Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor

[Sabaki]

My favourite photography genre is macro and I do a lot of it! Shooting with a MR-14 EX and extension tubes, I absolutely love the IQ of my subjects but equally hate the noise and banding in the shadow areas.

In this case, the EOS 70D is the obvious choice. Plus a new one will cost you less than a secondhand EOS 5D2.

Mind showing your math?

Should I rather say that macro comprises roughly 70% of my photography?

 

[Sella174]

Mind showing your math?

Over here in South Africa, a new EOS 70D cost about R12500 ... and a secondhand EOS 5D2 in good condition and serviced sells for about R15000.

 

[mackguyver]

My vote is full frame - I have owned both and while there's nothing wrong with crop and many of my favorite shots are from crop cameras, FF files are better, lens focal lengths make sense (again), and low light shooting is much better. I had the 5DII, 5DIII, and 7D for a while but ended up selling the 7D even though a lot of my work is wildlife.

Also, FF is just as good or better for macro. I published a 100+ macro book last year and 90% of the photos were shot on my 5DII and 5DIII - you can take a look/download it for free here:
http://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/648136

 

[sdsr]

My favourite photography genre is macro and I do a lot of it! Shooting with a MR-14 EX and extension tubes, I absolutely love the IQ of my subjects but equally hate the noise and banding in the shadow areas. Will full frame solve this issue?

If you hate noise and banding in shadows, I would (other things being equal) recommend a 6D rather than a 5DII or 5DIII - the 6D not only provides less noise at high ISOs (though the difference there among those three cameras is far less than the superiority of any) but less noise, and much less banding (I don't think I've ever seen it in a 6D file, but it's quite obvious from 5DII and 5DIII). But if it's just a concern about high ISO noise, even a 5DII will seem like a revelation compared to any Canon APS-C body.

As for the suggestion that you buy books and learn better technique etc. with the equipment you already have, I don't agree - provided you can afford the upgrade. A FF camera won't, of course, make you more artistic etc., but your images will look at least technically better and there will be less you will be able to blame on your tools....

 

[Don Haines]

Hi everybody

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

If you need low light performance... FF all the way.
If you are always wishing you had a longer lens, go crop...
If you never wish you had a longer lens, go FF

If you are shooting with kit lenses on your crop camera, look at Lglass FF lenses... For instance, going from a $200 kit lens to a lens like a 70-200 (any varient) will have more effect on image quality than going from crop to FF will.

Get some decent imaging software (lightroom, photosop, etc...) and it will greatly improve your image quality, particularly if you shoot RAW.

 

[Loswr]

As a general rule, the FF sensor will deliver a sharper image than an APS-C sensor. The reason is simple - for a given output size, the APS-C image needs to be enlarged more, and that extra enlargement leads to a loss of resolution. The larger sensor also gives you the capability to have a shallower DoF if you want it (the crop factor applies to aperture, too, in terms of DoF for the same framing), but if you need the additional DoF or the faster shutter speed, there's no penalty for using FF.

Fundamentally, in most use cases, the only meaningful benefit of an APS-C camera is the lower cost.

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

You're not getting an increase in FL, you're just cropping away part of the image relative to a FF sensor. They're called crop sensors, not 'magnifying' sensors, for a reason. What you are getting is more pixels on target, but that's solely due to the usually higher pixel density of the smaller sensors (and as a counter example, the FF Nikon D800 puts more pixels on target than the APS-C Canon T3/1100D).

If you're focal length limited (you're using your longest lens and it's not long enough), and you're shooting at fairly low ISO, and your desired output requires more resolution than the image cropped from a FF sensor provides, then you're in one of those use cases where APS-C has an advantage other than cost. In practice, what that means is that if you're focal length limited, printing at sizes larger than 16x24"/A2, and shooting at ~ISO 800 or lower, then APS-C is a better choice. For 'regular' size prints and/or at higher ISOs, cropping the FF image to the FoV of the APS-C sensor will yield results that are as good or better (and increasingly better as ISO goes up).

My favourite photography genre is macro and I do a lot of it! Shooting with a MR-14 EX and extension tubes, I absolutely love the IQ of my subjects but equally hate the noise and banding in the shadow areas.

Macro is potentially another one of those 'exception' use cases. I say potentially, becuase it really depends on what you mean by macro. Formally, 'macro' generally means 1:1 magnification (or higher), and anything less than that (0.1x - 1x mag) is considered 'close-up' photography. If you're at 1:1 with a macro lens, you're at the MFD (or closer if you go higher with tubes) - that means there's no DoF 'advantage' (i.e. more of it) with APS-C. The APS-C sensor (e.g. 18-20 MP) is going to give you more pixels on target at a given magnification compared to a FF sensor (e.g. 20-22 MP), whereas the FF sensor will give you a wider AoV at that magnification.

Below is an example of that (shot with the MP-E 65mm on a 1D X and EOS M, both at the same distance from the coin for equivalent optical magnification, and since both use 18 MP sensors, no down- or up-scaling is required for the comparison). At 1x mag with FF you can frame nearly the whole quarter while APS-C crops much of the coin away but gives you higher resolution at the pixel level.

Personally, I usually choose FF for macro (and have done so since having both the 7D and 5DII).

 

[DanielW]

Might be worth checking out some of the images produced on crop sensors in places like 500px. Here's a link for starters:

http://500px.com/search?q=Canon+550D

FF is disproportionately expensive, but if you can afford it and if you get more pleasure from it, why not ?

Man, don't you ever post a link like that again! Now how can I blame my camera for the lousy pics I take?

 

[Sporgon]

Might be worth checking out some of the images produced on crop sensors in places like 500px. Here's a link for starters:

http://500px.com/search?q=Canon+550D

FF is disproportionately expensive, but if you can afford it and if you get more pleasure from it, why not ?

Man, don't you ever post a link like that again! Now how can I blame my camera for the lousy pics I take?

All the dslrs are incredibly competent machines, and have been for at least the last ten years, certainly in low ISOs at any rate. Sometimes if I want a reality check I'll look up something like 'Canon 10D' on 500px and proceed to embarrass myself.

 

[ClayStevens]

I'm also wandering between 5D2 and 6D. Upgrade from 600D, though.

 

[wsmith96]

This past weekend I took a 5D III with me my daughter's dive meet. I was pretty excited after what I was reading in regards to ISO performance in lower light. I was thinking that this would be great compared to my T1i that I've got because natatoriums typically have crummy lighting in them.

Now, I'm not a pro, and I'm sure that it was me, but I pushed the ISO up to 6400 here to get a 1/1600 shutter speed to stop action of divers doing flips. I cropped this image in LR5, but did not apply any noise reduction (color or luminance). I wish I had my T1i with me so I could take some comparison shot, but I've attached and example of what I got during this trip. Most of my pictures have similar output.

After seeing this, I know that the 5D is a superior camera in all regards, but I felt this output was ho-hum. Again, before I get beat up for speaking blasphemy - I'm not a pro, I was shooting in manual, and I just received the camera the day before the meet, so I didn't have much time to adjust to it. I'm sure this is due to learning curve.

 

[wsmith96]

Here's how I would clean up this image. Of course this would look better seeing the entire image.

 

[wsmith96]

Here's the complete image with noise reduction and exposure adjustment applied.

 

[wsmith96]

I know that this is not a fair comparison as the example here wasn't taken in the same location, but here you can see that at ISO 1600 on the T1i, it looks similar to the output on the previous 5D III examples. So, crop ISO 1600 is similar to FF ISO 6400 in low light situations.

I hope these examples help you make your decision.

 

[wsmith96]

Here's the full image of the T1i example with noise reduction and exposure adjustments applied.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Hi everybody

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

I have owned the 24-70mm f2.8L(I) for more than 2 years and I hadn't used it much because isn't wide enough and some other lenses offered better sharpness. I sold with some regreat my 7D and some EF-S lenses, before owning the 60D for a while, and bought the 5D3, after considering the 6D because I shot action very often.
No way back, my 24-70mm f2.8L hasn't ever been that sharp before and it's currently my go-to lens. This combo is a little heavy but I will get used to. Otherwise, if you are not in action photography get the 6D and you'll never regreat.

 

[nc0b]

I have two crop and two full frame bodies, and for me it usually comes down to wanting the wider angle coverage I get from a given focal length lens. Walking around Hoover dam with a FF and my 24-105mm resulted in an excellent zoom range. A 1.6 crop factor would not have worked as well. Shooting a dance floor with the 6D and 70-200mm f/2.8 II wide open was again the correct combination. In that case the zoom would have been way too long with crop body. Often shooting wildlife the crop is a better choice, due to the extra reach, though I have done better with birds in flight with the 6D and 400mm f/5.6 than with the 60D, for some reason. Having started with crop and now having both, I would say I grab the full frame 80% of the time. On a trip in the car I usually try to keep three of the bodies with a lens attached so I am not fumbling with mounting a lens. Unless you simply have no choice from a monetary standpoint, keep your existing body and add a frill frame.

 

[Vossie]

My recommendation would be ff as well. With the shallow DoF it gives you new creative possibilities (the statement that better gear does not give you better photos is not true in my opinion).

Depending on the budget you can choose between the 6D and 5D3. I would certainly not recommend to sell off your 24-70 II and use primes only.

For macro work, a good flash bracket, a good tripod and a macro rail can be good investments.

 

[Sella174]

I honestly cannot agree with the recommendation that the OP keeps the 24-70mm lens. He's a photography student. He still has to learn and define his version of the art. If he uses the 24-70mm, then IMHO, his photographs will look like everybody else's photographs and he won't develop a style of his own that's marketable in a very competitive business. (Over here in South Africa, every idiot with a "Rebel" and Sigma budget zoom considers herself a "pro" photographer ... heck, scratch "pro" ... considers herself a photographer.)

 

[rs]

I honestly cannot agree with the recommendation that the OP keeps the 24-70mm lens. He's a photography student. He still has to learn and define his version of the art. If he uses the 24-70mm, then IMHO, his photographs will look like everybody else's photographs and he won't develop a style of his own that's marketable in a very competitive business. (Over here in South Africa, every idiot with a "Rebel" and Sigma budget zoom considers herself a "pro" photographer ... heck, scratch "pro" ... considers herself a photographer.)

I get what you're saying, but defining your own version of an art doesn't require being focal length limited and/or having inferior lenses. What's wrong with owning the ultimate, and not getting rid of it?

 

[aj1575]

Here are also some samples of macros shoot with a 500D. Pretty amazing work I think.

I personally think that better equipment won't make you a better photographer, better equipment just makes taking pictures more convenient, easier and more fun.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=canon%20500d%20macro