Full frame vs Crop

FromTarn

FromTarn

Suspended / Banned
Messages
427
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
This is aimed mainly at wildlife photographers and in particular ones that have upgraded from a crop sensor camera to full frame, so the question is this, did you miss the crop when moving up for example a 500mm on full frame is exactly that but on a canon with the 1.6 crop its the equivalent of 800mm, if so do those that have gone to FF use either the 1.4x and 2.0x converters to make up for losing that crop factor, the reason I ask is because I am considering trading my 7d2 for the 5d4 to go onto either a 400mm f/4.0 or 500mm f/4.0 lens.
Thanks in advance
 
FromTarn said:
did you miss the crop when moving up for example a 500mm on full frame is exactly that but on a canon with the 1.6 crop its the equivalent of 800mm
Click to expand...


This is the worst approach to sensor size and the best way to
base a wrong decision.

Whichever sensor size, a 500 stays a 500 and the image it will
produce is always the same size.
 
The full frame coolade is very strong I think...
 
Hire one for a day and see for yourself and see if you like the body. Worst mistake is buying anything on the word others. Get your hand on it and you will know
 
2MqJXpd.jpg


I have this choice on the Nikon D810

So an 400mm lens can go to 600mm if using the DX setting presumably?
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
This is the worst approach to sensor size and the best way to
base a wrong decision.

Whichever sensor size, a 500 stays a 500 and the image it will
produce is always the same size.
Click to expand...
Yes but the real estate capturing it differs. FF (eg 24mp) is a bad deal if you constantly needs to crop in. So do you? :)
 
soeren said:
Yes but the real estate capturing it differs.
Click to expand...


Not really, I believe, Soeren.

The DX sensors come at the same 24 MS count on a smaller
surface and that costs low light performance on top of it.

Since I stubbornly refuse to use TC's, my solution is a 45.7 MS
sensor with the 600 ƒ4 in combo… if one wants to, there is a lot
of cropping margin right there and it come at no low light perfor-
mance cost too! :cool:
 
Kodiak Qc said:
Not really, I believe, Soeren.

The DX sensors come at the same 24 MS count on a smaller
surface and that costs low light performance on top of it.

Since I stubbornly refuse to use TC's, my solution is a 45.7 MS
sensor with the 600 ƒ4 in combo… if one wants to, there is a lot
of cropping margin right there and it come at no low light perfor-
mance cost too! :cool:
Click to expand...

That is a lot of money for that setup. maybe the OP hasn't got that amount to spend Nikon D850 =£3500 and the lens @ £10,000 (latest version)

I know that is well outside what I can afford so I have to stick within budget. Us poor pensioners you know don't have a lot of spare cash lying about
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
That is a lot of money for that setup. maybe the OP hasn't got that amount to spend
Click to expand...


Right Bazza, I understand that… this was MY solution only
and I love it. Absolutely.

Martin, if he has a limited budget, should at least have the
adequate info to make a proper investment and not lose
his money.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
Not really, I believe, Soeren.

The DX sensors come at the same 24 MS count on a smaller
surface and that costs low light performance on top of it.

Since I stubbornly refuse to use TC's, my solution is a 45.7 MS
sensor with the 600 ƒ4 in combo… if one wants to, there is a lot
of cropping margin right there and it come at no low light perfor-
mance cost too! :cool:
Click to expand...
Kind of mixed/confused IMO...

*IF* a longer FL is used to capture the same FOV/exposure on the larger sensor, then it get's more light. *OR* if the pixels are larger and the same FL is used, then the sensor gets more light per pixel, but not more light (from the subject)... the advantage is pixel level noise at a lower resolution.
I.e. if you use a D800 and a D7000 with the same FL and crop the D800 image to the same FOV/composition, then there is no advantage for the D800... all of the advantages it had (sensor size/DR/color/noise/etc) were cropped away.

FromTarn said:
This is aimed mainly at wildlife photographers and in particular ones that have upgraded from a crop sensor camera to full frame, so the question is this, did you miss the crop when moving up for example a 500mm on full frame is exactly that but on a canon with the 1.6 crop its the equivalent of 800mm, if so do those that have gone to FF use either the 1.4x and 2.0x converters to make up for losing that crop factor, the reason I ask is because I am considering trading my 7d2 for the 5d4 to go onto either a 400mm f/4.0 or 500mm f/4.0 lens.
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
I normally use a D5 (or D810) with a 400/2.8 and a 2x TC... there is no real advantage to having the FF sensor in this case. The only time there is a significant advantage to using the FF cameras is when I can also fill the frame without using a TC.
Otherwise it's a circle of tradeoffs and there is no clear "best answer."
 
Last edited:
I upgraded from a 7Dmki to a 5Div last year and it's night and day. I've not missed the crop so far, you just have to adjust to it but I'm loving the trade off, with much less noisy images, better low light performance, more detailed images and far, far better dynamic range and shadow recovery.

FWIW, I will never buy a crop Canon again.
 
FromTarn said:
This is aimed mainly at wildlife photographers and in particular ones that have upgraded from a crop sensor camera to full frame, so the question is this, did you miss the crop when moving up for example a 500mm on full frame is exactly that but on a canon with the 1.6 crop its the equivalent of 800mm, if so do those that have gone to FF use either the 1.4x and 2.0x converters to make up for losing that crop factor, the reason I ask is because I am considering trading my 7d2 for the 5d4 to go onto either a 400mm f/4.0 or 500mm f/4.0 lens.
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

This question has been debated many time before; Conclusion is: for reach crop sensor for poor light full frame.

It begins.:runaway:
 
FromTarn said:
This is aimed mainly at wildlife photographers and in particular ones that have upgraded from a crop sensor camera to full frame, so the question is this, did you miss the crop when moving up for example a 500mm on full frame is exactly that but on a canon with the 1.6 crop its the equivalent of 800mm, if so do those that have gone to FF use either the 1.4x and 2.0x converters to make up for losing that crop factor, the reason I ask is because I am considering trading my 7d2 for the 5d4 to go onto either a 400mm f/4.0 or 500mm f/4.0 lens.
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

....I exclusively photograph wildlife and last July I bought a Canon 5D4 as an added option to the 7D2 which I have had since it was first launched a few years ago. I have now very recently replaced my 5D4 with a 1DX2.

The main lenses I use are all Canon : 500mm F/4L II, 100-400mm L II, 100mm F/2.8L IS Macro, plus x1.4 and x2 Extenders versions III.

Whereas I prefer the image quality from the 5D4, I prefer the 10fps of the 7D2 rather than the 5D4's only 7fps, but of course the 7D2 crop-sensor's extra reach is useful. But, I have found that the 500mm F/4L II takes both x1.4 and x2 Extenders very well (importantly they are version III). The 100-400mm L II takes the x1.4 III very well too but gives poor results with the x2 III in my experience and AF is very noticeably slowed down.

I achieved better (image quality) results with the 500mm + either Extender on the 5D4 than with the same lens combo on the 7D2 but fps is very important in wildlife photography, hence strongly influencing my purchase of the 1DX2 which offers 14fps and also performs better in poor light.

Would I miss having a crop-sensor option if I could only keep one camera body? - Sometimes but not often. I am lucky enough to be able to afford owning both crop and full-frame bodies.

There is no such thing as a perfect camera but might it be worth waiting to see what a 7D Mark III has to offer before trading your 7D Mark II in for a 5D Mark IV?

I hope this is helpful.
 
Dale. said:
I upgraded from a 7Dmki to a 5Div last year and it's night and day. I've not missed the crop so far, you just have to adjust to it but I'm loving the trade off, with much less noisy images, better low light performance, more detailed images and far, far better dynamic range and shadow recovery.

FWIW, I will never buy a crop Canon again.
Click to expand...

This is also my experience, can't see me ever going back to a crop sensor
 
I have been toying withthis too, going for a full frame for my landscapes
 
Just my 2p.

I primarily use the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS - yes I photograph small birds so reach is everything! I have two cameras, namely the 7D2 (crop) and 1DX (FF). The 7D2 rarely gets a look in! Unless the lighting is just right then the 1DX (with it's paltry 18mp FF sensor) is significantly better.

The 7D2 does "out reach" the 1DX but not that often, the vast majority of the time my FF camera is the better option.
 
I missed the "Crop Effect" when I got my 1dx2.
I bought a 7d2 as a complimentary system.

I use a 1.4 extender sometime but really don't like the light transmission loss.
 
Mick616 said:
I have been toying withthis too, going for a full frame for my landscapes
Click to expand...

....Probably worth hiring a full-frame before spending the dosh on buying. Or if a very good friend has one you can stick your card in when you go out on a mission together.
 
Mick616 said:
I have been toying withthis too, going for a full frame for my landscapes
Click to expand...
I really liked the 6D when I hade one.
For the difference in cost I's probably a better bet for landscape than a 1dx2.
 
I think most FF shooters will say that FF is the best, crop shooters will say that this is better in this situation (for reach). I tried it for myself using the D750 and D500 and running some controlled tests. With the D750 cropped to the same frame I couldn't see any difference between the two. I do wonder if I would be able to see a difference if printed very large as the D750 cropped to DX size is 'only' 10mp vs 20mp from the uncrossed D500. If I cropped both heavily (but to show the same framing) I still could not see a difference.

Now I see that some people mention the noise advantage of FF which is definitely worth noting. However, if you have to crop the FF image then this gives the effect of accentuating the noise and in this scenario would it then become comparable with the crop sensor? I didn't run high ISO tests so can't comment.

A couple of other things to consider is that with crop you also see larger in the viewfinder, which may be an advantage or may even be a hindrance, especially if trying track erratic birds. Sometimes it's easier if you can see a bit outside the frame so to speak. Also, I would assume that the scene may meter differently between the crop FOV and FF FOV.
 
Hey Martin ,how are ya,cheers for the thread. These questions are asked by many of us whom make wildlife,images. It's a good read this thread. Frankly I sort of wish canon still made the 1.3 crop h sensor in the 1D type body along side the 1dxfull frame bodies. I can't add much really Martin I simply do not have the experience really bar a move from 1.6 crop 550D to 1div 1.3 crop). Beyond the speed already mused,my biggest thought is we shoot in blighty and the light here is so often ,well let's say not the best. Many of us graft and have to go out when we can. Factor in we make image of many animals that are crepuscular,the low light preformance of a body is one of most important factors I'll look at in an upgrade. I think for me personally I won't go back to a crop and the upgrade....one day.....will be FF.. So much depends on what one shoots and where,many sites one simply can't use FC to get close,but I'd rather go FF and use ext's,especially with canons new body's. I'd go and hold these body's mate,the 1series are built like a tank and with that comes weight,frankly I love me brick,but it might not be for everyone,much depends on how physically able each of us are.

Cheers again some really informative posts here

take care

stu
 
I am one of the silly buggers that spent loads of time looking at full frame v crop bodies and can safely say that for the VAST majority of opportunities the limiting factor in getting 'the shot' is not the equipment but me! :(
 
nc_killie said:
I am one of the silly buggers that spent loads of time looking at full frame v crop bodies and can safely say that for the VAST majority of opportunities the limiting factor in getting 'the shot' is not the equipment but me! :(
Click to expand...

Too true!

In almost all circumstances it is the photographer that matters - rarely is the gear the deciding factor. Gear can help, but even the very best gear cannot make me a great (good?) photographer:(
 
I don't even rank myself as a "photographer" but having the latest gear certainly helps.
The things that help old "shakey" people like me are innumerate. To mention a few.

Autofocus: I couldn't manually focus a lens on a moving target for toffees.
Image stabilization: People take being able to hand hold a 400mm lens for granted these days and why not.
High frame rates: Waiting for the exact moment to press the shutter button is no longer necessary.
I could go on.
 
Budget is, I think, the biggest factor. I was really happy with results from my canon 350d crop and tamron superzoom some years ago....before I started on the slippery slope that has led to 1DXM2 and 600F4 plus extenders. Amazing results possible with a lot of time and patience to research and get to locations etc etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top