no doubt, better subject isolation combined with sharper image (FF lens can be stopped down to get sharper image), go for the FF sensors.
So, all in all, except for the discussions regarding tele usage and (some) macro advantages, I personally cannot count any pros for the cropped format by means of IQ. But of course I'm still open for hearing the advantages of a cropped sensor. (I still did not sell my DX body yet...<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />)
Kind regards,
Serkan
DX sensor bodies can be build smaller. The mirror housing can be smaller, which allows for extra space underneath the mirror housing to fit some of the circuitry, f.e., and it can be narrower too, making the body in principle less wide, everything else staying the same.
To me, that is the biggest advantage.
However, once you get to 40d, 50D or 7D size, IMO you could just as well go for a 5D or 5D II. Same size, better sensor. Unless of course you need the speed (fps) of these bodies (more room means that faster mechanisms could be housed in the body, f.e.), or the extra reach. And it probably is no different for Nikon.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....