Old question, full frame or APS-C sized sensor?

Bletch said:
Yeah that's good to know, and one of those FF cameras I was looking at was 61mp, I think the others I looked at offered more than my humble 24mp Nikon too.
Click to expand...
You've got nothing to worry about then, even in APS-C mode you've got 27mp.
 
Crop sensor cameras let you use smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses to get the same picture. Once you go beyond 300mm, this can be significant. But a 44MPixel full frame can do as well as a 24M Pixel APSC. It is cheaper to buy pixels than glass.

One thing about image quality, the way people look at pictures mean that no one will notice more than about 10 megapixels resolution on the final picture. The extra megapixels just let you crop in on a small subject to make the picture. If you are not cropping in, you can get away with some pretty old and obsolete kit. APSC with good lenses looks fine in good light.
 
Last edited:
I have both, I prefer the weight and compact C series small lenses on the a6700 if I’m going walkabout. But I also enjoy the images that I get with the primes, 50, 85 and 135mm using 24, 33 and 61mp cameras. It’s horses for courses really, plus depends on your budget.
 
Gandalf said:
I have both, I prefer the weight and compact C series small lenses on the a6700 if I’m going walkabout. But I also enjoy the images that I get with the primes, 50, 85 and 135mm using 24, 33 and 61mp cameras. It’s horses for courses really, plus depends on your budget.
Click to expand...
You could cover both bases by buying something like the A7RV, using it as a 27mp APS-C camera with APS-C lenses when you want a lightweight setup and then can also use FF lenses when you want that better IQ and/or shallow DOF. I do just that and have the 10-20mm APS-C lens (y)
 
my 2 cents....

Previously I'd say go FF. Mirrorless FF if you can.
as to
hunnymonster said:
I chose FF because of the inherently better noise performance in low light and because I favoured keeping both kidneys over going MF or LF digital :eek:
Click to expand...
MF in fujifilm gfx 100s is similiar to the price of a sony alpha 7 mk 5 ... ;)
Also depends on the lenses you have and whether you want to keep them or swap to something else...
My vote for Medium format if you can - bigger heavier but has something about the pictures... (Check my flickr link below for examples) and the lenses if you go pentax 645 .. are not that bad price wise... quality is amazing. fujinon is wonderful but you pay for it...
 
It's the lenses for me @ecniv - that's where the kidneys go... 500mm equivalent on a MF or LF is akin to the Hubble Space Telescope
 
I have both full frame and APS-C systems and my preference has flipped between both over the years. The difference in physical size of some comparable set-ups isn't always so significant to me and I usually don't want razor-thin depth of focus, but find that images from full frame have a very noticeable improvement in overall quality especially in lower light situations which often tips the balance for me. Unless the situation is a consideration which I appreciate it often is, I'd opt for a full frame set-up. Obviously, the answer is to have both!
 
Like several others, I have both FF (A7iv) and APS-C (A6000) systems - the APS-C is very much a small/light setup for when I'm travelling, so willing to sacrifice an element of flexibility (IE using kit zooms with limited max aperture, rather than f/2.8 zooms) and IQ for portability.
If I can. I'll take the larger FF kit, as the A7iv adds a lot of functionality the A6000 lacks, but if not the A6000 is still a much nicer photographic tool than my smartphone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top