More megapixels vs sensor size

[Don Fischer]

Comparing the 2 on a computer monitor may not show you all that much difference as would enlarging the images to say 16 x 20. You would have to go much larger to see a huge difference. However, schlepping around a FF body with a 500mm lens compared to your 4/3rds with a 300mm is a huge difference physically. If you are happy with what your are getting from you 4/3rds then, it ain't broke, don't fix it. (just my old fart humble opinion)

Ain't that the truth. As big as I blow up photo's is 12x24 and whatever the pixels are in my camera, it suits me just fine. For me to go to a FF camera would not be about being better but soothing my own ego!

 

[greybeard]

I have both a Nikon Z50 (crop frame) and a Z5 (full frame). The difference I see comes down to 1 stop. The FF has 1 stop shallower DoF with comparable FoV lenses than the crop. As an example, a 50mm FF lens has the same FoV as a 35mm crop lens. But the 50mm has 1 stop shallower DoF meaning with the 50mm set to f/2.8 the 35mm crop would have to be set to f/2.0 to have the same DoF. The other difference I have noticed has been with high ISO settings. The FF has about the same noise level at 6400 as the crop frame has at 3200. This ends up being a bigger difference when working in low light or in higher contrast shots where you need to recover shadow detail. But, with frames shot in good light and are well exposed I can't see much if any difference. So my kit these days consists of the Z5 with a 24-70 and the Z50 with a 50-250.

 

[greybeard]

Lately I've been shooting a Nikon D850 which is a FF with 45 mp. So this is a FF sensor with a lot of tiny pixels. As I mentioned earlier, I also have a Nikon Z50 which has roughly the same size pixels but with smaller crop frame sensor. I can set the D850 to Crop mode (19 mp) and the pictures from the 20mp Z50 and the 19mp D850 in crop mode look identical to me.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

I have both a Nikon Z50 (crop frame) and a Z5 (full frame). The difference I see comes down to 1 stop. . . .

The flip side can be thought of as "image quality / dollar". Because the cost of the Z5 and FF lens is significantly higher than the Z50 and APS-C lens, it might be true that, for example, a $3,000 kit for one might roughly equal a $3,000 kit for the other. The D850 might work out cheaper, but there is the question of how "future proof" it can be considered.

 

[greybeard]

The flip side can be thought of as "image quality / dollar". Because the cost of the Z5 and FF lens is significantly higher than the Z50 and APS-C lens, it might be true that, for example, a $3,000 kit for one might roughly equal a $3,000 kit for the other. The D850 might work out cheaper, but there is the question of how "future proof" it can be considered.

My shooting techniques started with a Minolta SRT 201 back in to 70s. The cameras I have are really all I will ever need for the rest of my days. I might buy a few more lenses but, that is about it.