chipmaster

Oh no, an equivalence discussion, LOL

wco81

What kind of pictures do you mostly take?

Of course FF is great for landscapes but you get heavier gear to carry around.

If you go FF, I would go with the walking around lens first. In a pinch, you can shoot handheld panoramas to stitch up later.

I have a 20 mm 1.8 lens for my Nikon D750 but I rarely swap. I just shoot panoramas to stitch up in Light Room.

ChiefNWA

Mostly just walk around, but I focus on landscape when traveling too. I think the 6D w/24-105 would work for me as that's basically the equivalent of my current setup in FF form. The XT-20 w/16-35 would also be decent, though I'd lost the reach on the long end and battery life.

nkedel

Almost everything you wrote there is incorrect.

All other things being equal, a lager photosensor size per pixel will mean less noise, which is a MAJOR advantage of full-frame cameras of a given generation. For a 24MP camera (which makes the math easy - roughly 6000x4000) a full frame 35mm camera is about 166 sensors per mm or about 6 microns per sensor. For Canon APS-C, that's about 270 sensors per mm, or just a bit under 4 microns per sensor. Given that it's area, and assuming perfectly square sensors (microlenses usually aren't) we get about 36 square microns per full frame pixel, and about 13 per APS-C pixel. That's a lot more light [edit: in case it wasn't clear [i]for the full frame pixel], and that makes it easier to produce a sensor with a given sensitivity and less noise.

Larger physical aperture doesn't make any difference in the light-gathering capacity on its own; an F/1.4 lens produces the same amount of light on any area of sensor it sends light to regardless of the image circle. A larger physical aperture at the same f-number implies a longer focal length, which will have a higher magnification at any given image circle size.

As for lens availability, a smaller image sensor means you can get away with a smaller image circle, which makes lenses cheaper (all other things being equal) but also makes it harder to do a really wide-angle lens.

richarddd

Larger pixels means less noise per pixel, not less noise per picture.

Of course a larger physical aperture transmits more total light than a smaller physical aperture. Total light is what matters for noise, not light per unit area. Whether or not two lenses have the same f number is not the issue. Depth of field, perspective and total light are the issue.

At least we agree about larger sensor sizes and wider angle lenses.

Essentially, FF allows for a lenses that provide a shallower depth of field and more light one the sensor at a given perspective and depth of field. That's their real advantage.

See https://www.dpreview.com/articles/26...-should-i-care and Equivalence

nkedel

The article you quote breaks down two sources of image noise, and depending on what you're looking at it may be correct. It's still relevant only to the light on the area of the image sensor itself, and determined by the F-number -- itself literally the ratio of the physical aperture size to the focal length.

The only way you get more total light without more light per unit area is to increase the size of the image circle, and any of the image circle that's off the sensor is wasted. You can demonstrate this quite nicely if you have a full frame camera and a third-party "digital optimized" lens with a smaller image circle.

The unit area of light that matters for amplification/electronic noise is a single photosensor. As the article itself says, the kind of high-ISO/low light noise that most people are concerned with is relative to unit area -- either through a lower resolution or larger sensor. More light on any given point where you want exposure means less amplification of the signal, and less opportunity for noise. It's (roughly) the same reason why there was more grain on higher ISO films, and why at the same ISO and film technology, medium or large format had less grain.

(The other issue is that if you go back far enough, microlenses took up a great deal less of the effective pixel area, and the generation when that was fixed was a pretty big bump in effective high-ISO image quality as a result. With Canon, that was around 2009 with the 50D and related generation of sensors.)

The article raises the separate issue of optical noise, which may very well also be true -- although until you are dealing with super-high resolutions or very large prints, that's not going to make your pictures look muddy.

Depth of field is a derived characteristic of focal distance, focal length, and aperture size. I don't see how focal distance has anything to do with noise, except insofar as some lenses are more prone to vignetting at some focal distances.

You're correct but missing something there: "FF allows for lenses that provide a shallower depth of field at a given magnification and f-number because the focal length needed to get that magnification is larger."

Your second link agrees with that point; if so, it's something that either was incorrectly taught when I doing multimedia systems in grad school (2004) or which I misunderstood then. Also note the distinction between optical noise and read noise which even that article concedes at high ISOs tends to be the main factor, and more closely matches the discussion of noise in image sensor systems I learned in grad school.

Most people are going to be concerned with the read (or as I'd learned it, amplification) noise when shooting at or near the limits of the camera in low light, and rarely is that going to involve the kind of very long exposures where optical noise will be the issue.

Sunny 1

docbert

https://www.sony.com/electronics/cyb...as/dsc-rx100m6

Just sayin'...

wco81

UA_Flyer

I have owned the RX100 since the original I, and also have purchased II, III and IV. They are fantastic compact cameras, and should not be viewed as the typical consumer compact cameras. The images are of professional quality. I do understand the price may turn people off. It is not cheap and it is not for everyone's budget. I have not heard anyone regret buying it.

The VI comes with the long over due 24-200mm.....very tempting for me...

svo242

Thanks for sharing this. I'm still holding onto my original RX100, but this newest model is tempting. Viewfinder, more zoom, and a touchscreen are all welcome changes from my original model.

But on my most recent vacation, I found myself picking up my iPhone more than the RX100 or my DSLR. It's just so easy, and the photos, in some instances, looked better than the out-of-camera photos from the Sony. Between portrait mode and a vastly improved dynamic range on the 8 plus, it's hard to justify spending so much on another compact.

CMK10

Recently upgraded to a Canon SX720 HS. I really like the Canon point and shoots and this one has a 40X zoom which will come in handy.

WilcoRoger

So the earlier models' prices will keep dropping. I bought the mk3 in March for 420€ and am very happy with it. I don't see any justificaton to invest triple the amount. And when I feel the mk3 is not adequate, I still have the Nikon D7000 with fast prime glasses

MrTemporal

I have the RX100 III which I bought at a discount after the model IV came out.

I would love to use my DSLR all the time, but the weight and bulk of the thing get in my way when traveling and/or when I am on foot for a large part of the day.

I find if I treat the RX100 like a 'pro' camera I get great photos with it and can easily make a quality 16x20 with some cropping. Sure, a full frame Canon DSLR would give better results but only if I was willing to lug it around. By treating it like a 'pro' camera I mean I hold it steady, often bracing myself against a nearby sturdy object, I choose my aperture and shutter speed, I watch the focus and I have even been known to try and shade the lens. You won't see me doing what a friend calls the the one handed 'shake and shutter' routine as I take photos, unless there is no other way to get the shot.

The 'pro' in 'pro' is more in how the photographer uses his/her tools than in the gear.

jacknyoc

Agree, the VI looks tempting. The zoom lens is a big deal...and for me the new sensor and processor I've read about that promises better color saturation. That was a key reason I bailed on my MkII and went to Canon (G7X). We'll see if the promise is fulfilled.