Crop vs Full Frame

[smr]

I know there are many articles about this on the web but none that are that recent, and with recent developments with the onchip Canon 80D sensor and it's improved dynamic range etc. and also the ability to shoot at high ISO with extraordinarily low amount of noise - if we're shooting wildlife, sports etc. where the extra reach is neccessary - and also being able to shoot low light with such crop sensors - is the only need for a FF when it comes to landscapes / astro etc.?

I ask because I'm looking at new cameras - either the Canon 80D or a 5dmk3 - are the photos just going to be that much better on the 5D ?

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•

Joel, a few misunderstandings here.

improved dynamic range

Improved means better than before not that it is good!

ability to shoot at high ISO

Should read higher ISO and this is not due to the sensor but…

extraordinarily low amount of noise

to better noise reduction software! Better does not necessarily
implies good.

where the extra reach is neccessary

THIS IS A COMMON MISTAKE!
There is no such a thing as extra reach when it comes to
sensor size. The only feature resulting of a crop sensor is
a narrower AoV.

also being able to shoot low light with such crop sensors

Again, this is software based improvements and not sensor
size. Imagine a sensor with 6 px: 2x3. In FF they will be much
bigger, capturing more photons per px than a crop sized with
the same (but smaller) 6 px.

is the only need for a FF when it comes to landscapes / astro etc.?

You see that the question does have the same weight now.
I will always prefer (and only have) FF sensors with 12+ MP,
(D3S), 24+ MP (D3X), and 36+ MP(D800E). They all have
different qualities and other limitations.

 

[pjm1]

Will the photos be better? Probably not, because that's more down to the photographer and his/her ability to press the shutter at the right moment and be pointing the camera in the right direction. Which camera body that happens to be is of even less relevance than the glass that's attached to it and we tend to overplay the significance of the latter anyhow.

The biggest difference for me is that the shallow depth of field achievable with an f/1.4 lens on FF is very hard to replicate on a crop sensor. But TBH that's probably about it and how often does that really come into play anyway?

 

[juggler]

The 5d mk III is getting very long in the tooth now. There is still a big difference in measured performance if you compare recent crop sensor cameras with recent FF cameras.
DxoMark says this fwiw: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...0-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___1076_975_795

fwiw I went FF in part for the increased dynamic range and bit depth to give me more room when processing before an image degrades. The shallower DoF is sometimes useful, as is the extra width at the wide end.

 

[sirch]

In a given generation of sensors, for the same number of pixels, FF will always be lower noise than crop because each photosite/"pixel" is larger on FF and so captures more photons and needs less amplification. The thing is that sensors tend to leap-frog each other so it is often hard to make direct comparisons between a 5 year old FF and a brand new crop sensor. However given where we are currently at, other features such as price, the focusing system, lens availability, etc. tend to be more relevant to deciding which body suits you.

 

[andyscott]

any new camera will be great.

What level are you shooting sports etc? If its serious amateur/semi pro then any one. If you are selling a lot, then depends on your buyers requirements.

The 'crop' ( I love that term, FF is crop if you speak to MF users), will give you a sense of extra reach for the same focal length lens. Technically Kodiak is correct, but you can also crop FF if you want.

I would use APS-C unless I needed super wide or shooting in the dark.

 

[HoppyUK]

I know there are many articles about this on the web but none that are that recent, and with recent developments with the onchip Canon 80D sensor and it's improved dynamic range etc. and also the ability to shoot at high ISO with extraordinarily low amount of noise - if we're shooting wildlife, sports etc. where the extra reach is neccessary - and also being able to shoot low light with such crop sensors - is the only need for a FF when it comes to landscapes / astro etc.?

I ask because I'm looking at new cameras - either the Canon 80D or a 5dmk3 - are the photos just going to be that much better on the 5D ?

If you compare same generation sensors, the larger format images will be sharper, show less noise, and greater dynamic range. Technology changes the last two a lot, but the sharpness advantage remains (that's optical physics, pretty much unrelated to sensor development/pixels etc).

 

[snerkler]

Crop vs FF is a debate that causes a lot of conflicting information and beliefs and I doubt that this thread will help clear much up for you Here's my thoughts though.

FF will generally give you less noise due to the sensor capturing more light and the size of the pixels. However, if you get a low MP crop body and high MP FF body the difference in noise handling might not be much different. Also newer processors help with noise.

Crop bodies do not give more reach per se, they just change the angle of view which in terms gives the effect in the final image that the subject is closer. This is of benefit to wildlife shooters which is why you see a lot of wildlife togs shooting with crop bodies. That being said, crop bodies put more demands on a lens so resolution is not as good, so some prefer to shoot FF and crop heavily. I guess it all depends. I considered getting a D7200 (24mp crop body) for wildlife to compliment my D750 (24mp FF) but before I do I want to test to see whether the 24mp shots from a D7200 would have better IQ and resolution than my D750 cropped to match a crop (DX) frame. In a DX frame my D750 is 'only' 10mp and I can't see that this would be better than a 24mp D7200 file (assuming same framing after cropping the D750) but I've been told elsewhere on here that the D750 would still be better. I need to try it for myself

Dynamic range is important for certain types of photography, especially landscape. For example the DR on my camera is so good that I rarely have to bracket landscapes anymore to get all the lights and darks. It doesn't mean I couldn't get the shots before, it just means it's less work now Landscapes is not a case of FF vs Crop as you mentioned, but dynamic range and detail/resolution. FF 'tend' to give more DR, and resolution/detail (as mentioned previously). However, you need to consider everything because the crop body D7200 has 14.6 DR compared to 13.2 on the 80D and 11.2 on the 5D3. In this example you'd be choosing between DR (better on the crops) and resolution (better on the 5D3). Of course if you're not tied into a brand you could look at the Nikon D810 and D750, or Sony A7RII and have the best of both. Also, with the D810 being 36mp you can use it in DX mode (crop mode) giving you the 'effect' of extra reach and still have high resolution files (15.4MP in DX mode).

 

[paul.w]

Unless you are an outstandingly talented photographer, any modern camera is capable of far more than you are !
If you want to take better pictures, your best investment by far, will be too improve your own technique.

 

[john.margetts]

^^^ this last one.

 

[snerkler]

If you want to take better pictures, your best investment by far, will be too improve your own technique.

Completely agree with this. This does not mean cameras and lenses should be discounted though as extra DR, MP, better AF systems can help but mean very little without first having good understanding and technique.

 

[chris malcolm]

An interesting question is whether, for the same amount of money, you'd get better IQ with a crop body and a top quality lens, or a full frame body and whatever lens you could fit into the same budget.

 

[chris malcolm]

An interesting question is whether, for the same amount of money, you'd get better IQ with a crop body and a top quality lens, or a full frame body and whatever lens you could fit into the same budget.

 

[petersmart]

An interesting question is whether, for the same amount of money, you'd get better IQ with a crop body and a top quality lens, or a full frame body and whatever lens you could fit into the same budget.

The more the density of the pixels the greater the need for a higher quality lens - this is because of "Diffraction Limiting" which in essence means that in order to make the best use of the higher resolution possible with cameras like the D800 or 5Ds you need to use the lens set to around f8 or f5.6 which in turn means high quality lenses.

Diffraction limiting is the reason why the latest 100MP sensor from Canon will be mainly used for medical and macro work.
.

 

[HoppyUK]

The more the density of the pixels the greater the need for a higher quality lens - this is because of "Diffraction Limiting" which in essence means that in order to make the best use of the higher resolution possible with cameras like the D800 or 5Ds you need to use the lens set to around f8 or f5.6 which in turn means high quality lenses.

Diffraction limiting is the reason why the latest 100MP sensor from Canon will be mainly used for medical and macro work.
.

The reason cameras with smaller sensors need sharper lenses is because, well, they're smaller. Generally speaking, pixel density and diffraction don't really come into it.

Smaller sensors require greater enlargement, and therefore need to produce the same level of contrast (sharpness) at higher resolution levels, determined by the crop factor. Eg, 24-lpmm on FF vs 36-lpmm on APS-C 1.5x (24x1.5=36), or 40-lpmm vs 60-lpmm, or whatever level you want to choose. That's too big a gap, and I haven't yet seen an APS-C lens capable of bridging it, therefore FF images are always sharper (same lens, same aperture etc).

It's physics at work - the higher the resolution, the lower the contrast, basic MTF theory.

 

[petersmart]

The reason cameras with smaller sensors need sharper lenses is because, well, they're smaller. Generally speaking, pixel density and diffraction don't really come into it. Its physics at work ...

It IS physics at work and pixel density and diffraction most definitely DO come into it:

"Diffraction is an optical effect which limits the total resolution of your photography — no matter how many megapixels your camera may have."

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

"the Canon EOS 20D, which typically exhibits softening from diffraction beyond about f/11"... (see picture of the actual effect)

A full discussion of MFT etc is here:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-quality-mtf-resolution.htm

Smaller sensors require greater enlargement, and therefore need to produce the same level of contrast (sharpness) at higher resolution levels, determined by the crop factor.

But the Canon 7D MkII has an image size of 5472 x 3648 pixels and the 6D also has an image size of 5472 x 3648 even though one is a 1.6 crop and the other is FF.

But noise also limits the best resolution a sensor can achieve and there the FF can usually be better than a crop since larger photodiodes produce less noise.

And as for APS-C lenses, personally I always use EF lenses whether on crop or FF and with my cameras usually try to stick to f8 or f11 as the sweet spot for my FF and 1.3 crop respectively.
.

 

[woof woof]

And as for APS-C lenses, personally I always use EF lenses whether on crop or FF and with my cameras usually try to stick to f8 or f11 as the sweet spot for my FF and 1.3 crop respectively.

Personally when looking for the best possible results I prefer to use lenses designed for the camera I want to use them on.

Using old film era lenses on MFT their limitations and issues are there to be seen if you go looking for them but on FF they're so much sharper. Sharpness is just one thing... but as it's part of the discussion here I can't deny that the bigger the sensor the sharper the image, assuming lenses of good quality on all.

 

[HoppyUK]

I'm referring to the difference in image quality between full-frame and APS-C. By smaller size I mean less sq mm of physical area, not pixel dimensions.

It IS physics at work and pixel density and diffraction most definitely DO come into it:

"Diffraction is an optical effect which limits the total resolution of your photography — no matter how many megapixels your camera may have."

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Yes, that's what I said - diffraction is unrelated to pixel density.

"the Canon EOS 20D, which typically exhibits softening from diffraction beyond about f/11"... (see picture of the actual effect)

A full discussion of MFT etc is here:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-quality-mtf-resolution.htm

I'm not saying diffraction doesn't exist or that it is not important - the reverse actually. Just that it's not a significant factor in the FF vs APS-C question re image quality. If you want the very best image quality from the very best lenses today, then f/4 is usually where sharpness peaks in the centre. It begins to tail off thereafter, due to diffraction. By f/8-11, diffraction is taking big chunks out of optimum sharpness. Look at any decent lens MTF test, such as PhotoZone, and good lenses will peak at f/4-5.6. The sharper the lens, the lower the f/number it will peak at, but the peak will be higher. Lenses like the Zeiss Otus 85 and Canon 35/1.4 Mk2 I've reviewed recently actually peak at f/2.8. Reductions thereafter are all diffraction driven.

But the Canon 7D MkII has an image size of 5472 x 3648 pixels and the 6D also has an image size of 5472 x 3648 even though one is a 1.6 crop and the other is FF.

I'm not sure of your point here, other than perhaps a misunderstanding of my point about pixel dimensions vs physical sq mm?

But noise also limits the best resolution a sensor can achieve and there the FF can usually be better than a crop since larger photodiodes produce less noise.

Yes.

And as for APS-C lenses, personally I always use EF lenses whether on crop or FF and with my cameras usually try to stick to f8 or f11 as the sweet spot for my FF and 1.3 crop respectively.

The three main constraints to lens performance are focal length range, maximum aperture, and format/image circle (all overlaid with considerations of size/weight/cost). If you use a full-frame lens on APS-C, then you are losing out one way or another - could be sharpness, or maximum aperture, focal length range, or size/weight/cost. I can't think of any lens that is not well past its sweet spot at f/11.

 

[odd jim]

I know there are many articles about this on the web but none that are that recent, and with recent developments with the onchip Canon 80D sensor and it's improved dynamic range etc. and also the ability to shoot at high ISO with extraordinarily low amount of noise - if we're shooting wildlife, sports etc. where the extra reach is neccessary - and also being able to shoot low light with such crop sensors - is the only need for a FF when it comes to landscapes / astro etc.?

I ask because I'm looking at new cameras - either the Canon 80D or a 5dmk3 - are the photos just going to be that much better on the 5D ?

The short answer is - the 5d3 (and the 6d which is slightly better for overall IQ than the 5d3) will give you cleaner, sharper, more contrasty images at all ISOs than the 80d. In fact, so will the 2008 Canon 5d2. The further you increase the ISOs the better the FF results are for noise. All lenses but in particular Fast primes will show shallower DOF, so if you're a bokeh fan the larger format that's relevant too.

 

[snerkler]

Smaller sensors require greater enlargement, and therefore need to produce the same level of contrast (sharpness) at higher resolution levels, determined by the crop factor. .

Just trying to get my noodle around this. Are you saying that, 'in theory' if you get a like for like crop vs FF and viewed the crop at a smaller image size than the FF to compensate for the enlargement factor that the two images would have the same IQ (sharpness, contrast etc etc)?

 

[petersmart]

The three main constraints to lens performance are focal length range, maximum aperture, and format/image circle (all overlaid with considerations of size/weight/cost). If you use a full-frame lens on APS-C, then you are losing out one way or another - could be sharpness, or maximum aperture, focal length range, or size/weight/cost. I can't think of any lens that is not well past its sweet spot at f/11.

But you cannot just talk about a lens without taking into consideration the pictures it will take and for all practical purposes, and for most people, f8 and f11 will be better than f2.8 simply because the DOF at f2.8 will be very small and much more difficult to get a sharp picture - it is a fact that most people will get sharper pictures at smaller apertures - I have 3 main lenses the 50mm f1.8, the 70-300mm L and the 24-104mm L and get great results from all 3 at f8 and f11.

But I think I've gone as far as I want on this thread so thank you all for a very interesting discussion and I hope the OP will glean some useful facts from this.
.

 

[petersmart]

Just trying to get my noodle around this. Are you saying that, 'in theory' if you get a like for like crop vs FF and viewed the crop at a smaller image size than the FF to compensate for the enlargement factor that the two images would have the same IQ (sharpness, contrast etc etc)?

Thought I'd finished but the reason that a reduced image will often look sharper than a bigger image is to do with the "circle of confusion" which governs the apparent sharpness of an image and also the DOF:

If you reduce the size of an image then the smaller image will look sharper because the "circle of confusion" will be smaller giving an APPARENT increase in sharpness.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

It is an extremely complex subject but it is true that all other things being equal a FF camera will give sharper images than a crop, but as so often in photography, all things are seldom equal.

I have recently bought a Canon 1D Mark II N which is "only" 8.2MP but still gives excellent quality pictures, as does my 16MP 1Ds MkII as will almost any modern digital camera when used by a competent photographer.


0124 by petersmart on Talk Photography - Taken on the Canon 1D MkII N

So personally I wouldn't get too bogged down in the complexity of it all, YOU are the one who will make the greatest difference to your overall picture quality - just get good lenses and a moden camera and enjoy your photography.
.

 

[odd jim]

Just trying to get my noodle around this. Are you saying that, 'in theory' if you get a like for like crop vs FF and viewed the crop at a smaller image size than the FF to compensate for the enlargement factor that the two images would have the same IQ (sharpness, contrast etc etc)?

No, because the difference here is at the capture stage, not the viewing stage.

But of course as a side note, the smaller (or more reduced in size the image is) the less the imperfections will show.

 

[pjm1]

No, because the difference here is at the capture stage, not the viewing stage.

But of course as a side note, the smaller (or more reduced in size the image is) the less the imperfections will show.

<hurriedly reads camera manual to work out how to set maximum resolution of 50 pixels...>

 

[snerkler]

No, because the difference here is at the capture stage, not the viewing stage.

But of course as a side note, the smaller (or more reduced in size the image is) the less the imperfections will show.

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

 

[andyscott]

what a load of theoretical b*****ks in this thread.

Buy the best camera you can afford and get shooting.

People used to shoot professionally with 4mp sensors and make cracking money, more than some of us will ever earn. Its all a load of s***.

 

[petersmart]

what a load of theoretical b*****ks in this thread.

Buy the best camera you can afford and get shooting.

People used to shoot professionally with 4mp sensors and make cracking money, more than some of us will ever earn. Its all a load of s***.

Theory is NEVER b******s as long as you understand it, and personally I would say that it's far better to buy a cheaper camera and spend the most money on a first class lens which will go on both crop and FF rather than the other way around.
.

 

[HoppyUK]

But you cannot just talk about a lens without taking into consideration the pictures it will take and for all practical purposes, and for most people, f8 and f11 will be better than f2.8 simply because the DOF at f2.8 will be very small and much more difficult to get a sharp picture - it is a fact that most people will get sharper pictures at smaller apertures - I have 3 main lenses the 50mm f1.8, the 70-300mm L and the 24-104mm L and get great results from all 3 at f8 and f11.

But I think I've gone as far as I want on this thread so thank you all for a very interesting discussion and I hope the OP will glean some useful facts from this.
.

I'm simply addressing the OP's question and the main reason why full-frame produces better image quality than crop format. This is down to physical sensor area and, mostly, the impact that has on lens performance. The difference is clear and obvious, so if you want a lift in IQ, then don't worry too much about pixels and dynamic range or diffraction etc etc, just get a bigger camera. There are 101 other things that impact image quality, but by and large, they apply to all formats in much the same way.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

what a load of theoretical b*****ks in this thread. Buy the best camera you can afford and get shooting.

Very bad advice IMO.
Gear cost a lot of dough and should be invested thoughtfully.
The more one learns about the technicals, the more knowled-
gable one is, the better the chances to make an intelligent and
justifiable purchase.

Any investment mistake will be costly. The decision power is in
one's hand as long as the money is in his/her pocket.

People used to shoot professionally with 4mp sensors and make cracking money, more than some of us will ever earn.

Yes I know that… but at 4MP, only "press" photographers could
work with that and the prices were far too high for the quality.
That is the reason why I did not convert my operations until the
D3S and D3X where on the market.

Its all a load of s***.

I don't agree with this.

Theory is NEVER b******s as long as you understand it, and personally I would say that it's far better to buy a cheaper camera and spend the most money on a first class lens which will go on both crop and FF rather than the other way around.

+1

 

[HoppyUK]

Theory is NEVER b******s as long as you understand it,

Yes. Photography is both an art and a science, and if you don't understand at least the basic science you not be able to make the most of the art bit.

and personally I would say that it's far better to buy a cheaper camera and spend the most money on a first class lens which will go on both crop and FF rather than the other way around.
.

No. If it's image quality you're after (and I would not say this is the only consideration, or even the most important one) then a decent lens on a larger format will out-perform a very good lens on a smaller one. Lenses specifically designed for a smaller formats perform better overall - they may be sharper, more likely they will have greater zoom range, a faster aperture, or be smaller/lighter/cheaper.

 

[pjm1]

what a load of theoretical b*****ks in this thread.

Buy the best camera you can afford and get shooting.

People used to shoot professionally with 4mp sensors and make cracking money, more than some of us will ever earn. Its all a load of s***.

This forum would be a very quiet part of the internet if we all subscribed to this view though

 

[HoppyUK]

This forum would be a very quiet part of the internet if we all subscribed to this view though

Haha, true

And personally, I enjoy a bit of theory, just learning stuff, but if you don't understand the need for a certain shutter speed to freeze movement, or that focal length affects camera-shake, or you need to raise the f/number to increase depth of field, or that ramping up the ISO increases noise etc etc, you'll not get far. Where to draw the line? You can actually draw it pretty low and still take great pictures

 

[woof woof]

As I said in another of these threads... I think that the starting point should be the result you want to achieve and you should then work out how you are going to get it. The final image, how big, how it is displayed and how it is viewed and your quality / the look you're going for needs and requirements should be the starting point and that should help you to work out how you are going to get the shot and the gear and settings needed.

If you want big sharp images this should influence the choice of your gear and settings and arguably limit your options for both but if you want a "nice" picture to be viewed normally maybe you choice of gear and settings is much wider.

Personally I think that ff cameras are wonderful and I can't stop myself from pixel peeping the lovely files but I do know that MFT is easily good enough for me for a nice picture and even a nice big picture as most of my shots are for screen viewing or small prints and maybe the odd A3 whole image viewed normally.

 

[GeeJay57]

FWIW I use a 7DII, EF100-400mm IS II, and EF-s 15-85mm for (motor)sports and wildlife with walkabout/landscape thrown in for good measure. I also recently shot some formal portraits using a (now dead) 50D with the 15-85mm and an EF100mm f/2.8 IS L. Client was very pleased with the results too. The 80D will no doubt be a decent enough camera and is one I considered before buying the 7DII.

Don't personally feel a huge pull towards going for a 6D/5DIII, though if I were mainly shooting portraits and landscapes, I would more than likely feel differently.

It's also worth noting that the 5DIII is as far as I can tell from images shot by others, certainly capable of taking great sports and wildlife photographs.

If you're unsure, I think my coin toss would come down on 80D/7DII with decent glass. You'd be taking some amazing photographs long before you reached the limitations presented by using a crop sensor.

 

[HoppyUK]

If your position is 'my pictures are rubbish, I need a new camera' then you probably don't. You need to learn, practise, ask questions, sharpen up your technique.

But if you say, 'I'm loving my photography, getting great results, but I'd just like a bit more of this, or that, and maybe have a go at the other' then it's probably time to spend some money

 

[andyscott]

Theory is NEVER b******s as long as you understand it, and personally I would say that it's far better to buy a cheaper camera and spend the most money on a first class lens which will go on both crop and FF rather than the other way around.
.

Nah you're confusing science with theory

Theory is just that theory.

Science is accurate.

 

[andyscott]

Very bad advice IMO.
Gear cost a lot of dough and should be invested thoughtfully.
The more one learns about the technicals, the more knowled-
gable one is, the better the chances to make an intelligent and
justifiable purchase.

Any investment mistake will be costly. The decision power is in
one's hand as long as the money is in his/her pocket.
Yes I know that… but at 4MP, only "press" photographers could
work with that and the prices were far too high for the quality.
That is the reason why I did not convert my operations until the
D3S and D3X where on the market.

I don't agree with this.

+1

That's why I said afford, this takes into account not just cost but return.

Chances are if you need to know this technically advanced stuff then you probably would have a fair idea about crop vs FF already. All sensors are crop.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

if you need to know this technically advanced stuff then you probably would have a fair idea about crop vs FF already.

•



Granted!

 

[HoppyUK]

That's why I said afford, this takes into account not just cost but return.

Chances are if you need to know this technically advanced stuff then you probably would have a fair idea about crop vs FF already. All sensors are crop.

'Full-frame' is just an abbreviation of 'full-frame 35mm'. Everyone knows what it means

And to avoid any confusion in some of the posts above, MTF stands for Modulation Transfer Function, as in the lens sharpness testing procedure. MFT means Micro Four Thirds format, though I prefer to write that as M4/3.

 

[snerkler]

All sensors are crop.

Really, I was under the impression that FF sensors were near as dammit the same size as 35mm film?