Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor

[Loswr]

And, frankly, ISO 400 on APS-C looks pretty much the same as ISO 400 on Full Frame.

Unless you have to crop the image, and push the shadows a stop or two (after having lost a slight amount of shadow or highlight info already due to the lower DR). FF is better, unquestionably – the noise is lower and the image is sharper...but in many situations, APS-C is good enough that the benefits of FF are rendered moot.

 

[sagittariansrock]

What I am lacking is the ability to create compelling photography but that is a process independent of technology.

I can go on and on and on about how I learned photography with just a 55mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/3.5 prime lens. I can go on and on and on about how the 55mm taught me to work within the limitations of the focal length, i.e. DoF and FoV. I can go on and on and on about how the 55mm taught me about angles and moments. I can go on and on and on ... but I won't. (Chorus: "Too late!")

I always challenge people, who want to really learn photography, to pick one prime lens and shoot straight to JPEG for three months. Everything, one prime lens in JPEG. Do it!

I so totally disagree.

I think he said that so that you are limited to just you and the camera. Zero Post-processing. If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree... Seldomly, do we all take good pictures anymore, we all take half-assed pictures then throw it in lightroom to correct it, then crop it so they frame it better and lastly do a bunch of touch ups to make it clean and/or artsy.

It shouldn't matter at which point of your workflow you create something beautiful or meaningful. It could be by being there while a significant scene unfolds before your camera, it could be when you use a photographic tool to transform something mundane, or it could be when you use a post-processing tool instead (this, of course, doesn't pertain to photojournalism). One shouldn't be a stickler for the technique as long as the end result satisfies. One shouldn't be limited to the semantics of what it means to be a photographer and what it means to be a photo editor.
The fact that unavailability of editing tools made for better photographers is the same as saying removing seat belts made for safer drivers.

 

[Aglet]

here's my 2-bits

You've got a nice collection of glass, so I won't tell you to abandon it for a different system. (but that's what I did)

Consider a 70D or a 6D, they have more manageable noise characteristics.
if you don't like noise and banding, a used 5d2 might disappoint, depending on the individual body - take some test shots and process before committing to it. I had an early model and it was noisy and had plenty of banding and a 7D is similarly cautioned against for the same reason.

Not sure if they're offered in your area, but a refurbished 6D can be a good deal and a better option and you'll only give up your 10-22.

 

[Hesbehindyou]

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

If you are 'focal length limited', i.e. need a longer lens, with FF then yes, crops have an advantage. If you're not then they don't.

The main advantage of full frame (to me) is being able to get a sharper drop off from the in focus plane to the out of focus plane. How is this achieved? To get the same framing on FF as on my crop I have to use a longer focal length... and it is the longer focal length that gives you the sharper drop off. In addition the depth of field is shallower in the first place.

Pretty much everything else can be regarded as minor or for pixel peepers only. If you're not making very large prints you can ignore lots of info

(one other thing to add is that the FF bodies have better ergonomics than the Rebels and a larger, brighter, viewfinder. My 550D is only used when I'll be cropping (my FF is only 12MP) or am focal length limited, such is my preference for the ergonomics and viewfinder of the 5D)

 

[koolman]

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.

Hi,

My 2 cents. I have a 550d and my friend has a 5d mark 2. We often go shooting together. He uses a 24-70 2.8 mark 1 - I use a tammy 17-50 non VC.

1) Sure FF produces higher IQ. Is it "dramatic" ? well in my opinion it very much depends on the scenario of the shot. In good light - there is a difference - but I'm not sure "dramatic" comes to mind. In low light the FF is cleaner. In my opinion the photographers skill will influence the results in a much more "dramatic" way.

2) My style of shooting is often "walk around". The FF body and lenses are heavy and I'm not sure worth the weight and added overall drag.

3) The FF body and lenses - are more expensive and for me not worth the cost - as I shoot as a hobby. I much more enjoy the composition and photo part of my hobby then admiring the electronics of the result. That's me.

J.P.

 

[unfocused]

...1) Sure FF produces higher IQ. Is it "dramatic" ? well in my opinion it very much depends on the scenario of the shot. In good light - there is a difference - but I'm not sure "dramatic" comes to mind. In low light the FF is cleaner. In my opinion the photographers skill will influence the results in a much more "dramatic" way.

2) My style of shooting is often "walk around". The FF body and lenses are heavy and I'm not sure worth the weight and added overall drag.

3) The FF body and lenses - are more expensive and for me not worth the cost - as I shoot as a hobby. I much more enjoy the composition and photo part of my hobby then admiring the electronics of the result. That's me...

That is a very reasonable assessment.

 

[sdsr]

If you have talent and vision, it's not going to be lessened by using the tools available to you.

Quite so; and if you don't have talent and vision, being forced to use a limited range of equipment won't impart them.

As for shooting JPEGs, no thanks. I like looking closely at photos, and if you do that you'll see that cameras' JPEG-creation tends to involve processing that smears fine details. It may be possible to reduce or avoid that by experimenting with the camera's JPEG settings, but why bother if shooting RAW lets you avoid that?

 

[sdsr]

I think he said that so that you are limited to just you and the camera. Zero Post-processing. If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree... Seldomly, do we all take good pictures anymore, we all take half-assed pictures then throw it in lightroom to correct it, then crop it so they frame it better and lastly do a bunch of touch ups to make it clean and/or artsy.

Perhaps you should speak for yourself.... This distinction you're making is false anyway. Yes, it's nice if you can get it "right" in the camera in the first place, but that's still editing; the only difference with PP is that you're doing it somewhere else, outside the camera.

 

[Sella174]

I always challenge people, who want to really learn photography, to pick one prime lens and shoot straight to JPEG for three months. Everything, one prime lens in JPEG. Do it!

I so totally disagree.

A lot of you seem to agree with sanj on this challenge by me. Maybe clarifying a bit will help, or maybe it won't help an ocean. Oh, well, here goes nothing ...

This is not about RAW vs JPEG. Full stop. Period.

This is about learning the art of photography, and one of the best ways of learning is to appreciate what you have at your disposal. The objective is to limit the student as much as possible (without resorting to film), so that the student can understand that something like post-processing is part of the whole, a cog in the machine; a whole that starts with the correct basically correct creation of the image.

Many people, in their infinite wisdom, view RAW and the camera as simply a means of acquiring data for processing with a computer. This, in my opinion, leads to GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

And obviously, once you've progressed beyond this step in learning the art of photography, you don't need to ever shoot JPEG again.

However, what is pretty interesting, is how many of the "photographers" on CR are so violently opposed to the idea of going JPEG for a few months. Oh, well ...

 

[Loswr]

Yes, shoot JPG...and only use 256 MB memory cards so you're limited to ~36 exposures per roll card. That way, you learn that every shot should count.

Typical photographer progression: shoot JPG for a while...hear about the benefits of RAW, shoot JPG+RAW for a while, processing RAWs for a few 'select' images and keeping just JPGs...fully understand the benefits of RAW and switch to RAW only...wish you could go back and properly process some images for which you have only the JPG and regret not shooting RAW only from the start.

Don't be 'that photographer'. Friends don't let friends shoot JPG.

 

[Sella174]

Ah, yes ... ;D

 

[Zv]

What you see on the LCD is the JPEG preview anyway, regardless of what file type you shoot. Therefore you could argue that you are always shooting JPEG in a sense. We should always try and get it right in camera and one way to do that is to use the info from the histogram and LCD. Though it's bloody hard on a 3" screen and usually things look fine until you look at it on the big screen!

As Neuro said there is no real benefit to the photographer by limiting the file type. You might as well shoot RAW, get it right in camera and then just convert to JPEG if required. You always have the option of not processing the image.

That said I think the challenge is interesting in a way. I think I'd spend more time composing my shots and getting the light just perfect rather than getting it close enough. Could be useful someday if a client wants images on demand during a shoot. I prob rely too heavily on fixing it later. The thought of handing over unprocessed shots makes me very uncomfortable!

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Typical photographer progression: shoot JPG for a while...hear about the benefits of RAW, shoot JPG+RAW for a while, processing RAWs for a few 'select' images and keeping just JPGs...fully understand the benefits of RAW and switch to RAW only...wish you could go back and properly process some images for which you have only the JPG and regret not shooting RAW only from the start.

Ouch! that hurts ;D ... just like truth hurts ...oh, how I wish I shot RAW from the beginning ... but most of the time, one only learns from making mistakes. :-[

 

[Sella174]

As Neuro said there is no real benefit to the photographer by limiting the file type.

Only problem being that neuroanatomist does not understand the purpose of my "challenge".

 

[jdramirez]

Typical photographer progression: shoot JPG for a while...hear about the benefits of RAW, shoot JPG+RAW for a while, processing RAWs for a few 'select' images and keeping just JPGs...fully understand the benefits of RAW and switch to RAW only...wish you could go back and properly process some images for which you have only the JPG and regret not shooting RAW only from the start.

Ouch! that hurts ;D ... just like truth hurts ...oh, how I wish I shot RAW from the beginning ... but most of the time, one only learns from making mistakes. :-[

That was me to the tee... but I didn't have a program to read raw... so I give myself a pass.

 

[Marsu42]

What you see on the LCD is the JPEG preview anyway, regardless of what file type you shoot. Therefore you could argue that you are always shooting JPEG in a sense.

Not quite, if you use Magic Lantern you get a real raw histogram + (even automatic) ettr to minimize noise.

Pretty much everything else can be regarded as minor or for pixel peepers only. If you're not making very large prints you can ignore lots of info

I'd like to add one fact I completely missed before moving to ff, something that cannot be seen in sample images or charts: the bigger pixels of the current ff sensors provide more postprocessing elasticity, i.e. you can do much more with the shot before it falls apart like changing individual colors and also pushing shadows (esp. on 6d). Sharpening and nr also benefit a lot from the latest sensors (5d3/6d), I didn't try 70d for that though.

 

[Loswr]

As Neuro said there is no real benefit to the photographer by limiting the file type.

Only problem being that neuroanatomist does not understand the purpose of my "challenge".

I understand perfectly, I just don't agree that it's a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[mackguyver]

Don't be 'that photographer'. Friends don't let friends shoot JPG.

+1 - LOL - I like that one - now we just need some T-shirts with that printed on them!

 

[jhaces]

I think he said that so that you are limited to just you and the camera. Zero Post-processing. If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree... Seldomly, do we all take good pictures anymore, we all take half-assed pictures then throw it in lightroom to correct it, then crop it so they frame it better and lastly do a bunch of touch ups to make it clean and/or artsy.

Back in the day, there was this random guy, Ansel Adams. For some reason, people tend to label this editor as a photographer. Some even have the nerve to term him one of the fathers of photography. Can you believe that?

Sella, your 'challenge' is plainly short-sighted. In keeping with the spirit of it, perhaps it would be more reasonable to still take RAWs, but processing them to the 'camera default'. Still pointless, but at least you don't deny yourself the possibility of going back to the picture later en re-edit it to your heart's content.

The guys that think that everything must be done in camera and everything else is not really a photo must surely stick to a disposable Kodak camera where you press the button, we do the rest.

If you are taking the time looking for an interesting subject, framing, composing, choosing precisely when to press the button, etc, why would you let your camera's CPU take control at a critical part in the process and decide what curves to apply, what levels of saturation, intensity of NR, shadow/highlight clipping, etc?

Oh and just to be on topic, full frame. Never would want to go back. Of course the caveats are there if you need the 'extra range' for sports (hint: you never do) But the first time you look through the viewfinder you will be sold 8)

 

[Sella174]

I understand perfectly, I just don't agree that it's a worthwhile endeavor.

No, you don't. But I understand perfectly ... ;D