Hi all, with the advent of mirrorless cameras, could anyone share any real-life benefits in terms of pic quality between crop and mirrorless?
I have a Canon 60D which is becoming increasingly difficult to upgrade lenses for, so maybe an upgrade to mirrorless might be in order, once I’ve saved enough pennies.
I use mirrorless to avoid the accident I had with a mirror camera. I can never use that camera again without replacing the mirror. And I’m liking the new camera.
These two things are orthaonal. “Crop” refers to sensor size, as in micro four thirds, aps-c, and full frame.
Mirrorless is opposed to (D)SLR.
There are crop sensor mirrorless and DSLRs
These are two different categories:
DSLR vs Mirrorless concerns focusing method, viewfinder, and size.
Crop vs Full-Frame concerns sensor size.
In general, a crop camera (APS-C), is one stop slower than a full-frame camera. This means one stop less dynamic range or one stop more noise, and one stop less background blur potential, and one stop less price. This remains true regardless of whether it’s a DSLR or Mirrorless camera. Personally, I find one stop to be only just big enough to notice. It’s not a huge difference. But you usually can’t tell from a finished picture whether it was shot on a crop sensor.
Mirrorless, on the other hand, is simply the current iteration of camera technology. If you want a modern camera, it will be mirrorless. However, this does not change the pictures at all. It merely changes how the camera body is constructed and operated.
So, in terms of image quality, do not expect wonders. A modern camera will be able to focus more reliably, the electronic viewfinder will allow you to judge exposure more accurately, the camera might have improved image stabilization. If you go for a larger sensor, you may gain one stop in low-light noise, or blur potential. But in all likelihood, there won’t be many pictures that become possible, but were impossible before. Unless you do video: Mirrorless has huge advantages there.
The main advantage of my Canon R7 mirrorless camera is that it is equally good as a still camera or a movie camera. I can also fit my D-SLR lens on with an inexpensive 3rd party adaptor. For me the debate about crop sensor and full frame is more about the type of lenses you want to optimise. Full frames bring out the best in wide angle lenses because they capture a wider angle of view for the same focal length. On the other hand crop sensors bring out the most from your telephoto lens because the crop factor increases the effect of the telephoto. Both cameras can produce excellent quality images so I see it as less about dynamic range, sensitivity and noise and more about the type of photography you do. A real estate photographer would benefit from the extra wide coverage of wide angle lens to capture room interiors. A bird photographer would get the best from a crop sensor. And yes, not everyone will agree with this viewpoint of mine.
Is that still true? There’s, for example, the Fuji 8mm, and 8-16mm, which are plenty wide. Maybe it mostly applies to CaNiSon, gating their widest lenses only to their FF cameras?
As for tele lenses, I see little benefit for APS-C over cropping a FF camera (if it has enough resolution). And I guess, CaNiSon also don’t build native APS-C tele zooms, but Olympus and Fuji do. Crop tele lenses are usually not much lighter, though, as the “crop” only affects the rearmost elements, which are a relatively small part of a long tele (see the Fuji XF 500 vs GFX 500, for example).
Hmm, the second hand market is full of lenses with a quite decent price tag. Especially L lenses …
Dslr has a physical mirror to reflect the image to the viewfinder. The mirror has moving parts to get it out of the way to project the image on the sensor. The sensor is off until it is needed.
Mirrorless has no mirror. The image is projected on the sensor, but the sensor is on to process the image in realtime. The realtime info is send to the evf. There is less moving parts inside the camera, but higher energy usage. More energy also means more heat management on the sensor.
I recently needed a 60mm macro for my 70D, and has no problem finding one second hand. Other recent purchases (last two years) include a 10-18mm and a 35mm macro (both new).
This said, I have just been upgraded to an R7 
In terms of image quality, there may very well be useful differences, but not in the way you asked the question. It’s more along the lines of Full Frame and APS-C (crop) and generation of sensor design. Both sensor formats (and more!) exist in both DSLR and mirrorless.
You mention using a 60D, and Canons of those generations are noisy in the shadows. By moving to a post 5DmkIV full frame DSLR or a new mirrorless R-mount APS-C or Full Frame you would see a useful improvement in dynamic range of Canon cameras. Keep in mind that almost anything post 2011 from Sony and Nikon will have fewer dynamic range limitations.
Having said that, proper exposures and having a good practical understanding of your cameras sensor limits can easily get around some dynamic range limitations, depending on your subject matter.
As others have pointed out, there are more than a few fine lenses on the used market for your DSLR these days.
Of if you really feel the “need” to go mirrorless, Sony cameras (FF and APS-C) can be found for surprisingly good prices on the used market. Just learn “what’s what” and shop carefully.
I hope this helps.
May I ask what the “one stop slower” is based on?
I ask because exposure of Crop vs. Full Frame i.e. Lux-sec includes area, so it can’t be that.
On the other hand, Falk Lumo states:
I.e., overall there is a one stop advantage in available lens options for full frame.
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html
He wrote that about a dozen years ago, so maybe things have changed?
I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say, here. One stop slower? How?
I’ve measured a Sony A6300 (APS-C) and a Sony A7 (Full Frame) for dynamic range and they are equal. There is no “one stop” difference to be seen.
Noise performance is, perhaps shockingly, similar. Even my A6000 at high ISO does quite well compared to the A7. The Sony NEX-7 a friend gave me might, if you squinted just right, stood on your left leg under a cloudless full moon, meet your description. But…
Not trying to be contentious, just trying to understand what you’re saying.
APS-C has a crop factor of 1.5-1.6, so given the same f-number, the sensor gets 1/2.25 or 1/2.56 of the light compared to a full frame sensor. That is, 1.17–1.36 stops less. (A micro 4/3 sensor has a crop factor of 2, gets 1/4 the light, 2 stops less.
Of course there are all kinds of lenses available, but practically, within a certain price range, primes top out at f/1.4-1.7, constant zooms at f/2.8, etc.
Whether this is relevant for a photographer is another matter. One can push a micro 3/4 sensor to ISO 3200–6400 these days with modern noise reduction algorithms, APS-C to 7200–12800, and full frame 12800–25600 without any problems (of course, subjective limits are a matter of taste, but the ratios hold).
A recent, very relevant video on whether one needs a full frame:
As I said above, it could be based on the availability of equivalent lenses, according to Falk Lumo. So if an equivalent lens to one on a 35mm sensor does not exist for APS-C or is too expensive, then that could be called a “stop” advantage, especially on this site where exact terminology is less popular.
So for example there are good few 50mm f/1.4 lenses available for full frame but not that many equivalents i.e. 35mm f/0.95 for APS-C. Advantage … Full !
See e.g. the explanation of Circle of Confusion and “photographic” dynamic range on Bill Claff’s https://photonstophotos.net/, it does boil down to area.
Perhaps you are talking surface area? I’m not sure how that equates to 1.17-1.36 “stops” of light less.
Sony A6300 sensor site area = 15.13 µm²
Sony A7CR sensor site area = 13.91 µm² ← Which is slightly smaller than the A6300, right, but should gather a similar amount of light at each and every photosite. There is no 1 stop difference at this level.
Further, a f/1.4 lens on full frame is still an f/1.4 lens on APS-C.
Experiment 1: Let’s take a 300mm f/5.6 lens. Shooting the same distance from a subject and using full frame, APS-C, and 8x10inch film, the depth of field is exactly equivalent. The obvious difference would be the fields of view, nothing more.
Experiment 2: Shooting a scene with full frame and APS-C using the same lens and same aperture, the exposure will be exactly the same. Not a 1 stop difference.
Perhaps I’m still missing something, here.
Equivalence is extremely well-trodden territory in internet fora. And rife with misunderstandings.
It states that a 35mm f/2 lens on a FF sensor captures exactly the same FOV and noise and dynamic range as a 23mm f/1.4 lens on APS-C. This is true. There is absolutely no measurable difference between the resulting images. Most of the time, the lenses will be about the same size, too, and any money saved on a cheaper APS-C body is spent on the more expensive lens. In this scenario, there is no advantage to the FF system–but also no advantage to the crop system (disregarding rounding errors).
Much of the confusion around the topic stems from erroneously looking at individual pixels. Obviously, cropping does not affect individual pixels. However, dynamic range and noise are not measured on individual pixels, but entire images. All other things being equal, more pixels of the same type means a lower noise floor, and therefore a higher dynamic range. That’s the “one stop” advantage of a larger sensor: having twice the sensor area, and therefore twice the number of pixels, dynamic range is 1.4x higher (aka the noise floor is 1.4x lower). (Again, disregarding rounding errors)
But let me reiterate: A one-stop difference is only just noticeable. The difference between ISO 100 and ISO 200. The difference between f/1.4 and f/2. It’s a very minor difference. It exists, it’s measurable, and visible, but very minor. Of course, if you’re already operating at the very edge of the shooting envelope, a very minor difference might just be enough to give you an edge.
As a corollary, I’d only start considering a sensor change if I’m already using the fastest lens on my current system. If I’m already shooting an f/1.4 lens on my APS-C system, and I still can’t gather enough light, then maybe a move to FF might make sense. Or if I truly need a zoom that’s brighter than f/2.8.
Um… now you’ve completely lost me. Do you mean to tell me that a Sony A7S has more noise and less dynamic range than a Sony A7R?
Not at all. These are not pixels of the same type. In fact, quite the opposite. The dynamic range of and noise floor of the A7R and A7S are identical. (Fun fact, if you look at the A7C sensor under a microscope, you’ll find that each pixel is made from four subpixels, which are binned together. It’s literally the same sensor as the A7R.)
But I mean you lose dynamic range and raise the noise floor by cropping into a picture.