Full Frame vs Crop

milster

milster

Messages
2,438
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Just out of interest, (mainly because I was reading the d600 thread :) ) I was wondering what the advantages or disadvantages are of having full frame over a cropped body?

:thumbs:
 
Not sure what exactly you want to know, but for me
1. cost
2. reach
3. fps
 
milster said:
Just out of interest, (mainly because I was reading the d600 thread :) ) I was wondering what the advantages or disadvantages are of having full frame over a cropped body?

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Advantage: image quality, and shallower DoF
Disadvantage: size, weight, cost
 
Advantages
More control of DoF, the bigger the sensor the smaller the DoF (broad brush - but true)

Lower pixel density should equal sharper cleaner images, but of course this assumes that all sensors are equal, obviously newer sensors are better than old ones, so a just launched crop camera may outperform an older full frame camera.

Not so true now, but getting well performing wide angle lenses on a crop body isn't as easy as on full frame.

Most other things you hear are just opinion.

Disadvantages
FF cameras tend to cost more than similarly spec'd crop cameras.

Less reach - with the crop factor (and all things being equal) your telephoto lenses give a narrower field of view on a crop body.

Due to the corners cut to hit price points, a FF camera will be slower than a crop camera - simply due to processing speeds - not so true now with the latest generation of FF's, but it's being reflected in the price. ie 5d classic 3fps 20d 5fps 5dIII 6fps 7d 8fps.
 
If you're old enough or interested enough to have used 35mm SLR's a "full frame" DSRL will make you feel like you're coming home as your lenses will act as they did in the days of film. Your DSLR will probably be bigger, heavier and more expensive than your 35mm film SLR though.

I went from Canon APS-C to Canon "FF" last year and after getting used to APS-C it took a bit of readjustment. Image quality wise I'd say that if you can avoid pixel peeping and using FoV and shallow DoF as a clue when you know what lens you've used there's next to nothing in it at low to medium ISO's after processing if you shoot RAW, although I'd say that full frame gives some advantage at the very highest ISO's, although YMMV, I'd say it's maybe a stop with my cameras.

The disadvantages of full frame could include bigger and heavier lenses, cost, of course, less reach due to APS-C crop factor, lack of built in flash (unless you're a Nikon shooter) and some vignetting. My 5D seems to vignette more that I remember any of my film cameras doing but it's usually quite easy to correct in processing.

Just a thought... DoF control is often regarded as an advantage with larger formats but the other side of the coin is that with smaller formats you'll probably be using wider lenses and as long as you have wide aperture lenses you may be able to achieve good DoF control, deeper DoF at comparably faster shutter and / or lower ISO's and a higher keeper rate in low available light.

For example, in low light you may get a better keeper rate at 1/20th to 1/30th sec at 25mm f1.4 on MFT and 30mm f1.4 on APS-C than with FF and a 50mm f1.4.
 
Last edited:
cropped : cheaper body, cheaper lenses (and fx lenses work on dx cameras), less to lug around (much lighter!) and your image on a dx camera fills the frame much more than on a fx.

full : you don't miss out on anything around the perimeter of the viewfinder, and don't have to 'step back' to get the whole image into the frame.
people with fx don't look down on you

nothing, and I sincerely mean NOTHING about owning a fx camera will make you a better photographer - it has no bearing on your ability or 'eye' for a good shot ;)

hope that helps!
 
HopefulM said:
full : you don't miss out on anything around the perimeter of the viewfinder, and don't have to 'step back' to get the whole image into the frame.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are trying to say here?

It sounds like you saying all full frame cameras have 100% viewfinders, which is not true.
 
Thanks for your input guys, its interesting to know. I'm not thinking.of nor has any of the pros and cons made me feel like I want a ff anytime soon. I am just interested in the differences.
 
benefits:

full frame:
slightly sharper images, (but negliable difference)
less noise by approx 1 stop
wide lenses stay wide, but with the sigma 8-16 performing better than any full frame wide angle id say it doesnt really matter

crop:
cheaper, smaller, lighter
long lenses get longer
wide angle lenses are sharper in the corners

depth of field is about 1 stop less with full frame, this can help to isolate a subject or it can be a total nightmare when you're in low light and trying to maximise depth of field

both have a function, neither is better than the other, the main benefit of full frame for me is the ability to use the 24mm 1.4 as a true wide angle, in canon/nikon land there arent many primes really made for crop- except for the sigma 30mm 1.4.
 
markmullen said:
For me the benefits include ... and my lenses being wider than they would be on a crop body.
Click to expand...

you could just buy wider lenses?
sigma make an 8-16mm, which is the crop equivalent of their 12-24mm, and the 12-24 is really rather bad, the 8-16 is a fine performer though
for full frame the nikon 14-24 is the one to get for absolute width and maximum performance, although its £££
 
woof woof said:
If you're old enough or interested enough to have used 35mm SLR's a "full frame" DSRL will make you feel like you're coming home as your lenses will act as they did in the days of film. Your DSLR will probably be bigger, heavier and more expensive than your 35mm film SLR though.

I went from Canon APS-C to Canon "FF" last year and after getting used to APS-C it took a bit of readjustment. Image quality wise I'd say that if you can avoid pixel peeping and using FoV and shallow DoF as a clue when you know what lens you've used there's next to nothing in it at low to medium ISO's after processing if you shoot RAW, although I'd say that full frame gives some advantage at the very highest ISO's, although YMMV, I'd say it's maybe a stop with my cameras.

The disadvantages of full frame could include bigger and heavier lenses, cost, of course, less reach due to APS-C crop factor, lack of built in flash (unless you're a Nikon shooter) and some vignetting. My 5D seems to vignette more that I remember any of my film cameras doing but it's usually quite easy to correct in processing.

Just a thought... DoF control is often regarded as an advantage with larger formats but the other side of the coin is that with smaller formats you'll probably be using wider lenses and as long as you have wide aperture lenses you may be able to achieve good DoF control, deeper DoF at comparably faster shutter and / or lower ISO's and a higher keeper rate in low available light.

For example, in low light you may get a better keeper rate at 1/20th to 1/30th sec at 25mm f1.4 on MFT and 30mm f1.4 on APS-C than with FF and a 50mm f1.4.
Click to expand...

Not quite true Alan. These things work on a swings and roundabout relationship and with full frame if there is a stop of shutter speed or aperture disadvantage then you can raise the ISO to compensate, using full frame's noise advantage, and equalise the opportunity that way.

The image quality gap between full frame and smaller formats has closed a bit in recent years, mainly because new full frame cameras are relatively few and far between. When we begin to see what the latest generation of full framers can really do though (Canon 1DX, 5D3, Nikon D4, D800) I'm pretty sure the gap will be restored.

I've been using a 5D3 over the weekend and a few quick ISO comparisons with my 5D2 show the new camera to be significantly better. Canon reckons about two stops better and while I can't put an accurate number on it without a bit more testing, it's certainly of that kind of order.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Not quite true Alan. These things work on a swings and roundabout relationship and with full frame if there is a stop of shutter speed or aperture disadvantage then you can raise the ISO to compensate and equalise the opportunity.
Click to expand...

I did mention shutter speed and ISO and IMVHO and YMMV and not pixel peeping. Maybe you missed those bits. What I do know from my own testing is that what I said is true for me and others, check out the mega MFT thread. The fact is that I can get hand held shots at 1/15 sec or so from MFT at 20/25mm. Try that with a 50mm f1.4 on FF. With that combo I'd expect my keeper rate to drop. There is the advantage of not having mirror slap with some of the smaller formats but even if staying with FF or APS-C my keeper rate with a 20mm at f1.8 or 30mm f1.4 will almost certainly be better than with a FF and 50mm f1.4 so the theory that wider angle wider aperture lenses increase the keeper rate seems to check out for me and of course with the smaller formats wider could become normal.

Plus of course there are possible disadvantages to raising ISO settings which may negate to some extent any IQ advantage FF may have. IMVHO, YMMV.

HoppyUK said:
The image quality gap between full frame and smaller formats has closed a bit in recent years, mainly because new full frame cameras are relatively few and far between. When we begin to see what the latest generation of full framers can really do though (Canon 1DX, 5D3, Nikon D4, D800) I'm pretty sure the gap will be restored..
Click to expand...

And just as new FF model may gain or extend a lead over existing APS-C models there's always the chance that new APS-C models will close it again. What we have today is what we have today. A stop or maybe two, although with my cameras I'd say two would be a stretch, IMVHO, YMMV.

HoppyUK said:
I've been using a 5D3 over the weekend and a few quick ISO comparisons with my 5D2 show the new camera to be significantly better. Canon reckons about two stops better and while I can't put an accurate number on it without a bit more testing, it's certainly of that kind of order.
Click to expand...

What I do know is that many if not all people may not be able to tell if a MFT, APS-C or full frame camera has been used to take many if not all images without pixel peeping, looking for clues and... maybe... guessing.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I did mention shutter speed and ISO and IMVHO and YMMV and not pixel peeping. Maybe you missed those bits. What I do know from my own testing is that what I said is true for me and others, check out the mega MFT thread. The fact is that I can get hand held shots at 1/15 sec or so from MFT at 20/25mm. Try that with a 50mm f1.4 on FF. With that combo I'd expect my keeper rate to drop. There is the advantage of not having mirror slap with some of the smaller formats but even if staying with FF or APS-C my keeper rate with a 20mm at f1.8 or 30mm f1.4 will almost certainly be better than with a FF and 50mm f1.4 so the theory that wider angle wider aperture lenses increase the keeper rate seems to check out for me and of course with the smaller formats wider could become normal.
Click to expand...

Why? Mirror-slap is a function of the camera type, not the format - which is the OP's topic. Leica is full frame, no mirror.

You're not relating camera-shake to focal length are you? Camera shake is a function of magnification, and the two are not the same. You have to apply the crop factor for equality.

Plus of course there are possible disadvantages to raising ISO settings which may negate to some extent any IQ advantage FF may have. IMVHO, YMMV.
Click to expand...

What disadvantages? All things being equal, FF will run slighly over a stop better than APS-C, ISO for ISO, because the larger sensor collects slighly more than twice the light. Two stops better than Four Thirds.

And just as new FF model may gain or extend a lead over existing APS-C models there's always the chance that new APS-C models will close it again. What we have today is what we have today. A stop or maybe two, although with my cameras I'd say two would be a stretch, IMVHO, YMMV.
Click to expand...

Yes, the best models we have today - that's as level a playing as you can get. And from what we've seen so far, and I have seen myself, FF's inherant advanatges are widening the gap again.

What I do know is that many if not all people may not be able to tell if a MFT, APS-C or full frame camera has been used to take many if not all images without pixel peeping, looking for clues and... maybe... guessing.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. While FF will always be better in terms of IQ, all things being equal, as standards rise there must come a point where smaller formats are more than adequate.

TBH, I think we've reached that point. FourThirds is now better than anything I ever got from 35mm film, and at higher ISO too. At the other end, full frame DSLRs have all but wiped out medium format because hardly anyone needs that extremely high level of quality. Even professionals - they tends to hire medium format when they really need to, rather than use it on a regular basis.
 
HoppyUK said:
Why? Mirror-slap is a function of the camera type, not the format - which is the OP's topic.
Click to expand...

I dunno about that. I definitely notice the need for mirror lock up more on a medium format (film) SLR than on 35mm.

With a larger format, there's just that much more mass of mirror to move about, which is going to transfer into movement in the rest of the body. It can be mitigated by clever damping, but you cannae change the laws of physics, captain :)
 
Musicman said:
I dunno about that. I definitely notice the need for mirror lock up more on a medium format (film) SLR than on 35mm.

With a larger format, there's just that much more mass of mirror to move about, which is going to transfer into movement in the rest of the body. It can be mitigated by clever damping, but you cannae change the laws of physics, captain :)
Click to expand...

Well that's the same thing isn't it - camera type? Not inherant to the format is what I mean.

TBH, I think the mirror-slap issue is a bit of a red herring, which I guess is your point. The only time I have ever noticed it is on a tripod, and only at the crtitical speeds around 1/30sec to 1/4sec, on a light-weight tripod doing something you shouldn't such as extending the centre column too much.

With normal hand-holding, your hands provide very effective damping, as does a slighly heavier camera/lens. Not to mention IS of course which is very effective at reducing mirror-slap.
 
Full Frame can capture more light & detail, & it resembles the field of view that a 35mm film SLR roughly does. Its down to personal preferrance, I honestly wouldn't go back to working with a crop sensor after having shot with full frame for a while!

If you ask me, full frame everytime :}
 
Last edited:
Just to give my two pence worth!

Full frame and cropped are chalk and cheese. They are two completely different animals. I own a 600d which isn't considered a pro camera, but add an 85mm L prime to it and it becomes a dream to use. I was lucky enough to use a 1d-x for a few days with the same lens, the quality of the two images wasn't immediately apparent.

Full frame when you can afford it, but ALWAYS invest in glass, so long as it can follow you to a full frame in the future!
 
Definitely, ALWAYS invest in glass, I wish I had..
 
i wonder what I've been getting on the D7000 then if its not bokeh:thinking:
 
I have just px'd my 50D for a used 5Dc and I have to say that the difference in iq is staggering especially using the 204-105l, and thats going from a 15.1mp to a 12.8mp. Could be that the lens didnt suit the 50D but it sure suits full frame. Also the 24 end is wide enough for landscapes for now, until I can afford the 17-40l, certainly wouldnt have been on the 50D although I did have the siggy 10-20 for that.

Steve
 
AESamuel said:
Well obviously you will get bokeh on cropped sensors but its well known that a bigger sensor generally means more bokeh. :p
Click to expand...

any camera can make bokeh when you get in close with a 1.4 lens

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriszerbes/6679711125/

the full frame difference is the ability to make bokeh even with a fairly wide lens when the subject isn't so close to the camera

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mytripsmypics/5624595908/
like this

and the difference is also being able to shoot at f2.8 instead of f1.4 and get the same bokeh, but have much better sharpness in the 2.8 shot
that's why medium format is so great, you can shoot at f4 and have immense sharpness but have the bokeh of an f1.4


it's a double edge sword though, sometimes if you're shooting a group of people in low light (like in a club or something) you want to maximise depth of field and shooting a smaller sensor camera can allow you to shoot at like f2.8 to get a fast shutter speed, but have enough depth of field to cover your subject



example,
shooting a group of 3 girls in a dark club without flash

full frame- 24mm f2.8 iso 800 1/30 = not enough depth of field for the 3 subjects, so you change to
24mm f4 iso 1600 1/30 and you get the picture

in the same situation with m4/3
m4/3- 12mm f2.8 iso 800 1/30, or iso 400 1/15
same exposure but because your lens is a 12mm you get more depth of field and you can cover all your subjects at 2.8
 
My mate uses a 5D2 me a 7D and 550D so apart from that fact that he,s much better at composition than me :D , at normal ISO,s I dont really think that there's a big difference in IQ
But there is when you get above ISO 400 ie 800 and above
Shooting in low light the other day at the butterfly house I was having to use a tripod he was able to handhold and raise the ISO but we both still got nice shots:)
I personally will stay with crop its just to expensive to get the same reach at say 400mm with a full frame
Pete
 
Bokeh and shallow depth of field are not quite the same thing, but leaving that aside, the difference between full frame and crop format is about 1.2 stops. The calculation is f/number x crop factor.

For example, if you frame up the same shot from the same position, to equalise the DoF the crop camera should be set at f/4 and the full framer at f/6.
 
AESamuel said:
Well obviously you will get bokeh on cropped sensors but its well known that a bigger sensor generally means more bokeh. :p
Click to expand...

Confusing 'Bokeh' - the appearance of the background which is defined by the lens you use and 'Depth of Field' - how much bokeh you have, defined by sensor size, aperture, and focus distance.

The latter is what is affected by FF vs Crop, as explained a couple of posts above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top