Your crop vs your full frame camera.

[Sporgon]

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?

Yes, I agree with what you've said, and I think that basically what you are arguing is that the high ISO performance of recent generation FF cameras means that you can now use greater dof with a faster shutter speed by increasing the ISO and not losing any IQ.

In terms of what you're likely to be giving up by going to FF, for many it will be frame rate and smaller form, and well as part of your bank balance. Overall I think APS's ace card is cheaper cost.

 

[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!

Here, I'll put it more plainly,

No, I would not hesitate to put those lenses on my 7DII (crop) and other than DOF, no you will not see a big difference other than DOF.

And yes, I think I can compare the IQ off my 7DII vs my 5DII for portraits and state there is no significant difference other than DOF, and I have the added bonus of being able to put my AF point where I need it and not focus/recompose like I have to with the 5DII. The ISO used for portraits is going to be in then 100-800iso range. In this case, I'm comparing apples to apples on price point and ISO - or compare the 6D vs 7DII if you like... for portraits, in the normal sense, you won't see a difference on an 8x10 print. So yes, I think comparing (price wise/iso for portraits) the 7DII, 6D and 5DII is fair, and in going to 6D- FF you will gain and loose some abilities over the 7DII. (AF/FPS vs WIFI, high iso)

I easily agree that for some things, FF is the gold standard, but for portraits??? Saying you must use FF for portraits? Must use FF for those lenses? No, I don't agree. Crop sensors have come a long way from where they were with the 40D (and that was the gold standard for portraits BTW, a crop camera!)
YMMV

 

[photon]

No one ever said must use full frame.

Yes of course you can compare any two things you would like.

I can compare a new AMD processor to an 3 year old intel processor and state that I do not see much difference.

Yes you can mount EF lenses to EF-S camera's because they were designed for you to do so.

Perhaps depending on countless difference scenarios the benefits of a FF can be marginal at best.

No at no point, other than cost/wieght, are same generation FF camera's a "detrimental" alternative to APC. Again the value is yours to debate. Not the math.

 

[Luds34]

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?

Yes, I agree with what you've said, and I think that basically what you are arguing is that the high ISO performance of recent generation FF cameras means that you can now use greater dof with a faster shutter speed by increasing the ISO and not losing any IQ.

In terms of what you're likely to be giving up by going to FF, for many it will be frame rate and smaller form, and well as part of your bank balance. Overall I think APS's ace card is cheaper cost.

Well said by both and I am 100% in agreement. One can always achieve the greater DOF on FF and still maintain just as good (actually better) IQ then the on the crop camera. But the opposite is not true. FF will always give the option, whether is is used or not, to achieve a narrower DOF then one can achieve with a smaller sensor.

That aside, I think there is a pretty good consensus in this thread that either is fine for portrait work. With good light (which is the case with speedlites) the IQ is very high with either sensor.

 

[Pookie]

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 own both of these lenses, crops, FF, MF and the only reason I wouldn't use either of these lenses on a Canon crop would be distance from subject (unless a special situ)... you know my story CanonFanBoy, speaking from experience, all this gear is great but THE most important thing to me when taking portraits is something that has not been mentioned here. Quality portraits have much more to do with subject and photographer interaction than all this tech sensor stuff, especially these days with all the great quality cameras available. DOF for me is just a subjective choice, you can get great bokeh at f/8 if you know how to setup for it. You don't need the 200 f/2 for that at all.

If you want to make your subject really uncomfortable and capture that feeling... pull out a WA and stick it super close to their face. Not saying these lenses shouldn't be used for portraiture but there is a good working distance to capturing a nice portrait. There are many great portraitists that go to great lengths discussing interaction and subjects being relaxed relating to quality portraiture. Not many I know are discussing sensors or film choice. Not saying it isn't discussed but I hear a lot more about interaction than anything else in the circles I work in. Much of this is related to not having to yell at your subject or encroaching on their personal space. I've always felt a good distance would be somewhere near general conversation distances and often this is where I make my lens selection. It probably why I carry more lenses than I'll ever need when heading out for a session...

Edit... The assumption here was you're talking about head and shoulder portraits... not environmental or full length body portraits. There are lots of different types of portraits and not sure that was clarified. Also why the trinity contains 35, 50/85, 135... it covers all you bases related distance and types of portraits you may encounter.

 

[FTb-n]

I think the 85 1.2 would be a great portrait lens on a crop body and ! wouldn't hesitate to use one. The 200 might be a bit long for me on crop -- but, fine for FF.

So which is better for portraits, crop of FF? FF is better for all circumstances where body bulk and budget doesn't matter. FF offers greater control over DOF, greater color depth, sharper images, and cleaner high ISO images. In some cases, any of these can be an asset with a given portrait, in others, not so much.

Are the differences significant? They can be when you get more discriminating and push your gear to their limits. But, they are often most noticeable when comparing a crop image directly with a FF image of the same subject. If the photos are for the photographer, this can make a big difference. However, most who don't live and breath photography will have trouble determining if a good portrait was taken with a crop body or a FF body.

The bottom line is that both sensor sizes can yield great portraits. Crop sensors can capture great images. Full frame sensors simply give you more to work with. Which can be more than you need for a given situation, or just enough to turn a good image into a great one.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I had a 5D Classic for a while and bought a 7D Classic for the better autofocus system. I ended up using the 5D for almost everything because I liked working with the low noise files in Lightroom. The 7D images would "break up" for lack of a better term if I adjusted them more than a little. If your images are perfectly lit and exposed, then it wouldn't make much difference, but in the real world, I like to be able to make adjustments in post-processing.

For me, the crop sensor bodies have assumed the role of travel and hiking cameras. In those situations, I often take multiple exposure bracketed photos and use HDR software.

I have a couple of Rebel-class bodies that serve this role very well. I still have my old 7D, but it rarely gets used. Seems strange to have a crop sensor in such a large, heavy body, but I keep it around as a backup to my current 5D3, because the controls are quite similar.

 

[RLPhoto]

After I went FF, It's hard to use aps for portraits. FF I'd just where these big primes are meant to live infront of.

 

[Zv]

I guess you could use crop with fast lenses but it's just easier and a little cheaper to use FF. When I had my 7D I was constantly using f/4 on my 70-200 and often had to bring along a faster lens. When I switched to FF I noticed for most shots f/4 was actually pretty decent and gave a nice amount of OOF background. I rarely use my 135L @ f/2 as I like to have most facial features in focus. But least I have options. To get the same look on crop I'd need the 85L which was out of my price range. I also fee the fast primes are wasted on crop with regards to portraits unless you had dual purpose like shooting sports too. But then again - teleconvertor.

The other thing that bugged me was focal length. I wanted a 50mm lens to be a 50mm lens and not 80mm. To get 85mm I could crop but then that's extra hassle. Just so much easier with FF and portrait primes.

 

[Aglet]

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.

that's true within makes
but you can put a d7200 up against a 6d and the 7200 is comparable or superior in image quality metrics from base thru 800 iso. At 1600 iso and above the 6d's sensor size and large pixels will provide a slight advantage, accord'in to DxO mark.. But in reality, the cleaner files from the d7200, along with much better color fidelity than the Canon, would allow this particular crop sensor to run with the big dogs a lot farther than you might expect.

Otherwise, good lenses, light and composition and there's really little to differentiate FF from crop. with small, very fast lenses available for small sensors, even MFT can be somewhat competitive with DoF.
Put the same lense on any body, frame the same at the same aperture and you'll end up with fairly similar results unless low light or working distance is an issue.

I still prefer to grab my big FF body with lots of controls on it for most shooting, but a Fuji with a fast lens and a patient subject can do extremely well too.

 

[Freddy]

After reading loads of reviews, I decided to get (bought yesterday) the 760D and 17-55 as I thought it looked really good value. I'll let you know in a week or two how things are going. It seemed good sense as I already have the 10-22. After many years, I was still using a 350D! It will be interesting to compare to friends who use FF and see what the difference really is. I keep reading that high MP FF cameras are good for prints up to 3ft. wide, but the truth is I'll only maybe print one like that every few years to frame and put on the wall. Still, time will tell on all these points.

 

[TheJock]

I have been interested in this post as I have just bought a new 5DIII which now accompanies my trusty 70D.

Today I did a little comparison test between the two, sorry that the test subject material is poor, but I was pushed for time and it’s summer in Dubai so going outside is pretty much off limits.

I shot the subject with both the 50mm f1.4 USM and 100mm f2.8 USM and the first thing I noticed was that the minimum focus distance remained as claimed between both model; 31cm for the 100mm and 45cm for the 50mm. This distance is the distance between the sensor locations to the subject, as seen in the first two photos below (of the 50mm lens).

The 3rd and 4th photos are the 50mm f1.4 at minimum focal distance; they’re labelled accordingly with the settings.

 

[TheJock]

And for the 100mm.
I thought I’d go extreme, so the first images are at ISO 800……

 

[TheJock]

……the next 2 are at ISO 12,800
All the rest of the setting were the same across both models, neutral picture style, evaluative metering and AWB.

 

[Hillsilly]

After reading loads of reviews, I decided to get (bought yesterday) the 760D and 17-55 as I thought it looked really good value.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts after using it for a while. I continue to have images captured on a 30D accepted into exhibitions. To be accepted, you need to be in the top 10% to 30% of entrants. And on the entries, there is no indication of the camera or lens used - so as close to an impartial blind test as you can get. While scientists can argue the benefits of a larger sensor over a smaller one (and while I'll typically agree and picked up a FF camera several years ago), ultimately I think it makes very little difference. FF cameras have extra capability over APS-C, but if you've got a great scene in front of you, its going to look fine whether its taken on a 760D or a 6D.

...Today I did a little comparison test between the two...

What do you think? If you go looking for it, there's a little more noise with the 70D, but I'm surprised how well it stands up at ISO 12,800. Probably early days with the new camera, but are you noticing a big improvement in image quality with the 5Diii, or are the differences not as big as you might have expected?

 

[TheJock]

What do you think? If you go looking for it, there's a little more noise with the 70D, but I'm surprised how well it stands up at ISO 12,800. Probably early days with the new camera, but are you noticing a big improvement in image quality with the 5Diii, or are the differences not as big as you might have expected?

I’ve always been highly impressed with the high ISO capabilities with my 70D. I shot a Karting event at night on the day of purchase and found all the images usable even although I was at 6400 ISO. The 70D is still a far more capable camera than I am photographer, but I’m GAS mad at the moment ;D
It is still early days with the 5DIII, but the fact that the AF works with my 100-400L + 1.4xTCIII combo on it makes it instantly worth the money. Time will tell how well it performs in my hands........or should that actually be the other way around!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LonelyBoy]

It is still early days with the 5DIII, but the fact that the AF works with my 100-400L + 1.4xTCIII combo on it makes it instantly worth the money. Time will tell how well it performs in my hands........or should that actually be the other way around!!!!!!!!!!

Before I stopped cycling entirely I used to joke that my bikes were going to unionize and strike for an upgraded rider.

 

[NancyP]

Nice fly! The fish should like it.

 

[ksgal]

……the next 2 are at ISO 12,800
All the rest of the setting were the same across both models, neutral picture style, evaluative metering and AWB.

You are showing well what I'm seeing in my 7DII compared to my 5DII - the image quality is much closer than the old 'crop vs FF' debate would lead you to believe.

The very latest crop sensors have come a long way (baby!) from where they were, and have closed the gap between Crop and FF, IMHO.

 

[photon]

ksgal "You are showing well what I'm seeing in my 7DII compared to my 5DII - the image quality is much closer than the old 'crop vs FF' debate would lead you to believe.

The very latest crop sensors have come a long way (baby!) from where they were, and have closed the gap between Crop and FF, IMHO. "

How do you feel about the gap between crop and FF camera that isn't well over 6 years old? Do you feel you get similar iso performance to the 6D? How about the color space, does that seem equal to you as well?