How to differentiate crop vs. FF

[Eldar]

I have been involved in a number of crop vs. FF discussions lately. I thought I had the arguments for and against well set. But, based on these discussions, I´m not so sure anymore.

What I´d like your views on are what you see as the key arguments for and against the two sensor formats are from your perspective.

PS! I know DR is one, but please avoid turning this into a for/against more DR thread.

 

[Khalai]

Re: How to argue crop vs. FF

Shallower DoF, better lowlight sensitivity and along with that, less noise (and arguably better colours and **) and of course proper wide lenses, were the top selling points for me, when I went fullframe on Jan 2014

 

[Lee Jay]

Re: How to argue crop vs. FF

It's a stop and a third, of noise performance and DOF control (assuming you can keep constant framing through either a change in focal length at the same f-stop or a change in subject distance). You pay for that just like you do with lenses.

 

[Eldar]

You argue over camera sh*t? Seriously? There's more important things in life than ARGUING over camera formats.
Use of the word "argue" implies that you're trying to "win" or persuade. Why not just state the merits of each and allow others to choose what's best for them. There's no one RIGHT system for everyone. No arguing needed.

Good point. English is not my native tongue. Differentiate is probably a better word.

 

[pdirestajr]

The differences are "neg•li•gi•ble".
Everything else is just noise and a lot of geeking out.

 

[Joe M]

Until crop cameras are no longer manufactured, I suspect the debate on the merits of one over the other will never end. And there certainly are merits for one over the other. Some cite scientific measurements and some personal experience. A larger sensor area should always out perform a smaller one. You rarely see "crop vs. 1/3"" debates as we all know what will be better. I suspect it's because crop output is as good as it is that we see crop vs. FF ones. I haven't delved too much into the science part (SNR ratios and all the other electronic wizardry that goes on inside the cameras) other than to quote what others have said and I prefer not to do that. I leave that to those who know.
What I can speak to is from the personal experience. Having used 20D, 40D, 7D along with 5D, 5D2, and now 5D3, I can say that there can be a difference. The crops, under certain circumstances, can definitely produce great photos. Under certain circumstances, the FF can trump the crops. Obviously I can only speak from my personal experience and with these cameras. I have no idea if another "crop brand X" will "beat" "FF brand Y". I'm at the point now that if I had to choose shooting crop or FF, I'd go FF. I actually did mainly because I found myself using the crops less and less.
But I sort of digressed as really, the best way to find out which one is best for you and your uses, is to (if it's possible), shoot with each for a few days in every circumstance that's important to you and pick the one that performed the best. The camera that gave you the results you are happy with is the camera for you. Best is best but those who really are in the market for a camera should try them out for their needs. Actual raw performance of the cameras aside, I find that "the user's needs" is too often left out of the equation.

 

[Sporgon]

Everyone knows of the shallow dof and low light advantage that FF has over crop, assuming that is what you want. However here is my take on it: the smaller the format the less the magnification of the image in terms of both optical magnification ( shorter focal lengths) and physical capture ( sensor / film size.) This means that the combined technologies of optics and sensor have to overcome the problems thrown at them by physics in order to deliver an image that is the same as one shot on a larger format with greater magnification ( longer focal length lenses ) and larger physical capture, ( larger sensor / film). Also the smaller the format the greater the enlargement will have to be to view.

Given the current state of technology I find that in reasonable light, at low ISOs there is just no difference in the image if the subject is relatively close and therefor the detail to resolve is relatively large in the frame.

However when you start photographing subjects that are far from the camera, and fine detail is very small, I find the larger the format the better the results ( air diffusion allowing etc). When I have shot the same landscape on both an original 5D (12.7mp) and a 650D (18 mp), although the 18mp crop sensor clearly had more resolution, the definition and 'IQ' was better from the 5D.

This is why serious landscape photographers always used large format film cameras over even medium format.

However technology is marching forward, and it will be interesting to see if a camera such as the 7DII when mated with a top end optic can match the larger format. I guess that if the optics and the sensor are good enough there is no reason why this can't happen, although there will always be the potential drawback of requiring greater enlargement which cannot be done away with.

Given the fact that technology is advancing I see no reason for crop cameras to go away; quite the reverse in fact.

 

[kaihp]

The differences are "neg•li•gi•ble".
Everything else is just noise and a lot of geeking out.

I must politely disagree.

 

[Maui5150]

In general I have found FF to have better DR, High ISO, and DOF. I generally like the "quality" of the images. I noticed a big difference between the look of my 5D MK II over my T2i. Very different breeds of camera, but I will probably always shoot fashion and beauty with a FF over a crop

For sports. I like the extra reach of the crop. Very big asset to throw on a solid 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and get 120-320 without a TC and not pay the focus penalty.

If I do pick up the 7D MK II I would consider a 2nd 70-200 F/2.8 IS II so I could have one on the 5D MK III and another on the 7D MK II and cover 70 - 320 fairly effectively, or maybe hunt for a 120-300 Sigma and have the 70-200 of the 5D MK III and the 120-300 on the 7D MK III which would then be 192-480, or effectively have 70-500 (just a few short) at f/2.8

If what I hear about performance and image quality stands up, this would be a solid combo for sports until I upgrade the 5D MK III to a 1Dx


Come to think of it, in the Sports arena a 1Dx / 7D MK II with the above lenses would be extremely hard to beat.

 

[Loswr]

The key advantage of APS-C sensors is lower cost. Crop bodies generally cost less (often far less), and when they don't (e.g. 7DII vs. discounted 6D) they generally offer significantly better features (particularly AF and frame rate).

The oft-cited 'reach advantage' of APS-C sensors isn't much of an advantage. It's far less than 1.6x in practical terms.

 

[Lee Jay]

The key advantage of APS-C sensors is lower cost. Crop bodies generally cost less (often far less), and when they don't (e.g. 7DII vs. discounted 6D) they generally offer significantly better features (particularly AF and frame rate).

The oft-cited 'reach advantage' of APS-C sensors isn't much of an advantage. It's far less than 1.6x in practical terms.

Right. With mediocre lenses it's more like 1.25x and with great lenses it's more like 1.5x (for the same pixel counts).

 

[Lee Jay]

The differences are "neg•li•gi•ble".
Everything else is just noise and a lot of geeking out.

If you think f/2.8 is a negligible difference compared to f/4.5, then I'd agree.

 

[Coldhands]

A minor point, but one I think is worth mentioning, is the larger viewfinder with FF. I find it makes it easier to compose with and is just generally nice to have.

Obviously this becomes a moot point when referring to mirror-less cameras.

 

[ritholtz]

The key advantage of APS-C sensors is lower cost. Crop bodies generally cost less (often far less), and when they don't (e.g. 7DII vs. discounted 6D) they generally offer significantly better features (particularly AF and frame rate).

The oft-cited 'reach advantage' of APS-C sensors isn't much of an advantage. It's far less than 1.6x in practical terms.

Hi Neuro,
Crop is a value for money. Are there any advantages in viewfinder other than reach? If we are using the same lens (adjust for the reach by cropping), subject will be bigger in view finder of crop. More focusing points on subjects or bigger subject per focus point for tracking might be advantageous right?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Very simple. If someone prioritizes absolute image quality, narrow DOF, and need to shoot at ISO 6400, must use FULL FRAME.

On the other hand, if someone prefers wider DOF, size, weight, and lower price (combination of camera + lens) will find more advantages in APS-C.

If someone needs to shoot the two scenarios I mentioned, must have an APS-C camera and another FULL FRAME.

 

[SPKoko]

The key advantage of APS-C sensors is lower cost. Crop bodies generally cost less (often far less), and when they don't (e.g. 7DII vs. discounted 6D) they generally offer significantly better features (particularly AF and frame rate).

The oft-cited 'reach advantage' of APS-C sensors isn't much of an advantage. It's far less than 1.6x in practical terms.

Lower cost of the body and also much lower cost of the lenses. With a crop body you can build a very decent kit with the EF-S STM lenses (10-18 STM, 18-55 STM or 18-135 STM, 55-250 STM, 24 STM) for less than 1000$. Not the same quality, but it is pretty decent. How much would a similar kit covering from 16mm to 400mm equiv. cost in the FF world? The cheapest that I can think of is 17-40, 28-135 or 24-105, 70-300 non L...

 

[AcutancePhotography]

With really good cameras being manufactured in both formats, the choice really comes down to your individual style of photography and what you are looking for.

Full Frame is not a natural progression from Crop. If crop gives you what you want in the photograph, stay crop. Don'r feel that you have to move up to FF. While some may treat it as a status symbol, from a practical point of view, Crop works well for many good photographers.

 

[Lee Jay]

There's one big advantage of full-frame that a lot of people don't recognize - the variety of zoom lenses starting at 24mm.

Full frame:
24-105/4L IS
24-70/4L IS
24-70/2.8 II
Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC
Sigma 24-70/2.8
Sigma 24-105/4 OS

Crop:
15-85/3.5-5.6 IS

 

[TAW]

From a completely nontechnical perspective, after I purchased a 5DII, my 7D started collecting dust. I 'felt' I ended up with better pictures (or more accurately higher quality pictures from my perspective - pictures that I was happier with ) Some of that was probably because I had more 'image' to work with for cropping, straightening..., the DOF differences.. The only thing I ever missed was the FPS and I can only think of a few shots I missed because of that... (and if I was a little better photographer, I wouldn't have missed those either )

For me - for whatever reason - I like the images I produced better with a FF.

Have a GREAT day!
tom

 

[Loswr]

Hi Neuro,
Crop is a value for money. Are there any advantages in viewfinder other than reach? If we are using the same lens (adjust for the reach by cropping), subject will be bigger in view finder of crop. More focusing points on subjects or bigger subject per focus point for tracking might be advantageous right?

It's still mainly overall cost. You're correct that using the same lens for a distant subject, more VF magnification and more AF points on subject are an advantage. But unless you're already at 1200mm (600 II + 2xIII), you're still talking cost savings. 600/4 on FF will beat 400/5.6 on APS-C. I suppose an argument could be made that the 600 II + 1.4xIII is f/5.6 and allows all AF points, so that on a 7DII vs. the 600 II + 2xIII on a 5DIII which gives just the center point with 4 expansion points. But at higher ISO (which are often needed at f/5.6 and narrower with subjects like BIF), the FF would deliver better IQ.

It's anecdotal, but lots of bird photographers who shot with a 7D then got a 5DIII/1D X soon switched to using the 5DIII for birds. Notably, that includes some people on this forum who'd done some pretty detailed testing to demonstrate the reach-limited resolution advantage of APS-C.

Besides cost (of camera + lens), there can be a size/weight advantage...but 7-series bodies are not significantly smaller/lighter, and with wide-to-normal lenses the differences aren't great.

On the other hand, if someone prefers wider DOF...will find more advantages in APS-C.

Sorry, but that's simply not true*. It's true that for the same framing, APS-C gives deeper DoF. So...you stop down the lens on FF and you get the same DoF. If you need to keep the same shutter speed, you raise the ISO and there's no difference in noise; if you can let the shutter speed drop, you get less noise on FF.

In terms of DoF, FF allows you to achieve shallower DoF than APS-C if you want it, or the same DoF without penalty if you don't.

*There's an exception, in that if your lens is stopped down to its narrowest aperture, APS-C gives deeper DoF because you can't stop the lens down further. But by then, diffraction will be softening the images a fair bit, and that will be worse on APS-C at typical pixel densities, so in that case you're trading sharpness for DoF.