No, it's not a false analogy--a FF sensor is 2.3x larger than a crop sensor in Nikon, 2.5x larger than a Canon crop sensor. The larger the capture format, the larger the pixels,and the easier it is to get high ISO performance and good dynamic range with simple technology. The larger the sensor is, the less the images need to be enlarged to make a given print size. The larger the sensor area and size, the lower the MTF modulation transfer function performance of a lens needed to deliver XXXX line pairs per picture height. The smaller a sensor, the higher the lens's MTF required to create a decent image.
Obviously, you do not have a FF camera, or you'd understand the analogy,and would know that the larger sensor cameras are the ones that cost more money,and are used in the more demanding imaging applications. And it has been so for over a century of photography.
The upcoming 7D is also NOT a 1.3x FOV size or APS-H, which is 548 square milimeters in area, or 28.7x 19mm; the upcoming 7D has a much smaller sensor, a 1.6x one measuring roughly 22.2x 14.8mm or 329 square millimeters. its high density sensor somewhat limits color richness at lower ISOs and makes the sensor top out around ISO 1600 for good image quality.
FF Nkon and anon bodies handily beat the 7D at high-ISO shooting by using--wait for it---a much larger sensor, 2.3 to 2.5x larger in area. (pedantic for a reason). Better high ISO is available, right now, for a price.
Again, the analogy is to a machine, a car,with an ENGINE, 2.3x larger. Not to a human with feet, but a mechanical device with a central component 2.3 times larger. If you want to know why a full frame is better,and why, then you need to learn a lot more about cameras and lenses,and stop disagreeing with people who already understand the difference between the various capture formats. And, sorry, but newer technology and smaller image sensors will *never* outpace larger sensors using the equivalent technology. Larger is always better in terms of delivering HIGH image quality with even the most basic of lenses. This is why a 4x5 inch film transparency shows much finer details than a 35mm small-format transparency.
Simple case in point: my first view camera was a 50-year old Linhof and I had a newish 150mm Fuji lens and an older WW II era Kodak 110mm Wide Field Ektar lens. I recall taking an Ektchrome 100 slide shot of my kitchen, from the living room with the 40 year old Ektar lens. Looking at the transparency with a 10x Peak loupe, I was amazed that I could read each and every ingredient listed in 7 point type of the side of a Coca~Cola soda bottle--clear,and plain as day. THE SAME scene shot on 35mm Ektachrome 100 professional with a modern 50mm Nikkor lens revealed blurred detail; the smaller capture area of 35mm film, SAME FILM, Ektachrome 100 Professional, with one of Nikon's sharpest-ever 50mm lenses, the 50mm f/2 of 1975, was being out-resolved by a factor of 5 or so, by a WW-II era Kodak view lens!
Old lens, new lens. Same film speed,maker, and developing lab. Same flash to illuminate the scene, Speedotron 1600 with softbox. The bigger film delivered VASTLY superior image quality....vastly better. Even with a low-technology, hand-designed (pre-computer) lens made before the formation of the Soviet Empire and the birth of the Cold War.
Yeah, what if my feet were 2.3x larger? Now *that* is a false analogy. I just gave you an example of how larger equates to better imaging performance.
If you want better images, you move to the larger capture formats. It became a good deal when the 5D got to roughly $2,100 with rebates a couple of years back. A used 5D for $995 gives you the same per-pixel image quality of a Nikon D700--actually, the Canon is a bit better, at the per pixel level than the D700. Canon's top cameras and Nikon's top cameras and Sony's top cameras are all full frame models, right now.
The point at which you will notice the difference is when you buy your first full-frame d-slr camera and import your first CF card of images into Lightroom or Nikon Capture or DPP or SilkyPix or Capture One or Adobe Bridge. APS-C does not out-perform FF in many respects,except giving deeper depth of field, at the penalty of a sensor that is 2.3 to 2.5 times smaller than a FF sensor. APS-C cameras also do not delivier the same resolution of detail as FF cameras do when using the same,exact lens; the smaller format sensor simply cannot compare to the much-larger sensor--the sensor which is 2.3-2.5x larger,and using the *same* lens. Now, which image do you suppose would be better,using the identical lens? Would the smaller image be the better image in your scenario? Would the APS-C camera "out-perform" the larger sensor camera?
Sony will have the full-frame A850 for around $1899 this fall. I think it made sense to go to FF in 2006, at $2100,with the 5D, which delivers about the same IQ as the Nikon D3 or Nikon D700. At under $2k, the new Sony a850 will be putting some downward price pressure on Canon and Nikon.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/39/39460-55f4d48e22a9710f377f2a3dee45992e.jpg?1734173551)
