How to differentiate crop vs. FF

[privatebydesign]

I'm not seeing any real difference in any of the pairs. Doesn't that kind of support the other side ???

Again I'll say if you're cropping in so much that you're left with like 3 MP from the FF file...and you have to make a larger print...crop wins. You simply run out of pixels otherwise. But that's rare.

The flip side is that the same thing happens when you honestly compare FF vs. crop, same FoV and print size and all of their pixels, at low to mid ISO. A landscape photo with an 11mm on crop and a 17mm on FF. OOC you can see a difference, but after post processing...good luck telling them apart, even at 36". In fairness, in difficult situations FF files can take harder processing, but you can push a crop 14-bit RAW pretty hard as well.

Even high ISO at smaller print sizes is becoming more difficult to discern, though ISOs like 6400 and 12800 still clearly show off FF's light gathering advantage. But if Scott Kelby's samples are any indication...a crop 7D mark II will be usable at 16,000 for an 8x10. FF would look better even at 8x10 at that ISO, but how much better? It's ridiculous how good we have it.

We are far too concerned with minutia at a time when equipment is...by a wide margin...the best it has ever been.

But that isn't what my original crops, or the gif show. They are 100% and >100% crops and there is nothing in it.

 

[MichaelHodges]

In fairness, it's a wash after post processing. But the differences are simply not that large to begin with.

If you need to post process the crop image to match the FF, then it's not a "wash". It's the crop getting its ass handed to it.

 

[tayassu]

it´s been fun to follow the discussion. As I stated in the opening, I thought I had the pros and cons pretty clear, but realized that there was a bit more to it.

After about page 3 I thought I´d try to sum up the opinions so far, but I don´t think I´m the right guy for that. But it would be interesting if someone could try to make the comprehensive and objective list of pros and cons FF and crop.

Personally I have ordered the 7DII to be an addition to my 1DX for long reach, where I crop a bit too much today and where I also believe the AF will benefit from the 1.6x factor. I also see that it will be a very potent coupling with the 200-400mm f4L IS 1.4x lens. I do not use this lens for birding today, but I expect to do so with the 7DII. I´m also motivated by the AF and fps performance in such a small and light body, for long hikes, where size and weight are important issues.

But again, If someone could take on the challenge of making the ultimate objective guide to crop vs. FF ... Thank you in advance

Ok, Eldar, as I had nothing to do, I looked through the pages and summed up the following:

-FF has generally got better IQ. As well in good light as in low-light situations, it provides less noise, better sharpness, better colors/tonal range and more DR.

-that being said, FF provides more possibilities for PP, as you can pull up the shadows higher or sharpen the image more before the noise comes in.

-FF has also got the possibility to go to a narrower DoF, which leads to the FF 'look'. This certainly can give your images some sort of pop.

-FF has better wide-angle and standard lens options, as there are no professional UWA's for crop and only one non-pro lens starting at equivalent 24mm (the 15-85), whereas for FF you have got plenty of 24mm zoom and UWA options. For APS-C, though, there are technically more lenses due the EF-S mount.

-Crop cameras use the better part of the lens, the middle. As EF lenses are calculated for FF, APS-C litterally merges out the flaws in the non-center regions (sharpness falloff, vignetting and partly CA) by using only the middle. Keep in mind, that with the same lens, FF produces sharper results, though, as I mentioned above.

-FF cameras normally have a larger and better VF (exceptions: 6D and 7DII)

-APS-C bodies and lenses don't cost as much as FF bodies and lenses, as well at buying them as at having them repaired.

-APS-C bodies and lenses are normally smaller and lighter than their FF 'equivalents' (again, exceptions: 6D and 7D (II) ).

-APS-C bodies provide more reach by a theoretical factor of 1.6. (This is not the case in real-life, it is more like 1.3 if I read that correctly, but I don't know about that.) This is a good thing for distance-limited situations (think birds) or budget-limited situations ('easy' access to 500mm and above).

-as AlanF pointed out in a thread, it depends on distance which sensor format resolves finer detail; on long distances, APS-C is better, on short FF. This may only be true under certain circumstances, I don't know, I just collect opinions

That is so far what I could find. I hope it helped!
But keep in mind: both formats are capable of producing absolutely stunning and professional results, and the more important factors are composition, light, moment and know-how. As the not always right Zack Arias said (and in his case he was right): It's the moron behind the camera!

A happy and fulfilling weekend to you all!

 

[bdunbar79]

Just go shoot low-light sports with a 1Dx and a 7D. You'll quickly, very quickly, be able to differentiate crop vs. FF.

 

[dtaylor]

In fairness, it's a wash after post processing. But the differences are simply not that large to begin with.

If you need to post process the crop image to match the FF, then it's not a "wash". It's the crop getting its ass handed to it.

Because 50% or less USM is such a HUGE difference OMG! :

 

[The Bad Duck]

I think this has been said already, but from my perspective I use FF to get a better use of my lenses. The shallow DoF and less noise on higher ISOs makes me able to use my f4 zooms and not upgrade to f2.8.

Then when I want super shallow DoF I use primes, and same story here, I don't need the 50/1.2 L or the 85/1.2 L but I can make due with the /1.4 versions. That saves a lot of money and make my kit lighter so crop does not have to be cheaper and lighter, I'd say.

The larger viewfinder is also key. Large and bright, perfect. And important when shooting long hours.

When I bought my 5D the lenses available to crop did not fit my style, there were no good 15-85, the 70-200 was awkvard - too long on the wide side.

Sometimes though I get too short DoF for some agricultural landscapes, crop could have helped there. I don't often carry the tripod when I do agriculture so I have a hard time with really long DoF. Also, when shooting with speedlites and modifyers and wanting a lot of the model/models in focus, crop could be usable since there is a limit to how much light the speedlites can give, and that is as you know controlled by aperture. Of course I can bump the ISO but anyway. To me, those are the two main downsides to FF.

I don't see any way for me to go back to apsc. It does not fit me.

 

[docsmith]

But again, If someone could take on the challenge of making the ultimate objective guide to crop vs. FF ... Thank you in advance

Even though I think Tayassu did a good job at summarizing the arguments, I'll take a stab at it too. The differences are, truly negligible. But negligible is a relevant statement. And it will be relevant to the photographer and circumstances.

Generally speaking, FF should be better in most ways where sensor/pixel size matters. The numbers are in, at equivalent ISO, current generation FF sensors have better noise, more DR, more tonal range, more color sensitivity, etc, etc. The other numbers are also in on the fact that at the same focal length, current generation crop sensor cameras can use more pixels to define a subject because of a narrower FOV (ie pixels on target).

But, in most circumstances, a photographer cares about framing/perspective and would not shoot both a FF and cropped sensor camera at the same focal length. Which is why, in most circumstances, the benefit of a FF are more relevant.

But, ultimately, any difference is nibbling at the edges. In the center of the photography world (good light, reasonable distance to subject, etc), both can take great pictures. But, as you move from the center of the photography world to the edges, the differences may become relevant. To what extent depends upon the circumstances and photographer.

 

[skoobey]

Look, it comes down to reach with the same lens vs. ability to work in a tighter space with a same lens.

After the retouching, you'll know no difference if we're taking IQ. It's like when people ask me if it's shot on a medium format, I say no, it's just retouched, and then they say I'm lying because it's got that "depth".

You have to develop your digital positives if you want the best results, just capturing images is the same like shooting analog with any film, and developing it at a kiosk, not the same as shooting specific film for the task, and sending it to an expert printer.

 

[eninja]

One advantage of crop is that after buying the camera body you will have more money left over to but an excellent lens. The higher quality lens will have more effect on the quality of the image then the camera

True.. But after getting the quality lens, you try quality lens on a FF. IQ just rise, like a one-up, or Mario eating mushroom.

You can buy full frame, and a cheap prime lens...
Thats what I did, when I got the 6D and 28mm 1.8.

But (again). IQ put aside. You lose number of AF point if you get a full frame (referring to 6D vs crop). Which you may need to consider.

 

[eninja]

I want to add one more important thing. Thanks to PBD, I now got an answer to my own question.

Having 6D and 70D. I just couldn't understand why the images in 70D is no good in any situation, IQ wise..

IT IS BECAUSE, my framing style did not change!!! Using 6D or 70D, my framing style is the same..

Thus FF always gives best quality since bigger pixel.

Thanks thanks for this enlightenment.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I've got both of these in the Montana wilderness right now (landscape, grizzlies, moose, eagles). The 6D crushes the 70D in IQ. I try to avoid using the 70D.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Just go shoot low-light sports with a 1Dx and a 7D. You'll quickly, very quickly, be able to differentiate crop vs. FF.

Actually, before that you clearly see the difference in time to pay the camera. :

 

[Loswr]

Just go shoot low-light sports with a 1Dx and a 7D. You'll quickly, very quickly, be able to differentiate crop vs. FF.

Actually, before that you clearly see the difference in time to pay the camera. :

EOS 7D Mark II preorder: $1799
EOS 6D after mail rebate: $1699

So, which is the FF camera?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Just go shoot low-light sports with a 1Dx and a 7D. You'll quickly, very quickly, be able to differentiate crop vs. FF.

Actually, before that you clearly see the difference in time to pay the camera. :

EOS 7D Mark II preorder: $1799
EOS 6D after mail rebate: $1699
So, which is the FF camera?

Dear friend Neuro:
Were not you the one who always said that there are more important things in a camera, besides the sensor? ???
With the exception of the sensor, 7D Mark ii seems a 1DX competitor rather than 6D. :

 

[Loswr]

Just go shoot low-light sports with a 1Dx and a 7D. You'll quickly, very quickly, be able to differentiate crop vs. FF.

Actually, before that you clearly see the difference in time to pay the camera. :

EOS 7D Mark II preorder: $1799
EOS 6D after mail rebate: $1699
So, which is the FF camera?

Dear friend Neuro:
Were not you the one who always said that there are more important things in a camera, besides the sensor? ???
With the exception of the sensor, 7D Mark ii seems a 1DX competitor rather than 6D. :

Of course. But obviously price is no longer an absolute differentiator between crop and FF.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Just go shoot low-light sports with a 1Dx and a 7D. You'll quickly, very quickly, be able to differentiate crop vs. FF.

Actually, before that you clearly see the difference in time to pay the camera. :

EOS 7D Mark II preorder: $1799
EOS 6D after mail rebate: $1699
So, which is the FF camera?

Dear friend Neuro:
Were not you the one who always said that there are more important things in a camera, besides the sensor? ???
With the exception of the sensor, 7D Mark ii seems a 1DX competitor rather than 6D. :

Of course. But obviously price is no longer an absolute differentiator between crop and FF.

I understand. But if I compare the Canon 6D with other APS-C cameras, the most similar model (not counting the sensor) seems to me that is the T5i. 8)

 

[anthonyd]

There is another plus of the crop sensors, which unfortunately is lost in Canon because Canon does not make good lenses for their crop cameras. Crop sensors don't require all that glass.

Let's take a step beyond 1.6 and go all the way to the 2x that is 4/3. Have you seen the "ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm F2.8"? In FF equivalent it is a 600 f/2.8 but it is only 28.5cm/11.22'' long, weighs 3.29kg/7.25lb and costs $6,499.00.

The closest you can get to that with a Canon is the 600 f/4.0 that is 44.7cm/17.6" long, weighs 3.92kg/8.64lb and costs $11,999.00. If Canon made a 600/2.8 it would be mounted on a tank and cost more than the tank. And don't start with the "equivalent aperture", that's only for bokeh, the Zuiko is as fast as a 2.8.

Now, I know that a lot of FF fanatics will be tearing their clothes at the hearing of 4/3, but if you have to hike for a few miles to get to that great birding spot and you are lacking a tank (or $5500 extra), the reduced amount of glass that comes with crop sensors will suddenly sound appealing.

 

[Lee Jay]

Have you seen the "ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm F2.8"? In FF equivalent it is a 600 f/2.8 ...

600/5.6. You don't get something for nothing.

 

[Maximilian]

Crop sensors don't require all that glass.

In principle you are right if you leave the DOF point away, but I have to correct you in some terms.

Have you seen the "ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm F2.8"? In FF equivalent it is a 600 f/2.8

That's wrong as you do not take the size of the sensor into account.
If you want to gather similar amount of light and want to achive the same DOF on FF
a 600mm f/5.6 would be the equivalent.

To make a better comparison:
Take the EF 70–200 mm 1:2,8L IS II USM
If you want to have the same DOF on FT you would not need a 35-100 1:2,8
but the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35‑100mm 1:2.0
If you compare those two, the Canon is lighter, cheaper and even smaller.
Of course, you can take at MFT the new M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40‑150mm 1:2.8 PRO.
This will be lighter, smaller and cheaper than the 70-200 but for the tradeoff of DOF and absolute light gathering on the same area (!) of the sensor.

And don't start with the "equivalent aperture", that's only for bokeh, the Zuiko is as fast as a 2.8.
...
Now, I know that a lot of FF fanatics ...

Of course f2.8 is physically always f2.8 but your comparison here is wrong.
And of course you can take wonderful pictures with MFT.
And I am not a FF fanatic. Indeed and I am very interested in Olympus MFT system (as you probably can imagine by my knowledge about the lenses).
But your argument is physically only correct when you agree in the tradeoff of losing shallow DOF and absolute light gathering.
This you can only compensate by using lenses with bigger apertures and therefore losing the size/weight/price advantage.

 

[AvTvM]

There is another plus of the crop sensors, which unfortunately is lost in Canon because Canon does not make good lenses for their crop cameras. Crop sensors don't require all that glass.

Even as a very critical Canon client, I think you are mistaken. Canon has the best APS-C lens range in the market from 10mm to 250mm focal range with a sufficient number of *excellent and affordable* EF-S lenses. IQ-wise, some of these are optically right up there with the best L lenses and most of them are actually "dirt cheap" relative to their performance and competitive offerings ... Fuji X, Sony E including the "Zeiss"-labeled stuff and any and all Nikon DX lenses.

Unless you belong to those, who prefer to buy a 56/1.2 lens for a grand for use on an APS-C sensor only, rather than putting that grand towards an FF-sensored camera and much cheaper f/1.4 or f/1.8 glass for even better IQ, DOF, bokeh and photographic capability. 8)

And if those EF-S lenses are not good enough for you ... well guess what, all EF lenses, L and Non-L work absolutely flawlessly on any Canon EOS DSLR, including those with APS-C sensors.

Specifically I would like to mention the following winners in the EF-S range:

excellent 8)
* EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS
* EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5
* EF-S 60/2.8 Macro
* EF-S 24/2.8 STM pancake [probably, not used it myself yet]

very good 8)
* EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS STM
* EF-S 55-250/4.5-5.6 IS STM
* EF-S 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS
* EF-S 10-18/4.5-5.6 IS STM

best APS-C kit lens on the market at rock bottom price 8)
* EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM

The only thing lacking in the Canon APS-C department for some years now is a sensor as good as or better than competitive offerings. Unfortunately 7D II disappoints in terms of IQ improvements, otherwise I'd buy one.