Crystal clear landscapes on crop bodies?

C

c-m

Messages
140
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been looking at landscapes/cityscapes recently, and it seems all the images taken on full frame bodies, are pin sharp, and crystal clear with great detail.

Anyone seen any super sharp crystal clear city/landscapes taken on crop bodies? Just interested in browsing few a few. I know the bodies are perfectly capable, I just haven't seen many great examples.
 
For web sized images, at the lower ISO values, they should be all very much like taht (dependant on the dynamic range of the scene), and even for some P&S cameras.
For viewing very large prints you may see noticable differences.

I can post a couple of examples if you like.

(I shoot with full frame, crop and P&S cameras)
 
Last edited:
Here is a shot taken by Hazza on a trip to Barcelona.



Here's a shot I took in Barcelona. You need to click on it as the forum seems to scale it very badly effecting sharpness.

View attachment 9300


Now you can't compare these since mine is taken a 6mp sensor so obviously isn't going to have the detail of Hazza's, but the difference in clarity is similar to what I'm seeing a lot of the times in FX v DX images.

For example it's quite easy to tell the difference between the two sensor sizes even if you take say a Nikon D7000 v old Cannon 5d.
 
Last edited:
Sensor size itself shouldn't affect sharpness of landscape photos, maybe you've been lucky/unlucky with your sample selection?
It may be true that photographers who go the extra mile to buy/use/carry full-frame 35mm systems will take greater care to get a sharp lens than the average crop-sensor consumer ...

How are you viewing them and what resolution are you 'collecting' them at?

The second photo on your example is not sharp to the extent of being terrible, but is that relevant to the question?
 
How was you shot processed?
Have you sharpened it?
With more contrast and some sharpening it could be much better.
Weather conditions play a key part

Is this any good



 
Last edited:
@alfbranch The shop i posted was just an example of how many cityscenes and detailed landscapes appear to me when browsing through Flickr and the like. I didn't post it to compare that shot itself.

That second one you posted of Warsaw looks lovely and clear.

Steelo does have some great shots. Looks like Wales. haha. In terms of depth and clarity his 6D shots stand out more than the 450D. Of course given the price difference I'm sure he was expecting that.

As @Ulfric M Douglas said, a lot of it probably comes down to people with full frame cameras investing in better class than people with consumer or prosumer cameras. Added to the fact that generally (though not necessarily) people go full frame once they've gained more experience.
 
The shots I posted were taken on what you could call a half frame camera it is 4/3 and has an agressive AA filter.
 
Cheers @nickjohnwatson

I pushed my wee 450d as far and as hard as I could before the upgrade. Even then, it was only the high ISO capability that let it down. Using the Siggy 10-20 pretty much all the time, the wee thing done me proud to get me to where I am now. Of course the 6d is going to be leaps and bounds ahead, but I couldn't fault the 450d at all for my first 2 years into this game, and it stood me in good stead.
 
Hazy daytime conditions are not ideal for crystal clear landscapes, regardless of camera. Early sunny morning is probably what you want, and afternoons can be good too.

The usual caveats of lens choice and sensible settings still apply.

Both are on FF, just different times of day





the difference was a few hours

c-m said:
Here is a shot taken by Hazza on a trip to Barcelona.



Here's a shot I took in Barcelona. You need to click on it as the forum seems to scale it very badly effecting sharpness.

View attachment 9300


Now you can't compare these since mine is taken a 6mp sensor so obviously isn't going to have the detail of Hazza's, but the difference in clarity is similar to what I'm seeing a lot of the times in FX v DX images.

For example it's quite easy to tell the difference between the two sensor sizes even if you take say a Nikon D7000 v old Cannon 5d.
Click to expand...
 
Not sure if this counts as crystal clear but here's one I took ofLuskentyre this week on a crop body.....

13827779864_91f72f61b8_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I do think a lot of landscapes taken with any camera suffer from camera shake. You can often tell when people have used a tripod and/or been able to exposure with a higher shutter speed.
 
Basically ask any pro landscape photographer and they will tell you use manual focus, tripod, mirror lock up, remote trigger....youll be on your way to getting sharp images
 
milster said:
Basically ask any pro landscape photographer and they will tell you use manual focus, tripod, mirror lock up, remote trigger....youll be on your way to getting sharp images
Click to expand...

also use live view and zoom right in to check your focus before taking the shot.
 
Is there actually any technical argument as to why landscapes come out better on full frame vs. crop bodies, or is that people with FF equipment are likely to spend more on better quality lenses etc?
 
David_G_ said:
also use live view and zoom right in to check your focus before taking the shot.
Click to expand...

It's near impossible to focus in live view for landscape shots using an UWA as the focus square (which is many times larger than a focus point) covers too much of the scene and doesn't change in size when zoomed in. At least on the D5100 anyway.

Here's my latest landscape taken hand held. It was a very hazy day up in the mountains, but at 12mm a CPL was out of the question.

DSC_5300 by Mikedefieslife, on Flickr
 
As low an ISO as you can with a tripod and if your lens has the anti wobble turn that off.
forget handheld for absolute crispness.

Also nice small apature for a nice big depth of field and a nice longish shutter
 
Smiffy01 said:
Is there actually any technical argument as to why landscapes come out better on full frame vs. crop bodies, or is that people with FF equipment are likely to spend more on better quality lenses etc?
Click to expand...

They don't. They certainly CAN but then the reverse is also true.

Joe Cornish, with a 5MP camera phone will almost certainly take a better landscape shot than I will if I use his large format camera. That's because he's a better photographer with better composition and technical skills than I have.

However, simple stats are also at work if we're just looking at random photos: the proportion of full frame (or medium format+) photos which are taken by "good" photographers should be higher than similar stats for crop or P&S sensor sizes. Because the average owner of a MF camera is probably a pro. Certainly not true for APS-C or P&S.

Simply, if you do a google images search of "large format landscape" you see more great photos than if you do another search for "camera phone landscape".

Yes, the LF shot will allow higher resolution and smaller apertures before diffraction kicks in, but the main driver of photographic quality is the photographer themselves.

IMO, of course. It's important to distinguish between causality and correlation - there is a correlation between sensor size and "quality" of picture taken (or appeal) but that DOES NOT mean one causes the other.
 
pjm1 said:
Yes, the LF shot will allow higher resolution and smaller apertures before diffraction kicks in, but the main driver of photographic quality is the photographer themselves.
Click to expand...

Well there you go. That is exactly what this thread is about. Sharpness and clarity. All other things being equal the full frame camera with it's larger sensor will have a higher MTF resolution. Additionally you can't get the same shot on a DX or smaller sensor. For example (moving away from wide angle) 50mm on full frame is not the same as 32mm (or whatever) on ASP-C. The field of view might be similar, but perspective will be different.
 
c-m said:
Well there you go. That is exactly what this thread is about. Sharpness and clarity. All other things being equal the full frame camera with it's larger sensor will have a higher MTF resolution. Additionally you can't get the same shot on a DX or smaller sensor. For example (moving away from wide angle) 50mm on full frame is not the same as 32mm (or whatever) on ASP-C. The field of view might be similar, but perspective will be different.
Click to expand...

You're right that you can't "manufacture" resolution when it's not there. Perceived resolution can also be affected by lens quality, diffraction etc. And ultimately it's perceived resolution which matters "all else being equal".

BUT... all things aren't equal. Different shots are taken by different people using different camera/lens combos and different settings under different conditions. There are so many variables, I'd suggest (perhaps naively) that the actual camera used is probably a fair way down the list of priorities when taking a "sharp" and "clear" image.

Will a top photographer, with top quality lenses, be able to see the difference in "quality" between a MF (or FF) shot and an APS-C shot? Yes. What about if it's posted to 500px? No. Because it's scaled, sharpened etc. What about if it's printed at 6' x 4'? Of course. It depends what it's being used for as to whether it's noticeable. If you find your images are lacking in clarity or sharpness then changing to FF might help, but there might be other reasons.

I learnt pretty quickly, however, that better quality lenses will not get me better images. Upgrading to MF will not get me better images. Both might allow for higher perceived resolution, but I'm the limiting factor, not the camera, lens or sensor size.
 
This is ridiculous... only one person has posted anything at full camera resolution. How can you POSSIBLY tell anything from these low resolution images. All cameras will produce MORE than acceptable results at these kinds of resolutions. I don't get this.. a thread where people are wanting to see the difference between crop and FF, and all the images are around 1500 pixels across. ANYTHING will produce images capable of looking stunning at these resolutions.

Only David_G has posted anything at full res, and there's no full frame equivalent to compare it with.

Both of these are 2048 pixels across, which is considered large for most web sites, and is larger than Flickr's "large" image size.

9YXXRO0.jpg


xO4OqWO.jpg


They look as sharp as each other... and why shouldn't they.... they're both 2048 pixels across.... which at 35mm aspect ratio, equals 2.7MP. In short... in terms of sharpness, a 2.7 mega pixel camera with a good lens will produce images 2048 pixels across every bit as well (all other things being equal) as a D800E's images if resized to 2.7MP.. or a Phase One medium format back... or 10x8 film.

Smiffy01 said:
Is there actually any technical argument as to why landscapes come out better on full frame vs. crop bodies, or is that people with FF equipment are likely to spend more on better quality lenses etc?
Click to expand...

Yes there is... larger sensors produce sharper images... all other things being equal. Some smaller formats have very optimised lenses to make up the shortfall, and do VERY well indeed, but if you are using the same lens (same equivalent focal lengths and similar quality) on each, the full frame camera will be sharper... even if it's lower resolution - MUCH has been written about this in the forums. Full Frame for landscape is a no brainer if you ask me... so long as you know how to get the most from it... and you print your work to large sizes..... otherwise don't bother. If you never print... it doesn't really matter, as even a 4K screen (very rare yet) is only 8MP. The 30" monitor I have here is only 4MP. Most average 1080P screens are only 2MP. It can't SHOW a 24 or 36 MP image... unless you view it at 100% and scroll around it... then you're not really looking at the photograph are you.
 
Last edited:
Smiffy01 said:
Is there actually any technical argument as to why landscapes come out better on full frame vs. crop bodies, or is that people with FF equipment are likely to spend more on better quality lenses etc?
Click to expand...


Don't forget the ability. Those that spend more money generally do because they have more experience and ability.

A lot of it is weather conditions and processing ability. You need to be able to get the most out of the photo in post to get that super crisp look. Good use of things like contrast and sharpening will make the difference between a "soft" image and one that pops. Again, those that have bought FF are more likely to be adept at not doing too much (or too little) to their photos in post.
 
Just clarify... the top image I posted was taken on a D7000 and the bottom one on a D800. At this res, they're identical, so if all you do is post online, forget about what camera you use... it makes pretty much no difference whatsoever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Well.. these are NOT post processed... straight off camera... not even any sharpening.. nada... straight JPEG conversion at max quality. I also took them myself, so I can vouch for the authenticity.

Test image..

8485481529_64b59f2530_c.jpg



100% crop from D7000 with Nikkor 35mm f1.8G @ f8. ISO100. Manual focus using zoomed in live view... tripod, and remote release.


1soNE0d.jpg



100% crop from D800 with Nikkor 50mm f1.8G @ f8. ISO100. Manual focus using zoomed in live view... tripod, and remote release.

CLICK FOR FULL SIZE 100% CROP
plxEd4Z.jpg


A D7100 would bridge the gap a bit, but essentially... FF beats crop pretty much every time.. all things being equal.


Unless you print big, it's not really anything to get excited about. If you don't print at all, it just doesn't matter.. unless you need to crop images often... then it clearly gives you an advantage.


[edit]

Oh... and just to demonstrate how crap BOTH these TOY format cameras are... here's a scan from a 5x4 transparency.

CLICK FOR FULL SIZE 100% CROP

9tPhTgM.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Just clarify... the top image I posted was taken on a D7000 and the bottom one on a D800. At this res, they're identical, so if all you do is post online, forget about what camera you use... it makes pretty much no difference whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Most images people see (on this forum at least) will be low resolution images. The fairly minimal difference seen in the examples above will make bugger all difference compared to someone's ability to take a good photo, make that pop in PP and sharpen it properly when downsizing. That and the weather to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top