Downgrade to crop

[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.

 

[Loswr]

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).

 

[cayenne]

Interesting thread this is....

I'm quite the novice, and I was wondering why anyone would want a crop camera over a FF, thinking it was necessarily a lessor camera, since it was cheaper.

Interesting to hear there are merits for each format....

I might pick up one some day, maybe used as a 2nd camera and play around with it.....see what it has to offer...maybe a used 7D if I found one used for cheap....

 

[Daniel Flather]

Hmmm. I'm considering upgrading my T1i to a 6D, but my 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 give me the perfect focal length for indoor sports. A 70-200 would likely get me 90%+ of the right focal length for outdoor sports.
Does it possibly make sense to stick with a crop sensor for telephoto/sports needs and a full frame with a "normal" lens for general photography?

Crop the FF image, read Neuro's post on page one. I think the FF's better high ISO would be beneficial to your indoor sports shots.

 

[Daniel Flather]

If you'll print 24x36" and hang on your wall, the 7D wins

So an un-cropped 5d3 file printed to 24*36" has no real world win over a 7d? Or, have I lost something in the ambiguity?

 

[rpt]

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.

You are right. Sorry folks. I apologise. My bad.

 

[AprilForever]

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

The 5DIII is a camera which is a generation ahead... therefore, the comparison has a significant variable. Also, the 16 being bigger in the 7D shot is a serious deal...

 

[marinien]

If you'll print 24x36" and hang on your wall, the 7D wins

So an un-cropped 5d3 file printed to 24*36" has no real world win over a 7d? Or, have I lost something in the ambiguity?

Daniel, that is quoting out of context. Neuro was comparing a cropped 5DII image to a 7D's.

 

[Daniel Flather]

If you'll print 24x36" and hang on your wall, the 7D wins

So an un-cropped 5d3 file printed to 24*36" has no real world win over a 7d? Or, have I lost something in the ambiguity?

Daniel, that is quoting out of context. Neuro was comparing a cropped 5DII image to a 7D's.

Noted, it was a 5d2 and not 5d3.

 

[Loswr]

However in this situation, we are reproducing the same sized image from the same area of sensor, ergo the dof is the same.

That would be true with film, but it's not true with digital. Besides focal length, subject distance, and aperture, DoF is also affected by CoC. So, the crop sensor actually gives a (slightly) shallower DoF when the first three factors are all constant.

If you'll print 24x36" and hang on your wall, the 7D wins

So an un-cropped 5d3 file printed to 24*36" has no real world win over a 7d? Or, have I lost something in the ambiguity?

Daniel, that is quoting out of context. Neuro was comparing a cropped 5DII image to a 7D's.

Correct - I am talking about the situation where you're 'focal length limited' and using a crop sensor for the greater (apparent) reach, whereas if you had a FF sensor you'd have to crop the image to the FoV of the APS-C sensor, to get the desired framing. Doesn't matter if it's 5DII or 5DIII - in both cases, the cropped FF image will be similar in IQ to the APS-C image, but have fewer MPs.

If you can get closer or use a longer lens (or you decide to show more of the background), the FF camera will 'win' and that's exactly what I stated in my post.

 

[tapanit]

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?

Not only money, but also bulk and weight. If I want to shoot birds at a location I have to walk three days in difficult terrain to reach (with camping gear, food &c on my back), the weight difference between a crop body with 400mm lens vs. FF body and 600mm lens (and heavier tripod) is non-trivial.

 

[Daniel Flather]

If you can get closer or use a longer lens (or you decide to show more of the background), the FF camera will 'win' and that's exactly what I stated in my post.

Yes, in other words, have the subject image larger on the sensor.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Whether FF is an "upgrade" or not in the practical sense, depends on whether the user benefits from it. It's totally subjective, depending upon the needs and skills of the individual.
However, theoretically FF is always an "upgrade" since you are utilizing all of the light that can pass through a lens that fits the EF mount. This is the biggest deal for me. Also, technically if money is not a factor, you can achieve all crop benefits from a FF setup but not vice versa.
On the other hand, Canon provides a lot of alternatives to "make do" with a crop sensor while benefiting from additional features of the better APS-C bodies. There are excellent EF-S lenses and if you have fast primes, you can often get reasonably shallow DoF at equivalent FoVs unless you are looking for f/1.2 like Neuro said.
OP, have you tried the 15-85 before discarding the option as a walkaround zoom? Yes, it does not have the L ring or constant aperture but it is a splendid crop alternative to the 24-105. And the 17-55 deserves to be similarly priced as the 24-105. You will find the lens diagrams very similar, and the EF-S is a splendid lens. Although Canon should have included a hood, the cheapskates!

 

[vargyropoulos]

The 5DIII is a camera which is a generation ahead... therefore, the comparison has a significant variable. Also, the 16 being bigger in the 7D shot is a serious deal...

I agree that there is a generation gap between cameras but I somehow suspect that the gap is much bigger between crop & FF than it is between two FF bodies that are only 1 generation apart.

I'll agree with other posters that in good light... it makes little difference. I actually took some photos of a bright giant yellow Nikon logo at the store at ISO 6400 with the 7d and the image wasn't as bad.

My current dilemma... is the $1800 (more or less) difference between the cameras justified for a non-professional?

 

[K-amps]

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.

Both images have exactly the same dof.

I can visually see the difference in the sample image... very clearly. Both the front and rear of the husk is more OOF with the 7D where as the sweet spot is sharper, than the 1Ds... so the focus is spot on. The only thing that I know could explain this is a shallower DoF on the 7D. However, with the same "Framing" the FF would have a shallower DoF, since you need to move closer to the subject.... this not only negate sthe advantage the crop has, but gives it to the FF and now the FF has shallower DoF (only because you moved closer to the subject to keep the same framing).... but this is not what happened in the experiment, the poster kept the cameras at the same distance, then magnified to 100% ......... at least that's how I make sense of it.

 

[7enderbender]

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

Well, I wouldn't get too hung up about it. Many folks are getting great results with either or both current DSLR sensor sizes. But here is why I never even had a "crop" size sensor and went straight from film to a 5DII and never even considered any of the choices before the 5D as one of the first (relatively) affordable digital choices (for Canon):

a) Viewfinder size - it's bad enough as it is given the restrictions imposed by modern AF systems. Anything I'd seen before just felt awful.

b) Depth of field. All other things being equal this quickly becomes an issue on anything smaller than 35mm equivalent sensors. I should really be shooting medium format. Maybe one day.

c) Focal length choices. If you want fast primes anything with a 1.5 or 1.6x factor comes in too long - and if you adjust accordingly lenses tend to be slower (e.g. 35mm 1.4 as the 50mm 1.2 equivalent while yo still don't get the same shallow DOF).

Everything else, such as "reach" or counting number of pixels vs. pixel density or high ISO performance I pretty much don't care about. It's all good enough either way.

 

[skitron]

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).

...which means you have to get further away to frame a quarter with a crop, which also means you'll have greater DOF. Sure, we can debate the semantics of it and likely agree to them. But the net practical effect is if you are like me and own a single macro lens in the 100L, you will get two very different shooting experiences with a FF and a crop using that single lens on the same subject. No?