Jump to content
Kim Dahl

Apeture affecte from fulframe too APSC ?

Recommended Posts

And now for (perhaps) the most controversial.  Here is the ISO 1600 crop of a low-detail area to show the noise characteristics on the M10.  I blew this up to 200% to make it easier to see.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And finally, the same crop at 200% from the CL at the lower ISO 800 (to get the same exposure value since this was at f/1.4 rather than f/2)...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my eye, the results are really, really similar.  Certainly the differences are well within the range of what one could attribute to sensor technology, individual lens rendering, slightly different dynamic ranges (and thus contrast choices) between the two cameras.  That's about all I see.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read this:

 

http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/

 

FYI, don't mind the title and the bias against full frame it implies. He's just responding to the marketing hype around the words 'full frame.'

 

It's a very concise and accurate explanation of how photographic perspective and depth of field interact with focal length.

 

 

 

 

Good article you linked to.  The only thing I can think of that he missed (or chose not to cover in the interest of clarity) is that pixel counts are often quite different between formats, and that is a major reason the 5D he referenced, for example, doesn't have a full two stops better noise performance than the Olympus 4/3 camera.  Yes, there are differences in sensor generation and sensor quality, but I think the larger issue for that particular comparison is resolution. I bet if one down-sampled the 5D MkII to the same megapixels, it would be much closer to a two stop advantage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think very few people downsample in real life. It's kind of a weird and absurd measurement that comes from video (where they do downsample).

 

The only downsampling in the real world is that most people view images on screens. In that case they ALL look noise free.

 

Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Most people would just apply a touch of noise reduction instead. Arguably, though, downsampling can be a smarter approach. But we have all been trained over the years to crave more pixels, even when those extra pixels come with a cost. Even when those extra pixels contain no additional true resolution. And, yes, at normal screen resolutions we are all spoiled with incredibly clean images at ridiculously high ISO’s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's mine:

 

TL2 with 35/1.4

[

 

SL with 50 Cron

 

S with 70/2.5

 

All wide open. At the pixel level, the S is obviously better, but the SL and TL2 are almost pixel identical.

 

--Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...