Just trying to get my head round aps-c and ff

T

Tdes

Messages
438
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
I have kind of stumbled into paying photography gigs, and do enjoy them. Recently upgraded to a 77d but have been torn as to if I should have gone full frame.

I mainly shoot indoors at night without additional lighting (flash or continuous) in a reportage style. I bought a sigma 18-50 f2.8 to help, and it has, my client is very happy with my shots, but I think they could be better and it is a camera/light limitation.

Looking at FF cameras and read that they are batter in low light but have a narrower DOF at large aperture, so could f2.8 be too small DOF on FF but ok on aps-c in the same situation?

Because the sensor is bigger I understand it gathers more light (higher iso with less noise) so if I was shooting at a higher iso at f4 on FF rather than lower iso at f2.8 on crop I would still get better results or would they balance out to be almost equal.

Being self employed it is hard to justify large spending, but have to have the right tools for the job.

Cheers, T
 
I think you know that applying the crop factor of x1.6 gives the equiv. aps-c to ff...

I did a lot of testing mft v aps-c v ff and mostly concluded that when applying the crop factor and looking at the pictures things were mostly pretty equal and even when not applying it normal people saw no difference and had no real idea what I was going on about. Look for subtle little differences and of course they're there.

I suppose a lot therefore hangs on how closely you or others are going to look at your pictures and how they do so. If your pictures are mostly looked at on screen or as reasonably sized prints as whole images maybe you'll be ok with almost anything aps-c or ff even at the higher iso's... but you're thinking that better is possible so some thought and investigation is clearly needed.

Re the dof, only you know what you want but maybe studying some dof tables will give you a clue. I'm not a great believer in taking dof tables as gospel as they are for specific picture sizes viewed from a specicic distance so keep that in mind if you look at them.
 
Why not hire a 6D mk 1 or MK2 ???

Lenses for hire also hires Canon bodies.

Yes, costs some £'s but gives you a chance to try before you need(?) to buy.
 
woof woof said:
I think you know that applying the crop factor of x1.6 gives the equiv. aps-c to ff...

I did a lot of testing mft v aps-c v ff and mostly concluded that when applying the crop factor and looking at the pictures things were mostly pretty equal and even when not applying it normal people saw no difference and had no real idea what I was going on about. Look for subtle little differences and of course they're there.

I suppose a lot therefore hangs on how closely you or others are going to look at your pictures and how they do so. If your pictures are mostly looked at on screen or as reasonably sized prints as whole images maybe you'll be ok with almost anything aps-c or ff even at the higher iso's... but you're thinking that better is possible so some thought and investigation is clearly needed.

Re the dof, only you know what you want but maybe studying some dof tables will give you a clue. I'm not a great believer in taking dof tables as gospel as they are for specific picture sizes viewed from a specicic distance so keep that in mind if you look at them.
Click to expand...

That is good to hear that there is not much difference, my main experience in photography was in a studio with 6 bowens lights and a 5ds, image quality was excellent and I'm just not used to the quality i am getting now!
 
FF will have more shallow DOF for a given aperture and focal length, but this isn’t down to the larger sensor per se but due to you having to get closer to the subject. Without knowing how close you are to the stage and what focal length you use it’s difficult to know if DOF will be too shallow. For example I’ve seen plenty of images taken at f1.8 at gigs that have sufficient DOF.

As for noise benefits of shooting at f4 on FF and f2.8 on APS-C this will depend on the bodies. Some FF bodies offer over a stop benefit compared to some APS -C bodies, but less than a stop compared to others. The other thing to consider is dynamic range and colour shift at higher ISO, FF normally offer benefits in this area too.
 
Dont forget going full frame is not only about the cost of the camera, often it means lens changes too (added cost) unless you have already upgraded lenses before the camera switch.

I while back I had both a full frame and crop camera that I tried to do a comparison with.

DSC_9172 by -Rob - Nikon-

D71_8459 by -Rob - Nikon-

Because it was a wildlife subject I had to make a quick change which meant it wasn’t the best comparison for the time I had to do it. The D800 (FF) looks like it’s roughly a Stop brighter than the D7100 (crop)- that could be the reason for the iso difference (may have had some exposure compensation dialled in and maybe something in the metering quality and area too). I tried to frame roughly the same ie 300mm on full frame and 200mm on crop (actually 185mm so may have moved the zoom ring slightly along with some lens focus breathing thrown in too). I’ve always liked the shallow DoF full frame gives. In the above examples it could be the longer focal length to give the same framing that gives the view of a shallow DoF I like but may be perspective of less background in view in this instance. Focal lengths are quite long and the Squirrel wasn’t too far away (perhaps 4-5m). If you are using shorter focal lengths the difference may be less. Regarding shallower DoF for gig photography perhaps it could add so creativity to the images tha5 you may not so easy to do with a crop body.

The FF/crop comparison likely depends on if you are changing the focal length to get the same framing from the same spot (ie roughly 50mm FF and 35mm 1.5 crop). Too many variables to really to compare and quite subjective too. Let’s be honest most viewers arent going to see the negatives/issues photographers get hung up on (high ISO being a good example).

If it’s paid work and that are happy with your current output do you need to change anything?
 
Last edited:
Depth-of-field and format change:

With a full-frame camera compared to APS-C, when the subject is framed the same, from the same distance (focal length adjusted), and at the same f/number - DoF will be reduced by the equivalent of about 1.2 stops. The calculation is f/number x crop-factor. The squirrel shots are a good example.
 
frod said:
The D7100 shot looks better because the whole log is in focus.
Click to expand...
It’s very subjective and can be down to personal taste. The counter argument would be the out of focus log and background draws the viewer straight to the subject, whereas the in focus log allows the viewers eye to wander and explore the log in more detail and away from the subject. Neither views are right or wrong, photography is just subjective and mostly personal taste why we like something more than something else :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Depth-of-field and format change:

With a full-frame camera compared to APS-C, when the subject is framed the same, from the same distance (focal length adjusted), and at the same f/number - DoF will be reduced by the equivalent of about 1.2 stops. The calculation is f/number x crop-factor. The squirrel shots are a good example.
Click to expand...
Just need to get a stuffed squirrel so I can try this again at some point to get a more consistent comparison ;)
 
I was toying with the idea of buying FF lenses, so the upgrade would be less painful in the future, but what I need in one lens does not seem to exist!! for the crop sensor i have it would be too wide to use later on a FF.

I am thinking that maybe I have convinced myself that it could be better handling the challenging shoots I do, but as you have mentioned, my client is happy!!

Thank you all for the info, very helpful. T
 
Tdes said:
I was toying with the idea of buying FF lenses, so the upgrade would be less painful in the future, but what I need in one lens does not seem to exist!! for the crop sensor i have it would be too wide to use later on a FF.

I am thinking that maybe I have convinced myself that it could be better handling the challenging shoots I do, but as you have mentioned, my client is happy!!

Thank you all for the info, very helpful. T
Click to expand...

This is the reason I think buying FF compatible lenses just in case you want to switch to FF is rarely good advice. Or at least particular at the wide end. Big long lenses, maybe less important and most are FF any way but for the wider end I'd always want lenses to suit the camera I had in the here and now.
 
As Box Brownie says, why not hire and try before you buy (make sure you're insured though just in case you drop it!)? A 6D Mk1 (which has very good low light/high ISO performance) and an EF 24-105 f/4 L IS Mk1 lens would probably give you a good comparison and starting point. A used, low shutter-count 6D Mk1 isn't that expensive these days if you decide you like it, plus you'll have more money left towards replacing your EF-S lenses with EF fit ones than if you bought a new 6D MkII? Hope this is useful and you find the right set up for your needs.
 
gad-westy said:
This is the reason I think buying FF compatible lenses just in case you want to switch to FF is rarely good advice. Or at least particular at the wide end. Big long lenses, maybe less important and most are FF any way but for the wider end I'd always want lenses to suit the camera I had in the here and now.
Click to expand...

Some people think that buying full-frame lenses for their APS-C camera in preparation for a future move is the best of both worlds, but it's actually the worst of both. With a FF lens on APS-C, you're paying for format coverage you cannot use, while missing out on extra focal length and/or aperture. Eg, compare Canon's FF 17-40/4 or 16-35/4 with the APS-C 17-55/2.8.

Then when you do change, all focal lengths behave very differently and will need changing anyway. This applies just as much at the long end. Compare the very good little 55-250 4-5.6 STM (£300, 375g) to the FF equivalent 100-400 4.5-5.6 (£2k, 1640g). Not quite the same thing comparing a consumer-grade lens to pro-spec, but it makes the point. Changing to FF is a heavy decision in every sense, better to start as you mean to go on ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
Some people think that buying full-frame lenses for their APS-C camera in preparation for a future move is the best of both worlds, but it's actually the worst of both. With a FF lens on APS-C, you're paying for format coverage you cannot use, while missing out on extra focal length and/or aperture. Eg, compare Canon's FF 17-40/4 or 16-35/4 with the APS-C 17-55/2.8.

Then when you do change, all focal lengths behave very differently and will need changing anyway. This applies just as much at the long end. Compare the very good little 55-250 4-5.6 STM (£300, 375g) to the FF equivalent 100-400 4.5-5.6 (£2k, 1640g). Not quite the same thing comparing a consumer-grade lens to pro-spec, but it makes the point. Changing to FF is a heavy decision in every sense, better to start as you mean to go on ;)
Click to expand...

Totally agree. My statement about the long end was really just that if were to buy something like a 150-600 for a crop camera, and then changed to FF, well you're probably not going to change to something longer because there isn't much.
 
gad-westy said:
Totally agree. My statement about the long end was really just that if were to buy something like a 150-600 for a crop camera, and then changed to FF, well you're probably not going to change to something longer because there isn't much.
Click to expand...

Another way of looking at it is with a modern high pixel count FF sensor you almost have two cameras in one. Even when cropped down in post-processing to APS-C format, you still have plenty of pixels for a very decent result. That's effectively all that happens with an APS-C sensor. Canon 5DSR is very good at this, ditto Nikon D850 (both sans AA filter).
 
Appreciate the advice, I think I will try a rental at some point (when workload allows!).

It is the low light capability that is a must so will have to set up some tests (wouldn't feel comfortable straight into a paid shoot with a camera i don't know).

T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top