Full Frame V Crop Cameras

[tlc]

Hi guys, I have been wondering about this for ages and especially since I got my 7D. When I was in the shop the guy who sold me my camera is a Nikon man and tried to talk me into going back to D7000 but I had made up my mind between the two so I stuck with the Canon, so then he said well if your going to go Canon why not go with the 5D, of course I wasn't prepared for this mainly due to the initial cost, (I had initially thought about it but due to the weight of the full frames didn't think I would manage one) but if I upgrade again (which won't be for a long time) the logical choice would be a to a full frame.

So my question is this what sort of differences are there with a full frame body that there isn't with a crop, the most obvious one being the picture is equivalent to the 35mm, which I understand if you shoot a crop next to a full frame with the same lens on the full frame shot will have more picture. So what else do the full frame bodies have, do they have more features? I know the mega pixel rate is higher.

I know there is a lot here that have full frame cameras now, Huga, Snook, you guys spring to mind. Kirislin, you have mentioned a couple of times about one of your lenses not fitting on a full frame are you thinking about upgrading??

I remember something someone said a while ago, I think it was Shell and this was one of the things that sold me not he 7D, she said the 5D was not real good for action shots and dogs running towards her, she may have been talking about the mk2 not the mk3, I have read about a lot of issues with the mk2 and the auto focus, have they fixed this problem with the mk3

So hit me people, tell me the ins and outs of the full frame and help me understand why they are better or is it that they are just different.

I know I won't regret getting the 7D and couldn't afford the Full frame anyway but just curious and its been something Ive been thinking about for ages, I can read what the differences are but would love to hear in easy to understand language what users think of them.

[kja]

Go to POTN and have a look around (and at the equiv Nikon forum) - you'll see more than you have interest in.

In a nutshell, they are just different. Both do excellent results and 99.9% of the time and 99.9% of people aren't going to be able to tell the difference in images shot. Some will like crop and some will like FF - and each will likely be convinced that they couldn't do what they do with the other :D

Just like Apple & Windows or Canon & Nik there are pretty vocal camps. I stay out of all of it coz imho it's crap - stop pixel peeping and get on with shooting, I say. All the cameras today pretty much rock, so it's not like you'll be missing out with either option.

One practical item for the Canons: only the crop 1.7 cameras can use the excellent EFS lenses such as the phenomenal 60mm macro and the great 10-22 & 17-55 zooms. The crop cameras can use ALL the lenses Canon makes, the full frames (and 1D series) cannot. Not a huge deal, but something to be aware of especially if one swaps from crop to FF :)

[huga]

Ok. Well I have both and quite simply, the quality is amazing. I can tell without pixel peeping.

[kja]

Are both of yours equivalent cameras?

And I'm sure you can tell the difference ;)

I just don't think it's something to get worked up over or spend a lot of time worrying about.

[huga]

Is there such thing as equivalent FX and DX? I don't know.

I have a D300s and a D700, so pretty damn close.

And you're right, it's not something to worry about (for most people), but tlc was just asking a question :)

[kja]

Of course. It would be great if you could detail the things you think answer her questions - lots of people don't get to lay hands on both.

[Lollipup]

I've been curious about this also. Is it something a newbie is going to miss/wish I had been able to afford? Or just something to aim towards in the distant future as an upgrade.

[huga]

Not at all. You won't miss what you've never had :)

This is my business, quality is everything to me.

[kja]

Lolli - I don't think so. I think especially right now, all the new cameras are rocking quality, high ISO, AF etc. Unless you know exactly what a particular camera body - ff or crop factor - has to offer, there's not much in thinking too far into the future. Technology is changing fast and what's the best out there right now will be superseded by the time you're ready to change bodies.

If you don't have a camera yet, it's worth checking into all of the options in your price range. You may find that a particular body has things, including but not limited to, crop factor, that just feel right to you.

huga - I hate to be a harpie, but statements like yours imply that crop cameras do not produce quality and I think that is very misleading. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that at all. Perhaps you meant that you think crop cameras are simply not suitable for pro level work and, if so, I think that's a bit snobby as well as a disservice to crop cameras and all the pros who do use them with excellent results. You may personally like what a full frame camera brings to you but that doesn't make them perfect for everything or even every shooter, pro or otherwise.

I think this would be a great thread to outline exactly what it is about your model of FF makes it so appealing to you. Those who haven't used one could really use some first hand contributions so it's not so "well, this guy on the internet said it's better because blah blah blah insert stuff that doesn't make it easy to understand here". Which is what I think the OP is asking for.

Full frame cameras are great and produce lovely images. Are they the right tool for the job you want to get done? Maybe :) If you start with a crop will you eventually "upgrade" to a full frame? Maybe :)

this is a very short, easy little blog post that might help a bit.

Edited August 1, 2012 by kja

[huga]

Eh? I worked with a crop sensor for two years before upgrading. I prefer the full frame now that I have one. The crop is my back up. I like the quality of the FF. I often shoot in low light situations - clients houses, hotel rooms and churches. Everything looks better on the full frame compared to the work I have in similar situations on the crop sensor. I did not mean to imply that crop sensors are crap and I don't believe I did. Just because I prefer one over the other, doesn't make my second choice crap. I wouldn't shoot on crap.

I honestly don't know what else to say :laugh: If it comes across as snobby, then I apologise. Do I need to add a disclaimer that this is my opinion only?

*this is my opinion only*

[tlc]

Thanks for the replies, it really is interesting to hear what others think especially you guys who do work professionally, I really value your opinions and feel lucky that I can come here and post and get replies from professionals.

Snook, I can totally understand how your D700 would be amazing compared to your Canon.

I definatley don't think I'm missing out on anything, perhaps if I used a 5D or a D800 it might be a different story but for now I feel blessed to be able to shot with the 7D and who knows it might do me for a good while or forever.

I'm really just curious of the differences apart from the very obvious.

I just found a good (well I think it's good) comparison between the 5D mk2 and the D800, coming from someone who while not fully professional but heading that way, it was interesting to hear his point of view on both the cameras after extensive tests. Now I need to find a crop v ff to give me even more of an idea.

5D v D800

[Linda K]

I think one of the things to consider when making camera choice rather than full frame / crop etc is the sensor size. Agree with Huga, to me it was a no brainer at the time I bought my bodies which I use in my buisness - the larger sensor means that more information can be retained by the camera at time shooting, and pixels are not thrown out or compressed by the camera when taking shots so tht I have the best quality image retained available to me. For me as a pro, this is important when I could potentially have clients wanting to blow up images as large as they want. I did previously also have a crop sensor, and certainly saw way more improvement in quality once shooting over ISO 400 (which would be the bulk of my shooting LOL) For the average man on the street, who is probably not going to blow stuff up much bigger than 8 x 10 (which most people think is HUGE) I doubt they would notice any difference. Like Huga said, this is also just my opinion only :)

[tlc]

Thanks again for the replies, Linda thats all I am wanting is people opinions, its interesting to hear the replies, Ive just been in the back yard having a good play with my 7D, the pics looked ok in camera will see what they are like shortly! So far impressed with the 7D and what it can do, As far as crop bodies go, a lot of people say its the glass that make a huge difference and that may be the case but would you really get pics exactly the same if you use a cheap entry level camera with the same lens as a more expensive camera? If that was the case there would be one camera and lots of different lenses.

[tlc]

I also wanted to add that I think it's really important to get to know the camera you have and how to get the absolute best out of it, which means understanding how to shoot in manual and how different shutter speeds, apertures and ISOs affect your images. Having a fancier camera doesn't mean your photos will automatically be better and I think you need to know whether your current camera meets your needs before deciding to upgrade, which you can't know unless you know how your camera works and how far you can push it in different situations. I literally couldn't take photos in all of the situations I wanted to with my old camera because it couldn't cope with poor lighting conditions and only shot at 1.5 frames per second in RAW. If not for that, I'd probably still have that camera and would have just upgraded my lenses.

We were posting at the same time. :laugh: I guess each camera has so many different functions on it, and the capabilities that the 1000D had would be limited compared to the 7D so I totally get what your saying.

[Linda K]

snook - I wish there was a like button - can;t count how many people have said to me (and I know it is a common comment) - your pictures look so great - what camera and lens do you use. Same as asking a painter what brush and paint brand they use, r a skier what type of skis they use - someone else using the same thing is not automatically going to get exactly the same results. Heck I remember one of my first workshops I did, where we all stood at exactly the same spot, next to each other, many of us using the same cameras and same lenses, and not one shot looked alike, as choices of focal point, composition, shutter speed, etc all made completely different images. I am also put in mind of an article from a UK magazine, where they did a similar type of thing as the ABC TV show, where they gave some pro photogs a variety of camera, such as mobile phones, holgas etc and sent them out to capture images - these did not look at all snap shotty like most people would do with them. I also found this excellent blog post - My link

[Linda K]

TLC - just saw your question - OK, what you need to picture is that the quality of the light coming through to the sensor is firstly affected by the filter on the lens (so a cheapo filter on an expensive lens will distort the light before it even passes through the lens). Generally the more expensive the lens, the better the glass quality is, so light is unaffected - cheaper glass may have more imperfections in it, so image is not as sharp (there are more tolerances for allowance of the lens corresponding to certain standards) The light then next hits the sensor of the camera, and this is then where the sensor size comes into play as to how much compressing is done. Lastly it is then effected by any setting in camera before the image is saved to the card - eg if it is set to save as large jpeg, data will be compressed, whereas as RAW, it will not be compressed

Image quality can then further be effected by whether the camera is dirty - ie dirty lens, dirty sensor, which can either make images less sharp or lots of crud showing up.

Why then do manufacturers still make so many bodies - same reason car manufactures make so many cars, when they all do the same thing - ie get us from point a to point b - not everyone is after the premium image quality, some people do just want a point and shoot and don;t want the extra features an SLR has, some people want some of the features of an SLR but still want the camera to make all the choices for them, some people want to dabble a bit more but don;t need the whole hog, and then there are those made for people who will put cameras through far more work in a couple of years than most others would in a lifetime (so as a result, have cameras that can cope with more shutter actuations than the average SLR) - different horses for different courses. Same with the lenses

Why keep making newer ones, and hyping people up to buy the latest thing - becuase sadly that is the type of society they have turned us into, we must always have the latest and bestest, without necessarily thinking why this will be better than what we already have.

Agree totally with snook on that point that before getting sucked in on getting something new, anyone doing that needs to think why what you have already is not achieving what you want.

Look forward to seeing some more indoor shots!!!

[Kirislin]

Thanks again for the replies, Linda thats all I am wanting is people opinions, its interesting to hear the replies, Ive just been in the back yard having a good play with my 7D, the pics looked ok in camera will see what they are like shortly! So far impressed with the 7D and what it can do, As far as crop bodies go, a lot of people say its the glass that make a huge difference and that may be the case but would you really get pics exactly the same if you use a cheap entry level camera with the same lens as a more expensive camera? If that was the case there would be one camera and lots of different lenses.

I know the answer to this one. NO. I started with a 400D which was a great camera for general photos, and I took some good shots with it, I then bought the top of the range 70-200 2.8 IS lens hoping to catch those elusive whippet action shots I craved, and the dear little 400D just couldn't focus fast enough, that is when I realised I'd outgrown the camera and bought the 7D.

and the 7D 70-200 combo gave me shots like this.

The Home Turn by kirislin, on Flickr

IMG_5632dppc by kirislin, on Flickr

IMG_5902dppt by kirislin, on Flickr

IMG_5609dppt by kirislin, on Flickr

the 400D would not have been able to focus quick enough to keep up with the lens.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Kirislin

[tlc]

Thanks for the replies, I am finally starting to understand what i have failed to understand for years, its all making sense to me now.

Kirislin, those shots are outstanding! Just curious do you use fully manual or are you shooting in AV? I never ever used AV with my Nikon, mainly S or P and that was it but I have found using AV is heaps better.

[Lollipup]

I have a question about the crop factor and lenses.

My camera has a crop factor of 1.5, so my 50mm lens is equivilent to a 75mm lens on a full frame camera. So, a 35mm lens on my camera would get the same result as a 50mm on a full frame. So my question is - if everyone loves the "nifty 50" so much, are they talking about it on a full frame or cropped or just both in general despite the crop factor? If I wanted the results of a 50mm on a full frame, should I use the 35mm instead?

Hope this makes sense, having trouble finding the right words

[tlc]

That made my head hurt, :laugh: but I totally understood what you meant, I am curious about the answer too.