full frame v crop sensor

FromTarn

FromTarn

Suspended / Banned
Messages
427
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
I've been thinking about upgrading to full frame from my crop sensor 70d, but I was wondering about the good and bad points of both sensors.
 
What do you shoot most? Do you need the extra width that FF can provide or is IQ your thinking behind going FF?
 
Depending what lenses you have, you may have to upgrade them too.

Full frame - EF lenses only. Crop - EF and EF-S lenses

A quick google brings up this http://www.slrlounge.com/school/cropped-sensor-vs-full-frame-sensor-tips-in-2/

For me... if money was not a consideration then I would only buy full-frame, but as it is... it is a bit less clear cut. I shoot mainly macro and wildlife so I benefit from the 'extra reach' a crop sensor appears to give - so I would probably go with top-end crop like the 7D Mark II.
 
If you can fill the frame with your subject then I'd recommend FF. Otherwise APS-C will give you more pixels on target.
 
Both are good, have different advantages/disadvantages and neither are right or wrong. FF has generally better ISO performance (crops are getting better) and has a shallower depth of field if subject isolation is your thing.
 
I'd suggest keeping a crop sensor body to have the option to use both according to the subject/conditions.
If you can't afford to do that, then personally i'd question the wisdom of going full-frame. Because lens upgrades/changes are often needed in addition to just changing the body.
Having the option of putting a high pixel density crop sensor body on when you're reach limited is a fantastic thing to have in wildlife photography.
I use a 1D mk4 or a 7D according to what transpires in front of me.
 
Both are now excellent and just different.

One tog that has FF will say it's a must have and the others will give other opinions.

Work out your needs and then find a tool to suit
 
I remember when I got my 1st full frame camera a 5d mk2 , I charged the battery and rushed to my local beach for an amazing sunset . Camera on tripod , composed my shot and hit the shutter , with utter excitement it felt a life time for the image to show on the Back of the screen and when it did.....,..,.....I stared blankly at it wondering why the shot wasn't good enough to enter into landscape photographer of the year competition .....,. It looked exactly like what I would have taken on my 40d LOL , if your current camera Iholding you back don't change because the bottom line is it will make you no better and I feel full frame has the advantage ONLY when your pushed to get the shot (usually paid work) high ISO etc
 
I use crop 7D2 and full frame 1DX. The 7D2 comes out for my wildlife work because the extra reach is invaluable. If I can fill the frame with my wildlife, I would use the 1DX instead because despite the slightly lower pixel resolution, the images do show more detail and the high ISO is better allowing faster shutter speeds to freeze motion. I only use FF lenses because the EF-S range just don't have the quality, so for my general photography I only use the 1DX.

I am not one of those who think one is better than the other - clearly I use both. Both are excellent and will give great results but as I say above and others have already stated, it depends on your final use. Don't upgrade to FF just because people tell you it's better, because except under extreme situations you will not notice much difference.
 
Thanks for all the comments on my question, much appreciated they are too, I use a 70d with a Canon ef 300mm f4.0 l is usm and a mk iii 1.4x converter
 
Go full frame without a question. It's a no brainier. Crop sensors don't give extra reach....it's artificial 'Reach'. All that happens is the body crops your image for you! The lens is still the same focal length and a crop sensor doesn't change or magnify this. Full frame will give significantly improved IQ due to the larger sensor with the option to shoot in Crop mode or full frame. Or when you shoot full frame you have the option to further crop in post process. A 500mm lens is always a 500mm lens. On a crop sensor it's not a 750mm lens it's still 500mm, but the image in theory has had a 1.5x crop. A full frame sensor will always provide sharper images with greater detail and tonal range. There's a reason there more expensive! Generally in life you get what you pay for. I'm saving my ass off at the moment as I've seen the light!
 
Some crap talked above and some good sense too - as always in such debates

If your smaller sensor is good and the lenses are great you'll probably not notice much of a difference at all from such an 'upgrade'; just in the same way you wouldn't notice your image & options getting worse if you went to smaller mirrorless (which I take it some would say is a 'downgrade' lol)

If you really want to upgrade from a less than FX sensor then you need to go BIGGER and buy a Blad or some such, otherwise, unless you really need ISO 6400 and above or really need to shoot superwide all day long, then its a pointless change

I now shoot on a D7200 (crop) in my professional capacity and the only changes I'd consider would be a Blad, as that would be 'better' in some respects, or to such as the teeny mirrorless cos they are lighter, even easier to carry and so unobtrusive

If you have a decent camera, and I suspect the 70D is one but then I know sod all about non-Nikons, the best thing you could spend your money on is training in how to shoot and/or process better

Dave
 
Full frame sensors are capable of processing far more detail over a greater dynamic range. It's part of the reason why Nikon DX bodies are considered 'Consumer' and full frame FX bodies are Prosumer/professional equipment. This isn't just marketing hype but mainly due to the development costs.

The only benefit to DX is the resolution per £.....the D7200 if compared to an Equivalant FX would technically be 54mp. Some lower resolution Full frame sensors would restrict crop-ability due to this, but cameras such as the D800/810 would have no issues.

This is a good read....https://photographylife.com/dx-or-fx-for-sports-and-wildlife-photography
 
Thanks again to all and I'll try and take in all the comments and/or advice before I commit myself
 
Push the boat out and get a second hand 1Div.

I have had a 7D and 5Dii whilst owning mine and would be happy to own ether again. But I would not swap if offered both for my MKiv. I used both for work (interiors) and both for fun. Image quality good enough from both was good enough for paid work. I know people who have used both for weddings so both pro level.

7Dii is an improvement but quite a few come to the market with the seller going to a MKiv. I have only played with one for a day and found it complicated. The high ISO noise is still not where I would like it.
I had put a pre order on a 5Diii for £3000 when it first came out so glad my wife put her foot down. I would still like one if only to pair up with a 135L 100% of the time but I would still get another MKiv first.
 
Last edited:
andyscott said:
Simply not true, Nikon Produce DX professional cameras
Click to expand...

That's not from my words but how Nikon market the bodies themselves.....If you look for yourself on Nikons own website you will see DX bodies are placed in the beginner/Intermediate categories, and all cameras in the advanced/professional range are full frame......

Its not that I mean to offend anyone with a DX body (Im one myself), and there are also as some have already mentioned are professionals in their own right that choose for whatever reason to use a crop body, but its Fact. This is how the cameras are marketed by Nikon based on specification and intended user.
 
Last edited:
Chivs33 said:
That's not from my words but how Nikon market the bodies themselves.....If you look for yourself on Nikons own website you will see DX bodies are placed in the beginner/Intermediate categories, and all cameras in the advanced/professional range are full frame......Fact.
Click to expand...

Not strictly true

The D7x00, D750 and D610 are all Advanced, D810, D4s and D300s are all Pro

And yes, the D300s is a DX sensor, and some of the FF bodies are considered Advanced along with the DX D7x00 (some would say this was equivalent to Pro-sumer) ;)
 
Last edited:
Depends on what it is about your 70D you wish to improve and what you want to do with the images you capture in my opinion. The FF coolade is very strong.
 
Sorry to be a bore, but the differences in 'quality' really aren't there in the real world between FX & DX, they are so close as to be worthless arguing about. True the FX can handle high ISO better, so if you're always shooting at very high ISO that's definitely a consideration. True also that the DX puts more pixels on each mm of your lens and hence gives you a longer 'reach', so if you shoot long lenses and couldn't possibly afford the more expensive FX ones and then handle a convertor too (losing you that ISO advantage), then DX is the way to go

Many moons ago I bought a £3,500 Pro camera, the D2Xs, even the lowly DX cameras of today will outperform it in almost every image quality way and the D2Xs is still highly regarded as a camera, just not for high ISO

Its all relative to NOW and in a few months time that NOW will be different to today's NOW, possibly by quite some margin

A good DX gives me all I ever need as a Pro, the FX would give me a slightly different look as my primary concern is shallow DoF (though I'm happy with my f1.4 and f1.8 primes for that anyway). So would it be worth me changing in any way at all - errr no

FX also lets you get away slightly with poorer camera technique too as the 'crop' effectively magnifies camera shake; so in attaining ultimate 'quality' that's a consideration too

But just what is that ultimate quality anyway??? Unless you print 30+ inches wide a lot and then go stick your nose on the print to check you'll never notice a difference

If I was starting out buying my first camera now and money wasn't an issue, it'd be a difficult thing to call; but for me, I'd take DX and spend the hundreds of £s saved on training or actually going somewhere to use it :)

And if you want to argue against that ^^^ read this http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/april-2013-nikon-newsviews/dx-versus-fx-again.html Thom if VERY highly regarded in this sort of debate :)

Dave
 
I've read these posts with interest - having swapped from D7100 [DX] to a D750 [FX] my subjective thoughts were that the much higher quality with similar [wildlife] shots meant that I could crop significantly and end up with a better like for like result. I have not used the crop factor on the D750 but I think I will now do some real life work to compare the D7100/D750 crop - and also the DX modes on the D750 itself. An interesting discussion and one that has inspired me to check the differences more carefully!
 
Chivs33 said:
That's not from my words but how Nikon market the bodies themselves.....If you look for yourself on Nikons own website you will see DX bodies are placed in the beginner/Intermediate categories, and all cameras in the advanced/professional range are full frame......

Its not that I mean to offend anyone with a DX body (Im one myself), and there are also as some have already mentioned are professionals in their own right that choose for whatever reason to use a crop body, but its Fact. This is how the cameras are marketed by Nikon based on specification and intended user.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it might be possible that the published advice of those who sell cameras could have slightly exaggerated the benefits of their most expensive products?
 
An interesting thread. I'm budgeting for a second body next year, and currently using a D7100. I am considering the D7200, mainly for compatibility with existing lenses and increased buffer size. Nikon claim better low noise performance, which would suit me as I don't like going over ISO 3200, but personally I wouldn't expect a huge increase unless you are jumping multiple models when upgrading. I have considered a good used D700, but I suspect it's older sensor won't have better low noise performance than the newer D7200, would I be correct?
 
An interesting thread. Having viewed the links I think that Thom Hogan makes the most pertinent point regarding output size. Whilst it may be great to think about printing large size, I would imagine most people entering the debate only pixel peep on their own computer screen
 
steveb said:
An interesting thread. I'm budgeting for a second body next year, and currently using a D7100. I am considering the D7200, mainly for compatibility with existing lenses and increased buffer size. Nikon claim better low noise performance, which would suit me as I don't like going over ISO 3200, but personally I wouldn't expect a huge increase unless you are jumping multiple models when upgrading. I have considered a good used D700, but I suspect it's older sensor won't have better low noise performance than the newer D7200, would I be correct?
Click to expand...

I've been reading extensively about this because I'm going to be upgrading soon and was considering either the D7200 (currently have a D7000) or the D810. At the end of the day I've decided to go for the D7200 simply because I exclusively take wildlife (99% birds) and rarely get them to fill the frame. From my understanding this means that in crop mode the D810 will be 15.5MP and the D7200 is 24.7MP...that makes a big difference to me on the number of pixels in a given area when cropping and since my current D7000 is 16MP, going to the D810 would mean I'm effectively paying for a reduction in MP.
 
htid said:
I've been reading extensively about this because I'm going to be upgrading soon and was considering either the D7200 (currently have a D7000) or the D810. At the end of the day I've decided to go for the D7200 simply because I exclusively take wildlife (99% birds) and rarely get them to fill the frame. From my understanding this means that in crop mode the D810 will be 15.5MP and the D7200 is 24.7MP...that makes a big difference to me on the number of pixels in a given area when cropping and since my current D7000 is 16MP, going to the D810 would mean I'm effectively paying for a reduction in MP.
Click to expand...

The D810 with 36mp will allow a very lot of cropping and keep the detail, without the need to use DX mode. Not had the D7200, but I have previously owned the D7100 & D7000 and IMO you cant compare them when using higher ISO, I didn't like going over ISO 800/1000 with my D7100. My D750 is much better and the D810 is going to be again possibly.

As your D7000 isn't worth much money these days, if you can afford the D810 the two cameras could complement each other. I would certainly try the D810 & D7200 rather than trying to do the maths in crop mode for each camera. The crop mode is handy to have but something I wouldn't use a lot.
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
The D810 with 36mp will allow a very lot of cropping and keep the detail, without the need to use DX mode. Not had the D7200, but I have previously owned the D7100 & D7000 and IMO you cant compare them when using higher ISO, I didn't like going over ISO 800/1000 with my D7100. My D750 is much better and the D810 is going to be again possibly.

As your D7000 isn't worth much money these days, if you can afford the D810 the two cameras could complement each other. I would certainly try the D810 & D7200 rather than trying to do the maths in crop mode for each camera. The crop mode is handy to have but something I wouldn't use a lot.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily mean crop mode in the D810, I mean I've read that the same area of the sensor taken from the D810 as the full area of the sensor on the D7200 contains less pixels. So the FX sensor size is 36x24mm whereas the DX sensor is 24x16mm. Assuming you can't fill the frame with the subject (often the case with a bird) you'd only be using at max the middle 24x16mm of the FX sensor. This same sized area will have 15.5MP whereas the same sized area of the D7200 will have 24.7MP. Obviously if you CAN fill more than the middle 24x16mm of the sensor on the FX camera, you're better off using that, but as I said that's rarely the case...I can rarely even fill the frame of the DX sensor!

Totally get the ISO though and that has to be taken into consideration. My D7000 struggles above about 800 as you say and I'm sure the D810 can do much better, but for me I think the extra detail level of the D7200 would be more benificial than the higher ISO capabilities of the D810.
 
For wildlife and particularly birds I use my D7200 more than my D810 - when all things are right the D810 will out-perform the D7200 in image quality without question but in most cases the extra reach given my the D7200 wins out.
 
htid said:
I don't necessarily mean crop mode in the D810, I mean I've read that the same area of the sensor taken from the D810 as the full area of the sensor on the D7200 contains less pixels. So the FX sensor size is 36x24mm whereas the DX sensor is 24x16mm. Assuming you can't fill the frame with the subject (often the case with a bird) you'd only be using at max the middle 24x16mm of the FX sensor. This same sized area will have 15.5MP whereas the same sized area of the D7200 will have 24.7MP. Obviously if you CAN fill more than the middle 24x16mm of the sensor on the FX camera, you're better off using that, but as I said that's rarely the case...I can rarely even fill the frame of the DX sensor!

Totally get the ISO though and that has to be taken into consideration. My D7000 struggles above about 800 as you say and I'm sure the D810 can do much better, but for me I think the extra detail level of the D7200 would be more benificial than the higher ISO capabilities of the D810.
Click to expand...

But............... with a FX sensor as it bigger it will gather more information and as you cant fill the frame on your DX camera now, you are looking at cropping your pictures. You need to also consider the size of the file you are cropping when looking at MP. A D810 file is 7360 x 4912 and a D7200 file is 6000 x 4000 so you can crop more with a D810 than a D7200.

I was suggesting the D810 willl compliment your D7000 as Roger has mentioned above. Try them both and take a memory card with you to look back on. For me I was dissapointed with my D7100 over the D7000 and some will say the files are better from the D7000 as it use the Sony sensor and the D7100 uses a Toshiba one, plus the poor buffer. What I'm trying to get at, is the D7200 maybe a dissapointing upgrade for you, so consider all your options.
 
Last edited:
apologies to those of you who are Nikon users, but I'd like to hear more from Canon users as that's what I'll be going to possibly a 5d mk iii
 
FromTarn said:
Thanks for all the comments on my question, much appreciated they are too, I use a 70d with a Canon ef 300mm f4.0 l is usm and a mk iii 1.4x converter
Click to expand...

So what lens do you propose to use on a full frame to give you the same reach.?
I would stay exactly where you are.
 
Terrywoodenpic my main aim of going to full frame is the better image quality plus better handling of bad or low light, which by the way, I am only going by articles I have read online and in mags
 
I have a 7D and earlier in the year bought a 5Dii. I do mainly landscape and cityscape. I dont regret it for a moment. I'm completely sure that shots taken with the 5D are sharper & better quality. I'm able to compare of course as I have both cameras. I am however happy I kept both as the low light on the 5d is better than the 7D, but the 7D is better for shots of sport or fast action.

I know it's all down to perception and opinion, but I dont regret going full frame at all, the only downside being it cost me an extra £20 when I had the FF sensor cleaned as opposed to the crop :)
 
Its an interesting thread as its nice to see each individual has their own justified reasons why they use a particular body. I personally believe a FX sensor will suit my needs better as i will be using it the far end of each scale....i shoot a lot of landscape wide and the swap over to shoot wildlife. Again no offence intended, but for me a DX body is a bit of a one trick pony. Some say they prefer its advantage with wildlife shooting, and agree there are advantages but i cant help to feel these advantages are misleading in the fact that the FX sensor will always offer better image processing ability, and post process flexibility. An FX body will without doubt be better for landscape.

Please excuse my wording on this, but I also think you have a far better chance of capturing moving subjects, simply because on an FX body you are shooting slightly wider and then crop to the area you wish without significantly losing quality where as a DX is already technically cropped. How often do you shoot fast moving objects and find its perfectly in frame? Its a bit more forgiving i suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top