Crop Sensor v Cropping down Full Frame
Discussion
Does cropping down an image from a FF camera give a better or worse result when compared to an equivalent image taken on a crop sensor camera (where the target ends up the same size)? Or put it another way would I be daft to buy a cheapish crop sensor body to give more reach on wildlife shots rather than cropping in on images taken on my FF body?
This Seems very very tempting...
TIA
This Seems very very tempting...
TIA
Junior has a 600D so I gave that a go against my 6D - both with 400mm lens, same settings, tripod, 2 sec shutter delay.
The 600D absolutely destroyed the 6D - images were consistently much sharper. I take it I am missing something but I don't know what? I might have expected the crop sensor to do a bit better but not this much
The 600D absolutely destroyed the 6D - images were consistently much sharper. I take it I am missing something but I don't know what? I might have expected the crop sensor to do a bit better but not this much
What ISO were you shooting at?...
I'm thinking that it's one thing testing on a tripod with delay (indicating that speed was probably not an issue), another thing taking wildlife shots where (presumably) highish shutter speed + long zoom --> high ISO, which may be more likely to favour the full frame sensor.
(I've only got a 60D BTW, so have nothing against Crop Sensors!)
I'm thinking that it's one thing testing on a tripod with delay (indicating that speed was probably not an issue), another thing taking wildlife shots where (presumably) highish shutter speed + long zoom --> high ISO, which may be more likely to favour the full frame sensor.
(I've only got a 60D BTW, so have nothing against Crop Sensors!
)If you crop a canon 5d2/3/6d image down to apsc you get roughly an 8mp image so equivelant to a canon 350d image, but it will be better due to more modern sensor.
A 650d is qwhat 18mp so a lot more pixels. Also make sure the focus is right as the focus on the 6d will be harder as the af module has a smaller target to aim at!
The D800 and D7000 have exactly the same pixel density , so a d800 cropped will be very close to a d7000 image ( though not quite as the sensor is very slightly different).
In general crop 'reach' is down to pixel density. A good crop camera will be better than most FF bodies for 'reach' but only when you are focal length limited, and usualyl in good light too.
if you can frame it with a 400 on the 6d and say 280mm on crop then the 6d will be better, but having to significantly crop on the 6d will be worse.
A 650d is qwhat 18mp so a lot more pixels. Also make sure the focus is right as the focus on the 6d will be harder as the af module has a smaller target to aim at!
The D800 and D7000 have exactly the same pixel density , so a d800 cropped will be very close to a d7000 image ( though not quite as the sensor is very slightly different).
In general crop 'reach' is down to pixel density. A good crop camera will be better than most FF bodies for 'reach' but only when you are focal length limited, and usualyl in good light too.
if you can frame it with a 400 on the 6d and say 280mm on crop then the 6d will be better, but having to significantly crop on the 6d will be worse.
Edited by RobDickinson on Tuesday 21st October 21:41
Ultuous said:
What ISO were you shooting at?...
I'm thinking that it's one thing testing on a tripod with delay (indicating that speed was probably not an issue), another thing taking wildlife shots where (presumably) highish shutter speed + long zoom --> high ISO, which may be more likely to favour the full frame sensor.
(I've only got a 60D BTW, so have nothing against Crop Sensors!)
Thanks for the reply I'm thinking that it's one thing testing on a tripod with delay (indicating that speed was probably not an issue), another thing taking wildlife shots where (presumably) highish shutter speed + long zoom --> high ISO, which may be more likely to favour the full frame sensor.
(I've only got a 60D BTW, so have nothing against Crop Sensors!
) I shot both at iso100, f5.6 and 1/8th. Multiple shots with both and the 600D was miles better in all of them. I do take your point about high iso though.
RobDickinson said:
If you crop a canon 5d2/3/6d image down to apsc you get roughly an 8mp image so equivelant to a canon 350d image, but it will be better due to more modern sensor.
A 650d is qwhat 18mp so a lot more pixels. Also make sure the focus is right as the focus on the 6d will be harder as the af module has a smaller target to aim at!
The D800 and D7000 have exactly the same pixel density , so a d800 cropped will be very close to a d7000 image ( though not quite as the sensor is very slightly different).
In general crop 'reach' is down to pixel density. A good crop camera will be better than most FF bodies for 'reach' but only when you are focal length limited, and usualyl in good light too.
if you can frame it with a 400 on the 6d and say 280mm on crop then the 6d will be better, but having to significantly crop on the 6d will be worse.
Thanks Rob - that is clear A 650d is qwhat 18mp so a lot more pixels. Also make sure the focus is right as the focus on the 6d will be harder as the af module has a smaller target to aim at!
The D800 and D7000 have exactly the same pixel density , so a d800 cropped will be very close to a d7000 image ( though not quite as the sensor is very slightly different).
In general crop 'reach' is down to pixel density. A good crop camera will be better than most FF bodies for 'reach' but only when you are focal length limited, and usualyl in good light too.
if you can frame it with a 400 on the 6d and say 280mm on crop then the 6d will be better, but having to significantly crop on the 6d will be worse.
I did try manual focus on the 6D but it didn't seem to help much so still not quite sure what is going on there, but in principle it would probably be a better idea for me to get a new body rather than a news lens to give me more reach (especially at the prices as above!)
I think it comes down to taste. When I compared the D700 against the D7000, I was getting sharper pictures from the latter, but it was about contrast rather than actual sharpness. The density of the pixels was such that it looked sharper, but there were a few differences going on that to be honest took me down a road of despair.
In jpeg, each had their own version of what adjustments they wanted to do, AF fine tuning included. In NEF, Lightroom and Capture One imported them differently. I couldnt get a consistent baseline of contrast and sharpness but neither were unsharp, if that makes sense.
Back of the camera was a waste of time, as the screens were too variable in what they were giving compared to a balanced monitor.
I just went with 'that looks fine to me' and post processed it
In jpeg, each had their own version of what adjustments they wanted to do, AF fine tuning included. In NEF, Lightroom and Capture One imported them differently. I couldnt get a consistent baseline of contrast and sharpness but neither were unsharp, if that makes sense.
Back of the camera was a waste of time, as the screens were too variable in what they were giving compared to a balanced monitor.
I just went with 'that looks fine to me' and post processed it
Don't know about the 6D but my impression of the 600D compared to a 1D3 (10Mp, 1.3 crop) is ... it depends.
ISO is a factor on both. High ISO works well enough up to a point in good light but is less successful in poor light.
For absolute pixel resolution the 600D with its extra pixels offers the potential for better resolving power and reach using the same lens combination. However my recent experience with the 600D at f5.6 max aperture (70-200 f2.8 IS II plus 2x extender) in less than favourable light and hand holding suggests the 1D3 focus system would have coped much better. For the far distant subjects the play off between image size and pixel quality (the 1D3 just seems to produce nicer looking results more consistently in my process workflow) might have been a bit of a dead heat but for closer subjects think the 1D3 hit and success rate would likely have been higher and perceived sharpness would not have suffered.
Does the 6D have microfocus adjustment? It might be worth checking that if it does. However if you are dealing with very fine detail - like feathers - the distances between unbelievably sharp, averagely acceptable and fairly poor are quite small.
It will be interesting to hear about your findings.
PS: I note the eBay link is now defunct so unable to comment on the price ... probably just as well.
ISO is a factor on both. High ISO works well enough up to a point in good light but is less successful in poor light.
For absolute pixel resolution the 600D with its extra pixels offers the potential for better resolving power and reach using the same lens combination. However my recent experience with the 600D at f5.6 max aperture (70-200 f2.8 IS II plus 2x extender) in less than favourable light and hand holding suggests the 1D3 focus system would have coped much better. For the far distant subjects the play off between image size and pixel quality (the 1D3 just seems to produce nicer looking results more consistently in my process workflow) might have been a bit of a dead heat but for closer subjects think the 1D3 hit and success rate would likely have been higher and perceived sharpness would not have suffered.
Does the 6D have microfocus adjustment? It might be worth checking that if it does. However if you are dealing with very fine detail - like feathers - the distances between unbelievably sharp, averagely acceptable and fairly poor are quite small.
It will be interesting to hear about your findings.
PS: I note the eBay link is now defunct so unable to comment on the price ... probably just as well.
RobDickinson said:
If you crop a canon 5d2/3/6d image down to apsc you get roughly an 8mp image so equivelant to a canon 350d image, but it will be better due to more modern sensor.
I think this is what is happening here. Effectively an 8mp image is being compared to an 18mp image. The latter is going to allow a properly focussed image to be sharper.
I guess this is why the 7D exists and still sold alongside full frame cameras at the top end.
The 6D is not the best when you need reach. However, for everything I've done with mine at 85mm and shorter, it gets better images than my 60D by some margin, especially in depth of field and medium and high ISO usability.
Xerstead said:
Something else to consider would be whether similar picture styles/settings are being applied to the images you're comparing. It's quite possible that one has more sharpening/clarity/contrast applied in camera (or software if shooting raw).
True - in this case though the difference was substantial and also I didn't do any sharpening on the RAW. I'll try again at some point as I think something odd was happening...Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff