Cropped versus Full Frame sensor

jj_glos said:
For me it's the difference of how lenses look on each sensor that sets them apart. To me a 23mm f1.4 on crop never looks as nice as a 35mm on FF, the same for a 35mm f1.4 on crop vs a 50nn f1.4 on FF. That's the big difference for me and why I still have crop and FF setups. Although I do have intentions to only keep one setup but can never decide which!
Click to expand...
Yep I agree with this. Whilst you can get the equivalent FOV the actual characteristics of a lens will never be the same.
 
HoppyUK said:
It's not bigger pixels, it's simply the larger total light gathering area of bigger sensors. They collect more total light, simple as really, and that's what drives lower noise and higher ISO performance, wider dynamic range etc
Click to expand...
I'm struggling to follow this, Richard. Consider a Nikon FX sensor which can also be used in DX mode. You seem to be saying that it will deliver better image quality in FX mode than in DX mode. Care to explain / justify?
 
StewartR said:
I'm struggling to follow this, Richard. Consider a Nikon FX sensor which can also be used in DX mode. You seem to be saying that it will deliver better image quality in FX mode than in DX mode. Care to explain / justify?
Click to expand...
Technically any amount of cropping will degrade the IQ as the image then has to be enlarged more to view on a monitor etc. I guess how much we will see this will depend on the amount of cropping, viewing medium, camera etc etc.
 
snerkler said:
Technically any amount of cropping will degrade the IQ as the image then has to be enlarged more to view on a monitor etc. I guess how much we will see this will depend on the amount of cropping, viewing medium, camera etc etc.
Click to expand...
Therein lies an inherent problem perhaps?

Viewing higher resolution images at 100% results in greater magnification of the original image, revealing flaws that wouldn't perhaps otherwise be seen?
 
jj_glos said:
For me it's the difference of how lenses look on each sensor that sets them apart. <snip>
Click to expand...
that is one of the reasons I still use 1930s film cameras - it is not so much the film as the lens and the way it renders to image.
 
snerkler said:
Technically any amount of cropping will degrade the IQ as the image then has to be enlarged more to view on a monitor etc. I guess how much we will see this will depend on the amount of cropping, viewing medium, camera etc etc.
Click to expand...
We're talking about noise and dynamic range and low light performance though. They don't change when you enlarge an image, do they?
 
Dynamic range of each pixel doesn't change when you enlarge, but the dynamic range of the image as a whole does. That is one if the reasons people stick with large format photography.

Noise also doesn't actually change but will be more noticeable when enlarged.
 
StewartR said:
We're talking about noise and dynamic range and low light performance though. They don't change when you enlarge an image, do they?
Click to expand...
Noise is more apparent yes, don't know about DR. By cropping you are effectively enlarging the noise, therefore it will appear larger/harsher. For the same principle it's why I also compare cameras after downsampling. For example. I've recently been looking at the D850 which has slightly more noise than my D750. However, if I downsampled the D850 images to 24mp to match my D750 it might actually appear better. Unfortunately adobe still haven't pulled their fingers out to make the D850 compatible yet so I can't test it. For sure though the D810 becomes more comparable to the D750 after downsampling.
 
If it is the size of the sensor that is the most important factor and if all FF sensors are approx the same size, then the size of individual pixels cannot be the issue. 12 megapixel sensor must have larger pixels than 50 megapixel sensor. Perhaps it is just the overall quality of a sensor that matters, not the number of megapixels, or the size, although I personally prefer the results from a FF camera.
 
Archie747 said:
If it is the size of the sensor that is the most important factor and if all FF sensors are approx the same size, then the size of individual pixels cannot be the issue. 12 megapixel sensor must have larger pixels than 50 megapixel sensor. Perhaps it is just the overall quality of a sensor that matters, not the number of megapixels, or the size, although I personally prefer the results from a FF camera.
Click to expand...
It's not just sensor size, it's all the tech of the sensor plus the processors. For example the new Sony A9 is markedly better (scores wise) in noise handling than the lower megapixel A7SII and Nikon DF. What's really odd is that the A7SII is actually worse than the A7S where normally you'd expect newer tech to be better.

However, overall I personally believe that tech is far more important now than pixel size. We're seeing 24 and 30+ MP sensors showing markedly better noise handling scores than lower mp cameras. If pixel size was the predominant factor I don't believe we'd see this. What does seem apparent though that overall sensor size is still a predominant factor also. Compare the D850 and D500 which both show the same pixel density, the score for the D850 is much better. Of course, not a true comparison as the D850 has a BSI sensor, but you see it across the board comparing APS-C vs FF sensor of similar aged tech.

That being said, how these scores translate into real world results can be misleading. For example, the D500 performs better than scores would suggest imo.
 
StewartR said:
I'm struggling to follow this, Richard. Consider a Nikon FX sensor which can also be used in DX mode. You seem to be saying that it will deliver better image quality in FX mode than in DX mode. Care to explain / justify?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly right (at same ISO), in terms dynamic range, noise, and ISO - they're all basically the same thing really. Good explanation of equivalence here, with comparison pictures taken on full-frame, APS-C, M4/3 and 1in format, though there's a big bit missing from this article that doesn't cover why full-frame is sharper than smaller formats.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/4

Edit: I tend to agree with Snerkler, sensor tech makes a huge difference and it's advancing all the time. This makes it difficult to compare exactly like-for-like in real world images.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
It's not just sensor size, it's all the tech of the sensor plus the processors. For example the new Sony A9 is markedly better (scores wise) in noise handling than the lower megapixel A7SII and Nikon DF. What's really odd is that the A7SII is actually worse than the A7S where normally you'd expect newer tech to be better.

However, overall I personally believe that tech is far more important now than pixel size. We're seeing 24 and 30+ MP sensors showing markedly better noise handling scores than lower mp cameras. If pixel size was the predominant factor I don't believe we'd see this. What does seem apparent though that overall sensor size is still a predominant factor also. Compare the D850 and D500 which both show the same pixel density, the score for the D850 is much better. Of course, not a true comparison as the D850 has a BSI sensor, but you see it across the board comparing APS-C vs FF sensor of similar aged tech.

That being said, how these scores translate into real world results can be misleading. For example, the D500 performs better than scores would suggest imo.
Click to expand...

I fully agree and this was the point I was trying to make.
 
The main practical difference between FF and crop for the vast majority of people would be that a full frame camera is generally a big, heavy old lump, and a crop frame camera is lighter and easier to lug around, even at pro-am level. I used a friend's D810 with a motor drive and a pro zoom lens recently, and I could hardly pick the thing up - you virtually needed a fork lift truck to get it up to eye level. It was a great relief to get back to my D7000 with it's admittedly heavy, but still way lighter, 17-55 f2.8. When I want to travel lighter still I have an old 18-70 kit lens that is almost as sharp, if not as fast. It's like walking on air.
 
horrocks said:
The main practical difference between FF and crop for the vast majority of people would be that a full frame camera is generally a big, heavy old lump, and a crop frame camera is lighter and easier to lug around, even at pro-am level. I used a friend's D810 with a motor drive and a pro zoom lens recently, and I could hardly pick the thing up - you virtually needed a fork lift truck to get it up to eye level. It was a great relief to get back to my D7000 with it's admittedly heavy, but still way lighter, 17-55 f2.8. When I want to travel lighter still I have an old 18-70 kit lens that is almost as sharp, if not as fast. It's like walking on air.
Click to expand...
Lol, the D810's not that heavy ;) You do have options like the D750 which is only 60g heavier than the D7000, pair it up with the light yet and sharp 24-85mm and you have a nice light setup. If you're a prime shooter the weight difference between crop and FF is negligible (if comparing something like the D7000/D7200 agains the D750/D610).
 
snerkler said:
Lol, the D810's not that heavy ;) You do have options like the D750 which is only 60g heavier than the D7000, pair it up with the light yet and sharp 24-85mm and you have a nice light setup. If you're a prime shooter the weight difference between crop and FF is negligible (if comparing something like the D7000/D7200 agains the D750/D610).
Click to expand...
But compared to D7500 the difference is 200 g
 
soeren said:
But compared to D7500 the difference is 200 g
Click to expand...

Its 120 g between those bodies with a battery and memory card fitted.

Given that Nikon, like Canon, makes a pretty small range of lighter DX lenses and they are focal length limited with no fast lenses apart from short zooms. So if you want a longer fast lens the weight saving is zero.

I carry more loose change in my pocket than the weight difference between the D750 and D 7500
 
soeren said:
But compared to D7500 the difference is 200 g
Click to expand...
Yeah as I said it depends what you're comparing. You could go to the extremes and compare it against the D3200 ;)
 
The difference in weight between the high end DX models and the low end FX models is hardly noticiable at all TBH.

People seem to think FX glass is heavy, but in reality if you are sticking to non 2.8 glass the difference in weight between DX and FX lenses is again pretty low.

You want a high end DX body then the D500 is just as heavy as its FX counterparts!
 
Gaz J said:
Its 120 g between those bodies with a battery and memory card fitted.

Given that Nikon, like Canon, makes a pretty small range of lighter DX lenses and they are focal length limited with no fast lenses apart from short zooms. So if you want a longer fast lens the weight saving is zero.

I carry more loose change in my pocket than the weight difference between the D750 and D 7500
Click to expand...
Yes I misread the d750 weight at 840 g to be without battery, where its actually with.
I dont carry any change at all :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top