the 35/1.8 lens, the Nex produces much cleaner images than the RX100. If you then replace the 1650 kit lens on the Nex with e.g. the Nex+1650 kit lens compares roughly to the RX100 (IQ/noise/ISO). Generally, you will get cleaner images under low light than you would get with an APS-C sensor. This will also increase the DR and lower th e noise floor (this is why the FF tolerates higher ISO). both 24Mp, then the pixels in the larger sensor are 2.3x larger than the pixels in the smaller sensor. If the two sensors have the same number of pixels, e.g. Or, ISO 1600 on APS-C compares to ISO 4000 on FF, and so on. Sometimes (often) preferable, sometimes not.īut once you start using fast lenses, such as 35/1.8, or even 35/1.4 (such as legacy SLR and RF lenses), you essentially are (capable of) using the same lens on both FF and APS-C, and then the difference is that FF can be used 1.5x higher in ISO. ISO 800 at f/4.0 for FF as well, the DOF effect will kick in and you end up with shallower DOF in many situations. If you start using the same apertures, e.g. ISO 1600 at f/5.6 for FF versus ISO 800 at f/4.0 for APS-C). So 1.5x is slightly more than a full stop.Īs long as you compare 'equivalent' apertures (and FOV), as in your exampe (32/2.8 vs 24/2.0), the two solutions will run neck-to-neck, assuming that each exposure for FF uses a higher ISO and smaller aperture (e.g. One full stop is reported as SQRT(2) = 1.4x. SQRT(2.3) = 1.5x, so it matches the crop factor.Ģx is one full stop. I always took ait t as SQRT(2) (1.4x), but ProfHankD calculated the area ratio to be 2.3x. Practically, I don't think the APS-C combo does anything the FF combo doesn't. One sensor may outperform another this year or next that's not worth worrying about IMO. In my opinion, it's pretty reasonable to think of the new NEX with 35/2.8 as roughly equivalent to an APS-C NEX with 24/1.8. Whether you care to make those conversions, either for depth of field or for a ballpark idea of low light capability is entirely up to you. (You'd have to shoot the 35/2.8 at a higher ISO than the 24/2 to get the same image brightness). This affects signal:noise ratio and is basically another way of saying that you can shoot FF at a higher ISO. But because the FF sensor is larger, 24/2 on APS-C captures are much light over the sensor as 35/2.8 on FF. There is, but you have to be aware of when to use it.Ģ4/2 on APS-C has the same DOF as 35/2.8 (close enough since there are no 35/3 lenses) on FF.Ģ4/2 exposes with the same light density as 35/2. My question: is there a similar conversion factor for the aperture?įor example, is f2.8 on a 36mm full frame the same as f2.8 on 24mm APSC? So, for example, a 24mm lens on APSC is roughly the same as a 36mm on full frame. Hi all, I understand that a full frame sensor has a x1 crop factor, compared to x1.5 for APSC.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |