Between full frame and APS-C is a one-stop difference. One stop less noise, one stop larger aperture, one stop more expensive, one stop larger telephoto lenses. Any way you slice it, it’s always just that one stop.
As a rule of thumb, I find a single stop just barely noticeable. Not a huge difference by any means, but not nothing either. And in many cases, equivalency works both ways: You can often buy a brighter APS-C lens (for one stop more money and size) that gives you a “FF look”, or you can buy a dimmer FF lens for one stop less money and size (that gives you the APS-C look).
I’ve had one FF camera, a Sony RX1, and it was a delightful thing. But after some experimentation with my APS-C rig, I figured out that it was not the larger sensor that made it delightful. In general, I find the sensor size largely a distraction. Look for a camera body you like to operate, and lenses whose rendering you enjoy. The sensor size is merely a technical detail that contributes fairly little to the experience of operating the camera and the photos you take.
And there’s always panos and cropping to work around the sensor size where you really need to.
I haven’t read the whole thread, but I’m missing my old Sony A7s (mk1) at the moment. It’s so much smaller and light than the current A7 series, and with a cheap manual 50mm on it it’s just so sweet to use. Only 12MP but a pretty stellar 12MP IMO.
Thanks for the useful replies. Surprisingly hard to find straightforward answers on the broader web that aren’t drowned out by tribalism, marketing, narcissism of small differences, etc.
I think that the incentives are aligned in the wrong way for that. Probably most of the people who have worked with 2–5 different camera systems in the long run and are in a position to compare them are pro photographers (or equivalent enthusiasts), and even if they share their honest opinion, it is drowned out by the paid influencers and the clueless. Just like everything else these days
Thanks everyone for the great suggestions. For now I decided not to buy anything new, but keep learning with my current gear.
Greater dynamic range and tonal gradation on large sensors make them less crunchy but people here can remedy much post processing from smaller sensors which have advantages
The canon 6d 50mm lens is known as the nifty fifty
An APSC Canon EOS M50 with a sigma prime lens or Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM would cost about the same as a 6d with nifty-50 but have silent shooting , image stabilisation, articulating screen I’m told, not used it ever myself
On the 6d I find using back button focus with the auto-focus set to the centre and letting it decide if something is moving or not then recomposing works well. Using a similar principle I am thinking of moving out of live view after using the magnifier for manual focus: which only works there, back to optical view to take the shot to avoid camera shake
A comfy carrying system like a rucksack might be an answer to bulk issues
The lack of punctuation makes it hard to read, and it all comes across as a stream of consciousness rather than structured thoughts. Hope you don’t mind the feedback!
no, it’s fine I had added a lot of punctuation possibly after you read it last
I’m picking up on a number of points I have read from a number of posts and mentioning bad voice recognition which I always find amusing and good source material for cartoons but maybe not ideal put in with other stuff and maybe being a tad parochial
the 6d stuff will kind of only work if you’ve got one
so I will reduce it by about 70%, also possibly more tired today even than yesterday
Is it a myth lower mega pixels cameras are better in low light? , consciousness flowing but needed to change the subject and is on topic
ASSuming that the sensor size is the same and all other things are equal, theoretically it should not be a myth. But of course all other things are never equal, so it’s a mug’s game.
Per-pixel, a larger pixel exhibits less noise, for the same reason that a larger sensor shows less noise than a smaller one.
However, pixel noise is a distraction from the actual problem: light itself is noisy. If you capture too little of it, the image becomes grainy. What matters is how much light you capture, not the number of pixels you collect it with.
A 100 MP FF sensor obviously has 1/4 smaller pixels than a 25 MP FF sensor. Each of these pixels is 4 times noisier (simplification!). But on the other hand, you have 4 times more of them. You could add groups of 4, and come out exactly at the noise level of the 25 MP sensor (simplification!). The noise would average out exactly as it does when it’s captured in a larger pixel.
Thus, resolution makes no difference in low light. Sensor size does.
(As an aside, modern AI denoising techniques generally work better with more pixels, so a “noisier” high-resolution sensor might actually be preferable if you use AI denoising)
Just had a look on Flickr to see if there were any images from the earlier apsc version. Love that one guy used his Pixii to take a photo of his Leica Q2. Like driving your Lambo to the garage where you park your Bugatti.
Note that the Pixii Max is 138x79x33mm, which is not particularly small. Eg eg the Sony A7C is 124x71x60mm (smaller in cross-section, thicker because of the grip).
