Landscape comparison pics between cropped and FF sensors?

swag72

swag72

Messages
7,969
Name
Sara
Edit My Images
Yes
I shoot nature pics the majority of the time and so I believe the cropped sensor is going to be better for me. I do desperately want to be able to shoot landscapes, which the FF is really the master of.

I would be MEGA interested in any comparisons out there between the same landscape shot with a crop and FF camera. I just wonder whether the difference to me would be so noticeable?

Can anyone oblige with comparison shots? I do hope so as I quite fancy seeing this.
 
swag72 said:
I do desperately want to be able to shoot landscapes, which the FF is really the master of.
Click to expand...
In what way do you think FF is the "master" of landscapes?
  • DOF? FF tends to give shallower DOF and you generally want more DOF for landscapes.
  • Low light capability? FF sensors tend to have better low light performance, because the photosites are larger, but that's not generally an issue for landscapes.
  • Pixels? Your 50D gives you plenty of pixels for printing as large as you wish.
  • Wide angle? Do you really need to go wider than your EF-S 10-22mm will allow?
I must admit I'm struggling to appreciate what you hope to see in this comparison.
 
TBH, you cant really go wider than a 10-22 which is crop only. The widest lens (I stand to be corrected) for FF mount is the 16mm which is the same FOV (apart from the 15mm fisheye which doesnt count).

So FF or cropped sensor makes no difference as far as landscape photography goes, and the 10-22 is a darn sight more inexpensive than the 16-35 by a long way, so the crop has the advantage really!!
 
odd jim said:
TBH, you cant really go wider than a 10-22 which is crop only. The widest lens (I stand to be corrected) for FF mount is the 16mm which is the same FOV.

So FF or cropped sensor makes no difference as far as landscape photography goes (and the 10-22 is a darn sight more inexpensive than the 16-35 by a long way, so the crop has the advantage really!!).
Click to expand...

Nikon does a 12-24mm and Canon does a 14mm 2.8 Prime.

So, yes, you CAN go wider on FF, plus, its f/2.8, not that it matters in landscapes.
 
I am corrected! Still, I cant see there being much difference in the final image TBH.

Edit - just looked at the Canon 14mm, its £1500, gulp!
 
Raymond Lin said:
Nikon does a 12-24mm and Canon does a 14mm 2.8 Prime.

So, yes, you CAN go wider on FF,
Click to expand...
Yes you can. My qustion to Sara was whether that's what she's after. I don't think it is. There was no mention of wide angles in her post, and no suggestion that she wanted to see the results from an ultra-ultra-wide lens on FF.....
 
StewartR said:
Yes you can. My qustion to Sara was whether that's what she's after. I don't think it is. There was no mention of wide angles in her post, and no suggestion that she wanted to see the results from an ultra-ultra-wide lens on FF.....
Click to expand...

i was merely referring to Odd Jim's post, not the OP. :)
 
swag72 said:
I shoot nature pics the majority of the time and so I believe the cropped sensor is going to be better for me. I do desperately want to be able to shoot landscapes, which the FF is really the master of.

I would be MEGA interested in any comparisons out there between the same landscape shot with a crop and FF camera. I just wonder whether the difference to me would be so noticeable?

Can anyone oblige with comparison shots? I do hope so as I quite fancy seeing this.
Click to expand...

You can still shoot great landscape images of a professional standard with a crop sensor camera. so if you have a need for a crop sensor camera by shooting a lot of nature shots (I'm in the same boat; mostly wildlife photography, but also a fair bit of landscapes. I use a crop sensor D300) then stick with the crop sensor imo.

And the true master of Landscapes... Large format film. But that's another beast all together. ;)
 
I've just bought a Sigma 12-24mm for my 5D2. You can't currently go that wide on a cropped camera. But who cares? Not many landscape photos will be taken at 12mm on a FF camera.

In my opinion, FF is only a benefit to landscape photographers that print large (above 20x16 and above). That's when the difference becomes noticeable and it's only a quality difference. It has nothing to do with ISO performance, depth of field or wide angles. A crop camera is every bit as capable for most landscape photographs.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Nikon does a 12-24mm and Canon does a 14mm 2.8 Prime.

So, yes, you CAN go wider on FF, plus, its f/2.8, not that it matters in landscapes.
Click to expand...

Nikon's 12-24 is a Dx lens so not suitable for an Fx body; they also do a 14-24 which IS an Fx lens. Sigma make a 12-24 which is suitable for FF (Fx) bodies (and 35mm film) and this gives a wider Angle of View than the Sigma 10-20 does with the 10-20 on a Dx body (35mm equivalent on a Nikon 1.5x Dx body is 15mm).

Please ignore the lack of artistry etc in the following photos - they're purely to show the different fields of view from a D70 (Dx sensor) and a D700 (Fx sensor) through a 12mm lens (Sigma 12-24 @ 12mm).

The FoV with a D70
3900146006_fbe948b80c_o.jpg


The FoV with a D700
3899363895_7876b9b737_o.jpg
 
Thanks for your replies guys - I do not have any experience of the full frame loveliness that it seems large numbers of folks speak about. I guess I am hearing this often, that the FF is the beast for landscapes and I just wiondered whether I would be able to notice a difference.

I think you have answered the question well in your first post Stewart, so thanks for that. I suppose that the FF has a following and is a bit of a legend for landscapes, so I understand. As I am absolutely not going down the FF route, I wondered what it was all about really.
 
Nod said:
Nikon's 12-24 is a Dx lens so not suitable for an Fx body; they also do a 14-24 which IS an Fx lens. Sigma make a 12-24 which is suitable for FF (Fx) bodies (and 35mm film) and this gives a wider Angle of View than the Sigma 10-20 does with the 10-20 on a Dx body (35mm equivalent on a Nikon 1.5x Dx body is 15mm).

Please ignore the lack of artistry etc in the following photos - they're purely to show the different fields of view from a D70 (Dx sensor) and a D700 (Fx sensor) through a 12mm lens (Sigma 12-24 @ 12mm).

The FoV with a D70
3900146006_fbe948b80c_o.jpg


The FoV with a D700
3899363895_7876b9b737_o.jpg
Click to expand...

...but the FOV comparison is almost irrelevant, as if you want superwide on a crop you just buy a Canon / Sigma / Nikon 10-XX lens!
 
If you want a cheap way into full frame and have the lenses to do it, get hold of a second hand 35mm body. I don't know anything about EOS bodies but I'm sure someone could oblige. £50 - £100 for a decent body should leave plenty of change for film and D&P while still being a LOT cheaper than a FF DSLR, although you will have to be patient and wait for the films to come back!
 
odd jim said:
...but the FOV comparison is almost irrelevant, as if you want superwide on a crop you just buy a Canon / Sigma / Nikon 10-XX lens!
Click to expand...

10-xx on a crop (1.6x) body is equivalent to 16mm on FF - considerably narrower than 12mm. Besides, if you read the original post, the comparison shots are exactly what were asked for.
 
^^ Indeed, but as someone said, would you really want to shoot landscapes that wide (its huge, lol!!).

In relation to the comparison shots, thats what I was referring to when I mentioned that fov shots were almost irrelavent, as really they are lens rather than sensor specific, so can be misleading.

Granted there are other aspects to full frame (such as sensor density) that can affect the image, but only if you pixel peep.
 
I think Sarah does have a point, though I'm not sure you will see it on any screen images TBH. Full frame does have a rep for landscape, but you need a big print to see it.

I think that if you had two identical shots, printed big to A3 or so, one from say a 50D and another from a 5D2 and both shot on the best available gear with optimum processing, the full frame image would be better if you look close. The micro detail, the clean colours, the rich and luxurious shadow detail. Subtle, and only visible in big prints, but still there. A bit like 35mm film compared to medium format (but not to the same extent probably).

Having said that, you can equal and even beat full frame by shooting a panorama and multiplying the sensor area that way. How about six frames, three across and two down? That would be awesome.

I think that panorama technique, and it's not difficult, is a better answer if what you want is wide views with ultimate quality. With a bit of practise, you don't need a tripod either. Tricky with moving subjects though ;)
 
Yes, I do want to take landscapes at 12mm precisely because it IS huge! I've also been known to take fisheye (circular - Sigma 8mm) landscapes to crop down to panoramas when I'm feeling too lazt to shoot a series of shots and stitch them.

Anything that affects the FoV is relevant - sensor size was the only variable in the shots I posted.
 
The only thing I will add is that no one has mentioned diffraction/Circle of Confusion/Airy disc call it what you will. Becasue the pixels are larger on a FF sensor you can stop down more before the image goes soft from diffraction. This may be a significant issue on landscapes.
 
DonnaM said:
The only thing I will add is that no one has mentioned diffraction/Circle of Confusion/Airy disc call it what you will. Becasue the pixels are larger on a FF sensor you can stop down more before the image goes soft from diffraction. This may be a significant issue on landscapes.
Click to expand...

That's true, although I think it's a format thing rather than pixel related. Diffraction on crop format becomes a factor at f/8 though I find it's pretty much invisible. F/11 is okay-ish, but f/16 is not and f/22 is really astonishingly horrible. It ramps up quickly at high f/numbers.

Having said that, usually the only reason to use those high f/numbers is to get more depth of field, and you get more DoF anyway with crop format, to the tune of 1.3 stops on Canon crop vs full frame. So you shouldn't usually have to stop down so far.
 
HoppyUK said:
That's true, although I think it's a format thing rather than pixel related.
Click to expand...

Sorry M8. Diffraction is directly related to pixel size. The smaller the pixels/closer they are spaced, the more effect diffraction has. Thats why 4/3 format is pretty poor in this respect and generally increasing pixel count does not necessarily give a like for like return.

If you do the sums then my Nikon D300 gets hit at f/8, my Hubby's 50D at f/5.6 (smaller chip more pixels) and even a 5DMkII because of its high pixel count is only f/11.
 
swag72 said:
I shoot nature pics the majority of the time and so I believe the cropped sensor is going to be better for me. I do desperately want to be able to shoot landscapes, which the FF is really the master of.

I would be MEGA interested in any comparisons out there between the same landscape shot with a crop and FF camera. I just wonder whether the difference to me would be so noticeable?

Can anyone oblige with comparison shots? I do hope so as I quite fancy seeing this.
Click to expand...

I think this covers what you need to know.

http://lens-reviews.com/Technical-Talk/Technical-Talk/Lens-Field-of-View-Visualisation-Tool.html
 
DonnaM said:
Sorry M8. Diffraction is directly related to pixel size. The smaller the pixels/closer they are spaced, the more effect diffraction has. Thats why 4/3 format is pretty poor in this respect and generally increasing pixel count does not necessarily give a like for like return.

If you do the sums then my Nikon D300 gets hit at f/8, my Hubby's 50D at f/5.6 (smaller chip more pixels) and even a 5DMkII because of its high pixel count is only f/11.
Click to expand...

I've never heard that Donna. I believe it is format size that is the significant factor, and that is why diffraction cuts in sooner with crop format vs full frame. 4/3rds is sooner still due to smaller format, and likewise compact formats. Your examples don't stack up.

This link is a good explanation of diffraction http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
 
interesting debate
a friend of mine swears by his 5dii and 17mm tokina lens

however, relevant to the OP, does a full frame sensor have a great dynamic range than a cropped sensor??
 
Ok - here's a landscape - was it shot FF or DX ? Answers on a postcard please . . .
3279.jpg


and another - FF or DX?
AW2_2887e.jpg
 
HoppyUK said:
I've never heard that Donna. I believe it is format size that is the significant factor, and that is why diffraction cuts in sooner with crop format vs full frame. 4/3rds is sooner still due to smaller format, and likewise compact formats. Your examples don't stack up.

This link is a good explanation of diffraction http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
Click to expand...

We beg to differ Hoppy so I will create a pdf, publish and be damned. It will take a little while to research the different cameras but I will get back. And yes I am very familiar with your linky
 
awp said:
Ok - here's a landscape - was it shot FF or DX ? Answers on a postcard please . . .
3279.jpg


and another - FF or DX?
AW2_2887e.jpg
Click to expand...

Without a shadow of a doubt - the bottom pic was taken on a full frame DSLR. Looks like a Nikon shot if I had to bet. Not entirely sure about the top one but I would guess at it being from a crop SLR.
 
Correct - did you sneak a look at the EXIF - or just a guess?
What might be interesting though is the top shot - taken with a D300 and a 20mm lens (Nikon 12-24mm) while the bottom shot taken with a D3 and 185mm (Nikon 80-200mm). So no reason to get a FX just to go wider! :)
 
awp said:
Correct - did you sneak a look at the EXIF - or just a guess?
What might be interesting though is the top shot - taken with a D300 and a 20mm lens (Nikon 12-24mm) while the bottom shot taken with a D3 and 185mm (Nikon 80-200mm). So no reason to get a FX just to go wider! :)
Click to expand...

Yes, of course I looked at the EXIF ;-)
 
Here is a PDF showing the aperture where the Airy disk is the same size as a pixel for a range of Canon & Nikon DSLRs.
For apertures smaller than those displayed, there will be some spillage of light into the adjacent pixel so image softening will occur. There is some debate as to when this gets really noticable, a good guide is 1.4 times the values shown.

Linky now working, my ISP.
 
Edit: that was quick Donna - gimme a mo... ;)

DonnaM said:
We beg to differ Hoppy so I will create a pdf, publish and be damned. It will take a little while to research the different cameras but I will get back. And yes I am very familiar with your linky
Click to expand...

That's cool Donna :thumbs: I'm very interested to see what you come up with :)

I'm not saying that pixels have nothing to do with it, rather that they are not the significant or deciding factor. Diffraction is an optical effect, independent of sensor (or film) but obviously what ultimately matters is what you see in the final image.

I don't think it's total pixels per se, or even pixel density, but when you have a coincidence of pixel size and airy disc the image can become more blurred. This will depend on pixel spacing, and pixel shape also. Not sure how you can even get meaningful data on that to work into a calculation.

To put that another way, if I understand what you are saying correctly then 100mp would provoke diffraction at about f/2 or something, regardless of format, which is clearly not true. On the other hand, if my understanding is correct, 100mp would reduce pixel size sufficiently for there to be no clash with the airy disc. Hasselblads have a very high pixel count on medium format - 39m. What is the diffraction limit on that? I would say it is nearer f/16.

And in the examples you quoted of a D300 hitting diffraction at f/8 while a 50D succumbs at only f/5.6, well neither the format size nor pixel density change is enough to provoke a whole stop of difference :thinking:
 
DonnaM said:
Here is a PDF showing the aperture where the Airy disk is the same size as a pixel for a range of Canon & Nikon DSLRs.
For apertures smaller than those displayed, there will be some spillage of light into the adjacent pixel so image softening will occur. There is some debate as to when this gets really noticable, a good guide is 1.4 times the values shown.

Sorry guys I do not think the link is working. MODS how do I link to a PDF document?
Click to expand...

Okay, linky not working, but I'm not sure you are talking about a purely diffraction effect here...
 
HoppyUK said:
I think that if you had two identical shots, printed big to A3 or so, one from say a 50D and another from a 5D2 and both shot on the best available gear with optimum processing, the full frame image would be better if you look close. The micro detail, the clean colours, the rich and luxurious shadow detail. Subtle, and only visible in big prints, but still there. A bit like 35mm film compared to medium format (but not to the same extent probably).
Click to expand...

This was definately the sort of answer I was after ;) - Please do carry on your debate - It's going totally over my head :D
 
Ceejay said:
There is a useful page on
www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
Which Hoppy may have been refering to. Or not !!!
C
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the page I linked earlier, and here's a quote from it:

"Are smaller pixels somehow worse? Not necessarily. Just because the diffraction limit has been reached with large pixels does not mean the final photo will be any worse than if there were instead smaller pixels and the limit was surpassed"
 
3279.jpg


I would have guessed the first shot was from a crop by the definition of the rushes
 
swag72 said:
I shoot nature pics the majority of the time and so I believe the cropped sensor is going to be better for me. I do desperately want to be able to shoot landscapes, which the FF is really the master of.

I would be MEGA interested in any comparisons out there between the same landscape shot with a crop and FF camera. I just wonder whether the difference to me would be so noticeable?

Can anyone oblige with comparison shots? I do hope so as I quite fancy seeing this.
Click to expand...

Going back to the ops original point, I shoot most of my landscapes on a FF camera, partly because at the time (5 years ago) the 1DS MKII was the only camera that gave me 50 mb tiffs (size that picture libraries want) without interpolation. Also, a FF camera feels the same as a 35mm camera, so a more comfortable progression , particularly around choice of lens.

I can usually pre-visualise a shot dependant on the lens, but found it a lot more difficult working out how a shot would look on a crop camera.

The widest lens I use on a FF camera is 12mm , which is superwide, and mainly used when I want to exaggerate perspective (example below)

I'm not suggesting you can't use crop cameras for landscapes but most of the landscape type lenses (17-40, 16-35, 24-105) that are typically used, sit more comfortably on a FF camera.

76611218_rfqSARGd.jpg
 
HoppyUK said:
Yes, that's the page I linked earlier, and here's a quote from it:

"Are smaller pixels somehow worse? Not necessarily. Just because the diffraction limit has been reached with large pixels does not mean the final photo will be any worse than if there were instead smaller pixels and the limit was surpassed"
Click to expand...

:thinking: If the limit is passed then you must be blurring.

my PDF now works BTW
 
Another belief I have (from too much reading and guillability probably) is that the 16-35 is a pretty awesome landscape lens.

If I take that as predominantly being due to the FL, then that just about echoes the 10-22 on a crop body.

Clearly it's not just about the FL of the considered ideal landscape lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top