Whats the downsides to crop sensor vs full frame?

I've been looking at many small cameras files on-line just one week ago. Most recent Fuji X series cameras and their fast primes are phenomenal.

I quit digital FF not so long time ago. DSLRs are too bulky, mirrorless (Sony) has some limitations with RF lenses I would like it to be used with, Leica is too expensive.
My film gear is FF and color from it is film color without emulation

moxphoto wrote in post #18116813
Hi guys/gals.

So I've been doing photography for a few years now.. I use a Canon 5d Mark 3.. love it.. its great.. there are times however where I wish to have a smaller camera... possibly with a built in flash for more casual/everyday photography... sometimes it would be nice to have a smaller/lighter camera that I can be more casual with. However, I've pretty much always used my Mark 3... im intrigued by the fuji cameras.. and others.. Also considering the sony mirrorless line which would be full frame...

What are the down sides to using a crop sensor camera? Less depth of field..... a 50mm becomes an 85.. etc.. is it true that you cant print photos as large? I never make prints anyway.. I guess my fear is.. lets say I use a crop sensor camera.. and I take an amazing photo.. am I always gonna kick myself for not taking it with a full frame camera? (if say I wanted to print it and put it in a gallery one day etc.)

I own full frame 5Dmk2 and 70D crop cameras and I see no significant change in image quality. Both can make amazing images RAW or Jpeg. You lens choice will make far more difference than changing just the body. Take your 5D3 to the camera store to compare to an 80D and see for yourself. In most major cities you can rent cameras for extended tests.

With Canon lagging far behind in video features at a consumer camera, I am certain that my next camera will be a Sony or Panasonic mirrorless. With an adapter I can still use all my Canon lenses, but that will not bring much weight or size savings. The Sony6300 and kit lens would is an excellent smaller camera system with great upgradability.

Scott Spellman wrote in post #18123627
I own full frame 5Dmk2 and 70D crop cameras and I see no significant change in image quality. Both can make amazing images RAW or Jpeg. You lens choice will make far more difference than changing just the body. Take your 5D3 to the camera store to compare to an 80D and see for yourself. In most major cities you can rent cameras for extended tests.

With Canon lagging far behind in video features at a consumer camera, I am certain that my next camera will be a Sony or Panasonic mirrorless. With an adapter I can still use all my Canon lenses, but that will not bring much weight or size savings. The Sony6300 and kit lens would is an excellent smaller camera system with great upgradability.

I would take a serious look at Fuji as well I just made the full switch from full frame Sony to Fuji and I don't see myself regretting it anytime soon

Scott Spellman wrote in post #18123627
I own full frame 5Dmk2 and 70D crop cameras and I see no significant change in image quality. Both can make amazing images RAW or Jpeg. .

^ The reason...

1. In theory, APS-C only captures 60% of the detail resolution which the lens provides to the sensor...there is less for the sensor to capture.
   So if you assumed that both sensors record 100 line-pairs/mm of lens detail, and the pixel pitch was identical on both sensors,
   FF captures [100 * 24mm] line pairs vertically while APS-C captures [100 * 15mm] or 2400 vs. 1500 for the total frame height.
   
   
   
2. "But wait...," you say, "if the pixel count is the same, the APS-C pixels are 60% closer than FF pixels".
   But they still have only 100 line-pairs/mm of detail from the lens! So comparing 60mm on APS-C and 100mm on FF, for same Angle of View in the frame, if both lenses could deliver 100 line-pairs/mm of detail, we still have 2400 vs. 1500 line-pairs vertically.
   
   
   
3. "But...," you respond, "what the fact that I see the subject closer with APS-C?"
   Well it still is 100 line-pairs/mm from the same lens, but one fills the sensor with 10" of subject filling 10mm of sensor (out of 15mm for APS-C), and the other fills 10mm of sensor out of 24mm (for FF), so yes, the subject is 'closer' in that it occupies a greater percentage of the frame (67% vs. 42% of the frame height) but it still is [10mm * 100] line-pairs/mm for BOTH cameras...it is the lens FL that defines how tall the subject is on the sensor, it is merely capturing a smaller total area around the subject using the APS-C sensor!
   
   
   
4. "But what about 'reach' that APS-C has over FF?"
   Well, 'reach advantage' only applies when APS-C pixel pitch is smaller than FF pixel pitch, so let us assume that APS-C sensor has pixels which are 60% closer together...in that case we might have 256 pixels/mm vs. 160 pixels/mm. But we still only get 100 line-pairs/mm from the lens (at best) and the Nyquist equation says ((2*lines)+1) = number of pixels to resolve 100 line-pairs of lens detail. Yes, APS-C in this case has advantage over 160 pixel FF, which cannot capture all the lens delivers. But we only need 201 pixels/mm on the APS-C sensor before we run out of lens detail. So the 'advantage' of the APS-C is NOT as great as one might assume simply by pixel pitch statistics.
   
   

Scott Spellman wrote in post #18123627
I own full frame 5Dmk2 and 70D crop cameras and I see no significant change in image quality. Both can make amazing images RAW or Jpeg. You lens choice will make far more difference than changing just the body. Take your 5D3 to the camera store to compare to an 80D and see for yourself. In most major cities you can rent cameras for extended tests.

With Canon lagging far behind in video features at a consumer camera, I am certain that my next camera will be a Sony or Panasonic mirrorless. With an adapter I can still use all my Canon lenses, but that will not bring much weight or size savings. The Sony6300 and kit lens would is an excellent smaller camera system with great upgradability.

I'm not sure I see the same IQ. My 5dmk3/mk2 Image quality vs 80D is quite apparent. 80D RAW file is flat in comparison but it still has the canon "look" as far as colour profile. Canon 80D colours go astray when you go into the upper high iso region. Even my fuji crop sensors retain a more pleasant noise when you push it hard at high iso when RAW files are concerned. Fuji colours hold up much better at high ISO as well.

Fuji crop sensor is a completely different world. The 16mpx fuji crop sensor is truly a different beast as far as image quality is concerned. There is something about the Fuji pleasant files when you look at it on the computer monitor.

IQ wise I would take my older 5dmk2 for events photography vs my new 80D. I can manipulate the 80D RAW files to look great but my 5dmk2 is much more easier to get excellent IQ.

My major complaint is that I wish Canon would make a 15mm f/1.4 prime (APS-C) EFS mount to be equivalent to a 24mm FL . This is where I live with my 24Lmk2 for a prime on my 80D. This is a serious bummer!!!!!

Suddenly I grab my Fuji 16mm on one of my Fuji 16mpx bodies and enjoy a 24mm equivalent FL prime on this incredible crop sensor.

Scott, the a6300 is a cool camera. I guess another thing is if your cool with the saturated contrasty files from Sony's RAW files. Every body has a colour signature. I chose 80D for DPAF and being able to slap on my current canon lenses. So far I'm enjoying my 80D with my 24Lmk2 and 16-35 f/2.8mk2.

Another issue I have with the Fuji besides it not not being FF is the lens (16 1.4) is not a true manual focus lens and has horrible DoF scales. Two deal breakers for me.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18125385
Another issue I have with the Fuji besides it not not being FF is the lens (16 1.4) is not a true manual focus lens and has horrible DoF scales. Two deal breakers for me.

Just put on a "real manual focus lens" from Zeiss or whomever you like

Everyone has to choose the system that works for them. There are no bad systems, as far as I know. The capability in modern digital cameras and modern lens design abilities assure a fairly high minimum standard and almost any system will have a few outstanding lenses or the ability to adapt lenses from other manufacturers or systems.

Yes, there are some cameras or lenses we could make fun of, but I suspect there is a decent setup which can be created with most systems.

Fuji is the best for me. I also shoot top end FF Nikon and Canon cameras and lenses with some regularity (don't own it but use it) and I prefer the ergonomics, lenses and colors from Fuji. Much less work to get good results. Better lenses in a straight up comparison even though the Fujis cost less.

But if Nikon, Sony or whatever works better for you, more power to you. . It is important to find the best fit for yourself.

F2Bthere wrote in post #18126007
Just put on a "real manual focus lens" from Zeiss or whomever you like

Everyone has to choose the system that works for them. There are no bad systems, as far as I know. The capability in modern digital cameras and modern lens design abilities assure a fairly high minimum standard and almost any system will have a few outstanding lenses or the ability to adapt lenses from other manufacturers or systems.

Yes, there are some cameras or lenses we could make fun of, but I suspect there is a decent setup which can be created with most systems.

Fuji is the best for me. I also shoot top end FF Nikon and Canon cameras and lenses with some regularity (don't own it but use it) and I prefer the ergonomics, lenses and colors from Fuji. Much less work to get good results. Better lenses in a straight up comparison even though the Fujis cost less.

But if Nikon, Sony or whatever works better for you, more power to you. . It is important to find the best fit for yourself.

This.

I couldn't be happier with Fuji. Kind of annoyed with myself for taking this long to just commit fully to their system... it would take a lot for another brand to pull me from them now I think.

I'll admit I really like the fuji crop sensor. I also appreciate the other tools I have as well.

This day and age the previous discussions of FF vs Crop was a hot topic. However even 10yrs ago FF still came on top with better IQ. The digital MF crowd still looked at FF camera's as toys..........

Now this world has a preference for light weight mirrorless camera's. The downside to a crops sensor is the photographer behind the viewfinder but at the same time that also applies to M43 users, FF users and MF users too! I think the elitist attitude is very weak now in this new modern world of technology. Sony and Fuji crop sensors has definitely stepped up in high iso performance. I will refer to my 80D because this is the only Canon crop I own.....the ISO is simply acceptable.

I'll take fuji as a primary system "but" I don't have the energy to sell my Canon gear. Also I don't see the point of selling my Canon gear because I can be thrown into any type of situation and I can deliver......my current 16mpx fuji bodies I cannot perform identical performance during events photography (not talking about casual/hobby photography). Once I acquire an X-T2 (possibly pair) I can see using such bodies for professional use due to it's extremely fast AF and dual memory cards.

Having multiple systems for me has been the most enjoyable point in owning gear. Even though my 80D (to my eyes) is not nearly as equivalent to my fuji "IQ" I still enjoy using it due to it's size and video purposes. The 80D is slightly larger than my previous Pansonic GH3. If I owned an Xpro2 or X-t2 I would be much happier due to much more responsive AF than the 16mpx fuji bodies. However I grab my tools selectively.

Today's world of photography it's very difficult to have such a discussion about crop vs FF. I will say Fuji has come a long way both in bodies and lens selection.

Again don't want the 35mm 1.4 lux FoV to change. I also like not having all the stuff I don't want or use on a camera. Nice to have choices. Tried Fuji before I bought Leica. I bought Leica.

Talley wrote in post #18117049
it's kind of complicated. But in the right hands any camera will produce stellar results. It's more the person behind it.

this should be in the forum header

You have a problem that many people here have. You love your primary camera but you eventually get tired of the size when trying to use it as a casual walkaround camera. Many of us, including myself, come to this point. You will get lots of advice here, but you will most likely need to test a few before you find that light walkaround camera you are looking for.

First thing to accept - IT WILL NOT BE AS GOOD AS YOUR PRIMARY CAMERA. There WILL be some differences and compromises
If they could make a 5d3 the size of a cell phone, they already would have.
Once you accept that, you can focus on the main reason you are looking for a different camera - compact & light

The reality of it, for me, is that 90% of my walkaround photos are actually taken with my phone. I actually wanted a camera the size of my phone that performed like a dslr. That obviously wasn't going to happen. so...

After testing a few mirrorless cameras, point and shoots, bridge cameras, I ended up with a canon SL1. I know it is not as small as a mirrorless, but it is a TINY DSLR and I can use my current lenses without an adapter. I pair it w the canon 24mm 2.8 pancake lens and it is a great walkaround combo. That combo also only cost me about $400. The performance of this combo vastly outweighs the cost.

You will most likely come to a different conclusion to your problem than I did, but this works for me.

for differences between crop & FF and mirrorless, search the forum, there are a TON of threads already.
As far as printing, you will be fine with whatever you get.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18126359
Again don't want the 35mm 1.4 lux FoV to change. I also like not having all the stuff I don't want or use on a camera. Nice to have choices. Tried Fuji before I bought Leica. I bought Leica.

I've never understood the argument of paying more for less, but whatever floats your boat.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18119239
You know a pro Leica shooter now. I have been supporting the family with photography full time since graduating from college in 1986. I shoot commercial/advertising and love the control I have with Leica M. If you look at my street work, I work in the moment, which is fractions of seconds and speed is exactly why I shoot with Leica M. The DoF scales are on the lens for a reason and are very useful tools once you master them. The best wedding photographer I have ever known shot with Leica M3s for decades. He was shooting PJ style whlle everyone else was shooting like Monty Zucker (blads and everything staged). I don't have a bag full of lenses. Only the ones that match the way I see and work and 3 decades of full time pro work and over 40 years as a photographer I know what that is. My photography pays for it all. The cameras, the lights, the mortgage, the cars, the health insurance, the vacations and it's nice to be making a living that is good enough to be able to afford the equipment that you prefer and not equipment one has to settle for. I also shot for years with 500 C/Ms and some large format.

Wanted to add that my 4 year old original MM has an 18MP sensor, because there is no color, is compared to a 36MP camera. I have shot billboard ads with it. The new MM 24mps compares to a 48 mp camera. My original MM is as clean at hi ISO as a 5DIII. My M 262 is good at 3200 and thats more than enough for what I shoot.

Is that an "elitist" advocating superiority of Leica?

Locally I know there's an Award winning photog extremely successful shooting commercial/Ad campaign photos for TV and billboards for financial institutions, McDonalds, Cable company and other large clients. Niche pocket where you can tap into $$$$ but he's a digital medium format guy....PhaseOne and a bunch of other MF digital formats. However he's gifted with his "eyes" in how he creates his work. He could probably buy a Canon 5DsR and save $16,000 in his pocket instead of buying 1 of his MF camera's. B/W images is probably on an extremely small portion of work.

My point is every artist has his tool of choice.

A good portion of photogs appreciate AF for their workflow. Majority of all Award winning wedding photog's probably rely on AF. This gives them more time to compose and concentrate on their style and one less thing to worry about. But this is just ONE of the variables in photography. A landscape shooter may careless about AF while a wildlife guy shooting BIF would almost need it as a priority.

The beauty in different camera's is their strengths. A person like myself would appreciate an Xpro2 or X-T2 to capture a fast paced birthday party of children. Hit rate is crucial instead of culling hundreds of photos due to missed focus shots. Shallow dof photos I assure manual focus will not have high volumes of tack sharp images compared to a 5dmk3/A6300/X-T2 etc etc. Again this is a different application of a camera vs posed/portrait photos etc.

I could imagine other photogs in the world owning Leica and a second system for other applications. I couldn't tolerate limitations when it comes to my family documentation as well as my events photography.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18126431
I've never understood the argument of paying more for less, but whatever floats your boat.

And I've never understood the car buying mentality of the more options the better. I prefer cameras that I am the one doing the driving. All of it and making all the decisions. Just my preference. And there are a lot more like me. There are plenty of one size fits all options out there. Nice to have some real choices like a Leica MM.