How much of an improvment would you get going from a cropped sensor to fullframe?

M

Michael D Beckwith

Messages
130
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
Just out of curiosity how much of a gain in improvement would get going from a cropped APS-C sensor to a full frame with regards to ISO performance? Would you get 1 full stop of difference, or even more like 2?
 
Depends on the camera. There's a big difference between say a Canon 6d and a Nikon D4S.

Not all full frames are equal.
 
Its more than stops though (to the OP) that must be considered in the equation.

Its sharpness, dynamic range, colour reproduction, better use of wider (FF) lenses, far cleaner images at higher ISO, better shadow detail etc etc.

Again, another topic discussed to death on here, a search will bring up a few discussions on this.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Its more than stops though (to the OP) that must be considered in the equation.

Its sharpness, dynamic range, colour reproduction, better use of wider (FF) lenses, far cleaner images at higher ISO, better shadow detail etc etc.

Again, another topic discussed to death on here, a search will bring up a few discussions on this.
Click to expand...
To be fair to him he had a very specific question about ISO comparisons. I wouldn't be trawling old threads either.
 
Also 'stops' can be misleading. For example, I can shoot happily on a Canon 6d at well over 10,000 + ISO, but on a 70D I wouldn't want to shoot over 1600 comfortably. Real world shooting really does differ to lab results.
 
UaeExile said:
To be fair to him he had a very specific question about ISO comparisons. I wouldn't be trawling old threads either.
Click to expand...
True. I was just adding the other ingredients to the pot, as that's where the money goes :)
 
Thanks for the feedback I just wanted a rough guestimate between the 7D MK I and the 5D MK III on ISO performance. I am thinking of maybe upgrading to a full frame in a years time, though in the mean time I will be using this old 7D MK I until it drops. To be honest one of the selling points of a full frame to me is the tilt shift lens. The widest tilt shift lens by Canon is 17mm which is quite wide although on a cropped sensor with the x1.6 that becomes 27.2 focal length which is not that wide. I'd love to use the tilt shift for when I am shooting internal architecture and don't really want the 27mm focal length and want the 17mm instead. That means upgrading to a full frame camera, although to be honest I might get a second hand 5D MK II, not "too fussed" about ISO performance as I shoot on a tripod using 100 iso 99% of the time. In this post I was just generally inquiring about the ISO performance gain going from cropped to full frame though that is not the primary reason for switching. If Canon made a TS lens at a focal length of 10mm then I'd stick to a cropped sensor, sadly they don't. : (

I have a tendency not to rush things and think things for a long while. This is for a possible upgrade next year. If I do get a TS lens, it will be new, but the camera might be second hand though checked and tested. By the way I know that you can do perspective correctoin in photoshop, which in general might look alright be technically you are stretching pixels and would rather optically correct the perspective even if it costs a bit more. Thanks for all your feedback. :)
 
5Dmk3 is astonishing in low light.
So this was at H2 (102400) ISO and in the pitch darkness. yes it's noisy, but I hadn't expected to get anything usable.
150116085.jpg
 
You can crop to a smaller percentage of the frame and still get a decent size image.
 
chris malcolm said:
About the same as waiting a few years for crop sensor performance to catch up.
Click to expand...
Not really.

It doesn't work like that as we will always be limited by the laws of physics.

Current Canon crops are still way behind the 5d mk2, the IQ of which completely obliterates the 70d / 7dii, their two newest crops. The 5d mk2 was released 7 years ago...
 
If internal architecture is your bag then perhaps consider the 6D
 
odd jim said:
Not really.

It doesn't work like that as we will always be limited by the laws of physics.

Current Canon crops are still way behind the 5d mk2, the IQ of which completely obliterates the 70d / 7dii, their two newest crops. The 5d mk2 was released 7 years ago...
Click to expand...

Ah yes, you're quite right. I'd forgotten about those unusual laws of physics that dictate the pace of development of Canon sensors :)
 
chris malcolm said:
Ah yes, you're quite right. I'd forgotten about those unusual laws of physics that dictate the pace of development of Canon sensors :)
Click to expand...
As good as Canon are, I doubt they'll be able to change the laws of quantum mechanics!

Which in simple terms means bigger imaging sensors and pixels will always be able to gather more light, and won't need to amplify the signal as much, hense, cleaner more detailed images with less noise.

Apart from gimmicky software there's no way around this :)
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
As good as Canon are, I doubt they'll be able to change the laws of quantum mechanics!

Which in simple terms means bigger imaging sensors and pixels will always be able to gather more light, and won't need to amplify the signal as much, hense, cleaner more detailed images with less noise.

Apart from gimmicky software there's no way around this :)
Click to expand...

Of course you are right -- at any specific time, comparing full frame with crop sensors of the same technology generation. Sensor technology has been improving ever since the first DSLRs with their less than 3MP sensors about twenty years ago. Today's crop sensor DSLRs have better image quality in all respects than the first full frame DSLRs. So if somone several years ago was dissatisfied with the quality of his crop sensor DSLR and wanted the full frame quality of that time, one of the options was simply to wait until sensor technology development had pushed crop sensor IQ past where full frame IQ of that earlier time had been. It's naturally debatable how long that would have taken, or how long it will take from now. Opinions seem to vary between three and six years.

If your quality is based on some fixed reference, such as an A4 print of a certain kind of ex-camera jpeg shot at 400 ISO viewed at one foot distance, then waiting the necessary years for technology to produce that quality in a crop sensor camera is always an option. Full frame is only always better if you simply have to keep up the Jones's, and then only if the Jones's don't migrate into medium format image quality.
 
chris malcolm said:
Of course you are right -- at any specific time, comparing full frame with crop sensors of the same technology generation. Sensor technology has been improving ever since the first DSLRs with their less than 3MP sensors about twenty years ago. Today's crop sensor DSLRs have better image quality in all respects than the first full frame DSLRs. So if somone several years ago was dissatisfied with the quality of his crop sensor DSLR and wanted the full frame quality of that time, one of the options was simply to wait until sensor technology development had pushed crop sensor IQ past where full frame IQ of that earlier time had been. It's naturally debatable how long that would have taken, or how long it will take from now. Opinions seem to vary between three and six years.

If your quality is based on some fixed reference, such as an A4 print of a certain kind of ex-camera jpeg shot at 400 ISO viewed at one foot distance, then waiting the necessary years for technology to produce that quality in a crop sensor camera is always an option. Full frame is only always better if you simply have to keep up the Jones's, and then only if the Jones's don't migrate into medium format image quality.
Click to expand...


It's not about keeping up with the Jones as you say, it's about getting the kit you need to do the work you want to do.

I bought a FF body as I needed the high ISO capabilities of the FF sensor. I have two cropped bodies as well.

It's not even relevant to say FF is only better if you compare like for like generations. Canon crops haven't really improved in IQ since the 50d was released in 2008 (IMO). I certainly can't tell the difference between a 50d shot and a shot taken by a 70d so the argument that crop catches up with FF within a reasonable time scale simply doesn't ring true. I use Canon as the example as that's what I'm experienced in, and the odd Fuji.

And as I've already said, the new Canon crops aren't even close to the 5d2 in image quality, and that's 7 years old.

I think we're reaching the limit of what smaller sensors can do, which isn't a bad thing as they are very good.
 
Last edited:
Anyone remember film ???

That was always crap at higher ISO than 400 :D

My first Pro spec camera, the £3,500 D2Xs, was pants at ISO now that pretty much any £350 camera can better

But back to the OP's question - yes the generally MUCH more expensive FX camera is better than the far cheaper DX ones at silly high numbers of ISO

Dave

ADDING - but I think the need for a wide TS lens has sorted the choice mate :)
 
Last edited:
From what I have seen, a 1DS mkII (2004) offers similar ISO 3200 performance to that of the the 7D mkII. The 7D II can push ISO's higher natively, but back in 2004 quality was considered more important than chasing deminishing returns. So, it has taken 10 yeaes fot crop sensors to reach past FF levels, but 2004 was near the infancy of DLSR's where technology evolved at it's fastest. I would expect it to take far longer for crops to reach 6D/5D3/1DX/D6X0/D8X0 levels. Most future gains will likely be achieved by software/hardware processing rather than leaps in sensor tech.
 
Byker28i said:
5Dmk3 is astonishing in low light.
So this was at H2 (102400) ISO and in the pitch darkness. yes it's noisy, but I hadn't expected to get anything usable.
150116085.jpg
Click to expand...


i'm not sure i'd call that usable!
at least for anything larger than that size



any differences in full frame noise performance are countered by using faster lenses on the crop sensor
sigma 18-35 1.8 is a good lens for crop sensors
 
my friend has a 6d, I have a 5d3, I wouldn't go above 3200, 6400 at a push, he's happy to shoot at 10,000 and our images look comparable

i'd say get the 6d if noise if your main concern-it's cheap too!
 
zorki said:
any differences in full frame noise performance are countered by using faster lenses on the crop sensor
sigma 18-35 1.8 is a good lens for crop sensors
Click to expand...
That is a rather bold statement. I know where you are coming from but there are many counter-arguments to the logic. There are plenty of f/2.8 FF zooms which provide better IQ, wider range and faster apertures, not to mention the many f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2 etc primes available on FF. The Sigma you quote is a very nice lens, but with just 2x zoom is is not that much more effective than cheaper FF primes. Crops are better for chasing long distances or for keeping costs reasonable. What would be the crop equivelent of a 24-70 or 70-200 f/2.8, or an 85mm f/1.2?
 
odd jim said:
It's not even relevant to say FF is only better if you compare like for like generations. Canon crops haven't really improved in IQ since the 50d was released in 2008 (IMO). I certainly can't tell the difference between a 50d shot and a shot taken by a 70d so the argument that crop catches up with FF within a reasonable time scale simply doesn't ring true. I use Canon as the example as that's what I'm experienced in, and the odd Fuji.

And as I've already said, the new Canon crops aren't even close to the 5d2 in image quality, and that's 7 years old.
Click to expand...

That's not because the technology isn't capable but because as a business they've decided they don't need to update the sensor design.
 
Orville said:
That is a rather bold statement. I know where you are coming from but there are many counter-arguments to the logic. There are plenty of f/2.8 FF zooms which provide better IQ, wider range and faster apertures, not to mention the many f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2 etc primes available on FF. The Sigma you quote is a very nice lens, but with just 2x zoom is is not that much more effective than cheaper FF primes. Crops are better for chasing long distances or for keeping costs reasonable. What would be the crop equivelent of a 24-70 or 70-200 f/2.8, or an 85mm f/1.2?
Click to expand...

I always thought the nifty thing about the Sigma 18-35mm is that it's so good it can effectively replace the equivalent FF primes for 28mm, 30mm, 35mm and 50mm on a crop body as just one lens. Not that I agree a fast lens replaces the need for ISO performance.
 
zorki said:
i'm not sure i'd call that usable!
at least for anything larger than that size



any differences in full frame noise performance are countered by using faster lenses on the crop sensor
sigma 18-35 1.8 is a good lens for crop sensors
Click to expand...
No chance (and even if you could recover that much light, what if you didn't want to shoot everything at f/1.8??)!

The 6d will shoot ISO 10,000 and be useable with minimal NR. The 70d with any of my fast primes can't get near this level of clarity and quality in comparison at even ISO 3200 which still produces more noise.

Of course, you can also use fast lenses on FF cameras (who'd have thought!) which pushes it that step further.

But it's not just about high ISO either remember.
 
Last edited:
simonbarker said:
That's not because the technology isn't capable but because as a business they've decided they don't need to update the sensor design.
Click to expand...
No, it's the limits of physics! As I say, I think we are at the technical limits of the smaller sensors now, so the improvements will take even longer to arrive, if they *noticeably* do at all. The same I think is probably true with larger sensors to a degree, but by their nature they probably can be tweaked and improved on a bit more (look at the 5ds / r etc).

If a manufacturer could market a small, cheaper sensor that could perform as well as an FF sensor they make a packet, especially if in doing so they trump a competitor.

I'm looking at this from a scientific point of view, not as a gear snob I'll point out, as I own all sorts of cameras!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
No, it's the limits of physics!
Click to expand...

No one said you'll get the same performance from a crop as a full frame in the same timespan.

odd jim said:
If a manufacturer could market a small, cheaper sensor that could perform as well as an FF sensor they make a packet, especially if in doing so they trump a competitor.
Click to expand...

Even if they were capable of that best case scenario (and I'm not saying they are) they may decide it's more profitable to keep using the existing design, you brought up Canon but they're not a great choice as they've stuck with an old sensor design so of course you're not going to see much improvement in image quality despite many years of new models being released.
 
zorki said:
i'm not sure i'd call that usable!
Click to expand...

Depends what it could be usable for, a pic of that ISO would be used late at night so for paparazzi photographers if there was a scene going on with a 'celeb' and you get a few shots of that quality the newspapers would print that for sure, there is many examples out there of images of that ISO range that have already been printed in papers.

@Byker28i Thats pretty good I would say for that ISO.
 
odd jim said:
If a manufacturer could market a small, cheaper sensor that could perform as well as an FF sensor they make a packet, especially if in doing so they trump a competitor.
Click to expand...

Olympus OMD :D

I should stop banging on about it but DoF differences aside I have to look at 100% to tell a difference between my D610 and Oly EM10, admittedly the quality of the lenses plays a big part here too.

In this thread I think it makes a big difference what brand you are talking about, as has been noted Canon APSC sensors haven't really moved on that much so if you are in that system you probably will find FF is better, but with Nikon/Sony sensors its a different story and their APSC sensors have really moved on in recent years.
 
Where are these Nikon APS-C sensors that are significantly better than Canon equivalents? Most reviews seem to publish pretty even results, with +/- one-third of a stop difference dependent upon type of noise measured. Cannot find any DX sensors which come close to Nikon or Canon FF at ISO's above 400.
 
Also, Nikon crop sensors *are* slightly bigger than Canon crops ;)
 
Last edited:
simonbarker said:
No one said you'll get the same performance from a crop as a full frame in the same timespan.



Even if they were capable of that best case scenario (and I'm not saying they are) they may decide it's more profitable to keep using the existing design, you brought up Canon but they're not a great choice as they've stuck with an old sensor design so of course you're not going to see much improvement in image quality despite many years of new models being released.
Click to expand...
As already stated, no where did I compare generation for generation, quite the opposite and I made that clear I thought, canon crops (for example) are still significantly behind their full frame bodies from 7 years ago when it comes to image quality (70d vs 5d2).

Current Canon crop sensors aren't an "old sensor design" they're brand new designs each time. They employ the same basic tech of all the Bayer sensor manufacturers.
 
Last edited:
Nawty said:
Olympus OMD :D

I should stop banging on about it but DoF differences aside I have to look at 100% to tell a difference between my D610 and Oly EM10, admittedly the quality of the lenses plays a big part here too.

In this thread I think it makes a big difference what brand you are talking about, as has been noted Canon APSC sensors haven't really moved on that much so if you are in that system you probably will find FF is better, but with Nikon/Sony sensors its a different story and their APSC sensors have really moved on in recent years.
Click to expand...
Canon or Nikon crop, there isn't anything in it really.

Unless you're saying there's a current gen Nikon crop that can match a Canon 5d2 (a few gens back) in image quality??
 
Last edited:
A further complication is that some users feel that Canon and Nikon seem to have decided to get their enthusiast or semi-pro users of crop sensors to move to full frame by not producing top quality fully featured crop sensor cameras, or at any rate not updating their last one.
 
chris malcolm said:
A further complication is that some users feel that Canon and Nikon seem to have decided to get their enthusiast or semi-pro users of crop sensors to move to full frame by not producing top quality fully featured crop sensor cameras, or at any rate not updating their last one.
Click to expand...
I'd argue the 7D Mark II is more feature packed than Canon's FF cameras (except maybe the 1DX). Admittedly it is a slightly newer body, but I think Canon are definitely still catering for the higher end of the crop market.
 
zorki said:
i'm not sure i'd call that usable!
at least for anything larger than that size
Click to expand...

lets put it this way, it's late, dark, the only light is reflected from the town on the otherside of the harbour. I'm on a breakwater and a fisherman is feeding his mackral bait to a seal up close. Yes it's noisy, I'm just amazed it took anything usable and wasn't a black blob.
Turned out the guy was a local vet, loved the image as a reminder. Didn't think anyone would believe him.
 
chris malcolm said:
A further complication is that some users feel that Canon and Nikon seem to have decided to get their enthusiast or semi-pro users of crop sensors to move to full frame by not producing top quality fully featured crop sensor cameras, or at any rate not updating their last one.
Click to expand...
Never heard that gem before. What semi pro Canon or Nikon bodies are bereft of features? Most of the time it's the other way around.
 
Last edited:
I thought I'd move to FF and leave crops behind but I've ended up with both as each has its benefits. If I'm going to the track, I'll take the 7Dii and for almost anything else I'll have the 5Diii. The 7Dii is cheaper than a longer reach lens to get the same reach as my 5D and has plently of fantastic features that the 5D doesn't. But it can't match the pure image quality that the 5D produces.

You choose your compromise based on your use and budget.
 
I had a 7d, usable ISO around 2500, now I have a 5d3 and I have usable images at 12,800.

I have regularly used it to 5000 and they are as good as the 7d at 100 imho
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top