FF vs Crop Sensor Bodies - with Scenarios!

[aserota]

I am trying to find out if a FF setup would hold a significant advantage over my current crop setup. I’ve done a bit of reading and want to check that my acquired knowledge below is actually correct and not in fact opinion.

Canon 5D Mark I (example of FF Body)
Canon 40D (example of 1.6x Crop Body)


Scenario 1 – Football

So I am at a football match with 2 identical lenses and TC’s on each of the bodies above. I am using a 200mm f2.8L with a Canon 1.4x Teleconverter on both Camera bodies. On the crop sensor body, this would give me an effective focal length of 448mm whereas the actual focal length on the FF sensor body would be 280mm.

So if I was aiming to take shots without wanting to crop the images later on the crop sensor body I would be better off using the crop sensor camera. This would be due to the fact that if I was to crop the image taken on the FF body post production (PP), then I would effectively be losing more pixels then I would take in the first place with an uncropped image from a crop sensor body (sorry I don’t know the correct way of calculating the reduction in pixels from PP with the two image sizes off hand).

So in review the crop sensory body would be a better option if I wanted to use a 400mm lens and not want to crop the image later in PP. DOF if I’m correct will appear shallower in the FF image, however the loss of image quality due to the PP crop would not make it a necessity to go with the FF body.


Scenario 2 – Super Wide Angle Landscapes

I want to take a picture of a beach scene during sunrise with a focal length of 18mm on a full frame body. For this example I use a Canon 17-40mm f4L at 18mm on the FF body and a Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 on the crop sensor body, set to 11mm (giving an effective focal length of 17.6mm). This should give the exact same framing and I will not be cropping this image in PP.

I believe that the FF body would be the better option in this scenario, due to the greater amount of information a larger sensor can absorb. I can’t see any advantage of the crop sensor in this scenario in any way.


Scenario 3 – Home Portraits and Urban Shooting

This is a more general use with a ‘walkabout’ lens. Taking photos at family parties; indoors and out and also when walking around cities and for local park visits. The FF lens of choice would be a Canon 24-70mm f2.8 Mark II and on the crop sensor a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8; which would give an effective focal length of 27-80mm).

From my understanding the FF would have a slight advantage in terms of image quality and DOF, but the crop will have a little more reach due but intern be a little less useful for very wide shots. As cropping would only be slight in PP for images where the lens may not quite have enough reach; a reduction in image quality would not be that relevant at all.

The conclusion here is that the FF body would again edge the crop sensor body, but the main advantage of the crop sensor would be the huge difference of the cost of the lens; circa £180 for the Tamron, rather than £800 for the Canon glass.



So for my personal use, which is constantly varying as I’m not a professional photography with one regular field of photography; either will do. The crop sensor body setup would be a lot less to purchase, as there are quite a number of excellent quality EF-S alternatives to Canon L glass. However, if I started using the camera for a certain type of photography then it would make more sense to choose one or the other as there are clear benefits of either setup depending on the shot I was after. Please note I have not looked at lenses like the Canon 300mm and 400mm f2.8 L’s as these are not even close to my budget range (rough £1000 limit for a new or used lens if very special).

Would love to hear you thoughts on my thoughts above (I could have got it all wrong!).

 

[Joeturner11]

I would get the 5D As it offers better DOF to the Football Players, Portrait images and is wider FF so better for landscape, But you may also want to look at a Canon 1D Mark II N They are good cameras in that price range also and offer a fast 8fps ( I think ) and have a 1.3x Crop so in the middle of the 2 and they do have good ISO performance

 

[Nod]

Only half in jest...

D800! Enough pixels available to allow cropping to at least (or should that be at most?) 1.6x crop factor. Very good high ISO performance and FF to give ultrawide angles. Not likely to be available at your budget for a few years though.

IMO it's easier to crop into an FF image to get the crop factor than it is to stitch 2 (or more) crop images together to get the same AoV as an FF.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Have had both of the cameras you mention plus a 7D with a reasonable collection of EF and EF-S lenses including the 10-22 and 17-40

If I said that I still have the 5D perhaps that gives you a clue on what my advice would be

I mainly use a 70-200 with a 1.4x TC plus a 24-105 and the aforementioned 17-40 along with others less frequently, recently bought a 5D MKII which gives the necessary pixels to crop if required

To my eye the full frame gives a more pleasing end result which justifies my decision to use the equipment I do

One other factor to consider is any primes you may use e.g a 24mm for landscapes would give a true field of view for the focal length rather than the approx 36mm using the multiplying factor. This focal length in my opinion is about right for what I want and an equivalent prime might not be available for use on a crop body.

The reasoning in your post is generally sound, but I feel you need to see the results of both systems because that is the real determining factor.

Photography is all about the visual effect and cannot be judged by use of the written word so unfortunately its still your final decision regardless of the advice tendered here

 

[HoppyUK]

I am trying to find out if a FF setup would hold a significant advantage over my current crop setup. I’ve done a bit of reading and want to check that my acquired knowledge below is actually correct and not in fact opinion.

Canon 5D Mark I (example of FF Body)
Canon 40D (example of 1.6x Crop Body)


Scenario 1 – Football

So I am at a football match with 2 identical lenses and TC’s on each of the bodies above. I am using a 200mm f2.8L with a Canon 1.4x Teleconverter on both Camera bodies. On the crop sensor body, this would give me an effective focal length of 448mm whereas the actual focal length on the FF sensor body would be 280mm.

So if I was aiming to take shots without wanting to crop the images later on the crop sensor body I would be better off using the crop sensor camera. This would be due to the fact that if I was to crop the image taken on the FF body post production (PP), then I would effectively be losing more pixels then I would take in the first place with an uncropped image from a crop sensor body (sorry I don’t know the correct way of calculating the reduction in pixels from PP with the two image sizes off hand).

So in review the crop sensory body would be a better option if I wanted to use a 400mm lens and not want to crop the image later in PP. DOF if I’m correct will appear shallower in the FF image, however the loss of image quality due to the PP crop would not make it a necessity to go with the FF body.

The 40D would put more pixels over the subject (10m vs 5m), but DoF would remain the same.

Scenario 2 – Super Wide Angle Landscapes

I want to take a picture of a beach scene during sunrise with a focal length of 18mm on a full frame body. For this example I use a Canon 17-40mm f4L at 18mm on the FF body and a Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 on the crop sensor body, set to 11mm (giving an effective focal length of 17.6mm). This should give the exact same framing and I will not be cropping this image in PP.

I believe that the FF body would be the better option in this scenario, due to the greater amount of information a larger sensor can absorb. I can’t see any advantage of the crop sensor in this scenario in any way.

FF image would have better sharpness and less DoF at same aperture.

Scenario 3 – Home Portraits and Urban Shooting

This is a more general use with a ‘walkabout’ lens. Taking photos at family parties; indoors and out and also when walking around cities and for local park visits. The FF lens of choice would be a Canon 24-70mm f2.8 Mark II and on the crop sensor a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8; which would give an effective focal length of 27-80mm).

From my understanding the FF would have a slight advantage in terms of image quality and DOF, but the crop will have a little more reach due but intern be a little less useful for very wide shots. As cropping would only be slight in PP for images where the lens may not quite have enough reach; a reduction in image quality would not be that relevant at all.

The conclusion here is that the FF body would again edge the crop sensor body, but the main advantage of the crop sensor would be the huge difference of the cost of the lens; circa £180 for the Tamron, rather than £800 for the Canon glass.

FF image would be sharper, and have less DoF at same aperture (when the subject is framed the same).

So for my personal use, which is constantly varying as I’m not a professional photography with one regular field of photography; either will do. The crop sensor body setup would be a lot less to purchase, as there are quite a number of excellent quality EF-S alternatives to Canon L glass. However, if I started using the camera for a certain type of photography then it would make more sense to choose one or the other as there are clear benefits of either setup depending on the shot I was after. Please note I have not looked at lenses like the Canon 300mm and 400mm f2.8 L’s as these are not even close to my budget range (rough £1000 limit for a new or used lens if very special).

Would love to hear you thoughts on my thoughts above (I could have got it all wrong!).

Fundamentally, FF gives better image quality than crop format - sharper, greater dynamic range, less noise*. When subject is framed the same, FF delivers less DoF.

Crop format is cheaper, and smaller/lighter (mainly the lenses).

*The reason FF image quality is better, pretty much regardless of pixel counts, is because it is physically larger (2.56x area). The final image doesn't have to be enlarged so much, so less lens resolution is required, so image contrast goes up - that's what makes FF images look sharper. And the larger image area collects more light/photons, so shadow detail is better, and high ISO performance is better.

 

[Phil Young]

I was recently on DP review's studio comparison tool comparing DX vs FF & Small sensor vs 1.5x crop.

In all honesty I couldn't notice a massive difference between FF & crop but there was a huge difference between small sensor and 1.5 crop, as you would expect. I can estimate what FF would give me based on my lx7 vs D7000 and I concluded it's not worth it right now.

The DOF is an argument both for and against because it would mean larger apertures and less light in many situations...but of course it can look nicer in other scenarios.

Equivalent focal length is neither here nor there since there are lenses for crop that go wide and today's FF camera's still retain a good level of MP in their crop modes.

My conclusion was, I'd probably only upgrade to FF if I had to or the camera body was significantly better than what I could get in DX.

 

[dalegt4]

I agree with Phil, I had the chance to get a 5Dmk2 with less than 1k shots for £900 5 months back and looked at the pros and cons and in all honesty couldnt see that much of a reason to jump the ship.

If I was to be offered a 1Dx at that price of a 5Dmk3 then the choice would probably of been different but personally I agree with the above that in many situations the difference is negligable compared to the price difference.

 

[wave01]

you have given 2 examples and for the football I would prefer a 7d for its faster frame rate and its af system. for landscapes then either body will do as you will probably use a tripod so camera shake won't come into it. I use a 550d with a 70-200L f4 and i went to a local football match and i cannot see any difference in quality with the guys who had 5d mk3's, for me its the lens that makes the difference

 

[Canon600D]

Having gone from a 600D to a 6D the stand out thing for me is the ISO. You simply cannot get the same results in low light on 95% of crops that you can on FF by whacking it up. Obviously there's more to it but for me that is a big difference.

 

[odd jim]

If you want to see the advantages of an FF sensor over any crop, shoot a landscape on both bodies in raw with the same equivalent focal length (for comparisons sake) and expose for the highlights. Then in PP push the shadows out. In FF you'll see all the detail emerge from the shadows, crisp and clear. On even the most modern of crops, the shadows will still be lacking detail and noisy when pushed. Therein lies the detail and light capturing advantage in having a larger sensor.

Then when you start to take into account the huge high ISO advantages of the new generation of FF sensors such as the 6d's...