Cropped versus Full Frame sensor

DrGed

DrGed

Messages
843
Name
Ged
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry if this is in the wrong part of the Forum)

I got back into photography a few years ago and use my son's Canon 1000D which, as everyone will know, is an entry level DSLR camera with a cropped sensor.
I have always assumed, since the 1000D is an entry level and not particularly expensive DSLR, that a cropped sensor was "inferior" to one that is full frame.

However, a few weeks ago I was talking to someone who has worked in a reputable camera shop for quite a few years and he told me that this was not actaulally the case.
I was surpised at this and when I met a professional photograper few days ago I asked him for his view on the matter. He said a full frame sensor was always preferable to one
that is cropped.

Now I am confused and wondered if any of the many knowledgeable people on here could clarify matters.

Thanks,

Ged
 
Hi Ged, it's been covered to death on this forum alone. Have a search and you can read all about it.

Basically, in a very small nutshell, FF works slightly better in low light conditions. A bigger sensor catches more light, therefore less noisy pics.

The viewfinder generally translates a more accurate picture.

Some say bokeh looks better from FF cameras.

Crop sensor are extremely capable. I use both ff and crop.
 
I went from film to APS-C Canon DSLR's and I was quite happy with them but when moving from an APS-C 20D to a FF 5D I did see an improvement... but Canon APS-C's were quite weak in those days. When looking to move from the 5D to Panasonic MFT I did a lot of side by side testing and I decided that MFT was pretty good and in most whole images the differences were pretty negligible. So I moved to mirrorless...

These days I have a FF Sony A7 and newer Panasonic MFT cameras than the ones that persuaded me to go mirrorless and the situation is pretty similar. I'd say that the differences are there if you go looking for them but mostly MFT is easily good enough for a whole image and if MFT is good enough then APS-C will be too but maybe crucial things are how and what you take pictures of and how you view. If you use very high ISO's, print BIG and view closely or crop heavily then maybe the bigger format gear will show a lead but if you shoot at more forgiving ISO's like 100-6400 and crop reasonably, view on screen or up to maybe something short of or to A3 and view normally and can resist the urge to pixel peep then maybe you wont see much significant difference between APS-C and FF.
 
Many Thanks!

As soon as I clicked the "Create Thread" button I remembered I should've searched for a similar discussion. Sorry!
 
GreenNinja67 said:
A larger sensor captures more information, end of.

It's physics
Click to expand...
It is physics. But it's not as simple as that.

The reason full frame sensors are (usually) better is because they (usually) have bigger pixels. It's the bigger pixels which are good.

For example, my Canon 5D Mk IV has 30 megapixels on a full frame sensor which measures 36x24 mm; each pixel is 5.36µm across (1µm = 0.001mm). By comparison my Canon 80D has 24 megapixels on a crop sensor which measures 22.3 x 14.9mm; each pixel is 3.72µm across. If you compare the area of each pixel, because it's the area that determines its light-gathering capability, the 5D IV pixels are slightly more than twice as large as the 80D pixels.

Each 5D IV pixel is twice as big as each 80D pixel. So it contains twice as much silicon, and it can absorb twice as many photons. This has two immediately beneficial effects:
  1. The 5D IV pixels can absorb twice as many photons before they max out, so there are twice as many levels of brightness which can be distinguished between zero photons and the maximum number of photons. In effect, this means the 5D IV sensor has one extra stop of dynamic range.
  2. If you consider the minimum number of photons required to be absorbed by a pixel in order to register, in the 5D IV those photons are spread out over twice the area, so the intensity of the light is only half as great. This means the 5D IV can work better in low light, and it has a one stop advantage in high-ISO sensitivity.
(It's not exactly one stop in each case, because the design of the electronics has an impact. But this explanation is correct to a first order.)

HOWEVER - Note that I said "(usually)" back there at the start? There are two important considerations to bear in mind.

Firstly, it's not always the case that full frame sensors have larger pixels. For example the 50 megapixel full frame Canon 5DS has pixels which are 4.13µm across; and the 18 megapixel crop sensor Canon 1300D has pixels which are 4.29µm across. So you wouldn't necessarily expect the 5DS sensor to outperform the 1300D sensor if they are built using similar technology.

Secondly, sensors have improved dramatically over the years, and it's possible that a state-of-the-art crop sensor might outperform an old technology full frame sensor. It's important to compare like with like.
 
StewartR said:
It is physics. But it's not as simple as that.

The reason full frame sensors are (usually) better is because they (usually) have bigger pixels. It's the bigger pixels which are good.

For example, my Canon 5D Mk IV has 30 megapixels on a full frame sensor which measures 36x24 mm; each pixel is 5.36µm across (1µm = 0.001mm). By comparison my Canon 80D has 24 megapixels on a crop sensor which measures 22.3 x 14.9mm; each pixel is 3.72µm across. If you compare the area of each pixel, because it's the area that determines its light-gathering capability, the 5D IV pixels are slightly more than twice as large as the 80D pixels.

Each 5D IV pixel is twice as big as each 80D pixel. So it contains twice as much silicon, and it can absorb twice as many photons. This has two immediately beneficial effects:
  1. The 5D IV pixels can absorb twice as many photons before they max out, so there are twice as many levels of brightness which can be distinguished between zero photons and the maximum number of photons. In effect, this means the 5D IV sensor has one extra stop of dynamic range.
  2. If you consider the minimum number of photons required to be absorbed by a pixel in order to register, in the 5D IV those photons are spread out over twice the area, so the intensity of the light is only half as great. This means the 5D IV can work better in low light, and it has a one stop advantage in high-ISO sensitivity.
(It's not exactly one stop in each case, because the design of the electronics has an impact. But this explanation is correct to a first order.)

HOWEVER - Note that I said "(usually)" back there at the start? There are two important considerations to bear in mind.

Firstly, it's not always the case that full frame sensors have larger pixels. For example the 50 megapixel full frame Canon 5DS has pixels which are 4.13µm across; and the 18 megapixel crop sensor Canon 1300D has pixels which are 4.29µm across. So you wouldn't necessarily expect the 5DS sensor to outperform the 1300D sensor if they are built using similar technology.

Secondly, sensors have improved dramatically over the years, and it's possible that a state-of-the-art crop sensor might outperform an old technology full frame sensor. It's important to compare like with like.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense :)
 
If you forget that cameras only exist to take pictures. you can believe that it is all about sensor size.

In the days of film no one was confused by the relative benefits of 35mm, medium and large format... they chose the right horse for the right course.

Today we have pretty much four basic formats... sub crop cameras with very small sensors for pocket sized cameras.
Crop cameras, generally APS or 4/3 sized sensors suitable for a wide range of subjects. and relatively compact.
Full frame cameras with 35mm sensors that generally, but not always, are lower noise at a given ISO, and are suitable for a wide range of specialist uses.
Finally Medium format that is often only a little larger than 35mm and usually aimed at specialist photographers who need their particular qualities.

All except the medium format are provided for various ability levels from entry to professional.

Fuji for instance provide their Xtrans sensors only in their Crop sensor cameras, Their cameras in this range tend to use all the same sensor and processor for the same generation of cameras, but differ in construction and features. for differing price levels. They all produce the same quality images, and use the same lens range.

Many photographers have come to prefer the smaller form factor of crop sensor and for the work they do find no advantage moving to FF cameras.
Usually a viewer finds it impossible to discern which image was taken on what format camera.
It is only the photographer himself that can open the original file and pixel peep at 100%, who would probably be able to discern the difference between images taken on two formats with the same lens.

Both Nikon and Canon fit their top features to the range of professional cameras with full frame sensors. So if you want those top features you have to settle for Full Frame
Fuji on the other hand, Fit their Xtrans crop sensors to their top featured cameras. But also offer a medium format Bayer filtered camera, for those that need the ultimate in detail and resolution
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
Both Nikon and Canon fit their top features to the range of professional cameras with full frame sensors. So if you want those top features you have to settle for Full Frame
Click to expand...

Not quite, both the Nikon D500 and Canon 7D Mk2 are top end professional cameras with crop sensors.
 
StewartR said:
It is physics. But it's not as simple as that.

The reason full frame sensors are (usually) better is because they (usually) have bigger pixels. It's the bigger pixels which are good. <snip>
Click to expand...

It's not bigger pixels, it's simply the larger total light gathering area of bigger sensors. They collect more total light, simple as really, and that's what drives lower noise and higher ISO performance, wider dynamic range etc. The best performing full-frame sensors today, eg Sony and Nikon, also have very small pixels and very high resolution.

Larger sensors also deliver higher sharpness, because they require less enlargement before output. Correspondingly, they demand less resolution from the lens for a given level of detail, which means that image contrast goes up (basic physics of MTF principle - as resolution goes up, so contrast goes down). Contrast is more important in our perception of sharpness than resolution. Larger formats are also less prone to diffraction softening detail as they reach the diffraction ceiling at higher f/numbers, though that's mainly a problem for really tiny sensors like smartphones.

The third factor is depth-of-field, and larger formats have shallower DoF when the subject is framed the same, from the same distance, at the same f/number. This is generally regarded as an advantage, though not always. The difference is a little over one stop difference between crop-format and full-frame, in line with the crop factor.

While larger formats are capable of higher image quality, they're not necessarily 'better' overall for everything. They need bigger, heavier and often more expensive lenses that can make them too cumbersome and costly for things like sports and wildlife. And given the very high quality available from crop-format DSLRs, they're often the favoured choice. Both Canon and Nikon basically produce different high-end DSLRs to serve different priorities, eg crop-format Canon 7D2 and full-frame 5D4, or Nikon D500 and D850. Many photographers use both formats, including me :)
 
Steve B said:
Not quite, both the Nikon D500 and Canon 7D Mk2 are top end professional cameras with crop sensors.
Click to expand...

they Both have cameras further up the ladder than that. they are professional quality but not top of their range.
 
Steve B said:
Not quite, both the Nikon D500 and Canon 7D Mk2 are top end professional cameras with crop sensors.
Click to expand...

Canon class the 7D2 as an enthusiasts camara, along with the 6D2.

1DX MkII, 5DS, 5DSR, 5D4 are their pro bodies.
 
I have never had a complaint about image quality or print quality from the XPRO 2 with Fuji glass
I used to have a 5D MK2 and haven't really missed it at all
 
DrGed said:
Sorry if this is in the wrong part of the Forum)

I got back into photography a few years ago and use my son's Canon 1000D which, as everyone will know, is an entry level DSLR camera with a cropped sensor.
I have always assumed, since the 1000D is an entry level and not particularly expensive DSLR, that a cropped sensor was "inferior" to one that is full frame.

However, a few weeks ago I was talking to someone who has worked in a reputable camera shop for quite a few years and he told me that this was not actaulally the case.
I was surpised at this and when I met a professional photograper few days ago I asked him for his view on the matter. He said a full frame sensor was always preferable to one
that is cropped.

Now I am confused and wondered if any of the many knowledgeable people on here could clarify matters.

Thanks,

Ged
Click to expand...
The answer is that it depends. If you're talking outright image quality, dynamic range, noise handling then yes a FF sensor should perform better than it's crop sensor counterpart. BUT sensor size is not the only determining factor. For example, Nikon's crop sensor D500 has significantly more dynamic range than Canon's full frame 6D mark II, and even Nikon's own flagship D5, when comparing DR at base ISO. However, go over 1000 ISO and the D5's DR is better than the D500, although the poor old Canon never actually outperforms the D500 until we go above 51200 ISO, so basically it never beats the D500. It's very complicated as to how you get your final results once the light has hit the sensor. There's a lot of fancy electronics and processing, and I"m sure a bit of voodoo magic ;)

Another point to consider is, using the same example again, the D500 doesn't have an aa filter so can yield sharper results than some similar aged FF cameras that do have aa filters, even though the crop image has to be enlarged more.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not always as clear cut as you may think, which is why there's so many varying opinions and discussions. In theory, if everything is like for like a FF sensor should be better but unfortunately it's not as straight forward as this.
 
The main reason for the price difference is because the failure rate in producing the larger sensors is higher. On the same size board, you could cut out 6 FF sensors from this board but 9 crop sensors. Say there are 3 errors in the board that makes 50% of the FF cutouts throw away but only 33% for crop.
 
Gaz J said:
Canon class the 7D2 as an enthusiasts camara, along with the 6D2.

1DX MkII, 5DS, 5DSR, 5D4 are their pro bodies.
Click to expand...
The 7DII body is included as a professional body for CPS and is Canon's top spec crop camera. Fully capable of producing professional quality images.
 
I don't think either is "inferior" - they both have pros and cons. Many people who shoot FF don't need it's advantages. I didn't, I shot with APSC cameras for years, then went full frame ... wasn't exactly blown away - just found myself wanting more and more fancier lenses to feed it :D went back to APSC last year and the transition couldn't have been smoother. I have never missed the extra res/bokeh/FOV .... images are either pleasing to me ... or not! Even though I do tend to check exif data on other people's images, it is always to see their settings, couldn't care less what camera or sensor they used.
 
My advice, move on and just enjoy your photography, each has their own advantages, and unless you are making big prints or you are a pro it won't matter, most of us just view them on a monitor anyway.
 
Last edited:
Since using FF over MFT, Ive notice a considerable improvement in image quality
 
GeeJay57 said:
The 7DII body is included as a professional body for CPS and is Canon's top spec crop camera. Fully capable of producing professional quality images.
Click to expand...
The 300d is capable of producing 'professional quality images'
It's not anyone's idea of a pro camera, or top of the range though.
 
GeeJay57 said:
The 7DII body is included as a professional body for CPS and is Canon's top spec crop camera. Fully capable of producing professional quality images.
Click to expand...

Canon don't advertise it as a pro body and it only qualifies for silver membership whereas the others are gold or platinum qualifying.

You dont have to be a professional to get CPS membership
 
Last edited:
GeeJay57 said:
The 7DII body is included as a professional body for CPS and is Canon's top spec crop camera. Fully capable of producing professional quality images.
Click to expand...

The difference between a professional body and a cheaper non-professional body with the same image sensor is not image quality. They can produce exactly the same image quality. What the professional camera has is better reliability, robustness, better ergonomics, better weather protection, and features which allow it to capture images in more demanding environments, such as better AF tracking modes, bigger image stack, etc..
 
StewartR said:
It is physics. But it's not as simple as that.

The reason full frame sensors are (usually) better is because they (usually) have bigger pixels. It's the bigger pixels which are good.

For example, my Canon 5D Mk IV has 30 megapixels on a full frame sensor which measures 36x24 mm; each pixel is 5.36µm across (1µm = 0.001mm). By comparison my Canon 80D has 24 megapixels on a crop sensor which measures 22.3 x 14.9mm; each pixel is 3.72µm across. If you compare the area of each pixel, because it's the area that determines its light-gathering capability, the 5D IV pixels are slightly more than twice as large as the 80D pixels.

Each 5D IV pixel is twice as big as each 80D pixel. So it contains twice as much silicon, and it can absorb twice as many photons. This has two immediately beneficial effects:
  1. The 5D IV pixels can absorb twice as many photons before they max out, so there are twice as many levels of brightness which can be distinguished between zero photons and the maximum number of photons. In effect, this means the 5D IV sensor has one extra stop of dynamic range.
  2. If you consider the minimum number of photons required to be absorbed by a pixel in order to register, in the 5D IV those photons are spread out over twice the area, so the intensity of the light is only half as great. This means the 5D IV can work better in low light, and it has a one stop advantage in high-ISO sensitivity.
(It's not exactly one stop in each case, because the design of the electronics has an impact. But this explanation is correct to a first order.)

HOWEVER - Note that I said "(usually)" back there at the start? There are two important considerations to bear in mind.

Firstly, it's not always the case that full frame sensors have larger pixels. For example the 50 megapixel full frame Canon 5DS has pixels which are 4.13µm across; and the 18 megapixel crop sensor Canon 1300D has pixels which are 4.29µm across. So you wouldn't necessarily expect the 5DS sensor to outperform the 1300D sensor if they are built using similar technology.

Secondly, sensors have improved dramatically over the years, and it's possible that a state-of-the-art crop sensor might outperform an old technology full frame sensor. It's important to compare like with like.
Click to expand...

Generally agree but when does "usually " not apply? If Canon were to bring out a 70 megapixel camera why would anybody buy it if the pixels were too small? I still like my 5Di which some say is due to pixel size.

Perhaps it is the quality of the pixels.
 
Cameras intended for sports photographer usually have lower pixel counts but larger ones to take advantage of the superior photon capture.
However such a camera is a compromise, as it will not capture great detail nor great sharpness.
Othe cameras compromise to give great sharpness and detail by mega pixel counts and densities.
Again horses for courses..
In days past you could use the same camera but change the film type and processing.
 
chris malcolm said:
The difference between a professional body and a cheaper non-professional body with the same image sensor is not image quality. They can produce exactly the same image quality. What the professional camera has is better reliability, robustness, better ergonomics, better weather protection, and features which allow it to capture images in more demanding environments, such as better AF tracking modes, bigger image stack, etc..
Click to expand...
Features such as: magnesium chassis, full weather sealing, dual memory cards, dual Digic processors, excellent highly customisable focusing system, 65 cross-type focus points, 100% viewfinder, 31 RAW buffer and virtually infinite jpeg buffer at 10 fps, 200,000 shutter life.. perhaps?

Threads like this always bring out the cork sniffer in us, don't they.... ;)
 
Thanks Terry,

So if we compare a 50 megapixel ff sensor against a 12 megapixel ff sensor, the latter has larger pixels I assume but if larger pixels are preferable does this mean the 12 megapixel is better?
 
Pixels can't be the only thing that matter as the way the chips are designed has moved on as has the whole process. It's all the other stuff that has lead to modern teeny tiny pixels in modern cameras beating the image quality we got from bigger pixels in old cameras years ago.
 
Archie747 said:
Thanks Terry,

So if we compare a 50 megapixel ff sensor against a 12 megapixel ff sensor, the latter has larger pixels I assume but if larger pixels are preferable does this mean the 12 megapixel is better?
Click to expand...
Difficult to compare apples with apples though as sensor and pixel technology moves along. So maybe the more advanced 50MP is better than the caveman 12MP...
 
woof woof said:
Pixels can't be the only thing that matter as the way the chips are designed has moved on as has the whole process. It's all the other stuff that has lead to modern teeny tiny pixels in modern cameras beating the image quality we got from bigger pixels in old cameras years ago.
Click to expand...

GeeJay57 said:
Difficult to compare apples with apples though as sensor and pixel technology moves along. So maybe the more advanced 50MP is better than the caveman 12MP...
Click to expand...

Thanks guys. My post was a bit tongue in cheek, I'm not sure any of us understand the difference between sensors.

Personally I struggle to see the difference between old and new sensors in decent conditions.
 
Archie747 said:
Thanks Terry,

So if we compare a 50 megapixel ff sensor against a 12 megapixel ff sensor, the latter has larger pixels I assume but if larger pixels are preferable does this mean the 12 megapixel is better?
Click to expand...

No. Perhaps some years ago the general rule was that a sensor with more, smaller pixels would have worse low light and high ISO performance than a same size sensor with fewer, larger pixels, but that's not the case today. Previously, more pixels meant more clutter that got in the way of light-gathering, but now with back-illuminated sensors (that put all the clutter behind) and gapless microlenses, not to mention improved electronics, that's simply not the case. As I mentioned above, the best sensors from Sony and Nikon also have very high pixels counts, and full-frame sensors perform better than crop-format. Total sensor area is the key difference.

Sports cameras often have lower resolution because the image processing engine limits the sheer amount of data that can be processed and buffered when running at full speed.
 
Last edited:
Inadvertently, I seemed to have sparked quite a discussion! However, I have got a far better understanding of the subject I asked about.

Thanks for all the replies.

Perhaps, with hindsight, I should've known that there was rather more to it than a simple yes/no type of answer.
 
For me it's the difference of how lenses look on each sensor that sets them apart. To me a 23mm f1.4 on crop never looks as nice as a 35mm on FF, the same for a 35mm f1.4 on crop vs a 50nn f1.4 on FF. That's the big difference for me and why I still have crop and FF setups. Although I do have intentions to only keep one setup but can never decide which!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top