Downgrade to crop

[AprilForever]

Hi all,
I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?
Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind...
Cheers

Your corners will become terrible. You will now have to buy much more expensive lenses (ef-s 10-22 vs 16-35... although, I recomend for crop the stellar Tokina 11-16 2.8...)... You will have to stop down pointlessly to get stuff in focus, especially at long end, which will require you to use higher ISO's and even TC's, thereby completely destroying any perceived image quality gains for many shots... It will be interesting to see what happens when Canon releases the 7D MK II...

[vargyropoulos]

I'm in the middle of making a decision for my next DSLR/Lens combo for wildlife... I was at my local camera store yesterday and I shot one of the pillars with the 400mmf/5.6L lens with the 5D3 and 7d. both shots taken at ISO 3200, f/5.6, 1/500sec shutter. same lens, I was standing at roughly the same spot and these are 100% crops of the images. I'll let you make your own conclusions/decisions

[skitron]

I just sold my 5D2 and 50D and bought a 6D for it's low light. And as soon as the crop bodies catch up on the ISO dept I plan to purchase another crop.

For wildlife and macro, I'd much rather have a crop if the high ISO is there, since extra reach and wider DOF are both highly desirable for me in these situations. So when the high ISO is there, I'll be buying another crop and be back to two bodies.

Different tools for different jobs is my thought, even though either will work in place of the other in a pinch.

For my situation, I'd rather spend for a crop body than shell out for a 180L. Crop + 100L gets me close enough and gives me a lot more flexibility - especially in terms of two cam video capabilities.

[tortilla]

IQ/Noise. This is the biggest issue. But living with 8.5MP for 7 years showed me, that the quality of an Image is not measured in ISO, Noise or dynamic range.

Sure when lighting is right, technology doesn't matter. But outside of the studio it rarely is right

Having said this, I think neither noise nor IQ really differs between crop and FF, you basically just gain about 2 stops. Even DOF would be more shallow when shot with an APS-C and the 50mm 1.2 than in most FF-shots. In the end it's rather about which lenses one uses, than about sensor size.

As for the smaller viewfinder: This is really a plus for the FF's. But it doesn't have to be that small, the 7d viewfinder is only 10% smaller than FF viewfinders.

[rpt]

If your long shots are at the long end of your current zoom lens and you shoot from a distance, you will miss the reach.

Well, we've had this discussion before.   ...

Yes we have

That was when my PixelRithmetic escaped me. But I have a handle on it now.

Where I am coming from (and jrista shot my dream down some months back - brought me back to reality...) is "I have a dream. That some day soon I (not my kids or grand kids; but me, myself and I [all three of us]) will have an APS-C sensor in my camera that will have atleast 24 megapixels. And these pixels will be super photon absorbers. And their configuration shall best the best FF sensors of today. I have a dream!"
 

[K-amps]

I'm in the same situation. I still have a 350D (yes they still exist), and plan to ugrade in the near future. In the race are the 6D, and the upcoming APS-C models (70D? 7D MkII?). I only shoot as an amateur, and I'm really asking myself if it is worth to upgrade to a FF (6D).

DOF is one point, but I think that the DOF is already quite shallow on a APS-C with a decent lens; especially when you are close to the subject. There is a range in distance where the FF would be helpful, but is it worth the money?
Reach; this is only a question of money. Are you willing to pay twice as much for a lens, to get the same reach with a FF, as you would have to with a APS-C? Croping is not an option; why should I pay for Sensor-area I do not use?
IQ/Noise. This is the biggest issue. But living with 8.5MP for 7 years showed me, that the quality of an Image is not measured in ISO, Noise or dynamic range. Sure, Images from a FF look really nice. I compared the pictures from FF to APS-C on The-Digital-Picture.com, and the the FF looks much better (no surprise), but then I looked at the comparison tool at dpreview and there the verdict was not so clear anymore. Sure FF is always better, but by how much?
If you are a pro, then it is easy to deceide, but as an amateur I'm still asking myself if it is worth to upgrade.

I owned a 350d... a gem of a Camera, I have a lot of footage from it. I own a 5d3 now. The difference in IQ is amazing, the 5d3 files are just so much cleaner... (6D might be even more so with it's larger pixel pitch).

[rpt]

I don't get what the "reach" is that I keep hearing from crop users...?

I mean if a crop and a FF shoot a 200mm shot, the crop would 'look' to have further reach, but that could be duplicated, could it not by 'cropping' the FF in post...and wouldn't you have a cleaner pic from doing that from the FF?

C

As always there are two answers:

• The APS-C brethren are trying (very hard) to make their camera look (actually the output of the camera - but then you knew that - right?) better than FF brethren.
• Well, back to Rithmetic. If a FF camera has 16 MP then it's APS-C equivalent with the same size of pixels would be 16/1.6 = 10 MP. However, if you had an APS-C sensor with 16MP, you would have more pixels per unit area and therefore more "reach"...

[mortadella]

The benefit of moving from APS-C to FF, or FF to APS-C should be a decision based on two factors. 

First, what do I intend to shoot and in what conditions?

Secondly, how much money do I have to spend?

There are better tools for the different conditions.  I find the high ISO capability of the FF to come in handy lots of times, and for many reasons.  Ultrawide angle lens options are much better I believe on FF.  Unfortunately, the affordable sub $3000 FF options leave a lot to be desired from an AF perspective.

APS-C, on the other hand, give you a bit more reach with full resolution than the FF and you can get a much better AF system in the 7D than you can with a more expensive FF option.

So if the sky isn't the limit in your budget, think about what attributes are most important to you.  A 2-4 stop improvement in high ISO noise vs better AF, a 1.6x factor on your zooms vs shallower DoF with similar framing etc.

It's easy for some to say if you shoot wildlife and sports outdoors in good light than you are better of with the APS-C, and for landscapes, people, and lower light conditions get a FF.  The problem with that is most enthusiasts/hobbyists do a bit of everything so its always going to be a tough trade off to give up something when you want everything.  That's why so many questions are always posed regarding the upgrade or new lens issue, this stuff isn't cheap and you really want to get the most out of your purchase.  That's bound to happen when you are limited by budget...it sucks that we can't all have 2 1DXs.

[neuroanatomist]

But last time the conversation was comparing a 10D with only 8 megapixels or w/e it has, which made sense.  But cropping the inner APS-c FOV of a 6D wont giver you as big of a difference between the 60D right?  As far as comparing a current APSC to a current full frame, that argument doesn't apply. 

I mean if a crop and a FF shoot a 200mm shot, the crop would 'look' to have further reach, but that could be duplicated, could it not by 'cropping' the FF in post...and wouldn't you have a cleaner pic from doing that from the FF?

Answer to both of these is the same.  From an IQ standpoint, there's not going to be a meaningful difference with contemporary sensors (for example, when I compared the 5DII cropped to the 7D, with no processing the 7D image was a little bit sharper and a little bit noisier...and some NR would reduce the noise and the sharpness as well).  What you're giving up is megapixels...the cropped 5DII image is 8 MP, vs. 18 MP with the 7D.  So the real question is, what image size do you need, and that depends on what you'll do with the images.  If you'll print 24x36" and hang on your wall, the 7D wins.  If you'll print 8x12" for a coffee table book, there's no real difference...in which case, I'd pick the FF for the much better IQ when you don't need to crop, or can use a longer lens. 

Keep in mind, also, that the above applies only when 'focal lentgh limited'.  If you can use a longer lens, the FF wins, hands down.  Back to the 7D vs. 5DII cropped comparison, I also compared the 7D + 85/1.2L II vs. the 5DII + 135/2L (basically the same framing and DoF at a given distance).  The FF won, no contest...

Well, back to Rithmetic. If a FF camera has 16 MP then it's APS-C equivalent with the same size of pixels would be 16/1.6 = 10 MP.

You and Rithmetic.     You need to get better acquainted with each other.  If a FF camera has 16 MP then it's APS-C equivalent with the same size of pixels would be 16/1.6² = 10 6.25 MP.  Thus, a 6D's 20 MP image cropped to APS-C framing would yield a 7.8 MP image.

[unfocused]

So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?

Well, no small number of FF shooters would miss the ability to post smug things about how superior FF is on intangible things like dreamy bokeh, color saturation, etc..., whether they could actually pick a FF print out of a police lineup or not.   

I think the biggest thing about going FF to crop would be losing 2 or 3 stops of low-noise performance at higher ISO settings, at least when comparing it to the newest FF bodies.  That is very valuable stuff.

I think you can get all the blurry background/shallow depth of field most people would really ever want using a crop body by following the basic rules.  Bright prime lens shot wide open, shot close to subject, background far away, etc... Frankly, I find the 50 f/1.8 DOF shot on a crop to be too thin sometimes.  My wife actively dislikes the look, actually, when we shoot my girls and you see an eye or two in focus, but an ear that is blurry.

Three pages later and nothing has been added. This thread could have stopped with Scotty's response and covered about everything that needs to be covered.

[DanielW]

So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?

Well, no small number of FF shooters would miss the ability to post smug things about how superior FF is on intangible things like dreamy bokeh, color saturation, etc..., whether they could actually pick a FF print out of a police lineup or not.   

I think the biggest thing about going FF to crop would be losing 2 or 3 stops of low-noise performance at higher ISO settings, at least when comparing it to the newest FF bodies.  That is very valuable stuff.

I think you can get all the blurry background/shallow depth of field most people would really ever want using a crop body by following the basic rules.  Bright prime lens shot wide open, shot close to subject, background far away, etc... Frankly, I find the 50 f/1.8 DOF shot on a crop to be too thin sometimes.  My wife actively dislikes the look, actually, when we shoot my girls and you see an eye or two in focus, but an ear that is blurry.

Three pages later and nothing has been added. This thread could have stopped with Scotty's response and covered about everything that needs to be covered.

Thank you all for kindly taking you time to answer. It's been most helpful, for I've decided I will upgrade and keep my 60D. Time to save money now...

[K-amps]

I don't get what the "reach" is that I keep hearing from crop users...?

I mean if a crop and a FF shoot a 200mm shot, the crop would 'look' to have further reach, but that could be duplicated, could it not by 'cropping' the FF in post...and wouldn't you have a cleaner pic from doing that from the FF?

C

What they mean by reach, only applies if the pixels of the crop are more tightly packed or densor compared to the ff. If not there is no "reach" advantage. e.g. the 350d has not real reach advantange over the 5d2/3... since the 5d2/3 cropped would be about 8mp equivalent (of the 350d) anyway.

Another way of looking at this is, since the pixel pitch of your monitor is fixed, any pixels of the Camera sensor will need to be "magnified to be displayed on your monitor natively. Assuming you are comparing a 18mp crop to a 18mp FF, the system (Camera + monitor) will automatically magnify the image of the crop more since it's pixels were more tightly packed for the same area, and since they are magnified more, they have the same apparent effect of one using a longer focal length lens. I am not good at math either... but to quantify this, if the pixel pitch of your monitor is X, and the pitch of FF sensor is X also then the FF is displayed on your monitor at 1x magnification )= 1x reach), but since the Crop sensor more tightly packs pixels, it's pitch could be 75% of that of the FF, so to bring that to the pitch of the monitor, a factor of 1.33x (1.33 x 0.75 = 1) needs to be applied. This factor is what gives the crop sensor more "reach" or magnification...

Basically the densor the sensor, the more reach it has, it has nothing to do with it being crop or not.

Or... The "reach" is not defined by the 1.6x (thats the crop factor of how much of an EF len's image is thrown away) but by the relative density of the crop vs. FF sensor pixels are.

I used to think the crop will always provide 1.6x more reach.. thats not true... it is only 1.6x equivalent from a perspective of framing similarly.

Reach on the other hand is pixel density related. So a 7D will have more reach than a 350d etc...

[Sporgon]

You and Rithmetic.     You need to get better acquainted with each other.  If a FF camera has 16 MP then it's APS-C equivalent with the same size of pixels would be 16/1.6² = 10 6.25 MP.  Thus, a 6D's 20 MP image cropped to APS-C framing would yield a 7.8 MP image.
[/quote]
Which is why you don't get as much increase in resolution when increasing from 13 to 21 megapixels as you might think, and if you crop a 5D c to APS-C your left with 5 MP, so those who have "up graded" to higher MP in order to get better crops.....................

[K-amps]

With regards using a crop camera specifically for reach, not viewfinder magnification or framing, it really doesn't make much sense. Pixel density is not the biggest part of the equation as all pixels are not equal, if they were then P&S's should give us amazing images!

Here are two crops from two images both taken with the same lens from the same place, one is from a 1Ds MkIII and one from a 7D, the 7D puts over twice the pixels on the subject, but when you simply upres the 1Ds MkIII to the same pixel density and look at both at 100% then there is very little difference, and this was in ideal test conditions, use AF in real life shooting and those tiny differences are negated.

Very interesting experiment.... confirmed what Neuro said earlier.

7D is slightly sharper (but not 2x sharper as number of pixel thrown suggests)
7D (given the same camera distance BUT different framing) has shallower DoF (paper towel in background has more blur as does the front portion of the husk...

Thanks for posting.

[neuroanatomist]

7D (given the same camera distance BUT different framing) has shallower DoF (paper towel in background has more blur as does the front portion of the husk...

This is absolutely true, but often overlooked or not understood.  The shallower DoF with FF only applies if the framing his the same, and that's because of the greater subject distance needed for the same framing with a crop sensor at a given focal length.

People often suggest that a crop sensor is better for macro shooting, because of the greater number of pixels on target, but also "because of the deeper DoF with a crop sensor."  But the latter does not apply at 1:1 macro shooting, since the distance will be the same regardless of sensor size.  Personally, I prefer FF for macro shooting because at 1:1 I can frame a larger subject (e.g. a FF can frame a quarter at 1:1 but APS-C cannot frame even a dime at 1:1).