Crop to Full Frame?

[sk66]

My general recommendation is to stay with DX unless you have a very good/specific reason for going to FF; and it's either going to pay you back in sales/profits, or you don't care about the money/expense.

Often, for the same money just the new FF body would cost you, a better/faster lens will get you greater gains overall. I your position, I would just upgrade to a more current DX body first and then go from there.

 

[realspeed]

Nobody. I guess that's why nobody with a crop sensor camera ever bothers to do it. I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to do it. Perhaps to pass the time by practicing pointless mental arithmetic?

I used full frame film cameras for decades. I shifted to crop sensor digital cameras a decades ago.
You have weird ideas about what is involved in using an exchangeable lens crop sensor camera. Do you have any experience of using one?

Apart from having a D70s a D200 and a d300 for several years !!!!! oh and still have the D300 if that counts

 

[woof woof]

My general recommendation is to stay with DX unless you have a very good/specific reason for going to FF; and it's either going to pay you back in sales/profits, or you don't care about the money/expense.

Often, for the same money just the new FF body would cost you, a better/faster lens will get you greater gains overall. I your position, I would just upgrade to a more current DX body first and then go from there.

This is the sensible approach but if we are to be sensible there'd be few amongst us who would have anything but an entry level camera.

The fact, although I do accept that this is a fact may be disputed is that as enthusiasts pursuing a hobby we have priorities, wants and needs beyond what in reality would be good enough.

I have compacts, MFT and FF cameras and for me there's just no doubt at all that I get more satisfaction and enjoyment from using the FF camera because the files I get from it are better than anything I've ever seen from any smaller sensor cameras I've had. I do accept that normal people looking at my photographs will never be able to tell the difference between pictures taken with a FF camera and those taken with MFT but I can, if I look closely, and I do.

I suppose the same discussion could be had about many products. Why have a Swiss made mechanical watch when a cheap watch from the supermarket tells the time? Why buy a Lotus when a cheap Korean hatchback gets you from A to B? Why go to a nice restraint when you can buy an adequately nutritious cereal bar and drink a grass of water?

Just sayin

 

[sk66]

This is the sensible approach but if we are to be sensible there'd be few amongst us who would have anything but an entry level camera.

The fact, although I do accept that this is a fact may be disputed is that as enthusiasts pursuing a hobby we have priorities, wants and needs beyond what in reality would be good enough.

or you don't care about the money/expense.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

There is more likely a relation between disposable income and choice of sensor size than skills and choice of sensor size in entusiast circles.

 

[Cagey75]

There is more likely a relation between disposable income and choice of sensor size than skills and choice of sensor size in entusiast circles.

You can get a decent FF camera and a few primes for less than some APSC bodies, an enthusiast will no doubt do a little research on this too. Take something like a Sony A7 - or a Nikon D600 - they can be had for less than many APSC or M43 bodies nowadays, add in a couple of cheap primes and you're good. It's only when you desire more reach or fancier fast zooms that budget gets in the way.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

You can get a decent FF camera and a few primes for less than some APSC bodies, an enthusiast will no doubt do a little research on this too. Take something like a Sony A7 - or a Nikon D600 - they can be had for less than many APSC or M43 bodies nowadays, add in a couple of cheap primes and you're good. It's only when you desire more reach or fancier fast zooms that budget gets in the way.

Buying second hand vs buying new is another story + going for the older sensor tech over a new apsc kind of negate the idea of the larger sensor

 

[Cagey75]

Buying second hand vs buying new is another story + going for the older sensor tech over a new apsc kind of negate the idea of the larger sensor

There's often deals on the older models, new. Buying older models 'as new' used from reputable companies is a non issue to the enthusiast. They still have the larger sensor, and those on tighter budgets can benefit from such sales or lowering prices because of newer models. The A7 can be got new cheaper than an XT2 for example. The performance of these older bodies doesn't change because something better was released. It's a valid option if the sensor size is all that matters.

 

[gad-westy]

There's often deals on the older models, new. Buying older models 'as new' used from reputable companies is a non issue to the enthusiast. They still have the larger sensor, and those on tighter budgets can benefit from such sales or lowering prices because of newer models. The A7 can be got new cheaper than an XT2 for example. The performance of these older bodies doesn't change because something better was released. It's a valid option if the sensor size is all that matters.

Indeed. The A7 seems to occasionally pop up for £500 (sometimes including the kit lens) and it's more or less the same sensor as the current mk3 and I assume closely related to the D610/D750 snesor too both of which are still alive and kicking. Amazing value really.

I like FF. Like the bigger view finders (for DSLR's at least), like the noise handling for astro stuff, like the lenses available. Can't honestly say I need it in anyway or even that it makes much difference most of the time but it is nice.

 

[snerkler]

There is more likely a relation between disposable income and choice of sensor size than skills and choice of sensor size in entusiast circles.

I agree with this to an extent, although I think there are more factors at play as to which format and brand someone might go for. For example, if it was money alone then they'd choose the EM1-II over the D750.

I think it comes more down to brand familiarity and possibly also brand snobbery. Also, it may even depend on which camera store you visit. It's clear to me that near to me there is a store that has come across as very pro Sony in the past, and another that is very pro Canon. Now whether they then walk out with FF or APS-C will depend on how much they know/how much the store 'helps' them

 

[Cagey75]

Indeed. The A7 seems to occasionally pop up for £500 (sometimes including the kit lens) and it's more or less the same sensor as the current mk3 and I assume closely related to the D610/D750 snesor too both of which are still alive and kicking. Amazing value really.

I like FF. Like the bigger view finders (for DSLR's at least), like the noise handling for astro stuff, like the lenses available. Can't honestly say I need it in anyway or even that it makes much difference most of the time but it is nice.

The low light performance is the only real attraction for me, I'm not really concerned about shallower DOF, it can be achieved with any camera with the right lens when desired. I don't tend to shoot wide either, I prefer longer FL, whether it's for macro or wildlife. That's where it gets pricey, when you want to shoot some wildlife on FF and want 400mm+ - No denying you get better overall IQ and much better ISO performance.

 

[Nawty]

Buying second hand vs buying new is another story + going for the older sensor tech over a new apsc kind of negate the idea of the larger sensor

I agree with this to an extent, although I think there are more factors at play as to which format and brand someone might go for. For example, if it was money alone then they'd choose the EM1-II over the D750.

I chose the EM1ii over the D750 and money is, to the purposes of this conversation, not a problem.

The reason being size of lenses (and whole system), and other features such as incredible IBIS, insane FPS, live composite etc... I also note that the EM1ii sensor scores almost the same as the D500 on DXO, not that I really believe in its relevance.

A while afterwards I picked up my sisters twin D750's, one with the 70-200 VRii and the other the 24-70 attached and though f-that! it's an insane amount of size and weight.

A long time ago I realised it much better to talk about your output than your kit.

 

[Cagey75]

I agree with this to an extent, although I think there are more factors at play as to which format and brand someone might go for. For example, if it was money alone then they'd choose the EM1-II over the D750.

I think it comes more down to brand familiarity and possibly also brand snobbery. Also, it may even depend on which camera store you visit. It's clear to me that near to me there is a store that has come across as very pro Sony in the past, and another that is very pro Canon. Now whether they then walk out with FF or APS-C will depend on how much they know/how much the store 'helps' them

You can get a D750 cheaper than an EM1II

 

[ancient_mariner]

There is more likely a relation between disposable income and choice of sensor size than skills and choice of sensor size in entusiast circles.

TBH I really couldn't afford to buy a full frame camera, and ended up trading a rare guitar for my D610 because I badly wanted the kind of image qualities that a smaller sensor and related optics could not deliver. Whether my ability at creating images justifies it or not is another matter, but I definitely didn't have the readies.

TBH skills have absolutely nothing to do with selection of sensor size, nor should the be used to judge whether someone 'deserves/is ready' to use a particular sensor.

 

[woof woof]

I wont quote the posts as it all gets messy but I see where people are coming from regarding costs against my argument that hobbyists care about things that non hobbyists don't but... I bought my 5D used for a reasonable price and although my A7 was/is the most expensive camera I've ever bought these days they're relative bargains and there are in fact APS-C and MFT cameras that cost a lot more new. As Keith points out above.

So I'm not really all that convinced that the costs are all that prohibitive.

YMMV and I do accept that if you want an all singing all dancing camera with F1 car performance costs go up pretty fast. For many people though, cost needn't be an insurmountable barrier to going FF. Maybe.

 

[sk66]

So I'm not really all that convinced that the costs are all that prohibitive.

Depends if the move also requires the upgrade of lenses... makes a lot of difference in the world of telephotos.

 

[Cagey75]

I wont quote the posts as it all gets messy but I see where people are coming from regarding costs against my argument that hobbyists care about things that non hobbyists don't but... I bought my 5D used for a reasonable price and although my A7 was/is the most expensive camera I've ever bought these days they're relative bargains and there are in fact APS-C and MFT cameras that cost a lot more new. As Keith points out above.

So I'm not really all that convinced that the costs are all that prohibitive.

YMMV and I do accept that if you want an all singing all dancing camera with F1 car performance costs go up pretty fast. For many people though, cost needn't be an insurmountable barrier to going FF. Maybe.

I won't deny the fact that if money wasn't a barrier for me I would probably have an A7RIII and some amazing lenses to boot! I totally would not 'need' all that power though, I'm a casual who just loves shooting images for pleasure - but if you can have it, why not right? I think there's benefits to each different system, and being on a budget means you just have to prioritize more. Do you need/want better low light performance or competent IBIS? Do you tend to shoot more wide angle or tele? Do you crop your images a lot? etc

Side tangent to this, I read earlier that the 1st and 2nd place winners of the Wex photograher of the year competition were both using older Canon 5D bodies, II/III, like I said earlier, the quality of these older - and now much cheaper - models didn't suddenly go down because there's better tech available today. I think older FF bodies have better shelf life than older crop sensor bodies for sure.

 

[snerkler]

I chose the EM1ii over the D750 and money is, to the purposes of this conversation, not a problem.

The reason being size of lenses (and whole system), and other features such as incredible IBIS, insane FPS, live composite etc... I also note that the EM1ii sensor scores almost the same as the D500 on DXO, not that I really believe in its relevance.

A while afterwards I picked up my sisters twin D750's, one with the 70-200 VRii and the other the 24-70 attached and though f-that! it's an insane amount of size and weight.

A long time ago I realised it much better to talk about your output than your kit.

You can get a D750 cheaper than an EM1II

I think you both missed the point I was making

So the post I referenced implied that the more money you have the more likely you are to go for FF, ie the more expensive gear. My point was that this can’t be the sole factor because you have bodies like the EM1-II that are expensive, using the D750 as an example of a FF that is cheaper, and still part of Nikon’s current line up

 

[woof woof]

I won't deny the fact that if money wasn't a barrier for me...

I can afford any "thing" I want but my conscience stops me (the Mrs doesn't seem to care what I spend) occasionally as does realising that I probably get as much fun out of spending £50 on an old film era lens as I'd get from spending £2/3K on a new camera.

There are other reasons I wont buy some stuff as well, for example I just can't see myself buying a massive and expensive long zoom for my FF A7 as I'm much more comfortable using a tiny 45-200mm on my MFT cameras because as a combination they're much easier to carry about and a lot less conspicuous. The fact that it's cheaper is just a bonus

 

[Cagey75]

I think you both missed the point I was making

So the post I referenced implied that the more money you have the more likely you are to go for FF, ie the more expensive gear. My point was that this can’t be the sole factor because you have bodies like the EM1-II that are expensive, using the D750 as an example of a FF that is cheaper, and still part of Nikon’s current line up

AH righty I get ya now. I was surprised to find the D750 down so much recently, at least 'like new' used.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Seems to be the common opinion that any 24x36 sensor trumps any apsc sensor no matter the generations. Well

 

[yamahatdm900]

Seems to be the common opinion that any 24x36 sensor trumps any apsc sensor no matter the generations. Well

Of course they do compare any same generation sensor and size will always win out in IQ, just as MF will over FF. Comparing older gen sensors to newer sensors might well be different.
Whether you need what the bigger sensor offers with the usual increase in size and cost will depend on the person.

 

[GreenNinja67]

All a hobbyist needs is a D700.

Wish I hadn't sold mine to be honest.

 

[snerkler]

Seems to be the common opinion that any 24x36 sensor trumps any apsc sensor no matter the generations. Well

Depends what you're comparing, some APS-C sensors such as those in the D7200 and D500 out perform many old, and some current FF sensors in terms of colour depth and/or dynamic range

 

[ancient_mariner]

Seems to be the common opinion that any 24x36 sensor trumps any apsc sensor no matter the generations. Well

The question is really about what and how you want to photograph. Plan on shooting wildlife with a long lens? Then a modern APS-C sensor (or even M43) is likely the tool of choice. Need a lightweight camera outfit more than absolute image quality? M43 is the clear winner. Need absolute image quality? Then medium format (or even 10X8 film) is the tops. But if you want the best reasonable quality in a package that's versatile, not outrageously expensive or heavy then FX is still probably the winner.

 

[woof woof]

Seems to be the common opinion that any 24x36 sensor trumps any apsc sensor no matter the generations. Well

Who said that? Whoever it was maybe they need to have a think.

I think my MFT cameras beat my old Canon 5D which comfortable beat my old APS-C 20D but if the kit is anywhere near the same tech the larger sensor will probably end up edging it, assuming relatively good lenses etc.

My general point was that people like us (geeky types on forums) generally have other priorities than what would be good enough, objectively or to more normal people... normal people usually don't seem to understand that looking at FF files make me feel warmer and fuzzier than I do when I look at MFT files.

That's all.

Over and out.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Who said that? Whoever it was maybe they need to have a think.

I think my MFT cameras beat my old Canon 5D which comfortable beat my old APS-C 20D but if the kit is anywhere near the same tech the larger sensor will probably end up edging it, assuming relatively good lenses etc.

My general point was that people like us (geeky types on forums) generally have other priorities than what would be good enough, objectively or to more normal people... normal people usually don't seem to understand that looking at FF files make me feel warmer and fuzzier than I do when I look at MFT files.

That's all.

Over and out.

Well no one in direct words but over again early generations of 24X36 cameras are recomended as a cheap upgrade from apsc to get the fullframe quality, also happened in this thread. While the camera of reference here is the Nikon D90 we sometimes see recomendations from a fairly new apsc to early 24X36 cameras that to me is a step back in both image quality and features

 

[woof woof]

Well no one in direct words but over again early generations of 24X36 cameras are recomended as a cheap upgrade from apsc to get the fullframe quality, also happened in this thread. While the camera of reference here is the Nikon D90 we sometimes see recomendations from a fairly new apsc to early 24X36 cameras that to me is a step back in both image quality and features

Ah, so, no one said it. ok. I see.

I'd hope that people would realise that technology moves on and this includes image quality. What this means in reality is that a newer smaller format camera may beat an older larger format camera if we're looking just at image quality. For example I thought my FF 5D was lovely when I had it but years later I know that my much newer MFT cameras simply thrash it at higher ISO's.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

TBH I really couldn't afford to buy a full frame camera, and ended up trading a rare guitar for my D610 because I badly wanted the kind of image qualities that a smaller sensor and related optics could not deliver. Whether my ability at creating images justifies it or not is another matter, but I definitely didn't have the readies.

TBH skills have absolutely nothing to do with selection of sensor size, nor should the be used to judge whether someone 'deserves/is ready' to use a particular sensor.

Selcting a 24X36mm camera over apsc or mft for image quality reasons is all about skills, or at least it should be. You can choose any make or model you like for almost any other reason you like e.g. "The Fuji XT-2 is just such a cool camera, analog like with its dials and knobs, working in a way that I really like, making photography fun again"

But when you start talking image quality and end result it should really come down to is it really the camera thats holding you down?
If your technical skill are not up to it and its because of those you find your images lacking detail the larger sensor wont change anything.
If your compositional skills, your visual language lacks thus making your images boring no one will care to step close enough to see the fine details.
And if your not making your current setup hanging by the nails working overtime to keep up with difficult conditions over and over again just cutting the mustard
youre probably not using it to its full potential and its not that smaller sensor thats the weak link.

Actually I find it odd that so few admits to choosing a camera just because of the wauw and cool factor. No, we need to rationalize and chooce the best Tool for the job. I say sc... it, my cameras are toys. I like to make pictures but I want it to be fun and I want to like playing around with my image making toys. If you find a D850 or Eos R or whatever to be the most cool camera in the world and cant sleep untill you get one thats about the only reason you need to go buy one

While the larger sensor can make the difference for some in some situations mostly its down to the photograpers skills to make great and interesting photographs and when we see those images only a minority cares about or will even notice if its one or the other sensor size.

 

[Erty]

Looking at dxomark scores, the sensors on most 10 year old + FF cameras are out performed by the latest APSC. I'm not sure if this takes into account that a FF camera will get much more out of a bad lens because of the bigger pixels. I guess a modern consumer APSC camera might have equal or better metering, focussing, buffer, etc than a old pro full frame camera as well.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Ah, so, no one said it. ok. I see.

I'd hope that people would realise that technology moves on and this includes image quality. What this means in reality is that a newer smaller format camera may beat an older larger format camera if we're looking just at image quality. For example I thought my FF 5D was lovely when I had it but years later I know that my much newer MFT cameras simply thrash it at higher ISO's.

Ok shall we say its implied?

 

[snerkler]

This forum's great, you own micro four thirds and there's snobbery against it as the sensor's too small, yet it's also frowned upon to own FF as it's unnecessary I guess APS-C is the only acceptable format?

 

[gman]

Who wants to have to work out a 1.5 times magnification on a crop size sensor every time, before they take a photo?

I'm guessing this may be to do with using traditional focal lengths for certain types of photography such as the 85mm being commonly known as the perfect portrait lens so that would be a 50mm on a crop. But there's never any hard and fast rules and you use the lens to suit the desired result. Besides, surely it wouldn't take long to get to know your kit?

Perhaps another calculation commonly required with a crop is the common correlation between focal length and shutter speed to avoid camera shake. So if using a 30mm lens you want the shutter speed to be at least 1/30 or faster to avoid shake - when using full frame. So that would be 1/45 (1/60) on a 1.5 crop. Slightly inconvenient but with a crop it's usually it's just a case of increasing the shutter speed by one increment over the full frame value.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Selcting a 24X36mm camera over apsc or mft for image quality reasons is all about skills, or at least it should be. You can choose any make or model you like for almost any other reason you like e.g. "The Fuji XT-2 is just such a cool camera, analog like with its dials and knobs, working in a way that I really like, making photography fun again"

But when you start talking image quality and end result it should really come down to is it really the camera thats holding you down?
If your technical skill are not up to it and its because of those you find your images lacking detail the larger sensor wont change anything.
If your compositional skills, your visual language lacks thus making your images boring no one will care to step close enough to see the fine details.
And if your not making your current setup hanging by the nails working overtime to keep up with difficult conditions over and over again just cutting the mustard
youre probably not using it to its full potential and its not that smaller sensor thats the weak link.

Actually I find it odd that so few admits to choosing a camera just because of the wauw and cool factor. No, we need to rationalize and chooce the best Tool for the job. I say sc... it, my cameras are toys. I like to make pictures but I want it to be fun and I want to like playing around with my image making toys. If you find a D850 or Eos R or whatever to be the most cool camera in the world and cant sleep untill you get one thats about the only reason you need to go buy one

While the larger sensor can make the difference for some in some situations mostly its down to the photograpers skills to make great and interesting photographs and when we see those images only a minority cares about or will even notice if its one or the other sensor size.

TBH full frame is probably more forgiving than smaller formats.

Lack of detail? Old FX lenses are cheaper than new DX lenses, and the smaller degree of image enlargement means a given lens appears sharper in FX.

Poor composition? The optical viewfinder in FX is larger and brighter than for crop (not EVF, that's quite different) and will make it easier to compose a picture than when peering into a small, dim opening (have you ever tried, say, a D5500 with 18-140? It's like looking into a beer bottle except in the brightest conditions - indoors it's horrible).

Learning to process? FX raw files suffer halos and artifacts less easily than images on smaller formats IME.

I'd argue that the smaller formats require more skill to create decent images: less tolerant of poor exposure, less margin to crop for better composition, more finicky about using the right aperture (stop down too far and your image is soft from diffraction) etc. Is a camera a toy? Well, it can be, and if that's why you bought Fuji then fine. I suggest that if most noobs started with FX than crop formats then they'd probably have a higher success rate and find their pictures more pleasing than trying to work with the more difficult too.

I've changed my mind - FX is the easier format to work with, and should be the starting point, rather than the aspiration for a user.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

But amazingly a lot of people are getting amazing images from apsc cameras BTW small and dim viewfinders are nothing new and exclusive to apsc.

 

[chris malcolm]

But amazingly a lot of people are getting amazing images from apsc cameras BTW small and dim viewfinders are nothing new and exclusive to apsc.

Nor does being an APSC crop sensor camera mean you can't have the kind of big clear viewfinder often cited as an advantage of full frame DSLRs. You can have that (plus a lot of other advantages) if your crop sensor camera has an EVF. It doesn't even have to be a mirrorless camera to have an EVF either.

 

[swanseamale47]

I've use both a lot and to be honest I'm not seeing much difference other than weight. Both can produce great pics, both can produce rubbish.
Full frame used to generally be better in low light but even that advantage is getting less as cameras get better.
The real question is do you spend £400 on a body or £4000,.. or spend the difference on better glass....

 

[ancient_mariner]

The real question is do you spend £400 on a body or £4000,.. or spend the difference on better glass....

Used D600s going around £400 now, D750 around £650ish. For equivalent sensor performance in crop how much is a used D500?

But amazingly a lot of people are getting amazing images from apsc cameras BTW small and dim viewfinders are nothing new and exclusive to apsc.

Absolutely, and amazing images also from M43.

I've recently posted some pictures on flickr that I took using a Fuji HS30 bridge camera that has the pitifully small compact 1/2.3" sensor and have as many likes and views as images I took with my D610. Are they wrong or is it still possible to take OK pictures with camera that many here would scorn? Should I simply stop using FX because I'm not worthy and wait until you've accredited me as suitable to own one?

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Yes