Cropped versus FF

[gaz_jameison]

I own a D3100 and I see a lot of other people who own the same nikon as me are all talking about upgrading to a FF body. Only thing is I can't work out why.

 

[gaz_jameison]

Can anyone explain why? Are they better sensors? Do they produce 'better' pictures? Do you have to change all ur DX lenses?

 

[hyeongsoong]

If you don't know why you need it then you don't need it at all

FF dose off more dynamic range , good at low lights . But won't work with dx lens ( you can mount them but not all of sensor is been used ). Offer less DOF at any given aperture compare to dx lens ( some people think it is a good thing thought).

I suggest you wait until your current camera out grown you before think about move to FF.

 

[HoppyUK]

Can anyone explain why? Are they better sensors? Do they produce 'better' pictures? Do you have to change all ur DX lenses?

FF sensor is more than twice the image area of APS-C crop format, four times larger than M4/3rds. That's at the heart of it.

FF has better image quality - sharper, greater dynamic range, less noise, better high ISO performance. Downside is cost, and bigger/heavier lenses.

You have to look closely to see the difference though, and crop format cameras have other advantges, particularly more 'pixel reach' with longer lenses.

 

[Pookeyhead]

If you don't know why you need it then you don't need it at all

Stupid expression that. If he doesn't know the difference, it just means he doesn't know the difference. He may well need the benefits a FF sensor will give... but just doesn't know that a FF sensor will give them to him.

Does here therefore not need it? He may well be sitting there thinking "I need more sharpness" or "I need a shallower DOF"... but because he doesn't know what gives it to him, he doesn't need it? LOL

 

[gaz_jameison]

If you don't know why you need it then you don't need it at all

FF dose off more dynamic range , good at low lights . But won't work with dx lens ( you can mount them but not all of sensor is been used ). Offer less DOF at any given aperture compare to dx lens ( some people think it is a good thing thought).

I suggest you wait until your current camera out grown you before think about move to FF.

I dont need it at all, I'm perfectly content with my D3100. I'm just asking why other people feel the need to 'upgrade,' I feel you might have read more in my posts than I actually posted lol ;-)

Thanks for the info though, Hoppy and Pookie too

 

[mpe]

Obviously, the reason is that the full-frame sensors have larger surface where they can accommodate more photosites and/or larger pixels. Considering same gen. sensor technology, larger pixels are better as they have better quantum efficiency, less noise, better dynamic range, etc. That all might translate to better pictures from larger-pixels camera.

Another reason is that high-end cameras are no longer made in crop format and many new pro-lenses are designed and optimised for 35mm format. That's why many advanced photographers (non-pro enthusiasts) are drifting toward full-frame format.

It should be pointed out, that the crop format has its advantages too.

 

[gaz_jameison]

Cheers mpe. What advantages does a cropped sensor have over full frame, would you say?

 

[dalegt4]

To be fair as with alot of other topics lets be honest... alot of people can get stunning images with a crop camera, personally i make good money out of using my crop camera and im happy to not jump on the full frame camera waggon just because it might make my images better.... for the time being I personally think i am more than happy to keep the extra 2k of money in my bank while retaining many of the advantages they have to offer.

My advice, if you can capture great images with your crop sensor then ask yourself.... is it worth the extra gigantic amount of money??

but just my 2p

 

[hyeongsoong]

Stupid expression that. If he doesn't know the difference, it just means he doesn't know the difference. He may well need the benefits a FF sensor will give... but just doesn't know that a FF sensor will give them to him.

Does here therefore not need it? He may well be sitting there thinking "I need more sharpness" or "I need a shallower DOF"... but because he doesn't know what gives it to him, he doesn't need it? LOL

if he think he needs more sharp ness or a shallow DOF, then he do some research therefore he will know the difference? ?

any way dx camera offers more reach for the same lens compare to FF, lens are smaller compare to FF lens.

 

[mpe]

Cheers mpe. What advantages does a cropped sensor have over full frame, would you say?

Cropped sensor cameras are cheaper, smaller and lighter. They can prevent vignetting and extreme corner softness when used with 35mm format lenses (you use the best part of the lens).

Cropped cameras have generally higher pixel density that means, they can increase effective reach of your lenses. 300mm effectively becomes 450mm when used on 12mpx cropped camera compared to 12mpx full-frame camera.

This is great for wild-life photography where the reach of your lens is normally what is limiting you most. (The Nikon D800 is a kind of exception from this rule as it unique as it has quite a high pixel density in full-frame format).

 

[Steve T]

What I want to know is which has the best phone, sod the pictures!

 

[odd jim]

Cropped sensor cameras are cheaper, smaller and lighter. They can prevent vignetting and extreme corner softness when used with 35mm format lenses (you use the best part of the lens).

Cropped cameras have generally higher pixel density that means, they can increase effective reach of your lenses. 300mm effectively becomes 450mm when used on 12mpx cropped camera compared to 12mpx full-frame camera.

This is great for wild-life photography where the reach of your lens is normally what is limiting you most. (The Nikon D800 is a kind of exception from this rule as it unique as it has quite a high pixel density in full-frame format).

Megapixels have nothing to do with the amount of "reach".

 

[arad85]

Another reason is that high-end cameras are no longer made in crop format and many new pro-lenses are designed and optimised for 35mm format. That's why many advanced photographers (non-pro enthusiasts) are drifting toward full-frame format.

And there's a number who are drifting to micro 4/3rds for a similar but different set of benefits. I "know" - i.e. they are around on several fora - of quite a few excellent photographers & a few pros that have jumped ship to micro 4/3rds simply due to the size advantage and the fact that excellent lenses are being produced for the format which compensate somewhat for the smaller sensor size.

As has been said above, you really need to decide what it is your current camera lacks before deciding what you want from your next camera. I had a 5D2 full frame and several L lenses that weren't being used very often. In examining why, it was because I didn't want to lug them around with me (and I had a love hate relationship with autofocus accuracy on the 5D2).

Moving to a smaller system with excellent lenses has meant I have retained the benefits of a decent lens (I have the pro Panasonic lenses) and "big enough" (i.e. 12x18 is as big as I'd print so micro 4/3rds is big enough) sensor whilst significantly improving portability. I now take the camera and lenses with me when I go places... For example, I'm currently on a 2 week business trip in Japan and had I still owned the 5D2, it would have been left at home. Instead - travelling solely with hand luggage - I have brought with me a camera and set of lenses that cover 14-24 @ F/4 and 24-200 @ F2.8 (equivalent focal lengths). All three lenses have been used on this trip and they all fit in a significantly smaller space (due to the lens size it is easier to pack) and probably weigh about the same as a 5D2 and 24-105 f4 on it's own. They are currently sat beside me in my works laptop bag - in their own small shoulder bag. In fact, I am far happier with my micro 4/3rds system than I have ever been with crop or FF DSLR.

 

[HoppyUK]

Megapixels have nothing to do with the amount of "reach".

Pixel density has, which was the point being made. High pixel density needs equally high grade lenses to realise the extra reach potential, but that's exactly what we're getting these days.

 

[POAH]

I own a D3100 and I see a lot of other people who own the same nikon as me are all talking about upgrading to a FF body. Only thing is I can't work out why.

Cause its better lol

 

[mpe]

Megapixels have nothing to do with the amount of "reach".

Well, it does. "Reach" is a term for the ability of a lens to "pull in" detail from a distance. Practically having a good reach means that you fill can fill your frame with your subject so that you can use most of the resolution of your lens and sensor allows you.

You can achieve the reach in several ways
- you can get closer to you subject
- you buy longer focal-lengths lens
- you use shorter lens and crop your picture to tighty fill the frame (either in photoshop or in he camera by using cropped camera sensor).

 

[Ksanti]

Megapixels have nothing to do with the amount of "reach".

Assuming your sensor has a high enough pixel density, cropping in on image will basically have the exact same effect as using a teleconverter, except in cases where your sensor resolution is too low and starts to bottleneck the resolved detail more than the lens does. This is why at the moment, TCs are fairly prevalent, but as 36, 48 and 50+ MP FF cameras become the norm, there will gradually be less and less use for them, as very few people need more than about 20MP for any of their printing needs and so, given sharp enough lenses, a high MP count will allow people to achieve reach without the use of teleconverters.

 

[Nod]

For me, the biggest draw to FF was the wide angles. A crop sensor reduced the AoV (Angle of View) of my 12-24 to the equivalent of an 18mm at the wide end and I like width!

A couple of added bonuses (for me) were (and still are!) the extra heft in hand (although that's less of a bonus when carrying the kit about...) and the extremely good high ISO/low light performance of the D700.

The downside of FF is the flip side of the main plus point for me! Crop sensors add apparent reach, so a 300mm lens on a Nikon crop body has the same AoV as a 450mm lens has on a Full Frame body. As a rule, FF bodies aren't the lightest or smallest either, so if you're small and weedy () one could be a drag.

 

[maninsuitcase]

I think a lot of the FF draw is psychological. People don't need it, they want it because the marketers and peers tell them so.

I shoot mainly wildlife so the crop factor works in my favour. Though I am starting to do more wide angle work where it's a hindrance but at the same time good quality wide angle lenses exist on the crop form factor. Also I get a touch more DOF and seeing as I don't photograph people it's usually a help, not a problem.

I have no urge to go full frame, yes the IQ and ISO boost would be nice, but it will mean more expensive tele lenses to get the same "pixels per duck".

 

[mpe]

Crop sensors add apparent reach, so a 300mm lens on a Nikon crop body has the same AoV as a 450mm lens has on a Full Frame body..

Sorry, crop does not add anything. It is just a crop. You can crop your picture in photoshop and you don't call that adding reach. You are just taking out pixels. A pixel density plays a role there, not the crop factor.

It is true that smaller sensors tends to have higher pixel density that full-frame sensors. But now there is 36mpx Nikon D800/D800E that has similar or better pixel density than many cropped cameras and DX crop equivalent to 15mpx camera so effectively it has the same apparent reach than any of those. True, there is now also 24mpx D3200, but again it is not the crop that's adding the reach.

 

[johnnypanic]

I'm currently using a Nikon D90 (crop sensor) and quite happy with it. My intention, over time, is to move to full frame. But in the meantime I'm making sure that when I upgrade my lens, I'm doing so, making sure that they're usable on FF. At least that way the cost impact will be less.

I think good glass, can quite often be, a better investment than a camera upgrade.

 

[wyx087]

Cropped sensor cameras are cheaper, smaller and lighter. They can prevent vignetting and extreme corner softness when used with 35mm format lenses (you use the best part of the lens).

The cameras are cheaper, smaller and lighter. But if you go for FF lenses, the whole system will not be cheaper, smaller and lighter without a shadow of a doubt. Good FF lenses are very expensive.



Another benefit to FF camera is that their pixels are less dense. This is an excellent thing to have so that your lenses does not have to be perfect. I found the odd spot on the lens and not 100% stable will produce ghastly photos on D3100 crop sensor whereas just point and shoot usually produces amazing results on 5D2. I'm putting the reason down to having less dense pixels meaning it doesn't require tack sharp lens to produce tack sharp images.

So the way to look at this is that using a full frame camera is the closes digital method you can get to shooting 35mm film. Where films are a lot more tolerant to slight camera shake or not very sharp lenses.



People got to realise the reach is perceived. It's like looking through a tube: FF is a bigger tube while crop is a smaller tube. Both give the same magnification of 1x, but our brain thinks the smaller tube gives bigger magnification.

 

[munkee]

This week I bought a D7000. Last week I sold a D700. It's immediately apparent that the D700 was much better in low light. This is to be expected given the relative size of the pixels. In decent light though there's little to choose between them in terms of image quality.

I expect that for most people in most situations the difference in quality isn't worth the extra outlay. Spending the same money on quality glass will probably make a bigger difference.

 

[dinners]

At the risk of throwing a spanner in the works regarding sensor size - I still like the intermediate 1.3 crop sensor.

 

[woof woof]

I briefly got my 5D+50mm f1.4 out today and it felt huuuuuuuge and heavy after using my Panny G1. IMO FF gives better IQ if you push the ISO or image size to the max but if you're not pushing to the max you need a magnifying glass to tell the difference.

 

[Nod]

Sorry, crop does not add anything. It is just a crop. You can crop your picture in photoshop and you don't call that adding reach. You are just taking out pixels. A pixel density plays a role there, not the crop factor.

Which part of apparent did you not bother to read?