Crop Sensor = Better Reach?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gingerweasel
  • Start date Start date
G

gingerweasel

Guest
Hi Guys,
I've read a few times how a crop sensor offers people more reach which can be useful to sports or wildlife photographers. I did some digging because I didn't really understand and from what I can see all it does is change the field of view, it doesn't actually give you more reach..

Is this right or am I talking out my backside?
 
No, you're quite correct, all a crop sensor does is give you a field of view that is eqivalent to, in the m43 case, that of a lens with 2x the focal length on a 35mm or FF camera.

FOVcrop.jpg
 
However, If you have 10mp on a full frame camera, and 10mp on a crop camera, it would probably be easier to continue to crop the crop camera image and retain more detail, should the item you are photographing not fill the frame.
 
I'm still a bit confused guys, possibly because my IQ is only 140.

In a couple of years time, I'm hoping to upgrade my current body to either a Canon EOS 7D (crop factor 1.6) or an EOS 5D (full frame). Most of my photography is wildlife, done with a 55-250mm lens, although I occasionally venture up to 500mm, with one of the big Sigma lenses. I also do some landscape and portrait stuff.

Which of the above cameras would I be better off with?
 
Basically your 500mm lens on the crop body is equal to an 800 on full frame as to whether you could crop the image from the 5D to be the same size and quality as the 7D is a question I will leave to the Canon users here.
 
Throughout history the bigger the capture medium, the better the quality.

35mm film gave higher quality than 1/2 frame or 110, or 126 for that matter.
645 produced higher quality than 35mm
6x7 higher quality again then 5x4 then 10x8 then the huge Polaroid 20x16 camera!

You wouldn't use a plate camera for sports though, you have to balance portability with quality. Many of the full frame sensor cameras will also give you a cropped sensor option. It isn't all about pixel numbers either - the pixel pitch is also important. The bigger the photosite the better the high ISO performance.

You need to look inot things a bit more before coming to a decision. have a look and see what the people in your field of operation use - the ones who you admire for thir work.
 
alexhcowley said:
In a couple of years time, I'm hoping to upgrade my current body to either a Canon EOS 7D (crop factor 1.6) or an EOS 5D (full frame). Most of my photography is wildlife, done with a 55-250mm lens, although I occasionally venture up to 500mm, with one of the big Sigma lenses. I also do some landscape and portrait stuff.

Which of the above cameras would I be better off with?
Click to expand...

A lot could have changed in a couple of years time. :)

The question mainly is whether in a couple of years, do you want to be able to shoot distant objects, with the same lens as you do now?

If you move to a 5D, then in order to be able to capture the same framing as you do now, you will need to change your lens to be ~90-400. That means probably the 100-400L for you, as well as the change in camera.

The 5d being ?25? mp you will get superb detail, and lovely colours, and a decent shutter speed for the light when it starts to get dull.

However, if you find that the 100-400L isn't giving you enough reach then, you will need to spend out on some longer lenses. Taken from camerapricebuster.co.uk:
Canon EF 500mm f4.0L IS USM £4994.99
Canon EF 600mm f4.0L IS USM £7067.77
Canon EF 800mm f5.6 L IS USM £8915.97

If you go down the 7d route, then you may not need a longer lens. May not.
I have the 7d, with the 100-400 L (I previously had the 70-300 IS, and needed more reach). To get the same 'reach' (read framing) as the 100-400L on a 5d camera, then I would need a lens which did 160-640, ain't gonna happen. So, I would be thinking then primes, closest is the 600mm, f4.0L at >£7000

The 100-400L being around £1k second hand, this is a tad cheaper (you could almost buy 3x7ds and 3x100-400L for the price of the 600mm prime!)
 
That said, I am tending to shy away from EF-S lenses, (apart from the 10-22) just in case I needed to make the move to full-frame. I think now with the 7d, this is no longer going to be necassary.
 
alexhcowley said:
I'm still a bit confused guys, possibly because my IQ is only 140.

In a couple of years time, I'm hoping to upgrade my current body to either a Canon EOS 7D (crop factor 1.6) or an EOS 5D (full frame). Most of my photography is wildlife, done with a 55-250mm lens, although I occasionally venture up to 500mm, with one of the big Sigma lenses. I also do some landscape and portrait stuff.

Which of the above cameras would I be better off with?
Click to expand...
First in two years the 7d will be an old s/h camera by then…and wee will be on 8 or 9D I guess.
Your 55-250mm on a Canon crop sensor will work like a 88-44mm and the 500mm will be like a 800mm
So you do have more reach and can still crop the image further, you have to remember the sensor size is what make the difference it like changing the film size a medium format camera you will use a 90mm lens to get what a 35mm film will use a 50mm lens.
There are some who try to tell you it’s a full frame image cropped it is not, It might look like it in the way some try to show you but it like maths you can show anything if you use the wrong info. Think of it like this is the sensor cropping anything you see NO is the sensor cropping and pixels NO is it taking what you see in your lens on your focusing screen YES.
So to end for Wildlife you be better off with the 7D with a smaller sensor as you will get longer zooms with your lens with out having to buy longer ones.
 
coldpenguin said:
The 5d being ?25? mp you will get superb detail, and lovely colours, and a decent shutter speed for the light when it starts to get dull.
Click to expand...
How do you work out this - ie dull light will be the same no mater what camers sensor you have?
 
Chaz Photos said:
How do you work out this - ie dull light will be the same no mater what camers sensor you have?
Click to expand...

Am I right in thinking that a full frame camera will give better performance in poor light since each individual pixel is bigger than on a crop frame?
 
Typical dirty Canon trick - you mean you cannot use Canon lenses on a Canon body? How useless is that?:gag:

At keast with Nikon you can use ANY old lens on a new body perfectly - it will give you all the functions the lens had when it was made. You cannot use the new G lenses on an old body though, because there is no aperture ring. So we have backward compatibility, just not forward compatibility with old (like 1950s-1990s) bodies. As soon as we got to the F5, then any of the G lenses will work on those - even DX lenses will work on FX bodies.

Canon are a rip off if you can't use lenses across the range of bodies. When you upgrade, you have to upgrade your lenses as well? Glad I didn't go Eos in the early days if that is the case. That is twice Canon have shafted their owners. Once with the FD mount, then the Eos mount now another different one....I ask you. I am absolutely staggered by this.
 
alexhcowley said:
Am I right in thinking that a full frame camera will give better performance in poor light since each individual pixel is bigger than on a crop frame?
Click to expand...

Provided the number of pixels is the same in both cases, and similar technology, them the Full Frame sensor will have better noise performance, due to the larger pixels.

The 7D does have a "new" design in respect to the microlenses at each photosite so it's noise performance may be better than you would normaly think.

Maybe sensitivty/noise may be the new spec grounds, rather than number of pixels. Bear in mind though a high pixel count is not much use if the glass can't make use of it.
 
Yes, that is it. Basically because the photosites on the 5d full frame are larger than a standard crop cameras, there is less amplification required in camera per pixel. This means that you can push-process the image slightly more than if it were crop.

EOS cameras can all take EF lenses. Canon brought out EF-s to make lenses specific for crop cameras. There is no dirty tricks here. My understanding is that Nikon have done exactly the same thing, and that there are a couple of lenses which cannot be used from Nikon on Nikon cameras without converters.
 
Lensflare said:
Typical dirty Canon trick - you mean you cannot use Canon lenses on a Canon body? How useless is that?:gag:

At keast with Nikon you can use ANY old lens on a new body perfectly - it will give you all the functions the lens had when it was made. You cannot use the new G lenses on an old body though, because there is no aperture ring. So we have backward compatibility, just not forward compatibility with old (like 1950s-1990s) bodies. As soon as we got to the F5, then any of the G lenses will work on those - even DX lenses will work on FX bodies.

Canon are a rip off if you can't use lenses across the range of bodies. When you upgrade, you have to upgrade your lenses as well? Glad I didn't go Eos in the early days if that is the case. That is twice Canon have shafted their owners. Once with the FD mount, then the Eos mount now another different one....I ask you. I am absolutely staggered by this.
Click to expand...


Yes, this is true - But doesn't using DX lenses on a full frame body reduce the amount of pixels making The Nokin D3 something like a 3 or 4 Mp camera?
 
Chaz Photos said:
.....So to end for Wildlife you be better off with the 7D with a smaller sensor as you will get longer zooms with your lens with out having to buy longer ones.
Click to expand...

That's a little missleading. You don't get longer zoom with a crop sensor. The image the lens sees is no different in size, regardless of whether it's on a full frame or crop body. It's the field of view that is different, leading to the perception that the image is "more zoomed".

If you take a photo of a Robin with a 7D (crop) and, standing in exactly the same place, with the same lens, take the same shot with a 5D (full frame), all that happens is you get more scenery around the bird in the shot from the 5D. The size of the bird will be identical. The illustration in FITP's post demonstrates it perfectly :)
 
Grendel said:
If you take a photo of a Robin with a 7D (crop) and, standing in exactly the same place, with the same lens, take the same shot with a 5D (full frame), all that happens is you get more scenery around the bird in the shot from the 5D. The size of the bird will be identical. The illustration in FITP's post demonstrates it perfectly :)
Click to expand...

I don't think this is correct.
Here are 2 images - 1 taken with on a 400D c/w 100-400L, and another on a 5D Mk2, same lens and taken from the same place.

bird11of1.jpg


bird21of1.jpg


Photos taken to prove a point.
 
I can promise you it is correct :)

I think the difference in your examples is the zooming on screen.

Have a look at the image in post 2 for a perfect demonstration of the different field of view from different sensors :)
 
no what you're saying is misleading, if you'd quoted all of Grendel's post you would of seen he said the image the lens sees is no different in size, regardless of crop or FF sensor.

Hugh
 
Thanks for the input, guys, this has been a useful and informative thread. Special thanks to mstphoto, whose bird photos make it clear I should be staying with crop frames, and coldpenguin for his level-headed comments.
 
What a lot of guys are missing here is in the Post 2 Pic,(if all cameras are the same MP) each of the inner squares are expanded to the size of the FF pic, hence where the perception of Extra reach/Zoom is from.
 
Grendel said:
That's a little missleading. You don't get longer zoom with a crop sensor. The image the lens sees is no different in size, regardless of whether it's on a full frame or crop body. It's the field of view that is different, leading to the perception that the image is "more zoomed".

If you take a photo of a Robin with a 7D (crop) and, standing in exactly the same place, with the same lens, take the same shot with a 5D (full frame), all that happens is you get more scenery around the bird in the shot from the 5D. The size of the bird will be identical. The illustration in FITP's post demonstrates it perfectly :)
Click to expand...
I have to say what you are saying is misleading and not true you are using the wrong info to prove the point.
You have to think in the terms of the image in relation to the full frame that is captured, if you soot on MF you will use a lens that is say 80mm to match a 50mm on 35mm film but the lens on the MF will only fit the MF so there is no one misunderstanding the lens as a 80mm BUT as dSLR have more then one size of sensor, so people mix up the data and if you do this you can prove what ever you like until you spot the mistake. There are some clever math tricks like this and lots of people can not work out what is going on.
100 mm lens on a FF will be 100mm as this is the = to 35mm film
One last point if it was just a crop then the DOF would be the same but it is not
 
mstphoto said:
Sorry - I jumped the gun a wee bit :bonk::bonk:

What these 2 images are showing is the difference between cropped and full frame sensors when printed/published at the same size - I think :suspect:
Click to expand...

Isnt the image "zoomed in" on the crop because of the extra pixel density ?
 
Chaz Photos said:
I have to say what you are saying is misleading and not true you are using the wrong info to prove the point.
.....
Click to expand...

Chaz, the info in my post is true. Sorry, but it is! :)

I could post many graphics and examples to prove the point but, as I've already said, the illustration in FITP's post (post 2) perfectly demonstrates the point.
 
FOVcrop.jpg


Imagine a bird sitting on the fence in that shot. Look at the differing field's of view. Does the size of the bird change? No. As I said, you just get more scenery around the bird with the ff sensor than with the crop sensor :)
 
But if the crop sensor has more pixels in a given area it will appear larger when viewed at xDPI compared to a less densely packed sensor right?

Im not trying to argue, just make sense of it !
 
Grendel said:
FOVcrop.jpg


Imagine a bird sitting on the fence in that shot. Look at the differing field's of view. Does the size of the bird change? No. As I said, you just get more scenery around the bird with the ff sensor than with the crop sensor :)
Click to expand...

True, but ... you then have to make each crop view into the same size as the uncropped view, effectively zooming it. You could label the three views "zoomed out", "zoomed in a bit", "zoomed in a bit more" as when the resulting image is viewed/printed it has the appearance of being zoomed in.
(think that makes sense outside of my head)
 
Chaz Photos said:
I have to say what you are saying is misleading and not true you are using the wrong info to prove the point.
You have to think in the terms of the image in relation to the full frame that is captured, if you soot on MF you will use a lens that is say 80mm to match a 50mm on 35mm film but the lens on the MF will only fit the MF so there is no one misunderstanding the lens as a 80mm BUT as dSLR have more then one size of sensor, so people mix up the data and if you do this you can prove what ever you like until you spot the mistake. There are some clever math tricks like this and lots of people can not work out what is going on.
100 mm lens on a FF will be 100mm as this is the = to 35mm film
One last point if it was just a crop then the DOF would be the same but it is not
Click to expand...


Jeez, I wish I could understand this. :thinking:
 
Almost_Invisible said:
True, but ... you then have to make each crop view into the same size as the uncropped view, effectively zooming it. You could label the three views "zoomed out", "zoomed in a bit", "zoomed in a bit more" as when the resulting image is viewed/printed it has the appearance of being zoomed in.
(think that makes sense outside of my head)
Click to expand...


That makes two intelligent people in this thread :wave: :bang: lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:popcorn:


;)
 
markjayne said:
It really isn't that difficult is it ;)

My 300mm on my D300 is equivalent to 450mm (hence the 1.5x crop sensor)

My 300mm on my D3 is 300mm (Full frame sensor).

As both camera sensors are made up from near enough the same amount of pixels I use my D300 if I need more reach.

Mark
Click to expand...

:thumbs::thumbs:


I'm with you, but out of interest, is the physical size of the full images similar? or is the full frame size larger?

Meaning one could crop in on the full to match the zoom...
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
:thumbs::thumbs:


I'm with you, but out of interest, is the physical size of the full images similar? or is the full frame size larger?

Meaning one could crop in on the full to match the zoom...
Click to expand...

No, as both the cropped and full frame sensors are made up from the same amount of pixels if you cropped into the FF image you would end up with a much less Mp image.

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top