Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor

[jdramirez]

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.

In this circumstance and from this distance I probably would have brought along a flash.

The image looks like it was still under exposed which is why there is so much grain...

And it definitely needs some grain reduction...

 

[bholliman]

I recommend full frame. A 5D3 if you shoot lots of action and wildlife, a 6D if not. Improved low light/high ISO capability and better ability to control your depth of field were the main reasons I made the switch.

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.)

The OP already owns three primes (50 1.8, 100 Macro and 400 5.6) according to their equipment list. So, I really don't understand your suggestion to sell the 24-70 2.8 II. I agree with the premise that zooms often allow the photographer to become lazy and not work for the best framing and composition. But, I think selling maybe the best standard zoom lens available just to force working with primes seems a bit extreme.

I have both zooms and primes and at times just take one prime on outings, or even restrict myself to just using a single prime for a week at a time to force myself to work on shot composition when restricted to one focal length. It is definitely a beneficial exercise. The OP can learn a great deal from use of primes and still have the flexibility of the 24-70 2.8 for situations (parties, receptions, festivals and events) where you will miss shots if you don't have a zoom mounted.

 

[jdramirez]

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

I'd lean towards the 6D. Wifi, gps, and better low light performance... both are great... but the 6D in terms of shear performance is better.

And for reference... I hated the 6d when it came out. I thought it was a slightly better version of the 5d mkii and at the same time.. slightly worse... but I've changed my mind. If you do portrait or landscape... it's perfect... if you shoot action... the 5d mkiii is a good alternative to the 1dx and its cousins.

 

[wsmith96]

I agree that a flash would have helped me here. From what I read about how good FF low light performance was, I did not bring a flash as I thought I would not need it.

Now, don't take my experience as a recommendation for a crop camera. I was just illustrating the noise level advantage that the FF camera has over a crop camera. YMMV of course.

 

[jdramirez]

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.)

Dictating that he should only use primes is limiting his artistic options. I did this really awful long exposure where I zoomed in during the middle of the shot... It wasn't good... but it also isn't achievable using a prime.

Let him decide how and why... just because he has a zoom doesn't mean he won't zoom with his feet if he composes the shot he wants.

And shooting at wife open apertures and calling it artistic vision is a fallacy unto itself.

 

[J.R.]

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.)

Dictating that he should only use primes is limiting his artistic options. I did this really awful long exposure where I zoomed in during the middle of the shot... It wasn't good... but it also isn't achievable using a prime.

Let him decide how and why... just because he has a zoom doesn't mean he won't zoom with his feet if he composes the shot he wants.

And shooting at wife open apertures and calling it artistic vision is a fallacy unto itself.

Yes ... I do a lot of foot zooming when I'm only with a single camera with the 24-70 mounted on it. I do sometimes need a closer shot at 70mm so the only option is to use my feet.

OTOH, if it were the 28-300L, I would (probably) understand.

 

[jdramirez]

Dictating that he should only use primes is limiting his artistic options. I did this really awful long exposure where I zoomed in during the middle of the shot... It wasn't good... but it also isn't achievable using a prime.

Let him decide how and why... just because he has a zoom doesn't mean he won't zoom with his feet if he composes the shot he wants.

And shooting at wife open apertures and calling it artistic vision is a fallacy unto itself.

Yes ... I do a lot of foot zooming when I'm only with a single camera with the 24-70 mounted on it. I do sometimes need a closer shot at 70mm so the only option is to use my feet.

OTOH, if it were the 28-300L, I would (probably) understand.

Depth of field changes with focal length... so if you compose a shot art 24mm but you want to frame it... some people will walk forward to get the shot they want or they will move the zoom to 35mm... and I believe that is what the other guy is objecting to... because you aren't really composing the shot with depth of field in mind, but just framing. Having said that.. having three focal length of four or five outings in one lens is convenient to.... 24, 35, 50, 60, etc... but it takes a little dedication to walk towards your target rather than zoom.

 

[J.R.]

Dictating that he should only use primes is limiting his artistic options. I did this really awful long exposure where I zoomed in during the middle of the shot... It wasn't good... but it also isn't achievable using a prime.

Let him decide how and why... just because he has a zoom doesn't mean he won't zoom with his feet if he composes the shot he wants.

And shooting at wife open apertures and calling it artistic vision is a fallacy unto itself.

Yes ... I do a lot of foot zooming when I'm only with a single camera with the 24-70 mounted on it. I do sometimes need a closer shot at 70mm so the only option is to use my feet.

OTOH, if it were the 28-300L, I would (probably) understand.

Depth of field changes with focal length... so if you compose a shot art 24mm but you want to frame it... some people will walk forward to get the shot they want or they will move the zoom to 35mm... and I believe that is what the other guy is objecting to... because you aren't really composing the shot with depth of field in mind, but just framing. Having said that.. having three focal length of four or five outings in one lens is convenient to.... 24, 35, 50, 60, etc... but it takes a little dedication to walk towards your target rather than zoom.

Oh ... I misunderstood in that case.

I agree with the point you make though and knowing the limitations / advantages of shooting at different focal lengths is important.

 

[Loswr]

... some people will walk forward to get the shot they want or they will move the zoom to 35mm... and I believe that is what the other guy is objecting to... because you aren't really composing the shot with depth of field in mind, but just framing. ... but it takes a little dedication to walk towards your target rather than zoom.

As long as you understand that changing the distance to your subject changes the perspective, whereas changing the focal length does not. It's an important distinction, because a zoom lens allows you to change the framing without changing perspective, or to change both together, where as with a prime, you change perspective and framing together and cannot alter them independently.

 

[jdramirez]

As long as you understand that changing the distance to your subject changes the perspective, whereas changing the focal length does not. It's an important distinction, because a zoom lens allows you to change the framing without changing perspective, or to change both together, where as with a prime, you change perspective and framing together and cannot alter them independently.

Perspective... being the angle at which you view/shoot your subject?

 

[Loswr]

As long as you understand that changing the distance to your subject changes the perspective, whereas changing the focal length does not. It's an important distinction, because a zoom lens allows you to change the framing without changing perspective, or to change both together, where as with a prime, you change perspective and framing together and cannot alter them independently.

Perspective... being the angle at which you view/shoot your subject?

Perspective determines the spatial relationships between objects in your image, and it depends solely on distance.

'Wide angle distortion' (where noses look big when you shoot a portrait from a very close distance, or the flower in the foreground looks taller than the mountain in the background) and 'telephoto compression' (desirable and 'flattering' in portraits, where distant objects appear closer together) are manifestations of perspective. Note that they have nothing to do with the focal lengths used (although the terms themselves imply differently), but rather come from the subject distances at which those focal lengths are normally used.

 

[Bruce 101]

At the beginning it looks like an increase in focal length, but really you are just cutting away ("cropping") part of the image. The only advantage of crop sensors that is sometimes (!) relevant (except for price) is actually the higher pixel density.

I shoot full frame for the most part.

But there are many situations where the extra range provided by the crop camera IN THE VIEWFINDER is helpful to me. If I am at a school play, sitting in the back, using my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II on a crop camera, the fact is that I can tell better (@320mm on the crop) whether I have the caught the facial expression I wanted - WHILE TAKING THE SHOT. I can't run home, pop up the full frame shot (@200mm) on the computer screen. Sure, I could zoom in AFTER THE FULL FRAME SHOT to make sure I got it - but then the scene is over - it's too late.

I know your first statement is correct and often cited as evidence that crop cameras are inferior, but the extra range available to the shooter in the viewfinder is a reality that can be quite useful in hundreds of situations. So, I must disagree with your second statement.

 

[jdramirez]

At the beginning it looks like an increase in focal length, but really you are just cutting away ("cropping") part of the image. The only advantage of crop sensors that is sometimes (!) relevant (except for price) is actually the higher pixel density.

I shoot full frame for the most part.

But there are many situations where the extra range provided by the crop camera IN THE VIEWFINDER is helpful to me. If I am at a school play, sitting in the back, using my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II on a crop camera, the fact is that I can tell better (@320mm on the crop) whether I have the caught the facial expression I wanted - WHILE TAKING THE SHOT. I can't run home, pop up the full frame shot (@200mm) on the computer screen. Sure, I could zoom in AFTER THE FULL FRAME SHOT to make sure I got it - but then the scene is over - it's too late.

I know your first statement is correct and often cited as evidence that crop cameras are inferior, but the extra range available to the shooter in the viewfinder is a reality that can be quite useful in hundreds of situations. So, I must disagree with your second statement.

I look forward to the optical digital hybrid viewfinder... I hope to be able to zoom in with the digital so I can see if the image is in focus the way I can using live view and and the digital zoom function.

Even better I hope they over lay each other and the camera recognizes where I'm looking so it zooms directly at that location... to dream.

 

[mackguyver]

As long as you understand that changing the distance to your subject changes the perspective, whereas changing the focal length does not. It's an important distinction, because a zoom lens allows you to change the framing without changing perspective, or to change both together, where as with a prime, you change perspective and framing together and cannot alter them independently.

Perspective... being the angle at which you view/shoot your subject?

JD, I wrote a detailed reply to your question, but didn't want to take over the thread, so I posted it as a new thread in the Techniques forum:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19685.0

 

[sdsr]

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.

But don't you think that having equipment that makes taking photos easier, more convenient and more fun makes it more likely that someone will want to use that equipment more, experiment more, and think better about what you're doing? What ultimately matters most in making photos that are worth looking at is having a good eye; and while it's obvious that someone with a good eye can make fantastic images with lesser equipment, and equally obvious that buying superior equipment doesn't thereby give you a better eye, I suspect that the fewer technical obstacles your equipment provides the better your chances of improving your eye (though that may never happen).

 

[jdramirez]

As long as you understand that changing the distance to your subject changes the perspective, whereas changing the focal length does not. It's an important distinction, because a zoom lens allows you to change the framing without changing perspective, or to change both together, where as with a prime, you change perspective and framing together and cannot alter them independently.

Perspective... being the angle at which you view/shoot your subject?

JD, I wrote a detailed reply to your question, but didn't want to take over the thread, so I posted it as a new thread in the Techniques forum:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19685.0

Just when I feel confident...

I'll give it a look.. I believe I have noticed 'perspective' in my shots and used it to a certain extent... but there is definitely more to learn.

 

[mackguyver]

As long as you understand that changing the distance to your subject changes the perspective, whereas changing the focal length does not. It's an important distinction, because a zoom lens allows you to change the framing without changing perspective, or to change both together, where as with a prime, you change perspective and framing together and cannot alter them independently.

Perspective... being the angle at which you view/shoot your subject?

JD, I wrote a detailed reply to your question, but didn't want to take over the thread, so I posted it as a new thread in the Techniques forum:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19685.0

Just when I feel confident...

I'll give it a look.. I believe I have noticed 'perspective' in my shots and used it to a certain extent... but there is definitely more to learn.

It's one of those things that seems simple and is simple once you "get" it, but for some reason it's harder than most of the other concepts in terms of understanding it vs. using it. Also, there's no reason to shake your confidence - there's always more to learn no matter how much you master

 

[sawsedge]

I moved from crop to full-frame when the 5D3 arrived. The main reason for me was the AF system; I found myself unable to track the kids with the 50D as they got bigger and faster. In fact, I passed on the 5D2 and bought the 50D because the AF was a little better (the 7D followed too quickly to justify it to she-who-must-be-obeyed).

I immediately noticed the other improvements of the 5D3 as well. I love being able to track and get more keepers. I love the image quality improvements (yet I have nice big prints on the wall from the crop cameras). I love how the 5D3 retains details as you increase the ISO. I can get nice hand-held portraits indoors with window light that didn't work well with previous cameras. I don't even mind the "grain" at ISO 8000-10000.

But there is one frustration I have with the full-frame, and that is for closeups. I got used to what 1:1 meant on the crop, and I can't get that magnification with the FF unless I crop. So I think about getting another crop body every now and then. Or maybe it is time to get the MP-E.

 

[wsmith96]

But don't you think that having equipment that makes taking photos easier, more convenient and more fun makes it more likely that someone will want to use that equipment more, experiment more, and think better about what you're doing?

I'm not sure that I'd consider a 5D3 easier and more convenient than a typical crop. It's work to use that camera, but if you are willing to do the work, then the rewards can be great.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

Viewfinder will be way better on a full frame camera. That's significant on every single shot. A fuller and closer view of your subject.

The other significant difference is depth of focus. There is a feeling and dimension to 35mm images that I much prefer to 24mm crop images, especially at wider apertures. That's significant.

If you shoot at middling apertures, you may have a really hard time noticing any difference between an apsc and full frame of the same vintage. You can take crappy shots, or great shots, with either.

If you have a bunch of full-frame lenses, then it makes some sense to use them on full-frame. But understand that you get more cost and weight with it.

I don't think it's a deal breaker either way. But you should try them, look through the finder, take some wide aperture shots, carry all the gear around and tell yourself if it makes a difference. It does for me, but maybe not for others. Those tiny Fuji's are appealing for a reason. But so is my 6D!