Difference between full frame and cropped frame cameras?

I am trying to figure out if there is a significant difference between the full frame and cropped frame cameras (apart from the fact that the sensor size is different). Is there a lot of difference in image quality?

Thanks

Quick answer is yes, there is a difference. This is one of those topics that you need to go back and read some of the other crop vs FF threads. There is a lot of stuff out there. Hit the search icon and type in "Crop FF" and tons of threads will pop up.

chakrade wrote in post #17868608
I am trying to figure out if there is a significant difference between the full frame and cropped frame cameras (apart from the fact that the sensor size is different). Is there a lot of difference in image quality?

Thanks

Heya,

It really depends on what you do.

If you ignore charts, measurements and magic bullet sentiment, you will find that depending how you are presenting and viewing your final image from either sensor size are largely indistinguishable, again, depending on what you're capturing and displaying. If you are in desperate need of the highest performance high ISO (6400, 12800, and higher) then a larger sensor (that is modern; this matters) is going to give you that. If you are in desperate need of more pixels on a distant target and already limited by budget to specific focal lengths, a smaller sensor with high resolution that is modern will give you that. There's a ton of differences that are relatively minor, but ultimately, there will be one or two that matter enough to you to warrant picking one over the other for what you do specifically.

To me, the biggest difference between full frame & crop sensor size is angle of view of the lenses, which drastically changes how you will use focal lengths which changes what lenses you might enjoy using. For example, I adore 85mm on full frame's angle of view and depth of field at F1.4 for full body outdoor portrait. This difference in angle of view also has an impact on cost of lenses. Full frame telephoto lenses and mid-range fast zooms are enormously expensive. If long reach and fast mid-range zooms are your future bread & butter, and you're not too fussy about needing ISO 12800 or higher, you can get away with an APS-C camera for a lot less money and achieve the same field of views. This is again assuming modern sensors being looked at, and not something 10+ years old.

I use full frame & APS-C. I print largish, 16x20" is common for me. I also do a lot of web-display. Doesn't matter to me which format I'm using. I use my full frame for shorter focal lengths and portrait due to depth of field control and angle of view with specific lenses that I like. I use my APS-C mostly for astro, lunar, telephoto use (600mm) and video.

Very best,

This doesn't tell the whole story, but it should give you enough to ask more direct questions.

Here is a manual test between the 7D2 and 5D3, probably the best "siblings" of all the FF and crop bodies, as they are very, very similar, and targeted to about the same people.

First, to show you what 44mm looks like on both, which will immediately show you field of view differences from a FF vs APS-C crop (1.6 factor). The full frame shrunken to 1600 px on the long end, and then a 100% crop off to the left.

Now to equalize the FF so that it has the same FOV as the crop body, I had to shoot the 5D3 at 70mm. Nothing else changes.

You can see the ISO differences, but other odd little things, the 7D2 seems to be a bit brighter perhaps. Colors/contrast might be different, etc. In the 44mm test between the 2, you will see that the 5D3 has a narrower DOF. If you crop that down to the same view, or change the focal length to produce the same framing as the 7D2 on 44mm, then the DOF seems to equalize a bit.

If you are focal length limited, the 7D2 shines in the fact that not only does the framing become more tight due to the crop factor, but a subject at 100% covers more pixels than the 5D3, due to the pixel density. Both of these factors gives the impression that the 7D2 has more reach. How do you overcome that "effective reach" issue on the FF? You either buy longer lenses or buy higher density FF bodies (both of which can get expensive), or you can use a 1.4x TC to get most of that 1.6 crop factor back, but you will then have to shoot 1 stop higher ISO to get the same exposure, which then means you negate the ISO performance gain. It is all a juggling act.

Here are the raw files for you to play, and to make sure this was about as fair a test as possible. I used the resulting JPG from DPP for the posts above, and only made sure that the NR sliders was set to the same values (5D3 was originally 10/11, and the 7D2 was 12/12).

https://www.dropbox.co​m …o9uqg6y5/5D344M​M.CR2?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.co​m …3gre4f9m/7D244M​M.CR2?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.co​m …2yedw5kq/5D370M​M.CR2?dl=0

My personal thoughts are that the 7D2 and 5D3 are very good, and close in some regards, and thus they both earn a spot, for now, in my bag. There is a smaller gap between APS-C and FF right now than probably any other time in the past. That could change if Canon has a new sensor design for the 1DX2 and keeps it around only for FF bodies.

yes you need to think about a lot more than just the sensor size. The age of the sensor is important, as newer designs are more efficient, in either format. Also the resolution of sensors changes over time as well, so even the crop "reach" advantage might not always exist. If you compare say a 30D with a 5DII, which at one time might have been an quite common upgrade path, many photographers did say that they would keep the 30D body for the crop factor reach advantage that it had over the new FF body. But crop the 22MP 5DII sensor down to match the size of the 8MP 30D body and the FF is actually left with 8.5MP! so the FF body would actually have the reach advantage in that comparison.

Generally a larger sensor, provided that it's resolution is well matched to the resolution of the lenses in use, even if the sensel size and everything else is equal between the two sensors will provide higher quality results, as long as you have a long enough focal length lens to fill the frame. Actually if the linear resolution is the same between the two sensors the 35mm format sensor will be able to produce a print with the same perceived quality that is linearly 1.6× bigger or 2.56× larger in area, depending on which way you want to look at it.in that situation a 30×20 print from a 35mm format sensor would actually be a little better quality than a 20×16 from an APS-C sensor.

These are just a few of the considerations.

Alan

You want reach? Crop
You want minimum depth of field? FF

The alternative to above...

You want reach? Get longer lenses or TCs
You want minimum dof? Get fast primes

135 f2 can still produce quite a bit less DOF than 90mm on 1.5 crop when framed the same.
top is 5D3
bottom is X-T1

windpig wrote in post #17869372
You want reach? Crop
You want minimum depth of field? FF

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17869431
The alternative to above...

You want reach? Get longer lenses or TCs
You want minimum dof? Get fast primes

I'll mix the two.
I wanted reach from long lenses. I got a crop.
Not really after minimum DOF all the time, but it is a product of shooting fast primes to keep the ISO down.

Hi Tom

Like most everything, there are trade offs.

Crop and Full Frame are pretty much negligible, just shoot with either


http://dedpxl.com/crop​-or-crap-math-or-moment/

Oh, most certainly. Everything in photography is a compromise of some sort. I currently shoot a 6D and primarily primes. But, I do use 70-200 and 100-400 on the long end, for more versatility at lower cost. Either my skills, or the 6D's AI-servo performance was not all I expected. Grabbed a 70D. The 70D/70-200 combo gets me better field sports shots. Since I have a 70D with DPAF, I got into video. That required me to purchase a 10-18 to supplement my 18-55 STM. I like the 10-18, but it is way too slow for indoor work. Solution? Tokina 11-20 f/2.8. After this long circuitous path to a closet full of camera stuff, I realize it most likely would have been cheaper to just buy a 5DIII in the first place.

To keep this somewhat relevant, I started with full frame. Gave up film and went to apsc. Added full frame digital. Went exclusively full frame. Added back apsc. For most of what I do, I can't tell the difference. Two notable exceptions are the 85 1.8 and 135L of full frame, wide open. Those shots are unique, if done properly.

Oh, and somewhere along the line I added a G15. Fantastic little camera. For most work it rivals the IQ of the 60D/15-85 combination. The 60D is less noisy at the same ISO, but the f/1.8-2.8 lens of the G15 allows me to work at 2 stops lower ISO. And it doesn't have the ridiculous bounce-flash problem of the 70D.

.

chakrade wrote in post #17868608
I am trying to figure out if there is a significant difference between the full frame and cropped frame cameras (apart from the fact that the sensor size is different). Is there a lot of difference in image quality?

Thanks

OP, I would love to see you check back in to this thread regularly. So often, this is a topic that leads to pages and pages of commentary, debate, and even arguments. Yet in so many cases the OP never posts to the thread again, or does post back, but in such a cursory manner that it doesn't tell the other thread contributors the full extent to which the OP understands, or fails to understand, the topic.

We would be able to help you better if you would:

- let us know just what it is that you still don't understand about the differences in image quality between crop sensor cameras and full frame cameras

- tell us specifically what types of photography you do, or intend to do, and what your final output is going to be (size of prints, size of digital files viewed on various media, etc). This would be helpful because for some types of photos under certain conditions, you will get better results from a crop camera than you will from a full frame camera, and the reverse is true under other conditions.

.