Starting a Discussion - APS-C vs. FF

[joedlh]

I guarantee that this is going to raise hackles. I'm an xxD shooter. Have used xD cameras and they don't suit my photographic style. Sorry about that. I imagine to some, that makes me something of a ne're do well. However, I have [ahem] sold photos, won awards, and have enlargements displayed in public places.

So, my gauntlet to be thrown is that I'm tired of hearing the FFC (Full Frame crowd) extoll the virtues of what are basically 35mm digital sensors as "Full Frame", implying thereby that everything else is somewhat less full and, therefore, distinctly inferior. Nevertheless, the images that I get from by 20D and 40D seem somehow to fill the frame in the images that I view.

"Full frame", of course, originated from the original SLRs that used 35mm film. However, with the quality of images from APS-C size sensors, I think it's outmoded. I propose another term, one that is more appropriate, such as 35mm, large format, or APS-B (which is probably not correct).

[xoldboy]

this should get interesting... subscribed.

[Balliolman]

I shoot both and each has their benefits.

[birdfromboat]

Hey, if I am going to pay for an image circle that is x diameter, I want a sensor capable of using that diameter to its fullest. I like that canon has started selling lenses that only make circles the size that a smaller sensor can utilize to its fullest. I hope it leads to lighter, less expensive lenses with either smaller chunks of flourite or maybe more of 'em.
Given the size and weight of the best lenses out there now, I want a camera that at least puts all that weight and size (and expense) to good use. Full frame for me, so there!

[Mosca]

I dunno, whatever. It seems like a strange thing to fight about.

[butugly]

"Bring it on"
nothing like a good fight to get the poor mods working.

[Pete]

I'm not sure there's anything to fight about here.

Larger and smaller sized sensor bodies each have their own applications and uses.

[cedew]

Full Frame is just a reference point, don't get too worked up on the terminology. Everything has become smaller over the years, but since lenses between crop and full frame are interchangeable for the most part, giving a reference point helps one determine what the numbers mean.

If you're commenting on the attitudes of full frame users, I haven't seen it myself. I have seen plenty of film people who dislike the digital revolution, but I understand their point of view, so it doesn't bother me. If you don't understand what the fuss is all about with full frame, I would ask you if you've even owned a 5d + 24-105/24-70? I don't think that combo is awesome because of the full frame sensor. I think it's a great camera that happens to be full frame.

As for choosing a different name, it doesn't matter, it's arbitrary, call it whatever you like. Call it a Pringle's Powered Poop Tube if it makes you feel better...3PT for short.

[Pete]

If you don't mind, I've changed the title of this thread to something a little less confrontational and a bit more descriptive...

[cedew]

He's from New York, they love to...discuss. :p

[airfrogusmc]

If you shoot a good deal of wide angle then shoot FF if not rock on with whatever floats your boat. Cameras are just tools. A means to create. Find one that helps you create. The rest is all BS. Who cares what the image is made with. Its the image thats important. I shoot with equipment that works for me. You shoot with gear that works for you. Its all good.

I would argue that the 14L, 24L and 35L really shine on FF.

[butugly]

thats it i knew those nice mods would sort it out,but keep it running its an interesting point.:wink:

[JeffreyG]

So, my gauntlet to be thrown is that I'm tired of hearing the FFC (Full Frame crowd) extoll the virtues of what are basically 35mm digital sensors as "Full Frame", implying thereby that everything else is somewhat less full and, therefore, distinctly inferior. Nevertheless, the images that I get from by 20D and 40D seem somehow to fill the frame in the images that I view.


I think you are needlessly reading some kind of put down in the terminology that isn't there. It's true that 35mm film was just an accident of creation in using half motion picture film segments. But once that happened all of the camera makers steadily developed full lines of lenses designed to just cover the 35mm film format with their image circle.

'Full frame' means simply that the sensor is the full size of the format for which the lens line has been developed.

As for the quality discussion, sure, APS-C digital cameras are capable of very good image quality. But that also sidesteps the fact that if you hold all else equal a larger format will always be capable of better IQ than a smaller format simply due to the physics of the optical system. The advantage of the smaller format is essentially only cost. You don't even get much of a size/weight advantage because the vast majority of EOS lenses are designed to cover the full 35mm frame.

I think that because main advantage of APS-C is cost some users may have an inferiority complex, but IMO if you get the quality you need from APS-C then being frugal is not a bad thing.

[Mosca]

Decision tree:

Do I feel limited by my APS-C?

Yes
Get a full frame


No
Stop


Next.

[Ballen Photo]

This is an interesting debate, albeit a bit repetitive.
I use what ever size/type of camera best fits the job at hand. I have (and still shoot on occasion) film camera's from 6x6 to 110. Now which of those is considered full frame? :lol:
My digital cameras include FF, crop, compact, and even my very small Fuji F20 that is usually with me everywhere I go. ;)
My avatar is a very small crop taken from a photo of a cat that showed the whole body (including tail) that was taken with my 10D. I don't see any lack of sharpness or quality there, even though it is dated by today's standards.
The major advantage of using a FF camera aside from being able to use wide angle lenses to their fullest, and once again getting shallow dof when I want it, is that I no longer have to do the math to figure out what the perceived focal length will be. :cool:
-Bruce

[Rudeofus]

Dear Joe,

you start your post claiming that FF sensor based cameras didn't fit your style and that you have reached a level in photography most here (including myself) have not come close yet - all using a crop sensor camera.

Instead of going into detail (what was it you didn't like about larger sensors) you lash out at the commonly used terminology for these sensors and suggest terms like "large frame" (already taken by much larger film formats, mind you) or 35mm (what's 35mm about the 5D sensor?). Even if all of POTN settled on your APS-B terminology, nobody outside POTN would understand us. POTN may be our world but the world is not POTN, not even the photographic world.

There is an ongoing thread here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=702455) about the technical merits of different sensor/film formats, which besides having a heated and quite emotional debate brings out some great info for the technically less inclined among us.

Please tell us where you plan on taking this thread ...

[Wilt]

Ignore 'full frame' and remind yourself of a truism in film, which remains true when digital has supplanted film...the larger the format, the lesser you magnify the captured image in order to produce a large print. It is there that the advantages are seen in improvement in image quality...it is not merely due to lens resolution being not worked so hard (for example, 135mm format image is magnified about 16x to make a 16x20 print, the 4x5 image is magnified only 4x for the same final print, but it is also due to the increase of color clouds or grains (in film) or in pixels (of course, this assumes for digital the same 'pixel pitch' or distance from pixel to pixel is maintained by the larger format) to represent the same amount of subject area...if you have 2x the linear representation via the larger format, you have 4x the number of pixels or color film clouds, both to capture the same square inch of subject!

[chauncey]

So sad to reach the pinnicle of success and find oneself debating different size sensors.

[single_track]

yawn

[joe mama]

I guarantee that this is going to raise hackles. I'm an xxD shooter. Have used xD cameras and they don't suit my photographic style. Sorry about that. I imagine to some, that makes me something of a ne're do well. However, I have [ahem] sold photos, won awards, and have enlargements displayed in public places.


Cool.


So, my gauntlet to be thrown is that I'm tired of hearing the FFC (Full Frame crowd) extoll the virtues of what are basically 35mm digital sensors as "Full Frame", implying thereby that everything else is somewhat less full and, therefore, distinctly inferior. Nevertheless, the images that I get from by 20D and 40D seem somehow to fill the frame in the images that I view.


Larger sensor systems have definite IQ advantages over smaller sensor systems (http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/) but that doesn't mean that they are necessarily "better" than smaller sensor systems, depending on the needs and QT (quality threshold) of the photographer and/or audience.

As for the term "Full Frame", then you can read about the history of the term here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film


"Full frame", of course, originated from the original SLRs that used 35mm film. However, with the quality of images from APS-C size sensors, I think it's outmoded. I propose another term, one that is more appropriate, such as 35mm, large format, or APS-B (which is probably not correct).


The "best" terminology would simply be to refer to the frame dimensions, such as 36x24 for "Full Frame", or, at the very least, by the size of the sensor diagonal (we would then call "Full Frame" 43mm, for example -- how confusing is that?).

Anyway, a rose by any other name, eh? Point is, larger sensor systems have significant IQ advantages over smaller sensor systems. However, depending on the type of photography we are talking about, the display size of the image, and the QT of the viewers, these advantages are likely of little importance compared to the size, weight, and cost advantages of smaller sensor systems. But we can't say which system is "best", because "best" depends on the needs of the user.

[Wilt]

Larger sensor systems have definite IQ advantages over smaller sensor systems but that doesn't mean that they are necessarily "better" than smaller sensor systems, depending on the needs and QT (quality threshold) of the photographer and/or audience.... Point is, larger sensor systems have significant IQ advantages over smaller sensor systems. However, depending on the type of photography we are talking about, the display size of the image, and the QT of the viewers, these advantages are likely of little importance compared to the size, weight, and cost advantages of smaller sensor systems. But we can't say which system is "best", because "best" depends on the needs of the user.

Well stated. I have shot products with 4x5 on film because of the IQ value over 135 format film. And I used medium format because of the IQ advantage it provided to my wedding photography clients. Yet I own only an APS-C digital sensor because I find that it fully meets my IQ needs in a non-professional need, and for what little I still do in the professional realm today. Bigger may be better, but it is not always necessary.

And it certainly is hard to justify the greater expenditure on a body compared to APS-C for many, including me! Especially with the very rapid depreciation and fickle public who do not value excellent equipment simply because something new came out last quarter or last year. The incremental cost, compared to the film days, in owning the larger format in digital is far too steep still.

[400dabuser]

I guarantee that this is going to raise hackles. I'm an xxD shooter. Have used xD cameras and they don't suit my photographic style. Sorry about that. I imagine to some, that makes me something of a ne're do well. However, I have [ahem] sold photos, won awards, and have enlargements displayed in public places.

So, my gauntlet to be thrown is that I'm tired of hearing the FFC (Full Frame crowd) extoll the virtues of what are basically 35mm digital sensors as "Full Frame", implying thereby that everything else is somewhat less full and, therefore, distinctly inferior. Nevertheless, the images that I get from by 20D and 40D seem somehow to fill the frame in the images that I view.

"Full frame", of course, originated from the original SLRs that used 35mm film. However, with the quality of images from APS-C size sensors, I think it's outmoded. I propose another term, one that is more appropriate, such as 35mm, large format, or APS-B (which is probably not correct).


Full frame cameras, you have to carry these huge lenses, just for the same focal length as APS sensors little telephoto lenses

[Rudeofus]

Full frame cameras, you have to carry these huge lenses, just for the same focal length as APS sensors little telephoto lenses
Crop cameras, you have to get this fast expensive glass, just because you can't bump ISO as high and DOF won't be as thin as on FF. Jeeeez, this really turns into an uninformed flame thread now :( Please!!!

[Ballen Photo]

Full frame cameras, you have to carry these huge lenses, just for the same focal length as APS sensors little telephoto lenses
On the other hand, You have to get insanely wide lenses if you like shooting wide angle. For instance if you mount a 16mm lens on a crop camera you still only have the equivalent of a 25.6mm lens by comparison to a full frame (35mm) camera. ;)
-Bruce

[fotoworx]

Just remember those new shiny 5D Mark II's will be old and "outdated" soon enough.

Canon WANT you to keep updating. It keeps their bean counters employed.

[joedlh]

If you don't mind, I've changed the title of this thread to something a little less confrontational and a bit more descriptive...

No problem. I sought to start a discussion. I titled it in anticipation of where it might end up.

[joedlh]

I think you are needlessly reading some kind of put down in the terminology that isn't there....

'Full frame' means simply that the sensor is the full size of the format for which the lens line has been developed.



On the first point, there is research that supports the contention that the words we use have the power to bias our perceptions. I've seen lots of answers to the "what camera should I get" question which jump right out and say full frame is the only way to go. As other posters have noted, the choice of camera should be made based on the needs of the task at hand. But when a new photographer hears the term full frame, he or she may think that this is the goal of all serious photographers. Clearly it's not.

As to the second point, what about those S lenses? Being designed for APS-C sensors, doesn't that make those sensors full frame for these lenses? And what about 4/3 systems cameras and lenses? To its credit, http://dpreview.com (http://dpreview.com/) uses the 35mm designation rather than full frame. They also list the 645 sensor, which has a 56 x 41.5mm size. Being true to the language, isn't this a "fuller" frame than a 35mm sensor. See the table at http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp.

My main contention is that the term full frame is not accurate and, therefore, represents a poor use of the language. It is not unlike the term mankind leaving out half of the representatives of homo sapiens.

[nphsbuckeye]

Well, full frames, and while we're at it APS-H, do have better IQ and more features..

[JeffreyG]

As to the second point, what about those S lenses? Being designed for APS-C sensors, doesn't that make those sensors full frame for these lenses? And what about 4/3 systems cameras and lenses? To its credit, http://dpreview.com (http://dpreview.com/) uses the 35mm designation rather than full frame. They also list the 645 sensor, which has a 56 x 41.5mm size. Being true to the language, isn't this a "fuller" frame than a 35mm sensor. See the table at http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp.

Well, I've tried other terminology in the past and it has not been very successful.

I used to use the term '135 format' to describe digital cameras like the 5D and 1Ds. This seemed to lead to a lot of head scratching so I've since abandoned it.

At least that was accurate (allowing the 0.1mm smaller sensor on the 5D) where the term 'APS-C' being used for a 15x22 mm sensor is absolutely wrong. APS-C is a film format that is 16.7x25.1mm. That's not a small error.

I also once advocated adopting some simple nomenclature like Nikon has done with their 'DX' and 'FX' naming convention. That got shouted down pretty fast here at POTN because apparently using Nikon naming conventions is tantamount to admitting defeat :rolleyes:

So I use 'Full Frame' and '1.6X' as these are widely recognized and reasonable accurate.

[breal101]

Back in 2002 before the 1Ds I had many of these discussions on another forum. I hated crop sensors and made no bones about it. I feel a bit vindicated now that FF cameras are available and popular. I also understand better now why other people like crop bodies, reach and cost are very valid reasons. I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread but I find manual focusing easy on FF and nearly impossible for me on crop bodies.

[imahawki]

I guarantee that this is going to raise hackles. I'm an xxD shooter. Have used xD cameras and they don't suit my photographic style. Sorry about that. I imagine to some, that makes me something of a ne're do well. However, I have [ahem] sold photos, won awards, and have enlargements displayed in public places.

So, my gauntlet to be thrown is that I'm tired of hearing the FFC (Full Frame crowd) extoll the virtues of what are basically 35mm digital sensors as "Full Frame", implying thereby that everything else is somewhat less full and, therefore, distinctly inferior. Nevertheless, the images that I get from by 20D and 40D seem somehow to fill the frame in the images that I view.

"Full frame", of course, originated from the original SLRs that used 35mm film. However, with the quality of images from APS-C size sensors, I think it's outmoded. I propose another term, one that is more appropriate, such as 35mm, large format, or APS-B (which is probably not correct).

Personally, in my short time on this forum, it seems like you are putting words in people's mouths. I've never seen anyone say anything other than "use what works best for you and/or what fits your budget".

[Wilt]

My main contention is that the term full frame is not accurate and, therefore, represents a poor use of the language. It is not unlike the term mankind leaving out half of the representatives of homo sapiens.

'Full frame' is an absurd term in the context of it applying to mean the 135 format size...one of the youngest of the film formats in the history of photography (APS film and 110 film and disc cameras all flopped eventually and have not endured in time, which is why I dismiss both of those newer film sizes from consideration.) The only reason why 'full frame' endured as a term was simply due to the fact that millions of photographers had 'history' in that format and the lenses from the 135 format cameras fit the new digital sensors (which were introduced before the larger 135 format sensors came into affordable existence). Multiple roll film sizes existed and multiple sheet film sizes existed long before the 135 format came into being, so its use as a 'standard' for size definition is very improper, but it is also not without precedent. Witness the 'half frame' camera from about 45 years ago, which did not cause confusion because it did not 'share lenses'.

Technically the APS-C format is a different format which benefits from being able to use the lenses made to fit a different format body. And that creates the absurdity of the 'crop factor' term, especially as increasingly fewer and fewer people have an understanding of photography in what a particular FL does on the 135 format...they have never shot a 135 camera, so the comparison is meaningless to these newcomers. I still persist in using the '135 format' term because it was invented that way with that name...it is a 24mm x 36mm frame, and going to digital rather than film does not alter that history or naming!

[Karl Johnston]

I shoot both and each has their benefits.
/thread :lol:

[Ballen Photo]

My main contention is that the term full frame is not accurate and, therefore, represents a poor use of the language. It is not unlike the term mankind leaving out half of the representatives of homo sapiens.
Hi Joe, My interpretation of the term "full frame" is that the media or digital sensor used fills the full area for which the lens used was originally designed for. I think the biggest reason the term is used is because most of the lenses that are being used on a digital SLR's were originally designed for film. We need some form of terminology to differentiate between these and crop versions.
If we didn't call it full frame, we would have to invent another word to describe the media to lens ratio. That is not saying either one is bad. ;)
-Bruce

[joe mama]

'Full frame' is an absurd term in the context of it applying to mean the 135 format size...one of the youngest of the film formats in the history of photography (APS film and 110 film and disc cameras all flopped eventually and have not endured in time, which is why I dismiss both of those newer film sizes from consideration.) The only reason why 'full frame' endured as a term was simply due to the fact that millions of photographers had 'history' in that format and the lenses from the 135 format cameras fit the new digital sensors (which were introduced before the larger 135 format sensors came into affordable existence). Multiple roll film sizes existed and multiple sheet film sizes existed long before the 135 format came into being, so its use as a 'standard' for size definition is very improper, but it is also not without precedent. Witness the 'half frame' camera from about 45 years ago, which did not cause confusion because it did not 'share lenses'.


I am ambivalent about the terms "Full Frame". I've never seen anyone confused by what it means, although a lot of people are upset by the term because they feel that it means smaller formats are somehow less. More an issue of insecurity than anything else. But, like I said, I'm certainly not adverse to other names, such as 135, for the format, and think the best way to refer to a format is by the format dimensions (e.g. 36x24).

However, what I do find confusing is that the terms "aperture" and "f-ratio" are used interchangeably. These terms have very different defined and established meanings. Using one of these terms for the other when discussing different formats is terribly confusing.


Technically the APS-C format is a different format which benefits from being able to use the lenses made to fit a different format body. And that creates the absurdity of the 'crop factor' term, especially as increasingly fewer and fewer people have an understanding of photography in what a particular FL does on the 135 format...they have never shot a 135 camera, so the comparison is meaningless to these newcomers.


I have no objection to the term "crop factor", but feel the term "focal multiplier" (FM) has a more accurate meaning, since multiplying the focal length of the smaller format by the FM gives the same AOV as the larger format, and multiplying the f-ratio by the FM gives the same aperture (and thus same DOF and same total amount of light) on the larger format.


I still persist in using the '135 format' term because it was invented that way with that name...it is a 24mm x 36mm frame, and going to digital rather than film does not alter that history or naming!


I'm fine with that, too. I just think it's less well known or understood than "Full Frame". Of course, so is "36x24", so, well, there we are. : )

[Radtech1]

The disucssion is so 5 years ago, but, my points have always been -

Wider angles from wide angle lenses.

I choose where to crop, not the camera.

Rad

[Daniel Browning]

Before we can have a proper fight, we need to define the terms. I propose the following:

APS-C = Apey See (Apey do)
FF = Fool Frame
4/3ds = Four Turds

Now, let's really duke it out! My money's on 4/3; they have the best trolls.

Unfortunately, real-life duels of this nature turn out a little more boring:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/pep_rally.png

[joe mama]

Wider angles from wide angle lenses.


But when crop has wider lenses than FF (in terms of actual focal length, not AOV), that's not an advantage.

For example, FF has 12-24, 16-35, 17-35, 17-40, 14 / 2.8, 8mm FE and 15mm FE. Crop has 10-20, 10-22, 10-17 FE, 11-16, 4.5mm FE, 8mm FE, and 10mm FE.

Looks like a draw. Now, if we're discussing IQ, that's another story.


I choose where to crop, not the camera.


As you do with a cropped sensor camera.

[fotoworx]

So my cropped camera and all my EF-S lens suck?

[joe mama]

So my cropped camera and all my EF-S lens suck?


And your dog. : )

[Rudeofus]

I am ambivalent about the terms "Full Frame". I've never seen anyone confused by what it means, although a lot of people are upset by the term because they feel that it means smaller formats are somehow less.

And while we are at it we should also take care of some other related issues:
Many 5D/x0D/xx0D/1000D users feel upset by 1D/1Ds cameras, as a result they suffer from depressions and insomnia. We should force Canon to call all their cameras 1Ds Mark 100 from now on.
Several owners of the 85 F/1.8 have suffered stress trauma because their lens does not carry the L designation. Similar conditions have been noticed in 17-55 F/2.8 IS owners. We should ask Canon kindly to put L designations on these lenses. Canon could at least offer red pens which allow owners to paint the red ring themselves.
"prime" lens is a term which has triggered endless pain and feelings of inferiority in zoom owners. We should call zoom lenses "variable focal length prime lens" from now on
Owners of Sigma lenses suffer from severe inferiority complex because they get slammed and ridiculed by Ed Rader and other "experts". We should call them additional Canon lenses from now on.
Front focus and back focus are discriminative terms for what is essentially an alternative focussing decision, and the league of front and back focussing lenses has repeatedly complained that lens makers try to forcibly change their natural behavior - often in vain. We should embrace the focussing decisions made by these lenses and adjust our perception of images accordingly
More an issue of insecurity than anything else. But, like I said, I'm certainly not adverse to other names, such as 135, for the format, and think the best way to refer to a format is by the format dimensions (e.g. 36x24).

I know, joe mama, you are not one of the whiners I made fun of above. The term "crop" is neither a term laden with century old history of discrimination nor a slur intended to put down people with crop cameras. If people with a 50D feel uneasy in the presence of a 5D, then the forum can't really do a lot for them. Changing the term "full frame" to a term that nobody outside POTN understands and uses will help neither POTN nor them. Where are (or at least aspire to be) photographers, not shrinks.

I have no objection to the term "crop factor", but feel the term "focal multiplier" (FM) has a more accurate meaning, since multiplying the focal length of the smaller format by the FM gives the same AOV as the larger format, and multiplying the f-ratio by the FM gives the same aperture (and thus same DOF and same total amount of light) on the larger format.

Then why don't we call it sensor size multiplier or relative sensor size (like relative static permittivity)? That's what it really is, not a focal length multiplier or a crop factor.

[imahawki]

I choose where to crop, not the camera. LOL, I didn't realize you lose the ability to frame your own images when you shoot APS-C ;)

[single_track]

Rudofus - Great message. Thank you.

[Wilt]

However, what I do find confusing is that the terms "aperture" and "f-ratio" are used interchangeably. These terms have very different defined and established meanings. Using one of these terms for the other when discussing different formats is terribly confusing.

Well, since we're expressing beefs about terms, how about 'prime' meaning 'not zoom', rather than referring to the primary optic used in conjunction with a 'supplemental' or 'convertor' optic?! :) You simply have to give up the fight on some of this stuff, just as out every day non-technical vocabulary evolves on a perpetual basis. For most discussions, aren't the two terms (f/stop, aperture) interchangeable, and only when the ratio vs. the absolute size are differentiated are the two terms not interchangeable...when not?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Added to the list of 10,000 threads on the xfactor here.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45388
FYI, POTN has referred to it as the "X-Factor" for years...
Now aren't we very PC :-)