First DSLR - full frame vs cropped

alexthecheese

alexthecheese

alexthecheese

Soldato
Joined
10 Mar 2006
Posts
3,975
Turning 30 next year and this is going to be a treat to myself.

I'm wondering whether to get a full frame camera, or a APS-C one. I've kinda got a jist of what the differences are, advantags and disadvantages as stated on Wikipedia, but I guess the one thing I'm thinking about is size!

They look considerably bigger than cropped frame cameras. Would they be unwiedly and not useful for usual amateur use? It would afterall be my first camera.

Thoughts appreciated. :o
 
thats a bit vague?

Its as if the OP cant learn from a FF :(

Anyways OP if you have the budget for FF, go FF. its better then crop in most situations except for reach.
 
I did say in a nutshell ;)
I only say it because its a lot of cash to blow on FF, and you tend to require 'better' more expensive lenses to get the benefit, and then you decide its not for you?

-edit-
Although a second hand 5D classic is a nice price now.
 
alexthecheese said:
Turning 30 next year and this is going to be a treat to myself.

I'm wondering whether to get a full frame camera, or a APS-C one. I've kinda got a jist of what the differences are, advantags and disadvantages as stated on Wikipedia, but I guess the one thing I'm thinking about is size!

They look considerably bigger than cropped frame cameras. Would they be unwiedly and not useful for usual amateur use? It would afterall be my first camera.

Thoughts appreciated. :o
Click to expand...

the canon 5Dmk2 is probably marginally larger than the OHs 20D. not a lot in it to be honest.
 
If you got the budget, just get FF, if you get a crop you'l only sell it (lose money) and buy a FF at some point anyway, imo it's more fun learning on a FF than a crop, just the viewfinder alone aids composition, which is what you'l want to learn about, especially being new to this.
 
jonneymendoza said:
thats a bit vague?

Its as if the OP cant learn from a FF :(

Anyways OP if you have the budget for FF, go FF. its better then crop in most situations except for reach.
Click to expand...

Not that simple, its really 50-50, equal advantages and disadvantages. For the most part a crop sensor is absolutely fine and solves most purposes for most people equal or better than FF.

The best thing FF gives you is a big viewfinder.
THe larger sensor allows more light gather abilities, but then FF sensors are updated less often so a modern crop sensor is often nearly as good as an older FF sensor. Have a look at the Nikon D7000 for the latest cop IQ. The D700 is about the best prosumer level crop camera you can buy. Then compare to the Nikon D700 FF camera which is the best entry level Full-frame you can buy.
 
Last edited:
Alpherah said:
Decide what you want to be shooting also before jumping into a 5D/5D II as the Af isn't the hottest on the block.
Click to expand...

I second this, before you decide which camera will suit you best you must first think about which type of photography interest you.
The full frame cameras give excellent image quality and allow great creative control over the depth of field. They tend to be good for portrait and landscape photography . They also give good results at high iso meaning good results in low light situations ie indoors.
Crop cameras have the advantage of slighty extending the apparent reach of your lens as the sensor only sees the central portion of the image> They tend to give faster frames per second. This lends them towards sports and wildlife use. Its is important with these types of fast moving subjects to have a good autofocus system so cameras like the Canon 60d, 7d, 40d have more cross type sensors to improve focusing.
Both types of camera can be used for all types of subjects, however you will benefit if you pick the one that suits your needs.
Its also worth thinking about lens choice as not all lenses will fit both type of camera. With Canon the EFS lens will only fit crop cameras, the EF lens will fit crop and fullframe. Hope this helps
 
Alpherah said:
I did say in a nutshell ;)
I only say it because its a lot of cash to blow on FF, and you tend to require 'better' more expensive lenses to get the benefit, and then you decide its not for you?

-edit-
Although a second hand 5D classic is a nice price now.
Click to expand...

Don't know why people keep saying this, as the reality is FF is much less reliant on good glass Vs crop sensors and will give shaper images with less CA. The only time FF is at a disadvantage in terms of sharpness etc., is if the quality of the lens degrades RAPIDLY from the centre.

Doesn't have to cost more either, 5D classic with a few primes buys you amazing potential.
 
D.P. said:
Not that simple, its really 50-50, equal advantages and disadvantages. For the most part a crop sensor is absolutely fine and solves most purposes for most people equal or better than FF.

The best thing FF gives you is a big viewfinder.
THe larger sensor allows more light gather abilities, but then FF sensors are updated less often so a modern crop sensor is often nearly as good as an older FF sensor. Have a look at the Nikon D7000 for the latest cop IQ. The D700 is about the best prosumer level crop camera you can buy. Then compare to the Nikon D700 FF camera which is the best entry level Full-frame you can buy.
Click to expand...

Having owned both a D7000 and D700, the FF effect on IQ is pretty noticeable, especially when shooting wide open where the lens is at it's softest.

My recommendation for the OP would be, D7000 if your getting a crop, easily the best crop camera imo, the sensor in the thing is simply amazing.

If you go FF for the wider FOV and thinner DOF, then a Canon 5D classic if your on a budget, or if money isn't too tight a 1Dsii, if you can stretch a little further then a D700 is a beautiful machine that can be used for pretty much everything, and is the only camera you'l need (until the next latest and greatest).

Edit:
You might also want to look at the used market, I picked mine up for £1240 on TP, and it was in 'as new' condition, with only 2.5k clicks.
If you go down this route, I would advise cash on collection so you can test the camera fully before parting with cash.
 
Last edited:
Most people keep saying it because almost every affordable (although affordable will vary in perception between different people) lens falls into the "unless..." category you just described :p unless you want to be stuck with primes.
 
Alpherah said:
Most people keep saying it because almost every affordable (although affordable will vary in perception between different people) lens falls into the "unless..." category you just described :p unless you want to be stuck with primes.
Click to expand...

unless... you go the 3rd party lens route, however you need to shop with care.
 
Ejizz said:
Don't know why people keep saying this, as the reality is FF is much less reliant on good glass Vs crop sensors and will give shaper images with less CA. The only time FF is at a disadvantage in terms of sharpness etc., is if the quality of the lens degrades RAPIDLY from the centre.

Doesn't have to cost more either, 5D classic with a few primes buys you amazing potential.
Click to expand...

The sharpness is a effect of pixel size/density. Put the same size pixels in a FF and you get the same problems in the center, and then the edges will start to suffer much more than a crop camera.

Until now all FF had lower pixel densities. The D700/D3 works great because the pixel are relatively large so even softer lenses n a crop sensor become sharper on the FF. Move to a 24MP D3x and only the best lenses will provide sufficient resolution into the edges.
 
Ejizz said:
Having owned both a D7000 and D700, the FF effect on IQ is pretty noticeable, especially when shooting wide open where the lens is at it's softest.

My recommendation for the OP would be, D7000 if your getting a crop, easily the best crop camera imo, the sensor in the thing is simply amazing.

If you go FF for the wider FOV and thinner DOF, then a Canon 5D classic if your on a budget, or if money isn't too tight a 1Dsii, if you can stretch a little further then a D700 is a beautiful machine that can be used for pretty much everything, and is the only camera you'l need (until the next latest and greatest).

Edit:
You might also want to look at the used market, I picked mine up for £1240 on TP, and it was in 'as new' condition, with only 2.5k clicks.
If you go down this route, I would advise cash on collection so you can test the camera fully before parting with cash.
Click to expand...

As Is aid above, the D700 will make sharper images at 100% than a D7k due to the pixel size. High ISO performance is a little better also. But the D7K offers higher dynamic range being a newer sensor. Any new high-res Nikon camera will put a strain on the lenses again.
 
D.P. said:
As Is aid above, the D700 will make sharper images at 100% than a D7k due to the pixel size. High ISO performance is a little better also. But the D7K offers higher dynamic range being a newer sensor. Any new high-res Nikon camera will put a strain on the lenses again.
Click to expand...

I think we are kind of saying the same thing, but the reason why FF is sharper than crop no matter the pixel density is because the resolution of glass, even the sharpest of glass, is now the bottleneck in terms of true resolution, not the number of mega-pixels.
For example, an image taken with a 12mp FF sensor will be sharper than an image taken with a 12mp Crop sensor, as the FF sensor uses more surface area of the lens, thus increasing it's MTF performance.

If you ever get bored, this article goes into more detail as to why MP's don't affect sharpness.

Below is an example of a lens that is sharper in FF from the centre, to the corners.
testoj.jpg


Below is an example where a crop is sharper in the corners (although not as sharp in the areas of the frame you will likely focus on).
aasasag.jpg


When you stop the lens down, the difference appears fairly substantial.
aasasav.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom