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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 28 Feb 2011 (Monday) 18:32
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Can someone post up pics of crop and full frame sensors wiith same settings?

 
craigslistpost604
Member
142 posts
Joined Feb 2011
     
Feb 28, 2011 18:32 |  #1
bannedPermanent ban

I understand that a crop APS-C have a smaller sensor than a full frame sensor but really whats the difference. if i walk back a few feet wouldn't i get the same amount of image as a 1.6 APS-C crop sensor? assuming the crop and FF are shot in the same settings angles. can someone post up pics of a crop and ff in the same distance. and then another shot with the crop further back to catch the same amount of image into the picture..




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
CaptivatedByBeauty
Member
Avatar
116 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
     
Feb 28, 2011 18:46 |  #2

I did that here:
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11921185&po​stcount=21

Notice the 5DII is a 21MP camera, and the 60D a 18MP camera, so you'd expect the 5DII to be slightly better.

You need to read about Equivalence to understand the issues:
http://www.josephjames​photography.com/equiva​lence/ (external link)

If comparing images from different size sensors, you have to compare equivalent images, otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.

Equivalent images are images of a scene that share the following five parameters:

• Perspective
• Framing
• DOF
• Shutter Speed
• Display Dimensions

When you see people post comparison shots, you'll mostly find something is not equivalent.

Now that doesn't mean FF cameras don't take better pictures, in some circumstances, but is does mean that it's false to say FF is always better. FF is different.


Steve
CaptivatedByBeauty (external link)
Have: Canon 5D mkII, Canon 60D gripped (DBK), Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM mkII, Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II, Canon 1.4x mk II Extender, 1.25/2.5x Angle Finder, Triopo GT-3229X8.C Tripod with B2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CaptivatedByBeauty
Member
Avatar
116 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
     
Feb 28, 2011 18:58 |  #3

craigslistpost604 wrote in post #11932221 (external link)
I understand that a crop APS-C have a smaller sensor than a full frame sensor but really whats the difference. if i walk back a few feet wouldn't i get the same amount of image as a 1.6 APS-C crop sensor?

Let's see if I can list the differences.

The FF camera uses all of the image coming in from the lens, so if the lens performs worse at the edges, the image will be worse near the edges than a crop camera just looking at the centre of the lens's optical path.

The crop camera has denser sensors sites, so imperfections in the lens will be more noticeable.

It makes a difference to diffraction limits. On a crop you'll hit the point when the image starts to soften due to diffraction before the FF camera would, because of the denser sensor sites.
For example, with my lens (on a crop camera), if I want a near perfect image, I have to stop down 1 stop. But if I go up to f/11, it softens back to the f/2.8 point, due to diffraction. A FF camera would be more forgiving at f/2.8, not seeing the imperfections as much, and would also be more forgiving at f/11. But, at the expense of worse edges.

The FF camera will offer a wider AOV.
The crop camera will offer an apparent longer focal length. In practice it's looking at less of the optical path and looking at it in more detail, so it's a type of magnification.


Steve
CaptivatedByBeauty (external link)
Have: Canon 5D mkII, Canon 60D gripped (DBK), Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM mkII, Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II, Canon 1.4x mk II Extender, 1.25/2.5x Angle Finder, Triopo GT-3229X8.C Tripod with B2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 614
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Feb 28, 2011 19:09 |  #4

craigslistpost604 wrote in post #11932221 (external link)
but really whats the difference. if i walk back a few feet wouldn't i get the same amount of image as a 1.6 APS-C crop sensor?

No. If you walk back a couple steps (assuming you can) you end up with a photo that has a different perspective.

What you really do with a smaller format camera is you use a lens with a little bit shorter focal length. So if you were going to use something around 80mm on a FF camera you would take the same photo from the same place with a 50mm lens on 1.6X.

The effects of using the shorter focal length on the smaller format is that for the same aperture value, the smaller format will then give a bit more depth of field. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you are looking for.

Finally, because you enlarge the image from sensor to print less with a larger format, a larger format will generally be able to deliver better resolution and less noise in the final image. This last bit is tough to demonstrate because so much else (number of pixels, generation of sensor design and processing) will also affect both noise and resolution.

Here is an older (but accurate) article written on this topic:

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …technical/digit​aldof.html (external link)


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CaptivatedByBeauty
Member
Avatar
116 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
     
Feb 28, 2011 23:24 as a reply to  @ JeffreyG's post |  #5

Good article :)
Specially this bit:

Depth of field is also NOT directly related to background blur. Depth of field equations tell you over what range of distances objects will appear to be acceptably sharp (or at least not unacceptably unsharp). It tells you nothing about how much blur there will be of objects well outside the depth of field. That's governed by different physical parameters and determined using totally different equations

That's why some people mistakenly think telephoto lenses have a shallower DOF. It's not the "sharp" part that's different.


Steve
CaptivatedByBeauty (external link)
Have: Canon 5D mkII, Canon 60D gripped (DBK), Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM mkII, Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II, Canon 1.4x mk II Extender, 1.25/2.5x Angle Finder, Triopo GT-3229X8.C Tripod with B2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,383 posts
Gallery: 565 photos
Likes: 2696
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Feb 28, 2011 23:41 |  #6

CaptivatedByBeauty wrote in post #11932307 (external link)
Now that doesn't mean FF cameras don't take better pictures, in some circumstances, but is does mean that it's false to say FF is always better. FF is different.

That is commonly misunderstood by so many people -_-

I want a FF camera for those times when i desire its advantages, but im not giving up my crop cam any time soon...My 7D is just too good


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Mar 01, 2011 02:23 |  #7

CaptivatedByBeauty wrote in post #11932390 (external link)
The crop camera has denser sensors site...

This may or may not be true, depending on the precise models being discussed. Photosite density is not inextricably linked to sensor size.

The crop camera will offer an apparent longer focal length. In practice it's looking at less of the optical path and looking at it in more detail, so it's a type of magnification.

As far as increased sensor density is concerned, this may be true irrespective of the sensor size (see above).

As far as sensor size itself is concerned, a smaller sensor offers no more magnification than one would obtain by viewing a scene through a smaller window.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CaptivatedByBeauty
Member
Avatar
116 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
     
Mar 01, 2011 04:37 |  #8

xarqi wrote in post #11934367 (external link)
This may or may not be true, depending on the precise models being discussed. Photosite density is not inextricably linked to sensor size.

As far as increased sensor density is concerned, this may be true irrespective of the sensor size (see above).

As far as sensor size itself is concerned, a smaller sensor offers no more magnification than one would obtain by viewing a scene through a smaller window.

I have referred to recent/current models, those of similar technologies, because otherwise the whole discussion is pointless.
So, in practice, crop sensors have similar numbers of sensor sites, and thus are more dense sensors. Yes it doesn't have to be that way, but that's the way it is right now.

So, in practice, it's not comparing window sizes, it's comparing the images captured by the sensor, both of which will have similar numbers of pixels, but the crop sensor will have captured more detail in the optical path. And that has pros and cons.

A slight tangent.
I keep reading posts referring to "magnification" when referring to the sensor versus the final print. I cringe every time I read them. I can see the point behind them, I can see the way the poster is thinking, it dates back from film and enlargers. But, IMO it's not really quite right. I prefer to consider the image as captured by the sensor, looking at the optics and how the optical path is captured by the sensor with its sensor site array, how the density of that affects the process. IMO the size of the sensor compared to the size of the print is a strange way of viewing it. I don't see that process as "magnifying" or "enlargement".
I see it as the sensor detecting photons in the optical path, and an image file being created. That file is then displayed. There's no optics involved, it's digital now.
I also see the only fair way to compare cameras is to view the same size prints at the same distance. It is after all the end result that matters.


Steve
CaptivatedByBeauty (external link)
Have: Canon 5D mkII, Canon 60D gripped (DBK), Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM mkII, Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II, Canon 1.4x mk II Extender, 1.25/2.5x Angle Finder, Triopo GT-3229X8.C Tripod with B2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Mar 01, 2011 05:58 |  #9

CaptivatedByBeauty wrote in post #11934706 (external link)
I have referred to recent/current models, those of similar technologies, because otherwise the whole discussion is pointless.

Not at all. The differences due to sensor size can be discussed without any reference to the separate issue of sensor density.

So, in practice, crop sensors have similar numbers of sensor sites, and thus are more dense sensors. Yes it doesn't have to be that way, but that's the way it is right now.

So, in practice, it's not comparing window sizes, it's comparing the images captured by the sensor, both of which will have similar numbers of pixels, but the crop sensor will have captured more detail in the optical path. And that has pros and cons.

Even if two things change simultaneously, there is no basis for attributing an effect to one of them, when in fact it is due to the other. There may or may not be a 'magnification' effect due to sensor density, that is debatable. There is no 'magnification' effect due to sensor size.

A slight tangent.
I keep reading posts referring to "magnification" when referring to the sensor versus the final print. I cringe every time I read them. I can see the point behind them, I can see the way the poster is thinking, it dates back from film and enlargers. But, IMO it's not really quite right. I prefer to consider the image as captured by the sensor, looking at the optics and how the optical path is captured by the sensor with its sensor site array, how the density of that affects the process. IMO the size of the sensor compared to the size of the print is a strange way of viewing it. I don't see that process as "magnifying" or "enlargement".
I see it as the sensor detecting photons in the optical path, and an image file being created. That file is then displayed. There's no optics involved, it's digital now.
I also see the only fair way to compare cameras is to view the same size prints at the same distance. It is after all the end result that matters.

Such an approach makes it very difficult to explain the effects sensor size has on DoF, among other things. Sensors DO have a physical size. It is for that very reason that the "crop factor" exists. Prints have a physical size. The ratio between these sizes is the magnification or enlargement factor, a direct analogy with the relationship between a negative and a print made from it, or of a slide and the projected image.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,488 posts
Likes: 202
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Mar 01, 2011 09:12 |  #10

I see it as the sensor detecting photons in the optical path, and an image file being created. That file is then displayed. There's no optics involved, it's digital now.

Hmm, then I wonder why when I look at a photo at 100% and then at 800% zoom it looks different. After all, "there's no optics involved", the image isn't being projected onto my monitor through a lens, "it's digital now".
On your 60D's sensor a pixel is around 4 microns. On a 12x16 print @300 ppi each pixel is 85 microns. Doesn't that seem like a 21x enlargement?


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CaptivatedByBeauty
Member
Avatar
116 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
     
Mar 01, 2011 18:56 |  #11

xarqi wrote in post #11934883 (external link)
Not at all. The differences due to sensor size can be discussed without any reference to the separate issue of sensor density.

Even if two things change simultaneously, there is no basis for attributing an effect to one of them, when in fact it is due to the other. There may or may not be a 'magnification' effect due to sensor density, that is debatable. There is no 'magnification' effect due to sensor size.

Such an approach makes it very difficult to explain the effects sensor size has on DoF, among other things. Sensors DO have a physical size. It is for that very reason that the "crop factor" exists. Prints have a physical size. The ratio between these sizes is the magnification or enlargement factor, a direct analogy with the relationship between a negative and a print made from it, or of a slide and the projected image.

I don't think we're ever going to see things the same way. So I'll leave it at that. I disagree with you, you disagree with me. Cheers :)


Steve
CaptivatedByBeauty (external link)
Have: Canon 5D mkII, Canon 60D gripped (DBK), Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM mkII, Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II, Canon 1.4x mk II Extender, 1.25/2.5x Angle Finder, Triopo GT-3229X8.C Tripod with B2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CaptivatedByBeauty
Member
Avatar
116 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
     
Mar 01, 2011 18:58 |  #12

tzalman wrote in post #11935524 (external link)
Hmm, then I wonder why when I look at a photo at 100% and then at 800% zoom it looks different. After all, "there's no optics involved", the image isn't being projected onto my monitor through a lens, "it's digital now".
On your 60D's sensor a pixel is around 4 microns. On a 12x16 print @300 ppi each pixel is 85 microns. Doesn't that seem like a 21x enlargement?

You can look at it that way if you want to. I prefer another way of looking at it.


Steve
CaptivatedByBeauty (external link)
Have: Canon 5D mkII, Canon 60D gripped (DBK), Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM mkII, Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II, Canon 1.4x mk II Extender, 1.25/2.5x Angle Finder, Triopo GT-3229X8.C Tripod with B2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jra
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,568 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Mar 01, 2011 20:09 |  #13

CaptivatedByBeauty wrote in post #11938549 (external link)
You can look at it that way if you want to. I prefer another way of looking at it.

Enlargement certainly plays a part in IQ of the final product. Generally, the less enlargement, the better. It's the main reason that FF and Medium Format digital cameras exist....just like in the film days.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 614
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Mar 01, 2011 20:28 |  #14

CaptivatedByBeauty wrote in post #11938549 (external link)
You can look at it that way if you want to. I prefer another way of looking at it.

There is something about digital and pixels that make people want to beleive the size of the format and the enlargement no longer matter. They think if a smaller sensor has the same number of pixels, it will deliver the same detail in a common print size.

But (and here is the disconnect) most of these same people will clearly understand that some lenses are better performers than others.

So if the lens resolution (which is a physical image projected on the sensor) matters, why does the degree to which you enlarge this physical image not matter?

Or do we not, by virtue of understanding the importance of lenses, also automatically validate the importance of format size (irrespective of pixel count).


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Mar 01, 2011 20:51 |  #15

CaptivatedByBeauty wrote in post #11934706 (external link)
I keep reading posts referring to "magnification" when referring to the sensor versus the final print. I cringe every time I read them. I can see the point behind them, I can see the way the poster is thinking, it dates back from film and enlargers. But, IMO it's not really quite right. I prefer to consider the image as captured by the sensor, looking at the optics and how the optical path is captured by the sensor with its sensor site array, how the density of that affects the process. IMO the size of the sensor compared to the size of the print is a strange way of viewing it. I don't see that process as "magnifying" or "enlargement".
I see it as the sensor detecting photons in the optical path, and an image file being created. That file is then displayed. There's no optics involved, it's digital now.
I also see the only fair way to compare cameras is to view the same size prints at the same distance. It is after all the end result that matters.

The following is from the EXIF data in my 7D - the data are recorded at a certain number of pixels per inch. The optical image that fell on the sensor has real dimensions and so do the properties of the image that are based on optical properties - it is no different that capturing it on film (which you must admit has real dimensions) and then encoding that information digitally. I can never understand why someone would think the properties of the optical image (blur, focus, resolution, etc) would be affected by being digitized. When you blow up or "enlarge" by making a big analog print from a film image or blow up the digital representation of that image by spreading the pixels out further in the printer, you blow up the blur in both cases. Why wouldn't you?

Focal Plane Resolution Unit: inches
Focal Plane X Resolution: 5715.546
Focal Plane Y Resolution: 5808.403

And the DoF is calculated expressly by evaluating the size ratio of the print and the sensor (to determine the suitable size of the Circle of Confusion).


My picture galleries (external link)

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

5,009 views & 0 likes for this thread
Can someone post up pics of crop and full frame sensors wiith same settings?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Eila
702 guests, 249 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.