Are FFs superior to crops cameras??

There have been a few threads featuring the 24-105L and I was intrigued that one poster said he loved this lens on a FF body but found it soft and inferior on crop cameras. A LOT of posters use the classic phrase "if your going FF soon" which has started me wondering if there is some inherent superiority in the FF sensor as opposed to crops like the XT/XTI/XSI. Also, Canon seems to use crop sensors in their more budget models with the better built pro bodies being FF.
Can anyone shed some definitive light on whether there is an actual IQ difference between the two sensor types?

Thanks,

Hal55

Full frame sensors tend to have larger pixels so all things being equal they need less amplifying, thereby the potential for less noise more detail and sharper looking pictures.
However they do have problems.. most L lenses were designed for film cameras and are not telecentric. Therefore the rays of light strike a FF sensor more obliquely at the extremes. this and the thickness of a sensor often causes greater chromatic aberration and vignetting than either a film camera or a Crop frame with these same lenses. This is especially true of the more extreme wide angle lenses.

However all things are not equal... FF cameras cost more than crop frame equivalents, and more time and expense is spent on overcoming these problems.
Another factor to consider is the size of the resulting files from a FF camera, these can be huge. This has ramifications on the computer front... especially speed, memory,hard disk storage and back up. Many people who go in for FF soon find they need a new computer and storage as well.

I would simply look at work shown here from both frame sizes and decide if the Crop sensor fulfils your needs. Remember though almost any digital file looks pretty good an a computer screen. The real difference between FF and Crop is seen when making very large prints.
However, how many of those will the average amateur make these days?
From my point of view a camera like the 40D or the D300 is more then adequate for my purposes, as are the best offerings from Pentax, Sony, et al. And all of these can make excellent A3 prints. certainly as good as most would have been able to make from film.

The file size is becoming less of an issue, as we see the entry level 450D camera now being approximately equal in number of pixels to the "cheapest" full frame body, the 5D.

But the reduced need for amplification at pixel level and magnification at image level still gives the FF camera the advantage when it comes to content of the file.

hal55,
I have both a FF (5D) and a 1.6 (40D), and I personally like my 1.6 sensor better. I also have many 16 x 20" & 13 x 19" prints from both cameras and prints are identical in quality.

Terrywoodenpic wrote in post #5687830
Full frame sensors tend to have larger pixels so all things being equal they need less amplifying, thereby the potential for less noise more detail and sharper looking pictures.

Well said. And as you mentioned, the differences are probably not visible either except in the largest of prints.

I think there is no inherent 'advantage' to either FF or crop cameras. The choice largely depends on the lenses you want to use and the type of photography you pursue.

FF cameras allow you to use lenses 'as they are'. That means, the 24-105/4L indeed provides a focal length range of 24-105mm, spanning from moderately wide to medium tele. That is a magnificently useful range. Put the same lens on a 1.6X crop camera and the lens gives a field of view of a lens that is 1.6X longer, becoming approx. 39-165mm. Is this focal length range still useful? That depends on the user.

Also, some of the preferred optics such as the 35/1.4L and 135/2L can be used at their native focal length range on a FF camera. Put them on a 1.6X crop camera and you have something like a 56/1.4L and a 216/2L respectively. Is this focal length still useful? History repeats itself. It depends again, on the user.

Whenever we deal with the 'crop factor' we always run the risk of getting into sticky situations whereby people argue that the crop factor does/ does not appear to make a lens 'longer', whether or not magnification increases etc. Anyway, I digress.

Imagine the same scenario with telephoto lenses. A 400mm lens, when put on a 1.6X crop camera gives field of view of a 640mm lens. More reach? To a certain extent, this may be correct, even if oversimplifying the situation. Once again refer to paragraph above. In summary, a FF camera may make wide angle work easier and a 1.6X crop camera appears to make telephoto work (or frame-filling, uncropped images of faraway objects) easier, assuming the same lens setup.

Hence, if you so choose, get a FF camera and a number of quality wide angle lenses for your wide angle work and a separate 1.6X cropper with a long lens for wildlife photography. Or heck. Just get a 1.6X cropper by itself and get any of the ultrawide lenses made for APS-C sensors and use them for your wide angle work. That is, unless you want to get the field of view of a real 12mm lens or be able to use a cheap fisheye lens for a true fisheye effect (there are rectilinear fisheyes for APS-C cameras also, but not of the $200 variety).

In conclusion, I repeat that there is no advantage really to using either type of camera. It will be your uses that dictate what you should buy. When your uses become clear and thus the minor differences between both formats, then you can better choose what you want.

I know some folks are going to bash me on the head for simplifying things in this manner, but there, you have it. *runs away*

I'll take any 1 series over a 5D anyday of the week and 2x on Saturday. So no, not all FF cameras are superior to crop cameras - for me. No one has ever looked at an image of mine and said "oh that's beautiful - too bad you didn't take it with a full frame camera though."

Image quality hasn't been an issue for digital SLRs since about 2001-2003. We need to move on.

I prefer using a full frame camera because I prefer the way my lenses "act" on a full frame camera over a 1.3x or 1.6x camera. My wide lenses are truly wide, my standard zooms really go from wide to telephoto, etc. So the fact that the 5D produces a great image file is a really nice bonus.

Larger format sensors carry the same advantage over smaller format sensors that larger format film has over smaller formats. The bigger the format, the less enlargement is required to go from sensor/film to print. That means for a given print resolution, a larger sensor/film can tolerate less lens resolution.

Or, for a given lens resolution a larger format will show greater detail in a print.

The reason this gets debated so much is because there are also a lot of other technology differences between all the cameras with different sensor sizes. Larger sensors also cost more.

So there is no inherent reason why a 24-105L should "gel" with a FF sensor more than a crop sensor? I'm just curious since this is a lens I'm seriously considering putting on a XTI.

Hal55

Many people consider the 24-105 to not be wide enough on a crop body, try taking the kit lens and leaving it at 24, see if it works for you, that's what's important. That being said, other than the inherent advantages of the FF sensor, the lens will still work great on a crop.

I have the XTI, the 5D and the 24-105L IS lens. For me, 24 is not wide enough on the XTI. Other then that, the lens perform equally well on either cameras.

I used the Tokina 12-24 F4 on the XTI to get the wide angles. My daughter
is using it now.

Larger pixels means less noise. ISO800 on a 5D has much less noise than on my 40D.

hal55 wrote in post #5688057
So there is no inherent reason why a 24-105L should "gel" with a FF sensor more than a crop sensor? I'm just curious since this is a lens I'm seriously considering putting on a XTI.

Hal55

'Effective focal length range' is the important difference.

So let's summarize a bit... correct me if I'm wrong:

[U]Feature[/U]               [B]Full-size Sensor[/B]        [B]Crop Sensor[/B]

Noise level:               [COLOR="SeaGreen"]Low[​/COLOR]               [COLOR="Red"]Normal[/C​OLOR]
DoF-effects potential:         [COLOR="SeaGreen"]Bett​er[/COLOR]               [COLOR="Red"]Normal[/C​OLOR]
Wider angle of view per lens:  [COLOR="SeaGreen"]Yes[​/COLOR]               [COLOR="Red"]No[/COLOR​]
Greater detail per lens:       [COLOR="SeaGreen"]Yes[​/COLOR]               [COLOR="Red"]No[/COLOR​]
Cost:               [COLOR="Red"]More expensive[/COLOR]          [COLOR="SeaGreen"]Chea​per[/COLOR]
Chromatic aberrations:         [COLOR="Red"]More visible[/COLOR]            [COLOR="SeaGreen"]Less visible[/COLOR]
Vignetting:               [COLOR="Red"]More visible[/COLOR]            [COLOR="SeaGreen"]Less visible[/COLOR]
Extra reach per lens:          [COLOR="Red"]No[/COLOR​]               [COLOR="SeaGreen"]Yes[​/COLOR]
Support for EF-S lenses:       [COLOR="Red"]No[/COLOR​]               [COLOR="SeaGreen"]Yes[​/COLOR]

cdifoto wrote in post #5687922
I'll take any 1 series over a 5D anyday of the week and 2x on Saturday. So no, not all FF cameras are superior to crop cameras - for me. No one has ever looked at an image of mine and said "oh that's beautiful - too bad you didn't take it with a full frame camera though."

Image quality hasn't been an issue for digital SLRs since about 2001-2003. We need to move on.

i was about to type the exact same thing but then i saw that you beat me to it