Full frame- Cropped

Tooler

Tooler

Suspended / Banned
Messages
217
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
What are the advantages/ disadvantages to having a full framed sensor as apposed to a cropped sensor?
 
For - less noise, more choice for wide angle work.
Against - The crop factor in effect makes lenses longer which might be useful for sports/wildlife. Cropping a full frame to the same size does lower the quality below that of the smaller sensor. Price

Crop sensor also has the advantage of only using the central region of the lens so edge sharpness tends to be a lot better which is a bit of a bonus ;)
 
pxl8 said:
Cropping a full frame to the same size does lower the quality below that of the smaller sensor. Price
Click to expand...

Surely this depends on the relative pixel density across the portion of the image?

Bob
 
5D width is 4368 / 1.6 = 2730 which is about 75% of the 30D, not that close is it.
 
pxl8 said:
5D width is 4368 / 1.6 = 2730 which is about 75% of the 30D, not that close is it.
Click to expand...

Sorry..."very close" should have read "closer". My point is that it is the pixel density not the crop which has the effect.

Better example....1DsIII v 300D....okay, a little bit extreme but you see where I'm coming from.

Bob

PS....Off now, United on MOTD in a minute !
 
Well it's not closer either really - in CT's example he used 1.3 crop and 1.6 so the larger pixel count of the 5D is cancelled out by the larger sensor size. CT's 1.3 crop was cut down to 2736 pixels wide, which is actually 6 pixels wider than the 5D when cropped. So his post is just as valid for the 5D as it was for the 1.3 crop.

The 1DsMKIII on the other hand crops down to within a few pixels of the 30D. But CTs conclusion was to consider carefully sensor size for the type of stuff you're shooting.
 
Someone else did a great post comparing all the available sensor sizes and came to the same conclusion - and for the life of me I can't remember who it was, but the current best body for small bird photography (involving cropping) is the 40D by a substantial margin. The 1DSMK3 with 21 million pixels still wont beat the 40D in the cropping stakes -it will be close enough to make the body very desirable, but it still comes 2nd and it's £6K!

If you're using long lenses for bird photography you need to choose your sensor size very carefully to maximise the value of the lens. I'm using the 20D most of the time for small bird shots and expect to see a marked improvement when I get the 40D.

I won't be getting rid of my 1DMK2n, it still AFs with the 2XTC where the 20D doesn't, it's a fantastic camera, and it's nice to have both formats, but for me there's little point in going any bigger in sensor size in future unless there's some drastic change in the basic technology.
 
Thanks for all the response guys.

All well explained and understood. A good previouse thread CT.

In short, for bird and wildlife photography the cropped sensor in the 30D is preferable than say the full framed 5D? (Not to mention the diffrence in cost)!
 
Tooler said:
In short, for bird and wildlife photography the cropped sensor in the 30D is preferable than say the full framed 5D? (Not to mention the diffrence in cost)!
Click to expand...

That's about it, birds certainly, but the wildlife bit covers a lot of ground including Caribou and Grizzlies up Norf, when the difficulty of filling the frame is a lot less, and the danger of getting your head ripped off is more acute too. :D
 
Shame he's not keen on sharing the raw files with me tho :thinking:

Any other 5D owners out there got a 5D raw file that shows the same effect with no sharpening?
 
Well it's interesting, but surely interpolation being involved is undesirable anyway if it can be avoided? The other thing is interpolation involves pixels being added, and computers are great at doing that with predictable geometric and regular shapes, but not so hot when it comes to irregular detail like feathers or foliage.

Since I can't post on POTN I shall watch developments with interest. :D
 
Photozoom does a fair job but the results do look a bit odd and have a painterly feel to them. The effect isn't so obvious at the 1.3x needed for the test but I don't think I'd be happy getting a print done from them as it does look a bit over-sharpened. I suspect it would hold up better on a canvas print tho...
 
pxl8 said:
Any other 5D owners out there got a 5D raw file that shows the same effect with no sharpening?
Click to expand...

Well I have a stack of infiniti disks and a 5d nearby. I can send you over a raw file similar to that if you want it.

Any particular ISO, lens and aperture that you'd want?
 
The other issue is that many lenses are actually designed for full frame and so the zoom range makes more "sense". I always found a 24-70 to be a bit too long on a crop body but just right on a full frame. Also, if you grew up on film then everything just works!

I agree with CT that for most small birds we get in the UK, pixel density is key - as long as the lens has enough resolution to not be the limiting factor.

For what I do - mainly mammals, I've found the 1D's 1.3x to be an optimal compromise. I miss full frame and am keenly watching prices of used 1Ds Mk II's though.

I ran a 1D Mk II and a 5D side by side for sometime and used my prime on the 5D and a zoom on the 1D. The reason was that the pixel density was the same on both so I could crop a 5D picture to be exactly the same as it would have been on a 1D but had some leeway in case it was a bit tight and I was in danger of losing feet and ears...

Each to their own, but I can't see me going back to a 1.6 crop. For what I do, it would actually make my 500mm a bit too long

Paul
 
grumpybadger said:
Each to their own, but I can't see me going back to a 1.6 crop. For what I do, it would actually make my 500mm a bit too long

Paul
Click to expand...

Yep - very valid point in your case! :)
 
dazzajl said:
Well I have a stack of infiniti disks and a 5d nearby. I can send you over a raw file similar to that if you want it.

Any particular ISO, lens and aperture that you'd want?
Click to expand...

Hehe, well I guess the best of everything really so lowest ISO, best lens (24-105L was used in the other test) at it's sweetest spot. I really don't believe it will show the artifacts I highlighted but I'm happy to be proved wrong....
 
Right, I've got a raw file for you. It's not exactly the same as apart from being a 100 stack and (I suspect) a different lens, I've not had the time to totally replicate the lighting conditions but hopefully it'll do the job :)

Where would you like it sent to?
 
Double posting monkey boy. lol.
 
Computer says, Woooooosh.

Should be with you in a mo. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top