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

[Steven Lee]

A FF 24Mp sensor is going to be similar to a APS 48MP sensor -- it's twice the size so it only has to be enlarged 1/2 as much -- exactly like a 24x36mm film camera vs a half-frame 12x18mm film camera.

This is both true and misleading at the same time, because you always have to add: all other things being equal. But they are not equal on purpose. My APSC lenses of comparable purpose always need to be opened one stop wider than my FF lenses to let my 24MP APSC camera capture the same number of photons on its sensor as my FF 24MP camera.

@Cholentpot did a test of this above, where he squeezed APS-C use case into FF limitations and "rested his case". You shouldn't be shooting APSC and FF at the same aperture. APSC needs to be opened one stop wider to produce an identical image, which is the primary limitation.

And here's the thing: modern APSC lenses are awesome. The 35mm APSC f/1.4 is still smaller than its FF equivalent of 50mm @f/2. On top of that, as the in-body IS has gone mainstream, and the sensor DR has improved so much, that this APSC requirement of needing +1EV of light stopped being a tangible limitation. But the full frame weight+bulk problem did not go away. When I lay down my Canon 5D Mk4 and Fuji XT-3 with comparable lenses next to each other, the difference is massive. Truly massive. It's like 35mm vs 645 in the film world, and it's not worh the extra stop of light to me.

That is why APSC wins in my book. Fujifilm was right. APSC and medium format make sense. FF - not so much. Not in 2023.

 

[faberryman]

Yes, like the 40 2.8, massive beast.

Somewhere I read a pancake lens is not going to cut it. Oh, here:

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.

That's why you have to get those honkin' big Canon full frame lenses, You know, so your client doesn't have a cow.

 

[xkaes]

It's like 35mm vs 645 in the film world, and it's not worh the extra stop of light to me.

Similarly, I prefer the full-frame 35mm to half-frame 35mm comparison, just because I'm old fashioned. But you bring up an important point, that technology will improve. Just as film improved over the years and provided higher resolution, sensors are doing the same. Much will depend on how much more resolution will the market demand. Will FF win out over APS, or will we always have both? Sony just released two new APS cameras -- the first in quite a while. Are we going to see GIGAPIXEL sensors in our phones?

And regardless, if the sensors are the same, the results from a half-frame sensor need to be enlarged 2X over the full-frame sensor.

 

[Cholentpot]

Somewhere I read a pancake lens is not going to cut it. Oh, here:



So that's why you have to get those honkin' big Canon full frame lenses, You know, so your client doesn't have a cow.

I don't think that OP is going in that direction.

 

[Pieter12]

I have a bugaboo about viewfinders. I like them big, bright and optical. A digital APS-C DSLR is a non-starter for me, as well as most mirrorless cameras. Maybe that's why I love shooting medium format.

 

[Cholentpot]

I have a bugaboo about viewfinders. I like them big, bright and optical. A digital APS-C DSLR is a non-starter for me, as well as most mirrorless cameras. Maybe that's why I love shooting medium format.

I forgot about that. Generally the crop VFs are not so pleasant.

 

[Hassasin]

I have a bugaboo about viewfinders. I like them big, bright and optical. A digital APS-C DSLR is a non-starter for me, as well as most mirrorless cameras. Maybe that's why I love shooting medium format.

Can have optical finder on digital, go Fuji X100. Only too bad Fuji has not moved forward on that design overall. ANd of course there is X-Pro with same finder + interchangeable lenses.

 

[Paul Howell]

Going back with Mr. Peabody's way back machine, the CCD sensor, I think had a different paltet than CMOS, and of course the Sigma Favon sensor was still even more different. In terms of quality unless new offerings, Fuji makes APS-C and MF, Olympus only 3/4th and Sigma APS-3 Favon APS-C sized. Fuji does not think that a jump from APS-C to full frame offers enough of advantage to offer a full frame camera, for true jump in quality need to go MF. I still like a full frame sensor for landscapes, otherwise I use a cropped sensor. On the other hand, does Leica make a cropped sensor interchangeable lens cameras?

 

[Oren Grad]

On the other hand, does Leica make a cropped sensor interchangeable lens cameras?

They did - the TL, TL2 and CL L-mount cameras used APS-C size sensors. However, the TL/CL series is discontinued now. Of course, the M8 also used a smaller-than-35mm sensor, though closer to APS-H than to APS-C.

 

[Cholentpot]

Going back with Mr. Peabody's way back machine, the CCD sensor, I think had a different paltet than CMOS, and of course the Sigma Favon sensor was still even more different. In terms of quality unless new offerings, Fuji makes APS-C and MF, Olympus only 3/4th and Sigma APS-3 Favon APS-C sized. Fuji does not think that a jump from APS-C to full frame offers enough of advantage to offer a full frame camera, for true jump in quality need to go MF. I still like a full frame sensor for landscapes, otherwise I use a cropped sensor. On the other hand, does Leica make a cropped sensor interchangeable lens cameras?

Fuji's medium format isn't really medium format by film standards though. 44x33 that's substantially smaller than even 6x4.5 which is something like 60x45. 127 is 40x40 still larger. It's called digital medium format but by film standards it's not really.

 

[Hassasin]

Fuji's medium format isn't really medium format by film standards though. 44x33 that's substantially smaller than even 6x4.5 which is something like 60x45. 127 is 40x40 still larger. It's called digital medium format but by film standards it's not really.

As is the case across MF digital backs.

 

[Cholentpot]

As is the case across MF digital backs.

I want a true 6x6 digital TLR.

 

[koraks]

I have a bugaboo about viewfinders. I like them big, bright and optical. A digital APS-C DSLR is a non-starter for me, as well as most mirrorless cameras. Maybe that's why I love shooting medium format.

If you read (way) back, you'll notice that my choice for the APS-C 7D vs the FF 6D partly ended up in favor of the former because of the viewfinder. By comparison, the 6D's VF somehow seemed like peering down a dark alleyway while the 7D's seemed bigger and brighter. Which is to say that there's more to SLR viewfinder quality than just the size of the mirror that reflects into it.

Now, the one true non-starter for me is an EVF. I know they're really good these days and they basically emulate the final image more truthfully than an optical viewfinder, and yet, it feels too indirect to me.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

The photo below was taken on my first hike with a digital camera; a 16 megapixel Fujifilm X-E1 in jpeg mode, where I decided to try & 'see' the same way I would if carrying my 4x5 gear.

The first rendition is the untouched jpeg, and the 2nd one has been nudged and tweaked in Capture One. Despite it coming from a 16 megapixel jpeg, it doesn't have any jaggery digital artifacts at all and looks pretty good to my eye as an 11x14 print.

It convinced me that a 24 megapixel Fujifilm X-T2 (with good old fashioned film camera control dials) would be a good idea if I intended to use a digital camera for serious work.

I like the video viewfinder...it's pretty much as 'what you see is what you get' as it gets. I take photos in raw now, so what is on the viewfinder or first seen on the computer screen can only be called rough sketches at best, and don't worry about what might be missing in the viewfinder. I'm trying to think of final prints anyway, so don't get hung up on what's in the viewfinder, just making sure that all the range of tones needed will be there for later use.

Had the 8-16 and 100-400 lenses, but my mirrorless camera pack weighed more than my Wista 4x5 with two Schneider lenses, film holders, etc. Have since replaced those lenses with others and the mirrorless pack now weighs less...as it should...I'm getting older and wanted lighter gear for rummaging around in thick forests and steep mountains.

 

[koraks]

The first rendition is the untouched jpeg, and the 2nd one has been nudged and tweaked in Capture One.

In all honesty, I prefer the camera original both for its contrast and color rendition and its composition/crop...

 

[MurrayMinchin]

In all honesty, I prefer the camera original both for its contrast and color rendition and its composition/crop...

Oh well...

Have you ever been in a north coast BC and/or south east Alaskan old growth coastal rainforest? The moss seems to glow.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Point being, I was surprised how far you could edit a 16 megapixel jpeg, so 24 megapixel Raw is even better.

 

[koraks]

Oh well...

Have you ever been in a north coast BC and/or south east Alaskan old growth coastal rainforest? The moss seems to glow.

No, but I'd love to! I do know what you mean about glowing moss though. It does that under certain conditions. And sorry about diverting the thread; it's a beautiful scene, and I agree that a 16Mpix jpeg already goes a long way for most purposes. At the sizes I typically print, I don't need any more than this. But that's personal.

 

[Cholentpot]

In all honesty, I prefer the camera original both for its contrast and color rendition and its composition/crop...

Fuji's done magic with their in camera JPEGs.

 

[L Gebhardt]

On a digital camera I’d rather have a high res EVF over an optical viewfinder. They make it much easier to manually focus and the ability to use them in low light. My last two DSRs were a D7000 which I replaced with a D800 for the wider lens choice, better view finder, and higher resolution. The cropped camera mostly met my needs for print sizes and was only 16mp. The viewfinder was dim and impossible to manually focus. The D800 was much better but the viewfinder was still not precise for manual focus anywhere close to wide open. The Sony EVF was a revelation when I got the A7R3. I don’t know why older manual focus screens aren’t an option on DSRs.

 

[xkaes]

Oh well...

Have you ever been in a north coast BC and/or south east Alaskan old growth coastal rainforest? The moss seems to glow.

I have, and that second photo screams -- computerized -- just like about every calendar I've seen in the last 20 years. That's OK though because I like B&W calendars just as much.

I suspect that a lot of people go to Zion (or wherever), and walk away disappointed -- because "the calendar looked so much better".

 

[xkaes]

I don’t know why older manual focus screens aren’t an option on DSRs.

You'd think it would have been -- especially on digital camera that have interchangeable screens anyway. I often use viewfinder magnifiers when critically focusing -- with AF or MF lenses.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

Have you ever been in a north coast BC and/or south east Alaskan old growth coastal rainforest?

'I've seen attack ships on fire, off the shoulder of Orion, bright as magnesium...'

Staying off topic, I don't think the colours of that moss are unrealistic. You could make it look that intense and more if you photographed it with Fuji NPS. Here's mine: it is a bit calendarish.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I suspect that a lot of people go to Zion (or wherever), and walk away disappointed -- because "the calendar looked so much better".

I suspect a lot of Ansel Adams calendar buyers do the same, what with all that snap'n'sizzle contrast and exaggerated (for effect) tonal values. We all do it to some degree.

The original photo above is underexposed (so highlights wouldn't blow out) and there was a weird colour shift in the bark lower down on the trunks...it's not purple in real life. The second photo wasn't pumped up that much past what was there when I took the photo.

 

[MattKing]

The EVFs are great if you are using adapted lenses that require stop down metering - the view stays bright and clear as the apparent depth of field changes.