>Since a full frame sensor can capture more image**

Meant to say image, not images

its capturing more light, but over a wider area. Same amount of light per pixel though.

Sensor sizes come into play when doing astrophotography, but I'm not aware of anywhere else.

No, the primary benefit a full-frame sensor gives you is a wider field of view as opposed to a crop-frame.

Faster lenses may provide for proper exposures at lower light levels, but a larger sensor will not.

ITT: people being idiots

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D
Camera Software	Paint.NET v3.5.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:04:04 00:25:21
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/22.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	17.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto Bracket
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>1575718
>Since a full frame sensor can capture more images, does that mean they would be faster because they're capturing more light also?
I can't even understand what you're asking, even with your correction.

>Basically if put side by side, a cropped camera and a full frame, wouldn't the full frame be faster at capturing or more exposed if at the same settings?
Why the hell do you keep asking about fastness? Are you talking about lens speed (maximum aperture), shutter speed (i.e. 5 fps, 10 fps), or what?

>I wish I had money to buy a full frame =( To focused on lenses atm and the cheapest full frame camera is a down payment to a car
Cool story, bro!

>>1575739
Yea sorry I meant faster in the sense if you had it on aperture priority, wouldn't the shutter speed be faster than on the cropped camera.

That may not make sense either I suppose. I'm still trying to understand a lot of things, sorry if I don't make sense

>>1575734
l2perspectif

I believe you're thinking about things the wrong way, OP. A full frame sensor doesn't capture "more light", rather it "has a larger area plate to put it on" - you could say that it wastes less of the light coming in through the lens. Remember, it is your lens captures all the light; your camera body defines what is actually done with it all.

Also it is important to remember that using a smaller focal length with a cropped sensor will -essentially- get you the same image, as >>1575734 points out.

>>1575718
Don't come back OP until you have browsed this:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/learn-photography-concepts.htm

>>1575771
The perspective would be the same, it's only affected by the camera to subject distance and because the focal length has been changed to keep the field of view the same the resulting image would be practically identical.

holy shit /p/, srsly you cannot answer this question

>Since a full frame sensor can capture more images, does that mean they would be faster because they're capturing more light also?

No.
It doesn't matter the size of the sensor, the light is the same because what matters is luminance, that is "quantity of light / area".
it is the light on a single sensitive element that capture light what matters... basically more area, more elements to receive light, more light needed for the same results.
That's why doesn't matter the area of the image captured, so a 50mm f2.8 will be a f2.8 on fucking everything (limited by its max image circle).

Another thing is the the size of single sensitive element. If you got a 12MP FF sensor and a 12MP APS C sensord, the FF elements will gather more light and they will have a better ISO performance. But it's not the lens that makes it, it's the capability of the sensor of using the amount of light it is receiving. So, you'll have a sensor (or film, it's the same) with better ISO performance and you'll able to have the same IQ with less exposure.

gotcha?

>>1575785
In summary, to get *exactly* the same picture, standing on the same spot, on a smaller sensor than on a larger sensor you need to:
- have a shorter focal distance
- use a faster lens
- use lower ISO
On perfect, theoretical cameras this would give you the same fov, perspective, noise and dof on both.

>>1575787
Sensor size does not affect perspective relations. It's affected by lens focal range only. FOV would be the same, optical dynamics not.

>>1575785
>>1575787
http://allanattridge.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/two-hosers-photo-show-full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-pt3/
>However, since another main factor of DOF is focal length, using a shorter focal length with also result in a deeper DOF and a different perspective.

I'm arguing that one of the factors attributing to perspective is focal length and by changing that when "converting" to full frame we also change the perspective.

Correct, no? This is what I've gathered.

>>1575791
>optical dynamics
what the fuck is that shit

ff sensors capture more light, thus they tend to have better performance at high iso for a given resolution
>>1575787
that sounds right yeah
>>1575793
pedants will tell you that fov doesn't affect perspective, which is technically correct, but when you change your fov you almost always change position to get similar framing, and position does affect perspective
>>1575794
resonance of the lens for one of course

>>1575718
>Since a full frame sensor can capture more images, does that mean they would be faster because they're capturing more light also?

Yes, basically. On FF, you can use higher sensitivities (and this faster shutter speeds) without getting as much noise.

The F-number of a lens determines the amount of light that hits the sensor per unit of area. Thus, a larger sensor will receive more total light if the F-stop is the same.
If you take two lenses with the same F-numbers, put them in front of sensors of different size - for simplicity, let's take a FF sensor and a 4/3 sensor that is exactly 4 times smaller - and shoot with the same exposure time, the larger sensor will receive more photons, 4 times as much in this case. Assuming that both sensors are equally efficient at converting light into image, the FF sensor will give a cleaner image.
Alternatively, you can decrease the exposure time for the FF sensor by 4 times, and increase sensitivity by 4 times to compensate. In this case, both sensors will receive equal amounts of photons and provide pictures of the same quality (again, assuming that both sensors are equally efficient).

>>1575786
>But it's not the lens that makes it
You need to factor in T-stop - the light loss across the visible spectrum due to the lens glass and coatings - ie. f-numbers corrected to measure light transmission rather than aperture ratio. It's another variable to add into the equation.

>>1575793
Actually, the ONLY thing that affects perspective is the distance to the object in question. Nothing else (sensor size, focal length, circle of confusion, lens resonance) matters. This is easy to prove by taking something simple, like a box, and shooting it from the same distance using different cameras and lenses - in every case, the box will have the same perspective.

However, if you use the same lens with the same focal length on crop and on FF, and want your box to appear *the same size relative to the frame*, you will have to step farther and closer, thus changing the perspective.

I cast THE GAY on this thread. There is so much misinformation, only a tactical nuke can clean this mess.

ac is rolling over somewhere right now.

THE GAY ON THIS THREAD

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	600
Image Height	400
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	102 dpi
Vertical Resolution	102 dpi
Image Created	2010:12:28 15:04:06
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	510

Jeez I thought this was a photography board. You would've gotten better answers on /b/

>>1575816
damn photoshop, being laggy as hell for god knows why.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:04:03 20:07:32
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1019
Image Height	764

>>1575794
I dunno what that is in english so i used "optical dynamics"..

You know when you shoot wide, objects in background look like they're farther away than they really are, and with a 50mm lens it's the same as your eyes would see it, and as you go tele, those backgrounds start to look closer than they really are. That's what i meant.

Here's some telephoto picture.. Moon looks pretty big.

You can test this stuff without even taking a shot. Look through your dslr viewfinder with a zoom lens but keep your other eye open as well.. at 50mm it looks like there's no lens at all on both crop sensor and fullframe.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot S5 IS
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2008:10:25 17:31:26
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	0
Image Height	0
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>1575886

That's called "perspective."

>>1575886
that's called perspective

>>1575894
>>1575896
No it's not. That's called "field of view".

Perspective refers to the spatial appearance of objects (that only depends on distance to them), not their size relative to the frame.

>>1575909

too bad a 50mm lens doesn't have the same fov on crop and ff

>>1575909

Wrong.

>>1575914
And?

Take that lens, put it on FF and crop, shoot the same object from the same distance. It will br projected in exactly the same way, just bigger relative to the frame on crop.

GUYS! You didn't notice that THE GAY was cast on this thread? That was like 10 posts ago.
Stop spewing stupid, misleading and inaccurate bullshit.

>>1575957
Don't have anything constructive to say? Fuck off.

>>1575957
Why don't you explain it since you are so fucking good, fucking annoying cunt

>>1575963
>>1575962
nerd fight

>>1575963
First - watch your bad little potty mouth. Next time you argue over perspective, full frame and crop - don't isolate one variable. That will help.
Second, consider the viewing distance at presentation. If you print a 13x19" print of a photo the shows extension type distortion (i.e. wide angle photo up close of a person) and get closer and closer to the print while viewing it, thus increasing the angle of view of the image - the distortion will appear to lessen.

The usefulness of a definition for perspective left in a vaccuum is questionable. Sure, I can stand 2ft from a person and shoot them with a 17mm lens, and then switch to a 200mm lens, standing in the same place - capturing the image again and the perspective doesn't change... you now have a photo of the same person's eyelash.

So, sure - focal length and field of view for capture do not impact perspective.... but in the real world, photographers choose to frame subjects a certain way.

>>1575957
Shut up you cumlicking tripfag!

Crop is better because you only get the best sharper image from the lens. The corners get cropped, and that's where most lenses lack quality and sharpness, and they tend to have more chromabs there.

The only downside is that you will need more light. A f1.4 lens becomes f2.6 in terms of light and dop.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1520
Image Height	3000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:04:03 20:43:37
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1520
Image Height	1967

One then must not assume that the primary decision a photographer has when composing a shot is where to stand in relation to the subject. Rather, the decision of how a subject is framed tends to take precedence.

In this case, changes in focal length and sensor change the relationships between the subject and where one must "stand" to capture the photograph they want... Changes in focal length and sensor size come along with requisite changes in distance to capture the intended image.

At this point, the book definition of perspective is less important to the photographer.

The 5D2 shooter with a 50mm lens is handed a 60D. It is of most practical importance to them to know that to achieve the same field of view as they would have gotten with their 5D2, they now must be 1.6x further away from the subject. And, alas, their image looks different because the effect of perspective distortion has changed.

The definition of perspective distortion alone is fruitless to argue over - while the practicalities of changing focal length and sensor size and trying to capture an image framed and composed in a certain way are generally of more importance to people taking photos.

>>1575990
Again, you are so fundamentally wrong. Changing the sensor size does not change the effective light transmission of the lens.

Take this example. Yellow is the image projected by the lens. Black is FF sensor. Green is a crop sensor. The amount of light falling onto points 1, 2 and 3 are constant. Changing the sensor does NOT change the amount of light falling onto these points. Neither sensor can capture the light falling onto point 1. Only the Full frame sensor can capture the light falling into point 2... and both sensors can capture the light falling onto point 3.
The crop sensor does not magically capture more or less light at a given point. That's not how light works.

>>1575988
>>1576007
I don't see how anything you said even contradicts anything said before in this thread, much less makes it "bullshit".

You just spent two huge posts essentially elaborating on the second part of >>1575801.

>At this point, the book definition of perspective is less important to the photographer.
True, but this is not a valid reason to misuse the term.

You're wasting your time, Bart. He has no idea what he's talking about. He's only here to troll up some fight and use language he'd never use in real life.

>>1576014
That's just the misleading part. One person is arguing the practical implications of focal length and crop factor while another argues the textbook definition. The two rarely meet in the middle.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

The worst inaccurate stuff in the thread is about exposure being different between crop and fullframe. Somehow the Internet created this idea that a bigger sensor changes the maximum aperture of your lenses.

>>1576020
And all of this was coverde in the second post

Now thread ffs.

ITT

perspective=field of view=optical dynamics=more images

really guys?

>>1576037
>And all of this was coverde [sic] in the second post

So moseyed on over to the second post:

>>1575720
>Since a full frame sensor can capture more image**
>Meant to say image, not images

WTF? Maybe you meant the third post:

>>1575722
>its capturing more light, but over a wider area. Same amount of light per pixel though.

Okay, okay. Maybe he meant the FOURTH post:

>>1575723
>Sensor sizes come into play when doing astrophotography, but I'm not aware of anywhere else

Alright, I give up. What the heck are you talking about?

>>1576020
>The worst inaccurate stuff in the thread is about exposure being different between crop and fullframe.
I couldn't find a post that states that, I guess you need to learn reading comprehension before declaring everyone an idiot.

There's a reasonable explanation in >>1575798, even.

>>1576049
the second post, disregarding the op.
>its capturing more light, but over a wider area. Same amount of light per pixel though.

unless you just dont understand it? that post answers the op perfectly. a full frame sensor captures more light than a crop sensor because of the wider area. the ratio of light gathered to sensor size is still exactly the same however. so essentially, each pixel on the full frame sensor is still gathering the same amount of light as each pixel on the crop sensor, there just happens to be twice as many pixels on the full frame sensor, so youre technically getting twice the light. the image is still going to be the same exposure however, just larger.

get it?

>>1575777
>Remember, it is your lens captures all the light
Lenses don't capture light you fucking idiot, they focus and project it. Stop spreading ignorance.

>>1576057
Still wrong. Well, at least worded all over the place, mixing correct and incorrect information.
Example:
The light per pixel is a function of both sensor size and pixel size. A crop Canon 10D has a 7.4 micron pixel size. The Nikon D800 has a 4.9 micron pixel size. The crop camera will get more photons per pixel at a given exposure time/aperture.

Plus, you're mixing up all kinds of terms and concepts.

>>1576063
youre getting way too fucking technical. im using the term 'per pixel' to stand for 'per given area'. if you want to be an autistic, pedantic fuck about it, take a full frame camera and a crop camera with the same pixel size and use that to understand my fucking example. Canon 20D and Canon 5Dmk2. there, is your aspergers happy now? maybe its time to step away from the computer and get some fresh air.

>crop vs fullframe in the exact question
>actual question answered in the second post
>50 posts later everyone goes hating each other while everybody knows the right answer

Why ain't I surprised?

>>1576068
If you want to label me pedantic for correcting things that are kind-of-right but easily misinterpreted and misunderstood by someone who is trying to figure this stuff out, fine. But the "second post" did not adequately address the original question. For someone who knows the stuff, sure. For someone that doesn't - nope.

The advantages of fullframe:

Longer focal length lenses for equivalent field of view on crop = shallower depth of field, by almost 1,6 stops for equivalent field of view and f-stop.

crop: 11mm
FF: 18mm

We got the same field of view on both sensors, in order to get everything sharp, we'll have to use say f/8-11 on the crop sensor but due to the longer focal length on the fullframe lens we have shallower depth of field and we need to stop down to about f/16 in order to get equivalen depth of field. This means if you're aim is to get everything in focus, and field of view being the same, Crop has low-light advantage.

However softness due to diffraction will become faster obvious on crop, 1 due to the increased magnification (more resolution per area) any softness from diffraction will have a more detrimental effect on crop. Also due to the fact that on crop you'll be using shorter focal length lenses for equivalent field of view, your physical aperture diameters will be smaller for any given f-stop (given equivalent field of view), and it's the physical size of the aperture that determines when diffraction becomes a problem. Smaller being worse.

Using fullframe lenses on crop you will be using the center spot of the lens which is usually sharper than the edges of the frame, however again, due to the extra resolution per area or "magnification" on crop any flaws in this area become more apparent, softness etc. Also if on crop a lens shows chromabs of say 2px width, on fullframe they'll most likely be less visible (depends on resolution of the fullframe sensor, usually they have larger photosites). Also Lenses made specifically for crop show no advantages in edge of frame sharpness, albeit center sharpness can often exceed fullframe lenses on crop.

lol you don't know crap about cameras

>>1576086
you wonder why everybody is always so fucking confused and spreading misinformation about shit like this, its because autistic people like you feel the need to make it so god damn complicated by delving into completely inane shit like pixel micron size when discussing simple topics.

if everyone just kept it simple like i did in the second post, there would be no more confusion. if op didnt understand what i meant by my simple answer, he could have asked me to clarify, and i would have happily (and simply, in an easy to understand manner) done so.

>>1576092
>>It's wrong, but good enough. Now, stop being accurate, it annoys me.
I'll accept that.

>>1576097
twist it whatever way you have to, dude.

i swear youre becoming more and more autistic every single day.

LOL /P/
SRSLY THIS IS A RETARD CLINIC

I already anwered in >>1575786
that was basically an explanation of the correct but short anon's >>1575722

let's sum up:
>a lens project the same luminance all over the frame, no metter it being FF or crop or whatever
>f2.8 is f2.8 everywhere. It changhes only if you use teleconverters or wide converters (since they warp the image circle).

So a 50mm f1.8 is a 50mm f1.8 on FF, and is still a 50mm f1.8 on APS-C (85mm F equivalent, but STILL f1.8)
PERIOD

THEN
speaking of sensors-film (sensitive material):
>a sensitive material is made of many photosites (pixels in digital, silver halide's crystals in film)
>bigger frame = more light gathered, yes BUT
>it also means you are capturing a bigger image, rendered by more photosites, if the pixel density is the same
>SO the light captured PER photosite is the same.

ANYWAY:
>you can chose to have BIGGER PHOTOSITES
like 400 ISO film have bigger crystals (grain) than 100 ISO film, digital can have bigger pixels
>and this is basically the tradeoff of capturing less information (spatial frequency) to use more light per photosite

since digital sensors don't have a native ISO speed (it can be chosen) we talk about "ISO performance" in digital.
Digital is a far more complicated system than film, and it is far more dependant on technological development not only on the physical sensors, but also in the NR algorithms.
Given two cameras of the same "generation" (so basically with equally evolved technology) we wil see:
>A 12MP FF having a far better ISO performance of a 12MP APS-C (same number of photosites, but more area and more light gathered), same resolution
>A 18MP FF having quite the same ISO performance of a 12MP APS-C (same pixel density), more resolution

>>1576099
"Autis-" words should be even more popular than word "Olympus" here.

>>1576137
does that surprise you? coming to 4chan and calling people autistic is like going to the special olympics and calling everyone retarded.

>>1576122

u wot m8?

>>1576147
>going to the special olympics and calling everyone retarded.
That's inherently retarded thus making the whole 4chan retardation system perfectly self-contained and safe for the rest of world.

>>1575718
If you directly compare the sensor (which doesn't make much sense), no.

But the thing is, if you want to get the same shot, with the same exposure time, using e.g. a 4/3 than you would have gotten using e.g a FF sensor at 400 ISO on a 50mm 1.4, you'll need a lens:
- half as long
- hence twice as fast in F-stops (to keep the pupil diameter)
- use it at1/4 of the sensibility, 100 ISO to have equivalent noise

That is, a 25mm f/0.7. There is no such thing, as far as I know. And if existed, it would be large and expensive. Much more than a FF 50 f/1.4, at least.

That is the reason why FF is better suited for low-light.

There are some pretty bad answers here. This reminds me of something from /b/.

Would the center of this image have been better exposed if the photographer went outside and used the same aperture and shutter speed?

The answer becomes more complicated when you try to compare two sensors that are not at the same flange focal distance, like FX vs. 4/3. Moving the sensor farther away from the lens reduces the intensity of the light hitting it.

Simply put, bigger sensors have bigger pixels, and bigger pixels, like bigger film grains, have a greater chance of getting hit by photons. An APS sensor with 16 megapixels has the same light-gathering potential as a full-frame sensor with 35 megapixels.

These days, there is just not a big gap between sensitivity of FF sensors and APS sensors. You'd never see it in 99% of shots.

>>1576185
>Moving the sensor farther away from the lens reduces the intensity of the light hitting it.
notsureifseriousorjusttroll.jpeg

>>1576185
youre so fucking wrong. normally i would humbly correct you so as to lower the amount of misinformation on this god forsaken board, but after reading through this thread i just dont care anymore. this question was answered in the second fucking post. people like you should talk less, and listen more.

>>1576208
> normally i would humbly correct you so as to lower the amount of misinformation on this god forsaken board, but I don't know the first goddamn thing about the topic at hand so I'll do the right thing and abstain

ftfy

>>1575771
>l2perspectif

People who say this have literally no idea what they're talking about.

Perspective changes with focal length - YES - but what is perspective? It's the *apparent* size of objects in the center of the frame vs the *apparent* size of objects at the edge of the frame. How do our eyes judge apparent size? By point of reference with something else. Perspective is a point of reference. While a 10mm lens shoved into a person's face will make a their nose look bigger in the middle of the frame, it ALSO makes their ears and mouth look smaller at the edge of the frame. If you hadn't seen the ears, you would just assume that you were just looking at a macro of a person's nose, though.

Guess what "crop" sensors do? They *crop* out the edges of the frame - altering the perspective.

Proof: look at any point-and-shoot camera's focal length range. My s95's lens has an actual focal length of 6-22.5mm, and in no way does the 6mm end have the kind of up-close-and-warped wide angle perspective that a 6mm lens would have on an APS sensor.

The fact that this is a never ending discussion full of butthurt and trolls shows us, that the difference is very small.

>>1576391
hurr durr troll
stop spreading misinformation.

>>1576089
>Longer focal length lenses for equivalent field of view on crop = shallower depth of field, by almost 1,6 stops for equivalent field of view and f-stop.
Field of view and depth of field are not related like that. Stop spreading these ignorant lies.

>>1576185
>Moving the sensor farther away from the lens reduces the intensity of the light hitting it.
My 12.5" (mirror size) dobsonian telescope, with a focal length of over 1.5 meters, and which can resolve the Great Red Spot of Jupiter on a clear night (about 1/100th the apparent size of a grain of sand held at arm's length), would like a word with you.

>>1576408
So you're going to tell me that a portrait taken at 6mm with my s95 has the same perspective as a portrait taken with a 6mm lens on a 5D?

Go ahead and say it. I can't fucking wait to hear how you're going to dig yourself out of this hole.

>>1576409
>>Longer focal length lenses for equivalent field of view on crop = shallower depth of field, by almost 1,6 stops for equivalent field of view and f-stop.
>Field of view and depth of field are not related like that. Stop spreading these ignorant l

For same FOV, you need loger focal lenght, and longer focal lenght is related to shallower dof, obviously.
He just got the factor wrong.

>>1576410
If you aren't changing your position, the perspective is the same. The size of the subject relative to the rest of the picture will change though.

>>1576425
just let it go, man. That guy is either stupid, confusing fov with perspective, or troll.

This thread makes it abundantly clear to me:

(a) why most people have no reason to shoot FF, and
(b) why most people who shoot FF have idea about how FF works, so they may as well be shooting crop or 4/3.

>>1576477
I haven't posted in this thread because it was obviously a shitty thread. Anyway, I just want to say that for me, FF is awesome because there is a huge inventory of FF lenses for cheap and most good lenses are designed for a FF sensor's FOV. My 28/2 lens would be gimped to hell on DX. Same with 50/1.4. The "equivalent" lens (35/1.4) is expensive as hell.

The shallow DOF is obviously a benefit but then, I also shoot LF so DOF to me on FF digital feels infinite almost. Try shooting a 300mm f/5.6 lens on 8x10 - then you know what shallow DOF is.

The noise performance on my D700 is also far and away better than any crop sensor. Couple that with stupendous fast primes and you've got the best of all worlds, at least in DSLRs.

what i like about full frame is that i can shoot in the sweet spot of my lenses (4-6.3) and it still gives me subject isolation. i always lol at friends posting their rabal/3100 pictures on facebook, and its soft as fuck because they're wide open on a nifty fifty.

>>1576409
And what happens to the image when you put a magnifier tube in the light path, increasing the distance? The spot gets bigger... and dimmer.

>>1576578
So you're saying that in an 800 pixel facebook shot you can see the difference between wide open and f/4?

>>1576196
Okay, how about this? Ever use a flash?

Let's look at it another way. Suppose you made a tiny picture frame, like the one pictured, and glued it to your FF sensor, blocking light from reaching the pixels near the edge, and turning your FX camera into a DX.

What magical effect did this have on the remaining pixels' light sensitivity and dynamic range? That's right, none at all.

All other factors equal, no, full frame sensors are not faster, they're not better in low light, and they're not going to give you better image quality.

>>1576528
has hit on the only real benefit, although he's still somewhat in denial about how his venerable D700's sensor ranks against four years of technological progress. You have better lens options, particularly in the wide angle arena.

In terms of dynamic range and sensitivity,
Bigger pixels are better.
Newer sensors are better.

But most importantly, any modern "serious" digital camera is going to perform excellently in low light.

>>1576704
Who the hell wouldn't be able to tell wide open on a nifty fifty?

>>1576705
Hardly anybody, when you resize the image to slightly larger than a thumbnail. I don't know if you ever use facebook but it's not exactly geared toward photography. If he does sit around and laugh at the two or three pixels that look slightly different, then he is a sad, sad person and we should all be feeling sorry for him.

Now if you're talking about the difference between a Rebel's kit lens wide open and a high quality professional lens in the sweet spot, then yes, I agree that most people can probably see that.

OP must be so confused.

Remove the lens from the goddamn crop camera and look at the sensor. LOOK at it. Then look at the sensor of a FF camera. You can see the better image quality dynamics.

That should solve this gay/autis/troll argument.

/three

>>1576729
>You can see the better image quality dynamics.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	200
Image Height	182
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:01:20 22:44:19
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	200
Image Height	182

>>1576697
You are kind of hitting on something, but it is somewhat esoteric. Extension tubes change effective f stop, by changing the apparent pupil size. However, you need to get up to .5x magnification on a 50mm lens to lose a stop of light and
The effect lessens at higher focal lengths. See formula:
Effective F-Stop = F-Stop x (1 + Magnification / Pupil Magnification)

>>1576409
In these terms, you are right! A 1,500mm lens is far less susceptible to this because adding extent ion tubes impacts magnification and apparent pupil size a small amount.

>>1576697
This is a different story. These optics actually spread the projected image circle at the film plane to a wider diameter using lenses. The objective lens captures the same field of view, but the image circle, being spread out, makes the sensor capture less of this field of view. The lit loss comes because the same number of photons are spread over a wider area. This means fewer photons per unit of area [like a pixel, for example]. Less light per area = less exposure. Less exposure means losing fstops.

>>1576704
>All other factors equal, no, full frame sensors are not faster, they're not better in low light, and they're not going to give you better image quality.
>

Read this:
>>1576161

>>1576704
>in denial about D700 sensor
lolwut? other than the brand-spanking new FF cameras, the D700 is the best performing sensor on the market in regards to ISO performance. try harder faggot.

>>1577053
He said "far and away better." Not "barely a single f-stop better." And I said "somewhat in denial," not "in denial."

I stand by my assertion.

Also, to

>>1576907

comparing FF to 4/3 does not, in my opinion, count as "all other factors equal."