The above is correct. I would add though that virtually all cameras have limited numbers of autofocus points, so if you try to shoot a small bird with a FF camera, you might not have enough AF points on it to do a good job. Whereas a crop-frame camera may have more AF points on the bird and thus do a better job of tracking it. That's part of the reason why crop frame cameras are popular among birders. There are other reasons as well, including cost and more frames per second per dollar (in some cases).
Yeah, technically since the sensor is bigger on a full frame body, it will use the bigger surface area of the lens at that aperture.
Say you have a 50mm f/1.4, and you take a picture like this on a FF @ 50mm f/1.4:
http://digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/full-frame-crop-factor.jpg
The picture you get is 50mm @ f/1.4 on a full frame.
The picture you get on a APS-C 1.6x is still 50mm @ f/1.4, but after cropping the center out, the equivalent range/aperture ends up being as if I had a FF and used a 80mm lens @ f/2.24.
How does this work for getting all of a subject in focus then? So if I'm using the same lens would it matter? Like I use a 400mm 5.6L; on my T2i that's the equivalent of 640@8.96? And on a FF that would just be 400 @ 5.6....but the depth of field would be the same on both?
awesome, thanks!~
edit: oooooh and that's why with FF you can have faster shutter speeds at the same F-stop....because the amount of light I would be getting on the sensor (or however it works) is actually the real F rating, not the cropped version of that.
I think this is debatable, speaking as a Canon user. Most of the bang-for-buck lenses in Canon's lineup are older models (some that have been around since the film era) whose development costs have been fully amortized. Some of their newer lenses (e.g., IS primes, 24-70 II (both 2.8 and 4) are pretty pricey, or at least started off that way before the lack of demand forced Canon to lower prices. Some of Nikon's 1.8 primes (28/35/50/85) are newer designs than Canon's and are pretty reasonably priced.Canon glass is really good bang for the buck. Good quality without paying the Nikon or Sony tax.
I was so excited I sold all of my Canon gear and bought a Panasonic gh4! I been shooting Canon since the Canon 10D, but I've grown tired of the price gouging and feature nurturing they do to protect their higher end video line.
Trust me, they take awesome stills no doubt. But my passion has shifted toward video and film and I know Canon will disappoint.
The 1.5 APS-C to FF multiplier is ONLY for focal length and depth of field, but the density of photons striking the sensor is the same, and the f/stop is thus the same. F/stop does not care about what size the sensor is. A small sensor does just as good as a large sensor at collecting photons per square millimeter. The problem is pixel density.
Take a 20 megapixel small sensor and a 20 megapixel large sensor. The smaller sensor might collect just as many photons per square millimeter as the larger sensor, but since it's smaller, it collects a lot fewer total photons. The smaller sensor has to spread its smaller number of photons over 20 million pixels. The larger sensor gathers more photons and spreads them over the same 20 million pixels; thus the larger sensor has more information per pixel and a better signal to noise ratio per pixel.
The reason why FF does better in low light is because you have an automatic 1 stop noise advantage vs APS-C sensors. Take a shot with a FX camera at ISO 3200 and it would look about the same as a DX camera taking the shot at ISO 1600. (This is a rough approximation and it's a little more complicated than that depending on sensor generation and other factors.)
you're right all the way up until you start talking pixel density. it's not pixel density, pixel density is meaningless. it's area. the larger sensor for the same angle of view and f-stop is collecting more photons simply because it has more area. more photons = more signal. so the signal to image ratio is higher. per pixel signal to noise ratio is nearly useless, and is useless among sensors with similar technology.
this is really easy to see with film. talk the same portrait using a large format 8x10 camera and a 35 mm camera, then blow the 35 mm one up to 8x10. perceived noise is going to be minimal for the large format while there will be definite grain to the 35 mm.
Grr... No news.
Rumor is that stuff will be announced when Photokina (?) starts around September 15. I don't want to wait 10 days.
I was past my breaking point when I sold my Canon 60D and went for the Panasonic GH4. I can't believe the specs don't have WiFi! That is so basic for a camera these daysYeah I'm getting antsy. If they don't come up with a new sensor in this thing I'm either switching to a 6D, or more likely asking for help in finding a different brand camera to use, and figuring out how to use my canon glass with it, if possible.
The 6D is not going to help you get better pictures, nor the 1D X/D4s.Yeah I'm getting antsy. If they don't come up with a new sensor in this thing I'm either switching to a 6D, or more likely asking for help in finding a different brand camera to use, and figuring out how to use my canon glass with it, if possible.
The 6D is not going to help you get better pictures, nor the 1D X/D4s.
I was thinking glass & reach is what you need more than body/sensor size. The 7Dii would give you an AF advantage over that of the T2i & 6D, and a slight advantage in noise over that of the T2i, unless Canon bestow the 7Dii APS-C with a revolutionary sensor that challenge the 5D mkiii & 1D X. And, IMHO in your case a Tamron 150-600mm would be money well spend over that of a new body (Canon 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4 if have money to burn), because the 70D (possibly a similar sensor to 7Dii) isn't much better than the T2i. And, going full frame would yield similar result as a APS-C because it is likely that you would have to crop the image, unless you have expensive long lenses to take advantage of a larger FF sensor.
ISO Test 70d VS T2i
Canon T2i Imatest Results
I was thinking glass & reach is what you need more than body/sensor size. The 7Dii would give you an AF advantage over that of the T2i & 6D, and a slight advantage in noise over that of the T2i, unless Canon bestow the 7Dii APS-C with a revolutionary sensor that challenge the 5D mkiii & 1D X. And, IMHO in your case a Tamron 150-600mm would be money well spend over that of a new body (Canon 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4 if have money to burn), because the 70D (possibly a similar sensor to 7Dii) isn't much better than the T2i. And, going full frame would yield similar result as a APS-C because it is likely that you would have to crop the image, unless you have expensive long lenses to take advantage of a larger FF sensor.
ISO Test 70d VS T2i
Canon T2i Imatest Results