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

[Barmaglot]

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.

A7R IV is a bit of an anomaly, right now it's the highest resolution camera on the market, aside from Fuji's medium-format offerings. I imagine APS-C camera will catch up to ~50mp eventually. On the other hand, if you compare, say, A6600 with A7 III, the former will enjoy a DoF advantage. I've seen some macro shots taken with TG-6 that I simply cannot replicate with my A6300, like a leaf full of sheep nudis with everything in focus - I can barely get one of those into proper DoF, and full-frame is worse.

 

[stuartv]

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.

This may not qualify as wide angle to you, but my understanding is that the best wide angle image quality you can get is from using a FF rig with a Nauticam WACP? Possibly second best is a FF with a WWL-1? Very expensive, of course. But, the point is that FF is not INHERENTLY less capable for WA.

I say it might not qualify as wide angle because it's a rectilinear setup, not a fisheye, and only about 130 degrees, I think, versus nearly 180 that you can get with a proper fisheye setup.

I am definitely prepared to accept a statement that, if you want a fisheye, super wide angle setup, there is no FF rig that will do as well as what you can do with the right crop sensor setup. I simply don't know. I have never even attempted WA shooting beyond what a WWL-1 can do.

 

[Divetech Cayman]

This may not qualify as wide angle to you, but my understanding is that the best wide angle image quality you can get is from using a FF rig with a Nauticam WACP? Possibly second best is a FF with a WWL-1? Very expensive, of course. But, the point is that FF is not INHERENTLY less capable for WA.

I say it might not qualify as wide angle because it's a rectilinear setup, not a fisheye, and only about 130 degrees, I think, versus nearly 180 that you can get with a proper fisheye setup.

I am definitely prepared to accept a statement that, if you want a fisheye, super wide angle setup, there is no FF rig that will do as well as what you can do with the right crop sensor setup. I simply don't know. I have never even attempted WA shooting beyond what a WWL-1 can do.

We're spinning in circles here, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation after these statements:

I will fully agree the WACP is probably the best on the market right now. I haven't tried it yet - Nautcam has promised to let me borrow one but that hasn't happened yet. However all of their other optics are superb. This is why I have used the phrase 'traditionally' the FF is less capable in wide angle. Traditionally meaning using traditional wide angle lenses and dome ports. It is a changing market with Natuticam's new glass, and in a year from now, this may be a completely irrelevant discussion as new optics come out.

While I would consider anything over 100 degrees "wide angle" the fact that I can't get good fisheye or super wide angle from these systems is a limitation for me. There are diving environments were I find this a necessity. If a camera system is spectacular in one area, but lacks in another, to me that makes it less capable than one that is good in all areas.

My final point bears repeating, as I think this is the most overlooked. The OP asked the question, "is this worth it?" My opinion is no. You can save thousands of dollars on a cropped sensor setup, and spend the savings on photo lessons and come out with better images. The biggest variable is the photographer, not the camera.

Tony