General question about Sony APS-C and Fullframe for wide-angle

[Divetech Cayman]

I have two issues with this.

One, in your linked blog post, you said "[FF] is not worth it." That is a totally subjective statement. It totally depends on the person and their budget. I think it would be much more fair to the reader to say "FF will cost you a lot more - maybe $4500 for your initial setup. And the resulting camera rig will only be slightly more capable." It seems as though you are not disputing that a FF rig IS better/more capable than an equivalent (in terms of modern-ness of the tech) Cropped sensor rig. It's just that it's bigger, heavier, and a lot more expensive. It IS better. It's just that it's only a little better, but a lot more expensive.

And, two, your challenge to identify which photos are from a FF versus Cropped is not fair at all. Clearly, you CAN get completely professional quality images using either platform. The relevant question is, will you be able to capture some images with FF that you would not be able to capture with a Cropped sensor? (meaning, capture them at whatever minimum level of image quality you require) I think the answer to that question is yes. If you have a FF rig, there will be times when you can capture an image that is just barely of acceptable image quality for your desired purpose, where, if you were shooting a Cropped sensor, trying to capture the same image, you would not be able to (at that same level of quality). Of course, this presumes the rigs being compared are of comparable quality. E.g. a really old FF rig might not do as well as the latest and greatest APS-C rig.

If you want to do that comparison, I think you need to use both camera rigs on the same dives, and capture the same images with both. Then see if people can compare the results and tell a difference. I will bet a lot of people WILL be able to tell the difference. Unless you really cherry pick which images to put forth for comparison.

If you're shooting a 100' wreck with ambient light, a FF sensor will probably produce better results. If you're shooting any subject where you want to shoot wide open to achieve nice bokeh, the FF sensor has more potential to do better.

I could be wrong about this one, but I think if you're shooting into the sun, and you're really stopping the lens down to make a nice sunball, the larger sensor will let you capture better images of a close subject - especially if it's not close enough to illuminate with a strobe, or if you're having to use your strobes on full dump even with a FF sensor.

I used to shoot m43. Now I shoot FF. Even with FF, I am rarely able to shoot at ISO 100. I am often shooting at ISO 400 on FF. Shooting a smaller sensor to capture the same image would mean even higher ISOs - which inherently means more noise in the image (presuming equivalent levels of modern-ness to the tech - e.g. both being "latest and greatest"). A m43 sensor with the same megapixel count as a FF has 4 times the pixel density on the sensor, and it's capturing 1/4 the amount of light. It is GOING to have more noise, to capture the same image. Crop is not as bad a multiplier, but it has the same issue.

I'm not a professional, or even an expert, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

Of course everyone's milage will vary, and we can what if this to death. But I do stand by my statement, that the full frame sensor is not worth the added money when compared to a same generation cropped sensor camera.

I can make the argument, there are circumstances where the full frame camera is inferior to the cropped sensor camera, and this has to do with underwater wide angle. Natucam's optics are changing the game here, but traditionally, getting sharp corners with underwater wide angle have always been tougher with a full frame system.

Back in September I was lucky enough to do 2 back to back trips aboard the Cayman Aggressor in Little Cayman, and did 50 dives over the course of both weeks. On both trips I had a full frame D850 and a cropped sensor Z50, and used both on alternating dives. Now it's not as good as having both cameras on the same dives, but it was as close to a real world comparison as one could get.

I'm not stopping anyone from getting a full frame setup. It's your money, buy what you like. You will find certain instances where each system outweighs it's counterpart. But on a whole, is the full frame worth the money? IMO, no.

But you don't need to listen to me. ;-)

Tony

 

[stuartv]

I'm not stopping anyone from getting a full frame setup. It's your money, buy what you like. You will find certain instances where each system outweighs it's counterpart. But on a whole, is the full frame worth the money? IMO, no.

But you don't need to listen to me. ;-)

Tony

Well, it is certainly too late for my pocketbook to benefit from your wisdom....

Like I said, I'm no pro, nor do I consider myself an expert. I'm trying to learn. In that vein, what scenarios do you find that a good crop sensor rig is better than a FF? Of course, I'm talking about performance and the resulting images. Not cost or weight or bulk. Just, what scenario(s) is going to result in a better image if I have APS-C than if I have FF?

 

[Hoag]

Well, it is certainly too late for my pocketbook to benefit from your wisdom....

Like I said, I'm no pro, nor do I consider myself an expert. I'm trying to learn. In that vein, what scenarios do you find that a good crop sensor rig is better than a FF? Of course, I'm talking about performance and the resulting images. Not cost or weight or bulk. Just, what scenario(s) is going to result in a better image if I have APS-C than if I have FF?

The most likely scenario in which a crop sensor will have an advantage over a FF camera would be above the surface when shooting telephoto. As an example, I have a FF camera with a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens on it. If I am at an airshow for example then the best I can do is 400mm f/5.6. My best friend has a Canon 90D crop sensor (1.6 crop factor) and the Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 mm lens. When he zooms in to the max 400mm focal length, with the crop factor, it gives him the equivalent of having a 640mm f/5.6 lens. He will need to crop much less in post than I will.

I can not think of a scenario under water, however in which having a crop sensor will give you a better image than a FF sensor will (all other things being equal). The one possible exception that I can think of is that the small size associated with a Crop Sensor rig may allow you to get into places that a FF rig couldn't and in doing so, to get shots that a FF never could. Those situations, however, I think would be relatively unusual.

As for me, I shoot a Sony A7R3 as my primary camera above ground, and an A6000 (in a Nauticam housing) under water. As you have noted, there are many factors that one must consider in addition to simply IQ including cost, size and bulk. People will likely take all of those factors (and possibly other factors such as available housings/ports and lens choice) into account and come up with a solution and ultimately a decision that works best for them.

 

[HKGuns]

I shoot a full frame 1DX3 on the ground and use a gopro underwater for its simplicity.

I'd say it is less about the kit and more about the diver when shooting under water. Good light and post processing skills are likely just as, if not more important than crop or full frame.

 

[Barmaglot]

In that vein, what scenarios do you find that a good crop sensor rig is better than a FF?

When shooting macro with a smaller sensor and more dense pixels, you need less magnification on the same subject than a larger sensor camera, and thus gain more depth of field. Alternatively, you can shoot at the same depth of field with a larger aperture and reduce image quality loss to diffraction.

 

[stuartv]

The most likely scenario in which a crop sensor will have an advantage over a FF camera would be above the surface when shooting telephoto. As an example, I have a FF camera with a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens on it. If I am at an airshow for example then the best I can do is 400mm f/5.6. My best friend has a Canon 90D crop sensor (1.6 crop factor) and the Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 mm lens. When he zooms in to the max 400mm focal length, with the crop factor, it gives him the equivalent of having a 640mm f/5.6 lens. He will need to crop much less in post than I will.

I can not think of a scenario under water, however in which having a crop sensor will give you a better image than a FF sensor will (all other things being equal). The one possible exception that I can think of is that the small size associated with a Crop Sensor rig may allow you to get into places that a FF rig couldn't and in doing so, to get shots that a FF never could. Those situations, however, I think would be relatively unusual.

As for me, I shoot a Sony A7R3 as my primary camera above ground, and an A6000 (in a Nauticam housing) under water. As you have noted, there are many factors that one must consider in addition to simply IQ including cost, size and bulk. People will likely take all of those factors (and possibly other factors such as available housings/ports and lens choice) into account and come up with a solution and ultimately a decision that works best for them.

I would not count your first point as an inherent advantage of a crop sensor. That is just, well, really, money. Your buddy shoots a 90D with 100-400. You could buy a 200-600 for your camera and get the same angle of view. Furthermore, I shoot an a7r4. I can put it in Crop mode and use the same lens as a crop sensor camera, get the same angle of view, and still get 26MP images. I think your r3 will give 18MP for the same deal.

As for u/w and fitting in tight spaces... maybe. There are 2 counterpoints to that. One, by the time you add a tray and lights, is the difference in size REALLY useful, as far as where you can fit the rig? And, two, you can now get a Sony a7c in a Nauticam housing which gives you a FF setup in a package that, from what I've read, is just as compact as an a6000 rig, for example.

Anyway.... it's an interesting discussion. I think the main thing about it all is just how awesome it is that modern tech has given us SO MANY options that are all really good! The difference between the "least good" and the "best" is so small that 99% of the time, the difference in photographer will make MUCH more of a difference. A good photographer with a good m43 will likely produce way better results than a less skilled photographer shooting a Sony a1 or Canon R5 or whatever.

 

[stuartv]

When shooting macro with a smaller sensor and more dense pixels, you need less magnification on the same subject than a larger sensor camera, and thus gain more depth of field. Alternatively, you can shoot at the same depth of field with a larger aperture and reduce image quality loss to diffraction.

True. But, are you saying that you CANNOT get as good results for macro, using a FF rig, as what you can get from the best Crop rig?

Or as you saying that it just requires more money for the FF rig to get the same results?

And what if you take out your disclaimer about more dense pixels? I.e. what if you're comparing a 24MP APS-C to a 61MP FF? Does the APS-C have an inherent advantage? I think it doesn't.

Actually, I'd guess that it is still just slightly inferior. With the APS-C, you have to use the full frame to get 24MP. With the 61MP FF sensor, you can use just the middle part of the sensor, to still get 26MP. AND, with the FF sensor and glass, that means you're getting the entire capture from the center portion of the lens image, so you'll have less of the corner softness that might come with using crop sensor glass and capturing the image from the whole lens, instead of just the center portion. Could be wrong about that, though.

 

[Divetech Cayman]

Not cost or weight or bulk. Just, what scenario(s) is going to result in a better image if I have APS-C than if I have FF?

I can not think of a scenario under water, however in which having a crop sensor will give you a better image than a FF sensor will (all other things being equal). The one possible exception that I can think of is that the small size associated with a Crop Sensor rig may allow you to get into places that a FF rig couldn't and in doing so, to get shots that a FF never could. Those situations, however, I think would be relatively unusual.

Underwater, in my experience the advantage is wide angle photography. Pixels aside, people forget that when it comes to wide angle underwater, the dome port becomes another element in the optical chain, and it needs to be optically in snyc with the other elements. As the sensor size becomes larger, this becomes more difficult to achieve sharp corner to corner focus of your wide angle image underwater, particularly at lower f-stops.

Many years ago, I worked at Reef Photo and Video. All staff were encouraged to dive any and all of the systems they had on display. Naturally, as a photo enthusiast who couldn't afford a full frame sensor camera, I immediately tried out what I thought was the pinnacle of cameras at the time, and used a full frame Nikon D4 with a 14-24 wide lens. I was immediately disappointed with the quality underwater. How was it, my crappy D200 with a Tokina 10-17 lens shot sharper photos than this state of the art (then) D4 and one of the most raved about wide lenses? It was explained to me at the time, that this was just a downside of full-frame - it's harder to achieve sharp corners.

Granted, this is a single example, and not the best comparison. I could write about more examples I've seen over the years. There are different lenses & different domes one could try. I'm in the market to upgrade my own personal camera rig, and at one point did eyeball a new full frame setup. But on reviewing some blog posts written about this one setup and lens, the writer explains he had difficulty getting sharp focus at anything below f16.

Again, I am one person with one opinion. You don't need to listen to me, and if you feel I'm wrong, that's OK. The OP of this thread began with the question "Did you see some real improvements by switching to Fullframe?" Going back to my Aggressor trip, I shot 2 weeks straight with a full frame and cropped sensor camera. I did 25 dives with each. Did I see an improvement with full frame? No I did not. This gentleman seems to wish to save money. For him there is no benefit IMO. For others who have the money, great! Buy what you like.

I will leave you with this - the single biggest variable in any underwater setup is the person behind the camera. Good photographers can get amazing shots with even a simple point and shoot that can far exceed the most expensive camera on the market today when shot by a lesser photographer.

Tony

 

[hilljo88]

In my experience the key factors in taking good underwater images are photographer's talent, lighting, glass. Post processing is in there somewhere, depending on your opinion of how much PP is acceptable. Choice of camera brand and FF vs cropped sensor are less important. All the major brands are making great cameras with excellent sensors.

 

[Divetech Cayman]

In my experience the key factors in taking good underwater images are photographer's talent, lighting, glass. Post processing is in there somewhere, depending on your opinion of how much PP is acceptable. Choice of camera brand and FF vs cropped sensor are less important. All the major brands are making great cameras with excellent sensors.

You took the words right out of my mouth ;-)