Does anyone have both a full frame and a crop DSLR?
Discussion
If so, would you mind doing an experiment with them?
I would like to know whether the extra reach of crop sensor camera is real or not? OK, I have my 70-200 on my 450D. I know that it has a 1.6 crop factor, so it's really the equivalent of a 112-320, but is it really?
What I would like to know is this. If I took a picture of a tree or something on my 450D at 200mm, then left the lens on the tripod, fitted a 5D body, photographed the exact same tree at 200mm again, and then cropped the second shot so that the tree appeared exactly the same size as the uncropped first shot, would the cropped shot be the same, better or worse quality than the uncropped one?
Obviously allowances would have to be made for the general difference in IQ you'd expect aside from just the sensor given the different price of the cameras, but I hope that all makes sense?
What I'm really asking is whether a future upgrade to FF would actually be a disadvantage when it came to wildlife photography, or whether it just means having to crop a bit, but still getting the same IQ? If someone would like to try this out, I'd love to see the results!
I would like to know whether the extra reach of crop sensor camera is real or not? OK, I have my 70-200 on my 450D. I know that it has a 1.6 crop factor, so it's really the equivalent of a 112-320, but is it really?
What I would like to know is this. If I took a picture of a tree or something on my 450D at 200mm, then left the lens on the tripod, fitted a 5D body, photographed the exact same tree at 200mm again, and then cropped the second shot so that the tree appeared exactly the same size as the uncropped first shot, would the cropped shot be the same, better or worse quality than the uncropped one?
Obviously allowances would have to be made for the general difference in IQ you'd expect aside from just the sensor given the different price of the cameras, but I hope that all makes sense?
What I'm really asking is whether a future upgrade to FF would actually be a disadvantage when it came to wildlife photography, or whether it just means having to crop a bit, but still getting the same IQ? If someone would like to try this out, I'd love to see the results!
Kermit power said:
If I took a picture of a tree or something on my 450D at 200mm, then left the lens on the tripod, fitted a 5D body, photographed the exact same tree at 200mm again, and then cropped the second shot so that the tree appeared exactly the same size as the uncropped first shot, would the cropped shot be the same, better or worse quality than the uncropped one?
It would be 'worse' because it comprises fewer pixels.Kermit power said:
What I'm really asking is whether a future upgrade to FF would actually be a disadvantage when it came to wildlife photography, or whether it just means having to crop a bit, but still getting the same IQ?
I currently use a Nikon D200 and D300, both 'DX' (ie 1.5x crop) cameras. However, I trialled a D700 ('full-frame') for a while and the difference is instantaneous. My conclusion, based on my needs and what is important to me, is as follows:1) A crop sensor gives you greater 'focal length'. For example, to get the same field of view as a 200mm on a full frame camera, you need 300mm. No great problem you may think - but if speed is important, then a 300mm f2.8 is a very different prospect from a 200mm f2.8, not just in cost but in what you have to carry.
2) Lenses that will cover a full frame image area have to be larger and therefore bigger and more expensive than lenses that only need to cover a cropped sensor. Even so, they can have issues with vignetting.
Because 'focal length' and portability are important to me, I stayed with DX sensors. However, the benefits of full frame are these:
1) Larger pixels make for better low light performance - the Nikon D3 being a prime example.
2) A larger sensor gives shallower DOF.
I don't do wildlife photography (unless you count my housetiger) but I'd have thought that the longer reash of a cropped sensor would be the most important issue. It's easy to think that full frame must be better than cropped, BUT it depends on what your needs are.
jon- said:
Igoring all the variables a 16mp ff will give you aprox. the same cropped quality as a 10mp crop
I'm not sure quite how you have come to that conclusion, but just to clarify, if you crop an image from a 16mp full-frame camera to the same field of view as a photo taken with an APS-C camera with the same focal length lens, you'll get a 6mp image. If you do the same with a photo from the 12.7mp 5D, you'll get a 4.8mp image.SamHH said:
jon- said:
Igoring all the variables a 16mp ff will give you aprox. the same cropped quality as a 10mp crop
I'm not sure quite how you have come to that conclusion, but just to clarify, if you crop an image from a 16mp full-frame camera to the same field of view as a photo taken with an APS-C camera with the same focal length lens, you'll get a 6mp image. If you do the same with a photo from the 12.7mp 5D, you'll get a 4.8mp image.
'Extra reach' Only realy works if you have more pixel density on the crop sensor. Which is typical but not always true, I think the 5DmkII will have as many (or more) pixels as my 350D croped to 1.6
FF sensors tend to be better in low light (larger photosites) and give better/smoother images (party due to size , party due to beter manufacturing).
FF sensors tend to be better in low light (larger photosites) and give better/smoother images (party due to size , party due to beter manufacturing).
I used to follow the same train of thought as Simpo (above)
However I now have a Nikon D3 and previously had the D2x. So the D3 is full frame (though does have the DX option). Generally for the work I do I need the so called long reach.
In my view it is not as straight forward as that. In practice I have found that the image from the D3 is significantly better than the D2x, if there were occassions when shooting fullframe I required the 'longer reach' I just crop the image on my PC and then enlarge the resultant image. The quality of information capture on the D3 sensor allows me to do this and I still end up with an image that is better than the D2x.
It is interesting to note at sports events nowsdays the D3 is the preferred body of choice
Steve
However I now have a Nikon D3 and previously had the D2x. So the D3 is full frame (though does have the DX option). Generally for the work I do I need the so called long reach.
In my view it is not as straight forward as that. In practice I have found that the image from the D3 is significantly better than the D2x, if there were occassions when shooting fullframe I required the 'longer reach' I just crop the image on my PC and then enlarge the resultant image. The quality of information capture on the D3 sensor allows me to do this and I still end up with an image that is better than the D2x.
It is interesting to note at sports events nowsdays the D3 is the preferred body of choice
Steve
Interesting points Steve, especially as both the D2X and D3 are 12Mp. A DX crop from FX gives a 5Mp image - so you're saying that 5Mp from a D3 is better than 12Mp from a D2X. I can see that in some cases that could be true.
The D3 is preferred for sports because it's leagues ahead in every respect from the D2X (not surprising given the time between the models) - and because serious sports shooters don't mind the tonnage of kit they have to carry. For myself, working mostly on foot for 8-10 hours and carrying everything over my shoulder, weight/bulk is important. So it all comes back to 'what's best for you?'
The D3 is preferred for sports because it's leagues ahead in every respect from the D2X (not surprising given the time between the models) - and because serious sports shooters don't mind the tonnage of kit they have to carry. For myself, working mostly on foot for 8-10 hours and carrying everything over my shoulder, weight/bulk is important. So it all comes back to 'what's best for you?'
Simpo not exactly what i was meaning (my fault)
What I was trying to say was that taking the shot on full frame then cropping it on the PC afterwards produces a 'better' final image than the D2x.
That said i would also say using the D3 on Dx mode is superior to the D2x
The pixel war is a fallacy when looking at top end DSLRs I recall when I got my D2H that was 4.1m pixel yet clients regularly wished 30x20 prints and at that time I thought the detail was tremendous.
Personally I was pleasantly surprised the quantum leap there was from the D2x to the D3
What I was trying to say was that taking the shot on full frame then cropping it on the PC afterwards produces a 'better' final image than the D2x.
That said i would also say using the D3 on Dx mode is superior to the D2x
The pixel war is a fallacy when looking at top end DSLRs I recall when I got my D2H that was 4.1m pixel yet clients regularly wished 30x20 prints and at that time I thought the detail was tremendous.
Personally I was pleasantly surprised the quantum leap there was from the D2x to the D3
Kermit power said:
If so, would you mind doing an experiment with them?
I would like to know whether the extra reach of crop sensor camera is real or not? OK, I have my 70-200 on my 450D. I know that it has a 1.6 crop factor, so it's really the equivalent of a 112-320, but is it really?
What I would like to know is this. If I took a picture of a tree or something on my 450D at 200mm, then left the lens on the tripod, fitted a 5D body, photographed the exact same tree at 200mm again, and then cropped the second shot so that the tree appeared exactly the same size as the uncropped first shot, would the cropped shot be the same, better or worse quality than the uncropped one?
Obviously allowances would have to be made for the general difference in IQ you'd expect aside from just the sensor given the different price of the cameras, but I hope that all makes sense?
What I'm really asking is whether a future upgrade to FF would actually be a disadvantage when it came to wildlife photography, or whether it just means having to crop a bit, but still getting the same IQ? If someone would like to try this out, I'd love to see the results!
I have FF, 1.3 and 1.6 cameras, happy to experiment. Won't have a chance this weekend but will see what I can do next week.I would like to know whether the extra reach of crop sensor camera is real or not? OK, I have my 70-200 on my 450D. I know that it has a 1.6 crop factor, so it's really the equivalent of a 112-320, but is it really?
What I would like to know is this. If I took a picture of a tree or something on my 450D at 200mm, then left the lens on the tripod, fitted a 5D body, photographed the exact same tree at 200mm again, and then cropped the second shot so that the tree appeared exactly the same size as the uncropped first shot, would the cropped shot be the same, better or worse quality than the uncropped one?
Obviously allowances would have to be made for the general difference in IQ you'd expect aside from just the sensor given the different price of the cameras, but I hope that all makes sense?
What I'm really asking is whether a future upgrade to FF would actually be a disadvantage when it came to wildlife photography, or whether it just means having to crop a bit, but still getting the same IQ? If someone would like to try this out, I'd love to see the results!
jon- said:
if you like misinformed crapstigmundfreud said:
jon- said:
if you like misinformed crap
jon- said:
stigmundfreud said:
jon- said:
if you like misinformed crapKermit power said:
Russ T Bolt said:
I have FF, 1.3 and 1.6 cameras, happy to experiment. Won't have a chance this weekend but will see what I can do next week.
GetCarter said:
SamHH said:
There is a hosting option when you are in the 'reply to topic' box.
I've not used the 'upload' feature, but I assume it will resize? If so, e mail me the photos and I'll host them and bung them up 1:1Steve@stevecarter.com
Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 13th September 12:48
Unfortunately I didn't have time to go and find something interesting as a subject, so I just took a picture looking down the road.
I used a 70-200mm lens set to 70mm, I used this lens as it has a tripod collar on it.
Lens was setup on a tripod and I swapped each body over.
All three cameras were in manual mode, F8 at 1/200th (except the 10D which was 1/180th).
I haven't done any processing on the pictures, they are as they came out of the camera's. Metering wise they aren't perfect but I wanted to keep the same settings, and I guess they are good enough for this exercise.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff