full frame? disadvantages

A

aeronic

Suspended / Banned
Messages
467
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
I often hear that the main disadvantage of ff is the reach, compared to an aps-c sensor.
Now I often hear about the 1.6x crop which I assume is linear, and so 2.56 times the area for ff.
Now a 25.6mpix ff sensor (is the 5d2 far off this?), would produce a 10mpix image if you literally took the output from the centre portion that is equivalent to aps-c

Would this produce a worse image than the 18mpix output of say a canon 60d?
 
On the current 12mp Nikon FF cameras (D3, D700), DX mode gives you a 5mp picture.

As a 5mp picture will enlarge perfectly beyond A3 then unless you are going bigger than that the benefits of FF remain.

edit: and in fact, most of the other benefits remain too, the ONLY things you lose are reach and shallower DoF.
 
Last edited:
The native file from a 5DII is 5616x3744 pixels. If you take a 1.6x crop from this, you will have an image that measures 3510x2340 pixels.

The first image below is the full image shot from a 5DII, reduced in size to meet forum posting limits. The image below that is a 100% crop from the same image, measuring 750x500 pixels. If you can imagine the second image 4.5x bigger in both height and width, this would be what the 1.6x crop from the 5DII would look like. I'll leave it to you to decide whether the quality would be up to scratch.

l02.jpg


eye.jpg
 
The only disadvantage to a full-frame sensor is the cost - they are really hard (which in industrial terms means expensive) to make, which is the only reason I'm still on APS-C (makes a great traning camera though). Other than that, reach can be achieved using a software crop to a 1.6x - sized portion of the frame. What is lost in pixels on the image could be made up for by upscaling since the area per sensel (sensor-pixel) is larger. Edit: this means that there will likely be more "information"; oh and as a postscript you might well find yourself "downsizing" anyway (see Scarecrow's post) for making prints anyhow unless you're planning on going poster-size (above A3(!!!)).
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow said:
The native file from a 5DII is 5616x3744 pixels. If you take a 1.6x crop from this, you will have an image that measures 3510x2340 pixels.

The first image below is the full image shot from a 5DII, reduced in size to meet forum posting limits. The image below that is a 100% crop from the same image, measuring 750x500 pixels. If you can imagine the second image 4.5x bigger in both height and width, this would be what the 1.6x crop from the 5DII would look like. I'll leave it to you to decide whether the quality would be up to scratch.

l02.jpg


eye.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm sorry,but I'm just not seeing any logic in this at all, and even on a cursory glance - that's clearly not a 100% crop from an original image of that size.

Interpolating your original to 5616 X 3744 pixels and matching your crop proportions produces...


l02-crop by tonky8203, on Flickr

Obviously your original would look better than my interpolated version, but certainly nowhere near as good as your misleading crop shows it to be.
 
We seem to have been struggling with this forever and I really don't see what's difficult about it. Clearly full frame has advantages for some but disadvantages for others - sports and wildlife users particularly, who need the reach and crop advantage of a high pixel density crop sensor.

The full frame difference is often hyped totally out of all proportion to the real advantages for many users anyway.

Form your own opinion of the real difference....


Screen Shot 2011-10-30 at 01.15 by tonky8203, on Flickr
Apologies mods for the image size but I don't know any over way to really get the point across.

The left image is the 5DMK2 - the right image is the 7D both at 100 ISO.

Obviously the 5dMK2 will gain in reduced noise as the ISO increases.
 
Last edited:
aeronic said:
I often hear that the main disadvantage of ff is the reach, compared to an aps-c sensor.
Now I often hear about the 1.6x crop which I assume is linear, and so 2.56 times the area for ff.
Now a 25.6mpix ff sensor (is the 5d2 far off this?), would produce a 10mpix image if you literally took the output from the centre portion that is equivalent to aps-c
Click to expand...

This thesis is true, in theory. A 5D2 crops down from 21mp to 8.2mp at 1.6x equivalent - similar to say a 40D's 10mp.

However, for the theory to hold right in practise, the two sensors must be identical in every aspect except total area, including the AA filter (which is never specified), processing engine etc. But it does seem to hold broadly true.

Would this produce a worse image than the 18mpix output of say a canon 60d?
Click to expand...

In practise there are too many variables going on in this comparison. But for the sensor with more pixels to show any advantage, you would need a very sharp lens and print large.

Lots of pixels is far from the whole story, and there are lots of examples. Compare a 40D with 10mp to a 7D with 18mp and the advantage is marginal at best and very hard to see at all in small outputs (eg on-screen is pretty undemanding). Then again, if you compare a Nikon D300 cropper with a D700 full frame, both with around 13mp, the D700 wins hands down. Not just in better sharpness because the lens doesn't have to work so hard, but in lower noise, higher ISO, cleaner colours etc.

The advantage of full frame is basically all aspects of image quality, mainly due to its greater image area and the fact that lens MTF is always correspondingly higher. More pixels is certainly not top of the list. The downside is cost, size and weight, specially with the longer lenses needed to match crop format's greater pixel-reach.
 
Last edited:
Megapixels schmegapixels! It's not just the number that makes the difference it's about how they collect the light. As noted above that leads to lower noise, better sharpness and colour/contrast.....

Crop cameras are great - I've had the 20D/40D and own the 7D which I love! But my 5D2 does produce cleaner images.

Disadvantage of FF is that you need better quality glass on a FF compared to a Crop.
 
EOS_JD said:
Megapixels schmegapixels! It's not just the number that makes the difference it's about how they collect the light. As noted above that leads to lower noise, better sharpness and colour/contrast.....

Crop cameras are great - I've had the 20D/40D and own the 7D which I love! But my 5D2 does produce cleaner images.

Disadvantage of FF is that you need better quality glass on a FF compared to a Crop.
Click to expand...

You could argue that both ways, but in practise the same lens on both cameras will look better on full frame.

The central area will always be sharper on FF because the magnification for a given size of output is lower and therefore the is MTF higher. The periphery is less certain because they're never seen on the cropper, but a good quality lens will deliver good sharpness right to the edges and therefore FF will look better in those areas as well.

It's no surprise that FF is the favoured format for wedding photographers who need best quality all over for things like big group shots, and landscapers too for the same reason.
 
I won't use a FF camera, what about the benefits that are obvious when shooting wildlife if that is your area, eg the 400mm lens being 600mm.

Horses for courses.
 
Last edited:
What about when you are shooting in poor light and need ISO 6400 to get any shutter speed?

Full frame pee`s all over crop in that scenario.

Horses for courses, use both, best of both worlds.
 
JSER said:
I won't use a FF camera, what about the benefits that are obvious when shooting wildlife if that is your area, eg the 400mm lens being 600mm.

Horses for courses.
Click to expand...

Well that's exactly it.

I wish I had full frame every time I use the 50mm 1.2 or the 17-40 lenses for the full FOV with those lenses. The fact is though that while my main interest is in wildlife I can't ignore the obvious advantages of the high pixel density crop sensor.

I've seen the gains each time from the 20D to the 40D, 50D and 7D which means that each time my effective shooting range has increased - quite dramatically with the 50D and 7D. Also with the 7D I find my gain in reach is such that I'm using converters a lot less than I did before. These are positive real-world gains you can see with your own eyes - not the result of some theoretical equation.

Pick the camera for your own particular needs - the perfect all-rounder doesn't exist - yet!
 
fracster said:
What about when you are shooting in poor light and need ISO 6400 to get any shutter speed?

Full frame pee`s all over crop in that scenario.

Horses for courses, use both, best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

Well Richard Branson perhaps you may be able to afford both but some of us here have other commitments like family, bills, work, and we can not "afford" both, so it "is" hores for courses and most will have to chose one or the other.

I chose to crop as in birding the crop is best, as most birders I know have the 7D.

And if anyone has read your camera bag and the swear words that lowers your credibility.
 
Last edited:
Jeremy - don't take things so personally. :lol:

You're right though - that fractster is minted - don't know what to do with it!
 
CT said:
Jeremy - don't take things so personally. :lol:

You're right though - that fractster is minted - don't know what to do with it!
Click to expand...

I am not taking it personally I am making an observation.

It is true that many people here can not afford two or three cameras therefore my observation was and remains that it is horses for courses and you chose your equipment according to what you can afford but your requirements.

The majority or bird photographers chose cropped sensors for a valid reason, if my inteerest lay in landscape I may chose a 5D, if it were weddings then certainly a 5D or Full frame 1D.
 
CT said:
Jeremy - don't take things so personally. :lol:

You're right though - that fractster is minted - don't know what to do with it!
Click to expand...

I wish I was ten bob behind you Cedders............:thumbs:


Jeremy, I have both FF and DX yes, as many others I know do. I still have the usual bills to pay and the usual worries of most, so i`m not Richard Branson, nor do I profess to be.

The camera bag thing is a joke, remember them, jokes, moments of merriment.................:thumbs:
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
Well Richard Branson perhaps you may be able to afford both but some of us here have other commitments like family, bills, work, and we can not "afford" both, so it "is" hores for courses and most will have to chose one or the other.

I chose to crop as in birding the crop is best, as most birders I know have the 7D.

And if anyone has read your camera bag and the swear words that lowers your credibility.
Click to expand...
crop is not the best for birding, if would could all afford a full frame with an 800mm lens we would all have them, there is not best option for anything it just comes down to what we can afford, i have a d300 for wildlife but if could afford a 500f4 and tcs or a 400mm f2.8 and tcs i would get another d700 and use that for wildlife as the image quality is something else.
but for everything else other than widlife i use the d700 as i can chuck pritty much any situation at it and i know it will do it better than the d300,.
 
scottthehat said:
crop is not the best for birding, if would could all afford a full frame with an 800mm lens we would all have them, there is not best option for anything it just comes down to what we can afford, i have a d300 for wildlife but if could afford a 500f4 and tcs or a 400mm f2.8 and tcs i would get another d700 and use that for wildlife as the image quality is something else.
but for everything else other than widlife i use the d700 as i can chuck pritty much any situation at it and i know it will do it better than the d300,.
Click to expand...

^^^ True.

The birders' choice of crop formats over FF is driven mainly by practicality and affordability of super telephotos, ie best compromise.
 
scottthehat said:
crop is not the best for birding, if would could all afford a full frame with an 800mm lens we would all have them, there is not best option for anything it just comes down to what we can afford, i have a d300 for wildlife but if could afford a 500f4 and tcs or a 400mm f2.8 and tcs i would get another d700 and use that for wildlife as the image quality is something else.
but for everything else other than widlife i use the d700 as i can chuck pritty much any situation at it and i know it will do it better than the d300,.
Click to expand...

In a nutsell as I stated, personal choice.

Also I suggest you come to a birding day out and I challenge you to see anyone with an 800mm and FF camera. And NO we would NOT all have one, dont assume!

Also remember that the D700 offers JUST 5 fps, the 7D has 8 fps another reason why cropped is chosen over full frame.

Horses for courses as I have said
 
JSER said:
Also remember that the D700 offers JUST 5 fps, the 7D has 8 fps another reason why cropped is chosen over full frame d
Click to expand...
Wrong again.Gripped , it shoots more.
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
In a nutsell as I stated, personal choice.

Also I suggest you come to a birding day out and I challenge you to see anyone with an 800mm and FF camera. And NO we would NOT all have one, dont assume!

Also remember that the D700 offers JUST 5 fps, the 7D has 8 fps another reason why cropped is chosen over full frame.

Horses for courses as I have said
Click to expand...
first of all jeremy, my main hobby is bird photography and a do alot of it, if you care to look in the bird section you will see that.
heres just one of well many images.
SJB_8422.jpg

second alot of places i go i see photographer with bags of kit many with 2 or 3 cams one bloke i saw with him had £35.000 with him, and i said if we all had the money we would have the best ie full frame and a whooping great lens(i didnt say everyone has that)
and my d300 and d700 both shot 8fps:thumbs:,
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
first of all jeremy, my main hobby is bird photography and a do alot of it, if you care to look in the bird section you will see that.
heres just one of well many images.
SJB_8422.jpg

second alot of places i go i see photographer with bags of kit many with 2 or 3 cams one bloke i saw with him had £35.000 with him, and i said if we all had the money we would have the best ie full frame and a whooping great lens(i didnt say everyone has that)
and my d300 and d700 both shot 8fps:thumbs:,
Click to expand...

No sorry, I have the money and chose NOT to have 10k worth of gear, just because I can afford a 1d mk1V does not mean I want it.

And let us be honest we all know that snobbery plays a large part in photography just as it does in car ownership or anything else.

I bought just the right gear for me, and for what I use it for.
 
jeremey if thats what pleases you then thats good but if that was the best combo for wildlife why does everybody not have that setup, for me the d300 is great and if i could afford to just blow £6000 on a 500 or 600f4 i would to use on my d700 as i know i can use it upto iso 12800 compared to the d300 at a push iso 3200.
 
scottthehat said:
jeremey if thats what pleases you then thats good but if that was the best combo for wildlife why does everybody not have that setup, for me the d300 is great and if i could afford to just blow £6000 on a 500 or 600f4 i would to use on my d700 as i know i can use it upto iso 12800 compared to the d300 at a push iso 3200.
Click to expand...

Probably for the same reason that everyone does not have your setup, we are all different, which is why we don't all drive the same cars or wear jeans, and if you read what I said, it was that it was what "I" wanted and chose not what may or may not be the best setup.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
^^^ True.

The birders' choice of crop formats over FF is driven mainly by practicality and affordability of super telephotos, ie best compromise.
Click to expand...

No Richard it isn't true at all. I'm not driven by financial constraints in the choice of my kit - it's carefully chosen to give me the best results based on years of experience of shooting mainly birds. I know many birders, quite well heeled enough to afford full frame cameras but they spend the money where it counts - on the lenses.

Take the best full frame sensor and the best crop sensor cameras at any given time, equip them both with the longest telephoto lens available, shooting from the same position and when it come to an extreme range shot, the cropper gets a usable image where the full frame camera doesn't. That's it - couldn't be much simpler. Birds simply don't come at obligingly close ranges to give the advantage to the full frame.
 
Granted Cedders, but, I have been out photographing barn owls today in the rapidly darkening skies. I failed miserably I must add, but even at 6400 ISO,I was only getting 1/125 on the D700 by about 17:15.The D300 stayed in the bag because of the light.

I fully agree with your opinions on the crop bodies, nearly all my falcon shots are taken with the D300,for example, but sometimes that high level ISO usability comes into its own.
 
fracster said:
Granted Cedders, but, I have been out photographing barn owls today in the rapidly darkening skies. I failed miserably I must add, but even at 6400 ISO,I was only getting 1/125 on the D700 by about 17:15.The D300 stayed in the bag because of the light.

I fully agree with your opinions on the crop bodies, nearly all my falcon shots are taken with the D300,for example, but sometimes that high level ISO usability comes into its own.
Click to expand...

Frac

The body of choice for birders ,and we have a lot of good ones here is a crop body - they'r not all crackers and they're not all living in envy of a full frame body.

Birding in all circumstances just as they come - it's a cropper every time. But the answer is easy - anyone here who has a full frame body and a cropper can do the controlled test and show us some tangible proof of the benefits of full frame - put the slide rules and the calculators away and let's see some real world evidence instead.

I've done the comparisons for yonks and I know the answer. I could quite happily leave these threads well alone now, but what I do object to is people being misled in their choice of equipment for the sake if what is just internet hot air without some evidence to back it up.
 
I don`t do slide rules or physics as you know Cedric and i`m certainly not going to argue with you about which is best. I like the duality of having both and believe me, I would sell the D700 and pocket the brass tomorrow if a cropper was all I wanted/needed.

You and many others on here prove that you know what your talking about in the quality of the work they produce and show on here, but others give advice without anyone being able to see their work and dismiss one or the other outright. I have not dismissed crop bodies and never would do, but there are plenty of people who get superb results on FF. Dismissing either one out of hand seems a bit daft to me.

If I had to have one camera and one only, then the D300 would stay. But the option of both can be beneficial. My thoughts on the subject mate
 
I'm not arguing against having both mate and never have. I'm saying if it's one body and its birds then it's a cropper.:shrug:

Anyway - you have both bodies frac -let's see some test results. :D

Anyway - didn't you buy a full frame body for weddings? :thinking:
 
Last edited:
CT said:
I'm not arguing against having both mate and never have. I'm saying if it's one body and its birds then it's a cropper.:shrug:

Anyway - you have both bodies frac -let's see some test results. :D
Click to expand...

I`ll bear it in mind next time i`m crawling along some ditch somewhere Cedric, don`t hold your breath though.............:D
 
fracster said:
I`ll bear it in mind next time i`m crawling along some ditch somewhere Cedric, don`t hold your breath though.............:D
Click to expand...


LOL.

You don't have to be crawling along a ditch - you can do it in the back garden - tripod - two shots - same lens - one shot with each body - decent amount of cropping involved in the shot is all that's needed.

Strange that nobody does that? :shrug:
 
CT said:
LOL.

You don't have to be crawling along a ditch - you can do it in the back garden - tripod - two shots - same lens - one shot with each body - decent amount of cropping involved in the shot is all that's needed.

Strange that nobody does that? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Alright then mate, next time i`m out i`ll take both bodies and one lens.Take the same shot of the wall of a barn and crop the FF to the same view as DX. Which will be best? No doubt about it the crop would be I would say.More pixels in the same area, you converted me to that train of thought some years ago Cedric........:thumbs:

The point i`m trying to make, probably not too well.........:)..........again.......:D......Is that the lowlight capabilities of the D700 over the D300 can be the difference between getting the shot or not. That is all i`m saying mate. As per previous, if I could only have one body,it would be the D300,simply for that extra reach.No arguments on that score.
 
fracster said:
Alright then mate, next time i`m out i`ll take both bodies and one lens.Take the same shot of the wall of a barn and crop the FF to the same view as DX. Which will be best? No doubt about it the crop would be I would say.More pixels in the same area, you converted me to that train of thought some years ago Cedric........:thumbs:

The point i`m trying to make, probably not too well.........:)..........again.......:D......Is that the lowlight capabilities of the D700 over the D300 can be the difference between getting the shot or not. That is all i`m saying mate. As per previous, if I could only have one body,it would be the D300,simply for that extra reach.No arguments on that score.
Click to expand...

This rumoured 36mp d700 replacement should be ideal for you then, Ade. If it exists/ever makes it to market.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
This rumoured 36mp d700 replacement should be ideal for you then, Ade. If it exists/ever makes it to market.
Click to expand...

If any DX Nikon body handled noise like the FX Nikons, I would swap tomorrow mate.
 
I'm not arguing about the low light advantage of the full frame frac, but your barn owl is very low light and you lose out in reach with the FF body anyway.

Don't take a shot of a barn wall -take a shot of something equating to the size of a small bird that involves a decent bit of cropping with the cropper body - something like a small doll - one of them monkee things would be ideal.
 
CT said:
I'm not arguing about the low light advantage of the full frame frac, but your barn owl is very low light and you lose out in reach with the FF body anyway.

Don't take a shot of a barn wall -take a shot of something equating to the size of a small bird that involves a decent bit of cropping with the cropper body - something like a small doll - one of them monkee things would be ideal.
Click to expand...

Would a dead Grey Squirrel do for the test?................:naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top