Crop vs Full Frame

GeeJay57 said:
I don't think anyone is making a full-plate digital back.... ;)
Click to expand...
•


…and that would be how many MP for my
4x5 P2 that I would like to use?

And considering the price of 645 sensors,
how much?


Please, don't torture me… don't answer! :(
 
GeeJay57 said:
I don't think anyone is making a full-plate digital back.... ;)
Click to expand...
Lol, no but the 35mm system was designed specifically for the 35mm film and so the lenses were designed to form an image circle for this. The 35mm system is not a crop of anything but a different system altogether. 'Crop' sensors came about at the start of digital cameras where sensors did not fill the image circle of the lens system and so cropped the image.

I know we all know this, but I'm just making the point that pre-digital nothing was a crop of something else, but an entirely different system. You could argue that this is the case now as you obviously have DX lenses (and whatever the Canon and Sony equivalents are) so is a different system to FF. However, as we also know we still use the term crop as FF/35mm lenses can still be used on APS bodies, and also it reminds us that field of view will be altered ;)
 
andyscott said:
Nah you're confusing science with theory ;)

Theory is just that theory.

Science is accurate.
Click to expand...
If we are to talk science, theory is the highest accolade an idea can get.
 
snerkler said:
Aha, so you're saying that the enlargement is done via the camera processor to produce the RAW/JPEG file?

Don't worry I'm not getting 'hung up' on this in terms of my own shooting and images that I get, I'm just interested/curious as I have a thirst for knowledge ;)
Click to expand...
Er, no, its a physical / optical thing within capture, not digital once the shutter is pressed but I'm not sure I can effectively explain it!
 
Thanks for the replies guys - way more discussion and depth than I expected - I have read through all of them but I'm going to have to re-read and try to digest it all.


I agree that there's a lot that the photographer contributes to the final image, rather than just the gear - and that you can get great photographers with cheap gear and average photographers with the most expensive gear - but whether or not it's down to my technique or not I went to photograph some Eurofighter Typhoons on Friday last week - in order to get a fast shutter speed (1/2000th) or there abouts, in turn meaning more chance of a sharper picture, I'd have had to increase my ISO to around 800 on my Canon 700D camera... if I then want to crop that image when I get home - framing it better or just cropping in to fill the frame a bit more the noise levels would have become horrendous... (I should say the weather was sunny and bright in the middle of the day)... therefore I was loathe to go over ISO400 and tried keeping it at 200 - max aperture at the long end of my Sigma 160-600 of 6.3... so throughout the day I was flicking between ISO 200-400 as I really don't like the noise above that - even 400 isn't great ....

Not only that but the slow burst rate 5fps (relatively speaking I guess - compared to a 7Dmk2) meant that trying to get the plane framed to the right of the frame with room to move into (was shooting side on to the runway with the planes coming from our right to our left) was quite difficult - maybe that's more my technique but if for instance I did have the 7Dmk2 or the Canon 80D with their faster burstrate I'd have got more shots framed how I wanted them... without having to crop.

Then I've been reading about the Canon's 80D much improved sensor and dynamic range, lifting shadows and revealing less noise and more detail etc. that whilst yes I know the photographer plays a huge part in the image, the gear can help - for Macro for instance I don't really have any problems with my current camera, but I think if I want to get more wildlife and sports/ airshows etc. into my photography there are benefits of having something a bit more technologically advanced than the 700D. The 80D is also I'm guessing better at focus tracking in AI Servo mode than the 700D too so that'd be another benefit.

But If I am going to spend circa £1000 on a new crop - knowing that going grey on FF you can get the likes of the 5DMk3 for not much more I really wanted to see what the differences were in IQ. When I've browsed through flickr on 5dmk3 pools the images just seem generally a bit cleaner/sharper/more contrasty/more detailed/less noisy and yet I don't really get that same impact when looking at the bulk of 7dmk2 or 80D shots - unless it's my brain just telling me that because the FF is more expensive the images must look better!
 
smr said:
because the FF is more expensive the images must look better!
Click to expand...
•

This is not a correct equation!

True is that a larger sensor, bigger buffer, better CPUs
greater software are adding up to the price but the main
thing is that there are inherent benefits to choosing a FF
sensor as expressed above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smr
smr said:
...... I've been reading about the Canon's 80D much improved sensor and dynamic range, lifting shadows and revealing less noise and more detail etc. that whilst yes I know the photographer plays a huge part in the image, the gear can help - for Macro for instance I don't really have any problems with my current camera, but I think if I want to get more wildlife and sports/ airshows etc. into my photography there are benefits of having something a bit more technologically advanced than the 700D. The 80D is also I'm guessing better at focus tracking in AI Servo mode than the 700D too so that'd be another benefit.

But If I am going to spend circa £1000 on a new crop - knowing that going grey on FF you can get the likes of the 5DMk3 for not much more I really wanted to see what the differences were in IQ. When I've browsed through flickr on 5dmk3 pools the images just seem generally a bit cleaner/sharper/more contrasty/more detailed/less noisy and yet I don't really get that same impact when looking at the bulk of 7dmk2 or 80D shots - unless it's my brain just telling me that because the FF is more expensive the images must look better!
Click to expand...

Unless looking at images first hand, I find it quite difficult to distinguish between crop and FF from the final image posted at 1024x768 on a web site.
 
GeeJay57 said:
Unless looking at images first hand, I find it quite difficult to distinguish between crop and FF from the final image posted at 1024x768 on a web site.
Click to expand...

That's why I said it's probably just my brain overthinking that they do in order to justify the price difference when in reality there's not much if anything I can distinguish between a good crop sensor and FF image! :p

Although saying that I do realise that there are other features which differentiate a "pro" body from a lesser camera such as CPU speed/weather sealing/build quality/ergonomics/buffer size etc.etc.
 
snerkler said:
Really, I was under the impression that FF sensors were near as dammit the same size as 35mm film?
Click to expand...

They are both 36mm x 24mm.

A crop sensor has a number like 1.6 or 1.3 which allows all sensors to be referred to the standard 36 x 24 sensor when it comes to comparing lenses.

Because the sensor on a crop is smaller then the FF sensor you get a telephoto effect

Even though the actual focal length of the lens doesn't change the Field of View does so when compared to the standard FF sensor a 100mm lens on a 1.6 crop will have the same Field of View as a 160mm lens on a FF (100mm x 1.6 = 160mm)
.
 
Last edited:
There's not much difference between a 7DII and a 'pro' body and for sports/wildlife probably has the upper hand on the 5DIII, ie. better focusing system, more pixels on target, higher frame rate...
 
Last edited:
smr said:
That's why I said it's probably just my brain overthinking that they do in order to justify the price difference when in reality there's not much if anything I can distinguish between a good crop sensor and FF image! :p

Although saying that I do realise that there are other features which differentiate a "pro" body from a lesser camera such as CPU speed/weather sealing/build quality/ergonomics/buffer size etc.etc.
Click to expand...
You will see the difference, but what he's saying is not so much on a posted web image, it might not be the best way to judge :)
 
smr said:
Thanks for the replies guys - way more discussion and depth than I expected - I have read through all of them but I'm going to have to re-read and try to digest it all.


I agree that there's a lot that the photographer contributes to the final image, rather than just the gear - and that you can get great photographers with cheap gear and average photographers with the most expensive gear - but whether or not it's down to my technique or not I went to photograph some Eurofighter Typhoons on Friday last week - in order to get a fast shutter speed (1/2000th) or there abouts, in turn meaning more chance of a sharper picture, I'd have had to increase my ISO to around 800 on my Canon 700D camera... if I then want to crop that image when I get home - framing it better or just cropping in to fill the frame a bit more the noise levels would have become horrendous... (I should say the weather was sunny and bright in the middle of the day)... therefore I was loathe to go over ISO400 and tried keeping it at 200 - max aperture at the long end of my Sigma 160-600 of 6.3... so throughout the day I was flicking between ISO 200-400 as I really don't like the noise above that - even 400 isn't great ....

Not only that but the slow burst rate 5fps (relatively speaking I guess - compared to a 7Dmk2) meant that trying to get the plane framed to the right of the frame with room to move into (was shooting side on to the runway with the planes coming from our right to our left) was quite difficult - maybe that's more my technique but if for instance I did have the 7Dmk2 or the Canon 80D with their faster burstrate I'd have got more shots framed how I wanted them... without having to crop.

Then I've been reading about the Canon's 80D much improved sensor and dynamic range, lifting shadows and revealing less noise and more detail etc. that whilst yes I know the photographer plays a huge part in the image, the gear can help - for Macro for instance I don't really have any problems with my current camera, but I think if I want to get more wildlife and sports/ airshows etc. into my photography there are benefits of having something a bit more technologically advanced than the 700D. The 80D is also I'm guessing better at focus tracking in AI Servo mode than the 700D too so that'd be another benefit.

But If I am going to spend circa £1000 on a new crop - knowing that going grey on FF you can get the likes of the 5DMk3 for not much more I really wanted to see what the differences were in IQ. When I've browsed through flickr on 5dmk3 pools the images just seem generally a bit cleaner/sharper/more contrasty/more detailed/less noisy and yet I don't really get that same impact when looking at the bulk of 7dmk2 or 80D shots - unless it's my brain just telling me that because the FF is more expensive the images must look better!
Click to expand...

Sports, wildlife, birding etc - basically fast-moving long-lens subjects that are either small or you can't get close to - they're the ones where good equipment isn't just nice to have, but essential. Upgrade your kit and you'll get more keepers, simple as that really, even if you're already a pretty handy photographer. And you'll notice how the really good guys always have quality gear.

You already have a 150-600 lens on an APS-C camera. If you change to full-frame and have to crop in post processing to get the framing you want, then you're throwing away the format advantage and would have been better off with a crop camera to start with.
 
petersmart said:
They are both 36mm x 24mm.

A crop sensor has a number like 1.6 or 1.3 which allows all sensors to be referred to the standard 36 x 24 sensor when it comes to comparing lenses.

Because the sensor on a crop is smaller then the FF sensor you get a telephoto effect

Even though the actual focal length of the lens doesn't change the Field of View does so when compared to the standard FF sensor a 100mm lens on a 1.6 crop will have the same Field of View as a 160mm lens on a FF (100mm x 1.6 = 160mm)
.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I did know this actually though, it was a rhetorical question ;) :P
 
smr said:
Thanks for the replies guys - way more discussion and depth than I expected - I have read through all of them but I'm going to have to re-read and try to digest it all.


I agree that there's a lot that the photographer contributes to the final image, rather than just the gear - and that you can get great photographers with cheap gear and average photographers with the most expensive gear - but whether or not it's down to my technique or not I went to photograph some Eurofighter Typhoons on Friday last week - in order to get a fast shutter speed (1/2000th) or there abouts, in turn meaning more chance of a sharper picture, I'd have had to increase my ISO to around 800 on my Canon 700D camera... if I then want to crop that image when I get home - framing it better or just cropping in to fill the frame a bit more the noise levels would have become horrendous... (I should say the weather was sunny and bright in the middle of the day)... therefore I was loathe to go over ISO400 and tried keeping it at 200 - max aperture at the long end of my Sigma 160-600 of 6.3... so throughout the day I was flicking between ISO 200-400 as I really don't like the noise above that - even 400 isn't great ....
Click to expand...
ISO 400 only? :eek: I can get away with 12800 at times, I'd hate to think I was that limited. Even modern crop sensors can shoot at 6400 and still be useable

Not only that but the slow burst rate 5fps (relatively speaking I guess - compared to a 7Dmk2) meant that trying to get the plane framed to the right of the frame with room to move into (was shooting side on to the runway with the planes coming from our right to our left) was quite difficult - maybe that's more my technique but if for instance I did have the 7Dmk2 or the Canon 80D with their faster burstrate I'd have got more shots framed how I wanted them... without having to crop.
Click to expand...
You're thinking about this wrong. By having more fps it won't make you're framing any better, all you're then doing is spray shooting and hoping for the best and by the very nature that you've got many more shots you will have more where you want them, but by the same token you will have many more that you want to throw away. Don't rely on FPS to 'luck' into getting the framing right, concentrate on technique. What may be better for you is looking at AF performance and AF point spread rather than FPS.

Then I've been reading about the Canon's 80D much improved sensor and dynamic range, lifting shadows and revealing less noise and more detail etc. that whilst yes I know the photographer plays a huge part in the image, the gear can help - for Macro for instance I don't really have any problems with my current camera, but I think if I want to get more wildlife and sports/ airshows etc. into my photography there are benefits of having something a bit more technologically advanced than the 700D. The 80D is also I'm guessing better at focus tracking in AI Servo mode than the 700D too so that'd be another benefit.
Click to expand...
Dynamic range is OK on the 80D but for the type of shooting you're talking about DR is not that vital unless you completely get the exposure wrong, in which case it may rescue a shot you might otherwise have binned. DR is not Canon's strong point though tbh. But yes gear can help, in that modern AF systems make it easier to get shots that would have been a struggle before, and ISO performance means that we can get images taken at ISO12800 that would have previously been unusable etc etc. But all this is pointless if you don't have good understanding and technique.

But If I am going to spend circa £1000 on a new crop - knowing that going grey on FF you can get the likes of the 5DMk3 for not much more I really wanted to see what the differences were in IQ. When I've browsed through flickr on 5dmk3 pools the images just seem generally a bit cleaner/sharper/more contrasty/more detailed/less noisy and yet I don't really get that same impact when looking at the bulk of 7dmk2 or 80D shots - unless it's my brain just telling me that because the FF is more expensive the images must look better!
Click to expand...
When viewing flickr are you comparing like for like, ie are you making sure the 80d images are shot with just as good lenses as the 5D3? It might be a case that in the pool more 80d pics are shot with kit lenses whilst the majority of 5D3 pics are shot with high end glass. OK extreme example but you get what I mean ;) That being said, I still believe that all things being equal FF still has that je ne sais quoi over crop, but the difference is getting smaller all the time. It can be nigh on impossible to tell the difference between a shot taken on FF and one taken on crop. In fact I took some studio shots with my old olympus M4/3 that I struggled to see any difference in IQ compared to my FF.

Do you have any FF lenses? If not would you'd have to swap all of your lenses anyway if you were looking at the 5d3 in which case consider swapping systems because if you're hung up on DR and ISO performance you can get better in this department for less money (than the 5D3) without sacrificing AF performance etc.
 
smr said:
When I've browsed through flickr on 5dmk3 pools the images just seem generally a bit cleaner/sharper/more contrasty/more detailed/less noisy and yet I don't really get that same impact when looking at the bulk of 7dmk2 or 80D shots - unless it's my brain just telling me that because the FF is more expensive the images must look better!
Click to expand...



To expand on Snerkler's point above, you are also comparing different photographers (the most important bit) and different processing techniques. Its not always as simple as comparing random images on Flickr (a bad photographer will still take terrible images even with a Hassleblad). I would look at the strengths and weaknesses on each camera (and take that as read, and take it as read that FF is technically better from an image quality perspective, and offers you more processing latitude!) and decide from there if those strengths can help, or the weakness may hinder.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top