Landscapers... Full Frame vs Crop

The larger the camera format, the larger the subject within the image projected by the lens onto sensor or film.

Between lenses of similar resolving power, the larger the subject in the image projected by the lens, the more detail resolved.

john crossley wrote in post #17161465
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.

A man after my own heart. The King really does not have any clothes!

At least, if there is a distinguishable difference, I can't see it so I may as well stay with my 7D and spend my money on other extras.

And when you see two images side by side in a magazie at 2"x3", you couldn't tell which came from a 5mm x 4mm sensor in a P&S and which from an 8"x10" camera. It's all about how big you display them. You have to enlarge the image of the king enough to be able to tell if he's naked or not

AJSJones wrote in post #17165163
And when you see two images side by side in a magazie at 2"x3", you couldn't tell which came from a 5mm x 4mm sensor in a P&S and which from an 8"x10" camera. It's all about how big you display them. You have to enlarge the image of the king enough to be able to tell if he's naked or not

From my own tests, which I posted earlier in the thread (which are linked to 100% sized images) in reasonable light, I can't see the difference when viewed side by side. I haven't tried printing them at 100% yet, but I can't see that making any huge difference.

AJSJones wrote in post #17165163
And when you see two images side by side in a magazie at 2"x3", you couldn't tell which came from a 5mm x 4mm sensor in a P&S and which from an 8"x10" camera. It's all about how big you display them. You have to enlarge the image of the king enough to be able to tell if he's naked or not

speedync wrote in post #17165815
From my own tests, which I posted earlier in the thread (which are linked to 100% sized images) in reasonable light, I can't see the difference when viewed side by side. I haven't tried printing them at 100% yet, but I can't see that making any huge difference.

That's the point, though. Up to a certain size, they are indistinguishable. Beyond that, the difference can be detected. A 1.6x factor is not great and pixel count can be more important at certain sizes with good glass etc etc. Compare a MFT print from a 16MP with a 36MPP FF print, however, and it'll be more obvious

I'm not sure what your point is. The OP was asking about the differences between FF & crop. I provided some samples of both formats, with roughly the same MP. 18 & 20 is close enough. For me.
Details & sharpness are about the same. Sure, if you add more MP, view it at the same size, you're going to get more detail, simply due to more pixels, therefore more data to display. Not sure what MFT has got to do with it though.

MFT has a crop factor of 2 so is a more extreme comparison of the effect of enlargment from capture size to viewing size. Also having less than hlaf the number of pxelswillwork against it. So the difference in format will be more noticeable.
Don''t get me wrong, a good crop image can be good and sharp, with good glass. It just has to be 1.6x better than using the same quality glass on a FF. When that matters depends on the print size. Your examples will need to be blown up quite a bit to see the effect. At small reproduction sizes it won't be visible. At bigger sizes it usually is (normalizing the quality of the glass to take the same image confounds the comparison) That's the point.
(I also am sure you are not saying a 21 MP image from a P&S will produce images as good as from a 21 MP FF - same point)

skilsaw wrote in post #17164635
A man after my own heart. The King really does not have any clothes!

At least, if there is a distinguishable difference, I can't see it so I may as well stay with my 7D and spend my money on other extras.

How large of prints do you make? I have both a crop and full frame cameras and I find quite large differences in the final pri ts.

AJSJones wrote in post #17165163
And when you see two images side by side in a magazie at 2"x3", you couldn't tell which came from a 5mm x 4mm sensor in a P&S and which from an 8"x10" camera. It's all about how big you display them. You have to enlarge the image of the king enough to be able to tell if he's naked or not

Bingo...and if you don't display your images large, then I'd say one of the compact mirrorless systems are much better suited.

speedync wrote in post #17166160
I'm not sure what your point is. The OP was asking about the differences between FF & crop. I provided some samples of both formats, with roughly the same MP. 18 & 20 is close enough. For me.
Details & sharpness are about the same. Sure, if you add more MP, view it at the same size, you're going to get more detail, simply due to more pixels, therefore more data to display. Not sure what MFT has got to do with it though.

Sharpness is one thing but tonal gradation is another. Simply put, even toned areas such as blue skies are much more pleasing with full frame than crop. This extends to flesh tones as well.

Hogloff wrote in post #17166220
Bingo...and if you don't display your images large, then I'd say one of the compact mirrorless systems are much better suited.

And as noted earlier, high ISO is better with the larger format though. And depending on system, a larger range of lenses is also available for full frame.

Hogloff wrote in post #17166221
Sharpness is one thing but tonal gradation is another. Simply put, even toned areas such as blue skies are much more pleasing with full frame than crop. This extends to flesh tones as well.

Is this just when printed large? Like greater than 100%? I haven't noticed this myself. What I have noticed though, is that full frame seems to hang onto more highlight detail in high contrast scenes, shot at similar exposure

Oh, and I also meant to mention, that if there is any sort of budget consideration, then crop will provide outstanding bang for buck. I am continually astounded at just how good my EOS M & 11-22 EF M lens is. For very little outlay. Small, light & extremely portable. Mine goes pretty much everywhere with me. Got to be pretty dedicated to start lugging around FF bodies, lenses & associated peripherals on a regular basis

speedync wrote in post #17166250
Oh, and I also meant to mention, that if there is any sort of budget consideration, then crop will provide outstanding bang for buck. I am continually astounded at just how good my EOS M & 11-22 EF M lens is. For very little outlay. Small, light & extremely portable. Mine goes pretty much everywhere with me. Got to be pretty dedicated to start lugging around FF bodies, lenses & associated peripherals on a regular basis

not as light as the M, but FF kit:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pi5S​MP

He he. If we're starting a size bragging competition (or lack of) here's my entry

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/p1UT​67