Full v Crop
- Thread starter BoothBees
- Start date
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No.
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I could argue this one both ways...
Sharper? Maybe - a weaker lens will look better on a full frame 12 megapixel sensor than a 12 megapixel DX sensor.
Detail? Arguably the crop camera has the potential to record more detail due to density. But diffraction - which comes earlier on a crop - will also rob detail.
I could argue it both ways, but all being equal a 12 megapixel Full Frame sensor will not be sharper or more detailed than a 12 megapixel cropped sensor.
- Messages
- 613
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cheers Stewart - a classic case of a picture painting a thousand words if ever there was one 
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
You can't argue it both ways at all! Full frame is better ultimate quality - better sharpness, contrast and dynamic range.
A full-frame sensor can carry more pixels, bigger pixels, and gather more light than crop. And there are a few lenses out there that, at optimum settings, that can realise these advantages. Medium format digital is better still, for the same reasons.
The fact that it is very hard to see much benefit in practise is not relevant to the question. Or this answer
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can't argue it both ways at all! Full frame is better ultimate quality - better sharpness, contrast and dynamic range.
A full-frame sensor can carry more pixels, bigger pixels, and gather more light than crop. And there are a few lenses out there that, at optimum settings, that can realise these advantages. Medium format digital is better still, for the same reasons.
The fact that it is very hard to see much benefit in practise is not relevant to the question. Or this answer
I certainly can argue it both ways - maybe its time to drag out my D60 vs D700 landscape example
You will not be able to tell the difference if I strip the EXIF. I guarantee it.
In fact I think the D60 with its less agressive AA filter and better per-pixel-sharpness holds more infinity / horizon line detail. There is no magical full frame advantage I'm afraid
Definatelely prepared to argue this both ways - with examples too
Full frame is great, but you don't magically get more detail or sharpness.
There must be a difference between full frame and crop regarding C of C. due to the enlargment of cropped shot.
I do not know what a weaker lens is. Physically or what ?
No, same lens same detail. Did you look at the tomato shots ? writer states all shots taken at F32 looks good to me. So much for diffraction.
Errm, YES due to no enlargment needed by the PC
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But isn't the enlargement only down to the different MP between FF and crop?
Where the sensor has the same MP and the lens has the same FOV then there will be no enlargement needed...
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm with Stewart the answer is No.
Nikon D700 FF 12.1mp v D300 Cropped 12.3mp. Taking the same scene with both cameras (adjusting the focal length to get the same composition) both images would have the same number of pixels (ignoring the marginal .2mp difference)
The sensor in the D700 will have larger photosites, the result is less noise than the smaller photosites on the D300's cropped sensor.
For wildlife especially birding the cropped sensor would always be my camera of choice, for low light, shallow depth of field, and wide angle stuff I would choose the full frame camera.
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As above there is no enlargement if both sensors have the same mp.
I think Stewarts graphic is misleading you, if I took the scene framed in red with a full frame D700 12mp, then took the same scene framed in red with a D300 12mp the image sizes would be the same.
To do this I would have a 35mm lens on the D700, and a 50mm lens on the D300, so I would have two identical images of the same size, of the same scene.
- Messages
- 4,771
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just *** throw something else into the mix.
The 4/3rd system is / was designed as a 'Full-Frame' sensor from the outset rather than the downsizing of an existing 35mm based system, allowing them to utilise certain features - Telecentric lens designs being one of them, meaning lenses are sharp all the way to the edge of the frame and are sharp even wide open. The ZD range of glass is some of THE sharpest glass out there.
The 4/3rds system is not a 'cropped' sensor as such, but does give a 'field of view' that is equivelent to a 2x crop. The ZD 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 would have the same 'field-of-view' as a 100-400 on a 35mm camera.
The 4/3rd system is / was designed as a 'Full-Frame' sensor from the outset rather than the downsizing of an existing 35mm based system, allowing them to utilise certain features - Telecentric lens designs being one of them, meaning lenses are sharp all the way to the edge of the frame and are sharp even wide open. The ZD range of glass is some of THE sharpest glass out there.
The 4/3rds system is not a 'cropped' sensor as such, but does give a 'field of view' that is equivelent to a 2x crop. The ZD 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 would have the same 'field-of-view' as a 100-400 on a 35mm camera.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
That is the original question I thought we were responding to, not "can you see the difference between these two test shots from a D60 and D700."
But surely Pudders, we both know that it would be equally possible to take two shots, one from the 'best' crop camera (50D/D300?) and the 'best' full frame (5DII, D3x) and show that the full frame image had more resolution, better contrast, and higher dynamic range? Full frame is better still at high ISO.
It would take an expensive prime at f/8, and a 300dpi print enlarged to poster size, but then you'd see it immediately and unmistakeably. Full frame has more of everything, and if you push the boundaries (possibly to unrealistic levels) you'll see it.
If the question was can you see any difference between full frame and crop in everyday use, then the answer is no. That's why I've stayed with my 40D for now, and I'm also reasonably confident the the difference between full frame and crop will be narrowed still further in the next few years, so my next body will perhaps be a Canon 60D or more likely a 70D, rather than full frame. But that doesn't mean that full frame isn't better purely in terms of image quality. I say it is, both in theory and in practise
- Messages
- 4,771
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Except DOF, and lack of vignetting wide open.
The full frame 'advantage' is not always an advantage. Its all down to what you shoot.
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But surely Pudders, we both know that it would be equally possible to take two shots, one from the 'best' crop camera (50D/D300?) and the 'best' full frame (5DII, D3x) and show that the full frame image had more resolution, better contrast, and higher dynamic range? Full frame is better still at high ISO.
Unfortunately you seem to be missing the point.
The 5D II and D3X will have more resolution because they HAVE more resolution. So off course it will be more detail than a 50D or D300!
Thats a given. Although I'm not sure why you think this gives more contrast or dynamic range? The highest performers for dynamic range is the Fuji S3 and S5 Pro (6 megapixel DX...), and the DR leader is still Fuji's cropped Super CCD SR sensor.
You need to be considering like-for-like ie a 12 megapixel full frame sensor and a 12 megapixel DX sensor. Show me the advantage there for sharpness and detail? (I do not agree FF gives you more contrast)
fletch5
Pain in the arse
- Messages
- 3,313
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- Yes
i would guess the 12mp full frame should be better than the 12mp cropped, as larger pixels etc. but i wouldnt call it a fair comparison. a 12mp vs a 19.2mp where the pixels are the same size(i think) would see identical images once cropped(ignoring all the processing etc done in camera and by other parts)
the other thing to consider is the full frame cameras are a lot more expensive than there cropped counterparts, so there is other things involved, not just the sensor.
the other thing to consider is the full frame cameras are a lot more expensive than there cropped counterparts, so there is other things involved, not just the sensor.
- Messages
- 4,771
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But it doesn't mean diddly-squat if you put crap glass in front of it!
Give me a 'cropped sensor' (hate the term, but it serves the purpose here) with top notch glass over a 35mm sensor with jam jars any day
Give me a 'cropped sensor' (hate the term, but it serves the purpose here) with top notch glass over a 35mm sensor with jam jars any day
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not missing the point at all! Not in the context of the OP. Of course if you compare 12mp with 12mp purely on the basis of sharpness there will be no difference, but on full frame you get more pixels (more potential resolution), and you also get bigger pixels. Bigger pixels gather more light and reveal more shadow detail, hence greater dynamic range.
This is established fact, and you've acknowledged the bit about resolution. The only reason I'm picking this up is that you and some others are suggesting to the OP that there are no image quality benefits to full frame over crop. That is wrong. Why on earth would Canon/Nikon/Sony make them, and photographers pay a very substantial premium to buy them?
The point I make about more contrast on full-frame is kind of moot, although the extra dynamic range gives that impression. I'm referring to micro-contrast, which is a lens characteristic that in theory you can observe better on full frame, but frankly it is best revealed in specific high resolution MTF tests (not the ones that are commonly published) and which are hardly relevant in everyday photography. Or any photography TBH, so I withdraw that one
With full frame you simply get more of everything, potentially. The only thing you get less of is depth of field. Both sensor types have some particular and inherant advantages; neither is absolutely 'best' especially when you factor in price, but if the only demand is for ultimate image quality, then full frame gets it.
And you can see it! Sure, crop sensors do remarkable things (that's why I've got one) and if you pick and choose your examples it is possible to prove anything. But a 12mp full frame against a 12mp crop, judged only for resolution, is not like-for-like in the way that I understand it, or I think, how the OP intended it.
- Messages
- 411
- Name
- Sam Hissaund
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Right I'm just going to wade in here and may be totally wrong but this is how I understand it. Usual abbreviations used.
If I set up a DX and FF camera both with a 75mm focal length, the FF camera will give me a wider shot. Same number of MP on both cameras, but the area covered by the image will be greater. This is where the term "crop factor" appears, as the DX image looks like it is a cropped version of the FF image.
So if we have a crop factor of 1.5, we need 1.5 times a smaller lens to get the same image on a DX as an FF (because as we all know, a smaller lens means a wider shot). If we put a 50mm on our DX camera, the image will now match the FF camera.
However this does not result in a loss of detail. The images are now the same size, but the MP values do not change! Therefore the image will be the SAME for both cameras. The clear advantage of the FF here is that each photosite on the sensor is larger, resulting in less noise, but there is no increase in image detail because the sensors have equal MP values.
Simple example. Take a piece of paper, draw a big square. Divide it into smaller squares so you have a grid. This is your DX sensor. Each small square is a photosite, representing a pixel on the final image.
Now make another big square, 1.5x the size. Divide it into the same number of smaller squares. This is then our FF sensor, with the same resolution as our DX sensor. Each photosite on the FF sensor is larger, meaning that you achieve reduced noise, but the number of photosites are the same. For more detail you need more photosites, so the image detail of both sensors is the same.
Below is what I'm talking about, for a 16 pixel sensor.
But that might all be wrong.
If I set up a DX and FF camera both with a 75mm focal length, the FF camera will give me a wider shot. Same number of MP on both cameras, but the area covered by the image will be greater. This is where the term "crop factor" appears, as the DX image looks like it is a cropped version of the FF image.
So if we have a crop factor of 1.5, we need 1.5 times a smaller lens to get the same image on a DX as an FF (because as we all know, a smaller lens means a wider shot). If we put a 50mm on our DX camera, the image will now match the FF camera.
However this does not result in a loss of detail. The images are now the same size, but the MP values do not change! Therefore the image will be the SAME for both cameras. The clear advantage of the FF here is that each photosite on the sensor is larger, resulting in less noise, but there is no increase in image detail because the sensors have equal MP values.
Simple example. Take a piece of paper, draw a big square. Divide it into smaller squares so you have a grid. This is your DX sensor. Each small square is a photosite, representing a pixel on the final image.
Now make another big square, 1.5x the size. Divide it into the same number of smaller squares. This is then our FF sensor, with the same resolution as our DX sensor. Each photosite on the FF sensor is larger, meaning that you achieve reduced noise, but the number of photosites are the same. For more detail you need more photosites, so the image detail of both sensors is the same.
Below is what I'm talking about, for a 16 pixel sensor.
But that might all be wrong.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
In round figures, full frame is 2.5x the size of Nikon/Canon crop (sometimes called APS-C, just to add to the confusion
).So your 12mp crop sensor becomes 30mp at full frame size, if pixel desnity is maintained. So if you take the latest full frame sensors with well over 20mp, they have around twice the number of pixels and each one is twice the size. That's a heck of an advantage!
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not missing the point at all! Not in the context of the OP. Of course if you compare 12mp with 12mp purely on the basis of sharpness there will be no difference, but on full frame you get more pixels (more potential resolution), and you also get bigger pixels. Bigger pixels gather more light and reveal more shadow detail, hence greater dynamic range.
This is established fact, and you've acknowledged the bit about resolution. The only reason I'm picking this up is that you and some others are suggesting to the OP that there are no image quality benefits to full frame over crop. That is wrong. Why on earth would Canon/Nikon/Sony make them, and photographers pay a very substantial premium to buy them?
The point I make about more contrast on full-frame is kind of moot, although the extra dynamic range gives that impression. I'm referring to micro-contrast, which is a lens characteristic that in theory you can observe better on full frame, but frankly it is best revealed in specific high resolution MTF tests (not the ones that are commonly published) and which are hardly relevant in everyday photography. Or any photography TBH, so I withdraw that one
With full frame you simply get more of everything, potentially. The only thing you get less of is depth of field. Both sensor types have some particular and inherant advantages; neither is absolutely 'best' especially when you factor in price, but if the only demand is for ultimate image quality, then full frame gets it.
And you can see it! Sure, crop sensors do remarkable things (that's why I've got one) and if you pick and choose your examples it is possible to prove anything. But a 12mp full frame against a 12mp crop, judged only for resolution, is not like-for-like in the way that I understand it, or I think, how the OP intended it.
I dis-agree with pretty much everything you wrote there.
Of course if you compare 12mp with 12mp purely on the basis of sharpness there will be no difference
Exactly.
but on full frame you get more pixels (more potential resolution)
This isn't a quality of full frame. You do not magically get more pixels.
The point I make about more contrast on full-frame is kind of moot
You mean you can't substantiat or, or are unwilling to back this up. I will help you out - Full Frame on its own gives no inherant contrast advantage. The strength of the AA filter has an awful lot to do with this - the reason why the Nikon D3X is supposed to be better than the Sony A900, same silicon, different "toppingQ
'm referring to micro-contrast, which is a lens characteristic that in theory you can observe better on full frame
Wrong - the Nikon D2X will reveal better micro-contrast than a D3 or D700.
With full frame you simply get more of everything
Rubbish. You are inventing magic.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, you're right. But what is your point?
My point is that full frame is (ultimately) better because not only can you get more pixels on there, you also get bigger pixels.
More sharpness, more dynamic range, less noise.
That doesn't mean we should all rush out and get one, because in real world photography most folks will never see the difference. That doesn't mean it isn't there though, and indeed it's quite easy to see if you do very big prints.
Why did Annie Leibovitz use a full frame Canon 1Ds to photograph The Queen, if she could have done it on a compact?
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I have no intention of turning it that way
Just healthy debate.And Pudders can hold his ground as well as anyone. The fact that he's wrong only adds to the fun
But I don't have anything more to say. PD keeps bringing up specific examples to prove a point about dynamic range or AA filters or something, without apparently acknowledging the fact that any and all of these things can also be done to full frame, and if you do, then full frame will always be 'better' in that respect.
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've said I could argue this both ways... I'm going to start on the other side in a minute
then full frame will always be 'better' in that respect.
I dis-agree with such an absolute statement. Using terms like "always" is dangerous.
Lets recall we are talking about contrast, sharpness and dynamic range - and you've still not made a convincing argument apart from "bigger, better" from what I can see
then full frame will always be 'better' in that respect.
I dis-agree with such an absolute statement. Using terms like "always" is dangerous.
Lets recall we are talking about contrast, sharpness and dynamic range - and you've still not made a convincing argument apart from "bigger, better" from what I can see
- Messages
- 411
- Name
- Sam Hissaund
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My point is that I wanted to post my understanding for confirmation, and this thread seemed the best place to do so where I could get some feedback if I was wrong. I thought that was the point of a discussion forum?
As to the FF = more pixels - it seems to me that it's not a feature of FF inherently? Only the D3x has more MP than the DX sensor on the D2x. :shrug:
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In the interest of healthy debate
Nikon D300 (cropped sensor) 12mp, Nikon D700 (Full Frame) 12mp.
Now then if you go to the next level of full frame D3x 24mp, I would expect more detail as it has more pixels, but your statement "on full frame you get more pixels" is not always true.
To make a comparison you need to compare apples with apples.
The D3x in this case will be better than the cropped D300, but it will also be better than the full frame D700, so in the case of D3x v D700 the Full Frame is better than the Full Frame.
The other problem is defining better, for me someone who shoots small wildlife the D300 is better than the D700, if I was a wedding photographer the D700 would be better than the D300.
What the camera manufacturers have given us are three different tools, to choose from depending on what your our needs are.
To muddy the puddle further sensor size is not the only factor to be considered in the choice of the tool for the job.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Going back to where this all started, the OP asked this question:
He received the reply "No" to which I reacted, saying yes, quite the reverse: it will deliver a sharper picture, and I added that dynamic range is also improved, because noise is reduced. A full frame sensor has the potential ability to out perform any crop format sensor in both these key aspects of image quality.
These are hardly revolutionary statements and are based on established fact. I see nothing contentious in that whatsoever. For a real life examples, the Canon 5DII and Nikon D3x both deliver more sharpness and greater dynamic range than any current crop sensor does.
He received the reply "No" to which I reacted, saying yes, quite the reverse: it will deliver a sharper picture, and I added that dynamic range is also improved, because noise is reduced. A full frame sensor has the potential ability to out perform any crop format sensor in both these key aspects of image quality.
These are hardly revolutionary statements and are based on established fact. I see nothing contentious in that whatsoever. For a real life examples, the Canon 5DII and Nikon D3x both deliver more sharpness and greater dynamic range than any current crop sensor does.
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well said, Martyn.In the interest of healthy debate
....
What the camera manufacturers have given us are three different tools, to choose from depending on what your our needs are.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. It's in Canon-speak because I understand the Canon range better than Nikon, but obviously the argument is universal.
Suppose Canon made a crop sensor camera using the same technology as the 21MP full-frame 1Ds Mk III. With crop factor of 1.6 that would be an 8MP sensor. But by definition the image quality would be identical to that of the 1Ds III, wouldn't it? Same size pixels, same noise characteristics, etc etc.
Of course you can't buy such a camera; the technology in the 8MP 350D and 30D is antiquated by comparison and delivers much less by way of dynamic range and sensitivity. But the point is that it could be done, and then surely the only difference between the full frame sensor and the cropped sensor is that the latter is ... er ... cropped.
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well said, Martyn.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. It's in Canon-speak because I understand the Canon range better than Nikon, but obviously the argument is universal.
Suppose Canon made a crop sensor camera using the same technology as the 21MP full-frame 1Ds Mk III. With crop factor of 1.6 that would be an 8MP sensor. But by definition the image quality would be identical to that of the 1Ds III, wouldn't it? Same size pixels, same noise characteristics, etc etc.
Of course you can't buy such a camera; the technology in the 8MP 350D and 30D is antiquated by comparison and delivers much less by way of dynamic range and sensitivity. But the point is that it could be done, and then surely the only difference between the full frame sensor and the cropped sensor is that the latter is ... er ... cropped.
Or to put in another way in Nikon speak - take the D700's sensor, scale it down to the 1.5x crop which would put it around 5.1 megapixels and put in in a D40 chassis.
Would this cropped D700 sensor offer better sharpness, contrast and DR than the stock DX sensor in the D40 (6 megapixels)?