Why are so many of you on 1.6 crop cameras?

[whooshdemon]

I never set out to address noise or focusing - the crop factor was the whole and only point of the test. The other issues being raised now are just clouding the issue.

That could be why I am confused - other people WERE addressing noise and focussing. And I certainly find them important.

I's nothing to do with the size in the frame, but it just illustrates to what extent people really don't get this.

With you so far - I obviously don't get what you're getting at.

The image viewed in the viewfinder would look no different in a 20D, 40D, 50D. or any other camera for that matter with the same sized sensor.

Uh-huh, with you so far.

The relevant point is that the pixel count has increased with each of the above models along with the 1:1 file getting substantially physically bigger each time. You have to view each 1:1 file at full res to see the gains you're making and the more pixels underlying your main subject which gives you the cropping advantage.

Think I'm with you, but having more pixels means each individual pixel is smaller, so will suffer more from noise - so there's a trade off.

The 50D will capture at least as large, probably larger image in the 1:1 file of the actual subject with a given lens without a 1.4 converter, than a 1.3 crop sensor will capture with the same lens and a 1.4 converter. A full frame sensor would suffer even more in comparison. You'd also be shooting a whole stop faster on the crop sensor sans converter.

Sort of think I followed that. But a stop faster on the crop sensor still can have a stop worse noise - as I mentioned previously. And that's where it's a trade off. This is especially a problem in low light conditions.

Seriously, do the tests yourself - it's easy enough, you might just be surprised.

Seriously, I've compared the performance of full frame and crop sensor cameras in the same low light conditions, and the crop sensor pics are noiser. Unfortunately for me, the noise was the difference between an acceptable picture and an unacceptable one. And just wish I'd not been fooled by my camera letting me use ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 as I'd assumed the pictures would be worthwhile.

 

[CT]

Guys - I'm off shopping. The benefits of the crop senor are real in many many situations, the converter advantages I've touched on is another benefit. I'm not saying it's the perfect camera for all situations - that cameras hasn't been made yet.

 

[grumpybadger]

I don't agree that noise is irrelevent as it is part of the trade-off between resolution and image quality. If it is all about getting the best image, then noise is a factor. On that basis, if we look at the 5DII and the 50D (the current best Canon 1.6 crop and FF cameras) then we can see that the 5DII offers about 1 stop improvement in signal to noise ratio at 100% view (what we are interested in for small birds) then this means that the 5D can cope with 1 stop less light for the same image quality. Therefore, we can use a 1.4 extender, where we are running without on the crop sensor.

Now, the 50D has 4752 pixels across 22.3mm of sensor and the 5DII 5616 pixels across 36mm of sensor. This gives 213 pixels per mm in the 50D and 156 per mm in the 5DII. But, remember, the 5DII can take a teleconverter and still offer the same noise performance so we need to multiply its pixel density by 1.4, giving an effective pixel density of 218 per mm.

This means, in area terms, for the same noise levels, a 5DII will put 5% more pixels on your subject than a 50D. Agreed it is a small difference, but it is there. I certainly feel that the difference is so small as to be irrelevent but it does show the 50D is not leagues ahead.

Interestingly, your conclusion on you 1DIIN/20D comparison I agree with wholeheartedly

We have a lot of bird photographers on the forum now and this article is aimed primarily at them in the hope that it's some help to them in choosing the best sensor format for their needs. Photography of small birds brings it's own peculiar problems as it almost always involves cropping of the original image and problems in maintaining image quality in the process.

It's not all about birds of course and I wont be getting rid of my 1DMK2n any time soon. The build quality is far superior and there are occasions when the faster AF and drive speed is going to be better for larger flying bird shots. The larger sensor also comes into it's own with wider lenses, and any shot in fact where you can fill the frame reasonably.

It's the movement from this very logical position over the last 13 months to the position that cropped sensors are better for wildlife, a point I have seen you make several times in recent weeks on here, that bothers me. It really is too sweeping a generalisation and yet seems to be a consistent message. As I said in my first post, there is more to wildlife photography than small birds.

Paul

 

[IanC_UK]

blimey i didnt intend to start WW3 LOL

Like i said for the shots i am taking the AF is to slow on the 50D for me, if i can get it to track and get a shot the pictures are excellent, but im actually losing more shots than im keeping if i stick to using it. Which is counter productive for me, specially as these subjects dont hang around long.

 

[walls]

so it boils down to the fact that full frame offers better noise performance to croppers at comparable ISO. But the significant benefit of the crop to magnify a scene reduces the importance of galactic noise ability.

Draw, case closed.

or does it...what?

 

[whooshdemon]

blimey i didnt intend to start WW3 LOL

You were just a part of an informative discussion :boxer: especially the part where we all tried to guess what you photographed, with what and why.

Still I'll sign up the draw.

(Until I have enough money, skill and physical strength to handle a good full frame camera... )

 

[jerry12953]

Vignetting tends to become an issue with full frame camera.

....As I have just discovered. I used the Canon 24-105 with a 40D very successfully; now with the 5D the corners are slightly darkened. And I've already had to buy a new polariser!

 

[fracster]

blimey i didnt intend to start WW3 LOL

Like i said for the shots i am taking the AF is to slow on the 50D for me, if i can get it to track and get a shot the pictures are excellent, but im actually losing more shots than im keeping if i stick to using it. Which is counter productive for me, specially as these subjects dont hang around long.

And stop shooting static birds, it ain`t very sporting............:nono:

 

[Ant]

Simple answer: I can't afford a Full Frame Camera.

That's my reason too.

I just cannot afford a Fx camera. I'd love one, but only if i had the moneys..

 

[CT]

Now, the 50D has 4752 pixels across 22.3mm of sensor and the 5DII 5616 pixels across 36mm of sensor. This gives 213 pixels per mm in the 50D and 156 per mm in the 5DII. But, remember, the 5DII can take a teleconverter and still offer the same noise performance so we need to multiply its pixel density by 1.4, giving an effective pixel density of 218 per mm.

This means, in area terms, for the same noise levels, a 5DII will put 5% more pixels on your subject than a 50D. Agreed it is a small difference, but it is there. I certainly feel that the difference is so small as to be irrelevent but it does show the 50D is not leagues ahead.


Paul

This has got to be the daftest comment so far. Erm... a 50D can take a converter. Your argument presupposes that the noise gain if it's really significant, is the deal maker in this situation, which is just nuts. I posted shots only yesterday with the 2XT C at 12800 ISO which shows I think that it's not as bad as some people would have you believe.

Nothing personal mate, but this is moving so far away from a reasonable discussion that in the word of The Dragons... for that reason, I'm out.

 

[grumpybadger]

I'm glad you're happy running ISO12800 on a cropped sensor. Your example shows nothing. It's at web resolution. Your examples said you needed high res pictures for Alamy. Don't they mind noise? As for your shot yesterday - too noisy for me I'm afraid but you're happy with it so I didn't comment.

As for reasonable discussion, I've been the one using evidence and facts and you've resorted to calling my input daft. You still haven't addressed the issue of why you continue the fundamentally flawed line that cropped sensors are better for wildlife?

 

[pampers]

 

[CT]

LOL. No need for the popcorn, Mr Badger just made my ignore list which is a first for me. Where does it say FFS that I was ever going to upload that image to Alamy? It was a demo image of a 12800 ISO image, which no-one has bothered to try as far as I can see,, but let's' all stop taking actual pics, get the slide rule out and start cut 'n pasting graphs. Talk about clutching at staws!

I responded to a poster who'd posted in an earlier thread asking for advice which was ignored. After I'd posted you decided to respond despite the fact that you couldn't be bothered to respond to the earlier thread. This happens quite a bit, and I can't help but feel that there's some bruised egos floating just under the surface here, which results in an agenda which doen't help anyone make intelligent decisions about sensor size.

Over and out and thread unsubscribed from.

 

[Matt]

i think what Ct is saying is that a cropped sensor is better for wildlife because the picture you get is 'closer' to the subject, and therefore requires less cropping of the finished image, which then gives you higher picture quality than if you have to lop off lots of pixels..

 

[EdinburghGary]

Wow, TP deathmatch

 

[Matt]

to be fair, if i get dragged in i will simply ban people who disagree with me and change user titles of anyone who delivers a smarmy comment...so I'm right...

 

[EdinburghGary]

to be fair, if i get dragged in i will simply ban people who disagree with me and change user titles of anyone who delivers a smarmy comment...so I'm right...

You jobby you!

 

[fracster]

to be fair, if i get dragged in i will simply ban people who disagree with me and change user titles of anyone who delivers a smarmy comment...so I'm right...

****, Frac unsubscribes from this thread, Matty has change d my stuff enough..............

C `mon guys, stop pixel peeping and enjoy what you do, if FF works use it, If crop works use that, ain`t worth arguing about...............

 

[grumpybadger]

i think what Ct is saying is that a cropped sensor is better for wildlife because the picture you get is 'closer' to the subject, and therefore requires less cropping of the finished image, which then gives you higher picture quality than if you have to lop off lots of pixels..

I understand that. But it is this view that wildlife always needs you to get closer which I have an issue with. Wildlife is more than small birds and so a crop sensor, which may be right for some circumstances, isn't always the answer.

I have said a number of times that each to their own and that Cedric has a point for certain subjects in certain conditions but that his blanket wildlife is better with a crop sensor is blatently untrue. It depends on circumstances.

I was just trying to make the point that noise performance is a key differentiator between crop and FF sensors and something that needs to be considered. Something Cedric refused to acknowledge. Nice to know I've made an ignore list for having a different opinion!

Paul

 

[fracster]

I think you both have a different POV,opinion and experience, surely you can accept each others opinion,etc, and move on?

You both take excellent images and are both very helpful to us all, perhaps it would be best to let this drop and carry on........

 

[Splog]

IMHO noise has to be a factor? but this thread seems to focus on pixel count and ignores pixel quality and to me seems confusing? Larger pixels have a greater well depth i.e. can capture more photons without blowing out (overflowing) and therefore can record a greater tonal range and thus a better image quality with better S to N ratio
So to try and put this into perspective would it be true to say that a ff cropped to the same image size would contain a better tonal range than a cropped camera and if the tonal range was broader would that not also give a sharper image?

Just a question?

 

[Matt]

point and shoot cameras with a high pixel count generally have a naff PQ as the noise and colour rendition are not as good so that back ups that idea, but as i dont have a full frame i cant comment further.

 

[whiteflyer]

Several reason people use crop cameras

Cost Cost Cost

Also to anyone coming from p&s or from no camera at all the may not know or care about crop/full frame. I'm somebody who did not do film or have a real interest in photography until I got a P&S given to me then I bought a dSLR and to be honest crop or ff would make not a scrap of difference to me.

If I want to go wide the I'll get a 10-22mm , that's 16mm and a FF doesn't go much wider than that.

I have a 70-200 f2.8 on my crop to give effectively the same framing as a 300mm on FF but look at the price of a 300mm f2.8

We must remember that for the majority of folk on here togging is a hobby and not a professional, so hobbyist cost are a big thing.

 

[EdBray]

Several reason people use crop cameras
If I want to go wide the I'll get a 10-22mm , that's 16mm and a FF doesn't go much wider than that.

Sorry but that is incorrect. A Sigma 12-24 is considerably wider than a 16mm and it's a zoom, and if you want a really really ultra wide angle on a FF camera, there is always the 8mm (yes eight mm) Sigma Fisheye.

 

[whiteflyer]

Sorry but that is incorrect. A Sigma 12-24 is considerably wider than a 16mm and it's a zoom, and if you want a really really ultra wide angle on a FF camera, there is always the 8mm (yes eight mm) Sigma Fisheye.

I stand corrected, I did not realize the Sigma could be used on a FF

 

[George]

Very interesting thread, made great bedtime reading from start to finish. How sad is that??

 

[POAH]

Sorry but that is incorrect. A Sigma 12-24 is considerably wider than a 16mm and it's a zoom, and if you want a really really ultra wide angle on a FF camera, there is always the 8mm (yes eight mm) Sigma Fisheye.

TBF he did actually say not much further than that.

there are a couple of 14mm primes, nikon 14-24 and sigmas 12-24 for FF superwide so technically he is correct. going that wide also brings problems of distortion and perspective control and not everyone needs or requires that width.








I never really understand this dicussion about APS-C and 135 size sensors. crop is cheaper, you can get equivelent FOV for crop and you get the longer reach too. yes DOF is lower but then shooting at f1.4 on acrop is still bloody waffer thin. 135 does have the FOV with reduced distortion because of the longer focal lengths for the same FOV on crop. you can say to the 135 users why have you not go dMF cameras, less noise, more DR, more control over DOF.

if 135 dSLR's where cheaper I would get one purely because the IQ is better than crop but my 40D costs £540 and a 5dmk2 costs £1850 rather a large jump there.

 

[EdBray]

TBF he did actually say not much further than that.

Maybe, but whilst the difference between 12mm and 16mm is only 4mm in numeric terms, it is very considerable in terms of angle of view on a FF camera, and then the 8mm lens is much wider again.

 

[DigitalRelish]

if 135 dSLR's where cheaper I would get one purely because the IQ is better than crop but my 40D costs £540 and a 5dmk2 costs £1850 rather a large jump there.

Why not consider buying used? My 5D cost me £825 and came with 6-month warranty.

Of course, that's not the total cost of ownership because you'd need to consider lenses too, but body-wise, the jump to full frame isn't that big..

 

[POAH]

Why not consider buying used? My 5D cost me £825 and came with 6-month warranty.

Of course, that's not the total cost of ownership because you'd need to consider lenses too, but body-wise, the jump to full frame isn't that big..

because I don't want a 5D and £825 is still far too much

 

[susie]

Because that was what was bought for me, I am very happy with it so why change

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

I too found it worthwhile taking the time to read this thread from s to f.

Am I clearer? Nope. Too many claims and counter-claims have got in the way, for me, of proving conclusively that FF is always going to be absolutely and significantly better than Cropped in particular circumstances, and vv. Too many "yes, but...." and "don't you say that about me, you bounder..." to convince a newbie that this issue is a no-brainer. :bang:

Am I wiser? Oh yes.
Plans to add a 5D (mk1) when funds permit are now on hold. That would have created a "two body" situation and I'd have spent too much time agonising over which body to grab on my way through the door. Now, I'm back to considering a 40D or 50D as an upgrade to replace the 400D for my photography which covers most "home/town & country/hobby/domestic" situations but where I consider opportunist wildlife photography to be my main interest, such as this which had to be taken at 80 yards (there was a river in the way) and cropped heavily to remove the trees through which I was shooting. 400D, 100-400L.

 

[hyakuhei]

The 50D is a big jump forward in terms of XXD series bodies.

Great screen
Better buffering
UDMA
Fast FPS (though same as 40D)
High resolution
High sensitivity AF

 

[yamahapaul]

Is the 1.6 crop preferable for action shooting?

what is it that has stopped so many of you, including professionals to not move to full frame?

It just seems like the natural progression to me but maybe Im wrong.

I bought my 400D as my 1st digital SLR not knowing much about crop factors and such like..... even though its an excellent camera I wanted a full frame so upgraded to a 5D which is now my main camera, with the 400 being more suited (for me at any rate) as a more portable walk-around-snap-shot camera.... as an added bonus of having a more 'hands on' camera in the 5D I've noticed that I can also get more out of the 400..... maybe there's a lesson in there somewhere.....

 

[oldfella]

With a 1.6 sensor you are effectivley cropping in camera rather in Photoshop. So your cropped image is at a far higher resolution.

If you take the same shot of the same Robin from the same place with a FF and a 1.6 crop sensor, the size of the Robin in the frame won't change, you'll just get extra scenery around the Robin with the ff because the sensor is bigger and it uses all of the lens, not just the centre area that the 1.6 crop sensor uses.[/QUOTE

 

[theMusicMan]

Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
With a 1.6 sensor you are effectivley cropping in camera rather in Photoshop. So your cropped image is at a far higher resolution.

Not really Grendel... by cropping in Photoshop it would mean you're losing pixels from the original image, whereas if you take the image on a greater crop factor camera you'd have the same image you had cropped out of Photoshop (of course, this is depending on lots of factors - we're summising here for simplicity), but without a reduced number of pixels... thus a closer (effectively), more detailed image.

If you take an image with the same lens of a bird on a FF and 1.6x crop camera, and each camera has similar 12MB sensors, then more detail of the bird will appear on the 1.6x camera.

 

[TheVDM]

Ive just been looking through the "Show your gear" thread and firstly am shocked at the amount of "Gear Heads" there are in this forum...

Secondly its weird to me that so many people has stuck with 30D's/40D's/450D's etc, and put huge investment into nice lens's. Is the 1.6 crop preferable for action shooting?

what is it that has stopped so many of you, including professionals to not move to full frame?

It just seems like the natural progression to me but maybe Im wrong.

I would have to say that for me it would be that I dont have the money for a 5D and probably wont untill they are collectors items.

I spend most of my time shooting in the 50-150mm range, so I dont have to worry about ultra wide angle lenses for the 1.6 crop factor.

As for people who photograph birds/animals or the stars, the 1.6 crop factor is a bonus as they can zoom in to 1.6 times the rated zoom on their lens, which eliminates the need to buy a more powerful zoom lens!

But on the other hand, I do have a full frame camera... Its an EOS 300, spens a lot of time with ilford products inside it, its a great camera (nothign to serious) and can be bought for about £20 on ebay.

Jim

 

[foodpoison]

Because I can't afford it, not a personal choice. I would love to have a 5D.

 

[POAH]

now got a 5dmk2 and while the noise is lower the AF sucks compared to my 40D

 

[Druid]

I mostly use full frame, but then, I mostly use an F3. Works as well today as when it was made in 1980-something