Crop Sensor V Full Frame

Ed T

Ed T

Suspended / Banned
Messages
83
Name
Ed
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm think about upgrading my Canon 40D mainly for better ISO performance but also trying to get better image quality.

Looking through some photography forums and I see some amazingly clear and sharp images although they all seem to be taken with FF bodies.

Does a FF sensor clean up the image any compared to that of a crop frame ?

I have tried various forms of sharpening etc in PP but never seem to quite get what I want.

Someone I met briefly at a photography club had upgraded to FF and one comment he made was the images seemed clearer.

Any advice greatly recieved.
 
FF is a better iso performer and noise levels across all iso's is much lower. What you got to remember though is the glass. Most people shooting with FF are using pro glass too which is probably the biggest factor in a clearer images as you describe it.
 
rjbell said:
Most people shooting with FF are using pro glass too which is probably the biggest factor in a clearer images as you describe it.
Click to expand...

This - it's about the lenses and the knowledge of the photographer.
 
Thanks Guys.

Sorry I should have mentioned I'm not using cheap lenses. Have always bought the best that I can afford and use the Canon "L" series. Seen a big improvement but can't afford like £5k etc on a lens. Certainly don't put cheap and crappy UV filters in front of good glass.

Happy also with knowledge level, (I don't know everything but certainly understand DOF, exposure, lens sweet spots etc).

I'm not chasing a massive improvement, but feel there is a little more to gain.
 
Ed T said:
Thanks Guys.

Sorry I should have mentioned I'm not using cheap lenses. Have always bought the best that I can afford and use the Canon "L" series. Seen a big improvement but can't afford like £5k etc on a lens. Certainly don't put cheap and crappy UV filters in front of good glass.

Happy also with knowledge level, (I don't know everything but certainly understand DOF, exposure, lens sweet spots etc).

I'm not chasing a massive improvement, but feel there is a little more to gain.
Click to expand...
Yeah go for it then!
 
That and the same lenses have to work less hard to get the image onto a larger sensor. Assuming two lenses - say a 50mm and 80mm, (to get the same field of view) with exactly the same optical performance, the one taken on the full frame (i.e. the one at 80mm) will be sharper simply because you don't need to render the image as small on the sensor so you are not pushing the lens as much.

Some of the newer format lenses (the pro spec micro 4/3 and the better micro 4/3 primes) can resolve significantly more than the pro-spec full frames and end up producing comparable sharpness to full frame on smaller (m4/3) sensors.
 
Also dont forget most people will process their images before uploading, and at web size most things are going to look sharp anyway.

Saying that, i was comparing my 30D, 40D, 60D and 5DMKIII raw shots last weekend, all with Canon 24-105 lenses (ive had 3 in total) in Lightroom and there seems to be a definite improvement with the 5D shots. Although none were controlled shots, pixel peeping at 100% showed so much more detail in the 5D, then 60D. The 30D i thought looked better than the 40D but i only had a few shots with the 30D.
 
Ed T said:
I'm think about upgrading my Canon 40D mainly for better ISO performance but also trying to get better image quality.

Looking through some photography forums and I see some amazingly clear and sharp images although they all seem to be taken with FF bodies.

Does a FF sensor clean up the image any compared to that of a crop frame ?

I have tried various forms of sharpening etc in PP but never seem to quite get what I want.

Someone I met briefly at a photography club had upgraded to FF and one comment he made was the images seemed clearer.

Any advice greatly recieved.
Click to expand...

In terms of noise, the answer is easy. All things being equal, a 1.6x crop format sensor is 2.56x smaller than full frame (crop-factor squared). So it collects a bit less than half the much light, meaning that it should have at least one stop more noise. Eg, ISO800 should have about the same amount of noise on FF as ISO400 on crop format.

There's more though, as because the FF image doesn't need to be enlarged so much, the noise is also less noticeable. And on top of that, as Andy mentioned, the larger sensor doesn't work the lens so hard for a given level of resolution and that means contrast goes up.

The end result with FF is significantly better ISO performance, cleaner images with more dynamc range and more shadow detail, plus higher sharpness.
 
I see a massive difference between noise levels on my 5D3 and 7D. I can shoot at 12,800 with the 5D3 and still get a very clean image whereas with my 7D the noise starts getting noticeable at 800 - 1600. I try to keep to 400 or under on my 7D while I have the auto ISO limited at 12,800 on the 5D3 when I'm not in manual.

Most of my day to day shots are done as jpegs and I swap my lenses from one to the other on a regular basis and the output from my 5D3 is excellent. The 7D does take an excellent photo too, it just needs a bit more time to get it right.
 
Wow guys thanks for you responses.

This is something that has been knocking around my head for quite a while, so I think I'll start saving my pennies and see what I can get next year.

Thanks for all the great advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top