Crop vs Full Frame for Landscapes

Messages
820
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
No
#41
Thanks for all of the discussion on this one everybody.

Another good question, that myself and a friend have been talking through the last couple of days is if you had to choose between; Ease of use of the camera in it's ability to get shots versus it's ultimate image quality, what would matter more to you?]

As an example the new Canon 6dii has, compared to 5div, Nikon D750, Sony A7ii, and even crop sensors like Nikon D500 and Fuji XT-1 relatively poor image quality. Especially in reference to dynamic range and pushing shadows.

However, as a tool it has Canon ergonomics, menu layout and crucially a fully articulating screen with touch autofocus in live view. You simply do not know how much you need a flippy screen and touch AF until you have used it, for me it is one of the best steps forward that has gone almost unsung.

So, I guess it comes down to the importance and enjoyment of making the capture, or the enjoyment and importance of looking at RAW files at 100%.

For me the Nikon D500 gives you both excellent usability and great IQ. Just got to work round the lenses, and I think @SFTPhotography suggestion of a 14-24mm might be the answer, except I'll get the Sigma and keep the D750 in case I need wider too.
For me it would be image quality first, ease of use means how much time you spend with your camera, knowing your camera, knowing the menu, setting up shortcuts to suit your photography style is utter importance. If you are given a camera you have not used before, it would take time to understand how the camera operates. Or worse, just set it on AUTO mode and shoot lol.

To say 6D2 has relatively poor image quality is subjective, people still making great images with 5D Mk1 and the infamous 5D2 regardless the situation they are in. It is how you convey your art and present to the people who will appreciate your style of image. This is where the internet switch into keyboard warriors and things get personal, see what happen to the Canon EOS R thread.
 
Messages
20,189
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#42
Another good question, that myself and a friend have been talking through the last couple of days is if you had to choose between; Ease of use of the camera in it's ability to get shots versus it's ultimate image quality, what would matter more to you?
One deciding factor for me is silent shooting as my "FF" Sony A7 doesn't have it but my MFT cameras do so in some situations such as social shooting I'll happily pick up my MFT and silent shooting cameras over any image quality advantage my A7 and its louder shutter have.

And on the original question, years ago when I had Canon APS-C 20D, FF 5D and Panasonic MFT I did a lot of comparisons and roped in anyone I could to look at example shots on screen and in print and my conclusions were...

1. No one else could tell or cared what camera took what shot.
2. Home printing is expensive.

Those are old cameras by todays standards but I'd expect the results to be the same if I repeated the process with more modern cameras.

I like FF files when pixel peeping and no matter how good the photographer any additional dynamic range offered by FF might make a difference in some shots when you want to preserve the highlights and raise the shadows but again it's surprising what normal non geek people don't spot in pictures even when it's pointed out to them.
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,588
Name
Lewis
Edit My Images
Yes
#43
I've sacrificed image quality by going from FF DSLR to APS-C mirrorless on the basis that it is easier to use and take with me. The photos may not be quite as good, but I am taking more because I am taking the camera to more places with me.
 
Messages
1,082
Edit My Images
No
#44
I've sacrificed image quality by going from FF DSLR to APS-C mirrorless on the basis that it is easier to use and take with me. The photos may not be quite as good, but I am taking more because I am taking the camera to more places with me.
I have a Nikon D850 and a Fuji X-T3. I bought the X-T3 with the intention of using it more for landscape as it is as you say easier to take with you.

However, after spending the last week in North Wales with both systems I found that I used the D850 90% of the time no matter what the hike was as the X-T3 is just not as good.

I'd find myself thinking that the X-T3 would be easier to carry but in the end going with the D850 as I just did not want to sacrifice image quality.

If I had to choose between FF and Crop I would 100% go with FF in fact I'm considering selling the Fuji Kit now as it's basically going to be a holiday camera.
 
Messages
1,323
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
#45
To say 6D2 has relatively poor image quality is subjective, people still making great images with 5D Mk1 and the infamous 5D2 regardless the situation they are in.
The point is not so much if the image quality is good, but that other cameras offer the opportunity to be 'better'.

To use a car analogy, most people would consider something like a Ford Focus RS to be a 'fast' car - indeed, it's frankly more than fast enough for public roads, but put it on a track, and line it up against an F1 car, and 'fast' takes on a different meaning!

And that, in may ways, is where we are with current cameras - you need to choose the model that fits you needs (or, for the amateur, more probably wants).

All will take 'good' pictures in the right hands, but some will be better in certain situations than others.
 
Messages
5,964
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#46
I have a Nikon D850 and a Fuji X-T3. I bought the X-T3 with the intention of using it more for landscape as it is as you say easier to take with you.

However, after spending the last week in North Wales with both systems I found that I used the D850 90% of the time no matter what the hike was as the X-T3 is just not as good.

I'd find myself thinking that the X-T3 would be easier to carry but in the end going with the D850 as I just did not want to sacrifice image quality.

If I had to choose between FF and Crop I would 100% go with FF in fact I'm considering selling the Fuji Kit now as it's basically going to be a holiday camera.
You infer that you can see a difference in quality of the images taken by the two cameras. However what was it that made you choose the D850 90% of the time in North wales. It could not have been the quality of the images that you took, as you had no way of seeing the difference whilst you were taking them, or at a size that could show any differences.

In reality people who see your pictures are unlikely to be able to tell which camera took which shot. This has been proved time and again in tests between cameras and observers.
At 100% there will be a difference, if only because of the number of pixels and/or their size. Though depending on the ISO used and the light, this difference can be extremely hard to detect.

If you are truly interested in obtaining in the ultimate quality you could hardly settle for less than medium format, the 100 megapixel Fuji GX100 would perhaps serve. Though at normal sizes you would still be unable to tell the difference.

In the case of landscapes. the more impressionistic and artistic interpretations certainly do not rely on sharpness and detail for their universal appeal. the present trend of extreme detail is only a passing preference.
The fantastic detail given by daguerreotypes was never able to compete with the touchy feely impressions of the calotype. or the paintings of Turner.
 
Messages
820
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
No
#47
The point is not so much if the image quality is good, but that other cameras offer the opportunity to be 'better'.

To use a car analogy, most people would consider something like a Ford Focus RS to be a 'fast' car - indeed, it's frankly more than fast enough for public roads, but put it on a track, and line it up against an F1 car, and 'fast' takes on a different meaning!

And that, in may ways, is where we are with current cameras - you need to choose the model that fits you needs (or, for the amateur, more probably wants).

All will take 'good' pictures in the right hands, but some will be better in certain situations than others.
I agree newer camera is better technologically, but the end result may not be much of a difference.
 
Messages
5,964
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#50
35mm Film cameras were fine for A4 print...

My benchmark is a detailed A2 as a minimum.... A1++ is preferable.
If a camera can producd an excellent a4 print when viewed in the hand then it will also produce any larger size print viewed at the appropriate viewing distance.
 
Messages
140
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
#52
D3400 is scored almost as well on dynamic range as a D750 by dxomark and weighs a pound. Not sure if that means the entry level APSC is almost as good for landscapes as full frame.
 
Messages
67
Edit My Images
Yes
#55
I think these day modern sensors are of such good quality that unless your are pushing the extremes your image is always going to be good enough for most uses. I have been using the A99 for some time and its a lovely camera. I also have the A6300 and while ergonomically it might not be as good, I still point it at a scene set my ISO, WB , aperture and shutter speed press the button and get a picture !. I went on a holiday with my wife recently she likes photography so doesnt mind if we centre it a bit more around photography. Anyway there I was lugging round my A99, tripod filters 3 lenses etc etc she had her A6000 lol. What I realised at the end of the week was yes I got some nice images but I also hadn't just enjoyed immersing myself in the holiday, enjoying the company. So my A99 is up for sale the lighter weight, smaller body and lenses of a cros sensor mirrorless will now become my go to camera. With good glass I can get very respectable images that im more than happy with which dont end up to some degree being a burden. Now my story wont ring true with everyone but I think the time has to come where most of us can stop obsessing about minute differences in IQ and just enjoy taking your pictures and remember while you at the place to enjoy your surroundings and the company as well.
 
Messages
17,105
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
#56
I enjoy shooting alone. Company is not for me but IQ, edge to edge sharpness, dynamic range and colour rendition are. I admit to wanting the best equipment that I can afford and to use it to the best of my ability in the most exciting places I can conjure up in awesome light.

Company would totally ruin a trip away for me. The best experiences I’ve had travelling have been by myself.
 
Messages
5,656
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
#57
I enjoy shooting alone. Company is not for me but IQ, edge to edge sharpness, dynamic range and colour rendition are. I admit to wanting the best equipment that I can afford and to use it to the best of my ability in the most exciting places I can conjure up in awesome light.

Company would totally ruin a trip away for me. The best experiences I’ve had travelling have been by myself.
Totally agree with this mentality. I have a pair of X-T2's, but if I were to consider something "better" for landscapes, the only 2 bodies I would consider right now are either the D850, or a GFX. I have an excellent APS-C body(s), if I want to improve the quality, I want the best I can get. Not going to happen any time soon though.....
 
Messages
162
Name
Eve
Edit My Images
Yes
#58
I've sacrificed image quality by going from FF DSLR to APS-C mirrorless on the basis that it is easier to use and take with me. The photos may not be quite as good, but I am taking more because I am taking the camera to more places with me.
Which APS-C mirrorless camera you got at the moment?
 
Top