Beginner Full Frame or APS-C

N

Notepad12

Messages
24
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Getting confused about which sort of camera to go for...

They seem to split into APS-C's and Full Frame.

(Mainly Canon R7 / R8 I'm looking at)

Any Pros and Cons to either or?

I'd be looking at taking more pictures than videos.

Thanks for reading
 
Full frame would have to be the first choice, for me. I think these days, it's a lot closer than it used to be though and crop sensors have improved. Expect more noise in shadows with a crop sensor and it's a little more important to get a good exposure, as full frame is a bit more forgiving. There's a bit more to it though, light, iso, dynamic range and so on.

I use a 5Div and an R7, the R7 is noisier than the 5D but that's not to say I haven't had noisy files out of my 5D if I've bombed the exposure.

Not forgetting, noise reduction software has come on leaps and bounds too and noisy files can be very easily improved.

Also, depending on what you want to take pictures of, a crop sensor will effectively increase the focal length of your lenses compared to full frame, for example, a 100mm lens on a Canon crop sensor would be 160mm, whereas it would be 100mm on a full frame Canon camera.

This is a potentially a big subject but in a nutshell, I'd go full frame for better image quality but that said, crop sensors have caught up from what it used to be, you might be hard pushed to tell any real difference with the newer cameras. My R7, often staggers me with what it can do.

Bear in mind, sensor size is one thing, you need good glass to get the best out of it.
 
Last edited:
Dale. said:
Full frame would have to be the first choice, for me. I think these days, it's a lot closer than it used to be though and crop sensors have improved. Expect more noise in shadows with a crop sensor and it's a little more important to get a good exposure, as full frame is a bit more forgiving. There's a bit more to it though, light, iso, dynamic range and so on.

I use a 5Div and an R7, the R7 is noisier than the 5D but that's not to say I haven't had noisy files out of my 5D if I've bombed the exposure.

Not forgetting, noise reduction software has come on leaps and bounds too and noisy files can be very easily improved.

Also, depending on what you want to take pictures of, a crop sensor will effectively increase the focal length of your lenses compared to full frame, for example, a 100mm lens on a Canon crop sensor would be 160mm, whereas it would be 100mm on a full frame Canon camera.

This is a potentially a big subject but in a nutshell, I'd go full frame for better image quality but that said, crop sensors have caught up from what it used to be, you might be hard pushed to tell any real difference with the newer cameras. My R7, often staggers me with what it can do.

Bear in mind, sensor size is one thing, you need good glass to get the best out of it.
Click to expand...
It's abit overwhelming, looking at it from a new comers perspective.

Lots and lots of choices with various different things in regards to the cameras.

Is one more likely to be future proof? Or will the keep developing the APS-C and Ful Frame?
 
I'd go FF as the cameras don't have to be all that much bigger than APS-C these days and indeed they might even be the same size. When looking at APS-C and FF lenses I think it's important not to generalise and to compare the specific lenses you're interested in as some FF lenses can be relatively small and light. Price comparisons need to be specific too.

One thing that matters to me is dynamic range and here FF could have a lead but again you need to compare cameras you're interested in.
 
It's good you're thinking of 'future proof.'

The future is mirrorless.

I'd weigh up what each camera has to offer, if it's wildlife for example, you might need to consider other things too (frame rate etc). That's not so important for landscapes or studio, where you're unlikely to need 30 frames per second.

Back to sensor size though, FF is the better format but not by as much as it used to be. There's other formats too but I won't go there and muddy the waters.

For image quality, I'd go FF but I would weigh that up against what each camera has to offer, in relation to what I want to do with it.

Not forgetting, good glass (lens), I can't emphasise that enough if you're wanting top notch files.
 
Gav. said:
I'm still using DSLR's, but as Dale has said above, FF is normally better quality image wise, I started out with crop sensor, but love full frame now..

But crop sensor body will give more reach for wildlife, they'll be cheaper to buy too if working on a tight budget.
Click to expand...
I was thinking getting a second hand 5diii with some EF lenses I could use with the EOS R series when I upgrade the body in the future
 
I'm looking at a new mirrorless camera - the R7 is a tempting proposition even though it has an APS-C sensor, I do have glass that I can take advantage of for landscape with an additional converter.

You say you're going to be taking more pictures than videos, what kind of pictures? Landscape, portrait, street, macro or tabletop stuff, wildlife, fast moving sport action?

The R7 vs R8 - my choice would be the R7. Has the better battery pack. I think the R7 has a faster mechanical shutter as well, 1/8000 (R7) vs 1/4000 (R8). If I was going to go full frame, then I'd want the R6 mk2.

If you are new to cameras and don't have any lenses, the R7 may not be the best choice as there is only 3 dedicated RF-S lenses and all the rest are really full frame lenses that won't give you the wide angles you want if you want to shoot landscape.
 
Haych said:
I'm looking at a new mirrorless camera - the R7 is a tempting proposition even though it has an APS-C sensor, I do have glass that I can take advantage of for landscape with an additional converter.

You say you're going to be taking more pictures than videos, what kind of pictures? Landscape, portrait, street, macro or tabletop stuff, wildlife, fast moving sport action?

The R7 vs R8 - my choice would be the R7. Has the better battery pack. I think the R7 has a faster mechanical shutter as well, 1/8000 (R7) vs 1/4000 (R8). If I was going to go full frame, then I'd want the R6 mk2.

If you are new to cameras and don't have any lenses, the R7 may not be the best choice as there is only 3 dedicated RF-S lenses and all the rest are really full frame lenses that won't give you the wide angles you want if you want to shoot landscape.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply.

I am mostly wanting to do family photos, holiday photos, wildlife (some up close some using zoom from lenses), birds, owls etc. I suppose birds are fast moving when they take off/ mid flight.

I was thinking of a 5diii with EF lenses I could carry on using with a EOS r series camera when I change body
 
I know the 5diii has been recommended but how about the 5div second hand? I can bag a like new one for £1,000.

Only 1312 shutter count. Brand new from Canon is £2829.

Seems like a good deal?

(Copied from another thread of mine)
 
I don't think you can go wrong, they are all capable of taking great pictures. As others have said if you get your hands on some to try that may help you decide. If you're still unsure I would go for a lower cost option or pre-owned. Once you're up and running you'll find out if it's producing the results you want, or if you need some of the more expensive features.
 
APS-C Pro
  • Perfectly fine to shoot with (you should understand that I had abandoned 135 format film for Medium Format, except when I needed fast aperture lenses)
  • Gives greater Depth of Field than FF when using same aperture and lens that gives same Angle of View as FF...sometimes you WANT greater DOF
  • Gives greater detail (e.g. 20MPixel APS-C vs. 20MPixel FF) due to greater pixel density (per sq.mm), with tighter framing (if same FL used as on FF) ... a.k.a. 'reach'
  • Shorter FL for same Angle of View means that lenses can be more compact and lighter in weight
  • Shorter FL for same Angle of View means that lenses can have somewhat faster max apertures
APS-C Con
  • Gives greater Depth of Field than FF when using same aperture and lens that gives same Angle of View as FF...sometimes you do NOT WANT greater DOF!
  • Image has greater 'noise' than FF with same pixel count, as larger pixels capture more photons for better signal-to-noixe
  • Smaller image in viewfinder (because sensor size is smaller)
 
Last edited:
For me the biggest deciding factor is what is the end use? If it is just for family photos and general photography for pleasure then APS-C would offer the cheapest and most convenient option. Unless you intend to have 30" x 20" enlargements I cannot see the point of paying megabucks for FF especially with Canon who seem to require different specific optics for every one of their model ranges.
 
Clive K said:
For me the biggest deciding factor is what is the end use? If it is just for family photos and general photography for pleasure then APS-C would offer the cheapest and most convenient option. Unless you intend to have 30" x 20" enlargements I cannot see the point of paying megabucks for FF especially with Canon who seem to require different specific optics for every one of their model ranges.
Click to expand...
This (and something else).
I used APSC professionally for years, but now my photography is pure leisure I shoot FF.

But, that’s because of my starting point rather than a free choice.

If I was starting from scratch today, and my ambition wasn’t ’fine art landscapes’ I’d probably go Fuji or even M43 Olympus.

Because the cameras are a pleasure to use (and look cool).

Don’t get me wrong; I love my R6 and it makes getting the shots I want very simple. But its use is utilitarian rather than fun. It’s very efficient.
 
Phil V said:
This (and something else).
I used APSC professionally for years, but now my photography is pure leisure I shoot FF.

But, that’s because of my starting point rather than a free choice.

If I was starting from scratch today, and my ambition wasn’t ’fine art landscapes’ I’d probably go Fuji or even M43 Olympus.

Because the cameras are a pleasure to use (and look cool).

Don’t get me wrong; I love my R6 and it makes getting the shots I want very simple. But its use is utilitarian rather than fun. It’s very efficient.
Click to expand...


That is interesting, the bit about M43

I have just taken three shots in rather poor light of my tame signs at the end of a road.
One with a Canon 70-300 on the 5Diii, and then the same lens on a 650D (as near as I could match in MP) and the result was as I would expect, more noise and more detail on the 650D
But the big surprise was the third shot on the G9 with a 100-300 lens, much more detail as expected, but what I didn't expect was much less noise as well.

The effective focal lengths were 300, 480 and 600. All JPEGs but I would expect the same trend if they were raw and processed

With the crop factor and stabilisation, I would have expected the detail improvement of the G9, but I did not expect less noise to that extent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top