Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: HSakols on October 21, 2009, 09:13:26 am
-
Hi
I presently use a Nikon D300 for many of my static landscape and nature shots where I always use the native ISO (200). I notice many landscape photographers have switched to full frame (eg D700). So what is the improvement one gains by going full frame if you are still shooting at a low ISO. Do larger sized prints (eg 16x20) show a significant improvement just by using a full frame sensor. Once again I'm not asking about the high ISO advantage of full frame.
-
I think a large part has to do with the Jones family down the street. Just can't let them have more and better than we do, can we?
There's also the human tendency to blame others and our own equipment for failures. It couldn't be my fault! I could have done better if I had "better" gear!
Certainly there's the question of potential. At some point less capable gear limits the ultimate output options of a photo. But I have to say that photos I took with my old 30D sell as well today as they did when taken 10 or so years ago, whatever year the model first came out.
We use camera equipment till it is mostly worn out before replacing. It's just a tool. Certainly we buy the best we can afford when replacing it, but "best" is tempered by a frank look at our needs, weighing additional costs of the latest greatest against the features of the previous latest-greatest, now on sale at discount. Certainly we'll buy new gear ahead of schedule when it clearly resolves a specific need and we can't wait till the current gear wears out. But that's an extremely rare occurance.
How do you recognize the working professional photographer? He's driving an old car, staying in the cheapest hotels, and using well-scuffed older model equipment. The savings are going into retirement savings and real estate rather than persona.
-
The D700 has essentially no advantages over the D300 for landscape photography (unless you like your landscapes with minimal DOF or because of the particular lenses you have available which match a FF sensor better than an APS-C sensor).
-
I think Hank is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that you should be happy with the equipment you have and only replace it when worn or non functioning anymore. I think he's correct since (watch out, old cliche coming ) the person behind the camera is still much more important than the body or lens.
However, for the same final image size you will have to blow up your pictures less, so lens unsharpness gets less enlarged so quality of FF is probably theoretically better but if you see it in the print is probably questionable.
Also in the end the lower magnification isn't all that impressive. Just draw P&S, APS-C, FF and then some MFDB sized boxes on a piece of paper and judge for yourself how big the step from APS-C to FF really is when you make them visual like that in relation to the many other formats that exist. My own conclusion was that P&S to DSLR is significant, APS-C to FF is just a little hop and if you really want significant bigger MFDB is what you need to do. For me and my hobby this little scetch made me decide that for the time being APS-C will do fine.
-
The statement that FF is "better" for landscapes than a crop sensor usualy comes from people that seldom shoot landscapes.
-
My only complaint now is that Nikon does not make many quality slow lenses that don't weigh a ton. My 6x9 view camera is about as heavy as a nikon d3 with fast glass.
-
Hi
I presently use a Nikon D300 for many of my static landscape and nature shots where I always use the native ISO (200). I notice many landscape photographers have switched to full frame (eg D700). So what is the improvement one gains by going full frame if you are still shooting at a low ISO. Do larger sized prints (eg 16x20) show a significant improvement just by using a full frame sensor. Once again I'm not asking about the high ISO advantage of full frame.
Many landscape photographers using dSLRs use photo stitching to gain extra resolution. I particularly admire the work done by BernardLanguillier, who uses the D3x but still needs the higher resolution afforded by stitching. Some photographers who use stitching actually prefer the crop frame sensors since they use the central area of the image as projected by the lens. The resolution of the D3x would be difficult to achieve with cropped frame sensors. However, I doubt that there would be a significant difference between the D700 and D300 under the conditions you specify, and if you use stitching, the D300 might be a better choice if you don't mind taking more frames.
-
Many landscape photographers using dSLRs use photo stitching to gain extra resolution. I particularly admire the work done by BernardLanguillier, who uses the D3x but still needs the higher resolution afforded by stitching. Some photographers who use stitching actually prefer the crop frame sensors since they use the central area of the image as projected by the lens. The resolution of the D3x would be difficult to achieve with cropped frame sensors. However, I doubt that there would be a significant difference between the D700 and D300 under the conditions you specify, and if you use stitching, the D300 might be a better choice if you don't mind taking more frames.
In fact there have been hot debates regarding Sony cameras whether Alpha700 is not equivalent or better than Alpha 900. And many concluded A900 is redundant.
Arun Gaur
Visit My Website (http://tripolia-indianlandscapeimages.com)
-
When the cameras in question have the same or nearly the same resolution, as in the case of the D300 and D700, there's no real advantage to full-frame. If anything the fact that DX cameras are using the 'sweet spot' of full-frame lenses is an advantage. The one exception is if you have some specific lenses that you prefer the FOV of when used on full-frame. For instance, I've found the 45mm PC-E tilt/shift lens more useful on full-frame, because it's a much more useful FOV (on DX it was kind of an in-between focal length, not 'normal' and not really telephoto either).
To me the real reason to go to FX is more resolution, which is why I didn't think the D700 made much sense for landscapes; but the D3x, 5D2, a900 are much more appealing.
-
I don't feel like jumping to DXO to confirm this but I believe that at the same pixel count the FF cameras have more DR. Obviously you can get higher pixel count FF cameras. Then resolution becomes your friend.
Check DXO to confirm the first statement.
-
I presently use a Nikon D300 for many of my static landscape and nature shots where I always use the native ISO (200). ...
I agree with the general trend in this thread.
Once upon a time, when we used film, the dominant reason for using a larger format for landscapes and such was higher resolution, and related claims of getting finer tonal gradations and nicer shadow rendering (better DR?). This was so even though using the same emulsions of the same sensitivity (ISO speed), probably with higher f-stops and lower shutter speeds. So it happened with the same "spec. sheet DR" as was available in smaller formats. The key was getting any given print size at lower degree of enlargement.
With digital, high ISO and low light handling has become a major emphasis, but in your situation where high speeds are taken out of the picture, my guess would be that the move to a larger format for landscape will mostly benefit landscape only if the larger sensor records finer spatial details of the subject: more MP, not higher sensitivity. Translate "lower degree of enlargement" as "higher PPI".
So, if you actually have evidence that the quality of your landscape work is significantly hampered by your current gear anyway, one suggestion is to hope that the recent "Nikon D800" rumor is at least partly right: the part about a 24.5MP sensor in a D700-like body at a far less than D3X-like price. Or learn to love stitching.
-
Hi
I presently use a Nikon D300 for many of my static landscape and nature shots where I always use the native ISO (200). I notice many landscape photographers have switched to full frame (eg D700). So what is the improvement one gains by going full frame if you are still shooting at a low ISO. Do larger sized prints (eg 16x20) show a significant improvement just by using a full frame sensor. Once again I'm not asking about the high ISO advantage of full frame.
I've upgraded my D300 to a D700, and the only advantage is that my 14mm-24mm lens is 14mm at the widest, while on a cropped sensor it's 21mm, which makes it better for wide angle landscape on the FF. No quality issues, except in higher ISO quality. No contest there.
-
1. The D3 has less noise than the D300 at low ISO as well; this transforms into cleaner images and higher DR.
2. FF cameras have a better selection of lenses for wide FoV than the croppers.
-
1. The D3 has less noise than the D300 at low ISO as well; this transforms into cleaner images and higher DR.
It's negligible in real-world images. I'm not saying there's no difference, but it's small, and IMHO not worth the price difference even if you compare D700 instead of D3.
2. FF cameras have a better selection of lenses for wide FoV than the croppers.
Not really, IMHO. In Nikon land you have the 14-24 and 17-35, and that's about it. No doubt the 14-24 is a legendary lens, but it has its disadvantages as well. For DX format, you have quite a selection of 10-20, 11-16, 12-24, etc lenses, some of which are quite good (I'd argue at least as good as the 17-35), and they're all smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the 14-24. There's also a great DX full-frame fisheye. Now granted 10mm DX is not quite as wide as 14mm FX, but unless you really need that extra mm of width (most don't), I'd argue that lens selection is a wash between the two formats.
-
Oh, come on. Do you honestly expect any self-respecting photographer to show up at a scenic overlook with anything less than the latest/greatest full-frame camera from either Nikon, Canon or Sony?
Heaven forbid you attend a workshop with a crop-sensor camera.
-
It's negligible in real-world images. I'm not saying there's no difference, but it's small
I do measure not negligable differences. However, I can not show how much it means in real-word images, for I don't have either camera.
The point is, that many photographers do not utilize the entire DR of the camera (most of them don't even understand, that their Black=5 cuts off a lot of the DR); however, just landscape shots do need the highest possible DR in order to have clean shadows.
IMHO not worth the price difference even if you compare D700 instead of D3
That's a different issue. It depends on the budget and on the utilization of the high DR. I am landscaper but hobbyist, therefor it is too expensive for me.
For DX format, you have quite a selection of 10-20, 11-16, 12-24, etc lenses, some of which are quite good (I'd argue at least as good as the 17-35)
I have to pass here. My remark war rather generic; I did not know, that Nikon offers such a large selection of DX WA lenses.
-
In fact there have been hot debates regarding Sony cameras whether Alpha700 is not equivalent or better than Alpha 900. And many concluded A900 is redundant.
Arun Gaur
Visit My Website (http://tripolia-indianlandscapeimages.com)
Are these not 2 entirely different formats to be "better" or "worser" than the other ? For one to be "redundant" just because one has the other ? We are not comparing say an A200 with an A700 here, is it, where both are products in the same format (APS-C) with one having a few more bells-and-whistles over the other ?
The A900, being a Full-frame, gathers 240% of the light gathered by the A700 in every identical exposure. DOF and other factors being additional factors. That may or may not be important for the person taking the picture and if one is happy with one's tool of choice, I think that is all that matters.
-
In fact there have been hot debates regarding Sony cameras whether Alpha700 is not equivalent or better than Alpha 900. And many concluded A900 is redundant.
That's pretty silly, considering the 900 is a 24mp camera. It may be redundant if you only print 8x10, but at larger output sizes there will most definitely be a difference.
-
The A900, being a Full-frame, gathers 240% of the light gathered by the A700 in every identical exposure. DOF and other factors being additional factors.
For many landscape photographs, "identical exposure" very much includes equal DOF; it is not a mere "additional factor" to be brushed aside in comparisons. And once DOF is admitted part of the picture, so that the larger format needs to use a higher f-stop, the light gathered is about equal for equal DOF, equal FOV, equal exposure time.
For equal DOF, the extra light gathering potential of the larger sensor is realized when the larger format can use a longer exposure time, like using minimum sensitivity [ISO] with either format.
This still leaves the question of whether a smaller format camera like the D300 has noticeable DR limitations when used at minimum ISO.
-
Hi
I presently use a Nikon D300 for many of my static landscape and nature shots where I always use the native ISO (200). I notice many landscape photographers have switched to full frame (eg D700). So what is the improvement one gains by going full frame if you are still shooting at a low ISO. Do larger sized prints (eg 16x20) show a significant improvement just by using a full frame sensor. Once again I'm not asking about the high ISO advantage of full frame.
In essence, I keep thinking that DX is better suited for active landscape work than FX (more DoF, lighter lenses, less light fall off,...).
So why am I using a FX body?
- Flagship cameras at Canon/Nikon/Sony get the latest and the greatest sensors with the best DR at low ISO (unclear to what extend this is enabled by the larger sensor),
- FX cameras also get the highest resolution sensors,
- They are on the strategical path for developement at the major brands, and investement in lenses suitable for work with FX cameras ends up being a safer bet.
I am more opened than I used to be about landscape work with limited DoF, but it is unclear to me whether this is a real artistic decision of one that I had to make to cope with the limitations of FX in terms of extended DoF.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Better DR
More wide lens options
Lower noise (very marginal though)
Plus I don't use my camera only for landscapes.
-
Better DR
More wide lens options
Lower noise (very marginal though)
Plus I don't use my camera only for landscapes.
That about sums it up. There's a good case to be made for buying a camera so you can use a particular lens. If my Canon EF-S 10-22 for cropped format, or Sigma 15-30 for Full Frame, had been better quality lenses, I would probably not have bought a D700. My Canon 50D with its 15mp sensor should be at least the equal of the D700 resolution-wise. I haven't done any thorough comparisons between the 50D with EF-S 10-22 and the D700 with Nikkor 14-24 because the differences seem so obvious. I can't waste my time confirming the obvious.
The resolution of the Sigma was reasonably close to the Nikkor in the centre of the image but much worse than the Nikkor at the edges and in the corners. The Sigma 15-30 is much more suitable for a cropped format where it becomes a 24-48 zoom. Even the EF-S 10-22 is no wider than 16mm, full frame equivalent. The difference between the 14mm of the Nikkor and the 16mm equivalent of the EF-S 10-22 is quite substantial in terms of both FoV and over all image quality.
-
So what is the improvement one gains by going full frame if you are still shooting at a low ISO?
As far as image quality goes, for cameras that have similar performance levels (per area), the principle gains are:
- Dynamic Range
- Color Depth
- Lens selection
Color depth is the SNR over the part of the dynamic range that you care to use. Even when a large sensor has *less* dynamic range than a small sensor (because of lower technology or whatever), it still has the advantage of higher color depth. For example, the D3X has 13.5 stops DR compared to 12.5 stops in the newest P65+. But if you only look at the top 8 stops and forget about the bottom 5.5, the MFDB will have higher SNR, which translates to color depth (AKA tonal gradations). For a more extreme example, compare the LX3, which as 10.6 stops of DR, vs. the 5D2, which has less than 10.6 stops of DR (if you consider pattern noise a disqualification as I do). Assigning an importance to color depth is an exercise for the reader.
The importance of lens selection varies by taste and circumstance. There are many circumstances where the MTF of an APS-C lens is inferior to an equivalent (and perhaps more expensive) FF lens. That is because APS-C lenses must provide the same MTF at a 1.6X higher spatial frequency, though only over a smaller image circle. They also have the disadvantage of higher ratio between backfocus distance and image circle size (although the EF-S mount helped this by a few millimeters). Such inequalities may or may not be adequately addressed by additional post processing on the APS-C image depending on your taste and preferences for post.
-
it seems that a lot of responders here have not used full frame and crop frame side by side and or have modest print size requirements.
without stitching, 13x19 is pretty much the absolute limit for a 40D (and i believe the 50D as well which is very marginally better -- hope to be pleasantly surprised by the 7D). The 5D is noticeably sharper than the 40D (and 50D) and can make larger prints. The 5DII is in another class for larger prints.
if you're making smaller prints or stitching a crop frame camera gives good results - but it takes 3 stitched 40D images to equal one 5DII image - and i've found plenty of situations where movement in the subject area makes stitching impractical
-
I do measure not negligable differences. However, I can not show how much it means in real-word images, for I don't have either camera.
The point is, that many photographers do not utilize the entire DR of the camera (most of them don't even understand, that their Black=5 cuts off a lot of the DR); however, just landscape shots do need the highest possible DR in order to have clean shadows.
That's a different issue. It depends on the budget and on the utilization of the high DR. I am landscaper but hobbyist, therefor it is too expensive for me.
I have to pass here. My remark war rather generic; I did not know, that Nikon offers such a large selection of DX WA lenses.
Well this has been most interesting reading.
Phew!
Expose to the right, compose, focus, lock up your mirror and release your shutter.
-
I agree with the implictions Stever is making.
The size of your prints and your printing technique are key measures in determining if you need a FF or not.
When I had a D200 and mid-range lenses, the upward limit of prints I considered good was 13x19. When I switched to the 14-24mm I was quite satisfied with 22x17 prints. So the issue of FF or no-FF was irrelevant.
On occasion, some of the D200/14-24mm files I printed over 5ft.. I saw, or perhaps imagined seeing, less quality than I would like, but I've never once had a client complain.
I now use an infrared adapted D50 and a D3. I print on an Epson 3800.
I find I can get excellent 13x19 prints on my Nikon D50. A similar sized print coming from my D3 does not show any significant gains that make any difference to my buyers. --At least not enough for them not to pay a pretty penny for each print.
Paper choice makes a difference too. On 13x19 prints, when using Luster/Baryta papers, and when I really pixel peep, I appreciate a finer contrast in the FF pictures. If I make the same print on Fine-Art cotton papers I really cannot see any difference. I can send out to a lab prints 4ft long coming from the D50, and if coated behind plexi and printed on metallic paper, there is no visible difference from a similar file coming from the D3 (or D200 back in the day).
I do see differences on 22x17 prints on Luster/Baryta paper, and to a lesser degree on cotton papers. There is an almost intangible "wash-out" effect on pics from the D50, contrast details seem weaker, and the overall intangible feeling is of something softer. To the layman I doubt anything is really noticeable though.
In summary, before upgrading, I would ask myself:
- Is my shooting technique solid? ie. adequately weighted tripod, use of RAW, mirror lock/self-timer
- Is my glass the best I can afford?
- Can I benefit efficiently from stitching? Perhaps motion and subject don't allow this, or perhaps you don't want to spend the time
- Is my processing and printing technique solid? ie. monitor/profile calibration, sharpening, curves, calibrated printer, etc.
- Does my media allow the benefits of FF to be apparent? ie. thick cotton papers and plexicoated can go a long way in forgiving
- Do I print in sufficient size for this to be relevant? e.g over 13x19
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly: Will it make a difference in helping sell or making me feel more satisfied?
-
I agree with the implictions Stever is making.
The size of your prints and your printing technique are key measures in determining if you need a FF or not.
No, no, no! The OP is asking whether he should upgrade froma 12mp D300 to a 12mp full frame, like the D700. Resolution and print size is determined by pixel count, as far as the camera is concerned.
Lenses are another matter.
The advantages of the larger format of same pixel count are mainly image quality at shallow DoF which is often not a major concern with landscape photography where getting a sufficiently extensive DoF is often of greater concern.
Whilst it's true that the greater pixel density of the smaller sensor is more demanding on the lens, this again is not an issue when extensive DoF is sought. In other words, a lens at F10 is usually sharper than a lens at F16. Likewise, a lens at F5.6 is usually sharper than a lens at F9.
The same is not true at wide apertures where a shallow DoF is deliberately sought. A lens at F2 is most likely not as sharp as a lens at F3.5, yet you would need to use F2 to get a similar DoF on a D300 to that from a D700 at F3.5. In this situation, the D700 image would be clearly sharper. However, the OP is a specialised landscape shooter with little need for shallow DoF.
-
In fact there have been hot debates regarding Sony cameras whether Alpha700 is not equivalent or better than Alpha 900. And many concluded A900 is redundant.
Arun Gaur
Visit My Website (http://tripolia-indianlandscapeimages.com)
Gimme a break, there's more in life than stitching wide FOV's. Don't get me wrong, I love my APS-C and don't need (can't justify) FF for my hobby but saying a same pixel density FF camera with essentially the same sensor characteristic (granted, pixel peepers will always find a difference) is redundant is nonsence.
-
Lenses are another matter.
In the case of the D300 and D700, the resolution in terms of pixels/picture height is the same. However, the Nyquist frequency is 59 lp/mm for the D700 and 90 lp/mm for the D300. If you are shooting with a perfect lens (diffraction limited) at f/8, the MTF at Nyquist will be about 52% with the D700 and about 68% with the D700. The full frame camera can operate at a higher MTF. Nyquist is a poor choice for comparing MTF, since Bayer array cameras can not resolve at Nyquist, but the curve is nearly linear, and similar ratios apply at lower frequencies. The graph was adapted from one on Bob Atkin's web site.
This analysis neglects curvature of field, light falloff and depth of field considerations.
[attachment=17406:D300_D700_MTF.gif]
-
I tested the D300 against my old beloved D200, carefully and extensively, and decided to skip it. The D300 was just too prone to noise in the skies at its base ISO, which I felt was a fatal flaw for landscapes. Instead, I jumped to a D700.
Friends, though the D700 has roughly the same number of pixels, it's worlds better for landscapes than the D200/D300. The improved dynamic range and concomitant low shadow noise are enormously liberating. With good lenses, e.g. the 24-70 f/2.8, it's virtually immune to chromatic aberration (I love this). The improved noise also reduces the need for tripod use, which keeps the spousal unit / significant other happy when traveling. I still keep a compact APS camera, but I can instantly tell the difference, and now I'm always slightly disappointed in the smaller brother's images. This is typically true even for telephoto use, despite the APS's imputed focal-length advantage. I still prefer APS for macro, however.
I'm in the camp that feels that we are obtaining diminishing returns with regard to pixel count. Instead, my dream is for Nikon to migrate a D700-class sensor into a camera approaching the size and cost of the D60. Meanwhile, there's more to life and photography than more pixels, and the D700 is well worth the jump from a D300-class camera for so many reasons.
-
Are these not 2 entirely different formats to be "better" or "worser" than the other ? For one to be "redundant" just because one has the other ? We are not comparing say an A200 with an A700 here, is it, where both are products in the same format (APS-C) with one having a few more bells-and-whistles over the other ?
The A900, being a Full-frame, gathers 240% of the light gathered by the A700 in every identical exposure. DOF and other factors being additional factors. That may or may not be important for the person taking the picture and if one is happy with one's tool of choice, I think that is all that matters.
That's right. They belong to different categories and should serve the different purposes. Still there is no end to the debates comparing the two on different accounts. Of course, this confounds the matter, sometimes unnecessarily.
Arun Gaur
Visit My Website (http://tripolia-indianlandscapeimages.com)
-
Gimme a break, there's more in life than stitching wide FOV's. Don't get me wrong, I love my APS-C and don't need (can't justify) FF for my hobby but saying a same pixel density FF camera with essentially the same sensor characteristic (granted, pixel peepers will always find a difference) is redundant is nonsence.
I would also tend to agree with you. After all there should be some-some difference. It is very much obvious. However, debates must go on in face of the obvious things.
Arun Gaur
Visit My Website (http://tripolia-indianlandscapeimages.com)
-
That's pretty silly, considering the 900 is a 24mp camera. It may be redundant if you only print 8x10, but at larger output sizes there will most definitely be a difference.
To me also it appears to be pretty silly, though the color and charm in life is nothing but an assemblage of silly things. People have come out with what they claim to be conclusive proofs : "Look here these are the prints, not 8X10, but much bigger, and can you spot the difference between the two prints made from the two cameras? You cannot. So I am proved to be right".
Arun Gaur
Visit My Website (http://tripolia-indianlandscapeimages.com)
-
Or you could have just read the OP question.
If you compare a 5DII to a 40D you are comparing a 22mpx camera to a 10mpx camera, the fact that it is full-frame is not the key.
it seems that a lot of responders here have not used full frame and crop frame side by side and or have modest print size requirements.
without stitching, 13x19 is pretty much the absolute limit for a 40D (and i believe the 50D as well which is very marginally better -- hope to be pleasantly surprised by the 7D). The 5D is noticeably sharper than the 40D (and 50D) and can make larger prints. The 5DII is in another class for larger prints.
if you're making smaller prints or stitching a crop frame camera gives good results - but it takes 3 stitched 40D images to equal one 5DII image - and i've found plenty of situations where movement in the subject area makes stitching impractical
-
I'm in the camp that feels that we are obtaining diminishing returns with regard to pixel count. Instead, my dream is for Nikon to migrate a D700-class sensor into a camera approaching the size and cost of the D60. Meanwhile, there's more to life and photography than more pixels, and the D700 is well worth the jump from a D300-class camera for so many reasons.
The range of apertures available is getting narrow, but the current 20+ megapixels DSLR still offer a very clear advantage over 12MP sensors when everything is done right, wihch is not always easy and requires serious oversizing of some pieces of equipment for consistency accross a variety of conditions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I guess your mileage may vary. The D700 has lesser pixel density than the D300 so it places less demands on the lenses. Using full frame lenses on the D300 lets you utilize the swet spot of the lens.
Best regards
Erik
Hi
I presently use a Nikon D300 for many of my static landscape and nature shots where I always use the native ISO (200). I notice many landscape photographers have switched to full frame (eg D700). So what is the improvement one gains by going full frame if you are still shooting at a low ISO. Do larger sized prints (eg 16x20) show a significant improvement just by using a full frame sensor. Once again I'm not asking about the high ISO advantage of full frame.
-
The range of apertures available is getting narrow, but the current 20+ megapixels DSLR still offer a very clear advantage over 12MP sensors when everything is done right, wihch is not always easy and requires serious oversizing of some pieces of equipment for consistency accross a variety of conditions.
I'd agree that there is still juice left above 12 MP, but as you say, it's increasingly hard to take advantage of. And 12 MP may not be the sweet-spot for 35mm - the best all-around compromise for every job if you can have only have one camera - but it's in the ball-park.
The D700 has lesser pixel density than the D300 so it places less demands on the lenses. Using full frame lenses on the D300 lets you utilize the swet spot of the lens.
This speaks to my thesis (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that "every camera is the same": If you could some-how weight all photographic trade-offs in an unbiased way, one would find that every good camera (e.g., shot-noise-limited) scores roughly the same. Do you insist on both high resolution and low noise? Well, you will lose depth of field (and have a monster camera). Want awesome depth of field plus high resolution? You will lose on noise (but you get a pocket camera), etc. The image quality would differ in certain characteristics but the net quality in some sort of lumped fashion would be the same.
Cheers.
-
Hi,
I have both full frame and APS-C, a Sony Alpha 900 and a Sony Alpha 700 sharing a similar sensor. No question that the Alpha 900 resolves higher, but I see little difference in A2 size prints from Lightroom 2.
Best regards
Erik
I'd agree that there is still juice left above 12 MP, but as you say, it's increasingly hard to take advantage of. And 12 MP may not be the sweet-spot for 35mm - the best all-around compromise for every job if you can have only have one camera - but it's in the ball-park.
This speaks to my thesis (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that "every camera is the same": If you could some-how weight all photographic trade-offs in an unbiased way, one would find that every good camera (e.g., shot-noise-limited) scores roughly the same. Do you insist on both high resolution and low noise? Well, you will lose depth of field (and have a monster camera). Want awesome depth of field plus high resolution? You will lose on noise (but you get a pocket camera), etc. The image quality would differ in certain characteristics but the net quality in some sort of lumped fashion would be the same.
Cheers.
-
The range of apertures available is getting narrow, but the current 20+ megapixels DSLR still offer a very clear advantage over 12MP sensors when everything is done right, wihch is not always easy and requires serious oversizing of some pieces of equipment for consistency accross a variety of conditions.
Cheers,
Bernard
I wouldn't quite agree with this, Bernard. I found no restriction in choice of apertures after comparing two very high pixel-density cameras, the Canon 40D and 50D, which on full frame would be equivalent to 26mp and 39mp.
It's true that there's a law of diminishing returns at work regarding increased resolution in the plane of focus, as one stops down towards diffraction-limited f stops. However, for landscape work in circumstances where as much DoF as possible is sought, the higher pixel-density sensor has a clear advantage.
For example, if one doesn't want to compromise resolution too much at the plane of focus, I think most users of the APS-C format would be reluctant to stop down beyond F11, maybe F13 at the most. Many lenses are sharpest around F5.6 so there is often a trade-off between degree of DoF and sharpness at the plane of focus.
This is where the higher pixel density camera has the advantage. You get approximately the same degree of sharpness and detail with a 50D at F16 as you get with a 40D at F11. But there's no doubt whatsoever, that the 50D at F16 produces greater DoF.
Comparing the 50D at F8 with the 40D at F5.6, using a standard 50mm prime (50/1.4), the 50D image not only has an obviously greater DoF, but is also marginally and noticeably sharper at the plane of focus.
The full frame equivalent of the current Canon 7D would be 47mp. I would have no hesitation in buying a future Canon Full Frame DSLR with the pixel density of the 7D, if the price was right .
The bottom line is, the higher pixel-density camera will never produce worse results at the plane of focus (using the same F stop and lens), but will frequently produce greater DoF with the same degree of sharpness at the plane of focus, when stopped down.
I should add, it is assumed one always compares equal size images on monitor or print. That's only sensible.
-
One of the primary benefits for a larger sensor size (or film size) is that an image degradation due to camera or subject motion is less detectable because the amount of enlargement for any given size of print is less (using a tripod does NOT guarantee 0 camera motion).
-
One of the primary benefits for a larger sensor size (or film size) is that an image degradation due to camera or subject motion is less detectable because the amount of enlargement for any given size of print is less (using a tripod does NOT guarantee 0 camera motion).
That is correct when one uses the same focal length on two different sensor sizes. However, it will result in a much different angle of view, of course. If instead you keep angle of view the same by scaling the focal length with the format size, it turns out that motion and subject blur remains the exact same.
In other words, you are correct that wider angles of view have less motion blur, but that is true of all formats.
-
That is correct when one uses the same focal length on two different sensor sizes. However, it will result in a much different angle of view, of course. If instead you keep angle of view the same by scaling the focal length with the format size, it turns out that motion and subject blur remains the exact same.
In other words, you are correct that wider angles of view have less motion blur, but that is true of all formats.
Daniel,
I'm not sure I agree. If you have larger-format camera A. with a 20-degree lens and compare it with smaller-format camera B. with a 20-degree lens, at any given enlargement, the amount of camera shake will be more obvious with camera B due the greater degree of enlargement. In order for your assertion to be true, I believer that the enlargement must be proportionally smaller for camera B.
In comparing prints made from both medium format and Pentax k20 cameras, I observe much more motion blur from the Pentax at, say, 11x14, even with lenses of equivalent field of view.
In order to see less motion blur from the Pentax, I'd have to have 5x7 or 8x10 prints.
Scott
-
Daniel,
... If you have larger-format camera A. with a 20-degree lens and compare it with smaller-format camera B. with a 20-degree lens, at any given enlargement, the amount of camera shake will be more obvious with camera B due the greater degree of enlargement.
I agree with Daniel. The 20º lens on the smaller format has a smaller focal length and so the same angular rotation of the camera moves the smaller image across the focal plane by a proportionately smaller amount, and the size of the motion blur at the focal plane is smaller. The greater degree of enlargement then just cancels out this and gives the same amount of blur on the same sized print.
Your idea of thinking in angles is a useful one when comparing different formats. Say in each case the FOV is 20º horizontally and the sensor is 4000 pixels across. Each pixel spans 1/200º of the subject: loosely speaking, you have an angular resolution of 1/200º. A camera rotation of, say 1/100º moves the image 2 pixels across the image in either case (1/2000 of image width) for the same amount of blur size relative to image size.
This begs the question of how the rotational motion of a camera due to hand-shake might vary with format size. Some say that larger formats benefit from greater mass (really, moment of inertia) leading to slower twisting due to hand-shake, but if so, that depends on camera bulk, not format size directly, so if it is an issue, using a heavier camera is a possible advantage, independent of format. Add "ballast" if you really must; maybe bolt metal plates to the unused tripod socket.
-
Daniel,
I'm not sure I agree. If you have larger-format camera A. with a 20-degree lens and compare it with smaller-format camera B. with a 20-degree lens, at any given enlargement, the amount of camera shake will be more obvious with camera B due the greater degree of enlargement.
When angle of view is kept the same, focal length cancels out the degree of enlargement as it pertains to motion blur. For example:
80mm lens on 645 Medium Format (56x41.5mm sensor)
8mm lens on a digicam (5.6x4.15mm sensor)
That will give them both the exact same angle of view. To make an 11x14 (336x279mm) print, the 645 only needs enlargement of 6X. But the tiny digicam requires a reproduction magnification of 60X. Now, if there was a blur of 1mm on both cameras, that blur would get enlarged to 6mm on the 11x14 print from the 645 camera, but it would be enlarged to 60mm on the 11x14 print from the digicam. And that's what would happen if both cameras used the same focal length (e.g. 80mm). But if you keep angle of view the same, then you have to use a much shorter focal length.
Say a subject moves through the frame at a speed that causes a blur trail that is 10% of the Picture Height. On 645 MF that translates to a blur on a sensor that is 4.15mm long. But the same exact 10% on the digicam only translates to a blur of 0.415mm. When you add in reproduction magnification, the blur comes out the same on the print: 24.9mm.
Kind regards,
-
Daniel,
I'm not sure I agree. If you have larger-format camera A. with a 20-degree lens and compare it with smaller-format camera B. with a 20-degree lens, at any given enlargement, the amount of camera shake will be more obvious with camera B due the greater degree of enlargement. In order for your assertion to be true, I believer that the enlargement must be proportionally smaller for camera B.
In comparing prints made from both medium format and Pentax k20 cameras, I observe much more motion blur from the Pentax at, say, 11x14, even with lenses of equivalent field of view.
In order to see less motion blur from the Pentax, I'd have to have 5x7 or 8x10 prints.
Scott
What is perhaps relevant here is the concept that enlargement in the digital domain relates to pixel count, not sensor size. However, sensor size affects FoV. Having adjusted lens focal length to equalise FoV, motion blur of the subject and camera shake should be theoretically the same when using the same shutter speed with both formats. However, camera shake is a variable quantity depending on the weight of the camera, how firmly one can hold the camera and in what manner one holds the camera.
I get the impression that the DSLR pressed against one's face and held firmly with both hands probably has an advantage regarding camera shake.
-
What is perhaps relevant here is the concept that enlargement in the digital domain relates to pixel count, not sensor size. However, sensor size affects FoV. Having adjusted lens focal length to equalise FoV, motion blur of the subject and camera shake should be theoretically the same when using the same shutter speed with both formats. However, camera shake is a variable quantity depending on the weight of the camera, how firmly one can hold the camera and in what manner one holds the camera.
I get the impression that the DSLR pressed against one's face and held firmly with both hands probably has an advantage regarding camera shake.
Ray,
Even with digital, format size does matter, and not just pixel count. Camera shake, as well as all manner of lens abberation and focusing error are ALL magnified from a smaller sensor, even before one begins to see pixel effect.
Personally, I seem to have a hell of a time holding my DSLR steady. I have much better luck with either my Mamiya 6, Bronica S2, or Leica.
Scott
-
Ray,
Even with digital, format size does matter, and not just pixel count. Camera shake, as well as all manner of lens abberation and focusing error are ALL magnified from a smaller sensor, even before one begins to see pixel effect.
Personally, I seem to have a hell of a time holding my DSLR steady. I have much better luck with either my Mamiya 6, Bronica S2, or Leica.
Scott
Scott,
You've got 3 explanations above why camera shake is not magnified with the smaller sensor provided the focal length of the lens is adjusted to provide the same field of view. However, it is true that increases in pixel count put greater demands on the lenses used. That applies across all formats, including the P65 which has a pixel size similar to that of the D3X.
Years ago, questions used to arise about how the 1/FL rule applies to the cropped format camera. As a guide for a minimum shutter speed without IS, with camera hand-held, it's now a bit out-of-date because it used to apply to 8"x10" prints in the days when 35mm film was not considered good enough for prints much larger than 8x10".
In other words, if one uses an 80mm lens with FF 35mm, a shutter speed of 1/80th should be sufficient to overcome camera shake. However, to shoot the same scene with a Canon cropped format, one would use a 50mm lens. The question thus arises, does the 1/FL rule, as applied to APS-C format, mean that one can use a slower shutter speed of 1/50th?
No it doesn't. The 1/FL rule is really a 1/FL(35mm) rule. Whatever the format, the minimum shutter speed needed to overcome camera shake is '1/equivalent 35mm lens in millimetres', and that I guess would apply even to an 8x10 large format field camera unless there are some other issues relating to the difficulty of holding the camera. In other words, for a reasonably sharp 8x10" print, one could get away with 1/50th sec shutter speed, despite the fact that the standard lens on 8x10 format might be 320mm-400mm.
I think the confusion probably arises because people unwittingly sometimes compare apples with oranges. If the FoV is the same, if the print size is the same and if the shutter speed is the same, then the camera shake will be the same whatever the format, or to put it more precisely, the camera shake will be influenced only by one's ability to hold the camera steady. It might well be the case that a P&S digicam with LiveView LCD screen, held at arms length, will need a faster shutter speed to overcome camera shake, especially if one suffers from Parkinson's.
-
Ray,
Even with digital, format size does matter, and not just pixel count. Camera shake, as well as all manner of lens abberation and focusing error are ALL magnified from a smaller sensor, even before one begins to see pixel effect.
Personally, I seem to have a hell of a time holding my DSLR steady. I have much better luck with either my Mamiya 6, Bronica S2, or Leica.
Scott
Since when is your Leica a large format camera?
What you neglect to mention is that none of the cameras you mentioned has vibration reduction/image stabilization. According to the Leica expert Erwin Puts (http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/technique/page40.htm) the use of vibration reduction can produce results nearly as good as are obtained through the use of a tripod.
-
I've had a D70, a D200 and now a D300. I agree with a previous poster about noisy skies; they're especially evident when extracting a black and white with "black" blue sky areas. It's not a problem, but it is evident.
For landscape shooting at reasonable print sizes (say 16X20) my experience is that the D300's 12 MP is enough. Stitching (usually very easy with landscapes) renders this problem moot. I have lots of 30X17 (stitched) landscape images from the above cameras that look great at any responsible viewing distance. : )
What I want is at least two more stops of dynamic range. When new sensors offer that, I'm in. Contrast is a much more difficult problem for photography than insufficient spacial resolution given today's 12 MP DSLRs. With 14ev of exposure latitude, HDR bracketing and processing shenanigans would be virtually unnecessary.
I'm reminded of the early days of computers when VGA had two resolutions: 640X480 with 16 colours and 320X240 with 256 colours. The lower-res, higher bit depth images always looked better.
For nearly all camera markets, the megapixel wars are over. Let the dynamic range wars begin!
-
... that the D300's 12 MP is enough. Stitching (usually very easy with landscapes) renders this problem moot. ...
What I want is at least two more stops of dynamic range. ... Contrast is a much more difficult problem for photography than insufficient spacial resolution given today's 12 MP DSLRs. With 14ev of exposure latitude, HDR bracketing and processing shenanigans would be virtually unnecessary.
If stitching for increased spatial resolution is "usually very easy with landscapes", I would have thought that HDR bracketing for increased dynamic range could be even easier. No repositioning of the camera, and two frames to blend can be taken within about 1/7th of a second with the D300, so even less problems with slight and slow subject movement, or with shifting light and shadows, which might mess up stitching even with a completely immobile subject. I doubt that any sensor progress can match the DR of even basic two-frame HDR blending, due to factors like flare from bright parts of the scene contaminating the deep shadows.
Maybe good HDR+stitching software, maybe even in-camera, could be the most convenient and cost effective "next big thing" for landscapes.
Or reading several successive frames in rapid succession with the video style rolling electronic shutter and adding the successive outputs at each photosite, so no shutter movement between frames. Four sweeps with 12-bit sensor output adds to 14-bits, or a two stop gain; sixteen sweeps for the Holy Grail of true 16-bit depth.
-
If stitching for increased spatial resolution is "usually very easy with landscapes", I would have thought that HDR bracketing for increased dynamic range could be even easier. No repositioning of the camera, and two frames to blend can be taken within about 1/7th of a second with the D300, so even less problems with slight and slow subject movement, or with shifting light and shadows, which might mess up stitching even with a completely immobile subject. I doubt that any sensor progress can match the DR of even basic two-frame HDR blending, due to factors like flare from bright parts of the scene contaminating the deep shadows.
I've recently been experimenting with HDR and exposure blending using a 5D II and Photomatrix. You're right that it's easy to do - taking the shots is dead easy with a good tripod; working out the optimum settings for blending requires some effort.
The problem is that it's often impossible to avoid some subject movement between shots. One of my favourite subjects is Tokyo streetscapes, which as you can imagine are almost impossible to shoot without getting at least a few people in the frame, who have an annoying tendency to move around. Even if there are no people around, things like lanterns swaying in the breeze can be a problem.
A camera with an extra 4 stops or so of dynamic range would open up a lot of photographic opportunities. A medium format digital back might manage it, but I don't think I could justify the currently exorbitant cost. I'll probably buy one when the price becomes more reasonable, as I'm sure it eventually will.
-
For nearly all camera markets, the megapixel wars are over. Let the dynamic range wars begin!
That will be a difficult war to fight... since DR is anyhing but obvious as it manifests itself only in the shadows once correct exposure is applied (ETTR). DR today is mostly a romantic concept.
For DR to be understood, we will first need to make sure that the concepts of correct exposure in digital is understood. For example, all the photoraphers who believe that the device they are using as some sort of headroom towards the highlights has probably not put in place the required basis to understand what DR in the digital world means. Even the Fuji cameras are not exceptions to this rule. This will remain so as long as our sensors stay linear devices.
At the risk of looking again like a D3x fan, I will restate the fact that the D3x is significantly ahead of competition DRwise, and yet is assessed by many key reviewers as being very similar to its competitors.
The reason being that most raw converters apply a default curve to the raw data so as to generate a pleasing result. A pleasant result will determine the extend to which a user will want to keep using that particular raw conversion software and is therefore very important.
A pleasing result is one that has enough contrast, in this case global contrast since raw converters for DSLRs do not apply automatically local contrast enhancement, although their highlight/shadow recovery tools often do.
So the bottomline is that good or bad DR can only be assessed by looking at the shadows of a file after application of various methods to lift them.
Pretty often, tapping into the actual DR of a camera like the D3x can only be truly done by using some form of tone mapping, something that few photographers are willing to do on a regular basis.
So unless raw converters become smarter at making DR available, real DR we will remain difficult to sell beyond its romantic appeal. Look at how little recognition Nikon has gotten for their outstanding job with the D3x.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I totally agree that improved DR in a DSLR is a very difficult concept to sell to anyone other than a professional photographer who understands the benefits.
The marketing departments of major camera manufacturers know this - they also know its far easier to market a camera as 'new' and 'improved' because it has 6 mega pixels instead of 5. Thats something every consumer understands on the basic level that '6' is better than '5' (hey this one has volume that goes to 11!).
Its the same in the display market - the marketing dept. of major display manufacturers knows that the purchaser understands that 'X' display has more pixels than 'Y' - but the punter most likely wont understand the benefit of a larger gamut; even though the larger gamut will give them a better more accurate picture. Hence, gamut is rarely if ever mentioned in a displays specifications.
Ultimately this all means that the marketing dept drives manufacturing to a large degree (duh....). Which means the MP wars are not over (or at least not over as far as the marketing dept. wants you to believe). The marketing depts' will continue to flog this dead horse for as long as they can sell cameras. And improvements in DR will come as part of natural progression - but they will be glossed over by the marketing depts.
-
The marketing departments of major camera manufacturers know this - they also know its far easier to market a camera as 'new' and 'improved' because it has 6 mega pixels instead of 5. Thats something every consumer understands on the basic level that '6' is better than '5' (hey this one has volume that goes to 11!).
I think you're probably right, unfortunately.
One factor that a lot of people perhaps overlook is that improvements sensor in resolution are becoming increasingly difficult to take advantage of in practice. Even a small amount of camera shake, focusing error, subject movement, or optical aberration can reduce a 21 megapixel photograph to less at 12 megapixels of information. With each improvement in resolution, the photographer has to take extra care (and perhaps use better lenses) to get the benefit from it.
Improved dynamic range, on the other hand, would not require any improvement in photographic technique to get improved results.
-
I totally agree that improved DR in a DSLR is a very difficult concept to sell to anyone other than a professional photographer who understands the benefits.
Considering that many MFDB owners boast about the highlight headroom of their sensors, I am really not sure that being a pro is a sufficient condition to understand this. The truth is that many of the top shooters have developped their skills in the film days and measure light with their back the way they used to measure with film, meaning that in essence they go for the 18% grey card or measure incident light on the subject.
The digital device they will like is the one providing them a safety margin in these conditions, meaning perceived highlight headroom, which means under-exposes relative to an ideal ETTR digital approach. The back histogram and raw conversion software (mostly proprietary with backs) is calibrated in such a way that this impression is maintained. Put it otherwise, the whole chain is calibrated to simulate negative film.
This is possible because of the good DR provided by backs, shadows remain reasonnably clean even with limited under-exposure that it not perceived anyway since the raw conversion software compensates for this when applying the camera curve.
DSLR like the D3x are typically calibrated in such a way as to behave like slide film, meaning that the histogram shows something that is extremely close overall to the actual level of clipping in the raw file. It results in totally clean shadows, but often un-satisfied users since blown highlights show up more often (and with less pleasing transitions on some of the DSLR due to a lower real bit depth). In a way DSLR manufacturers are over-optimistic about the actual abilities of their photographers.
Do pros needs to care or be aware of these aspects? Probably not, they are paid for their shooting, artistic and Mgt abilities, not for their understanding of the technology.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Tonality, Tonality, Tonality.
Oh and Noise, DR, etc. Did I mention diffraction?
I own both crop and FF BTW....
-
Tonality, Tonality, Tonality.
Oh and Noise, DR, etc.
I agree with you on those ones.
Did I mention diffraction?
Diffraction is actually the same on crop and FF. That's because diffraction scales with *DOF*, not sensor size. For example, f/22 on APS-C has more diffraction than f/22 on FF, *but*, it also has more DOF. You only need f/14 on APS-C to get the same DOF as f/22 on FF. Then diffraction becomes the same.
-
Diffraction is actually the same on crop and FF. That's because diffraction scales with *DOF*, not sensor size. For example, f/22 on APS-C has more diffraction than f/22 on FF, *but*, it also has more DOF. You only need f/14 on APS-C to get the same DOF as f/22 on FF. Then diffraction becomes the same.
Thanks; this needs to be said so many times to people stuck on comparing only at equal aperture ratio and equal ISO speed.
It would be nice to have a "format comparison myth-buster" web page hosted by someone credible, with this sort information.
Next item: why comparing cameras in different formats with lenses of different minimum f-stops at equal ISO speed and shutter speed and thus equal f-stop is not very illuminating ... (It's partly a DOF thing, again.)
-
Diffraction is actually the same on crop and FF. That's because diffraction scales with *DOF*, not sensor size. For example, f/22 on APS-C has more diffraction than f/22 on FF, *but*, it also has more DOF. You only need f/14 on APS-C to get the same DOF as f/22 on FF. Then diffraction becomes the same.
However, a lot of landscape shots will be taken with everything at or close to infinity, so there will be no need to stop down for DOF.
-
However, a lot of landscape shots will be taken with everything at or close to infinity, so there will be no need to stop down for DOF.
And in that situation, the apertures are large enough that diffraction is not a problem. With SLR formats, diffraction only comes into play when one stops well down from wide open for the sake of DOF control. The practical rule of thumb seems to be that diffraction only has a significant effect on resolution when the aperture ratio is about twice or more the pixel spacing, so f/8 and beyond with the smallest current DSLR photosites (The 18MP EF-S 7D and 12MP 4/3). If you are worried about diffraction hurting the fine detail in your landscapes and your lens fails you as soon as you open up a bit beyond f/8, then a decent lens would probably be the first upgrade to consider!
-
However, a lot of landscape shots will be taken with everything at or close to infinity, so there will be no need to stop down for DOF.
I shoot landscapes and nature almost exclusively, and I practically never focus at infinity. Usually there's some sort of foreground or at least middle ground that needs to be in focus.
-
When I shot landscapes I used a 70-200 more than anything wider, I have only 2 pictures shot with my 17-40L. Now with stitching and urban landscapes I'm using a 100mm lens and f22 isn't enough. I don't care about the calculations or the physics or the tirades, on a crop camera I would have more problems with diffraction as I would still have to stop down.
-
I'm using a 100mm lens and f22 isn't enough. I don't care about the calculations or the physics ... on a crop camera I would have more problems with diffraction as I would still have to stop down.
pom, this should be very easy to understand without any fancy calculations: equal f-stop and equal FOV with a smaller format gives more DOF, so when getting enough DOF is the issue, you still have to stop down, but not to as high an f-stop. (If I may risk one calculation, about f/14 on EF-S would give as much DOF over the same FOV as f/22 in 35mm, f/35 in 645 ...)
So please stop comparing diffraction effects at equal, high f-stop: a smaller format never has to be used that way.
-
However, a lot of landscape shots will be taken with everything at or close to infinity, so there will be no need to stop down for DOF.
What? I wonder if you ever shot a landscape.
-
What? I wonder if you ever shot a landscape.
Yes, I have.
-
When I shot landscapes I used a 70-200 more than anything wider, I have only 2 pictures shot with my 17-40L. Now with stitching and urban landscapes I'm using a 100mm lens and f22 isn't enough. I don't care about the calculations or the physics or the tirades, on a crop camera I would have more problems with diffraction as I would still have to stop down.
Yes, the compromise between DoF and diffraction is better with DX than it is with FX.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't care about the calculations or the physics or the tirades,
I don't know what "tirades" you're talking about, but you don't need physics or calculations to know that f/14 on DX has the exact same DOF and diffraction as f/22 on FX.
on a crop camera I would have more problems with diffraction as I would still have to stop down.
No. You would not still have to stop down, because, again, f/14 on APS-C gives you the exact same DOF as f/22 on FF.
Yes, the compromise between DoF and diffraction is better with DX than it is with FX.
You are mistaken. The compromise is the exact same with every format size.
-
Anyone like to prove that you get more DOF with crop for a given FOV to the extent of a stop and a half? Or that for a given DOF the diffraction will always be the same?
-
Do larger sized prints (eg 16x20) show a significant improvement just by using a full frame sensor.
For me the answer is yes, but your mileage may wary. Basicly, crop camera is a subset of a full frame. It usually offers you tighter pixels, faster operations and less expensive price. But if we are talking about image quality in general: yes, bigger sensor area with practically same quality of lenses and technology you will naturally get better image quality.
An exaggregated example of image caption area impact: If I'm looking www.shorpy.com I can usually spot 4x5 scans from 35mm even from 400pix thumbnails. More accurate colors, more accurate details, better everything.
-
Anyone like to prove that you get more DOF with crop for a given FOV to the extent of a stop and a half? Or that for a given DOF the diffraction will always be the same?
A visual demonstration requires two cameras with different format sizes and different focal lengths, but the same sensor MTF (total number of pixels), the same OLPF MTF, and the same lens MTF (relative to L/PH, not lp/mm) at the f-number scaled by crop factor. Furthermore, when the MTF of each lens is plotted over defocussing in image space at a given spatial frequency (relative to picture height) at the scaled f-number, the curve must be the same for both.
Personally, I don't have any two camera/lens systems that meet those specifications. All the lenses that I own have sufficiently different OLPF and aberrations that it can skew the DOF results. If there is someone with a D300, D3, 400mm f/2.8, and 600mm f/4, my guess is they would meet the qualifications.
Fortunately, there are experts that have already measured all that stuff. They created DOF calculators. That way people like you and I can calculate DOF without getting results that are skewed by lens aberrations.
But since you do not believe in DOF calculators, there is nothing I, personally, can do to prove it to you.
-
Anyone like to prove that you get more DOF with crop for a given FOV to the extent of a stop and a half? Or that for a given DOF the diffraction will always be the same?
With the slight correction that the DOF change is a factor 1.5x or 1.6x, only slightly over one stop, both are easily proven. But to do so online require using physics and some calculations, which you seem to disdain.
So either do some simple experiments (using crops on the same camera with a 1.6x change in if you wish), or read some basic optical text books.
For DOF, the experiment could be as simple as:
200mm, f/22 vs 125mm, f/14, same lens; crop to same FOV; compare equal sized prints.
But to recap some elementary and uncontroversial optical facts:
1. reducing focal length by factor 1.6 (to fit the desired FOV onto a 1.6x smaller sensor, say) with equal f-stop reduces the circle of confusion size (disc into which a point is blurred by OOF effects) by a factor of 1.6 squared (square of focal length: see any DOF formula).
2. It also reduces image size by the same factor, so enlarging to equal size enlarges the circle of confusion size on the print at each point to 1/1.6 as big as with the longer focal length: "1.6 times more DOF."
3. reducing f-stop by the same factor of 1.6 increases CoC size by factor 1.6 (standard DOF formulas again), and thus in combination with the above, it gives equal sized CoC on equal sized prints: equal DOF and OOF effects when focal length and f-stop are adjusted in the same proportion.
4. The diffraction spot size is determined only by f-stop and varies inversely with f-stop, and so in step 3, it becomes 1.6 times smaller at the focal plane when the f-stop is reduced with the shorter focal length. With the extra factor of 1.6 in enlargement to get an equal sized print, one gets equal sized diffraction spots everywhere.
Conclusion: adjusting focal length, aperture ratio and degree of enlargement in the same proportion given an equal sized final displayed image with equal sized circles of confusion at each point and equal sized diffraction spots: the same DOF/OOF/diffraction trade-offs.