How to differentiate crop vs. FF

[unfocused]

Anyway, unlike some, I find the extra "reach" to be real and advantageous.

Got any comparison images to back that up Bob?

Interesting debate. I go back and forth on this.

Since buying a 5DIII about a year ago, I admit my 7D has pretty much been sitting, gathering dust (although I keep it as a back up). But, in the past year, I've had very little time to shoot distance-limited subjects as demand for portraits seems to take up most of my spare time these days.

But, I can't quite understand how a crop sensor would never provide an advantage in distance-limited situations. I'm certainly willing to agree that if you crop the full frame down to the same framing as a uncropped APS-C image, you won't lose much, if anything. But, intellectually, I can't get my head around the idea that if I need to crop the image much more significantly, having the extra pixels of a crop would not be an advantage.

Being math-challenged doesn't help, but it certainly seems from a logical point-of-view that eventually, as you slice and dice away pixels, you'll reach a point where the full frame image loses too much resolution and you'll be better off with the crop sensor's greater pixel density.

It might require some pretty radical cropping, but then again, I've been in situations that require radical cropping (A California Condor perched on the top of an outcrop at the Grand Canyon – absent the ability to fly, you can't get any closer than the edge of the Canyon.)

 

[privatebydesign]

Saying smaller pixels don't help with "reach" (resolving power) is the same as saying a longer focal length doesn't help with reach, and it's just as wrong.

No it isn't.

You are obfuscating the very limited criteria I laid down by attempting to introduce spurious comparisons and strawman arguments.

Stick to the point, show me 5D MkIII vs 70D (or 6D and 7D MkII) focal length limited crops that demonstrate the crop cameras resolution advantage, if they demonstrate a clear winner I will show you where either your testing technique or post processing is failing you.

 

[jepabst]

this whole topic should be about which camera is better for shooting _________?

Decide what you are shooting, then you can decide what equipment is best for the job. There is no perfect tool.

 

[privatebydesign]

Anyway, unlike some, I find the extra "reach" to be real and advantageous.

Got any comparison images to back that up Bob?

Interesting debate. I go back and forth on this.

Since buying a 5DIII about a year ago, I admit my 7D has pretty much been sitting, gathering dust (although I keep it as a back up). But, in the past year, I've had very little time to shoot distance-limited subjects as demand for portraits seems to take up most of my spare time these days.

But, I can't quite understand how a crop sensor would never provide an advantage in distance-limited situations. I'm certainly willing to agree that if you crop the full frame down to the same framing as a uncropped APS-C image, you won't lose much, if anything. But, intellectually, I can't get my head around the idea that if I need to crop the image much more significantly, having the extra pixels of a crop would not be an advantage.

Being math-challenged doesn't help, but it certainly seems from a logical point-of-view that eventually, as you slice and dice away pixels, you'll reach a point where the full frame image loses too much resolution and you'll be better off with the crop sensor's greater pixel density.

It might require some pretty radical cropping, but then again, I've been in situations that require radical cropping (A California Condor perched on the top of an outcrop at the Grand Canyon – absent the ability to fly, you can't get any closer than the edge of the Canyon.)

There are several points to make, first is I am a little maths challenged too and agree, it doesn't make sense, but my empirical results illustrate my point.

Secondly, I never said it will never make a difference, but in my empirical testing (on older generation bodies but same theory) I found it didn't make enough of a difference to be noticeable in big prints even in optimal conditions set up to favour the crop camera. I would love Bob or Lee Jay to actually come along with some decent examples illustrating their beliefs, I have done so for mine. I am not saying 'I am right you are all wrong', I am saying 'I found this to be true, has anybody doing the same comparison found the same?' and several, like Neuro, have. I have never seen anybody post direct comparison images that illustrate a very different result, certainly after optimal processing at any kind of actual reproduction size there never seems to be a difference.

Third, as I have always said, the feature set of a crop camera might well make it a better camera anyway, things like AF, fps, cost etc can't be ignored.

Fourth, my crops are actually set up to favour the crop camera in iso and aperture etc, but also I upsized the ff file to match the crop file pixel for pixel to 'level the playing field' for comparison purposes, this should favour the crop camera even more.

But in the end I base my buying decisions on empirical results, I can't see $1,800 worth of difference in those >100% crops to warrant the expense, and I was happy to pay $3,750 for a 300 f2.8 over a $1,455 300 f4.

 

[privatebydesign]

this whole topic should be about which camera is better for shooting _________?
Decide what you are shooting, then you can decide what equipment is best for the job. There is no perfect tool.

That is what we are doing, I am just trying to make people actually look.

As for your image, so what? Explain my crops.

 

[Loswr]

What your test shows is that the later generation is better. No surprise there.

The 20D and the 5D were the same generation, and the T2i was really not much better per unit of sensor area, except for the higher pixel count.

I'm sure the better light-gathering capability of the T2i's pixels is irrelevant...at least insofar as ignoring it helps support your conclusion.

 

[jepabst]

this whole topic should be about which camera is better for shooting _________?
Decide what you are shooting, then you can decide what equipment is best for the job. There is no perfect tool.

That is what we are doing, I am just trying to make people actually look.

As for your image, so what? Explain my crops.

Nobody is saying your crops don't look good. I'm sure your cropped images look wonderful. Nobody is challenging that. You are being so matter of fact and it does feel argumentative. 8mp images can look great of course, but we don't need to point out that 18mp has certain advantages over 8mp given certain circumstances. If we are just generating web content then the 8mp is more than enough... I happen to think that what you see, the images you love, are far more important than the math. So I applaud you for standing ground on empirical - what you see - evidence. That's what matters. The graphic I made was just to show what you are giving up. Again, there is no -one size fits all tool.

 

[privatebydesign]

this whole topic should be about which camera is better for shooting _________?
Decide what you are shooting, then you can decide what equipment is best for the job. There is no perfect tool.

That is what we are doing, I am just trying to make people actually look.

As for your image, so what? Explain my crops.

Nobody is saying your crops don't look good. I'm sure your cropped images look wonderful. Nobody is challenging that. You are being so matter of fact and it does feel argumentative. 8mp images can look great of course, but we don't need to point out that 18mp has certain advantages over 8mp given certain circumstances. If we are just generating web content then the 8mp is more than enough... I happen to think that what you see, the images you love, are far more important than the math. So I applaud you for standing ground on empirical - what you see - evidence. That's what matters. The graphic I made was just to show what you are giving up. Again, there is no -one size fits all tool.

You missed a big point in the crops jepast. The FF crop is upsized to 18MP, there is no 18mp - 8mp advantage, I am, effectively, 'giving up' nothing.

 

[jepabst]

"You missed a big point in the crops jepast. The FF crop is upsized to 18MP, there is no 18mp - 8mp advantage, I am, effectively, 'giving up' nothing."


If you think you are giving up nothing go take both cameras, put on an identical lens and take a picture of an object that is far away, proceed to crop the shot from the 5DMIII to match the shot from the 7D, and then print them both at 30"x40"...

You need your empirical evidence, go do that.

 

[privatebydesign]

"You missed a big point in the crops jepast. The FF crop is upsized to 18MP, there is no 18mp - 8mp advantage, I am, effectively, 'giving up' nothing."


If you think you are giving up nothing go take both cameras, put on an identical lens and take a picture of an object that is far away, proceed to crop the shot from the 5DMIII to match the shot from the 7D, and then print them both at 30"x40"...

You need your empirical evidence, go do that.

I did, and I am showing you a crop of over 100% magnification of that print file.

I used the same 300mm f2.8 IS on both cameras (actually I left the lens on the tripod and just changed bodies where it was), manual focus via live view, f5.6, iso200 (which favours the crop camera), wireless flash for maximum contrast, massive tripod, cable release etc etc.

 

[jepabst]

"You missed a big point in the crops jepast. The FF crop is upsized to 18MP, there is no 18mp - 8mp advantage, I am, effectively, 'giving up' nothing."


If you think you are giving up nothing go take both cameras, put on an identical lens and take a picture of an object that is far away, proceed to crop the shot from the 5DMIII to match the shot from the 7D, and then print them both at 30"x40"...

You need your empirical evidence, go do that.

I did, and I am showing you a crop of over 100% magnification of that print file.

I used the same 300mm f2.8 IS on both cameras (actually I left the lens on the tripod and just changed bodies where it was), manual focus via live view, f5.6, iso200 (which favours the crop camera), wireless flash for maximum contrast, massive tripod, cable release etc etc.

I don't know if you forgot to attach an image.. but I am with you, at the end of the day, in order to compare, we'll just be pixel peeping, the very thing I think we both agree is pointless and obnoxious. The images are what's important. I already know that the images will look almost identical despite the difference of resolution, until we get to 100% crops and pixel peeping, and nobody wants that.

 

[Lee Jay]

Saying smaller pixels don't help with "reach" (resolving power) is the same as saying a longer focal length doesn't help with reach, and it's just as wrong.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

You are obfuscating the very limited criteria I laid down by attempting to introduce spurious comparisons and strawman arguments.

Your very limited criteria are irrational, and not within my control, as I don't own any of the cameras you irrationally demand, as though one makes any difference compared to the other.

A decrease in pixel size is the same as an increase in focal length. Here's proof you continue to ignore.

 

[dtaylor]

Naive and simplistic. What does crop 'win'?

I've made 16x20" prints of surfers where I ended up with 8-9 MP after cropping further into 7D files. FF couldn't have done that.

Agreed if you don't have to crop any further then the initial crop to match 1.6x and/or you don't print large it really doesn't matter.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

This same debate seems to come up over and over again and people still cannot decide! You can pixel peep all day and discuss various wizz bang factors till we are all dead and buried (or bored to death!).
Instead of quoting figures or other barely relevant specifications, why not simply try one out? That way you will see which size sensor best fills YOUR needs not what every bod else wants to recommend.
For reference the bulk of my photography is smaller bird species where (almost) everybody states confidently that FF is at a disadvantage. I agree there is a loss of "reach" but frankly it is a LOT less than you may think and most certainly nowhere near the 1.6 that the crop factor would suggest. Against that everything else is better with a FF camera for my birding uses. A while back I tried a 7D on my Canon 800mm F5.6, while the light was very good it produced nice results, when the light was good things were still OK, when the light was less than perfect it failed to produce useable files. Quite a while later my FF camera was happily giving me good images and I had yet to turn the IS on as the shutter speed was still OK, the ISO was up around 8000 but so what - images were still clean and needed no NR.
As you may have noticed I am a big fan of larger sensors, however these (FF) cameras are much more expensive and frequently a piece heavier. Crop cameras are perfectly capable of producing great images and they do it at lower cost - this makes them "better" for the majority of photographers. However I cannot see how an experienced photographer would suggest that a smaller sensor is going to produce a better image than a larger one, this has certainly not been my experience.

 

[docsmith]

I have the simple answer to this one. Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that. Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@ *&%$#. That is the difference. How many here feel differently? If so, I will send you my 7D for a 1DX and even pay for shipping.

I still own a 7D. It took some of my favorite pictures. It is a great camera that can and has taken wonderful photos. Anyone shooting with it should be proud. But it has sat on my shelf losing value since I bought my 5DIII two years ago. I've done all sorts of tests. I just like the images from the 5DIII better. My wife can tell the difference, and our families have noticed the differences. It is more pronounced at high ISO, but it is also there at low ISO. Does that mean I could never be confused and that a crop camera could at some point produce a photo where I couldn't tell the difference. Of course, it is a great camera. But I'll take the 5DIII. thank you.

 

[Lee Jay]

I have the simple answer to this one. Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that. Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@ *&%$#. That is the difference. How many here feel differently?

I do. I use both formats, choosing the one best for the situation. For speed and focal-length-limited situations, I use crop. For low light and best image quality when I am not focal length limited, I use full-frame.

 

[docsmith]

I have the simple answer to this one. Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that. Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@ *&%$#. That is the difference. How many here feel differently?

I do. I use both formats, choosing the one best for the situation. For speed and focal-length-limited situations, I use crop. For low light and best image quality when I am not focal length limited, I use full-frame.

My post was supposed to be a bit lighthearted, but that actually is not an answer to the question. If you where forced to pick one format, FF or crop with the current bodies available, which format would you pick? For me it would be the 5DIII and FF and no contest.

 

[Lee Jay]

I have the simple answer to this one. Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that. Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@ *&%$#. That is the difference. How many here feel differently?

I do. I use both formats, choosing the one best for the situation. For speed and focal-length-limited situations, I use crop. For low light and best image quality when I am not focal length limited, I use full-frame.

My post was supposed to be a bit lighthearted, but that actually is not an answer to the question. If you where forced to pick one format, FF or crop with the current bodies available, which format would you pick? For me it would be the 5DIII and FF and no contest.

I have to have two bodies, and neither could be a 1-series since I hate them.

In such an artificial situation, I'd probably choose two 7D Mark II's over two 5D Mark III's, but I'd far prefer to have one of each over either of the other two options.

 

[Hillsilly]

Perhaps I should read all of the prior six pages (and even some 7Dii reviews), but I suspect we're only having this discussion because Canon crop sensors are lagging a bit. Consequently, if you know where to look, you can see the differences between sensors. With other brands, the differences in image quality are smaller and the choice between crop and FF is more about lens selection, camera features, speed and megapixels, high ISO performance, depth of field, and cost.

Its a key consideration in relation to lens selection. But otherwise, I tend to feel that nobody can reliably tell if an image was taken with a crop sensor or FF sensor. And apart from the photographer, I doubt if anyone else really cares. Its just another feature to consider when selecting a camera - important to some, not so much to others.

 

[Don Haines]

I have the simple answer to this one. Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that. Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@ *&%$#. That is the difference. How many here feel differently?

Granted, they're both cropped heavily but tell me what I'm doing wrong with my new 5Diii, please, 'cause I'm not seeing that much difference.

The answer is simple.... you have your eyes open Try closing your eyes and your mind and then you will be ready for these endless debates....