Full frame cameras

[Manfred M]

I always find it mildly amusing that many other forums are full of discussions over FF versus aps-c, but strangely very little is posted about FF or aps-c versus Medium Format (or any other format for that matter)

Strangely enough, I wrote about larger formats just above your post in #39.

If I could afford to a medium format digital camera and lenses, especially ones with in-lens leaf shutters, I would definitely be shooting them, especially in the studio.

These cameras are not mainstream, especially with the types of users here at CiC.

[chaman]

I always find it mildly amusing that many other forums are full of discussions over FF versus aps-c, but strangely very little is posted about FF or aps-c versus Medium Format (or any other format for that matter)

Price. Medium format is not necessarily accessible for most photographers (amateurs and pros included)

[DanK]

Price. Medium format is not necessarily accessible for most photographers (amateurs and pros included)

Right. What would be useful for a lot of people here is to include micro four thirds in these discussions, since they are used by a lot of folks and considered by more. I find it kind of odd that while lots of people look down their noses (unreasonably, IMHO) on APS-C, I see much less of that with MFT, which of course is a more extreme version of the same issue.

[William W]

On the topic of "other formats": the discussions on the topic of "'full frame' vs. 'crop sensor'" now has a life of its own and lives in its own little bubble with most of the discussees ignoring the existence of other formats, IMO mainly because of the history of the way the revolution from film the digital was marketed by Canon (mainly). Canon ran with the notion if not developed the words 'crop sensor' and 'full frame' - and that paid off for a long time, Canon marketing the illusion that "real photography" was about those two choices. It is only recently that other formats are gaining market relevance.

WW

[William W]

"Equivalence" -

Thanks Ted for those two links.

I have found Joseph James's document useful: [LINK Joseph James, 'Equivalence'] \

WW

[xpatUSA]

"Equivalence" -

Thanks Ted for those two links.

I have found Joseph James's document useful: [LINK Joseph James, 'Equivalence'] \

WW

Thanks to you too, Bill.

Yes, I've been pointed at that link before, by the author hisself no less!

[Manfred M]

Right. What would be useful for a lot of people here is to include micro four thirds in these discussions, since they are used by a lot of folks and considered by more. I find it kind of odd that while lots of people look down their noses (unreasonably, IMHO) on APS-C, I see much less of that with MFT, which of course is a more extreme version of the same issue.

As someone who owns cameras that are full-frame, APS-C and mFT, I suspect the reason so few people discuss mFT is that there are only two camera manufacturers that support that format; Olympus and Panasonic. The other camera manufacturers generally turn out full-frame and APS-C devices, with the obvious mainstream exception being Fujifilm who produce APS-C and medium format cameras.

As these two companies only produce mFT cameras, there is little to compare with in the same line. Both make fine products, but have relatively small market shares when compared to Canon, Nikon and Sony. Those three turn out APS-C as well as full-frame cameras. The DSLR versus mirrorless discussion complicates the discussions as well.

When it comes to direct comparisons of mFT to the other formats, much of what has already been written about APS-C and full-frame applies as well, bu the crop factor is more extreme. My two main complaints regarding the format are that there is far less ability to produce shallow depth of field shots on these camera bodies than with a full-frame camera. For the same perspective image where I get a nice shallow DoF on my FF camera at f/2.8, I would have to be shooting an f/1.4 lens. Doing wide angle shots is even more problematic as I would have to be shooting at an 8mm focal length to get me to what my FF body captures at 16mm.

The other issue that I have run into is that a smaller body gives the camera designer far less real-estate to work with, so many of the functions that I can access with buttons on the FF body, I have to access using menus on the mFT body.

Then of course, there is always the response of the digital viewfinder versus an optical viewfinder on a DSLR; here there are still some technological limits on refresh rate and image quality as seen through the viewfinder, but these are not show-stoppers.

[george013]

https://luminous-landscape.com/full-...opped-sensors/

It is easier to understand the important points by considering what is necessary to obtain an “equivalent” or identical image with different camera/sensor sizes. In order to obtain an equivalent imageallof the following properties must be the same:

Angle of view (field of view).
Perspective
Depth-of-field (DoF)
Diffraction broadening
Shutter speed/exposure

Is there anybody who can explain to me how I can take 2 identical images and having those properties the same??

George

[DanK]

https://luminous-landscape.com/full-...opped-sensors/


Is there anybody who can explain to me how I can take 2 identical images and having those properties the same??

George

If what you mean is "with a crop sensor and FF camera," then I think the answer is:

1. Stand in the same place
2. Use lenses the focal lengths of which differ by the crop factor to get the same angle of view on both cameras.
3. Use a wider aperture on the crop sensor to adjust DOF to match.

For a good explanation of the DOF part of this, see this.

[george013]

If what you mean is "with a crop sensor and FF camera," then I think the answer is:

1. Stand in the same place
2. Use lenses the focal lengths of which differ by the crop factor to get the same angle of view on both cameras.
3. Use a wider aperture on the crop sensor to adjust DOF to match.

For a good explanation of the DOF part of this, see this.

Your subject/object may have the same magnification but are all the parameters as mentioned in that article the same?

George

[DanK]

Your subject/object may have the same magnification but are all the parameters as mentioned in that article the same?

George

I haven't read the linked articles. I assume that by "magnification" you don't mean the usual "size of the image projected on the sensor," but rather "size of the image relative to the image frame." In that case, having the same AOV guarantees the same magnification, and as you explained months ago, perspective is simply a matter of distance. So, it seems to me that all that is left is the difference in DOF, which is a function of sensor size and is addressed by #3.

am I missing something?

[george013]

I haven't read the linked articles. I assume that by "magnification" you don't mean the usual "size of the image projected on the sensor," but rather "size of the image relative to the image frame." In that case, having the same AOV guarantees the same magnification, and as you explained months ago, perspective is simply a matter of distance. So, it seems to me that all that is left is the difference in DOF, which is a function of sensor size and is addressed by #3.

am I missing something?

You're right. I mean the framing . The M is just spinning through my head to much.

From that article http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/art...nce/index.html. Bold is mine.

3. Properties of equivalent camera systems

A reference camera and a (true) equivalent camera produce respective images (assuming using ideal lenses on both cameras) which share the following properties (assuming type-1 equivalence):

Perspective

Field of View

Defocus blur, incl.:

Depth of Field (subject depth appearing focussed in a printed photo)

Background blur (blur of (infinity) subjects when out of focus)

Diffraction effects (blur due to diffraction)

Detail, resolution, number of pixels

Image noise (pixel noise due to photon shot noise)

Dynamic range

For this reason, it is impossible to tell the images apart. Which in turn means that sensor size is notan image property. Which in turn means that two camera systems with different sensor sizes must firstbe set-to / used-with equivalent parameters before they can be compared. Because otherwise, we are onlyseeing the inequivalence of choosen parameters and cannot learn anything from a comparison, except that, well cameras haven't been equivalent what was known á priori.

And then have a look at your link http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...igitaldof.html

I must miss something

George

[DanK]

You're right. I mean the framing . The M is just spinning through my head to much.

From that article http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/art...nce/index.html. Bold is mine.


And then have a look at your link http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...igitaldof.html

I must miss something

George

I don't understand what you are asking. What don't you understand?

[george013]

I don't understand what you are asking. What don't you understand?

Post 48, still.

George

[DanK]

Post 48, still.

George

I answered most of this in post 49.

I didn't mention background blur. For a given framing and DOF, background blur is a function only of angle of view, so my post answers that as well.

Detail, resolution, and diffraction all depend on pixel pitch and simply can't be answered by reference only to focal length and sensor size.

[pschlute]

These kind of threads are enough to put anyone off photography for good.

Get a camera and lens, any format and take pictures.

[joebranko]

Thanks everyone for your input advice and comments. I decied to stay with my crop sensor as there isn't any significant advantage in image quality, as I rarely print and some of my lenses won't work on full frame.
I also will be looking at a MFT camera for a future purchase
Thanks again. Your help was invaluable.

[joebranko]

These kind of threads are enough to put anyone off photography for good.

Get a camera and lens, any format and take pictures.

There is no need to read articles in which you have no interest.

[DanK]

Thanks everyone for your input advice and comments. I decied to stay with my crop sensor as there isn't any significant advantage in image quality, as I rarely print and some of my lenses won't work on full frame.
I also will be looking at a MFT camera for a future purchase
Thanks again. Your help was invaluable.

Glad to hear that you figured out which option makes the most sense for you, and it's nice that it worked out that the option that is best is also the least expensive!

[Manfred M]

I also will be looking at a MFT camera for a future purchase
Thanks again. Your help was invaluable.

As only Olympus and Panasonic make mFT cameras, you are going to run into the same lens compatibility issue as with a FF camera.