Your crop vs your full frame camera.

[Ozarker]

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!

 

[IglooEater]

I too am interested in the answer to this. It risks being insightful, helpful, and also somewhat amusing..

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

 

[scottkinfw]

I would addy baton a crop sensor, you better have a lot of room to shoot as the 1.6 X mag will require you to be far away

 

[Loswr]

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.

The larger sensor can give you both shallow and deep DoF, the smaller sensor cannot.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

The larger sensor can give you both shallow and deep DoF, the smaller sensor cannot.

What I had in mind, but did not say it was the small sensor P&S users who are accustomed to lots of DOF, and when they upgrade to a DSLR with a much larger sensor, they are disappointed because they see the image as being out of focus, not realizing its just the shallow depth of field. Some of them just put their new DSLR in the closet and go back to their P&S because they like the most everything in focus look.

They could, of course learn to stop down the DSLR, many do learn, but some use it in P&S mode.

 

[unfocused]

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?

No. No. & No.

Many on this forum will tell you otherwise, but most of that is just confirmation bias. Having made an investment in converting to full frame, it can be difficult to admit that the differences are marginal.

 

[nc0b]

The simple answer is you can shoot a great portrait with a crop or full frame body. If I had all my equipment with me, I would pick my 6D and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, with the focal length dependent where I was. Indoors I would likely be closer, but outdoors I might want considerable distance between the background, the subject and the camera. (10-15 feet camera to subject, for example.)

If you like a paper-thin depth of field, then maybe you would shoot an f/1.2 lens or f/2.0 lens wide open, but that would not be my personal choice. Lets say the head is at a 15 degree angle from straight on. You likely cannot get both eyes tack sharp wide open, and the ears could be a total blur. If that is to you liking, so be it, as this approach is in vogue right now.

I posted a portrait example on another discussion about the 85mm f/1.2 where I am in the minority on wanting a reasonable depth of field. On the other hand, you can resolve individual strands of hair on a 10 megapixel sensor using a 40D, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II at f/5. The background is totally blown out, the eyes, teeth are very sharp, and the ears are just nicely of the the depth of field, but not blurry.

It is more a case of what camera and lens is in your hand when a portrait opportunity comes up. Then you adjust your distance and f-stop to produce the type of image you prefer.

 

[Sporgon]

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?

No. No. & No.

Many on this forum will tell you otherwise, but most of that is just confirmation bias. Having made an investment in converting to full frame, it can be difficult to admit that the differences are marginal.

Bravely spoken ! And I would agree.

Assuming that you are not wanting to produce life size images, and not referring to low light photography, I basically find the following: if your subject is reasonably close and filling the frame I can't tell any difference. If the subject is far away and detail very small (like in landscapes) the FF has the edge in definition. And of course any larger format has the advantage again.

Also I should mention I find the narrower the field of view, the less the disadvantage with crop, the wider the field the more advantage to FF.

Personally I think Canon were quite astute in producing the 7DII, more in touch than Nikon, who continue to lag on the high performance crop sensor front.

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.

 

[pwp]

I'm perfectly comfortable reaching for my 5D3 FF with 70-200 f/2.8isII as I am with the APS-H x1.3 crop 1D Mk4 with the same lens for commercial/corporate client portrait shoots. The strongest reasons I may reach for the 5D3 in preference to the APS-H would be the intended output; meaning highest resolution for very large or premium output, or the fact that the brilliant "silent-shutter" on the 5D3 is preferable in the environment I'm shooting in. Reality is that most work ends up on the web. The third reason I'd pick the 5D3 would be if I'm shooting available light at higher iso settings than the 1D4 can realistically handle.

But when it comes to the "look" of the results from APS-H vs FF, the differences to me are so slight as to be irrelevant. The factors that make a powerful image that the client will truly value has less to do with slight DOF variations than capturing that truly magic, human moment. The right moment in the right light will look good taken on just about any camera. I'd be just as happy with an APS-C 1.6x crop 7D2 for a great deal of my work, and will likely get one when my trusty very high-mileage 1D4 throws in the towel.

So the ultimate reasons for choosing a FF, APS-H or APS-C body will likely depend more on that bodies functions, ergonomics and physical points of difference than the perceived "look" of the final file.

-pw

 

[koolman]

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!

I shoot very nice portraits with my canon t2i + canon 50mm 1.4.
I also use a canon 35L or a canon 100mm 2.8 L

The sky is the limit as far as equipment and IQ. In todays world of PP - you can fix things up in software to look like a million dollars.

For me - as a hobby photographer - I see no need to invest in FF which would mean larger heavier much more expensive equipment (body and lens)

 

[anthonyd]

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?

No. No. & No.

Many on this forum will tell you otherwise, but most of that is just confirmation bias. Having made an investment in converting to full frame, it can be difficult to admit that the differences are marginal.

I don't know if the difference is marginal (I only own a crop sensor), but I know that if you choose your background wisely you can achieve all the subject separation you want with a crop sensor. The following image was taken with an 85/1.8 at f/1.8 and as you can tell there is more than enough subject separation and the location was a run of the mill park, nothing exotic. You can imagine that the results would be even more pronounced at f/1.2.

I would recommend the 85mm on a crop sensor for portraits any day, it's my favorite lens for this purpose. However, the 200mm on a crop sensor might be too tight. I haven't tried it, I've only gone up to 135mm, but I expect that the 200mm (just like the 135mm) will
force you to be outdoors and even then it might force you to be too far away in some situations (small beach for example).

 

[lux]

Ff is better.
2 stops ISO is sufficient a difference to make the purchase for me.
That's the difference between acceptable and unacceptable noise when taking pictures of evening or night outdoor kids soccer games or indoor games...and that is with either a 300 2.8 or 135 2,

 

[Arty]

It all depends on the light. In good light and a sharp lens, you would be hard pressed to see a difference at low ISOs, unless you project images or make huge enlargements. In poor light, and higher ISOs, the differences are substantial. If you are outside and shooting at ISO 200, you can get good results with a 60D and good glass. I find 85 is as long as I can go on crop indoors. The view is narrow and you are pretty far back. I prefer shorter focal lengths indoors on crop.
If you want to shoot in available light at high ISOs, a full frame camera like the 6D is certainly worth it. If you are outside shooting below ISO 400 or 800, you may not see that much of a difference. I assume sharp lenses and good technique.
I have the 60D and 6D and prefer the 6D for portraits.

 

[jcarapet]

Yes and no. My 5d3 takes infinitely better pictures IMHO, but I notice it more on color vibrance and shadow details with portraits. things that don't always relate to portraits when you have lighting and post processing.

full frame wins on low light noise which is the conditions I shoot in most of the time. I can still get excellent results from my crop.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I have both FF and crop cameras. I don't do portraits often but I ALWAYS go for FF when that situation arises. I only use crop if I need the extra reach (or speed), like sports or animal shooting. Even in good light, there is definitely an IQ difference between FF and crop in most cases (how much of a difference it is can vary depending on lens selection - in some cases, the difference can be negligible with weaker/older glass).

Having said that, there are plenty of portrait shots I've taken with my old Rebels and 60D (before I had FF) that I was happy with and still hold up real well.

 

[wsmith96]

I purchased a used 5D last November with the intent of using it for portraits, while leaving my 60D for children's sports and macro. Comparing portraits shot between both of them, I like the output of the 5D better. As others have stated, it has to do with the DOF differences between the two cameras and I feel that the 5D shots are sharper. Now I'm not going to say drop everything and go FF because you can also get very nice portraits out of a crop camera. To get the same look though, you will need to adjust your distance to the subject and the distance from the subject to the background if you are looking for that nice blurred look. It's easier to make portraits "pop" with a FF camera, but not impossible with a crop.

Now, low light, noise, etc. is a different story, but that wasn't a part of your question. Given good lighting, you can create pleasing images with both.

For my portraits on crop, I use the 50 1.4, 60 2.8 macro, and 85 1.8.
For my portraits on FF, I use the 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and 70-200 2.8 II.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I remember when I was photographing events using film Fuji ISO 200 and aperture F5.6 because I needed sharpness for everyone in a group. At that time I did not encourage me to buy a F2.8 zoom because I would stop down to F5.6 in 90% of shots.

Today I use APS-C camera and zoom lens F2.8 and feel I have more control of DOF. However, my personal taste evolved and I use also prime lenses F1.4 for individual pictures.

In short:

If you want wider DOF, APS-C will simplify things, and zoom lenses are lighter, compact and inexpensive.

If you want more shallow DOF, Full Frame will make things easier.

If you need to shoot in the dark, and no flash, full frame is the best choice.

 

[Ozarker]

Thank all of you for the thoughtful replies!

 

[Hillsilly]

I use APS-C (Fuji), FF (Canon) and MF (Fuji & Mamiya). As far as depth of field goes between APS-C and FF, sure, there is a difference. But both produce great images. The depth of field on APS-C is still wafer thin with wide aperture lenses and should be able to satisfy most people - except perhaps those with an unhealthy fixation for blurry backgrounds. Other people might have different views, and it is hard to argue against the fact that a FF camera gives you the option to shoot wide open or stop the lens down.

My MF lenses are comparably slow lenses and they aren't noticeably better in generating blurry backgrounds. In fact, they're probably worse. I see any advantages for MF in relation to blurry backgrounds as largely hypothetical as there aren't many options for fast lenses. Overall image quality and "the look" is a different matter.

I think the true answer lies in the lenses you use. If sharpness is critical, an APS-C camera/lens combo that you feel comfortable using at f/1.2 is just as good as a FF camera/lens combo that you need to stop down to f/2. Although, good luck finding wide aperture EF-S primes.