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

[L Gebhardt]

Lens selection, as covered above, is a huge difference. In addition to the focal length you should consider aperture and how it affects both depth of field and exposure.

Exposure is easy. At the same aperture and ISO the shutter speed will be the same.

Depth of field needs to consider display size. If we compare a print from each of these hypothetical cameras we might have a 24MP image with 6000x4000 pixels. At 300ppi that will print at 20x13.3 inches. If the print from the full frame camera was shot at 35mm 5.6 the APS-C camera would need to shoot at ~24mm f/4 to match the angle of view and depth of field in the print. It also gets you one extra stop of light so lower ISO or faster shutter speed. It also means you may not find APS-C lenses with as shallow of depth of field for the same angle of view.

 

[Cholentpot]

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each other, since technologically, not all cameras are equally advanced, and one full-frame sensor may easily rely on outdated technology and offer poorer S/N performance than an APS-C sensor that happens to be more modern.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.

You brought up the one contender that I was going to mention.

The 7D line is quite something. I know many pro's that had in their bag a 5DIII and a 7D.

I still ended up with the 6D and I still use it. It's simple and rugged.

 

[4season]

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.

I don't know about technical limitations, but I figure that the pandemic had a significant impact on new product development.

 

[BradS]

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.

Yes, obviously. That's a non-issue.

 

[BradS]

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.

This kinda gets to my reason for starting this thread.

I'm just now starting to learn about digital cameras. I place very high value on small and light weight. From my point of view, it's very difficult to see any real disadvantage to an APS-C camera that is smaller, lighter weight and less expensive than its nearly equivalently spec'd full frame sibling. Thus, the question.

 

[nmp]

I don't know about technical limitations, but I figure that the pandemic had a significant impact on new product development.

At some point, greater number of pixels packed in the same area becomes counter-productive - due to diffraction limitations (size of airy disk, circle of confusion and all that.)

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

www.cambridgeincolour.com

:Niranjan

 

[BradS]

Lens selection, as covered above, is a huge difference. In addition to the focal length you should consider aperture and how it affects both depth of field and exposure.

Exposure is easy. At the same aperture and ISO the shutter speed will be the same.

Depth of field needs to consider display size. If we compare a print from each of these hypothetical cameras we might have a 24MP image with 6000x4000 pixels. At 300ppi that will print at 20x13.3 inches. If the print from the full frame camera was shot at 35mm 5.6 the APS-C camera would need to shoot at ~24mm f/4 to match the angle of view and depth of field in the print. It also gets you one extra stop of light so lower ISO or faster shutter speed. It also means you may not find APS-C lenses with as shallow of depth of field for the same angle of view.

isn't this just the same as when moving between multiple film formats?

It seems to me that the situation is not much different than, for example, using a roll film holder with a 4x5 Crown Graphic.

 

[xkaes]

If smaller, lighter & less expensive is important, I'd vote for APS -- but I'd add "with features you don't need".

Some APS format cameras are as large & heavy as the FULL-FRAME equivalent -- like the Sony a-700 vs a-900. The same camera except for the sensor size.

The other is the "viewing". Small & light & less expensive often means no viewfinder -- just a rear 3" screen. That's a none-starter for me.

 

[koraks]

Some APS format cameras are as large & heavy as the FULL-FRAME equivalent

Ah. But the lenses don't have to be. That's where the real weight savings are, IMO.

 

[MattKing]

Yes, obviously. That's a non-issue.

This tells me that you aren't looking to (mostly) re-purpose or share with film bodies your existing film or full frame digital lenses - which is entirely understandable.
Or, you may not gravitate as much as I do to wider fields of view - also entirely understandable.
Or you may be keen to buy brand new lenses optimized for the format - which for me would be more aspirational than realistic.
Fortunately, each of us have our own particular wants and needs, and if one has the budget, one has lots of options.
By the way, the "difficulty" that I perceive with the inter-usability of shorter lenses is actually an advantage for people like bird photographers. Using an APS-C digital with their 300mm film camera lenses gives them the same results as a 480mm lens on a film body.

 

[faberryman]

Is a marginally better signal to noise ratio really the deciding factor between a FF and an APS-C camera? It certainly wasn't for me. When I went to buy my first digital ILC a few years ago, the salesman plopped down a Nikon D850 and zoom lens next to a Fuji XT2 and zoom lens, I assure you the comparative signal to noise ratios were the last thing going through my mind. Maybe if I shot at high ISOs I might feel differently.

 

[L Gebhardt]

isn't this just the same as when moving between multiple film formats?

It seems to me that the situation is not much different than, for example, using a roll film holder with a 4x5 Crown Graphic.

Yes, it's almost exactly the same. I only mentioned it as another factor to consider along with the "crop factor" when comparing lenses for the systems.

As long as the APS-C system has the features, lenses and image quality you want I don't see you needing FF for normal use.

I'm not sure if you've seen the new "AI" based noise reduction offerings from Adobe or DXO but they are really good if not abused, further allowing you to shoot the smaller sensor at higher ISOs.

 

[Cholentpot]

This kinda gets to my reason for starting this thread.

I'm just now starting to learn about digital cameras. I place very high value on small and light weight. From my point of view, it's very difficult to see any real disadvantage to an APS-C camera that is smaller, lighter weight and less expensive than its nearly equivalently spec'd full frame sibling. Thus, the question.

One of the advantages of full frame vs crop is the narrower depth of field. Some might say it's not a major deal but I found that full frame gave me better portraits. As for smaller, my clients would have a cow if I showed up with a compact camera. It's sometimes about the show, if they're paying they want to see a bozo with a large camera, speedlight and massive lens with a hood. It's just the way it is. I sometimes work with a video guy who doesn't quite get this. He uses a mirrorless DSLR looking camera that is configured for video and not stills. Clients will harass him for stills and he insists it's a video camera they point out that it looks like a camera, take the photo chump. I told him to get a cage or at least a carry handle.

 

[Steven Lee]

I do not know how everyone feels, but I stopped being limited by sensor noise about 4-5 years ago, when all cameras became ISO-invariant after 800, and 4+ stops of in-body image stabilization started to appear everywhere.

Essentially it means you can shoot 28-50mm equivalent FOV at 1/8s handheld with no shake blur AND have the option to under-expose by 1-2 EV and recover shadows in post. Mount a f/1.4 or f/2 lens and you can essentially walk around any city at night snapping sharp images without a tripod or a flash. In fact, I don't even remember when I used a tripod or a flash with a digital body.

 

[faberryman]

One of the advantages of full frame vs crop is the narrower depth of field. Some might say it's not a major deal but I found that full frame gave me better portraits.

Or when using an APS-C you could open up one stop.

As for smaller, my clients would have a cow if I showed up with a compact camera. It's sometimes about the show, if they're paying they want to see a bozo with a large camera, speedlight and massive lens with a hood. It's just the way it is. I sometimes work with a video guy who doesn't quite get this. He uses a mirrorless DSLR looking camera that is configured for video and not stills. Clients will harass him for stills and he insists it's a video camera they point out that it looks like a camera, take the photo chump. I told him to get a cage or at least a carry handle.

Is this something your clients have told you. It sounds more apocryphal than real to me.

When I see a photographer with a big camera and a bazooka lens I generally think he is either an an idiot or compensating for something, or both.

 

[BradS]

This tells me that you aren't looking to (mostly) re-purpose or share with film bodies your existing film or full frame digital lenses - which is entirely understandable.
Or, you may not gravitate as much as I do to wider fields of view - also entirely understandable.
Or you may be keen to buy brand new lenses optimized for the format - which for me would be more aspirational than realistic.
Fortunately, each of us have our own particular wants and needs, and if one has the budget, one has lots of options.
By the way, the "difficulty" that I perceive with the inter-usability of shorter lenses is actually an advantage for people like bird photographers. Using an APS-C digital with their 300mm film camera lenses gives them the same results as a 480mm lens on a film body.

Well, yes and no...

My typical three lens kit for 35mm consists of 28mm, 50mm, and 105mm. In urban environments, 28mm makes about 75% of the exposures and when out hiking in the Sierra, I generally carry the 24mm and 200mm with the 24mm again doing the bulk of the picture taking.

Two years ago, I somewhat grudgingly bought my first digital camera - a Nikon mirrorless. I am just now learning what most folks seem to have figured out 20 years ago. I am still on the very steep part of the learning curve. Initially, I thought that I would use my existing manual focus lenses with the new digital camera but I learned pretty quickly that the new lenses, designed specifically for the new cameras, are better in just about every respect than my old manual focus nikons (especially considering the added size of the adapter). So, even though I had thought I'd adapt my old Nikkors to the new mirrorless camera, it has proved otherwise. These new lenses really are amazing. Even the "crappy" kit zoom lens is amazing.

 

[BradS]

One of the advantages of full frame vs crop is the narrower depth of field. ....

I see this mentioned a lot. It makes no sense to me. Are these claims assuming that one uses different focal lengths for the different formats? Or is there something else going on?

 

[Anon Ymous]

I see this mentioned a lot. It makes no sense to me. Are these claims assuming that one uses different focal lengths for the different formats? Or is there something else going on?

For the equivalent field of view and aperture, you get shallower depth of field. Of course, the same lens, with the same aperture will have exactly the same depth of field, regardless of sensor size.

 

[BradS]

...

I'm not sure if you've seen the new "AI" based noise reduction offerings from Adobe or DXO but they are really good if not abused, further allowing you to shoot the smaller sensor at higher ISOs.

So far, I don't use any software to process the digital image files. I pretty much take pictures, upload the files to a computer, post a few on flickr, and choose some to have printed. I use the new camera much as I would the old Nikon F3HP + MD4 in AE mode - except that, with the new camera, I almost always use auto focus...which gives me fits! The damned thing sometimes seems to have a mind of its own about when and where and how to focus. So much to learn.

 

[BradS]

For the equivalent field of view and aperture, you get shallower depth of field. Of course, the same lens, with the same aperture will have exactly the same depth of field, regardless of sensor size.

Thanks. That's what I thought.

 

[Hassasin]

isn't this just the same as when moving between multiple film formats?

It seems to me that the situation is not much different than, for example, using a roll film holder with a 4x5 Crown Graphic.

Exactly the point, crop factor is nothing else but a "crop" factor for those who continue to compare everything to 35mm film frame. I thought it would go away by now, but it's all over in every venue where digital cameras are discussed.

As I have made up my mind on digital, went with Fuji X system and outside of going large (which I am not) there is no difference in image quality. With new X-H2, that 40 mpx sensor might be just as far as APS-C will go, but it does make a difference. I put that purchase on hold though, started with H1 and the whole deal is sweet. Lenses ? If someone needs wide wide, there is an 8 mm Fuji lens to cope with that idea. I won't need to go below 16mm and am super happy with the 16 - 1.4.

 

[L Gebhardt]

For the equivalent field of view and aperture, you get shallower depth of field. Of course, the same lens, with the same aperture will have exactly the same depth of field, regardless of sensor size.

But at the same print size the APS-C sensor will look like an enlarged crop of the FF sensor. Therefore the degree of how out of focus something is will be magnified. If you use a shorter lens on the cropped sensor to match the angle of view the prints will appear to have the same DOF at different f-stops.

 

[Cholentpot]

Or when using an APS-C you could open up one stop.



Is this something your clients have told you. It sounds more apocryphal than real to me.

When I see a photographer with a big camera and a bazooka lens I generally think he is either an an idiot or compensating for something, or both.

Believe it or not most people, especially these days, are not photographers to any degree. The heyday of having an SLR is long long gone. People moved from point and shoots to disposables to compact digitals to phones. Sometimes you need to play up the job a bit. And you're going to need that bazooker lens to get what the client wants when they hired you to do their family shoot. A pancake lens is not going to cut it.

For the equivalent field of view and aperture, you get shallower depth of field. Of course, the same lens, with the same aperture will have exactly the same depth of field, regardless of sensor size.

Yes. It's a bit harder to get the equivalent lenses for crop though. If I'm using a 35mm on an ASPC it becomes a 52.5 equivalent which is not the 50mm that I want. Sure it's only a few mm here or there but it's still there.

 

[L Gebhardt]

So far, I don't use any software to process the digital image files. I pretty much take pictures, upload the files to a computer, post a few on flickr, and choose some to have printed. I use the camera much as I would the old Nikon F3HP + MD4 in AE mode - except that, with the new camera, I almost always use auto focus...which gives me fits! The damned thing sometimes seems to have a mind of its own about when and where and how to focus. So much to learn.

An app light lightroom also makes it easy to organize your photos as well as edit them, but it does come with the financial cost of the darned subscription model. Others are more of a one time cost plus upgrades if you want the new features.

I find I am not reliably happy with the out of camera jpegs unless I do a lot of tweaking of settings in the field, so I shoot raw. That is one area mirrorless is much better than DSLRs since you can actually see if you have the white balance and other settings close.

 

[xkaes]

For the equivalent field of view and aperture, you get shallower depth of field. Of course, the same lens, with the same aperture will have exactly the same depth of field, regardless of sensor size.

Add the magnification that you have to add in to produce the same size print and the DOF is the same. Minox & 16mm cameras have tiny formats, and incredible DOF -- if you only make 3x5" prints. Blow them up and they have the same dof as a 35mm camera.