Full Frame vs Crop

King Damager

King Damager

King Damager

Soldato
Joined
16 Nov 2010
Posts
16,513
Location
Swimming in a lake
Ok, so I've read a few things about this, but still can't quite see the big gains of FF. Hence I've come here to ask :)

So, basic stuff:
Bigger sensor = better ISO, less noise
Something about DoF being better, didn't know the reason, but fair enough.

That said, these reasons don't seem articulately spectacular. You're paying a premium for FF, and if you spent more on any camera you'd expect the above to improve, is this simply a tech advancement achieve these upgrades?

Ok, so next thing seems to be said is that you get more out of your lens, but I don't really get that either....

What about full frame makes an L lens (hypothetically) better on FF than on crop?

The other thing is obviously focal length. But this just seems a bit of maths. Especially with the sigma 35/50/85 range.

If I want a 50mm on a 1.6 crop, just get a 35mm, if I want an 85, get a 50.

The obvious limitation is at the wider end the scaling up might be an issue. But on the other hand, any tele lens nicely gets longer.

So I'm sure I'm missing something, but yeah, who feels like explaining? :)

kd
 
Ok heres a quick one.

Firstly I cant understand why people see this as "gaining focal distance" Given the line up of DSLRS you aren't gaining anything simply, loosing. For example take a 22mp image at FF on 50mm is 50mm
50mm on 1.6x crop at 12mp is 85mmish

To match that on FF to crop in 1.6x and lose some megapixels and you'll be roughly about the same when cropped in to make about 85mm. This is great but obviously you cant do it the other way around because you simply don't have anything captured!

Full frame sensors produce far better images and I am not going to go into the technical because of this, they just do if your brands are current.

The best reasons are purely those 100% viewfinders. Unless you have used one going back to a 1.6x is like picking up a children's toy.

If you are a budget kinda guy then a crop is better for you because you will require better optics to ensure the quality of image is been produced through the whole radius of the glass.
 
Yeah, I'm not debating the photos aren't better, however, I was intrigued.

More a kind of, 6D, D600 kind of target rather than D800 vs 5D

kd
 
Apart from rare exceptions FF sensors are less demanding on glass as the sensor uses a larger surface area of the lens, thus increasing 'effective' resolution.

Before some says, yes the lens does not change, but the area used does.
 
Full frame is for people that want to spend silly amounts on a camera and gain no better image quality than crop, yet talk it up like it was justified to move away from the crop "limitation".












;)
 
King Damager said:
Something about DoF being better, didn't know the reason, but fair enough.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of argument about this one, but I found an explaination that made sense to me. DoF is no different on FF to crop sensor, if just appears that way.

You seem to understand about crap sensors and the apparent zooming effect you get, we a similar thing happens with DoF too.
If you put a f/1.8 lens on a crop sensor, to get the same depth of field on a full frame sensor you'd only need to go to f/2.9. If you dropped the FF down to 1.8 it'll look much narrower than the crop sensor.

I dunno if it's true but it certainly makes sense.
 
jaybee said:
Full frame is for people that want to spend silly amounts on a camera and gain no better image quality than crop, yet talk it up like it was justified to move away from the crop "limitation".












;)
Click to expand...

Narh, it's just for bragging reasons really. :p












lE698.jpg


:D
 
One practical example I can think of is the following:

Say you want to shoot a subject racked out at 200mm using a 70-200mm lens, because it gives nice compression and is a nice focal length for doing so..... on a full frame you can shoot and be quite close to your subject, on a crop you have to be a long way back, which in many circumstances just isn't practical.
 
PistolPete said:
There is a lot of argument about this one, but I found an explaination that made sense to me. DoF is no different on FF to crop sensor, if just appears that way.

You seem to understand about crap sensors and the apparent zooming effect you get, we a similar thing happens with DoF too.
If you put a f/1.8 lens on a crop sensor, to get the same depth of field on a full frame sensor you'd only need to go to f/2.9. If you dropped the FF down to 1.8 it'll look much narrower than the crop sensor.

I dunno if it's true but it certainly makes sense.
Click to expand...

FF allows you to get closer to the subject or use a longer lens to zoom closer to the subject while maintaining the same or similar composition. As focus distance/subject magnification affects DOF, you end up with shallower DOF on FF than with a crop.

If you move from a Canon to FF you get about a 1.3 stops DOF advantage.
If you move from a Nikon or Sony to FF you get about a 1.0 stops DOF advantage.
 
Full frame gets you're wide angles back, allows you to shoot like the 'good old days', allows you to to shoot at higher ISOs without a penalty and in my opinion does improve image quality. I moved from a D300 to a D3 and the difference was day and night to me, better colours, more contrast and sharper images in general, maybe this was due to having a smaller pixel density (both being 12mp sensors), maybe it wasn't, but the fact remains the D3 produces much better images than the D300.

There's a time and place for full frame and crop sensors, depth of field does play a big part in it, depth of field on a 300mm f2.8 lens on full frame is smaller than a 200mm f2.8 lens on a crop body (which gives the same effective field of view), this is something you can use to your advantage... but in honesty, in this day and age if you get a real full frame (ahem, D800) you're getting the same pixel density as with a crop body and thus have the choice to shoot as full frame or crop without the penalty you'd have experienced.

Worth the extra money? Only you can decide. As I say to my customers when they're stuck deciding on stuff: do you go out to take photos, or do you go out and take photos?
 
King Damager said:
If I want a 50mm on a 1.6 crop, just get a 35mm, if I want an 85, get a 50.

The obvious limitation is at the wider end the scaling up might be an issue. But on the other hand, any tele lens nicely gets longer.

kd
Click to expand...

I know it has been said before, but I think it only right that a common misconception is cleared up.

A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens on both a Crop sensor camera and a Full Frame Camera.

The focal length of the lens is NOT magically increased by 1.5 or 1.6 (dependant on maker of the camera).

If you mount a 50mm lens on a crop sensor camera, what you see is a image that has a field of view equivilent to what you would see on an 80mm lens on a full frame sensor (50mm x 1.6).

Because the image is cropped and therefore 'zoomed in' people think their lens has magically become a longer focal length (you can bet your bottom Dollar that if Apple advertised lenses this is probably the spin they would put on it) :)
 
An Exception said:
Apart from rare exceptions FF sensors are less demanding on glass as the sensor uses a larger surface area of the lens, thus increasing 'effective' resolution.

Before some says, yes the lens does not change, but the area used does.
Click to expand...

less demanding? there more demanding on glass as u see more from the glass then on a crop. a crop can hide the glasses short comings on the edges of the frames
 
No they are less demanding. The lens has to be particularly bad in the corners like your nifty 50 (which is an exception), to be worse on FF than crop.
Most average lenses are around 50% sharper on FF sensors at the sharpest area of the lens (centre), but offer more similar resolution as crop sensors in the corners.
 
It's down to pixel density again, old full frames which had less pixels in the same space didn't struggle, now though with the advent of the D800 it is more demanding, hell cheap glass struggles on that sensor and if you've got the D800E forget anything but the best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom