Going from full frame to APS-C

[gyoung]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While dof and angle of view will change because of the magnification and focal length changes, as far as exp6isure is concerned f/4 is f/4 and is not one wit affected by the crop factor, unless you use a focal reducer to concentrate the image.

When I use my lightmeter to set an M3 or a Hasselblad it doesnt make any difference if the 50mm lens is covering 35mm or 6x6.

 

Gerry

And while we're at it, there's absolutely no point in an equivalance for iso either.

On film its a scientificly measurable figure for an emulsion, and has no relevance to the size of image exposed on the emulsion, Tri x 5x 4 is the same iso as the 35mm, and it depends on emulsion and development.

For a digital sensor its a matter of calibrating the output from the sensor and what if any 'amplification' is applied to the resultant signal to imitate film results. So 200 iso on my aps-c digital camera should give the same density of image as on a ff camera, or a mf camera. Depending of course on how the manufacturer has calibrated the output and its processing.

Repeating secondhand 'theories' of equivalence with no technical or scientific basis doesn't help anyone.

And remember too that depth of field is only an attempt to quantify the effect of failures in human eyesight on perceiving 'sharpness', a bit of a confidence trick, similar to paper money :-)

 

Gerry

Edited September 27, 2018 by gyoung

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Yes, but having the same number of pixels on the smaller sensor will decrease sensel size, thus theoretically worsening the S/N ratio (if the sensor architecture is the same). I real life, it is surprising how small this effect is on the CL compared to, for instance, the SL. Sensor technology plays a large role here.

[gyoung]

Yes indeed, in theory the smaller pixels should mean more noise especially at higher iso. But in practice so much more depends on sensor design and processing.

My own experience is not of Leica, but the fuji 24mp aps-c Xpro2 gives results slightly better than the older Nikon aps-c 16mp sensor in the Nikon D7000, and also the full frame Sony A7 24mp camera I had for a while. The latter two are of course earlier designs. And I have seen other reports more technical than my subjective observations that show similar comparisons.

In any case all the differences I have seen on these three are very small, visible at 100% when sharpening in Lightroom, but not on an A3 print with careful post - processing.

The size and weight of 'full frame' cameras and lenses seem to get more and more ungainly with every new lens. I have never had any problem taking large and heavy equipment (Sinar, Hasselblad, Mamiya etc) out on professional work, but for my own amusement its been Leica M and Nikon FM2 when travelling around, aps-c is a way of getting that sort of portability and ease of use, and without most of the disadvantages of coming down from larger and heavier formats that was evident with film equipment.

 

Gerry

Edited September 27, 2018 by gyoung

[M11 for me]

What do you think of that?

 

 

An explanation of pixel size versus noise. Just in 20 minutes. Worth looking.

[gyoung]

What do you think of that?

 

https://youtu.be/_KYvp8PrCFc

 

An explanation of pixel size versus noise. Just in 20 minutes. Worth looking.

It'll have to wait till I have some wifi.

 

Gerry

[jaapv]

Some more insight:

 

https://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/2/

[M11 for me]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some more insight:

 

https://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/2/

Well, the author does not like „equivalence“.

[jaapv]

A bit more - valid arguments.

[gyoung]

Some more insight:

 

https://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/2/

Yes, I've read that before, and he's also one who found less high iso noise with the Fuji than Sony ff sensors.

There's nothing new in shorter focal length lenses giving more depth of field (so less 'separation') or that field of view depends on both focal length and format.

The rest is baloney, internet forums are full of hare-brained theories from people who could well spend some time with some basic text books on photography and optics.

 

Gerry