Your money often goes further with an APS-C system than full frame. Because the sensor is smaller, the price is often lower, sometimes much lower. Smaller gear can be preferable, especially when traveling, and it can potentially provide a better user experience. APS-C cameras are often smaller and weigh less than full frame. Perhaps the biggest advantages that APS-C has over full frame-and likely the main reasons why most choose APS-C instead of full frame-are size and price. One often-overlooked advantage of APS-C is that, to achieve that shallow depth-of-field, you’re likely to use a larger aperture, allowing more light to reach the sensor, which means shooting at a lower ISO. If you want a shallow depth-of-field, it’s a little easier to achieve on full frame than APS-C, but if you want a large depth-of-field, it’s a little easier to achieve on APS-C than full-frame however, it’s still very much possible to get a small depth-of-field on APS-C and a large depth-of-field on full frame. Crop factor also affects depth-of-field, as f/2 on APS-C has a larger depth-of-field than an f/2 on full frame. If you are trying to reach far, it’s a little easier on APS-C than full frame, and if you are trying to go wide, it’s a little easier on full frame than APS-C however, there are plenty of long telephoto and ultra-wide lens options for both sensor sizes. For example, a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera will have the same focal length as a 75mm lens on a full frame camera. Because full frame sensors are 50% larger than APS-C, there is a 1.5x crop factor for APS-C focal lengths. Now let’s talk crop factor, which is often given as a reason to choose full frame. For the most part, full frame does have the advantage with both dynamic range and high-ISO, but it isn’t nearly as big nowadays as many might think. In other words, the more noisy X-T5 might be preferable to the less noisy 5DS R at the same ISO. Full frame might be cleaner with less noise-particularly as the ISO climbs-but a camera like the X-T5 has a film-grain-like rendering to the digital noise that is much more tolerable than the noise from the 5DS R. But even if we’re talking about an APS-C camera with less and a full frame with more, in practical use, that difference is fairly insignificant (outside of some extreme circumstances). There are some APS-C cameras with more dynamic range and some with less dynamic range than the X-T5 likewise, there are some full frame cameras with more dynamic range and some with less dynamic range than the 5DS R. The dynamic range of, say, the APS-C Fujifilm X-T5 and the full frame Canon EOS 5DS R are quite similar, and not much different at all in real world use. Improved dynamic range and high-ISO are often overstated on full frame. My argument is simply that there is plenty of real estate on an APS-C sensor while the increased room on full-frame sensors does offer advantages, those advantages find themselves on a diminishing returns segment of an inverted U curve. Megapixels sell cameras, though, so camera makers keep pushing higher and higher. Yes, there are some who do need more, because they crop deeply or print huge, but most people who say they need that much resolution don’t actually need it. It looks good on paper, and it’s great for pixel-peeping and bragging rights, but in practical use, the majority of photographers don’t actually need more than 20mp, and everything above that is overkill. It’s easy to see the advantage of full frame! Except that most photographers don’t actually need 40mp of resolution, let alone 61mp. 61mp on full frame is more resolution than 40mp on APS-C, yet their pixels are similarly sized. Resolution is resolution, and 24mp on full frame is the same as 24mp on APS-C, yet the pixels on the APS-C will be smaller than those on the full frame sensor. Fewer pixels allows for better low-light capabilities and dynamic range, but at the expense of resolution. Smaller pixels will allow for increased resolution, but at the expense of low-light capabilities and dynamic range. There are two options: smaller pixels or fewer pixels. Since APS-C sensors are smaller than full frame, there is less physical room for light sensitive sensor elements (pixels). This is where the stigma originated that APS-C is not for those who are serious, and to an extent it unfortunately remains to this day, despite so many incredibly talented and successful photographers utilizing APS-C models. APS-C was more affordable and smaller, so it was popular with amateurs and enthusiasts on a budget. Back in the early days of digital, when dynamic range and noise control were much more critical than nowadays, full frame had a clear advantage, as one needed to squeeze the absolute most out of their files and full frame allowed that.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |