Crop vs full frame

Archibald wrote in post #19059961
Just curious if anyone actually does this - rents three or four cameras, puts them through tests at different conditions, and evaluates the results. Let us know your experience and the result, and how long it took!

It used to be, in the days of well stocked brick and mortar stores, that you could walk in and talk to a knowledgeable person, and handle a camera in a store to initially evaluate if there were some characteristic that you just could not live with, so that you discontinued consideration of that camera. Then you could decide if one of the remaining candidates felt better/more natural in your hands, and if you might live with that camera in spite of any downsides vs. the other remaining candidates. That is how I chose the 645 SLR system several decades ago.
Unfortunately the penchant for 'lowest price' drove so many and mortar stores out of existence, as they could not compete vs. the NYC volume stores. Folks complained that the local store staff often knew little, but being able to HANDLE the camera has tons of value even when the clerk is clueless.

This still gives you no idea of how it fits/handles in your hands.

Archibald wrote in post #19059961
Just curious if anyone actually does this - rents three or four cameras, puts them through tests at different conditions, and evaluates the results. Let us know your experience and the result, and how long it took!

I've done this with lenses. 70-200 2.8 vs 4.0 and 70-300 vs 70-300L vs 100-400 II. It's a non scientific exercise but a weekend is usually good enough to get a feel for what's what. I go with whatever produces pictures my better half prefers since she and kids are the ones on the business end of the lens.

Haven't done bodies side by side, too expensive. TCS and Vistek are usually good about allowing customers to shoot a few frames in store on your own cards using demo bodies. Once I've settled on a candidate I've been renting the body for an annual event in June to put it through its paces, buying in Nov/Dec when holiday rebates are available.

TCS/Fuji had a promotion where they'd lend an X series body + lens for a weekend at no cost. I took out an XT2 for fun and got some bizarre shots of the kids at Bass Pro of all places. Who knew antlers and stuffed fish could lead to a dozen keepers. Ended up buying an XT3.

AlanU wrote in post #19043385
Yes to a degree.

If you really analyze things, the 2013 Canon 5dmk3 Full frame with Canon designed sensor is not as good as a performer than a Fuji X-t2 (introduced in 2016) crop sensor body with a Sony designed/manufactured aps-c sensor. However the DOF that the full frame sensor produces while shooting F/2.8 constant aperture zooms are still a sweet spot for me. The crop body using an f/2.8 zoom producing the dof a full frame sensor produces at f/4 (1 stop).

So if you start to look at this moment in time the current and newest Cmos sensor produced by Sony is truly on top of the game in sensor performance compared to a 7yrs old Canon designed full frame sensor.

Now if you compare the latest Sony Full frame sensor (not high res) like the 24 Mega pixel sensor found in the Sony A73, the sensor performance surpasses the latest sony aps-c sensors found in the 24MP in the X-t2 and the 26 MP sensor found in the Fuji X-t3. Even the latest Sony aps-c A6600 crop body cannot match the Sony A73 full frame body for low light performance.

Every time technology improves it elevates the performance to all sensor sizes. This is where medium format, Fuji GFX /sony sensor large format sensor, Full frame, crop aps-c, Micro 4/3, 1 inch point and shoots all benefits. Generally speaking each sensor size will never surpass one another due to physical size. The key point is the freshest tech will surpass yesteryear performance.

A Nikon D500 aps-c body introduced in 2016 will destroy a Canon 5dmk2 full frame body sensor performance that was introduced in 2009. If I was using artificial light/bounced flash and remote flash in a venue I'd take the full frame f/2.8 zoom render and shallower dof over a crop body. I can stop down a full frame f/2.8 zoom to f/4 or smaller and produce sharp distinct flash burst images from the remote flash units and still get some subject/background separation. The crop sensor stopped down will get a slightly flatter image if I did the same settings using an f/2.8 aps-c zoom lens.

This image is taken with a full frame body. Yes you can use a crop body to produce a similar image. Hardware and user can always be the limitation. I've happily adopted latest/freshes full frame bodies simply because it always produces cleaner files in low light. When using artificial lighting you can get away with using an old lesser performing sensor.

Anyone jumping on board with camera gear should look into mirrorless and mirrored bodies. One must educate themselves to see what meets their needs or it's not a bad thing to "experiment".

Hosted photo: posted by AlanU in
./showthread.php?p=190​43385&i=i243501845
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

My point was, there are those concerned with the specs and technical performance and those concerned with photography and image making. If you get to concerned with the technical side you risk compromizing the creative side and end up making dull and boring images. From what i have seen there are No correlation between format/camera type and photographic qualities og the images produced. And as you mention yourself a fullframe camera is not Better just because it's full frame, go back a few sensor generations and a modern apsc will outperform it on multiple areas.

gjl711 wrote in post #19059965
Isn't that pretty much what most of the legitimate review sites do? DxO with their sensor reviews, DPreview with their in depth reviews, Imaging Resource, Digital-Picture, and a few others.

What does it all mean, though?

Interpretation varies, and some comparisons are done in a meaningless context.

Comparing different sensor sizes at the same ISO sounds logical, but the fact is, your gear only takes photographs with a sensor and a lens, combined, and different size sensors require different optics for the same photo, and for situations where one is focal-length-limited, a larger sensor means that you discard more of the sensor area, and get a lot less of what these academic comparisons suggest you would get. It is nice to have these comparison tools with controlled exposure, but the most simple and direct use of them is often misleading for many types of photography. They are biased towards making larger sensors and larger pixels seem like they are always giving better results, but that is conditional and heavily dependent upon using a larger lens along with the larger sensor.

A complete set of comparison images might require more ISO settings, at 1/3-stop increments, to compare different sensor sizes in equivalence. The DPR tool included ISO 32000 shots from the 5D4, which it does not do for most cameras. That ISO allows you to compare against Canon APS-C cameras in equivalence, though, at ISO 12800. When you do that, the 7D2 has about the same noise as the 5D4 in daylight mode, and a little bit less than the 5D4 in incandescent mode. This suggest that per unit of sensor area, the 7D2 has almost identical noise at high ISOs as the 5D4, or better in warm lighting. The 90D takes that another, step, and the 90D has significantly less noise than the 5D4. Most people looking at these comparisons, using the same ISO for FF vs APS-C, would never notice this, nor would they notice it if they changed the ISOs for each camera independently until the noise looked about the same. The same f-ratios are used for FF and APS-C, which means that the APS-C cameras are showing more diffraction than full equivalence would dictate, and don't cut through the noise the way they would.

Then, you have the issue that these comparison tools do not help directly with focal-length-limited concerns. If they did that, they would shoot all sensor sizes the same distance from the target. Then, it would make sense to compare at the same ISO (as the f-ratio of the same lens dictates ISO exposure index in focal-length-limited situations; not sensor size), and scale the results up so that objects in the frame appear the same size in the comparison.

So, I have a love/hate relationship with these tools; I am very glad that people are providing RAWs with controlled manual exposure, but they are incomplete, and many people will draw the wrong conclusions from them, as they are biased to make larger sensors look better all the time, when the fact is, that potential superiority is conditional, and is often due in real photography to having a larger lens, or by being closer to the subject.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19060065
... The DPR tool included ISO 32000 shots from the 5D4, which it does not do for most cameras. That ISO allows you to compare against Canon APS-C cameras in equivalence, though, at ISO 12800. When you do that, the 7D2 has about the same noise as the 5D4 in daylight mode, and a little bit less than the 5D4 in incandescent mode. This suggest that per unit of sensor area, the 7D2 has almost identical noise at high ISOs as the 5D4, or better in warm lighting. The 90D takes that another, step, and the 90D has significantly less noise than the 5D4. Most people looking at these comparisons, using the same ISO for FF vs APS-C, would never notice this, nor would they notice it if they changed the ISOs for each camera independently until the noise looked about the same. The same f-ratios are used for FF and APS-C, which means that the APS-C cameras are showing more diffraction than full equivalence would dictate, and don't cut through the noise the way they would....

Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that the 5DIV set at ISO3200 looks about the same as the 7DII set to ISO 12800 and most people are too uneducated to know that the two settings are very different and would conclude that the 7DII has less noise? Or.. Are you saying that the 7DII actually has less noise at high ISO?

Wilt wrote in post #19059980
It used to be, in the days of well stocked brick and mortar stores, that you could walk in and talk to a knowledgeable person, and handle a camera in a store to initially evaluate if there were some characteristic that you just could not live with, so that you discontinued consideration of that camera...

Better than nothing, I guess, but a camera store is a very stressful place to evaluate a camera. It takes days and weeks to learn a camera, not just a few minutes in a store with a clerk watching you. And you want to check out different things, like flash, closeup, AF speed with a different lens, low light, and so on. This just isn't going to happen in a camera store.

So in my opinion, it is totally unreasonable to think that a relative newbie could to go into a store and be able to select the right-for-him/her camera. Instead, the salesperson will lead the customer to what is right for the store.

What I have always done is do diligent research at home to make the decision. I rely on the "legitimate review sites" as JJ says, never just one, but a few. Those sites have agendas, believe me, so always pay more attention to the nouns than the adjectives. Recommendations from friends also are taken into account, and info from forums, plus personal prejudices that one might have. From all this, I make a decision. That's how I went from Pentax film to Canon digital. Big decision. I did go into the store and handle the camera, but that was for confirmation, not to figure out things from scratch or conduct tests.

gjl711 wrote in post #19060179
Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that the 5DIV set at ISO3200 looks about the same as the 7DII set to ISO 12800 and most people are too uneducated to know that the two settings are very different and would conclude that the 7DII has less noise? Or.. Are you saying that the 7DII actually has less noise at high ISO?

My point is that one may or may not take full advantage of a larger sensor and when you don't, the larger sensors don't necessarily get you less noise. If you need a certain depth of field, or are focal-length-limited, then you are not going to get a large-sensor noise benefit.

Let's say your choices are 5D4 with 80/6.3 or 7D2 or 90D with 50/4, for the needed angle of view and DOF. The 5D4 will not give less noise than the 7D2, and it will give a bit more than the 90D. 5D4 will give better results than the 7D2 because of 30MP vs 20MP, but not because of noise. 90D will be better, with a tad more pixel resolution, and less noise.

Let's say you are as close as you can get to a small/distant subject, and your angle of view is excessive and requires cropping from all systems. In that case, the the 7D2 gives more resolution than the 5D4 with about the same noise, and the 90D gives a lot more resolution, and less noise as well.

Whatever IQ benefit you see for larger sensors in image comparisons comes from either 100% pixel views, or by filling the frame while getting shallower DOF, which requires getting closer, and/or using a lens with a larger entrance pupil.

Archibald wrote in post #19059961
Just curious if anyone actually does this - rents three or four cameras, puts them through tests at different conditions, and evaluates the results. Let us know your experience and the result, and how long it took!

If you spend a little bit of time at a camera store (and don't come across as "rushed" and wait until there is a lull in the action with other customers), the folks there might let you spend some hands-on time with many different models. I've found that to be the case many times. In the past, I had my mind set on one camera or lens or whatever only to have it changed completely when spending some time with it. And by going to the store (and presenting as a genuine customer), it was easy to get hands-on time at no cost.

jjgoodall65 wrote in post #19037373
Wow so much great information. Thanks guys! Im going to look into some of the cameras mentioned.

Jim

Just a point of interest, we’ve added about three pages of good info since the OP posted the comment above. Further, the OP hasn’t visited the forum since April 6th.

Archibald wrote in post #19060210
Better than nothing, I guess, but a camera store is a very stressful place to evaluate a camera. It takes days and weeks to learn a camera, not just a few minutes in a store with a clerk watching you. And you want to check out different things, like flash, closeup, AF speed with a different lens, low light, and so on. This just isn't going to happen in a camera store.....

Ah, the demise of the helpful/friendly camera store...

For most of my life, I've been fortunate to live near stores where I would spend an hour or two and the people knew what they were talking about. (Plus, we'd just hang out and talk.) It comes down to people and personalities. True, it's not as common anymore.

soeren wrote in post #19060037
My point was, there are those concerned with the specs and technical performance and those concerned with photography and image making. If you get to concerned with the technical side you risk compromizing the creative side and end up making dull and boring images. From what i have seen there are No correlation between format/camera type and photographic qualities og the images produced. And as you mention yourself a fullframe camera is not Better just because it's full frame, go back a few sensor generations and a modern apsc will outperform it on multiple areas.

People/photogs can buy whatever hardware they desire.

At this moment in time Sony aps-c technology and physical crop sized sensor do perform as well as older generation FF sensors. I can also say every improvement that aps-c experiences, there is an upgrade to modern full frame. Full frame has elevated to another level and has surpassed aps-c. Aps-c will never match FF in high iso performance due to science. Just like FF will never match Fuji medium format (large format not true MF) or Medium format.

I'm living the "old" and still love Mirrored bodies due to the superior autofocus capabilities in a black hole while using red focus assist No mirrorless FF can touch that in accuracy for my events I do from time to time. This is where I still dust off my older FF 5dmk3 and 5dmk4.

If Fuji X-t2,3,4 matched the sensor performance of the modern FF, I'd still be using/testing/experime​nting with the fuji world. I love my zoom lenses as well as primes. AS far as "crop vs full frame" I merely accept the fact that an aps-c system will never have the same dof using f/2.8 zooms unless you use a heavier f/1.8 aps-c designated zoom lens. Instead of fighting this "hardware specification/fact" it's just easier for me to buy the massive selection of FF glass for my Sony and Canon system and be in a sweet spot of overall performance.

If I was a prime guy only I'd settle for aps-c and stick with f/1.4 and pray for heavier f1.0, f/1.2 alternatives.

It's understood that Hardware has nothing to do with creativity. Hardware's capabilities is where humans each have personal standards or idealism. aps-c high iso performance even in 2020, in my case does not meet my standards in the sweet spot of the collective sensor performance, render/look/dof that FF provides me. Incremental difference to "big" differences in sensor performance is still something people analyze as meeting or missing their personal standards. Everyone has their own comfort zone.

I'm grateful for the gear manufacturers are pumping out. I use my disposable income to enjoy this rewarding hobby in photography. My standards in hardware is just the same as when I was more serious in the tough photog industry. I'd say hobbyist/semi pro's can be even more critical in a personal hobby as far as IQ is concerned. Disposable income does not base G.A.S based on forecasting business plans or meeting budgets.

I personally know more hobbyists owning much higher end gear than the people working in the industry. IQ becomes extremely personal and not just documenting clients. "Good enough" is sometimes taken literally or some go beyond friends/family or clients expectations. I choose full frame but some laugh and use medium format. Hardware is only part of the equation but it still carries a lot of weight in how the final product can look (to your taste).

If we always had ideal lighting I'd use still choose Full frame due to f/2.8 zoom dof for versatility. If I was a prime shooter living in ideal light, I would jump back into Fujifilm aps-c and be less of a pain in the rear in the fuji forums

crop vs full frame is a big discussion as it's not simply a technical specification comparison. Human bias or preference plays a huge role for "reasons" in shooting crop or full frame. Personally it makes no difference in what people use in hardware because your "art" is your concern. We just love discussion behind a monitor and keyboard for entertainment and expressing our points of view

AlanU wrote in post #19060263
Just like FF will never match Fuji medium format (large format not true MF) or Medium format.

WHAT?? You mean in the same way the Hasselbald H6D50c is not a medium format camera, or the H5D for that matter. Then there is the Pentax 645D and Z are not medium format cameras and I guess the Phase One IQ150 is not one either. I think we should call 135mm Mini Full Frame in that case, you know so as not to confuse it with a true digital full frame camera. Now excuse me as I have to go shoot something with my full frame camera.

dasmith232 wrote in post #19060260
Ah, the demise of the helpful/friendly camera store...

For most of my life, I've been fortunate to live near stores where I would spend an hour or two and the people knew what they were talking about. (Plus, we'd just hang out and talk.) It comes down to people and personalities. True, it's not as common anymore.

You are talking about a different kind of store, a place that is a social experience. What I want in a camera store is staff that knows their stuff. That is what we have in Calgary. They are not chatty, though. If you show up just to be friendly, you won't be appreciated.

We don't disagree at all. My point was that you could initially handle a camera by walking into a store, just as you could briefly 'test drive' a car and find out if a car simply did not suit you for one reason or other. Now with mostly mail order, that initial assessment is possible only if you buy multiple bodies, try them out at home, and then send all but one back to the store...leaving a bunch of cameras to be sold (at lower profits) as 'open box' stock...not great for the store! Rental gives one a means, albeit much more expensive than walking into a store to handle the demo unit from the shelf!