Beginner Real world difference between cropped and full frame?

Tulipone

Tulipone

Messages
2,877
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I have an urge to change to full frame, more guessing that there is a real noticeable difference between cropped and full frame images taken, than with any real knowledge. I understand that I can look at images taken with one camera lens set up and compare with another but that won't compare my pictures (unless I make the change!).

Pretty much all of my images are for work now rather than for interest but with retirement looming again, looking forward to capturing images I am interested in again.

Grateful for your thoughts. Have you been here?
 
Of course there’s a ‘real world’ difference, but whether it’s enough different to you depends on a number of factors.

What kind of stuff do you shoot?

What camera do you have now? Would you buy a replacement crop camera if you didn’t go FF?
What FF camera are you thinking of?
 
Last edited:
Thanks Phil. Sadly house interiors is pretty much all I take theses day, but that looks likely to be coming to an end in the next few months. What I have now does that adequately (a D5300). I am looking at the more modern FF Nikon for more external non professional use, probably architecture, landscapes, wildlife, gardens etc but lenses will be purchased for those. The D5300 and crop lenses will have very little value anymore.
 
The reasons in my opinion for going full frame are that the sensors are better for high ISO and there is more variety of lenses out there, especially professional lenses. Is there a discernible difference between crop and ff, I would say no in most cases. I would recommend you use the D5300 for the type of photography you intend to do and evaluate it on whether it meets your needs before going FF. At the moment FF can be either DSLR or mirrorless which brings on a whole new set of question.
 
Thanks. I have had the 5300 since it was released and pretty sure there are few surprises with it, using it every day with work. I guess if the only discernible difference Is better higher iso than agree, possibly little point.
 
Tulipone said:
Thanks. I have had the 5300 since it was released and pretty sure there are few surprises with it, using it every day with work. I guess if the only discernible difference Is better higher iso than agree, possibly little point.
Click to expand...
It’s not the only difference; which is why I asked specific questions about your intended use, and other things.

For instance, I particularly enjoy the DoF difference of FF, others might treasure the improved DR. Or when you’re looking at specific models, the eye AF on new FF mirrorless cameras is an improvement on all crop cameras. Or simply the handling characteristics of one model (or type) over another.

In fact; I’d out and out say, I wouldn’t buy a DSLR now, it’s nigh on redundant technology.
 
Thanks Phil. I have been looking at the Z7 and like the prospect of mirrorless bodies - I had one of the old Panasonics when they first come out but went back to the D5300 but struggle to recall what the issues were with that. I'll probably stay with Nikon rather than trying to work out the menu system of another brand and think renting something is probably the best way forward when ready to buy.
 
When I went moved from film to digital I had APS-C DSLR's because there weren't any FF ones. I didn't do any research and just went for Canon as everyone said they were the best (I'd been using a Nikon SLR.) As I hadn't done any research I initially couldn't understand why 28mm wasn't wide any more but once I understood why (the crop factor) I did fine.

I actually had more difficulties going from the APS-C Canon 20D to a FF 5D as I'd got used to APS-C as I'd used it for maybe 10 years and suddenly found that to get the same DoF I had to stop down and this affected my shutter speed.

So that might be something for you to get used to.

Other than that... I now have FF and MFT and the biggest difference for me is that although the MFT cameras I now have are almost certainly "better" than the Canon DSLR's I had FF clearly has more dynamic range and it's noticeable in day to day use. Which is nice :D

I'd go mirrorless for the many advantages, no MA faff on, being able to focus anywhere in the frame, WYSIWYG and of course eye/face detect which when coupled to being able to focus anywhere in the frame is just... IMO... massive.
 
I would have said the difference is much more visible on older cameras. For example I could tell at a glance between my D300 & D700. Now it’s still there, but almost unnoticeable unless you need (want) those small gains at the edges of performance
 
really depends on your budget and uses (I know you mentioned them but both APS-C and FF bodies can satisfy your uses)
its better to have a capable APS-C bodies with good lenses than an average FF with average lenses.

With FF you get better DR, ISO performance and DoF control. Its also in some cases relatively smaller!
whether these are useful to you and if you can exploit them is another matter.
 
To me, the difference is in rendering, with FF giving cleaner edges, better detail separation, a greater sense of depth to an image. As Phil points out, if control of depth of field is important then FF is a better tool. OTOH if you want more depth of field then crop is likely going to be more helpful.

Personally I think APS-C is a jack of all trades format, and would rather have M43 for compact size, better reach and depth of field or FF for control, detail and appearance.
 
I would have thought FF would have been more beneficial when photographing house interiors not when you stop doing it.
 
gerry s said:
I would have thought FF would have been more beneficial when photographing house interiors not when you stop doing it.
Click to expand...

If my employer was not so tight, then he may see the benefit and actually buy (some) kit. In the meantime, he makes do with what he gets for free! I agree though, the benefit of higher iso would make life easier but I'll not be buying this for the company benefit - I want to enjoy photography again with the best I can get and if needed, grow into it.
 
Depends on many factors, crop sensors are much better than they used to be so a new aps-c might compete better than you might think with an old full frame.
 
I was more thinking of the ability to get wider shots re property photography
 
gerry s said:
I was more thinking of the ability to get wider shots re property photography
Click to expand...
why?
We’re 20 years into crop cameras it’s not 2005 any more, WA lenses for crop are relatively common.
 
I have a 10-20 that is wide enough for most rooms and fine now that I am better at controlling odd looking angles. I am looking forward to moving forward with different projects and will maybe hire a few options to narrow down choices or live with what I have.
 
If you replaced your D5300 with a newer full frame nikon the main thing you would notice is a bit better high ISO performance and a bit more dynamic range but if you are shooting interiors you should really be using a tripod and your base iso.

Good technique and post production will have a much greater affect on your finished interior images than an upgrade from the D5300 but if you are shooting things that move in bad light then you would benefit from the better high iso performance.
 
Last edited:
I use a tripod and shutter release with the D5300 for interiors - but certainly whatever the D5300 gets replaced with will not be doing interior pictures. It’s replacement is for my pleasure not for work. You are also correct that I use post production software to help correct geometry when needed.
 
Tulipone said:
It’s replacement is for my pleasure not for work.
Click to expand...
In that case, would you consider the Micro Four Thirds system? Most (but not all) of the M43 cameras and lenses are much smaller than their APS equivalents and the equipment range is now as wide as most people would need.

I regularly use Nikon FF, Sony APS and Panasonic M43. My experience is that there is no obvious difference in the picture quality between the three.
 
boyfalldown said:
I would have said the difference is much more visible on older cameras. For example I could tell at a glance between my D300 & D700. Now it’s still there, but almost unnoticeable unless you need (want) those small gains at the edges of performance
Click to expand...

Agree - I made that move mainly for better ISO (as well as DoF) - these days things like Fuji are pretty clean at high ISO so unless you shoot down a coal mine you should be ok!
 
I’ve gone from M43 (olympus) to FF (Sony) and APS-C (Fuji) I changed for the hands on experience rather than outright image quality. The Fuji has reinvigorated my enthusiasm and for a photographer experience it beats the Sony hands down (A7iii to X-Pro3). Yes the FF gives better IQ but for me the overall experience is better with the Fuji. I guess I could have had a similiar FF experience with a Leica but ££££
 
I think I have acquired the awful habit of pixel peeking on a high res monitor a highly zoomed in image and being disappointed when the detail isn’t there. Perhaps I should walk a few steps closer rather than buying anything new!
 
Or give up pixel peeping!
 
woof woof said:
I'd go mirrorless for the many advantages, no MA faff on, being able to focus anywhere in the frame, WYSIWYG and of course eye/face detect which when coupled to being able to focus anywhere in the frame is just... IMO... massive.
Click to expand...
One can also focus anywhere in the frame with a reflex camera and plain ground glass focusing screen.
 
Nod said:
Or give up pixel peeping!
Click to expand...
If only! :tumbleweed:

Then again, remember all those decades of arguing about how grainy a picture was or whether a Leica shot was or wasn't sharper than a Hasselblad shot?
 
Winslowe said:
One can also focus anywhere in the frame with a reflex camera and plain ground glass focusing screen.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can but I don't think you can do so anywhere near as accurately or anywhere near as quickly as you can with a mirrorless camera.

Mirrorless cameras (arguably) focus more consistently than anything else I can think of and if you have the time to focus manually with mirrorless you can focus with extreme accuracy, more accurately than you ever could with any unaided optical system because you can do so with the aid of a greatly magnified view.
 
woof woof said:
I'm sure you can but I don't think you can do so anywhere near as accurately or anywhere near as quickly as you can with a mirrorless camera.

Mirrorless cameras (arguably) focus more consistently than anything else I can think of and if you have the time to focus manually with mirrorless you can focus with extreme accuracy, more accurately than you ever could with any unaided optical system because you can do so with the aid of a greatly magnified view.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's easier to focus a magnified image, and mirrorless is more convenient with the means to magnify built-in, but many of us know how to focus the cameras we have.
Edit: I am all for mirrorless, but I think there are more compelling reasons for them than the convenience of manual focus.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Winslowe said:
Sure, it's easier to focus a magnified image, and mirrorless is more convenient with the means to magnify built-in, but many of us know how to focus the cameras we have.
Click to expand...

A number of us posting in the thread used cameras where the only option was to focus 'anywhere' on the ground glass screen (although the split prism often made it easier). But there's no doubting that the ability of mirrorless cameras to use a focus point across the full width and height of the screen makes focussing faster and often more reliable compared to either SLR or other types of commonly available camera.
 
Winslowe said:
Sure, it's easier to focus a magnified image, and mirrorless is more convenient with the means to magnify built-in, but many of us know how to focus the cameras we have.
Edit: I am all for mirrorless, but I think there are more compelling reasons for them than the convenience of manual focus.
Click to expand...

Unless you're Super Man with Super Vision you'll simply never be able to focus an unaided optical system to the accuracy you can focus with a digital camera and a magnified view. No matter how much you know how to focus the camera you have. Ditto AF as taking the focus off the sensor is bound to be a better bet than doing it any other way.

But all this is perhaps redundant as focus is in the opinion of some a bourgeois concept. That's not a view I agree with but I'm uncouth and common.
 
I use a full frame DSLR and fast lenses - the screen is bright and manual focus in most light is not too difficult. I only focus manually with still subjects, for which a right angle finder with 2X magnification is more than sufficient for anything I photograph.
 
Winslowe said:
I use a full frame DSLR and fast lenses - the screen is bright and manual focus in most light is not too difficult. I only focus manually with still subjects, for which a right angle finder with 2X magnification is more than sufficient for anything I photograph.
Click to expand...

I'm glad it works good enough for you and your needs.
 
Last edited:
hi, my thought is if the restrictions have lifted and if you have a decent camera store near by, co and spend an hour there playing with all ff models. Suggest to the sales person that you aren't really sure, but ff or mirrorless.

Handle and play with them for fitting the hand and dials/menus accessibility.
You might get lucky and there is an offer on...
I handled the z5 mkii I think it was, but found it plasticky in comparison to the d300 (previous camera) or leica m240 (I had at the time).

If you stay nikon, you can look at an adapter to continue using current lenses you may have...

but mainly, go try them all (or as many as you can... focus toward ff/mirrorless but try the 4/3rds and others too.
As your current camera is the works one, technically you would have free reign for any brand...

Alternatively, if there are any photo meetings/shoots going on outside, meet up and chat with people, see what they have and what you might be looking for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top