Btw zack arias is a x-photographer, spokesperson for fuji.
Image Quality: how big is the advantage of Full Frame?
- Thread starter gpliu3
- Start date
Btw zack arias is a x-photographer, spokesperson for fuji.
No, noise reduction and sharpening are 'opponents' in post processing. Noise removal also reduces details in the image, because pixels and their information get changed. But in contrast to in-camera noise reduction, the software has much more options and allows much finer adjustments. It doesn't need to be PS and layering works. Adobe Lightroom (I'm just a user, no relation to the company, btw) is pretty good at that. Plus: there are tons of tutorials in the Internet. Of course, all these editing steps are most effective when using RAW images. Using JPG files, after in-camera processing there isn't much left that can be done at them.
I also used to think having that having FF would be better especially low light. After I'm using my D7100 for almost one year, I feel i'm confortable with the noise as long as it doesn't surpass ISO 6400. So far what I thought in my mind is probably having FF would be great for sports and action due to very large buffers (except some DSLR like D800 etc). But for others, APS-C does the job incredibly well.
The short answer is yes, FF will always have an advantage for some things.
But i) are you going to notice it or do you know what you're looking for
ii) are you shooting in conditions where the difference is significant or can you make use of the advantage.
The truth is the current crop of sensors of all sizes are very good, good enough to the extent that it handles a large portion of ppl's needs with relative ease.
But if you have specialized needs eg. trying to freeze action on a sporting pitch with poor lighting or shooting black cats in coal mines
then maybe its a different story.
BTW: you shouldn't look at noise alone when considering high ISO performance. Colour accuracy and saturation degradation as well as loss of DR are big negatives that NR won't help much with.
Personally I'd mainly consider FF for the 'look,' ie. perspective and DOF but that's cos I don't shoot at the edge of the performance envelope. Its not necessarily better (sometimes worse actually), just different from other formats. Just as medium and large format have a different 'look' again of course.
But i) are you going to notice it or do you know what you're looking for
ii) are you shooting in conditions where the difference is significant or can you make use of the advantage.
The truth is the current crop of sensors of all sizes are very good, good enough to the extent that it handles a large portion of ppl's needs with relative ease.
But if you have specialized needs eg. trying to freeze action on a sporting pitch with poor lighting or shooting black cats in coal mines
then maybe its a different story.BTW: you shouldn't look at noise alone when considering high ISO performance. Colour accuracy and saturation degradation as well as loss of DR are big negatives that NR won't help much with.
Personally I'd mainly consider FF for the 'look,' ie. perspective and DOF but that's cos I don't shoot at the edge of the performance envelope. Its not necessarily better (sometimes worse actually), just different from other formats. Just as medium and large format have a different 'look' again of course.
Turbonetics
Senior Member
Thanks for your confirmation and these are what I agree on too. Iam also using Lightroom and shooting in RAW format to have more and better control in PP. NR and Sharpening are opponents and I always try to shoot the lowest ISO possible to retain details and IQ and without the need to denoise yet increase some sharpening and details if/when needed.
Similar threads
