# Question regarding sensor size and image quality



## mmenno (Aug 22, 2014)

Hi all, I've been lurking here for a few years and there seem to be a lot of knowledgeable people here, so I thought I'd ask my question here. I've been wondering this for a long time, and I've never seen it properly explained to my satisfaction, so here goes:
When comparing image quality between different sensor sizes, lets say aps-c and FF, all else being equal (FOV, DOF, noise, dynamic range, resolution), there is a subtle but visible difference in the way tones are rendered. The larger sensor produces a more '3D' look, the subject seems more tangible. One of my teachers at the photography school I attended called this 'brilliance', but couldn't explain what caused it, or how it worked. So, how does it work? When I take a shot of a given scene with my 7D, and someone else takes exactly the same shot with a 5D, both at the same FOV and the same DOF (so NOT at the same focal length and aperture), what makes the difference? And can it be reproduced to some extent in post, as I've noticed that some shots benefit from increasing the dynamic range in lightroom, as to look more '3D like' as would be rendered by a physically larger sensor?
Thanks for taking the time!


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 22, 2014)

mmenno said:


> When I take a shot of a given scene with my 7D, and someone else takes exactly the same shot with a 5D, both at the same FOV and the same DOF (so NOT at the same focal length and aperture), what makes the difference?



I don't know about "3D", but I have a ff 6d and crop 60d with about the same amount of resolution.

The bigger pixels do make a difference, and it's indeed rather subtle at lower iso and you just might market this as "brilliance". This is *not* visible in all shots and you have to look very closely at high magnification, in a blind "ff vs crop" comparison test I would suppose your teacher would fail big time. There is an "owner bias" as one tends to think a $3000 dslr sensor just have to perform better than a $300 Rebel at all times...

The differences I remember just now are: 

current Canon ff have about 1ev higher dynamic range meaning cleaner shadows or less clipped whites
there is some residual noise on current Canon crop even on low iso, esp. in the reds
most important: the bigger pixels allow for more postprocessing "elasticity", i.e. you can do more operations before the image degrades. This is very much visible on color operations when any gradients are involved.
most current L lenses are better on the intended ff than on crop, so for any comparison you have to get the best aps-c lens or a very, very good prime.


----------



## mmenno (Aug 22, 2014)

Thanks for the reply!



Marsu42 said:


> most important: the bigger pixels allow for more postprocessing "elasticity", i.e. you can do more operations before the image degrades. This is very much visible on color operations when any gradients are involved.



I think this indeed is an important factor, I'm noticing that when processing my 7D files they tend to look very 'dry' or 'matte', for lack of a better term, whereas I sometimes see FF files that just look far more like a glossy print for example.
I'm not talking about the look of images when pixel peeping by the way, just when viewing them on a monitor or especially as a print at normal viewing distance.

Edit: The same difference seems to be there when comparing 35mm film with medium or large format film, so it's not a digital phenomenon. Maybe it's just as simple as 'more light = better image'..


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 22, 2014)

mmenno said:


> Maybe it's just as simple as 'more light = better image'.



Indeed, though nowadays there is a threshold where there is enough light even for a smaller sensor to be "good enough" unless you're shooting for house-sized commercial posters. Sooner or later, the ff advantage will probably be gone altogether for everyday shooting in good light, leaving the thinner dof as the only advantage from a technical aspect. 

On the creative side, there definitely is a "ff look", but imho this has to do more with lenses, their bokeh and vignetting than just the sensor.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 22, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> _The bigger pixels do make a difference_, and it's indeed rather subtle at lower iso and you just might market this as "brilliance".



_Groan..._ This again?

It's selective bias, pure and simple - completely impossible to demonstrate definitively.



> most important: the bigger pixels allow for more postprocessing "elasticity", i.e. you can do more operations before the image degrades. This is very much visible on color operations when any gradients are involved.



And again..! 

There's nothing magical about bigger pixels, or (for the same sensor size), older, less densely-packed sensors would have better IQ/editing latitude/what have you, than later, more densely-packed sensors.

*And - clearly - they do not*.

If there's a diference of the sort described by the OP comparing his 7D to FF cameras, he's seeing the _sensor size_ difference - not some Fairy Dust sprinkled on the images by magical big pixels.


----------



## mmenno (Aug 22, 2014)

Ok, so what exactly is this sensor size difference, how does it affect the image captured when all else is equalized? 

Btw, if crop is becoming 'good enough' in good light, wouldn't FF still be better than good enough, and remain so as technology advances? So the threshold would move with the technology.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 22, 2014)

mmenno said:


> Ok, so what exactly is this sensor size difference, how does it affect the image captured when all else is equalized?



The DOF with available optics increases for smaller sensors with the _today available optics_. A 35mm/1.4 on APS-C will deliver larger DOF than a 50mm/1.4 on 35mm format sensors.



mmenno said:


> Btw, if crop is becoming 'good enough' in good light, wouldn't FF still be better than good enough, and remain so as technology advances? So the threshold would move with the technology.



IMO it will always be better - or have higher potential. Think of a sensor tech as a film tech: The larger the film the more information can be gathered.
On the other hand everything might change if you need special characteristics e.g. extreme macro of insects where you want large enough DOF and miniaturized cameras to place them near the insects in a natural environment.

I see some disturbance in this discussion. Do not focus too much on the sensor- it is one part of the story. The whole story might be depicted with the following scheme:
AVAILABLE LIGHT => LENS/Aperture => SENSOR => READ OUT SYSTEM

My insect example needs perhaps a smaller sensor and a smaller aperture so you need more light => smaller sensor gives better images (not technical IQ!)

Stage photography has the light which is available. Often this is only a small amount of light so you need a larger aperture and a sensor with larger pixels to bring noise down at high ISOs => a larger sensor can gather more light than a smaller sensor given that you use the SAME APERTURE SETTING!


----------



## mmenno (Aug 22, 2014)

I get the AVAILABLE LIGHT => LENS/Aperture => SENSOR => READ OUT SYSTEM, but I am under the impression that there is a difference in image quality, as in how an image looks scaled down on a monitor or in a print, between a smaller and a larger sensor, all else equal, with the size of the sensor as the only variable.
The difference that remains when you have two cameras of the same technological generation, one aps-c and one FF, and take an identical shot of the same scene with enough light or no movement so shutter speed plays no part, and freely compensate FOV with focal length and DOF with aperture so both are the same in degrees FOV and centimeters DOF. Even leaving resolution out of the equation, so both are like 8 mpx or they both have the same pixel size, enough to make no difference on a screen or small enough print, than I'd think that the FF image still looks better. It's this difference in image quality that I am interested in.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 22, 2014)

Tried to post this directly but the forum software told me that there is another message (good software!) ...



mmenno said:


> [...]
> When comparing image quality between different sensor sizes, lets say aps-c and FF, all else being equal (FOV, DOF, noise, dynamic range, resolution), there is a subtle but visible difference in the way tones are rendered.
> [...]



Comparing an APS-C and FF sensor with same MPix, same sensor tech and same readout circuitry will show at least one difference (same equiv focal length, same aperture):
If a APS-C sensors pixel gets 100 photons the error is sqrt(100)=10 - resulting in 10% non-avoidable error of the brightness measurement for this pixel.
The FF counterpart will "see" 256 pixels. sqrt(256)=16 resulting in an statistical error of 1/16 or 6.25%.

ADD:
If pixel sizes are the same, the per-pixel-errors are the same too but during downscaling the FF sensor combines more pixel area into the same resulting pixel so this should provide a similar effect - transitions are softer. 

The FF sensor will have a more precise mapping of the image of the real scene compared to an APS-C sensor. Perhaps this is part of the difference between both "looks". Shure, the images are downsampled if we view them on a screen but a more precise measurement might survive the process of downsampling if this is done the quick way. I have no FF camera so I cannot check it with a HQ downsampling via DxO SW.

But I see a similar difference between 40D and 600D where the 40D has approx. two times the pixel size of the 40D. Shure, the 600D gives more detail but the 40D has sometimes the "shinier", more realistic photos. More "brilliance" is a good description.

Another idea: EF lenses are more than good enough (most!) for 20 MPix on full frame, but stressed with a 70D those sensor - extended to full frame size - would result in 50 MPix might be too much for these (older) lenses. So it might come from the lens too.

I think we should keep in mind that our eyes/brain are very delicate instruments which are optimized to detect very small variations in our environment. E.g. a green snake in green grass - to build a camera that reproduces the shades of green exactly is a very tough job!


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 22, 2014)

mmenno said:


> I get the AVAILABLE LIGHT => LENS/Aperture => SENSOR => READ OUT SYSTEM, but I am under the impression that there is a difference in image quality, as in how an image looks scaled down on a monitor or in a print, between a smaller and a larger sensor, all else equal, with the size of the sensor as the only variable.



Nope, I don't think so, don't let marketing get you. Unless you're limited by the smaller sensor's issues and benefit from the larger pixels (yes, do try shoot red gradients and postprocess them). A ff sensor doesn't have any "magic", you can either name the problems it solves or the creative potential it adds or there's nothing to it.



mmenno said:


> Btw, if crop is becoming 'good enough' in good light, wouldn't FF still be better than good enough, and remain so as technology advances? So the threshold would move with the technology.



Fortunately, there is such a thing has human perception. You can only recognize and tell so many colors apart, see only so much resolution (compare a 200ppi vs 300ppi print...). FF will keep giving you an edge in difficult situations like thin dof, very low light or higher shutter speeds, but personally I think the 18mp crop generation is "good enough" already in good light. At some point, the picture content isn't disturbed by tech limits, and that's what counts.



mb66energy said:


> But I see a similar difference between 40D and 600D where the 40D has approx. two times the pixel size of the 40D. Shure, the 600D gives more detail but the 40D has sometimes the "shinier", more realistic photos. More "brilliance" is a good description.



That is even after downsizing 18mp->10mp and proper postprocessing? I know the 40d seems to have hit the sweet spot back then, but I often find people tend to compare sensor generations at 100% crop sooc.


----------



## candc (Aug 22, 2014)

the current ff sensors perform better at high iso and you get a wider (uncropped) view using the same lenses. if you are wanting shallow dof then its easier to get with ff. i posted the images below on another thread. it is the 6d + 16-35 f/4 (16mm) and 70d + sigma 8-16 (10mm). in good light like this they look about the same.


----------



## mmenno (Aug 22, 2014)

Thanks people, I think I'm starting to get it! 

In my attempts to think up an 'all else equal' situation I too easily discarded the bigger pixels vs more pixels component, as the bigger sensor will always be ahead in either one or even both! And so it will always be capable of rendering the better image when the situation demands it, either by having the bigger thus more sensitive pixels to begin with, or having more pixels to downsample..


----------



## rs (Aug 22, 2014)

If FoV and DoF are identical between the different sized sensors, both scenarios will be capturing the same total amount of light as the entrance pupil will be stopped down to be of an identical size.

It could be simply the dynamic range and tonality - to take things to an extreme, you can stop down a FF DSLR to mimic the DoF of a compact camera with the same FoV, yet the compact will be much more likely to have the highlights blown out and an overall flat look to the image. Obviously this difference reduces if the sensor sizes are more similar, but a differences remain. 

Another difference is typically the FF body/lens combo will have the optics stopped down more, potentially getting it nearer to optical perfection than the smaller sensor equivalent.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 22, 2014)

rs said:


> Another difference is typically the FF body/lens combo will have the optics stopped down more, potentially getting it nearer to optical perfection than the smaller sensor equivalent.



... unless you're shooting macro, with the ff I end up well in the diffraction zone in no time so actually the my crop 60d produces the better images than my shiny new 6d. Plus with macro, to get the same fov crop & ff the latter will have a lower effective f-stop at close distance, so the iso advantage is no good either.


----------



## rs (Aug 22, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Another difference is typically the FF body/lens combo will have the optics stopped down more, potentially getting it nearer to optical perfection than the smaller sensor equivalent.
> ...


Quite correct - when shooting macro, those rules fall apart.


----------



## mmenno (Aug 22, 2014)

rs said:


> It could be simply the dynamic range and tonality - to take things to an extreme, you can stop down a FF DSLR to mimic the DoF of a compact camera with the same FoV, yet the compact will be much more likely to have the highlights blown out and an overall flat look to the image. Obviously this difference reduces if the sensor sizes are more similar, but a differences remain.



That's a very good point. I think it is tonality making the difference, even in scenes where the histogram doesn't clip at either end. 
In the pictures posted by candc there seems to stil be a tiny yet observable difference, as to my eyes the ones on the left look a bit better, less flat.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2014)

mmenno said:


> Even leaving resolution out of the equation, so both are like 8 mpx or they both have the same pixel size, enough to make no difference on a screen or small enough print, than I'd think that the FF image still looks better. It's this difference in image quality that I am interested in.



That's a hypothesis. The only way to test it would be for someone to take those shots and have you decide which is which - blind testing. You'd have to guess (statistically) significantly more than 50% correct, otherwise the hypothesis is falsified.



candc said:


> the current ff sensors perform better at high iso and you get a wider (uncropped) view using the same lenses. if you are wanting shallow dof then its easier to get with ff. i posted the images below on another thread. it is the 6d + 16-35 f/4 (16mm) and 70d + sigma 8-16 (10mm). in good light like this they look about the same.



Excellent work - too many discussions of this kind lack evidence. I would say the two shots are indistinguishable.

The full frame 'look' such as it is is likely (as mentioned above) the ability to use shallower depth of field and more vignetting - but this is only the case for certain lenses, at certain apertures.

(Although it's possible that given full frame cameras tend to be more expensive, and often aimed at professionals, other factors are involved, like the quality of the in-camera processing; I've no knowledge on that subject though).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2014)

mmenno said:


> When comparing image quality between different sensor sizes, lets say aps-c and FF, all else being equal (FOV, DOF, noise, dynamic range, resolution)...





mmenno said:


> In my attempts to think up an 'all else equal' situation...



You seem to have left something quite important out of your 'all else equal' scenario. If you're going to compare the APS-C and FF images, you actually have to _view_ them – so you must also have equal viewing conditions (same print size, same monitor size and settings, etc.). That means the "same image" from the smaller APS-C sensor will need to be *enlarged more* than the one from the FF sensor. That additional enlargement does not come for free...the price you pay is a reduction in IQ.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 22, 2014)

scyrene said:


> The full frame 'look' such as it is is likely (as mentioned above) the ability to use shallower depth of field and more vignetting - but this is only the case for certain lenses, at certain apertures.



This, plus occasionally
- better tonality (bigger pixels (yeah! )
- less postprocssing artifacts on heavy edits
- less noise reduction, i.e. less "wax" look
- vastly different bokeh look ef lens on crop vs. same ef lens on ff
- a more "optical" and less "digital" look, not only by vignetting but also by sharpness falloff


----------



## mmenno (Aug 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> You seem to have left something quite important out of your 'all else equal' scenario. If you're going to compare the APS-C and FF images, you actually have to _view_ them – so you must also have equal viewing conditions (same print size, same monitor size and settings, etc.). That means the "same image" from the smaller APS-C sensor will need to be *enlarged more* than the one from the FF sensor. That additional enlargement does not come for free...the price you pay is a reduction in IQ.



Viewing conditions aren't left out at all, they still fall under ALL else equal 

As demonstrated by the pictures candc posted, if you look at the crops, the transitions between shadow and light are much harsher in the right hand image, even though exposure is equal. The image on the left has much smoother transitions between light and dark and from one color to the next. Look at the ground/dirt just above the water, on the left it is nice and brown, on the right it is much greyer/harsher..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2014)

mmenno said:


> Viewing conditions aren't left out at all, they still fall under ALL else equal



Then why didn't you list that among our assets? 

But as I said, you then must consider the impact of differential enlargement on IQ. 




mmenno said:


> As demonstrated by the pictures candc posted, if you look at the crops, the transitions between shadow and light are much harsher in the right hand image, even though exposure is equal. The image on the left has much smoother transitions between light and dark and from one color to the next. Look at the ground/dirt just above the water, on the left it is nice and brown, on the right it is much greyer/harsher..



Your comparison is theoretical, though, since there aren't sensors with everything but size (pixel and total) identical. The comparison candc posted uses cameras with different resolution, and more importantly, different lenses. A more appropriate comparison would be 6D/70D or 1D X/EOS M with the same zoom lens, ideally one with little variation across the zoom range.


----------



## mmenno (Aug 22, 2014)

mmenno said:


> I'm not talking about the look of images when pixel peeping by the way, just when viewing them on a monitor or especially as a print at normal viewing distance.



There, I (sort of) did 

I don't think the difference seen in the crops candc posted can be attributed to JUST a difference in lens or resolution. As far as I know a lens can render more or less contrast/sharpness/color than another, but that's not the issue here. It's how gradations between light and dark and different colors are rendered. And as the top images are both relatively equally downsized, and the crops of equal size, I don't see resolution making up for the difference either.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2014)

dgbarar said:


> mmenno said:
> 
> 
> > When comparing image quality between different sensor sizes, lets say aps-c and FF, all else being equal (FOV, DOF, noise, dynamic range, resolution), there is a subtle but visible difference in the way tones are rendered. The larger sensor produces a more '3D' look, the subject seems more tangible. One of my teachers at the photography school I attended called this 'brilliance', but couldn't explain what caused it, or how it worked. So, how does it work? When I take a shot of a given scene with my 7D, and someone else takes exactly the same shot with a 5D, both at the same FOV and the same DOF (so NOT at the same focal length and aperture), what makes the difference? And can it be reproduced to some extent in post, as I've noticed that some shots benefit from increasing the dynamic range in lightroom, as to look more '3D like' as would be rendered by a physically larger sensor?
> ...



This is interesting. Without seeing examples, it's hard to understand - surely compression of perspective makes things look _less_ three-dimensional, though?


----------



## candc (Aug 22, 2014)

The 6d and 70d have the exact same resolution (5472x3648) I used the 16-35 at 16mm and the 8-16 at 10mm that's the same fov for both, taken from the same spot. 

FYI the 70d shot is on the left. The 6d shots on the right is a bit sharper and has more contrast. The sigma lens on the left has a warmer yellowish tone compared to the canon but all in all they are more similar than I was expecting.

In low light its pretty easy to see the difference but for shots like this they both look great.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 22, 2014)

dgbarar said:


> Even though the FOV and DOF may be the same, the images will never be "equal". Why is that? For the same reason that a 4X5 image will look "better" than 35 mm--field compression. Let me explain.
> 
> Let's take two cameras a 35 mm and 4 x 5. A 50 mm lens on a 35 mm camera and a 210 mm lens on a 4 x 5 camera give the same field of view. However, the images do not look the same because of the apparent difference in distance between the foreground and background. Even through the field of view is the same, the background will appear much closer to the foreground with the longer lens--this is called field compression. These images "look better" and have a more 3D feel. This is why the old master's like Ansel Adams, Ed Weston used large format cameras. Ansel Adams once quipped when asked what kind of camera he used his response was "The heaviest one I can carry".
> 
> ...



Don,

With the greatest respect, something I am often accused of lacking, that is a complete load of rubbish.

Perspective is perspective, "compression" is a completely erroneous concept that photographers that don't know what they are talking about use to describe perspective.

Perspective is derived from your position. That is it, nothing else, focal length is a red herring. Shoot the same scene from the same place with a 17mm lens or a 200mm lens and crop the 17mm image to the same framing as the 200mm image and the perspective ("compression") is identical, and that is what you are doing when you use smaller sensors.


----------



## mmenno (Aug 22, 2014)

candc said:


> FYI the 70d shot is on the left.



Wow, I didn't expect that, at all! To me the left shot looks a fair bit better than the right one, so I guess at least in this comparison my belief in ff = better goes out the window 

As for the perspective compression, it can certainly play it's part in a lot of ways, some of which I most probably don't understand (yet), but in a comparison like this I believe it doesn't, as perspective doesn't change by changing just focal length and keeping the same angle of view from the same position.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 22, 2014)

mmenno said:


> Thanks people, I think I'm starting to get it!
> 
> In my attempts to think up an 'all else equal' situation I too easily discarded the bigger pixels vs more pixels component, as the bigger sensor will always be ahead in either one or even both! And so it will always be capable of rendering the better image when the situation demands it, either by having the bigger thus more sensitive pixels to begin with, or having more pixels to downsample..



Yes, as far as I know, you have summed up your own question well. Larger pixels will always have an advantage of gathering more light and thus having a better signal to noise ratio. The larger sensor allows for having both that advantage of the larger pixel and the advantage of having more pixels for finer resolution and rendering detail.

In my own experience - and based on my own purely subjective opinion - I came to a similar conclusion when I was comparing the larger sensor of the APS-C Canon Rebel (the original 6 MP Rebel) with a smaller sensor Olympus OM-D EM-5. While the photos were of high quality, I thought the Olympus' images looked slightly flatter. It took me quite a bit of observation to conclude that the difference was in the ability to render subtle changes in color - which the Canon's larger sensor seemed to do better. Subtle gradations or changes in color is what helps model form and give the illusion of 3-dimensionality. It would have been nice to compare two Canons, but this is what I had available. 

Recently I bought a FF Canon 6D and an Olympus OM-D EM-1 to replace my original rebel. The EM-1 is a wonderful camera, with great features and the big advantage of being smaller and lighter, but the increased light gathering ability and much better signal to noise ratio of the larger pixel/ larger sensor 6D is apparent.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2014)

Funny, I found the righthand image sharper :/


----------



## endiendo (Aug 22, 2014)

To the original question/
We should think also to the light ray in lens and sensor. bigger sensor, bigger lens, the light rays have more different angle (wide left, wide right).
I think that play a role in the perspective-impression.. or "3d" effect... or "Real" photo/subject.

FullFrame:
/ \
/ \
-------

APSC will be more like this:
||
--

or
/\
--


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 22, 2014)

endiendo said:


> To the original question/
> We should think also to the light ray in lens and sensor. bigger sensor, bigger lens, the light rays have more different angle (wide left, wide right).
> I think that play a role in the perspective-impression.. or "3d" effect... or "Real" photo/subject.
> 
> ...



Perspective has got nothing to do with focal length, or light ray angle. Perspective is defined by your position, alone.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

candc said:


> The 6d and 70d have the exact same resolution (5472x3648) I used the 16-35 at 16mm and the 8-16 at 10mm that's the same fov for both, taken from the same spot.



Apologies, I misread your post as 60D. Indeed, 6D/70D is a good comparator, although I think it would have been better to use the 16-35 on both (say, at 16mm and ~26mm). 

As PBD states, your shots were at the same distance so despite other comments to the contrary, the perspective is identical.


----------



## candc (Aug 23, 2014)

That is a good point. I did that comparison to see how the 6d + 16-35 f/4 stacked up against the 70d + sigma 8-16. Maybe I will check the 16-35 and the sigma 18-35 (works at long end on ff) on both cameras. I know that the sigma 18-35 is sharper than the 16-35 on a crop body but I haven't compared either lens on both bodies at equivelant focal lengths.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 23, 2014)

*It all depends on what you are doing.* Arizona Highways still prefers large format (4x5) transparencies http://www.arizonahighways.com/photography/submissions.asp

For digital submissions they want a minimum of 300 pixel per inch 12"x18" files http://www.arizonahighways.com/DigitalGuidelines.pdf

If you are shooting photos they will be displayed at 1000 pixel wide on a web site (Advertising, News, Sports) the requirements are less stringent.


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 23, 2014)

With the Arizona Highway's magazine, can you perceive the improved image quality compared to other magazines with lower image standards? I'm curious how well their requirements translate to a magazine format, but unfortunately they don't seem to ship outside the US.


----------



## V8Beast (Aug 23, 2014)

Disclaimer: I don't know if there are any technical points of reference that either prove or disprove my observations  At any rate, for me personally, what I perceive as superior tonal range is the biggest advantage of full-frame vs. crop sensors. Maybe the tonal range is genuinely superior with FF, or maybe it isn't, but for what I shoot sure it looks better to me  

For example, these product shots I took recently are all some slightly different shade of gray with some black and silver mixed in. IMHO, these are the types of shots where full-frame sensors provide far more depth and tonality than a crop sensor. 























When shooting similar types of boring, gray products, to my eyes medium format trumps a FF 35mm sensor in the tonality department by a huge margin as well. 

Your results may vary ;D


----------



## V8Beast (Aug 23, 2014)

One more thing. As no surprise, lighting plays a tremendous role in the perceived depth and tonality of an image. In other words, a crop sensor with proper lighting technique can produce an image with a better "3D" quality than a full-frame sensor with mediocre lighting technique. 

Both these images were shot with my 5D3, 24-105 lens, and the same lighting equipment. The only difference is that in the second image (the close-up), the physical limitations of the location preventing positioning the light sources where I wanted to. This compromised the lighting angle, and resulted in a much flatter, duller, two-dimensional image. The gradations, particularly in the mid-tones, aren't nearly as smooth. Therefore, the flat image had nothing to do with sensor size and everything to do with mediocre lighting technique. Just don't tell that to my client ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 23, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> When shooting similar types of boring, gray products, to my eyes medium format trumps a FF 35mm sensor in the tonality department by a huge margin as well.
> 
> Your results may vary ;D



Medium format file bit depths are generally much bigger than 135 format RAW files so they are much better at subtle tonality, they can literally accurately record thousands more tones of grey, also they don't have AA filters so detailed gradation is rendered much more accurately.

Indeed it could well be the AA filter that people are seeing on the crop cameras that is killing some of the subtle tonality of the image. Generally crop cameras have more severe AA filters than 135 format cameras and as their bit depth is the same it is the only substantive difference.

V8, you should borrow a D810 to see how you like the tonality of that, it should be the closest to the medium format in 135 format, though still not as good.


----------



## V8Beast (Aug 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Medium format file bit depths are generally much bigger than 135 format RAW files so they are much better at subtle tonality, they can literally accurately record thousands more tones of grey, also they don't have AA filters so detailed gradation is rendered much more accurately.
> 
> Indeed it could well be the AA filter that people are seeing on the crop cameras that is killing some of the subtle tonality of the image. Generally crop cameras have more severe AA filters than 135 format cameras and as their bit depth is the same it is the only substantive difference.
> 
> V8, you should borrow a D810 to see how you like the tonality of that, it should be the closest to the medium format in 135 format, though still not as good.



I knew someone smarter than me could provide a real technical reason as to why medium format looks so much better for this type of stuff ;D Glad to know exactly why now. 

I certainly don't shoot enough product images like this to warrant investing in a D810, but would like to try one out some day. I just hope it doesn't have an oily sensor


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 23, 2014)

Hi V8Beast. 
I would not worry about the image lighting quality until the client provides correctly assembled product for you to capture, as an engineer the first thing I notice in the images is the cocked rose joint on the left hand tie bar! In my opinion the client has let you down by not straightening such things, unless you are responsible for the assembly, in which case you need to address such things, if you are not responsible for it at least bring it to the attention of the client! ;D
I know that rods with dual rose joints will naturally settle to their own position, but at least they can be lined up for aesthetics during product photography. 

Cheers, Graham. 



V8Beast said:


> .
> 
> Both these images were shot with my 5D3, 24-105 lens, and the same lighting equipment. The only difference is that in the second image (the close-up), the physical limitations of the location preventing positioning the light sources where I wanted to. This compromised the lighting angle, and resulted in a much flatter, duller, two-dimensional image. The gradations, particularly in the mid-tones, aren't nearly as smooth. Therefore, the flat image had nothing to do with sensor size and everything to do with mediocre lighting technique. Just don't tell that to my client ;D


----------



## V8Beast (Aug 24, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi V8Beast.
> I would not worry about the image lighting quality until the client provides correctly assembled product for you to capture, as an engineer the first thing I notice in the images is the cocked rose joint on the left hand tie bar! In my opinion the client has let you down by not straightening such things, unless you are responsible for the assembly, in which case you need to address such things, if you are not responsible for it at least bring it to the attention of the client! ;D
> I know that rods with dual rose joints will naturally settle to their own position, but at least they can be lined up for aesthetics during product photography.
> 
> Cheers, Graham.



Ha! Good catch! It's funny how you get so consumed with getting the shot that you overlook the most basic of things.....like how the product is assembled.


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 24, 2014)

Hi V8Beast. 
I think 14 years as a toolmaker left me with quite a keen eye for details like that, but don't ask me what colour the misses' eyes are! 
I just re-read my post to you, I'm glad you interpreted it in the manner intended, not as criticism of you! 
Out of interest what is it a chassis for? 

Cheers, Graham. 



V8Beast said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Hi V8Beast.
> ...


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> dgbarar said:
> 
> 
> > Even though the FOV and DOF may be the same, the images will never be "equal". Why is that? For the same reason that a 4X5 image will look "better" than 35 mm--field compression. Let me explain.
> ...



Dgbarar seems to have deleted his post. As has been stated the perspective remains the same because you are at the same distance, but the 210 mm lens does give more magnification which is then accommodated on a much larger format, so the end result is that you have a larger image. The same thing happens when you shoot a panoramic; you have to use a longer lens to get the same framing because you are creating pieces of a larger format. The difference is subtle but if you put two images side by side, one shot as a panoramic and the other as a panoramic cropped single frame, the difference is there.


----------



## mmenno (Aug 24, 2014)

Thanks again for all the input, I like the metalwork shots a lot, they do show good subtleties in tonality.

I have been thinking about the effect of shooting a scene with a longer lens and then stichting into a wide angle frame, and I intend to test just that sometime this week. I have a nodal ninja so that has to work, but I don't have stellar glass. I'm thinking of either doing the pano with the canon 50 1.8 and the single shot with the canon 10-18, or do them both with a tamron 17-50 to keep the lens factor as equal as possible.


----------



## V8Beast (Aug 24, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi V8Beast.
> I think 14 years as a toolmaker left me with quite a keen eye for details like that, but don't ask me what colour the misses' eyes are!
> I just re-read my post to you, I'm glad you interpreted it in the manner intended, not as criticism of you!
> Out of interest what is it a chassis for?
> ...



Even if it was a criticism (which it clearly wasn't), I've learned that you have to be able to handle criticism in order it to make it in this business  And yeah, eye color isn't the first thing that catches my attention about a woman, either ;D

The chassis is for an old Dodge pickup, hence the long lower control arms. The same company also manufactures similar custom chassis for everything from old musclecars to Alfa Romeos. With substantially stiffer framerails, revised suspension pickup points, coilover assemblies, splined sway bars, etc. they're some very nice pieces of hardware. I like how they have passages for the exhaust as well to improve ground clearance. 

Here are some snapshots of a Camaro frame they built. I like how they kicked in the framerails to maximize tire clearance and raised the spring/shock mounts allow for a lower ride height without compromising suspension travel. To put cost into perspective, a 1Dx is cheap by comparison


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dgbarar said:
> ...



Yep, you will never catch me saying a smaller sensor will give you better IQ! The perspective is the same, but the inherent additional IQ you get from a larger sensor, especially if you stitch to effectively make it even larger, will be apparent, things like lens aberrations are more easily seen with more magnification (the intrinsic problem with smaller sensors is the need to enlarge the capture more), the CoC is smaller when you go smaller, AA filters will generally have more impact on smaller sensors etc etc. 

To be sure the differences are there, especially if you look very close, but they have nothing to do with perspective or focal length, just a myriad of other more mundane technicalities.


----------

