Canon APS-C sensor size vs Nikon/Sony/Pentax

[paul_loader]

<p>I suspect this is a well-trodden subject so my apologies if I have failed to locate it in the archives.</p>

<p>Coming from Olympus 4/3 (it didn't float my boat in image quality the way I hoped) and preferring to avoid the size of FF 35mm DSLR bodies, I can feel myself settling on an EOS60D and good lenses. I'm taking my time and thinking through questions as they arise.</p>

<p>The 4/3 sensor of 17.3mm x 13mm = 225mm squared. The Canon APS-C sensor of 22.2mm x 14.8mm = 329mm. This is 1.46 x the area of the Olympus sensor and in its current 18mp resolution with good lenses appears to give me what I am looking for. At least, I spend as much time searching for galleries of results with the various brands to see what they are capable of and they give some fantastic heights to aim for.</p>

<p>I was surprised to find that the Nikon/Sony/Pentax sensor is 23.6mm x 15.7mm = 370mm squared. This is 1.64 x the area of the Olympus sensor. It is also 1.12 x the area of the Canon APS-C sensor. Does this give the Nikon/Pentax/Sony a noticeable advantage over the Canon sensors or is that cancelled out by other benefits of Canon know-how?</p>

<p>It makes sobering reading to see that FF 36mm x 24mm sensor size = 864mm squared. A persuasive argument for going full frame in terms of pure image quality. Unless the cropped sensors and lenses have reached the point where on-line viewing and printing below A3/A4 give us all that we need unless severely cropping. Amidst a limitless volume of this camera vs that camera I'd like to understand this basic area a bit better and have posted it in the Canon section rather than a general one as I'm leaning towards a Canon decision.</p>

<p>My use is only family and casual by the way, a bit of portraits, a little landscape, wildlife in the garden, nothing worth publishing, occasionally something makes its way onto the wall at home or elsewhere in the family, no bigger than A4 to date.</p>

<p>Thanks for reading.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The best idea is to forgeddaboutit. I know of no objective evidence that the slight difference between Nikon (so-called 1.5X) APS-C and Canon (1.6X) APS-C is significant in terms of image quality, etc. Lenses and software and many other differences are more important than 1 or 2 mm difference in size.</p>

<p>Either camera will serve you well, and I'd go ahead and get the 60D, if I were you. Later this spring, I'll probably be buying one for my daughter.</p>

<p>35mm sensors are nice in any number of ways, but there are advantages to the APS-C format, too. That's especially true if you get an APS-C ultra-wide like one of the 10-20mm or so lenses. One of those, a EF-S 15-85mm IS, and, eventually- depending on your needs- something in the longer telephoto zoom range and you're set up for pretty much everything. By the same token, the same advice applies to Nikon as well.</p>

<p>I'd start with the 15-85 or if that's too dear, a used EF-S 17-85mm IS. Alternatively, the kit 18-55mm IS is more than acceptable, and a real bargain.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>"A persuasive argument for going full frame in terms of pure image quality."</p>

<p>I know this is a common way of thinking, but it has to be put into perspective. It's the same argument that used to lead photo magazine-reading "enthusiasts" into medium format, and then into large format. But it was at much greater cost than 35mm, and without the specific advantages of the 35mm cameras they started out with. There is always more "image quality" to be had somehow. At what point do you think you will have enough of it for practical purposes?</p>

<p>I was one of those people, by the way. I eventually became happy with "just" 35mm once again, and I'm currently happy with just a DX Nikon, because it's a good blend of affordability and portability. I'm not sure at this point I even needed DSLR-quality. The little quality Canon compact I had last year served me very well. I wish I still had it. I very much doubt there is any practical difference between the Canon crop DSLRs and the others just because of slight differences in size.</p>

<p>Full-frame digital is the functional equivalent of film medium format, not film 35mm. If that were not the case, wedding pros would still be using actual medium format cameras.</p>

[borisuk]

<p>You will not see huge difference between olympus and cannon image quality for what you do. I use both sistems. The only difference is high ISOs. BTW Olympus glass is very good.<br>

Boris</p>

[bueh]

<p>The size difference between the 60D and the 5D's is not so big... almost negletable. And since you can use small primes better with the full-frame camera, you might even save weight and size. Check them out in real life, maybe you will like the noticeably smaller Rebels better.</p>

[paul_loader]

<p>Thanks, I appreciate the replies. My Olympus kit is the E510 and 14-42mm and 150mm lenses. It just hasn't satisfied me with the quality of results the way my Nikon film cameras and primes did. I bought a 50mm 1.8 Oly lens specifically to take tripod shots and see how it compared with the kit zooms. I also thought about the 12-60 and other 4/3 lenses as one inevitably does. The size (and price) goes up rather steeply.</p>

<p>I have handled everything in the stores from Nex, u4/3, various EOS, various Nikon incl D7000, K5 etc. I use a Samsung WB2000 (for point and shoot) and whenever I leave a store it's the EOS60D I want to go back in for. If I do go for one I plan on the 17-55mm f2.8 IS and 70-200 f4 L IS or a third party equivalent if they are as good for less money. I realise from my film days the importance of good lenses but it also seems sensors have moved on a bit since I bought the E510. Hence starting again without deep ties in a particular system at present.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Then buy it. As always, an outstanding lens is going to things for you that the best sensors can't, I chose Canon originally because of the world class lenses available. I have yet to regret that choice. Also, those lenses are going to last longer than any of these bodies. My 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 and 50/1.4 have been through ten+ camera bodies, and all 3 are still going strong, still producing world class images. </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>any of today's APS-C digital SLRs will yield amazing results capable of large prints, and most times they will be indistinguishable from FF. The main noticeable difference between APS-C and FF would be the amount of bokeh on portrait shots. Since the larger sensor records the areas of the image farther from the center, it creates more bokeh, but if you know what you're doing and can manipulate the camera to subject and subject to background distances, then you can achieve nearly the same results on APS-C. I think the APS-C 60D would completely satisy your needs. The extra money for a FF camera is rarely justified, unless you are a photographer that specifically needs a FF sensor for most of your shots, which is the minority.</p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>Let's get to brass tacks: To you have the dough for Full Frame?</p>

<p>A 5D will set you back $2500. And you <em>need</em> $1000 worth of lenses for either beast. Before you answer: Remember: Camera Bodies are now consumer electronics. Figure replacement in 3-5 years <em>max</em>.</p>

<p>If you have the coin. . by the 5D. You also need lenses. Start with the 24-105/4L, and plan to expand from there.</p>

<p>If you <em>don't</em> have the coin: Buy APS-C and be happy. Select a Rebel, the 50D, or 60D purely on ergonomics (which one feels better in your hand?). They ALL take great pictures. At a high level. . they are the same. The 7D (for $1500) adds a notably better AF system. . but that is the ONLY reason to really step up to that camera (mind you. . it's a good reason. . .but still).</p>

<p>With the APS-C cameras, the lens choices are a bit more perplexing because you have this whole "EF-S digital only thing". My first blush recommendation is to buy the same 24-105/4L <em>and</em> a 10-22 EF-s for this body. . and go from there.<br>

Note: Yes, I recommend the 24-105/4L for both FF and digital. Good glass lasts longer than digital bodies. I am still using a 50/1.8 I bought in 1995. I still have a 28-105 that I bought in 1992 that still works well (but has been replaced twice over by superior glass).</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Figure replacement in 3-5 years <em>max</em>.<br>

Good glass lasts longer than digital bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you people will stop insisting on the short life of digital bodies, then I will be able to stop posting the easily verifiable fact that old, used, dSLRs have maintained their resale value (check "completed listings" on eBay for everything except collector models) far better than is the current case for film cameras.<br>

Old digital cameras do not wear out -- not, that is, except for the parts that are still mechanical, like the shutter and mirror mechanism, and those don't wear out in 3-5 years unless you are pushing some astronomical number of shots through the camera.<br>

Why people replace the dSLRs frequently is not because the cameras are worn out, but because of the psychological urge to have the latest whiz-bang technology.</p>

<p>I think that the actual "<em>need</em>" to get more pixels actually topped out somewhere in the Canon line between the 20D~30D and the 40D. Few people really <em>need</em> more than 8MPix (as Nikon, for one, continues to insist with their digital lineup).</p>

<p>I will acknowledge that lenses may "last" longer in some abstract sense. I'm still using my PC-Nikkor 35mm perspective-control lens on my Canon EOS bodies, after all. But those people who do not need a new car every three years, will also find that their recent model dSLR will continue to work for long enough that the difference in "durability" is not really something to worry about.<br>

You may <em>need</em> to have the latest, if you must shoot at ISO 25,000, and so on. But most of us can limp along even with a noisy ISO 3200 when we need it.</p>

 

[dogbert]

<p>I think you will be very happy with the 60D. I just picked one up having upgraded from a 450D and also owning a 5D classic. The 60D interface is pretty good. Canon seem to have everything well sorted.<br>

I think it is also nice that it is slightly smaller than the 50D and 40D predecessors, while still feeling good in the hand. However, I would have preferred a magnesium alloy than plastic shell but that is largely for the fondle factor.<br>

Image quality is fantastic and will easily produce a stunning print at 13x19 or larger.<br>

I second Jims suggestion of a EF 24-105 f4L and EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 wide angle. This is a high quality two lens combo that will see you coverred for most of the shooting you describe. You will need a 430 EX flash as well.</p>