July 17, 2018, 11:49:09 AM

Author Topic: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor  (Read 125307 times)

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2944
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #195 on: February 26, 2014, 09:30:26 PM »
I don't begrudge people the whole field of view argument with crop v. full because a 50mm is indeed like an 85mm... and I'm not sure why, but with full frame, depth of field is greater, though with comparable framing, the full frame's depth of field is thinner...

I've heard the argument about the f/2.8 is comparable to f/4.5 (or whatever), but I didn't bother to ask what they meant.

So if I'm shooting with a 135L f/2 in moderate light and at iso 800 I'm shooting at 1/2000 of a second... that should still be the same achieved shutter speed regardless of crop or full.

And if you keep the same distance between, the depth of field should be comparable.  So why is f/1.4 now f/2.2?

Ok, but I choose quality over quantity. I don't need to "cover the range" and it is only one L lens less for FF, really. What you'd get from your list on APSC is:
Tokina 18-26/4.5
Canon 38-112/4.5
Sigma 56/2.2
Canon 80/2.2
A 160/4.5 IS
A 216/3.5
A 112-320/6.3 IS

« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 09:33:14 PM by jdramirez »
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #195 on: February 26, 2014, 09:30:26 PM »

philmoz

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #196 on: February 26, 2014, 09:42:55 PM »
And if you keep the same distance between, the depth of field should be comparable.  So why is f/1.4 now f/2.2?

DoF is dependant on the 'circle of confusion' (CoC) of the sensor, which is determined by the sensor pixel size.
Smaller sensors pixels have smaller CoC so the DoF will be narrower - all else being equal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Phil.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 10:17:05 PM by philmoz »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6928
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #197 on: February 26, 2014, 10:09:23 PM »
Pixel size has absolutely nothing to do with coc.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

philmoz

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #198 on: February 26, 2014, 10:18:13 PM »
Pixel size has absolutely nothing to do with coc.

Doh (temporary brain freeze), of course you are correct - I meant to say sensor size (post updated).

Phil.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6928
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #199 on: February 26, 2014, 10:23:56 PM »
I don't begrudge people the whole field of view argument with crop v. full because a 50mm is indeed like an 85mm... and I'm not sure why, but with full frame, depth of field is greater, though with comparable framing, the full frame's depth of field is thinner...

I've heard the argument about the f/2.8 is comparable to f/4.5 (or whatever), but I didn't bother to ask what they meant.

So if I'm shooting with a 135L f/2 in moderate light and at iso 800 I'm shooting at 1/2000 of a second... that should still be the same achieved shutter speed regardless of crop or full.

And if you keep the same distance between, the depth of field should be comparable.  So why is f/1.4 now f/2.2?

Ok, but I choose quality over quantity. I don't need to "cover the range" and it is only one L lens less for FF, really. What you'd get from your list on APSC is:
Tokina 18-26/4.5
Canon 38-112/4.5
Sigma 56/2.2
Canon 80/2.2
A 160/4.5 IS
A 216/3.5
A 112-320/6.3 IS


Because the only fair comparison between the two images is two same sized images, to get a same sized image you have to enlarge the crop camera image more, in this instance, same lens, same settings, different framing but same sized output, the crop camera image has less dof.

People have to get it in their heads that dof is subjective and the only factors that affect it are aperture, as in the actual size of the aperture, not he number, and magnification. Make something bigger and it has less dof. Use a shorter lens from the same place and it has more dof because the same aperture value is a smaller physical size on the shorter lens and this more than overcomes the additional enlargement factor.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 10:25:47 PM by privatebydesign »
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6928
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #200 on: February 26, 2014, 10:31:33 PM »
Pixel size has absolutely nothing to do with coc.

Doh (temporary brain freeze), of course you are correct - I meant to say sensor size (post updated).

Phil.

Nice one Phil, I was worried we had another pixel worshiper  :D
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6928
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #201 on: February 26, 2014, 10:49:14 PM »

If the light is constant and you compare an image from a crop sensor and FF. both shot in M mode, at the same aperture and SS you'll notice the FF image to be brighter. I think it's like 2/3 of a stop. Could be more. However, in Av mode both cameras should spit out the same as the camera adjusts the SS accordingly. I did this experiment with my 5D2 and 7D. The FF gathers more light. So in low light it does make a difference. In bright sunlight that wouldn't be an issue as your SS can be whatever.

Only if your camera is faulty, exposure has nothing to do with sensor size. Absolutely nothing.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #201 on: February 26, 2014, 10:49:14 PM »

ecka

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 965
  • Size Matters!
    • flickr
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #202 on: February 26, 2014, 10:55:37 PM »
And if you keep the same distance between, the depth of field should be comparable.  So why is f/1.4 now f/2.2?

DoF is dependant on the 'circle of confusion' (CoC) of the sensor, which is determined by the pixel size.
Smaller pixels have smaller CoC so the DoF will be narrower - all else being equal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Phil.

That's not it. If you use the same lens (same FL) to shoot a scene with both APSC and FF cameras from the same distance, you get the same DoF, but 2.5 times smaller FoV on APSC camera. If you use the same lens (same FL) to shoot a scene with both APSC and FF cameras from different distances to achieve the same framing, then you get different DoF. So, when you are using 35/1.4 on APSC the FL doesn't change, it's still 35mm, but you are using it at a longer distance than on FF, but now it is cropped, so the FoV is 56mm equivalent and that's why you are getting deeper DoF. In other words, you are cropping 56mm FoV out of 35mm FoV shot at a longer distance.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 10:57:51 PM by ecka »
6D + EF28/1.8USM + EF40/2.8STM + EF50/1.8STM + EF100/2USM + Σ150/2.8'APO'Macro + Σ'APO'2x'TC + 430EXII

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2170
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #203 on: February 26, 2014, 11:19:09 PM »

The philosophy down here is buy better glass before upgrading the body.
That's a leftover from the film era, when the body was mostly a light-tight box for your lenses and for your sensor (film), and no one caring about quality were shooting APS.

Now, an FF body will make your L lenses work better.


I still agree with the sentiment... for 2 reasons... Lenses don't depreciate quickly... so you are better off running your body into the ground (150K of actuations) because it won't really be worth that much after a few years when you try and sell it.  Point in case... the 1d iii which sold for $6K and is now selling for $1k.  Whereas... if you bought a few nice lenses, you can still get well more than 16% of their original value.

And you can put an L lens on an older body and still get fantastic results... depending on what you are shooting.  If it is landscape or portraiture, the advances in high iso performance and AF performance are minimized and you can still get some amazing images using an older XTi.  Heck... if you are still rocking the t2i, there haven't really been that many advances along the lines of the crop sensors that would warrant buying a t5i. 

When I sold my XS... it was a wash... when I sold my 60D, I lost $200 in depreciation... and when I sell my 5D mkiii, I will lose around $1000 in depreciation... which kills me.  But maybe I avoid that by just using the mkiii until it dies in 10 years.

If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too :), for a hobby).

"marriage without sex"...isn't that just "marriage"?  :P

Zv

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1766
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #204 on: February 27, 2014, 12:39:40 AM »

If the light is constant and you compare an image from a crop sensor and FF. both shot in M mode, at the same aperture and SS you'll notice the FF image to be brighter. I think it's like 2/3 of a stop. Could be more. However, in Av mode both cameras should spit out the same as the camera adjusts the SS accordingly. I did this experiment with my 5D2 and 7D. The FF gathers more light. So in low light it does make a difference. In bright sunlight that wouldn't be an issue as your SS can be whatever.

Only if your camera is faulty, exposure has nothing to do with sensor size. Absolutely nothing.

I see. Could it be due to the larger pixels then?

Edit - I am talking like a crazy person, please ignore my stupidity.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 08:06:36 AM by Zv »
Move along nothing to see here!

koolman

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
    • Pictures Of Jerusalem
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)
« Reply #205 on: February 27, 2014, 04:50:09 AM »

Larry - I need to totally disagree with you. Photography is the skill of producing photographs. There is a big difference between a photograph and digital picture.  "digital art" produces stunning pictures - which more often then not do NOT reflect anything real.

Photography as I understand it - is about recording a real moment or object in the most accurate way.

Yes I understand that some tweaks can be allowed - but these should be minor and unnoticeable. The "photo" should remain something real that the photographer saw. Photography is about VISION - NOT about enhanced photoshop / lightroom skills.

My 2 cents

Hi Koolman,

"totally" disagree?

 You have broadened the subject from the definition of a photographer  to what his subject should be, i.e., what he chooses to present, and how he chooses to present it, to the viewer. Now we are in subjectivity-land.

I'll go back to my carpenter analogy - the carpenter may be a good or poor craftsman. He may choose to make a fine home (by YOUR standards), or some piece of woodworking "art" to take to the Burning Man Festival. Or the very same carpenter may do both on different occasions. What he chooses to "carpent", makes him no less a carpenter. ;-)

In any case, he will likely make use of the best tools available to him to do his type of creating.

I made no mention of "digital art", and my comments about what defines a photographer, I believe, hold while discussing your preferred "realism" style.

I  personally think that your preference that the photograph represent "something that the photographer saw" is reasonable, considering that digital art may readily be created on a computer alone, with no camera involved at all..

I believe that the usual expectation is that a photographer would use a camera. With that understood, I would then expect him to point the lens at something of his choosing, operate the camera as he chooses or as his ability allows, and then, using the image presented to his recording medium by the lens, complete the photograph per his personal "vision", using his "completing" tools, …the same as A. Adams and the host of  acknowledged-to-be-great-photographers have (usually) done. "Usually", because there is always, among any numerous group of creators, some few "purists" who have decided that less is more. These same few might declare that the artistic fine woodworker is not a carpenter, because he decided to add some particular finish or stain, to, in his opinion' "enhance" the piece.

I hardly think this would disqualify him as a carpenter. But the purist might be left wondering what the natural wood would look like, if the so-called carpenter hadn't "messed it up", with his post-processing.

When the definition of photographer is a person who "realistically " presents all his subject material, …if this could be perfectly done, and if numerous persons attained this level of expertise, there would be no such thing as a recognizable "style" by which to differentiate among them.

If we add the requirement that the composition be perfect ( by some arbitrary standard), that the lighting be perfect also, by the same arbitrarily decided standard, then when all was done, there would be ONE style. Any one's work would be perceptually the same as that of any other.

"Vision" would be limited by decree, and any expression of personal style, a digression, …disqualifying the offender, one would expect, as "a photographer".  :-[

If the intent is more than the "accuracy" expected in photographic recording in the fields of science, medicine, archeology, etc., … if the objective is to create something pleasing to look at or display,then some degree of artistic license has to be permitted, if all work is not to be the same in presenting "Just the facts, Ma'am" ;-)

I wonder if you would consider A. A. less than a photographer, because the lighting he presents in a print of "Moonrise" (or some other work of his) wasn't REALLY as dramatic in the flesh? ( For a before-and-after example of Ansel's "post-processing" see this link:

http://whitherthebook.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/ansel-adams-and-photography-before-photoshop/

There is discussion on the above linked-page that will be of great interest, I'm sure, to anyone participating in or enjoying this part of this thread! Accuracy vs. Interpretation(or "Vision")

(Is a bell pepper really seen as in Weston's print without some contrivance as to lighting , and without a few darkroom touches? Set one on your table, and see if it looks the same :

http://www.edward-weston.com

It would cause somewhat of stir to declare either of these two men "not a photographer!".

Do we think they would have used Photoshop?  ;)

Dear Larry,

Thank you for your detailed reply.

The web is loaded with very skilled photographers pictures - in which we can easily identify that the "picture" we are viewing - is NOT a photograph of something real - but a photograph that was taken "to the next level" and changed into something I would call "digital art".

I am not discussing the what label I would use for the person who created this picture. He or She may well be a world class photographer. I am saying, that to my mind, the result is not a photograph but a picture, and reflects PP skills more then VISION.

Look any pro photographer selling his work, is coerced to doctor up his photos- so the client will be impressed.

PP is so advanced, easily obtained, and easy to use - that we are all tempted to use it!

The results are stunning. The client does not care about how we did it.

However in my opinion - this is becoming less and less about photography - and more and more about PP and graphic design. 
Jerusalem Photographer (canon 80d, canon 50mm 1.4, Canon 15-85, , canon 35mm 1.4L,Canon 100L Macro,Samyang 14mm MF, Canon 24mm EF-S,Canon 10-18)

ecka

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 965
  • Size Matters!
    • flickr
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)
« Reply #206 on: February 27, 2014, 06:12:49 AM »
Dear Larry,

Thank you for your detailed reply.

The web is loaded with very skilled photographers pictures - in which we can easily identify that the "picture" we are viewing - is NOT a photograph of something real - but a photograph that was taken "to the next level" and changed into something I would call "digital art".

I am not discussing the what label I would use for the person who created this picture. He or She may well be a world class photographer. I am saying, that to my mind, the result is not a photograph but a picture, and reflects PP skills more then VISION.

Look any pro photographer selling his work, is coerced to doctor up his photos- so the client will be impressed.

PP is so advanced, easily obtained, and easy to use - that we are all tempted to use it!

The results are stunning. The client does not care about how we did it.

However in my opinion - this is becoming less and less about photography - and more and more about PP and graphic design.

Is there any camera that can capture a real photograph by your standards? I don't think so. Human vision has much wider dynamic range than any photographic system these days, including film. You can fake it in PP (that's what I'm trying to do most of the time). For me, photography is about capturing information about the real world. Then by manipulating it in PP I can either purify the true data (make it look like I saw it with my own eyes), or add some false information (which would make it a "digital art"). So let's be honest, there is always some amount of false information in all photographs. There is no such thing as a real photograph. You can only decide for yourself if the image contains enough information to call it a photograph.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 06:14:33 AM by ecka »
6D + EF28/1.8USM + EF40/2.8STM + EF50/1.8STM + EF100/2USM + Σ150/2.8'APO'Macro + Σ'APO'2x'TC + 430EXII

Northstar

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1673
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #207 on: February 27, 2014, 06:20:41 AM »

If the light is constant and you compare an image from a crop sensor and FF. both shot in M mode, at the same aperture and SS you'll notice the FF image to be brighter. I think it's like 2/3 of a stop. Could be more. However, in Av mode both cameras should spit out the same as the camera adjusts the SS accordingly. I did this experiment with my 5D2 and 7D. The FF gathers more light. So in low light it does make a difference. In bright sunlight that wouldn't be an issue as your SS can be whatever.

Only if your camera is faulty, exposure has nothing to do with sensor size. Absolutely nothing.

I see. Could it be due to the larger pixels then?

Zv...my 5d3 and 1dx always seem to underexpose by 1/4 stop if I let the camera choose the exposure.   Different cameras expose differently even in manual with the same settings.  Maybe the reasons are technical design differences, manufacturing allowances, product manager goals/ objectives for marketing the camera...I don't have the answer, maybe someone else does.
Sport Shooter

1dX and 5d3... 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, 1.4xiii and 2xiii, 85, 40mm, 300 2.8L IS....430ex

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #207 on: February 27, 2014, 06:20:41 AM »

ecka

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 965
  • Size Matters!
    • flickr
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #208 on: February 27, 2014, 06:39:09 AM »

The philosophy down here is buy better glass before upgrading the body.
That's a leftover from the film era, when the body was mostly a light-tight box for your lenses and for your sensor (film), and no one caring about quality were shooting APS.

Now, an FF body will make your L lenses work better.


I still agree with the sentiment... for 2 reasons... Lenses don't depreciate quickly... so you are better off running your body into the ground (150K of actuations) because it won't really be worth that much after a few years when you try and sell it.  Point in case... the 1d iii which sold for $6K and is now selling for $1k.  Whereas... if you bought a few nice lenses, you can still get well more than 16% of their original value.

And you can put an L lens on an older body and still get fantastic results... depending on what you are shooting.  If it is landscape or portraiture, the advances in high iso performance and AF performance are minimized and you can still get some amazing images using an older XTi.  Heck... if you are still rocking the t2i, there haven't really been that many advances along the lines of the crop sensors that would warrant buying a t5i. 

When I sold my XS... it was a wash... when I sold my 60D, I lost $200 in depreciation... and when I sell my 5D mkiii, I will lose around $1000 in depreciation... which kills me.  But maybe I avoid that by just using the mkiii until it dies in 10 years.

If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too :), for a hobby).

"marriage without sex"...isn't that just "marriage"?  :P

Maybe, can't confirm yet :D.
6D + EF28/1.8USM + EF40/2.8STM + EF50/1.8STM + EF100/2USM + Σ150/2.8'APO'Macro + Σ'APO'2x'TC + 430EXII

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2944
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #209 on: February 27, 2014, 06:55:59 AM »
Maybe, can't confirm yet :D.

Yeah... he's right. :(
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #209 on: February 27, 2014, 06:55:59 AM »