Landscapers... Full Frame vs Crop

After a quick search for "advantages of full frame vs crop", it's clear there's not a lot of good information online about this. Most search results briefly point out better ISO handling, and better for UWA landscapes (and at that, mainly because of lens selection).

For landscape shooting, it seem there would be an advantage when it comes to pixel-pitch and diffraction limits, but there's not much out there about this...

So what's the deal? Aside from ISO and the obvious DOF advantage, how is full frame advantageous for someone looking for more resolution, especially a landscape shooter who's stopped down to f/8 or beyond most of the time?

it´s all about photographer, if he can use FF advantage or not. most of us can´t, because main bottleneck is our skill, not the camera. Many people are focusing too much on their gear instead.

FF is of course better pick, if you print large and you have best lenses in your disposal. For landscape with sharp lenses, FF is better.

For distant shooting, crop is better, cheaper, with additional 1.6 crop factor, which works even better for lowlight distant shooting.

I find FF strongest when my subject is filling entire frame, so i don´t need to crop much. I think FF is waste of money, if people crop too much just because they don´t pay attention¨to composition or framing when taking actual photo.

palad1n wrote in post #17161418
FF is of course better pick, if you print large and you have best lenses in your disposal. For landscape with sharp lenses, FF is better.

Thank you for your response. What I've quoted above is specifically what I'm asking about. Why is sharp glass on FF better than sharp glass on APS-C? Is there some resolution advantage?

less pixel density doesn't tax the glass as bad. crop has higher density so each pixel see's a smaller portion of the glass so it's affect is seen more.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17161428
Thank you for your response. What I've quoted above is specifically what I'm asking about. Why is sharp glass on FF better than sharp glass on APS-C? Is there some resolution advantage?

FF in most instances has larger physical pixels than APS-C given the same Megapixels of resolution. So for example, the size of the pixels on the 70D sensor (APS-C) are much smaller than say the 6D which is a FF sensor with the same 20.2 Megapixels. This equates to more light being able to easily reach each individual pixel with them being larger on a FF sensor vs an APS-C sensor.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17161428
Thank you for your response. What I've quoted above is specifically what I'm asking about. Why is sharp glass on FF better than sharp glass on APS-C? Is there some resolution advantage?

IF you shoot with FF and not very sharp lens, your image will look decent, but not so much on 100% crop.
on crop camera, it will be even more apparent, because you basically use only portion of the frame in the center, so the lack of sharpness will be more noticable right there. On other hand, crop is almost free from corner bluriness and vignetting with EF lenses.
With good lenses though, it´s very hard to see any differences even side by side and IQ is very similar.

outmywindow wrote in post #17161444
FF in most instances has larger physical pixels than APS-C given the same Megapixels of resolution. So for example, the size of the pixels on the 70D sensor (APS-C) are much smaller than say the 6D which is a FF sensor with the same 20.2 Megapixels. This equates to more light being able to easily reach each individual pixel with them being larger on a FF sensor vs an APS-C sensor.

I think the low-light advantage is fairly obvious given relative pixel size. But given adequate lighting, I don't really see an advantage here.

^This is what I'm really getting at. So, does this mean FF has a higher diffraction limit vs. APS-C? Theoretically, given equal quality lenses on FF & APS-C, I should get better results from FF when stopped way down to f/22?

Well to be totally honest I doubt that anyone would be able to tell whether the image was taken on a full frame sensor or a crop sensor.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17161452
^This is what I'm really getting at. So, does this mean FF has a higher diffraction limit vs. APS-C? Theoretically, given equal quality lenses on FF & APS-C, I should get better results from FF when stopped way down to f/22?

Well I found this older post which links to this exact subject, basically yes the larger the sensor the further you can stop down before the effects of diffraction kick in.

There is no DOF advantage. Diffraction isn't really an issue either - I don't get why people get so hung up on that. Use whatever aperture is necessary to get the desired DOF that you want.

FF is going to be better for landscape - pixel density is a big part as you will get cleaner images, though these days it's hard to tell especially at low ISO which is where the majority of landscapes should be shot, excepting night/astro landscapes.

A lot will be quality wide angle lenses. A 17mm TS-E or 15mm Zeiss really has no crop sensor comparable lens.

As you have a 6D 16-35/4 you have a very very competent landscape set up, probably the best Canon currently have. Only a 36mp Nikon/Sony sensor will see improvement for you. As has already been stated, a pixel dense sensor is harder on glass than a lesser pixel populated one

Numenorean wrote in post #17161504
There is no DOF advantage. Diffraction isn't really an issue either - I don't get why people get so hung up on that. Use whatever aperture is necessary to get the desired DOF that you want.

FF is going to be better for landscape - pixel density is a big part as you will get cleaner images, though these days it's hard to tell especially at low ISO which is where the majority of landscapes should be shot, excepting night/astro landscapes.

A lot will be quality wide angle lenses. A 17mm TS-E or 15mm Zeiss really has no crop sensor comparable lens.

I agree with your last two points; though I would add for the OP that along with the DoF requirement for a particular scene, the diffraction and aperture issue seems to be more related to how much light you have to work with and how long you want your exposure to be. Being able to stop down further on a FF body without worrying about the effects of diffraction can help you extend the exposure time on a landscape scene whilst not needing such a powerful ND filter for example. On the other hand with an APS-C body one could stop down to say f/8 or f/9 at ISO 100 and call it a day for shorter exposures, but if you need a longer exposure you will need to cut more stops with a stronger ND or ND grad to get the desired exposure. However I agree that the difference is subtle and that the advantages are not quite immediate, but it does make a noticeable difference in the overall process.

outmywindow wrote in post #17161531
I agree with your last two points; though I would add that along with the DoF requirement for a particular scene, the diffraction and aperture issue seems to be more related to how much light you have to work with and how long you want your exposure to be. Being able to stop down further on a FF body without worrying about the effects of diffraction can help you extend the exposure time on a landscape scene whilst not needing such a powerful ND filter for example. On the other hand with an APS-C body one could stop down to say f/8 or f/9 at ISO 100 and call it a day for shorter exposures, but if you need a longer exposure you will need to cut more stops with a stronger ND or ND grad to get the desired exposure. However I agree that the difference is subtle and that the advantages are not quite immediate, but it does make a noticeable difference in the overall process.

If you need to use f/16 on crop, then do it.

While the differences between crop and FF may be overstated by internet blowhards, Im hard pressed to think of a case where a larger format isn't better for landscape shooting when budgets are not limited.

One of the largest (and oft overlooked) reasons is simply the varied selection of quality lenses with FOV's that lend themselves to landscape shooting on FF. As mentioned above, many of them simply have no equivalent on crop.

But also, the pixel density plays a role, too - take a look at the link below comparing the 24 TS-e II on crop and FF. Even at f8, there is a significant advantage to the FF camera. This seems to apply across the Canon lens line up from UWA's to telephotos. I didn't realize there was such a noticeable difference until recently when a friend challenged my stance of "pixels on target" being the "crop reach advantage". It so prominent it has me questioning whether or not "pixels on target" is justification for more "reach". Seems a teleconverter or even upscaling a FF image would yield better results.

My feeble understanding of photographic physics is that even the mighty 24 TS-e II cannot out resolve the density of an 18MP APS-c sensor. The result is the blurred edges shown in the link I provided.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

MNUplander wrote in post #17161555
While the differences between crop and FF may be overstated by internet blowhards, Im hard pressed to think of a case where a larger format isn't better for landscape shooting.

Agreed. My camera choice for landscapes basically comes down to the biggest sensor I can realistically afford.

I would love to have a digital medium format system for landscapes, but can't afford it. I can afford some cameras with 35mm "full frame" sensors, so that's what I use.

If I couldn't afford a full frame camera, then I could be very happy using a body with an APS-C sensor, like a 70D or 7D II.

I like that FF provides a measure of image quality enhancements, and I like being able to exploit the greatest field of view possible with my wide-angle lenses (TS-E 17mm and 24mm).