Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera
Thread started 08 May 2017 (Monday) 20:07
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Full Frame or Crop

 
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,480 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Aug 15, 2017 15:38 |  #331

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18428513 (external link)
On price differences.

In the Canon world it is absolutely straight forward. Crop is significantly more affordable.

To get the same kind of AF performance that is available in an APS-C body like the $1,350.00 7D2 in a Canon full frame body, one needs to spend $2,200-4,000 (5D3 or 5D4)

Glass is no different.
EF-S 18-135mm STM offers better image quality and broader zoom range than 24-105mm L at a lower cost.

EF-S 10-18mm IS (or 10-22mm) vs. EF-16-35mm f/4L IS. Price difference is considerable with the same field of view. If we go back to the days of the 17-40mm f/4L, the EF-S lens was wider field of view and sharper throughout the zoom range.

Crop lenses CAN and ARE being made lighter weight and at lower costs. This is a fact of physics. If one chooses to adjust the rules to fit your argument, sure you can prove that a specific FF lens is smaller or more affordable than a specific crop lens, but that's on you to have made the criteria fit your own argument. It does not jibe with physics or reality or the whole picture. Those rare exceptions frankly help prove the rule.

The debate of which format has superior image quality, (or more to the point, how important the actual difference is) may go on, but the cost differences can not really be toyed with IMHO. And certainly for some, they also can not be ignored.

Canon is the king of cheapie but goodie lenses, they are the market leader for a reason.

as for the newer EF-S competing with FF lenses, not happening and TDP proves it: http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...omp=0&FLIComp=5&API​Comp=3 (external link)

the FF image is considerably crisper at it's peak setting.

As for the Physics comment, this doesnt hold true due to the flange distance of the mirrorless cameras. Consider the closest matches and you can see size differences. Sony's 12-24 f4 is closely comparable to the sigma 12-24 f4 and Canon 11-24 f4. Good amount smaller and less than half the weight.

sony 16-35 f4 is shorter and lighter
sony 16-35 f2.8 is shorter and lighter
sony 24-70f4 shorter lighter
loxia 21 f2.8 compared to EF mount distagon 21 f2.8, much lighter much smaller
sony 28 f2 compared to canon 28 f1.8 good bit lighter and a good bit smaller
sony 50 f1.8 little BIGGER similar weight. At this flange distance, the flange distance starts losing effectiveness. The lens uses a DSLR design. Either way, both lenses are fairly featherweight.
sony 85 f1.8 little bit smaller and lighter.

I havent mentioned voigtlander/tokina/bat​is lenses either, many are optimized for size and performance.


Sony A7r - A7ii - A7rii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CY 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
rantercsr
Goldmember
rantercsr's Avatar
Joined Mar 2014
Post has been edited 2 months ago by rantercsr.
Aug 15, 2017 16:22 |  #332

Charlie wrote in post #18428573 (external link)
sony 16-35 f4 is shorter and lighter
sony 16-35 f2.8 is shorter and lighter
sony 24-70f4 shorter lighter
loxia 21 f2.8 compared to EF mount distagon 21 f2.8, much lighter much smaller
sony 28 f2 compared to canon 28 f1.8 good bit lighter and a good bit smaller
sony 50 f1.8 little BIGGER similar weight. At this flange distance, the flange distance starts losing effectiveness. The lens uses a DSLR design. Either way, both lenses are fairly featherweight.
sony 85 f1.8 little bit smaller and lighter.

.

I was waiting for someone to respond and maybe that would make things clear for me... but I cant wait anymore lol

smaller/shorter/lighte​r than what ?
apologies if its obivious to everyone else but i'm a bit confused there


Canon 80D//Rebel T4i//EF50 f1.4 //EFS 24mm F2.8//EFS 18-55//EFS 10-18 //EFS 55-250
Pentax k1000* k50 f2*135 f2.
Fuji XT2 // xf 23mm f2/ xf50 f2 WR
https://www.instagram.​com/shotbypops/ (external link) MYflickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,922 posts
Gallery: 58 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed. 4 edits done in total.
Aug 15, 2017 16:46 as a reply to Charlie's post |  #333

Why would you compare a dense crop sensor to a low res FF? If you want to just compare 2 lenses, an EFS to an EF comparable lens, then you would use the same sensor for both lenses, and with ones that yield the same AOV especially at the wide end. If you need to compare the 7D2 to a FF for the same of discussion and argument, then resize the FF up to see what the final result would be. Either way, you need to equalize the images. Too bad the site doesn't have the 6D, because that is the lowest priced FF, if you want to compare budgets.

Also regarding the 17-40, you would want to compare the 10-18 to the 16-35 (any variant, but probably the f4), both on the 7D2. They are very close, however the price shows that the Canon is 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of the 16-35.

Another good lens is the 55-250 STM. The closest EF comparison would be the 70-300 non-L, which doesn't come close, or the 70-300L which is comparable. But again the price is 1/3 or lower for the EFS variant.

Or the 18-55 STM latest lens, which competes nicely with the 24-105 IS, even the MKII version. In fact playing the game with the FF vs 7D2, the 18-55 kills the 24-105, and nearly matches the II.

There are several EFS and 3rd party crop mount lenses that are very, very competitive to the EF line, and even to some of the FF 3rd party variants. However they come in at a lower cost due to a) they might be a bit slower in some cases and b) their build is very cheap. To a mom or dad shooting their kids at school events, or even more elaborate situations, this is a much better option than a FF with EF or L glass.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,480 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Aug 15, 2017 17:13 |  #334

rantercsr wrote in post #18428616 (external link)
I was waiting for someone to respond and maybe that would make things clear for me... but I cant wait anymore lol

smaller/shorter/lighte​r than what ?
apologies if its obivious to everyone else but i'm a bit confused there

same lens in canon mount, eg: Sony 16-35 f4 to Canon 16-35 f4, Sony 85mm f1.8 to Canon 85mm f1.8, ect.


Sony A7r - A7ii - A7rii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CY 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,480 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Aug 15, 2017 18:00 |  #335

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18428633 (external link)
Why would you compare a dense crop sensor to a low res FF? If you want to just compare 2 lenses, an EFS to an EF comparable lens, then you would use the same sensor for both lenses, and with ones that yield the same AOV especially at the wide end. If you need to compare the 7D2 to a FF for the same of discussion and argument, then resize the FF up to see what the final result would be. Either way, you need to equalize the images. Too bad the site doesn't have the 6D, because that is the lowest priced FF, if you want to compare budgets.

Also regarding the 17-40, you would want to compare the 10-18 to the 16-35 (any variant, but probably the f4), both on the 7D2. They are very close, however the price shows that the Canon is 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of the 16-35.

Another good lens is the 55-250 STM. The closest EF comparison would be the 70-300 non-L, which doesn't come close, or the 70-300L which is comparable. But again the price is 1/3 or lower for the EFS variant.

Or the 18-55 STM latest lens, which competes nicely with the 24-105 IS, even the MKII version. In fact playing the game with the FF vs 7D2, the 18-55 kills the 24-105, and nearly matches the II.

There are several EFS and 3rd party crop mount lenses that are very, very competitive to the EF line, and even to some of the FF 3rd party variants. However they come in at a lower cost due to a) they might be a bit slower in some cases and b) their build is very cheap. To a mom or dad shooting their kids at school events, or even more elaborate situations, this is a much better option than a FF with EF or L glass.

seemed most apples to apples, ~20mp to ~20mp (no resizing needed), but it really doesnt matter. The FF lens will outresolve the APS-C lens at similar fields of view, it's not exactly a fair comparison for something like a FF 24-105 compared to APS-C 18-135 since they dont share the same FOV, so I dont bother with the comparisons. You can compare 9/10 lenses with the same FOV, and unless you're comparing a very old and poor lens, then the FF lens will produce better details. I do most of my comparisons through Dxomark, but I didnt want to ruffle feathers by bringing them up. For the 18-55, in no way does it kill anything. It's a decent travel lens, and I do remember using the IS version before the stm, but it cant hang with the 24-105 on a 6D https://www.dxomark.co​m ...1138_977_1424_836_1​64_836 (external link)

The debate around the 10-22 compared to the 17-40 existed for ages, the 17-40 always resolved more, and that hasnt changed. If the old 1Dsiii outresolves the 7Dii, then the 5Dsr certainly continues that trend, even if the lens is taxed by the sensor. Again, TDP isnt very useful for that sorta thing, they dont equalize image output size yet, maybe they will one day, but the work around is a sensor that is closest to mp match.

The 55-250 stm (88 to 408 equivalent) closely resembles the sigma 100-400mm, canon doesnt make something direct apples to apples comparison. Price wise, then the 70-300 ii would be a closer match, but you wouldnt have the "reach" unless you had a higher MP body like the 5Div - 5Dsr.


Sony A7r - A7ii - A7rii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CY 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4

LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,199 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Aug 15, 2017 18:35 |  #336

AlanU wrote in post #18428351 (external link)
The original poster asked if there is an IQ difference. The simple answer is YES.

The answer is not "YES". The answer is, "it depends on what you are doing, and what lenses you have". It also depends on the specific cameras, as they vary in noise (mainly read noise), total pixel resolution and pixel density, and any anti-aliasing done on the sensor.

Simple answers are not always true answers.




LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,922 posts
Gallery: 58 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Aug 15, 2017 19:23 as a reply to Charlie's post |  #337

Yes, TDP doesn't seem to be putting much effort into their comparisons, their site could be a very versatile source for comparisons if they put more work into the site.

Again though to move to a FF body and equivalent lenses will cost more, but those on a budget can get an APS-C with some very good lenses. It is what it is.

That combination may not pander to the needs of the more prosumer or professional shooter (although MANY pros use APS-Cs in their lineup), but for the vast majority of shooters, those that sit in stands at games, and sit in little kiddie chairs watching their kids play, and those that go with their marching bands, the APS-C is where it is at.

Without that crowd, we wouldn't have the other choices we do. The one pays for the other. The new APS-Cs handle shadow noise better than before, and high ISO is quite good, beyond what the 1D4/1D3, 5D2, and other honored bodies in the past. For the first time, my combination of 7D2 and 5D4 leaves me looking for anything else, where one cannot do something, the other does. I will be adding an SL2 to my stables as well, and that gives me the travel option, with a couple of pancake lenses.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Aug 15, 2017 19:29 |  #338

John Sheehy wrote in post #18428690 (external link)
The answer is not "YES". The answer is, "it depends on what you are doing, and what lenses you have". It also depends on the specific cameras, as they vary in noise (mainly read noise), total pixel resolution and pixel density, and any anti-aliasing done on the sensor.

Simple answers are not always true answers.

Yes I totally agree. However if you compare fresh units like D810, 5dmk4 FF vs D500, 80D or even my Fuji X-T2 there is no comparison that the new generation latest FF will produce substantially less noise which equates to better overall IQ.

Since I use both FF and Crop I do my own personal comparisons on my IPS monitor.

In the Canon world if the photog can afford nice long telephoto lenses they'd probably happily grab a 1dxmk2 or 5dmk4 before grabbing their 7dmk2 for indoor/outdoor sports or wildlife. If you discuss 300dpi print everything looks good :)

I do agree about "specific cameras". So far the 80D has made me incredibly shocked in how much better the crop sensors have gotten in the Canon world. I do prefer my Fuji X-T2 crop sensor for better IQ (my eyes anyways). I do not own a 5dmk4 yet but I do understand there's a jump in IQ over my 5d3 due to resolution.

All of my lenses I own I consider to be quite good. Lenses do indeed make a huge difference in IQ.

To my eyes I can still see a difference in Crop vs FF if I compare my 5d3 vs 80D. The Canon 80D can perform certain things better than my Fuji X-T2 body and vice versa. I pick my tools for specific reasons. So far I'll take my Canon gear for AF, remote flash to achieve pleasant flash burst photos, Canon lenses producing more pleasant sun flare photos(my preference over fuji) and focus assist grid from canon speedlight for extremely low light photography.

FF or Crop is not as simple as just selecting sensor size but overall characteristics of a manufacturers body performance and lens characteristics in certain light situations. There is a reason why I own both formats.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,690 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Aug 15, 2017 19:36 |  #339

AlanU wrote in post #18428351 (external link)
This topic is almost like bench racing. Many speak of hardware combinations from cylinder heads, cam profile, rod ratio, equal length headers, clutch materials, transmission ratios etc. Some can apply the hardware and produce real life results and some just carry on bench racing "proclaiming" empty words.

if this thread is like racing, i think it crashed a few pages back...yet i keep rubber-necking...and there really is nothing to see here...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,922 posts
Gallery: 58 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed.
Aug 15, 2017 19:58 as a reply to DreDaze's post |  #340

Yes but the person that ran out naked into the track wanting attention and causing the pile up is in lockup for a week. :D


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,690 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Aug 15, 2017 20:17 |  #341

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18428787 (external link)
Yes but the person that ran out naked into the track wanting attention and causing the pile up is in lockup for a week. :D

eh, i didn't even notice that...i think that's the whole reason i kept coming back...just to see who would get banned...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DSMS
Member
DSMS's Avatar
Joined Mar 2017
NZ
Aug 15, 2017 20:18 |  #342

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18428513 (external link)
EF-S 18-135mm STM offers better image quality and broader zoom range than 24-105mm L at a lower cost.

I'll go 1 better, and say my canon 15-85 IS USM has a significantly broader range than a 24-105L, AND, even shows an 'L Lens' icon in Canon's software...

It's also approx 80% of the 24-105 price new...




LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,623 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Aug 15, 2017 22:48 |  #343

AlanU wrote in post #18428756 (external link)
Yes I totally agree. However if you compare fresh units like D810, 5dmk4 FF vs D500, 80D or even my Fuji X-T2 there is no comparison that the new generation latest FF will produce substantially less noise which equates to better overall IQ....

Latest gen FF vs. last months crop?

Like the 6DII Vs. 80D? ;) Seems to me there is a much longer thread on this forum that is among other things, going over and over and over and over the fact that the 80D has more DR :)

Sorry, had to throw that monkey wrench into the works! :)

Asbestos suit on.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Ah-keong
Senior Member
Ah-keong's Avatar
Joined Apr 2016
Aug 16, 2017 02:17 |  #344

IMAGE: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Chg1UdaU8AAWjKI.jpg

Canon 7D Mark II | BG-E16 | Canon EF-S 10-18mm | Sigma DC 18-35mm ART |
Canon Speedlite 430EX III-RT |
Olympus E-PL3 | M.Zuiko ED 7-14mm PRO
Manfrotto BeFree Travel Tripod |
Tenba DNA 15 Messenger | Think Tank Photo Digital Holster 40v2.0 | Speed Changer v2.0

LOG IN TO REPLY
aladyforty
Goldmember
aladyforty's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
Albany: Western Australia
Post has been edited 13 days ago by aladyforty.
Oct 07, 2017 11:41 |  #345

wow what a long thread Ive just gone through, found myself nodding and shaking my head to some of the comments. I own 5DIII 7DII and a Fuji X100 and have found they all have their pros and cons.

5DIII is superior for landscape and portraits IMO. Stick the 135L on it and I dont think it can be beat (except by later model full frame cameras or perhaps the latest Fuji's). But when it comes to wildlife unless I'm almost on top of the animal I think the 7DII is better. I use a 600mm lens that I actually purchased to use with full frame thinking Id get better shots but ended up putting it on my original 7D and no, I did not get soft shots, Id regularly shoot up to ISO 4000 with that camera without hesitation.

Nowadays that lens is pretty much permanently on the 7DII because I find I get more detailed shots with it (for wildlife) than the 5DIII.

recently discovered I could pull back more from the 7DII than the 5DIII in dark shadows as well, I'm sure I will get poo pooed for that comment but its just my experience.

I still shoot with my X100 and carried it all around Cambodia recently and the images still surprise me just how good they are.

I sell some of my work and at a recent exhibition I had some prints for sale. from all cameras. In the end I actually sold more images taken with 7DII. Its about the image not the camera and while there is no denying a full frame will produce better image quality in most cases the everyday person seeing your work in print could not give a toss what you took it with. something about an image will catch their eye and they never ask what camera you used.

personally I think having bath formats is great, I got the 5DIII thinking it would totally replace my 5DII and 7D but it turned out not to be the case. If money was not an issue Id have 5D4 and pray the follow up to 7DII is even better than the previous model, think I will always want both though, plus a mirror-less setup as well but maybe I'm just being greedy, love them all.


5DIII 7DII Fuji X100 Fuji X10 17-40L 135L 70-200F4ISL Tamron 150-600
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com​/photos/25426422@N00/ (external link)
Birding page (archives cant add to them, lost password) https://www.flickr.com​/photos/59111660@N08/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

16,755 views & 182 likes for this thread
Full Frame or Crop
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00179 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is Sizzlin
819 guests, 344 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016