Merits of APS sensor

Hi folks, My name is Ric Hochulski. I hale from the frigid north of Western New York, I shoot with a K5 with a K7 as a back up camera. I operate palladinphoto.com and have been involved in photography for over 25 years. All of my lenses are designed for full frame except for one a Tamron 10-24mm. That said the reason this is important is that with a full frame lens on a body with a APS sensor you are using only the center of the lens, which is the best part of the lens as far as quality glass. In my years of photography I've learned that most if not all of the problems that lenses have involves the edges and not the center so with an APS sensor these problems are not an issue. I have enlarged some of my images to 30x40 using these sensors with no loss of quality or sharpness in the image. If you go to my website you can see samples of my images. I also have an image in the still life gallery entitled Makers Mark. Thank you for allowing me to bloviate a little on this subject.

Ric, welcome to the site. I mostly agree with your comments, but do you find that some of the character of a lens is lost on APS-C, especially primes (and usually older primes with some strange quirks!).

Nice work on your website by the way, especially the portraits.

Well, I suppose you would even be better off, I you had only a 1/2 size
APS sensor. This way only the extreme centre of the lens would be used.
If you made it even smaller, you probably could get away with a single meniscus lens.

On the other hand if you only had a full frame sensor, you could always crop it later to the APC equivalent size and you wouldn't have to worry about the edges when using FF lenses either.

Kind regards, Horst

Given the same MP on two sensors though, cropping the larger sensor would mean smaller prints or more interpolation.

The advantage of FF is more the larger sensor, which offers lower noise. However, the low noise of the K-5 and onwards is so good, then every FF improvement can be matched by APS-C improvement.

I think the OP has made a valid point regarding lenses, although APS-C means smaller lenses and those designed for the samaller formats will drop off at the edges just like their FF equivalents on FF, probably.

Another advantage of the smaller sensor is more DOF, I've found when using the Q you can shoot a F2.8 and get plenty of DOF for landscapes and you get fast enough shutter speed to avoid have using a tripod.

Obviously this is a disadvantage for portrait photographers.

I still impressed with the amount of detail you get from the Qs small sensor.

I agree about the DoF; even with my K20D I'm using f/9.5 - f/11 to get a good depth of field (it took me a while to realise I didn't need to use f/16+ as I'd been taught years ago for slides).

One of the other advantages is smaller size/lighter weight, both of the camera itself and the lenses - one of the things that puts me off 'FF', even if I can feel justified paying the higher prices involved. It will be interesting to see whether 'FF' cameras become the norm as they get smaller, lighter and more affordable (think e.g. ME Super + FA24-90), or whether advances in technology mean that smaller sensors can remain competitive in SLRs.

I would say that's a disadvantage

One of the only reasons I would want a FF camera is to make better use of my 50/1.2 @ 1.2

The small sensor's larger depth of field is an advantage for some things (eg Landscapes) But a disadavntage for others (eg portraits.)

I love that a 300 mm is efectively a 450mm so effectivly longer length windlife photography has become more affordable. However I'm having to result to lightroom/photoshop much more to improve portraits.

You win some you loose some

Smeggypants,
you're going to have to start reading posts properly before you comment.

I said it is an advantage for landscapes and obviously a disadvantage for portraits

For what I use the Q for the greater DOF is an advantage, if I was going to shoot portraits etc. I wouldn't contemplate using the Q.

Apparent longer length is more accurate.

This misconception keeps raising its head on a regular basis.
One slight gain of using high density small sensors is since you have more pixel density on the smaller sensor, one can get good close in images providing the subject image footprint takes up most of the sensor area (as with any sensor but it needs longer glass to fill an APS-C or FF sensor at the same distance).
You do not get any more magnification from a lens by changing the size of the sensor behind it.

I'm looking forward to Alans results from his Q+300mm set up as there is more to it than just the kit.

The merit of the APS-C sensor is cost only.


Best regards

???????

I did read your post properly.

I'm surely entitled to know what's either an advantage or disadvantage for my own personal preferences in photography am I not?

Don't see what the problem is

That's because for many photographers it is not a misconception at all, we're simply talking in terms of practicalities rather than technicalities. It's cumbersome and unnecessary to talk about apparent magnification and stumble over ourselves to pay lip service to the technical realities every time the subject of sensor sizes and focal length equivalents comes up.

I suspect most of us on these forums are well aware of the technicalities, but we choose to discuss the subject in terms of the practicalities because that's all that matters when you're out in the field with a camera, and it take a good bit less effort.

This makes no sense. You can always stop down a lens to get more DOF. But you cannot do the opposite.

Besides, stopping down with a smaller sensor runs into the diffraction limit sooner.

Plus a smaller sensor limits field of view.

That's three strikes against, without even getting into arguments regarding resolution and noise -- let's not!

Sorry, but there are no photographic advantages to a smaller sensor. If you think there are, remember you can simply crop an image made on a large sensor to get the same net effect.

That said, I am happy with an MFT sensor, and would be happy with APS-C if Pentax would ever produce a competitive mirrorless model. Because for me the practical advantages of portability outweigh the photographic advantages of the larger sensor. Plus, I can afford the gear.

practicalities:
[plural] the real facts or details of a situation, rather than ideas or theories

Best regards