So, Why FF ?
 

Seems to me that FF is all about connectng back to the old 35 mm film
format, and very little else, since smaller sensors with the same
pixcel count in conjunction with shorter lenses could do the same
thing, BUT smaller and lighter. What part have I got wrong ?

So, Why FF ?
 

In article ,
wrote:

Seems to me that FF is all about connectng back to the old 35 mm film
format, and very little else, since smaller sensors with the same
pixcel count in conjunction with shorter lenses could do the same
thing, BUT smaller and lighter. What part have I got wrong ?

just about everything.

full frame sensors produce images with higher image quality, lower
noise, wider dynamic range and/or higher resolution, and the lenses
aren't necessarily bigger.

so no, a crop sensor can't 'do the same thing'.

some people might not notice or care, but that's something else
entirely.

So, Why FF ?
 

On Sep 14, 2018, wrote
(in ):

Seems to me that FF is all about connectng back to the old 35 mm film
format, and very little else, since smaller sensors with the same
pixcel count in conjunction with shorter lenses could do the same
thing, BUT smaller and lighter. What part have I got wrong ?

Nothing!

For many years M43, and APS-C have exceeded the capability of 35mm film, as have
some of the small sensors found in the better performing Smart phones. However,
there are some characteristics of modern FF sensors such as DoF, and low light
performance which only a handful of APS-C sensors can come close to. In the end
many of the FF pundits have failed when it comes to discerning the source of a
well made print from FF, M43, APS-C, or even a late model iPhone or Android
phone.

So, Why FF ?
 

just about everything.

full frame sensors produce images with higher image quality

But why ?

lower noise

That might be, but why ?

wider dynamic range and/or higher resolution

If the pixcel numbers are the same and the aspect ratios are the same,
then the resolutions are equal. My question assumes shorter lenses to
yield the same image. Nothing cropped.

and the lenses aren't necessarily bigger.

Not true, under the above premise.

So, Why FF ?
 

Good info, thanks.

So, Why FF ?
 

In article ,
wrote:


just about everything.

full frame sensors produce images with higher image quality

But why ?

physics.

lower noise

That might be, but why ?

it is, and again, physics.

bigger sensors collect more light, thus lower noise.

wider dynamic range and/or higher resolution

If the pixcel numbers are the same and the aspect ratios are the same,
then the resolutions are equal.

for the same number of pixels, a larger sensor will have larger
individual pixels, resulting in lower noise and higher image quality.

if the pixels are the same size on both sensors, then a larger sensor
will have more pixels.

either way, full frame wins.

My question assumes shorter lenses to
yield the same image. Nothing cropped.

and the lenses aren't necessarily bigger.

Not true, under the above premise.

there are many variables, most of which people ignore.

for the same image quality, a micro 4/3rds sensor lens must be two
stops faster than its full frame counterpart, making it bigger and more
expensive, and in some cases, physically impossible.

So, Why FF ?
 

In article ,
RichA wrote:


FF does produce slightly better images than APS,

more than slightly. ff is 1 stop better than aps, aotbe.
it also typically gets the latest sensor technologies first.

mostly it shows where noise
might be an issue. But it's a much bigger commitment in-terms of lens cost,

not necessarily.

So, Why FF ?
 

On 9/14/2018 4:10 PM, wrote:
Seems to me that FF is all about connectng back to the old 35 mm film
format, and very little else, since smaller sensors with the same
pixcel count in conjunction with shorter lenses could do the same
thing, BUT smaller and lighter. What part have I got wrong ?

I think it's connecting back to the 35mm lenses that people have and
like but are compromised when used with smaller sensors. Although the
larger sensor cell area has a better signal to noise ratio, most prints
won't expose those differences if the pixel counts are the same.

--
best regards,

Neil

So, Why FF ?
 

In article , Neil
wrote:

Seems to me that FF is all about connectng back to the old 35 mm film
format, and very little else, since smaller sensors with the same
pixcel count in conjunction with shorter lenses could do the same
thing, BUT smaller and lighter. What part have I got wrong ?

I think it's connecting back to the 35mm lenses that people have and
like

that part is true.

but are compromised when used with smaller sensors.

that part is not.

there is no compromise in using a full frame lens on a smaller sensor.
it's actually *better*.

Although the
larger sensor cell area has a better signal to noise ratio, most prints
won't expose those differences if the pixel counts are the same.

some do, and prints aren't the only output medium. hdr displays come to
mind.

So, Why FF ?
 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 16:10:33 -0400, wrote:

Seems to me that FF is all about connectng back to the old 35 mm film
format, and very little else, since smaller sensors with the same
pixcel count in conjunction with shorter lenses could do the same
thing, BUT smaller and lighter. What part have I got wrong ?

It's more complex than that. Camera and lens size affects things like
number of pixels, light sensitivity, noise, depth of focus, lens
diffraction and hence the final image. Some strive for this, others
strive for that, and if you are struggling for a particular image
quality you may find (suspect?) that one size of camera may be more
suited to your needs than another.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens