Full Frame v Crop - Real World Opinions

T

taxboy

Messages
1,619
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been reading with interest the discussions reagrding the release of the new EOS7D II and in particular the "complaints" regarding noise and dynamic range compared to the 5D3

I've read around the internet and I understand that the science means that you will get a "better" image from full frame rather than a cropped sensor.

What I would be interested in finding out is are the images from a full frame significantly better for real world viewing e.g an A3 size print once it's been through the ususal post processing from people who have used both. In particular could you spot the difference without pixel peeping at say 400 ISO or does the difference only become marked once the cropped sensor runs out of puff at high ISO's.

All views welcomed
 
I really do not think A3 prints will show any significant differences.

Full frame enables you to use full-frame lenses, which SOMETIMES (Re: L glass?) has better corner sharpness. This has nothing to do with the sensor, but with the availability of sharper glass which happens to be designed for larger sensors. But then again, that means if you put same said glass on a crop frame, the edges are even sharper, just less wide. Compromise.

I think the real differences revolve around what I mentioned above regarding lenses and edges. At least this is what it has been for me. I like my wide angles, so I've always drooled over full frames.

Noise and pixel quality, in my humble opinion, will not suffer much within the same generation of cameras between full and crop frames. Pixel quality is what you are looking for, and for that, you will be comparing different generations of sensor technology to notice any significant difference.

For example, my 35mm format Canon 5D Mark I and II vs Phase One H101 digital back (also 35mm). The sharpness of the latter was ridiculous. I used the same lens on both.


Should I talk about the level of details in a Mamiya ZD digital back (48x36mm sensor) with Mamiya AF glass in comparison to Canon L glass on a crop sensor?

You see I call this considerable difference (even then, it is mostly noticeable at %100, but what size am I printing in the end?) but it is two different technologies. Between full and crop frame of the same generation, is the difference really pronounced enough even at %100?

Besides, are we comparing a full frame and a crop frame sensor with the same resolution, so the crop has a smaller pixel size/pitch, or are we talking about a crop frame with lower resolution so that it has the very same pixel size/pitch making the difference purely a crop effect?

The variables, if you think about it, are too many, and in practice, us techies can talk about this all night long while good photographers still make great photos and print them on their A3's and don't give a damn what we think.
 
On a per pixel basis larger wins (other than resolution). On a per image basis larger areas (sensors) win.

But that doesn't mean that a crop sensor cannot produce more than you need. They can produce excellent images. IMHO, for a vast majority of photography/photographers there is little/no need to go to FF.
 
Last edited:
The main advantage of crop/smaller sensors for manufacturers has been the ability to produce smaller glass, and consequently lighter weight and more consumer grade stuff. Shrinking has always been the compromise, but it allows manufacturers cheaper production cost for their costly products.
 
taxboy said:
I have been reading with interest the discussions reagrding the release of the new EOS7D II and in particular the "complaints" regarding noise and dynamic range compared to the 5D3

I've read around the internet and I understand that the science means that you will get a "better" image from full frame rather than a cropped sensor.

What I would be interested in finding out is are the images from a full frame significantly better for real world viewing e.g an A3 size print once it's been through the ususal post processing from people who have used both. In particular could you spot the difference without pixel peeping at say 400 ISO or does the difference only become marked once the cropped sensor runs out of puff at high ISO's.

All views welcomed
Click to expand...

All other things being equal, the larger the sensor the better the image quality, yes.

HOwever...

I'd say most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference at A3 so long as everything possible was done to extract the last ounce of quality from the APS-C camera.

At ISO400 with modern crop cameras you'll not notice any difference either.

Most people don't "need" a full frame camera, as most people don't even print at all usually.


What do you shoot? It may even be advantageous for you to use a APS-C camera.
 
KingRoach said:
I really do not think A3 prints will show any significant differences.

Full frame enables you to use full-frame lenses, which SOMETIMES (Re: L glass?) has better corner sharpness. This has nothing to do with the sensor, but with the availability of sharper glass which happens to be designed for larger sensors. But then again, that means if you put same said glass on a crop frame, the edges are even sharper, just less wide. Compromise.
Click to expand...

That's not really true, it has a lot to do with the sensor - larger sensors are less demanding of lenses as the magnification is lower (no 'crop factor') so in reality you don't need to make full frame lenses as sharp as lenses designed for smaller sensors.

That's not to say FF lenses aren't sharper but that's because they tend to be built to a higher standard. Conversely, smaller lenses are easier to make sharp look at the Nikon 35mm 1.8 lenses, they have a DX on (£150) and an FX one (£400), both equally sharp on a DX camera so there is no point in forking out the extra for the FX one.

Take that even further, a 10MP Nikon 1 camera, when used with an adapter will easily out resolve many FX lenses yet their cheap kit lenses are nice and sharp.

So, sensor size is implicitly tied up in lens sharpness and design, Canon make it difficult by only making L glass in full frame format which makes people think full frame lenses are better.
 
I've made A3 prints from full frame, APS-C, micro 4/3 and compact sensors which are indistinguishable in terms of detail and sharpness to my eyes.

There are subtle differences which are sometimes apparent in some pictures. Mostly you'll be hard pushed to spot them. Jane or Joe Public looking at them would never notice.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I've made A3 prints from full frame, APS-C, micro 4/3 and compact sensors which are indistinguishable in terms of detail and sharpness to my eyes.
Click to expand...
But would that still be true if you took the same shot with all three formats? If you remove the lens from the equation then it should follow that retained detail is inversely proportional to enlargement when the sensors have similar characteristics.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
But would that still be true if you took the same shot with all three formats? If you remove the lens from the equation then it should follow that retained detail is inversely proportional to enlargement when the sensors have similar characteristics.

Bob
Click to expand...

The OP mentioned A3 and I said that I've made prints I can't tell apart on a technical level at that size. Perhaps if I was a pixel-peeper I'd have seen differences. Maybe if the enlargements were increased differences would become apparent. At the end of the day it's the pictures that matter to me, not the resolution.
 
Canon Bob said:
But would that still be true if you took the same shot with all three formats? If you remove the lens from the equation then it should follow that retained detail is inversely proportional to enlargement when the sensors have similar characteristics.

Bob
Click to expand...

Point being you can't really remove the lens from the equation.

But yes, all other things being equal, bigger = better.

The question is at what point does it become academic, most people nowadays would say that at A3 it already is.
 
Full frame or 35mm sized sensors generally capture light more easily than APS-C sensors, however, in real-world shooting there is little difference. One of the main differences is depth of field. I find it easier with the same aperture to create a more blurred background, this has a number of factors though such as having to stand closer with the same focal length setting on the lens.

The best thing to do is pick a camera up and shoot. I do know of at least two wedding photographers who shoot with full frame sensors and a very fast primes that have second shooters using crop sensor cameras and their albums contain both sets of images and you would be hard picked to tell.

I remember billboard size prints from a D2H and I still keep one to shoot sports. I am happy next time I am out to shoot a landscape with the D2 HS and you can print the file at A3 and see what you think. The image will be fine at normal viewing distances, when not pixel peeped from the same shot with say a D4.

all modern cameras will be able to print and normal sizes with a good quality. The only major factor will be the photographer's ability.

I use these bodies currently for different things and find them all good, it is only me that is the limiting factor.
Nikon D4
Nikon D7000
Nikon D2Hs
Fujifilm S5 Pro.
 
A3 prints of what ?

Also which full frame v which crop ?

A cropped image of a small bird taken on a 5D1 might not fair so well at A3 compared to say a 7D2 uncropped.

A nice landscape on a 5D1 (uncropped) may be preferable to the same shot taken with any crop body.
 
Last edited:
I must stress that I'm not disputing anybody's statements, just raising questions. From the various opinions above it would seem to suggest that pixel size/density has no effect when printing up to A3 and yet manufacturers generally have lower pixel densities on their full frame cameras. I suspect that we should qualify the statements by adding some conditions....ie, a lower density FF sensor will cope better than a smaller sensor when things become more challenging in the same way that a competent photographer will cope better than a novice in difficult situations. I'd be astounded if a 4/3 sensor could produce the same A3 print quality as a FF sensor when the image was taken in the street at night (for example).

Bob
 
Just my opinion but in terms of printed image quality with a well exposed photo I don't think anyone would ever tell a difference. With digital virtually nobody prints sooc shots and once you start doing post work there's going to be no difference in the prints. Higher megapixels will mean you can print larger more easily but sensor size won't impact size of prints. If you need proof look at any digital stuff produced from old dslr's which were all crop initially and good photographers were shooting infinitely better stuff on D100's and D40's and whatever else they used than I'd ever shoot with a 5D III or D810.

In terms of usability however there is a much bigger difference, I'm trying to get better at shooting products and people and full frame is significantly better for me. The larger viewfinders generally found on fx are worth their weight in gold and being to able to get a shallower depth of field with the same framing is great. Also when shooting in low light full frame definitely seems to handle noise better as iso increases when comparing like to like generations and being able to safely go to a higher iso can increase your keeper rate in less than ideal lighting. I moved from a D7000 to a D700 and despite losing nearly 25% of the pixels the handling a depth of field mean I rarely want to touch my d7000 any more, the viewfinder alone would make me question ever wanting to buy another dx body. However on the flipside if I shot wildlife the extra reach would definitely be more appealing and having smaller more portable equipment can be massively beneficial.
 
Canon Bob said:
.....it should follow that retained detail is inversely proportional to enlargement when the sensors have similar characteristics.
Click to expand...
This is always true. It's the basis of the COC factor related to print size/sharpness/DOF. It's why I said that "per image" a larger sensor wins. And it doesn't have much of anything to do with pixel size.

It is true that smaller pixels demand sharper lenses, better/different technique, collect less light, are noisier at higher ISO, have lower DR/Color/etc. But when you have a whole lot of them and combine them to print smaller (i.e. same size) most of that is hidden... and it can even be "better" than you would have gotten from larger pixels.
 
Technology has moved on but I've always liked 1.3 crop :exit:
 
Last edited:
CraigDHD said:
Higher megapixels will mean you can print larger more easily but sensor size won't impact size of prints.
Click to expand...
I blame the print shops for this... MP's only determine how large you can print at given DPI and that doesn't necessarily equate to image quality/sharpness.

Sensor size is the primary factor in print quality/size, not MP's. You record a scene on a sensor of a given size and then you "stretch it" to make a print of a given size. The less you have to stretch the sensor, the better the IQ.
 
sk66 said:
I blame the print shops for this... MP's only determine how large you can print at given DPI and that doesn't necessarily equate to image quality/sharpness.

Sensor size is the primary factor in print quality/size, not MP's. You record a scene on a sensor of a given size and then you "stretch it" to make a print of a given size. The less you have to stretch the sensor, the better the IQ.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify I didn't say higher mega pixels would make better quality prints, in fact I made a clear point that I'd pick a lower resolution full frame over a higher crop, I said that it would make it easier to print. For most doing their own inkjet printing or using standard print shops which up to A3 would generally imply, they will be looking for 200DPI images. If you're camera doesn't output that resolution you're adding more post to scale for the large prints and the quality of the post work will have more influence on the print than the size of the sensor, again just my opinion.
 
CraigDHD said:
Just to clarify I didn't say higher mega pixels would make better quality prints, in fact I made a clear point that I'd pick a lower resolution full frame over a higher crop, I said that it would make it easier to print.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that your statements contradict each other.

For most doing their own inkjet printing or using standard print shops which up to A3 would generally imply, they will be looking for 200DPI images
Click to expand...
And this is why I blame print shops and "general knowledge."

The print resolution recommended (as high as 300dpi) is based upon evaluating the image at high magnification which makes no sense. If you printed a 4ft image at 300dpi your eyes couldn't even resolve the detail when viewed from a distance that allowed you to see the whole thing. It's like the magazine images printed from dots...the dots are there, you just can't resolve/see them.

The COC standard for resolution/IQ/sharpness/DOF for "normal viewing" requires less than 2MP *for any size print.* More critical applications than "normal viewing" have a higher COC requirement that equates to ~4-5MP. And if you took it to the furthest extent of viewing a white line on a black BG with excellent vision, it would still only require ~ 12-14MP max. If the white line is smaller than that, you won't see it.

The reason the DOF/COC calculators don't consider MP, and only consider sensor size, is because every camera already has more MP's than are needed. And it's why larger sensors always win in IQ regardless of MP differences.
It's also why it makes little sense to use a high MP sensor to print *smaller* than printer resolution (the print shop I use is capable of 250dpi). It doesn't hurt anything, but you don't gain much either. And it's why APS is fine for most people/uses.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the responses - they're much appreciated. To put my question into context I'm returning to photography after a 4 year break and I guess I was suffering from a bit of gear acquisition syndrome thinking about replacing my EOS 40D for something newer ("better").

Your responses have confirmed one thing and that the most important bit of kit is the photographer and currently I don't think my current camera is inhibiting my limited abilities. In that sense you have saved me from spending a heap of cash on a new camera and I may invest in upgrading lenses first.

There is an awful lot of technical discussion about digital images online but I guess a lot of it is really pixel peeping and the amount of people who stretch the limits of thier camera are... if totally truthful fairly limited

Thanks for all the common sense in this thread
 
In simple terms, the benefits of FF - better noise control, detail, sharpness and dynamic range. Generation for generation, FF will always have the edge, thats the laws of physics which wont change!

Would a viewer notice the difference? Debatable.

Would the user? Definitely.
 
Last edited:
I have to disagree with the comments about not being able to tell the difference between images shot on a crop camera vs full frame at A3 size.

I have recently developed and printed an A3 photobook containing over 800 images. The photos in it are a mix of Canon 20D (50%), iPhone (20%), Samsung P&S (20%) and Canon 6D (10%).

It's very easy to spot the photos taken with the 6D, even family and friends with no photo knowledge have commented that those images really stand out above the others.
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
It's very easy to spot the photos taken with the 6D, even family and friends with no photo knowledge have commented that those images really stand out above the others.
Click to expand...


That's probably more to do with a 6D vs a 20D than full frame vs crop.
 
I doubt anybody's really looked at what I said, or understood what I was referring to. Technology difference vs sensor size are different questions.

It is easier to understand the difference if you think about FILM.

Same film type at different sizes (compare 110 vs 135, 135 vs 120, 120 vs 135, 135 vs 4x5 but all for the exact same film type, same emulsion, same acutance, same grain, same sensitivity, same everything. This is where size wins) Some of these sizes will suck at A3, for some A3 is a small size.

Or different film types at the same size (TriX vs Fomapan, etc., different acutance, different contrast, different level of details, different resolving power, different colour accuracy, different dynamic range, etc)

then different film types at different sizes. This one is an unreasonable and unrealistic comparison.

Basically if you want to ask about size difference you MUST assume similar technology/epoch. In this case the difference is available accessories that attach to said sensor size and their power. Now given all the constants and the one variable being size, does an A3 sized print really suffer?



There you go.
 
It's all very well concentrating on size, but let's not forget dynamic range, sharpness and better noise control, for me, the main advantages of the larger format sensors.

Noticeable at screen size let alone A3.
 
I moved from a Canon 450D to a Canon 6D. I mostly use the camera for travel photography and being about to shoot at ISO 12800 which gives me the same noise at ISO800 on my 450D is a revelation. I generally print 5 x 7, but I'd say 1 in 100 prints is blown up to A2 or A3 to put on the wall. In lightroom I have noticed a massive jump in dynamic range and being able to 'rescue' poorly exposed images that would normally have to be binned with the 450D.

I also love the Canon 40mm f2.8 which means I can fit my 6D in my coat pocket so I don't have to wear it, it means that I now leave my Fuji X10 at home most of the time as I no longer need a small camera. The 40mm on a crop would be too long for my liking.
 
SDK^ said:
I have to disagree with the comments about not being able to tell the difference between images shot on a crop camera vs full frame at A3 size.

I have recently developed and printed an A3 photobook containing over 800 images. The photos in it are a mix of Canon 20D (50%), iPhone (20%), Samsung P&S (20%) and Canon 6D (10%).

It's very easy to spot the photos taken with the 6D, even family and friends with no photo knowledge have commented that those images really stand out above the others.
Click to expand...

Its not a fair comparison though as you obviously haven't been able to shoot them all with the same lens. I've just printed two A3 prints of the same bird. One with a 7D MkII and one with a 1DX. Same lens, ISO etc. Very difficult to tell which is which.
 
The biggest thing for me using both FX and DX of a similar age side by side was ISO performance, that was the deal breaker for me having a D300 backup and I now have 2 D700s. There were other features of the full frame camera that were better than the DX but i think that was because it being a more professional body, not necessarily sensor size, superior AF and metering mainly. That was using a D700 and D300 side by side with the same lenses interchangeably and obviously the same user (me). IQ was better too but I'd never thought the D300 was bad, the ability to isolate subjects is a massive bonus too but again I was always quite happy with the D300 :LOL:

Maybe if I hadn't used them side by side i may not have noticed so much of a difference, it just seemed that all those little changes added up to one big improvement for me :) The other thing to bear in mind is that maybe more modern APS-C cameras may be closer to full frame than a couple of years ago but isn't something I can comment on.
 
Last edited:
Gaz J said:
Its not a fair comparison though as you obviously haven't been able to shoot them all with the same lens. I've just printed two A3 prints of the same bird. One with a 7D MkII and one with a 1DX. Same lens, ISO etc. Very difficult to tell which is which.
Click to expand...
I've shot both 6d and 70d (same generations, albeit not side by side, but both with the 24-105l) and you can see the difference with the 6d in Lightroom, and the final image. There's just so much more scope in PP.

I'd go as far to say the 70d doesn't improve much, sensor wise, than my 2009 50d (which I still love BTW!) It's only a marginal improvement on noise and that's about it.
 
Last edited:
Depends what you shoot

For night photography FF trumps crop massively both on ISO performance and the amount of detail captured.

FF
DSC_0348

Crop
Link Crop


Not a scientific example by any means.
 
See you guys are all still talking sensor technology NOT sensor size. Again, since the variables are too many that you cannot pin them down into a fair comparison (manufacturers do this on purpose), the only best way to think about size differences is to think about FILM.

Can you compare two sensors with different sizes which are exactly the same technology?

While you keep looping and looping around the same problem, somewhere in a manufacturer's CEO office, somewhere far from here, someone is laughing too hard making too much money out of continuous reviews which are at the same time, unscientific but claim to be scientific.

I like @mattyg 's example and think his is a very good answer. A comparison is not scientific, but it must be presented as such. Nevertheless, his subject of photography is exactly where sensor technology, pixel size and pixel pitch, noise handling and detail retention, really stand out. But could you please say which two sensors captured those images?
 
you can compare 2 side by side anythings and tell the difference.

What you need to do is use one and if it does what you need use it. Need, not want or lust.

When buying you cant have all else being equal, you have to take a lot into account.


ISO and detail cannot be compared fairly on different models, they are just different.

My D7000 is better for detail and ISO than the kodak dcs pro 14n.
 
I think it all boils down to what you shoot and what you want / can afford!!

My self I'm in the process of selling all my Crop gear and moving to FF however if I was still at the point where 90% of my photography was landscapes I probably wouldn't be changing anything about my kit cause I love it and it's produced amazing photos but as i shoot about 60% Night / Astro now and the rest split between landscape and General walk about I needed somthing that can really handle high ISO and crop just doesn't do
It for me! If I was to stay crop Id jump to the Nikon d7100/d7200 only because it's a more professional looking and feeling body but like I say Astro is important to me and that needs Higher ISO capability so I'm moving to FF but because of the position I'm in ive went all out in what I want so it lasts me I probably could have went FF cheaper and still been able to handle the noise

I'm hoping the serial in landscapes will slightly improve from FF as well but if they don't im not fussed because I know my Astro stuff will just because of the High ISO capability
 
If you're comparing two side-by-side "anything" you cannot tell the difference. Instead you should be able to point out the differences in what you are comparing before you can tell which of these things affects the outcome.

If you're comparing two size-by-size something, and you want an answer as to whether only the size makes the difference, you cannot even answer this question unless you consider everything else a constant, which in the industry/merchandise which are made available to you, as a consumer, is an impossible situation.

Instead, you can point out that the variables are too many and the question cannot and should not be answered in the way it is phrased.


I think before we get deeper into this discussion, we must step back an realise the difference between what makes a scientific comparison designed to answer specific cause/effect kind of question, and a consumerist/producer's comparison between what is available designed for choosing the best available tool for one's requirements. In the former case, if you want details and understanding, think film to maximize constants. In the latter case, because you are specifying digital technology and A3 prints, think results and limits and compare these to prices. You will find that most anything is capable of a comparable A3 print.

The worst in these discussions is a consumer's point of view comparison which is begging to sound scientific.
 
Wrong post (edit)
 
KingRoach said:
I think before we get deeper into this discussion, we must step back an realise the difference between what makes a scientific comparison designed to answer specific cause/effect kind of question, and a consumerist/producer's comparison between what is available designed for choosing the best available tool for one's requirements. In the former case, if you want details and understanding, think film to maximize constants. In the latter case, because you are specifying digital technology and A3 prints, think results and limits and compare these to prices. You will find that most anything is capable of a comparable A3 print.

The worst in these discussions is a consumer's point of view comparison which is begging to sound scientific.
Click to expand...

No one is making scientific comparisons here, opinions were asked for and opinions were given.

To get back to actually giving the op an answer he can actually use, I personally didn't find a great deal of difference between a 70D and 5DII in normal conditions but do note the use of the term "normal conditions", if for example you require high ISO performance then yes you'll see more of a difference etc.
 
KingRoach said:
See you guys are all still talking sensor technology NOT sensor size.?
Click to expand...

The posts before your's we discussing Crop vs Full Frame so that is sensor size. Full Frame sensor is bigger than a Crop sensor.???

Also, I think you may confuse the situation by using film sizes, (I know MF & LF are mentioned briefly in link below).. The OP asked about sensor size with digital cameras not film cameras.

For the OP..................

A guide to sensor sizes > http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

From my recent change from a Fuji XT1 (crop) to a Nikon D750 (FF) as for JPEGS, myself, I think the Fuji output was as good SOOC. No doubt the Nikon will be better for higher iSO / lower noise, DR etc... when processed and shot in RAW.

It's well known for the output performance of the JPEGS from the Fuji's.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top