Beginner crop or full-frame

M

m!ckey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
39
Name
mike
Edit My Images
No
Hi, I need some solid advice as to which type of camera would suit me best for my type of usage, i mainly shoot pics of my grandkids, both portraits and at play, i have also dabbled in macro (and enjoy the challenge).and am hoping to go to some motor racing events this year.
I am without a camera atm but have owned everything from a olympus om-2n to a canon 5d mk3, i have been a canon guy since my canon T80 (lol), with one minor excursion to the darkside:-) with a nikon d7000, but I am finding myself being drawn towards the d750 or d810. so my main question
which would be more suited to my needs. Be gentle with me. Mike
 
I reckon the D750 would do al, you want and more if you decided to go FF rather than crop. The 8#0s are great cameras but to get the best out of them, you'll need the best lenses which don't come cheap! The D750 is more forgiving of "lesser" lenses and still capable of great results at A3+ print size (19" x 13") with a little cropping.
 
While the full frame cameras are wonderful, for usage you have just described a bunch of stuff that would suit a crop sensor camera with good auto focus perfectly.

Being a Canon guy, I'd say that's 7Dii or 80D territory. Not sure what the Nikon equivalent is.
 
It's simply down to how much you want to spend. If you actively want to spend more then go full frame - the bodies are more expensive and the lenses are, on average, more expensive and are considerably heavier. Yes, they do have some benefits over crop (they'll go wider and are better in low light) but that's it.

If you want to be able to buy a full system for under a grand which will comfortably exceed most peoples' capabilities as photographers then APS-C aka crop sensor is enough and will weigh less.

Check out what autofocus systems you like and are fast enough for RMCs (rapidly moving children) and have a play with a few different brands & models.
 
thanks for the all the reply,s, concensus seems that a crop sensor looks the way to go, So will probably go with another 7d mkii with an EF100mm 2.8L macro just to get me on the right path, one question though, will the 7d2 sensor be able to get the best out of that lens?, because of the crop-factor will it essentially become just a macro because 160mm is too long for portraits. although knowing my muddled brain:-) I may have to purchase a D750 just to get it out of my system and not have the "But what if" feeling. cheers Mike
 
m!ckey said:
thanks for the all the reply,s, concensus seems that a crop sensor looks the way to go, So will probably go with another 7d mkii with an EF100mm 2.8L macro just to get me on the right path, one question though, will the 7d2 sensor be able to get the best out of that lens?, because of the crop-factor will it essentially become just a macro because 160mm is too long for portraits. although knowing my muddled brain:) I may have to purchase a D750 just to get it out of my system and not have the "But what if" feeling. cheers Mike
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain I wouldn't be able to get close to getting the best out of that lens (or most others) - no matter what sensor it is allied to. It's very easy to jump on the sharpness bandwagon because of stats but producing a good picture is about far, far more than sharpness.

As for the "but what if" feeling... get used to it - it's what powers Gear Acquisition Syndrome for all of us! Resistance is futile :)
 
If you have the "what if" feeling and if you have the money spare then it's an itch you should probably scratch :)

However, trying to convince people who don't have the money that FF is the only thing a 'real' photographer should be using is sadistic and not a nice thing to do.
 
Last edited:
i was in no way implying I was talented enough to get the best out of it either:), was just curious as to whether a crop sensor though filled easier with a subject, or a ff sensor though subject may not fill the whole frame but with larger pixels that I could crop and maybe get a better sharper image. (asuming i get my contribution correct. Mike

Ps: i know i mentioned sharpness again , but it is one of my pet hates, actually more to do with oof pics
 
Last edited:
The 100mm macro would be fine for headshot portraits or pictures out in the park where your working distance is a bit greater. But I'd recommend picking up either a 50mm or one of the 17-50 F2.8 lenses for your more casual stuff.

I have a 5D3 and a 7D2. For Macro I would much prefer using the 7D2 as my working distance is greater for the same magnification. This in turn gives me more depth of field than full frame for the same magnification. Sure, I can crop a full frame image down to crop size and get the same magnification, but I'd rather have all my pixels on target than throw a bunch away by cropping.

Now, if you want a D750 then go any buy one, but do it informed that it would not be the logical choice :D
 
m!ckey said:
i was in no way implying I was talented enough to get the best out of it either:), was just curious as to whether a crop sensor though filled easier with a subject, or a ff sensor though subject may not fill the whole frame but with larger pixels that I could crop and maybe get a better sharper image. (asuming i get my contribution correct. Mike

Ps: i know i mentioned sharpness again , but it is one of my pet hates, actually more to do with oof pics
Click to expand...

OOF pictures are completely different from sharpness. Sharpness is about a lens being able to resolve pixel-level detail accurately. "Blurry" may mean out of focus (focus missed), camera shake, subject movement, depth of field too narrow or any combination. Fixing the latter is all about better technique which costs nothing except time. Out of focus can simply be a focusing error by the user, inappropriate use of autofocus (where the camera mis-selects the focus target) or a poorly adjusted lens. Again, fixing these costs nothing.

Hope that helps!
 
I recently took some 3/4 portraits with a 50D and 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro. Turned out very well, client was well happy. Did need a fair bit of room to do the job though, but fortunately not a problem at the time. I took some other shots with an EF-s 15-85mm, but they were not as good as those taken with the 100mm.

The 50D has since died (shutter failure) and been replaced with a 7DII. I like it a lot though have not taken anything stellar with it yet, but that's just me. It doesn't seem to have any focus issues, so I'm happy.

From what you've posted already, it seems you've already owned 7DIi and 5DIII. You're probably in a better position than most to decide what you liked/disliked about those. What do you expect to get from Nikon that you didn't get from Canon?
 
thanks again guys, all solid info and advice, leading me to definately go with a crop body, now just got to decide between the 7dII or the 80D , my thinking being the articulated screen could make macro a bit easier with checking focus, etc. Cheers Mike
 
I would say unless you have need for the speed and outdoor durability of the 7DII the 80D looks like an absolutely cracking camera.
 
well gone and done it now, will give it a whirl and see how it performs, must keep an open mind, ive never heard of a d750:banghead:



can.JPG
 
•


I'm too late as I read…
but my vote would have been for FF.
 
I had Sony full frame A7 and to be honest i downgrade to CROP ,and i am happy more than ever.
Beeing not a proffessional it is not good idea to spend 1000euro for each lens for FF.
Now i use 2 cameras that are good Crop for booth worlds, and they in my opinion are the best chioce.
Nikon d7100 and Canon 70d. This Canon is the best for video, having great autofocus so i can shoot video with no help from other people.
Nikon 7100 i keep for photos and it is a GOLD. I made great HDR with this camera and enjoy it .
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•


I'm too late as I read…
but my vote would have been for FF.
Click to expand...
I'd go for FF too. If you like portraits the shallower DOF can be a bonus (not going to get into the whole discussion of subject distance and perspective etc) and also if you're shooting indoors without a flash the better ISO/noise handling is another bonus. The D750 is probably the best all rounder at the moment at the moment, has one of the best grips for comfort (YMMV) and isn't really much heavier than a high end crop body, and is noticeably lighter than other FF bodies such as the D810 and 5DIII.
 
For your purposes I think it would have been hard to justify full frame. Yes you would have been able to achieve a shallower depth of field with the right lenses and low light performance is better but the costs are far too high unless you have money to burn. You can get great results with a crop sensor camera and dx lenses if you know how to use the kit
 
Scirocco_09 said:
For your purposes I think it would have been hard to justify full frame. Yes you would have been able to achieve a shallower depth of field with the right lenses and low light performance is better but the costs are far too high unless you have money to burn. You can get great results with a crop sensor camera and dx lenses if you know how to use the kit
Click to expand...
Is there a particular reason for this? He wants to shoot his kids, portraits, sports and macro.
 
snerkler said:
Is there a particular reason for this? He wants to shoot his kids, portraits, sports and macro.
Click to expand...

Without wanting to speak for Scirocco, my thinking was... if someone needs to ask which is more suited then they're probably better off (in terms of ROI) getting a crop sensor. Unless money is absolutely no object, in which case they won't ask - they'll just go out and buy a D5 or 1Dx2. Or MF or whatever!

I know I don't need FF, but it didn't stop me succumbing to the craving :) My more comprehensive advice to someone who's asking because they're not sure which is better would be: buy the body you can justify but buy the best lenses you can afford (and can carry!)
 
pjm1 said:
Without wanting to speak for Scirocco, my thinking was... if someone needs to ask which is more suited then they're probably better off (in terms of ROI) getting a crop sensor. Unless money is absolutely no object, in which case they won't ask - they'll just go out and buy a D5 or 1Dx2. Or MF or whatever!

I know I don't need FF, but it didn't stop me succumbing to the craving :) My more comprehensive advice to someone who's asking because they're not sure which is better would be: buy the body you can justify but buy the best lenses you can afford (and can carry!)
Click to expand...
OK, I get where you're coming from. I don't agree, but I get it :p ;)

But that wasn't my point really. Scirocco said for the OP's purposes FF is hard to justify, which by my interpretation suggests that crop is better for those purposes which I don't agree is the case :p

I also don't necessarily agree that going crop is better for someone on a budget, if they have the desire for FF. In these situations we see it all too often where they will buy crop but still want FF and eventually swap over and as a result cost even more money. If people think they'll always have the 'craving' for FF there are cheap ways to do it these days that will save money in the long run. For example you can pick up decent D700's for around £450. Add a 50mm f1.8G for under £100, and a Nikon 70-300mm VR for around £250 and you've got a pro level camera with 2 lenses catering for sports, portraits and kids for less than the price of a 7D mark II. You could probably pick up the older sigma 105mm f2.8 macro for under £200 meaning that you could add this to the arsenal to cover macro and portraits which would then take you up to the price of a new 7D2.

I'm not necessarily saying this is right for the OP, and the reach of the crop body might be important depending on the sports they shoot, but it's just an example that FF doesn't have to cost the earth (y)
 
m!ckey said:
i mainly shoot pics of my grandkids, both portraits and at play,
Click to expand...

Fast and unpredictable, I'd be focusing on (excuse the pun) the camera af system and lens af speeds first then I'd look at the other stuff. :)
 
snerkler said:
Is there a particular reason for this? He wants to shoot his kids, portraits, sports and macro.
Click to expand...

PJM said it really, full frame is nice but unless you absolutely need pro level performance is it necessary for what the OP is using it for? The D810 is best suited to landscape really, a superb camera but very bulky and heavy when not bolted to a tripod. The D750 makes more sense and is what I'm using now, it offers better low light performance than the D810 and is great to walk around with, but the best lenses are still very expensive. DX is just more affordable and for most people it satisfies all round photography, and for motor racing it might also be quite nice to have the longer reach a crop sensor camera will give
 
Scirocco_09 said:
PJM said it really, full frame is nice but unless you absolutely need pro level performance is it necessary for what the OP is using it for? The D810 is best suited to landscape really, a superb camera but very bulky and heavy when not bolted to a tripod. The D750 makes more sense and is what I'm using now, it offers better low light performance than the D810 and is great to walk around with, but the best lenses are still very expensive. DX is just more affordable and for most people it satisfies all round photography, and for motor racing it might also be quite nice to have the longer reach a crop sensor camera will give
Click to expand...
I guess we all have our own opinion on this, but you don't have to want/need pro level performance to have a preference for full frame. I get that FF glass is generally more expensive like for like, but as I've shown it doesn't have to be.

As I said though, it's not right for everyone. Just showing that FF doesn't have to be mega expensive, and that crops aren't necessarily better all rounders (y)
 
snerkler said:
I guess we all have our own opinion on this, but you don't have to want/need pro level performance to have a preference for full frame. I get that FF glass is generally more expensive like for like, but as I've shown it doesn't have to be.

As I said though, it's not right for everyone. Just showing that FF doesn't have to be mega expensive, and that crops aren't necessarily better all rounders (y)
Click to expand...

I think we're all in danger of presuming too much about what the OP actually wants out of his camera system - me included. We don't know what's important. It's the context that the photography has to fit into (not just budget, but the rest of "life") - is carting around heavier gear an issue or not? Is ultimately picture quality essential because the OP will enjoy pixel-peeping? Are facebook likes more important? Does the OP want to shoot RAW or stick with JPEG because it's quicker and hassle free?

A crop camera, for an average consumer user will get 99%* of the photo that a fixed frame camera will get. However, it will cost more as a system (or be very old tech and lacking in more up-to-date features) and it will definitely 100% guaranteed be heavier and more voluminous unless it's mirrorless. But even then, the glass will still be heavier than the DX equivalent. It may well be those last points - size and weight - are far more critical to the average consumer than they are to us, and may be more relevant than budget.

My view is still that based on Return on Investment (covering financial, "effort" and practicality) a crop camera is still an optimal camera for far more people than a FF frame is. And it is likely to be the optimal camera for the vast majority of people who need to ask. There will always be exceptions (such as me - who started off with crop and has since upgraded to FF) but if we're honest, we're in the massive minority!


* meaningless made-up stat
 
well all,s well that ends well:) , I have tried the 80d out with the 100mm macro, and I do like it, build is`nt up to 7d/5d standards but im not worried its gonna fall apart, images are quite good, the articulated screen is definately a useful thing and surprisingly the touch screen makes things a bit easier, touch where you want to focus and its done, will post some proper pics when i`ve found the time to take some. and as for the crop or full frame, i almost certainly will get a FF body as well, though obviously this can be whenever, certainly after the 5dmkIV shows up and should bring the 5dmk3 price down . The inteligent thing to do would be to forget the nikons and buy a canon FF , so as long as I just buy ef lenses both cameras would benefit. but will cross that bridge when i come to it, will probably build up some decent lenses first. cheers Mike

2 quick pics, no prizes for guessing what the second one is;)

80d1.JPG 80d2.jpg
 
pjm1 said:
I think we're all in danger of presuming too much about what the OP actually wants out of his camera system - me included. We don't know what's important. It's the context that the photography has to fit into (not just budget, but the rest of "life") - is carting around heavier gear an issue or not? Is ultimately picture quality essential because the OP will enjoy pixel-peeping? Are facebook likes more important? Does the OP want to shoot RAW or stick with JPEG because it's quicker and hassle free?

A crop camera, for an average consumer user will get 99%* of the photo that a fixed frame camera will get. However, it will cost more as a system (or be very old tech and lacking in more up-to-date features) and it will definitely 100% guaranteed be heavier and more voluminous unless it's mirrorless. But even then, the glass will still be heavier than the DX equivalent. It may well be those last points - size and weight - are far more critical to the average consumer than they are to us, and may be more relevant than budget.

My view is still that based on Return on Investment (covering financial, "effort" and practicality) a crop camera is still an optimal camera for far more people than a FF frame is. And it is likely to be the optimal camera for the vast majority of people who need to ask. There will always be exceptions (such as me - who started off with crop and has since upgraded to FF) but if we're honest, we're in the massive minority!


* meaningless made-up stat
Click to expand...
TBH I think FF are becoming more and more popular as prices are getting ever closer to the enthusiast market.
 
Nawty said:
We know what he wants, he wants full frame.

What he needs is an entirely different matter but that doesn't stop ALL of us owning kit that is better than we need.
Click to expand...
Lol, too true.

This was kind of my point, when people question whether they should get crop or FF then 99% of the time they really want FF and just need to have some justification to do it. I've seen many times where the heart wants FF but their head makes them buy crop, only for the heart to win out several months later. IMO life's too short, get what you want (without getting yourself into debt) and go enjoy it.

I'm a prime example, folk kept talking me out of FF saying I don't need it, I won't see any difference in my images etc etc. 3 cameras and several lenses later I took the plunge into FF and never looked back, although curse at the money I've 'wasted' :facepalm:
 
If I were mainly shooting people or landscapes or low light, then I would most likely have gone over to FF some time ago. As it is, for Motorsport and wildlife which are my main interests, the crop bodies I've had have met my needs well. And so far I'm very much enjoying my 7DII. Not found anything to complain about yet.
 
GeeJay57 said:
If I were mainly shooting people or landscapes or low light, then I would most likely have gone over to FF some time ago. As it is, for Motorsport and wildlife which are my main interests, the crop bodies I've had have met my needs well. And so far I'm very much enjoying my 7DII. Not found anything to complain about yet.
Click to expand...
And that's exactly why you need to know your needs before deciding (y)
 
snerkler said:
Lol, too true.

This was kind of my point, when people question whether they should get crop or FF then 99% of the time they really want FF and just need to have some justification to do it. I've seen many times where the heart wants FF but their head makes them buy crop, only for the heart to win out several months later. IMO life's too short, get what you want (without getting yourself into debt) and go enjoy it.

I'm a prime example, folk kept talking me out of FF saying I don't need it, I won't see any difference in my images etc etc. 3 cameras and several lenses later I took the plunge into FF and never looked back, although curse at the money I've 'wasted' :facepalm:
Click to expand...

I think we're now all in agreement then... head vs heart - we know what will win in the end :)

And snerkler, that money wasted is really just you building up your financial tolerance before having to bear the cost of full frame lenses :) I now think £200-300 for a prime is acceptable, having slowly built myself up from spending sub £100 on second hand primes. If I'd gone straight to full frame, I'd either be shooting with kit glass or have just one lens - being "afraid" of spending so much on proper quality lenses.

Sometimes we just have to make our own mistakes rather than accept the wisdom of those with greater experience.
 
pjm1 said:
.... money wasted is really just you building up your financial tolerance before having to bear the cost of....
Click to expand...

I was using my 7DII + 15-85mm yesterday to gather a few informal snaps at golfing function (that I also played in, no fees for photography, just casual shots for friends).
One of the guys said, "that looks like an expensive camera".
So I said, "Yes and no. The body was about a grand and the lens about £450. That's not so much in the grand scheme of things".
He said, "I don't see paying that for a ****ing camera! My phone takes pictures that are plenty good enough."
I said, "Hmm, but it's OK for you to spend a couple of grand on the Omega on your wrist then?"
 
Last edited:
GeeJay57 said:
I was using my 7DII + 15-85mm yesterday to gather a few informal snaps at golfing function (that I also played in, no fees for photography, just casual shots for friends).
One of the guys said, "that looks like an expensive camera".
So I said, "Yes and no. The body was about a grand and the lens about £450. That's not so much in the grand scheme of things".
He said, "I don't see paying that for a ****ing camera! My phone takes pictures that are plenty good enough."
I said, "Hmm, but it's OK for you to spend a couple of grand on the Omega on your wrist then?"
Click to expand...

Indeed - we all have different views on utility and value. For many of us, this is simply a hobby so has to compete with other drains disposable income and becomes far more about what we WANT to spend our money on. For those where it represents their income/business it's a completely different thing - more along the lines what they NEED to spend their money on and what is going to deliver the better ROI.

It sounds like the OP is sorted which means we're going to have to go back to pining after more gear that we don't actually need but very much want :)
 
sorry to have caused you all so much anguish;) . as i said, i will be keeping the crop for sports, the grandkids and macro, and a FF body will come later , after i have built up a few lenses like maybe a 70-200 2.8 mkii , a top 50mm and a decent wide angle all will be L lenses or equivalent even though for now they will be on the 80d. thanks again have a :beer: on me. cheers Mike
 
The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art gets a lot of good crit, perhaps even over the f/1.2L version?
 
It's not just down to how much you want to spend. Ff will give you huge file sizes. Your monitor is probably only about 5 megapixels and you only need 7.2 for an 8x10 size print at 300dpi. Having imported bunches of 30MP+ photos, I know what a pain they are to store and move around. Before you know it your drives will be full, your computer - too slow, and all will need upgrading. Uness you need to print posters and banners cropped sensor is the way to go, in my opinion.
 
BunnyPics said:
It's not just down to how much you want to spend. Ff will give you huge file sizes. Your monitor is probably only about 5 megapixels and you only need 7.2 for an 8x10 size print at 300dpi. Having imported bunches of 30MP+ photos, I know what a pain they are to store and move around. Before you know it your drives will be full, your computer - too slow, and all will need upgrading. Uness you need to print posters and banners cropped sensor is the way to go, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true as file size has a lot to do with resolution too, for example file sizes on the D700 (12MP) I mentioned are 'only' around 25mb for 14 bit RAW, which is smaller than the Sony A77 (24MP) I used to have which is crop sensor. Also, as far as printing goes it's mainly resolution that counts and not whether the camera is FF, crop, M4/3 etc.

External storage is cheap and so it's easy to move all your non-working RAW files to the external drive to keep your main drive free. The only issue with large high res files such as those with the Nikon D810 and Canon 5DSR is that it takes longer for programs such as photoshop and lightroom to process and so can slow down your workflow a touch here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top