24 mega pixels APS-C vs 24 megapixel full frame???

[BradS]

Is there any disadvantage to an APS-C camera compared to a full frame camera if the both have the same megapixels?

Let's assume that both are new and the same brand.

 

[MattKing]

Compatibility with wide angle lenses that you already own or may wish to buy.
Some will say that bigger pixels are better.

 

[nmp]

Bigger pixels of FF should give better S/N ratio compared to APS-C, which in principle should manifest itself in less noisy image at a given ISO, with all else staying equal.

:Niranjan.

 

[4season]

I haven't noticed a big difference, save that much of the market (at least that part that buys higher-margin products!) seems to favor FF, so that's where most of the new product development efforts are made.

 

[BradS]

....
Some will say that bigger pixels are better.

Bigger pixels of FF should give better S/N ratio compared to APS-C, which in principle should manifest itself in less noisy image at a given ISO, with all else staying equal.

:Niranjan.

I think this is what I was wondering about. Can you elaborate? Why does larger area imply better S/N ?

oh....maybe because more area --> more photons?

 

[BradS]

Compatibility with wide angle lenses that you already own or may wish to buy.
....

I don't understand. Can you please elaborate?

 

[nmp]

oh....maybe because more area --> more photons?

Indeed. Here is a good primer on differences between the two formats from Canon - there are many other considerations as well, apart from the noise issue:

APS-C vs full-frame

What's the difference between Full Frame cameras and APS-C cameras such as the Canon EOS R7 and EOS R10? Discover the key strengths of both types of camera.

www.canon-europe.com

:Niranjan

 

[BradS]

Thanks @nmp !

 

[Paul Howell]

If it is a DSLR, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or a translucent DSLR from Sony there are many more lens available when considering legacy lens. A cropped sensor has a corresponding narrow view, a 100MM lens become about 150, this is useful when a very long lens is needed, a 80 to 300 becomes a 120 to 430. When a full framed camera is used in cropped mode emulating a ASP C sensor you lose about half of the pixels. On the down side a 28mm become around a 42mm. Wide angles made for a cropped sensor tend to more expensive, some claim not as sharp or have a reduced depth of field vs a wide made for a full frame sensor. I have not noticed any difference between a 17 to 50 zoom made for a APS C cameras and a 28 to 100 made for full frame. I use both, a cropped sensor Sony A77II for wildlife and action and a older A900 full frame for landscapes and the like.

 

[abruzzi]

I don't understand. Can you please elaborate?

A lot of people like to use older film-era lenses on their digital camera--its become very popular with mirrorless cameras because the shallow flange distance makes it possible to adapt many old SLR lenses which have deeper flange distances. If I adapt a 35mm wide to a full frame sensor I get the same view as that lens originally had on a film camera. On a APS-C camera, to get the field of view of a 35mm lens on 35mm camera, I need a 24mm lens. To get a 28mm on 35mm field of view, I need a 19mm lens. The point Matt was making is if you intend to use lenses from a 35mm film camera full frame is more useful because APS-C makes every lens effectively narrower in FOV so its harder to go wide.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

My digital is a 24MP Canon APS-C mirrorless. I would quite like the greater intrinsic sensitivity of the 'bigger' pixels of a full-frame sensor. There are advantages to the APS-C camera though:
i. It's small, and sits very comfortably in my hand.
ii. If I adapt a 35mm lens to it, I'm not using the edges of the image circle, where some of my cheap lenses show their cheapness. So most of my lenses look pretty good to me on the digital.
iii. Lenses that just cover the APS-C sensor are cheaper than full-frame ones. OTOH, Canon took some of that that advantage back by only making a handful of lenses specifically for the EOS-M series. You can use EF-S lenses made for APS-C DSLRs, but then you still need an adapter.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I prefer full frame sensors. Ain't no substitute for real estate. In the end though, it really doesn't make that much difference.

 

[wiltw]

I think this is what I was wondering about. Can you elaborate? Why does larger area imply better S/N ?

oh....maybe because more area --> more photons?

Consider that the same number of photons fall upon a given area per some measure of time. So the photons/sq.mm is the same. If a single pixel is 60% larger on FF than on APS-C, there will be 60% more photons falling onto a single pixel for the larger FF pixel. Assuming the underlying circuit noise is identical for both sensors, the FF pixel has 60% more signal being generated (due to its capture of 60% more photons) so its S/N is 60% better...and that advantage shows itself the most in very low light (fewer total photons) at high ISO, where the high gain amplifies both the signal and the underlying circuit noise. For shooting in good light, you will not notice much difference...instrumentation can measure difference, but the human eye and brain is not nearly sensitive enough to detect the difference.

 

[Cholentpot]

Used full frames are cheap enough these days. When someone says FF v APSC is tiny, that's because the sensor in either is tiny, a mm there and mm here makes a huge difference.

I heavily use both cropped and full frame. Any serious work with challenging lighting is going to have to be the full frame.

 

[nmp]

Not only the performance in low light situations, full frame also has advantage in normal light - as it is able to discern more tones, particularly in the shadows. So there is an effective increase in the dynamic range as well, making the full frame sensor better in high contrast scenes.

:Niranjan.

 

[Oren Grad]

In practical terms, more area means the sensor can record a greater brightness range without clipping. I've set up this chart at Bill Claff's site to show such a comparison with camera/sensor held constant to eliminate any confounding variables - the comparison is between full-frame capture and APS-C capture using exactly the same camera:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon Z 6II,Nikon Z 6II(DX)

 

[xkaes]

Can we please stop this conversation? I'm in the process of trying to sell an APS digital. If word get out, I'm DOA!!!

 

[Cholentpot]

Can we please stop this conversation? I'm in the process of trying to sell an APS digital. If word get out, I'm DOA!!!

If it's a Fuji it'll sell. The real issue with FF v Crop is in those massive DSLRs. If you have a compact body and you're shooting JPEGs SOOC crop is more than fine.

 

[Pieter12]

Fat pixels rule.

 

[wiltw]

Can we please stop this conversation? I'm in the process of trying to sell an APS digital. If word get out, I'm DOA!!!

Some of us prefer the smaller frame, as the same FL provides more 'reach', which is important to birders and those shooting wild game photos. And although I have owned both FF and APS-C, I have to admit not really feeling the need for 'less noise' in my shooting. There are advantages to buying 300mm rather than forking over for 500mm for same framing, and upgrading from APS-C dSLR to mirrorless FF is a whole lot more cash consuming.

 

[Cholentpot]

Some of us prefer the smaller frame, as the same FL provides more 'reach', which is important to birders and those shooting wild game photos. And although I have owned both FF and APS-C, I have to admit not really feeling the need for 'less noise' in my shooting. There are advantages to buying 300mm rather than forking over for 500mm for same framing, and upgrading from APS-C dSLR to mirrorless FF is a whole lot more cash consuming.

Cropping is cropping, doesn't matter if it's SOOC or in post. It is nice to have a camera that crops the sensor in camera though.

 

[MattKing]

I don't understand. Can you please elaborate?

On an APS-C sensor, your full frame or 135 film lenses will project an image larger than the sensor - the sensor just uses a cropped portion.
So if you have full frame/ 135 film lenses:
1) a 50mm lens will end up framing the scene like an 80mm film camera lens;
2) a 35mm lens will end up framing the scene like an 56mm film camera lens;
3) a 28mm lens will end up framing the scene like an 42mm film camera lens;
4) a 24mm lens will end up framing the scene like an 36.5mm film camera lens;
5) a 21mm lens will end up framing the scene like an 33.5 mm film camera lens; and
6) you will need to have a 17mm film camera lens to achieve the same framing as a 28mm would give you on film; and
7) you will need to have a 14.5mm film camera lens to achieve the same framing as a 24mm would give you on film.

 

[koraks]

Surprisingly many years ago, I faced the same choice. I shot predominantly digital and due to circumstances (theft) I was faced with the necessity to replace virtually all my kit. I shot APS-C before, but at that time, full-frame was a real contender at a comparable budget - at least for the camera. The Canon 6D was relatively new at that time, if I remember correctly.

In the end, I opted for APS-C because of overall bulk, weight and cost (also of optics). It was also very clear at that time that APS-C was a viable ecosystem with more than enough equipment for me to choose from. In the very specific choice I made, which ended up being the full-frame Canon 6D against the APS-C 7D, I also noticed that the 7D was basically a more 'mature' camera with a more pleasant viewfinder - it somehow looked bigger and brighter than the 6D's.

I know back then about larger pixels, better S/N ratios and the potential for cleaner high-ISO images from a full-frame sensor. But at the same time, the comparison only becomes concrete if two specific cameras are pitched against each other, since technologically, not all cameras are equally advanced, and one full-frame sensor may easily rely on outdated technology and offer poorer S/N performance than an APS-C sensor that happens to be more modern. 'Ceteris paribus' does not always hold true when comparing two specific items.

What to make of all of this? The choice is personal, and very much a practical one. For me, bulk and weight were decisive criteria. For someone else, compatibility with already owned optics may be more important. We all decide on different criteria. I think the main thing is to work out which criteria are relevant to you, and then decide which products suit those criteria. E.g. the high-ISO performance of modern FF cameras may be better than of equally modern APS-C cameras, but it's very well possible that both meet your needs already. It then becomes the question how much you want to shell out, and how much weight you're willing to carry, for the technically unnecessary 'excess performance' of one system vs. another.

One final thing is quite relevant. Of course, full frame holds the aces in terms of bragging rights. I think many, if not most, FF cameras were sold on that basis.

 

[Steven Lee]

My case is similar to what @koraks describes. I own the Fuji XT-3 and love its compactness. It produces 26MP images that are more than enough for my needs. My partner loves her Canon 5D Mk4, which is a 30MP FF camera, but it is 2-3 years older. In terms of noise or "tonality" I cannot tell them apart. But in terms of portability, the Fuji is quite a bit lighter, and its lenses are MUCH lighter than their Canon counterparts.

The way I see it, the only tangible advantage of full frame sensors is resolution. AFAIK the highest-resolution APSC sensor available is in the 40MP Fuji XT-5. That's still 20% less than Sony's 60MP flagship and it seems that very few APSC lenses in the Fuji's lineup can deliver high enough resolution for it to shine. There appears to be a natural limit on pixel density. I do not know whether it's optical or sensor-related, but there must be a reason for pixel density to plateau around 40MP for APSC, 60mp for FF, and 100MP for MF.

 

[koraks]

A friend of mine who sometimes reads the forum, messaged me with an additional argument - mind you, it's his view, not mine. Not that I disagree with it, but I'm not sure (yet) whether I agree.

He contends that analogous to different film sizes, different sensor sizes produce a different character or atmosphere to the image. It's not something he, or I, could express in clear-cut, objective measures, but more of a subjective impression. We met yesterday and discussed about an experiment he did at some point, where he made two identical photos - one shot on 4x5", and one on 8x10" color film. Both frames were printed to the exact same size, around 8x10 or 11x14 IIRC, and then presented to friends as they happened to drop by. According to my friend, his viewers could mostly distinguish a difference between the prints, with the 8x10"-originated print having a 'greater volume' or somehow coming across as 'more real'. He contends the same is true for sensor size. Perhaps relevant to add as contextual information is that he routinely photographs using a Nikon Z-series full frame 35mm camera as well as a medium format digital camera (mostly for studio shots), as well as 35mm and 4x5" film (in the past also medium format film and 8x10").

Make of that what you will; like I said, it's not my statement, but his, and although I can see where he's coming from - and I've also noted something along these lines between 4x5" and 8x10" although I never did this kind of systematic comparison.

He also adds that the difference is subtle, probably unnoticeable or irrelevant for many, but that the bigger size of a full frame sensor is probably preferable for many because, well, it's just bigger. (I'm reformulating his slightly less politically correct wording.)