More megapixels vs sensor size

[Don Fischer]

Comparing the 2 on a computer monitor may not show you all that much difference as would enlarging the images to say 16 x 20. You would have to go much larger to see a huge difference. However, schlepping around a FF body with a 500mm lens compared to your 4/3rds with a 300mm is a huge difference physically. If you are happy with what your are getting from you 4/3rds then, it ain't broke, don't fix it. (just my old fart humble opinion)

Ain't that the truth. As big as I blow up photo's is 12x24 and whatever the pixels are in my camera, it suits me just fine. For me to go to a FF camera would not be about being better but soothing my own ego!

 

[greybeard]

I have both a Nikon Z50 (crop frame) and a Z5 (full frame). The difference I see comes down to 1 stop. The FF has 1 stop shallower DoF with comparable FoV lenses than the crop. As an example, a 50mm FF lens has the same FoV as a 35mm crop lens. But the 50mm has 1 stop shallower DoF meaning with the 50mm set to f/2.8 the 35mm crop would have to be set to f/2.0 to have the same DoF. The other difference I have noticed has been with high ISO settings. The FF has about the same noise level at 6400 as the crop frame has at 3200. This ends up being a bigger difference when working in low light or in higher contrast shots where you need to recover shadow detail. But, with frames shot in good light and are well exposed I can't see much if any difference. So my kit these days consists of the Z5 with a 24-70 and the Z50 with a 50-250.

 

[greybeard]

Lately I've been shooting a Nikon D850 which is a FF with 45 mp. So this is a FF sensor with a lot of tiny pixels. As I mentioned earlier, I also have a Nikon Z50 which has roughly the same size pixels but with smaller crop frame sensor. I can set the D850 to Crop mode (19 mp) and the pictures from the 20mp Z50 and the 19mp D850 in crop mode look identical to me.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

I have both a Nikon Z50 (crop frame) and a Z5 (full frame). The difference I see comes down to 1 stop. . . .

The flip side can be thought of as "image quality / dollar". Because the cost of the Z5 and FF lens is significantly higher than the Z50 and APS-C lens, it might be true that, for example, a $3,000 kit for one might roughly equal a $3,000 kit for the other. The D850 might work out cheaper, but there is the question of how "future proof" it can be considered.

 

[greybeard]

The flip side can be thought of as "image quality / dollar". Because the cost of the Z5 and FF lens is significantly higher than the Z50 and APS-C lens, it might be true that, for example, a $3,000 kit for one might roughly equal a $3,000 kit for the other. The D850 might work out cheaper, but there is the question of how "future proof" it can be considered.

My shooting techniques started with a Minolta SRT 201 back in to 70s. The cameras I have are really all I will ever need for the rest of my days. I might buy a few more lenses but, that is about it.

 

[ACHILLEAS]

OK, so let's say I have a 300mm lens on a Micro43rds body (so 600mm FF equiv) - and the camera shoots at 20megapixels.

Now let's say I have a 500mm lens on a FF body and the camera shoots at 45megapixels.

Would the FF get a better crop into the image vs the M43 in terms of quality?

Seriously debating switching to FF from my M43 - as in my head, the image would be better cropped in FF to get that extra 100mm than the actual longer focal length on M43. So seeing if this is also an advantage vs just more light capturing and less noise ability

No. The surface area of FF is four times larger while you only get double the resolution. You are better off with the m4/3 sensor. You dont get more light with FF. It just has larger photosites.

 

[greybeard]

OK, so let's say I have a 300mm lens on a Micro43rds body (so 600mm FF equiv) - and the camera shoots at 20megapixels.

Now let's say I have a 500mm lens on a FF body and the camera shoots at 45megapixels.

Would the FF get a better crop into the image vs the M43 in terms of quality?

Seriously debating switching to FF from my M43 - as in my head, the image would be better cropped in FF to get that extra 100mm than the actual longer focal length on M43. So seeing if this is also an advantage vs just more light capturing and less noise ability

You are talking about 2 different processers or even generations of sensors so, it is really hard to say how much difference you would see. I only know that I've been looking at some posts from OM-1s with 100-400mm and they are outstanding.