Is an older full framer still better than the latest aps-c?

[ruifo]

What he said ^^^.

You need a lot more pixels to be cropping like a cropped sensor and still have 16 mp.

a 24MP FX will crop to 10MP in DX mode.

My D600 produces an image of 6016x4016. That's 24,160,256 pixels.

in 24x16 mode, it's a 3936×2624 image, or 10,328,064 pixels, or 10.3MP.

You need a D800 to get 16MP in DX mode.


This is why a heavier MP crop sensor is probably more ideal for telephoto work.

And that flexibility is a great advantage for the D800 package, indeed.

 

[Steve5D]

I don't really see the point in viewing one as "better" than the other.

They're different

For now, this is sort of true.

Presumably, in the near future, full frame will become almost universally simply better, period. Namely, when the majority of full frames are like the D800 and have the same pixel pitch as crop frames, allowing you to use the pixels individually, or pool across them for better low light abilities, using firmware.

If/when that happens, there will be zero advantage to owning a crop frame (other than cost, which will become more and more negligible of a difference as both get cheaper). Because if pixel pitch is the same (like the D800), then you can just take a photo of your motorsports from further away and simply crop it down in post processing to get precisely the same image with the same resolution you would have gotten with the crop camera. Yet if you want to take portraits using the full sensor, you can.

Full frame will do both things, and crop frame will only do one of the things and not do it any better.

It's not "sort of true". It's "true".

And, since the question asked was present tense, the rest of your answer was unnecessary, especially since it's based on what you suspect may happen...

 

[petrochemist119 144]

I don't really see the point in viewing one as "better" than the other.

They're different

For now, this is sort of true.

Presumably, in the near future, full frame will become almost universally simply better, period. Namely, when the majority of full frames are like the D800 and have the same pixel pitch as crop frames, allowing you to use the pixels individually, or pool across them for better low light abilities, using firmware.

If/when that happens, there will be zero advantage to owning a crop frame (other than cost, which will become more and more negligible of a difference as both get cheaper). Because if pixel pitch is the same (like the D800), then you can just take a photo of your motorsports from further away and simply crop it down in post processing to get precisely the same image with the same resolution you would have gotten with the crop camera. Yet if you want to take portraits using the full sensor, you can.

Full frame will do both things, and crop frame will only do one of the things and not do it any better.

Crop sensor do one thing MUCH better than full frame. They reduce the weight you have to carry to your photoshoot! I can't see any up & comming technology that will change that.

I've not used 'full frame' since analogue days, but have both APS-C & micro 4/3 systems. The weight difference means the smaller one gets used most. The sensor impact seen in FF vs APSC applies equally in APSC vs µ4/3, in nature even if the extent is slightly different (1.5x crop to 1.33x furter crop).
My µ4/3 cameras are generally newer than the APS-C ones so the difference in noise isn't very noticable, even though the G5 has more MP than the K7. The older K7 does still have more dynamic range from the spec's I've seen.

To date I've found the K7 better for motorsport, but that could be from a wide number of factors, such as the lenses I have, and the fact I can park in the paddock at most of the races I go to...

 

[Gavjenks]

Steve, I said sort of true because it is NOT a prediction and HAS already happened that some full frames have 1.6x as many pixels and thus no disadvantages over crops.

"Sort of" is because it is a subset of ff cameras not all. So half true half not. Soon to be more not true.

Also what will happen is quite relevant. People invest in lenses that work only for crops. They might change those investment plans due to future predictions...

 

[Gavjenks]

...unless the FF guy wanted deeper DOF!! In which case he would use a 50 and crop out the middle of it. Thus, if the FF has 1.6x as many pixels too (like the D800), no advantage whatsoever for crop format for depth of field.

I'm not sure the math works that way.

I believe it's 1.6x in a single dimension, making the needed pixel difference something like 2.5. This appears born out by the performance of a FX sensor in DX mode.

36x24mm = 864 mm^2
24x16mm = 384 mm^2

So yea. 2.25x the number of pixels.

Right, fine, sorry, it should be 2.25 x as many pixels. For 16MP that would be 36.

but the logic of the conversation doesn't change, since there are already at FFs with 36MP (D800, A7r). And there will be more, as a quick glance at any graph of megapixels over time will confirm.

 

[Steve5D]

Also what will happen is quite relevant.

As the question was asked, no it's not. Right now, which is "better".

Right now, the answer is "neither"...

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>>> FFs with 36MP (D800, A7r). And there will be more, as a quick glance at any graph of megapixels over time will confirm.

I read earlier this year from Thom Hogan's site that the exclusive use deal Nikon signed with Sony for the 36 MP sensor used in the D800 and D800e is set to expire, I believe later this year, so that sensor might crop up elsewhere in something else. He has written that he expects Fuji and Pentax to announce full-frame sensor cameras before the end of this year.

 

[Mach0]

I read earlier this year from Thom Hogan's site that the exclusive use deal Nikon signed with Sony for the 36 MP sensor used in the D800 and D800e is set to expire, I believe later this year, so that sensor might crop up elsewhere in something else. He has written that he expects Fuji and Pentax to announce full-frame sensor cameras before the end of this year.

Think that will drive the price down? They aren't that expensive anyway but I'm curious how it will affect the price.

 

[Derrel]

I read earlier this year from Thom Hogan's site that the exclusive use deal Nikon signed with Sony for the 36 MP sensor used in the D800 and D800e is set to expire, I believe later this year, so that sensor might crop up elsewhere in something else. He has written that he expects Fuji and Pentax to announce full-frame sensor cameras before the end of this year.

Think that will drive the price down? They aren't that expensive anyway but I'm curious how it will affect the price.

I dunno...a camera is much,much more than just "a sensor"...it's part of an entire system. I think the camera makers Canon and Nikon will try and keep their prices as high as they can, for as long as they can, and FujiFilm is now selling low-volume, high-priced cameras, having abandoned the low-end P&S market. SONY's a7 is priced lower than a 24-MP Nikon, but then again, Sony's using price as a way to desperately try and get into the market against Canon and Nikon, and is having little luck. It's called "buying market share". Canon and Nikon are soooooo dominant that I do not think they have to drop prices too much.

I suppose if the rumored 54MP sensors are released soon, the market "value" of the Sony-made 36MP sensor will decline. I keep hearing about Nikon and Canon and 54 megaspixel sensor cameras...I suppose that might be the next big thing.

 

[Mach0]

I dunno...a camera is much,much more than just "a sensor"...it's part of an entire system. I think the camera makers Canon and Nikon will try and keep their prices as high as they can, for as long as they can, and FujiFilm is now selling low-volume, high-priced cameras, having abandoned the low-end P&S market. SONY's a7 is priced lower than a 24-MP Nikon, but then again, Sony's using price as a way to desperately try and get into the market against Canon and Nikon, and is having little luck. It's called "buying market share". Canon and Nikon are soooooo dominant that I do not think they have to drop prices too much. I suppose if the rumored 54MP sensors are released soon, the market "value" of the Sony-made 36MP sensor will decline. I keep hearing about Nikon and Canon and 54 megaspixel sensor cameras...I suppose that might be the next big thing.

That's a lot of resolution lol.

 

[Gavjenks]

As the question was asked, no it's not. Right now, which is "better".

Right now, the answer is "neither"...

No, right NOW, a D800 or A7r make any crop sensor effectively obsolete on any sensor-specific performance characteristics. The crop frames will not be able to perform better or more flexibly on DOF, dynamic range, color depth, resolution at any focal length, OR low light ISO, whereas the D800 does exceed them in at least some of those domains. Thus, the crops are objectively worse.

The advantage is only price, which is not a photography advantage. Or possibly things related to non-sensor features, which we aren't really talking about (and FFs usually have equal or better peripheral features anyway)

 

[astroNikon]

54 Mp ... gonna need TB sized 1GB write speed cards for the camera soon !!

 

[Gavjenks]

54 Mp ... gonna need TB sized 1GB write speed cards for the camera soon !!

Since you can't come anywhere close to seeing 54MP of information in any normal print viewed from normal distance, the main advantage is, I presume, the ability to crop down massively and essentially pretend you have a longer lens. Thus, high MP sensors + high enough quality exotic glass essentially together make telephoto shots affordable, even though you never use a telephoto.

Up to a point, at least, where physics kicks in (the diffraction limit). But we still have a LONG ways to go before diffraction starts limiting us at apertures like f/4 on crop or full frame sensors. And lens technology is still improving at a steady clip with aspherics and such.