Larger sensor just a luxury?

[mjhoward]

Oh, again, I suggest you find me a lens that I can use on an APS-C canon that's equivalent to the 24-70 f/2.8 on a FF DSLR that gives me the same DOF, apertures, distortion characteristics, and IQ.

17-55 is pretty close.

But at 17mm it should have more barrel distortion than a 24mm lens on a FF camera.

Not according to this:
17-55 2.8 Barrel Distortion
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS - Review / Test Report - Analysis

24-70 2.8 Barrel Distortion
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L - Full Format Review / Test Report - Analysis

 

[Kolia]

If I may ask the initial question differently. Micheal say's he's only talking about the sensor but keeps making up virtual lenses.

So, to those who have experience with both formats, is there a combination of existing camera and lens that would allow one to take the exact same pictures with both sensors. And how much would that cost new ?

I'm referring to the final product and existing equipment.

From reading this topic, it seems that the FF will have the advantage in low light and close range.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

top~

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Oh, again, I suggest you find me a lens that I can use on an APS-C canon that's equivalent to the 24-70 f/2.8 on a FF DSLR that gives me the same DOF, apertures, distortion characteristics, and IQ.

Theory is all well and good and you can twist numbers around all you want, but until you start making your own lenses, it doesn't matter how much match you attempt to do to make a crop sensor look more appealing to you.

Olympus makes a 35-100 f/2 that's equivalent in FOV to a 70-200, most of which are f/2.8 constant aperture lenses. At f/2 and 100mm, it's still going to have a larger DOF than the 70-200 @ 200mm shooting with an f/2.8 aperture. Sure, you could find a 200mm lens to put on a 4/3 sensor, but then your field of view would be at 400mm compared to a FF camera.

Online Depth of Field Calculator

Another thing to factor in is that M4/3 and APS-C are rarely used by professionals, that's why there is less of a market to create fast (and often expensive) lenses.

This is wrong. The majority of cameras sold are crop sensor cameras. That's how Canon and Nikon make all their money. The 5D MKII may have been an immensely popular camera and changed the face of amateur videography, but I'm pretty sure that Canon sold many more rebels, XXD and 7D cameras than they have 5Ds. There os a much lager market to sell crop lenses to.

Tell me how many amateurs are willing to pay a few grands for those fast lenses?

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Oh, again, I suggest you find me a lens that I can use on an APS-C canon that's equivalent to the 24-70 f/2.8 on a FF DSLR that gives me the same DOF, apertures, distortion characteristics, and IQ.

17-55 is pretty close.

But at 17mm it should have more barrel distortion than a 24mm lens on a FF camera.

Hmm, according to DxOMark, they have about the same distortion at the same equivalent focal length. Note: the comparison is made where the 17-55mm is mounted on D300 and the 24-70 is mounted on D700. Both have the same amount of pixels to make the comparison fair and the lens are each made of the body. Comparing both lens, the 17-55mm is slightly inferior, but the 24-70mm is slightly more expensive, also I have to say that the 24-70mm is more worth it, because you get almost 1 extra stop of light.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

If I may ask the initial question differently. Micheal say's he's only talking about the sensor but keeps making up virtual lenses.

So, to those who have experience with both formats, is there a combination of existing camera and lens that would allow one to take the exact same pictures with both sensors. And how much would that cost new ?

I'm referring to the final product and existing equipment.

From reading this topic, it seems that the FF will have the advantage in low light and close range.

Yes, I'm talking about the sensor, but you guys aren't making the comparison fair because the lenses you guys used for comparison doesn't have the same entrance pupil.

 

[Kolia]

My pseudo-scientific mind has a hard time comparing two sensors without projecting the same image on them, hence canceling the effect of the lens.

But I'll admit that a "real life" comparison would make for different lens selection and as such I think the whole system needs to be taken into account. But "real life" has to use real lens that exist. Not virtual lens.

Standing from a given spot, can we obtain the same picture with different sensor size.

 

[Thunder_o_b]

Standing from a given spot, can we obtain the same picture with different sensor size.

You would have to stand .6 farther away with the crop (Canon) to obtain the same picture. If you want, and if I have time I will setup a shoot using the Sigma 150mm /2.8 macro (this is a very fine lens) on the 50D and the 5DMKII, and post the shots for you all to play with. But would it really be a valid test with the posted files being so small?

 

[Kolia]

Standing farther is not an option as it changes the perspective. It's not the same picture anymore.

Use a zoom lens and adjust the focal length ?

 

[Village Idiot]

If I may ask the initial question differently. Micheal say's he's only talking about the sensor but keeps making up virtual lenses.

So, to those who have experience with both formats, is there a combination of existing camera and lens that would allow one to take the exact same pictures with both sensors. And how much would that cost new ?

I'm referring to the final product and existing equipment.

From reading this topic, it seems that the FF will have the advantage in low light and close range.

Yes, I'm talking about the sensor, but you guys aren't making the comparison fair because the lenses you guys used for comparison doesn't have the same entrance pupil.

The world is not fair.

If a company sold two different cameras with lenses for each that had the equivalent FOV and both had the same IQ, DOF, and ISO peformance, then it would be a luxury to own a FF sensor than provided nothing over a cheaper APS-C sensor. The problem is, that's not the case. That'll probably never be the case.

I'm not afraid to use 4000 ISO on my FF camera. Can you can the same on your APS-C camera?

 

[Thunder_o_b]

Standing farther is not an option as it changes the perspective. It's not the same picture anymore.

Use a zoom lens and adjust the focal length ?

I would say no, as zooming changes the optics. Maybe crop the FF image to match the crop image then do a comparison?

 

[Kolia]

I would say no, as zooming changes the optics. Maybe crop the FF image to match the crop image then do a comparison?

No cropping.

Michael, the OP, asks if the FF is a luxury.

If a camera with an APS-C sensor could take the exact same picture in the same condition (position, lightning etc) with any type of existing optic, then we could say the FF is redundant.

It think this would boil it down to the base of the whole topic.

 

[jake337]

I would say no, as zooming changes the optics. Maybe crop the FF image to match the crop image then do a comparison?

No cropping.

Michael, the OP, asks if the FF is a luxury.

If a camera with an APS-C sensor could take the exact same picture in the same condition (position, lightning etc) with any type of existing optic, then we could say the FF is redundant.

It think this would boil it down to the base of the whole topic.

It would be redundant if your FF camera purchased was based solely on the size of the sensor and not any of the other advantages of a professional piece of equipment.

 

[Thunder_o_b]

Ok, it is clear that there will never be a way so satisfy those that do not see the IQ difference between the two. Which is something that I just do not understand, as it is clear to me. The whole point to me is to create the highest quality image, so it is not a matter of luxury but affordability.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Crop sensors aren't bad, they just don't perform as well in low light given the same amount of pixels and the same tech in the camera, they don't provide the DOF that portrait photographers and a lot others are looking for at any given length, and if you're not specifically looking for extra reach, it gets you where you want to be with your lenses.

A canon 17-40 f/4 is nothing special on an APS-C sensor. It's an upgrade to the kit lens imho. If you toss it on a FF camera though, it because a fantastic lens.

And the reason I don't have an even larger sensor than I currently do is because of money. If prices were all the same, I'd take a medium format digital camera with a good set of primes over my 5D MKII 7 times out of 10.

Oh, again, I suggest you to read this - http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...larger-sensor-just-luxury-12.html#post2498739. With the same entrance pupil diameter, two lenses (in two different format) with the same equivalent focal length would produce the same depth of field and amount of light.

Oh, again, I suggest you find me a lens that I can use on an APS-C canon that's equivalent to the 24-70 f/2.8 on a FF DSLR that gives me the same DOF, apertures, distortion characteristics, and IQ.

Theory is all well and good and you can twist numbers around all you want, but until you start making your own lenses, it doesn't matter how much match you attempt to do to make a crop sensor look more appealing to you.

Olympus makes a 35-100 f/2 that's equivalent in FOV to a 70-200, most of which are f/2.8 constant aperture lenses. At f/2 and 100mm, it's still going to have a larger DOF than the 70-200 @ 200mm shooting with an f/2.8 aperture. Sure, you could find a 200mm lens to put on a 4/3 sensor, but then your field of view would be at 400mm compared to a FF camera.

Online Depth of Field Calculator

You're wrong, again. The M4/3 equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 is 35-100 f/1.4.