FF vs Crop - but looking for comparative images

Hi,

As you may have noticed I'm considering getting a FF, however it will most likely be a 5Dc as I cannot get the funds for anything more expensive at the moment.

Now of course I understand the basics - 1 vs 1.6, however I've read much about DoF, image contrast, better noise (or rather from what I've read FF seems to give chroma rather than luminescence - but I may have read that wrong) and just the general "pop" factor and was wondering if anyone has any direct comparisons using the same lens, or knows of any online.

Oh, by the way I have searched - for days it seems, but the problem seems to be not the lack of results but more there are too many to find a decent answer, sort of a pin in a stack of needles sort of a job

Thanks for reading and virtual cookies to anyone who helps

From my experience (D30, 10D, 1D, XTi, 30D, 40D, 5D, 1Ds, 1D2, 1Ds2, T2i, 1D3, 7D), in sum, the "pop" factor usually comes from subject separation from the busy background. This is a function of DoF and pleasing bokeh. It can be done a little easier with FF bodies because of the corresponding thinner DoF with the same subject framing. It also can be achieve with larger apertures. A combination of both.

This said, you CAN achieve the "pop" with 1.6 and 1.3 bodies with large aperture lenses, e.g. 85mm f/1.2 and 50mm f/1.4. I found out that my 85mm f/1.2 was equally good for subject "pop" on my 1D3 and 7D. Unless I require extremely THIN DoF for some shots, 1.3 and 1.6 bodies are just as good. For practical general portrait photography, any body will do.

The one point where I can feel that FF has an advantage is post-processing RAW files coming off a FF body. So much cleaner and easier to manipulate... perhaps with the exception of the 1D3 which is also a pleasure to work with.

Hope this helps!

I'd suggest that you read this thread and search for more like it.

What's your real reason for wanting a so-called "full-frame" camera? Remember that "format alone does not a camera make".

You cant really make a direct comparison. There are always small differences.
The reasons are ... the frame size, the DOF, FOV, the pixel size, camera calibration of shutter Exp, AF, etc, also the processor logic and its scale micro linewidth.

For indirect comparison .... a 5DC {8 micron pixel} to a 20D {6.5 micron pixel} works well.

Consider the real delta with format size alone to be like a FF 35 mm neg to half frame 35 neg w same film.
The difference of film FF and half frame will be seen mostly in large enlargements {greater than 20X}.
The difference between my 5DC and 20D besides FOV DOF is subtle and not noticeable till you print at 20X +.

There are threads dedicated to each camera with thousands of images. Web size will show no difference in IQ, noise, and the like.

I did it only once. It is not so easy to get same FOV with same lens on two different cameras if you taking pictures outdoors. Light is changing quickly as well, while you switch cameras, set them on tripod, put same lens on...
Plus, well, it was actually minus twenty, Celsius.

kf095 wrote in post #13279153
I did it only once. ... Also 5Dc files are more forgiving for editing and HDR seems to be less noisy as well compare to crop. So it is much more easier to get clear final image with FF camera.

Forgive me for many words and only few pictures.

The noise difference is due to the pixel size mainly not the frame size.
As the pixel size goes down ... the noise increases because it cant gather light {signal} as well. You see this greatly on high ISO.
My 5DC is very low noise w 8 micron pixels compared to my 20D at 6.5 microns.
Camera Logic also plays a small part but CMOS W Bayer Color chips remain the same.
At this time I would avoid any camera with pixels smaller than 5 microns regardless of FF or Crop APS or FFMFDSLR.
Good to see Canon finally increasing pixel size {1DX}
instead of marketing to MP gearheads.

John_N wrote in post #13278566
Hi,

As you may have noticed I'm considering getting a FF, however it will most likely be a 5Dc as I cannot get the funds for anything more expensive at the moment.

Now of course I understand the basics - 1 vs 1.6, however I've read much about DoF, image contrast, better noise (or rather from what I've read FF seems to give chroma rather than luminescence - but I may have read that wrong) and just the general "pop" factor and was wondering if anyone has any direct comparisons using the same lens, or knows of any online.

Oh, by the way I have searched - for days it seems, but the problem seems to be not the lack of results but more there are too many to find a decent answer, sort of a pin in a stack of needles sort of a job

Thanks for reading and virtual cookies to anyone who helps

I did some mini-reviews between FF and crops, just hit the link in my signature. Not sure if what I did in those threads satisfy what you are looking for though.

EL_PIC wrote in post #13279336
The noise difference is due to the pixel size mainly not the frame size.
As the pixel size goes down ... the noise increases because it cant gather light {signal} as well. You see this greatly on high ISO.
My 5DC is very low noise w 8 micron pixels compared to my 20D at 6.5 microns.
Camera Logic also plays a small part but CMOS W Bayer Color chips remain the same.
At this time I would avoid any camera with pixels smaller than 5 microns regardless of FF or Crop APS or FFMFDSLR.
Good to see Canon finally increasing pixel size {1DX}
instead of marketing to MP gearheads.

There is more than just sensel size, and there have indeed been advances in the sensor tech. How important is another question.

Depth of the sensor well, the gaps between the sensors, etc all impact how much light can be gathered. Also software changes in the digic processors have contributed greatly too. Also finally, the amplification process, analog vs digital, and where/when each apply play into this.

guys, these are great - teamspeed, great minireviews by the way, I'll have to try out the low-noise settings.

In answer to the why FF question - a couple of reasons:

1) I'm trying to get some use out of my home studio and feel a FF given that I don't have much room will help (although this may mean getting a different lens than the Sigma 17-50 as its for crop only, unless I can get away with the old nifty fifty)
2) The idea of less noise, or it would seem easier to manage noise could be very handy
3) Richer colours
4) Having a FF as well as a crop would in essence get me more lenses - well sort of - 85mm functioning at the range of a 50 and so on. Please don;t start rowing over that line, I know its not magnification or real range changes, just the appearance (hopefully that'll stop a big argument somewhere )
5) The reduced DoF intrigues me - I know it won't magically transform my f4 lenses into f2.8's but I am curious about that aspect
6) I always have the wrong lens on my camera, carrying two with different lenses gives me double the chance

Hope that helps answer that little query.