Your crop vs your full frame camera.

[eninja]

My 6D vs 70D with 50L.

With the full frame, at any ISO, Wow!!!
50L on the 70D, even at iso 100, I could not love it.. I really don't understand why,
they say, what the 70D does is just crop it 1.6 times, and add somemore pixel.
But I don't know why 70D + 50L looks uglier than 6D + 50L cropped.

I just forget it, cos viewfinder AF never works on 50L either. Too bad.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Another photographer came to me with the following:
If you are shooting for a given depth of field then there is a benefit of higher sync speed as well as being able to shoot at a larger Aperture. Say for example you are shooting with comparable lenses 24STM vs 40STM on bodies with similar resolution:

Scenario 1:
Option A: 760D with 24mm STM: 1/250s f/2.8 ISO 100: 600RT range = 12.9m
Option B: 5D-III with 40mm STM: 1/200s f/4.5 ISO 100: 600RT range = 8m

Notes:
1.) The 5D-III creates images almost 2 stops cleaner than the 760D.
1.1) With the 5D-III you could bump up ISO to 200 for a faster shutter speed to use HSS
1.2) With the 5D-III you could also bump up ISO to get more flash range.
2) The [email protected] is noticeably better than the [email protected]

So my response was lets make some changes to camera settings:

Scenario 2:
Option A: 760D with 24mm STM: 1/250s f/2.8 ISO 100: 600RT range = 12.9m
Option B: 5D-III with 40mm STM: 1/400 f/4.5 ISO 400: 600RT range = 14.4m

Assuming the flash can illuminate the subject properly with option A, then with option B I'll have sharper images(due to lens performance), can capture movement better (faster shutter speed) and I'll have faster recycle times.

The reason I personally choose to shoot with APS-C is if I want to be carrying less valuables with me or if I want to attract less attention. If light is ample then APS-C is a good enough option as you can close down your aperture to shoot lenses near their optimum resolving aperture. If light is unpredicable then I'll carry full frame because I know it offers me more flexibility with lens performance at wider apertures and sensor performance and higher ISOs.

 

[Hector1970]

It's a pretty good question.
My 2 cents worth.
I'd always grab my full frame camera (5D III) when taking portraits.
Why - the full frame gives me options for great depth of field, the file quality is better and gives me more flexibility for adjustments in post processing, the lens are the focal length they state (rather than having to multiply by 1.6).
Having said that I have two APS-C cameras. The Canon 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 both make for lovely portrait lens.
So does the 100mm Macro. The produce rich images with plenty of detail.
A full frame can resolve too much details when it comes to portraiture. I took a series of photos with lights and a 5D Mark III and a 85mm 1.2 stopped down to F8.
I was battling with gum disease , tooth decay, big pores on the skin. I had to use blur filters in photoshop to not show up all the flaws. They generally looks fine at the time they were sitting for the photo but the close up resolution was incredible with lights.
In summary I'd say - working away with a APS-C camera you can take brilliant photographs. If you want shallow depth of field then you probably need full frame.

 

[anthonyd]

...
However there is one other thing to bear in mind with FF, and that is the data is more robust in extreme post processing. This may, or may not be important to you.

+1

The comments on high ISO and low light performance that you most frequently hear when asking about FF are mostly irrelevant when it comes to portraits, but the point that Sporgon is bringing up is huge. If you are an expert in light and you always have the ability to modify and control light, then the camera body doesn't matter much. If you want to be able to compensate for suboptimal light in postprocessing though, then you should invest in a body that maximizes that ability.

In my personal experience, lifting shadows on skin in shots done with the 60D, without changing the skin tone or increasing noise beyond acceptable levels, is a challenge.

 

[Hillsilly]

Trolling Post Removed by MOD

 

[Pinchers of Peril]

If you want to be able to compensate for suboptimal light in postprocessing though, then you should invest in a body that maximizes that ability.

Such as a Sony

... and here is where the topic will go off the rails ha ha

 

[Loswr]

A full frame can resolve too much details when it comes to portraiture. I took a series of photos with lights and a 5D Mark III and a 85mm 1.2 stopped down to F8.
I was battling with gum disease , tooth decay, big pores on the skin. I had to use blur filters in photoshop to not show up all the flaws.

Is an overall reduction of detail better? Did you apply blur globally, or exclude areas like eyes where sharper is generally preferred?

 

[Big_Ant_TV_Media]

Would you use a Point and Shoot? A Camera phone? All can take decent portraits in the right hands. As the sensor gets larger, its possible to get a shallower depth of field and more detail, which is why lots of pro photographers use medium format.

I've had many cameras with different sized sensors, the largest sensor being FF. At the price for a 6D, I'd get one for portraits over a crop body. I'd get a crop body like the 7D MK II for wildlife and Macro. I'm still waiting for a price drop below $1000.


Many portrait photographers like the shallow depth of field possible with a larger sensor, however some prefer the depth of field possible with a smaller sensor.

IS IT ME ARE U ALWAYS DOWNGRADING THE 7D MARK 2 U KEEP PUTTING IT IN THE SAME BOAT WILDLIFE & MACRO
ITS DOES EVERYTHING WELL
b4 U BASH ME OR GET SUPER TECH INSTEAD BEING 1 DIMENSIONAL HAVE U TRIED IT DOING EVERYTHING A PHOTOGRAPHER CAN DO? OUTSIDE OF WIDLIFE AND MACRO smh

 

[Sabaki]

Keeping with APS-C vs Full Frame but switching to landscapes.

7Dii + EF-S 10-22mm vs 6D + EF 16-35 f/4.0, shooting anytime during the 'golden hour', just how much better is full frame.

My understanding is that full frame also draws finer detail better, fallacy or fact?

 

[StudentOfLight]

Keeping with APS-C vs Full Frame but switching to landscapes.

7Dii + EF-S 10-22mm vs 6D + EF 16-35 f/4.0, shooting anytime during the 'golden hour', just how much better is full frame.

My understanding is that full frame also draws finer detail better, fallacy or fact?

What aperture will you shoot each camera at?

At equivalent apertures I imagine the 6D will generally be sharper. The 6D pixels are 256% the size of the 7D-II pixels. The 6D's lens is therefore under much less optical scrutiny. In general, the flaws of the 7D-II's lens will show up much more easily.

This is not exactly the same as your requested comparison, but might of be of interest:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=271&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

 

[Hector1970]

A full frame can resolve too much details when it comes to portraiture. I took a series of photos with lights and a 5D Mark III and a 85mm 1.2 stopped down to F8.
I was battling with gum disease , tooth decay, big pores on the skin. I had to use blur filters in photoshop to not show up all the flaws.

Is an overall reduction of detail better? Did you apply blur globally, or exclude areas like eyes where sharper is generally preferred?

By the wonders of photoshop I made them look fantastic. Better than they ever looked.

 

[ksgal]

Many of you have or have had a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera. Asking specifically about portraits: Do you see a huge difference? Does your lens choice vary that much? Say a person has an EF 85mm 1.2L or EF 200mm f/2L... would you hesitate to use those lenses on your crop sensor camera for portraits? Maybe someone has examples of those two lenses on both a crop and full frame camera of the same subject? Thanks!

Light and Lighting are the number 1 factors for portraits.

I have both 5DII, 7DII. for quality of picture, no, I don't see a difference (course, I don't use extreme lifting or extreme exposure for portraits, either, I get my flashes out and go to town either way, most of the time.)

In fact, when I am doing horse portraits, I prefer my 7DII, I want more DOF at a wider aperture to keep the iso down, so the 7DII + 70-200 f2.8 is the perfect pairing.

The time I reach for the 5DII is human portraits, and when I'm going for as shallow DOF as I can.

I don't know how many times I read that the 7DII is for sports and wildlife, but I think it is also a great portrait camera, very nice to be able to AF exactly where you want focus to be, and not have to focus- and then re-compose (which I'm totally tired of, and dont' like about the 5DII or 6D.) The difference in image quality between my old 50D and the 7DII is significant.

The difference in image quality between the 7DII and the 5DII both properly exposed? Not significant, IMHO.

What I want to do drives my lens selection and camera choice, I use the tools to achieve the results I need. I'll use my 17-40 F4L if I want for a portrait, and I'll put it on the camera that helps me achieve the look I'm going for.

You do notice how the lenses field of view changes between the two. But taking a portrait can be achieved with anything. HOW you want the portrait to look should drive the choice of lenses and camera. JMHO

*** one caveat, if going to very high iso, then doing ETTR on the 7DII is VERY important, or the noise climbs substantially, but I'm talking 6400 iso and up)

 

[photon]

ksgal " The difference in image quality between my old 50D and the 7DII is significant.

The difference in image quality between the 7DII and the 5DII both properly exposed? Not significant, IMHO. "

It's important to compare like for like. In your first comparison, you compare a flagship crop sensor to a sensor both several generations older and also from a different product tier. When you compare the FF vs Crop you are stating that there isn't much difference, but now you are comparing the flagship crop to a couple generations older FF. With digital photography the sensor technology is very important along with the sensor size.

I found 2 things regarding noise when I compared a 60D to a 6D on shots overall:
1- ISO performance was considerably better. If i have to move the 60D over 1600 I consider it a lost shot, and when I do decide to gamble, usually delete it in the viewfinder. With the 6D this is how I treated 6400. That's pretty substantial to me and not insignificant.

2-this is subjective, but I also found that the noise itself was less distracting to the image, I typically noticed I was applying less noise reduction because at a certain level the noise just looked natural enough to blend and I doubt it would end up printing at any decent size.

 

[Hillsilly]

Except that we're talking portraits so high ISO performance isn't that relevant. But you make a good point that FF adds more versatility with respect to ISO and you're free to use it if you want.

After thinking about this for a couple of days, I'm of the opinion that most of the differences between a crop and full frame camera are so minor that they're hardly worth raising. The only substantial differences are resolution and narrower depth of field and even these aren't that dramatic. They might even be detrimental. I've heard many photographers complain that their clients don't understand photography and that they need to explain that things like "bokeh" and how things are "meant to be blurry". Paying clients don't appreciate how hard it is to get both ears in focus when you're shooting at f/1.2.

 

[photon]

Hillsilly "They might even be detrimental. "

No. Unless we are discussing cost/weight. If we are discussing pure performance, no. There is nothing "detrimental" to using FF over Crop.

If you can lay out an example with numbers, I will humbly retract the above.

Everything is connected in the exposure triangle. You cannot adjust one factor and not effect the others. So when someone says they "prefer to shoot at f 2.8 on crop and get more in focus at a lower ISO than shooting at F4 on FF" there is a misunderstanding of ISO performance and the ultimate image results.

 

[nc0b]

Hillsilly. How could you ever have the ears in focus, assuming you focused on the eyes, at f/1.2? I want the ears out of the DOF, but not blurry. If the ears are blurry, then a lot of the hair is blurry, too. So I am in your camp wanting reasonable depth of field, if I am reading you correctly. If one is shooting between 85mm and 135mm at f/2 or wider, with tack sharp on the eyes and eyelashes, I would expect to have no skin pore resolution. (I am not talking about blemishes which can be fixed.). I don't want the cheeks to look like pancake makeup like you see on HD TV on the local news! With a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II my f-stop is more likely to be f/5.

 

[unfocused]

After thinking about this for a couple of days, I'm of the opinion that most of the differences between a crop and full frame camera are so minor that they're hardly worth raising. The only substantial differences are resolution and narrower depth of field and even these aren't that dramatic. They might even be detrimental. I've heard many photographers complain that their clients don't understand photography and that they need to explain that things like "bokeh" and how things are "meant to be blurry"...

Yes, very well said.

Although I think the differences in high ISO performance is probably the most significant, more so than depth of field or resolution (There isn't much difference in resolution between a 5DIII at 7D II -- different size pixels, yes, but nearly identical resolution). But, since this thread is about portraits, ISO performance isn't hugely relevant.

Paying clients don't appreciate how hard it is to get both ears in focus when you're shooting at f/1.2.

I absolutely have found the depth of field issue to be detrimental at times with portraiture, for exactly the reason you state. Frankly, it's often hard to get both eyes in focus if the subject isn't staring at you head on, even at f4 and above. Plus there is the fact that subjects move. Eyes can be in focus when you start to press the shutter, but quickly go out of focus by the time the picture is taken.

Hillsilly "They might even be detrimental. "

No. Unless we are discussing cost/weight. If we are discussing pure performance, no. There is nothing "detrimental" to using FF over Crop.

See above

Everything is connected in the exposure triangle. You cannot adjust one factor and not effect the others. So when someone says they "prefer to shoot at f 2.8 on crop and get more in focus at a lower ISO than shooting at F4 on FF" there is a misunderstanding of ISO performance and the ultimate image results.

You can adjust one factor and not affect the others. If you are shooting portraits it's very easy. Pick your aperture, and then, If using ETTL, the strobe will adjust the light for you. If using manual, you can up the flash exposure yourself.

 

[photon]

This whole "detrimental DOF" thing is way out of context. No sensor prevents you from stopping your lens down past wide open. If you feel the perfect DoF is at 1.2 on crop, why are you refusing to stop the lens down on a FF? You increase contrast, you increase resolving power, and you give up nothing. You aren't comparing like for like.

 

[Sporgon]

This whole "detrimental DOF" thing is way out of context. No sensor prevents you from stopping your lens down past wide open. If you feel the perfect DoF is at 1.2 on crop, why are you refusing to stop the lens down on a FF? You increase contrast, you increase resolving power, and you give up nothing. You aren't comparing like for like.

You give up shutter speed, or ISO. Also smaller sensors use proportionally shorter focal length lenses which have other effects other than dof.

Another thing to bear in mind is that all FF cameras are effectively 'high-end', crop sensors not so. It seems to me that there are very subtle differences in crop sensors that are 'the same' in other more expensive or cheaper cameras. Not sure what this is, micro lenses etc ? But what I'm saying is in the 'crop vs FF' debate, to be fair you must look at higher end crop cameras to make a fair comparison.

 

[photon]

Sporgon I completely agree with you one shutter speed/ISO. That is why I addressed ISO originally, but it was dismissed later by someone comparing DoF and it cannot be dismissed.

Just so we are all on the same page with this, and not comparing different points, would you agree that:

DoF at F2.8 on a crop is ~ the same as the F4.4 on FF? Just over a full stop.

The ISO performance of same generation and product tiers of FF camera's have at LEAST that much ISO improvement over crop? I think some would argue 2 full stops, but we don't even need to go that far to be equal.

Also, at no point am I addressing the point of diminishing returns here. I cannot compare the value of anything beyond my own definition of value and to some the value of cost/reward for a crop may make crop the perfect choice for some.

What I am trying to make clear is that even if a crop camera is going to give you 99% the performance of a FF (again value/cost/diminishing returns ignored because we are just sticking to performance and the purchaser will have to decide individually if the cost is worth it) that at no point are you GIVING UP performance and possibilities going to FF.

Does that make sense?