# Your crop vs your full frame camera.



## Ozarker (Jul 19, 2015)

Many of you have or have had a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera. Asking specifically about portraits: Do you see a huge difference? Does your lens choice vary that much? Say a person has an EF 85mm 1.2L or EF 200mm f/2L... would you hesitate to use those lenses on your crop sensor camera for portraits? Maybe someone has examples of those two lenses on both a crop and full frame camera of the same subject? Thanks!


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 19, 2015)

I too am interested in the answer to this. It risks being insightful, helpful, and also somewhat amusing..


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2015)

Would you use a Point and Shoot? A Camera phone? All can take decent portraits in the right hands. As the sensor gets larger, its possible to get a shallower depth of field and more detail, which is why lots of pro photographers use medium format.

I've had many cameras with different sized sensors, the largest sensor being FF. At the price for a 6D, I'd get one for portraits over a crop body. I'd get a crop body like the 7D MK II for wildlife and Macro. I'm still waiting for a price drop below $1000.


Many portrait photographers like the shallow depth of field possible with a larger sensor, however some prefer the depth of field possible with a smaller sensor.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jul 19, 2015)

I would addy baton a crop sensor, you better have a lot of room to shoot as the 1.6 X mag will require you to be far away


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Many portrait photographers like the shallow depth of field possible with a larger sensor, however some prefer the depth of field possible with a smaller sensor.



The larger sensor can give you both shallow and deep DoF, the smaller sensor cannot.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Many portrait photographers like the shallow depth of field possible with a larger sensor, however some prefer the depth of field possible with a smaller sensor.
> ...



What I had in mind, but did not say it was the small sensor P&S users who are accustomed to lots of DOF, and when they upgrade to a DSLR with a much larger sensor, they are disappointed because they see the image as being out of focus, not realizing its just the shallow depth of field. Some of them just put their new DSLR in the closet and go back to their P&S because they like the most everything in focus look.

They could, of course learn to stop down the DSLR, many do learn, but some use it in P&S mode.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 19, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Asking specifically about portraits: Do you see a huge difference? Does your lens choice vary that much? Say a person has an EF 85mm 1.2L or EF 200mm f/2L... would you hesitate to use those lenses on your crop sensor camera for portraits?



No. No. & No.

Many on this forum will tell you otherwise, but most of that is just confirmation bias. Having made an investment in converting to full frame, it can be difficult to admit that the differences are marginal.


----------



## nc0b (Jul 19, 2015)

The simple answer is you can shoot a great portrait with a crop or full frame body. If I had all my equipment with me, I would pick my 6D and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, with the focal length dependent where I was. Indoors I would likely be closer, but outdoors I might want considerable distance between the background, the subject and the camera. (10-15 feet camera to subject, for example.)

If you like a paper-thin depth of field, then maybe you would shoot an f/1.2 lens or f/2.0 lens wide open, but that would not be my personal choice. Lets say the head is at a 15 degree angle from straight on. You likely cannot get both eyes tack sharp wide open, and the ears could be a total blur. If that is to you liking, so be it, as this approach is in vogue right now. 

I posted a portrait example on another discussion about the 85mm f/1.2 where I am in the minority on wanting a reasonable depth of field. On the other hand, you can resolve individual strands of hair on a 10 megapixel sensor using a 40D, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II at f/5. The background is totally blown out, the eyes, teeth are very sharp, and the ears are just nicely of the the depth of field, but not blurry.

It is more a case of what camera and lens is in your hand when a portrait opportunity comes up. Then you adjust your distance and f-stop to produce the type of image you prefer.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 19, 2015)

unfocused said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Asking specifically about portraits: Do you see a huge difference? Does your lens choice vary that much? Say a person has an EF 85mm 1.2L or EF 200mm f/2L... would you hesitate to use those lenses on your crop sensor camera for portraits?
> ...



Bravely spoken ! And I would agree. 

Assuming that you are not wanting to produce life size images, and not referring to low light photography, I basically find the following: if your subject is reasonably close and filling the frame I can't tell any difference. If the subject is far away and detail very small (like in landscapes) the FF has the edge in definition. And of course any larger format has the advantage again. 

Also I should mention I find the narrower the field of view, the less the disadvantage with crop, the wider the field the more advantage to FF. 

Personally I think Canon were quite astute in producing the 7DII, more in touch than Nikon, who continue to lag on the high performance crop sensor front. 

However there is one other thing to bear in mind with FF, and that is the data is more robust in extreme post processing. This may, or may not be important to you.


----------



## pwp (Jul 19, 2015)

I'm perfectly comfortable reaching for my 5D3 FF with 70-200 f/2.8isII as I am with the APS-H x1.3 crop 1D Mk4 with the same lens for commercial/corporate client portrait shoots. The strongest reasons I may reach for the 5D3 in preference to the APS-H would be the intended output; meaning highest resolution for very large or premium output, or the fact that the brilliant "silent-shutter" on the 5D3 is preferable in the environment I'm shooting in. Reality is that most work ends up on the web. The third reason I'd pick the 5D3 would be if I'm shooting available light at higher iso settings than the 1D4 can realistically handle. 

But when it comes to the "look" of the results from APS-H vs FF, the differences to me are so slight as to be irrelevant. The factors that make a powerful image that the client will truly value has less to do with slight DOF variations than capturing that truly magic, human moment. The right moment in the right light will look good taken on just about any camera. I'd be just as happy with an APS-C 1.6x crop 7D2 for a great deal of my work, and will likely get one when my trusty very high-mileage 1D4 throws in the towel. 

So the ultimate reasons for choosing a FF, APS-H or APS-C body will likely depend more on that bodies functions, ergonomics and physical points of difference than the perceived "look" of the final file.

-pw


----------



## koolman (Jul 19, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Many of you have or have had a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera. Asking specifically about portraits: Do you see a huge difference? Does your lens choice vary that much? Say a person has an EF 85mm 1.2L or EF 200mm f/2L... would you hesitate to use those lenses on your crop sensor camera for portraits? Maybe someone has examples of those two lenses on both a crop and full frame camera of the same subject? Thanks!



I shoot very nice portraits with my canon t2i + canon 50mm 1.4.
I also use a canon 35L or a canon 100mm 2.8 L

The sky is the limit as far as equipment and IQ. In todays world of PP - you can fix things up in software to look like a million dollars.

For me - as a hobby photographer - I see no need to invest in FF which would mean larger heavier much more expensive equipment (body and lens)


----------



## anthonyd (Jul 19, 2015)

unfocused said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Asking specifically about portraits: Do you see a huge difference? Does your lens choice vary that much? Say a person has an EF 85mm 1.2L or EF 200mm f/2L... would you hesitate to use those lenses on your crop sensor camera for portraits?
> ...



I don't know if the difference is marginal (I only own a crop sensor), but I know that if you choose your background wisely you can achieve all the subject separation you want with a crop sensor. The following image was taken with an 85/1.8 at f/1.8 and as you can tell there is more than enough subject separation and the location was a run of the mill park, nothing exotic. You can imagine that the results would be even more pronounced at f/1.2.

I would recommend the 85mm on a crop sensor for portraits any day, it's my favorite lens for this purpose. However, the 200mm on a crop sensor might be too tight. I haven't tried it, I've only gone up to 135mm, but I expect that the 200mm (just like the 135mm) will 
force you to be outdoors and even then it might force you to be too far away in some situations (small beach for example).


----------



## lux (Jul 19, 2015)

Ff is better.
2 stops ISO is sufficient a difference to make the purchase for me.
That's the difference between acceptable and unacceptable noise when taking pictures of evening or night outdoor kids soccer games or indoor games...and that is with either a 300 2.8 or 135 2,


----------



## Arty (Jul 19, 2015)

It all depends on the light. In good light and a sharp lens, you would be hard pressed to see a difference at low ISOs, unless you project images or make huge enlargements. In poor light, and higher ISOs, the differences are substantial. If you are outside and shooting at ISO 200, you can get good results with a 60D and good glass. I find 85 is as long as I can go on crop indoors. The view is narrow and you are pretty far back. I prefer shorter focal lengths indoors on crop.
If you want to shoot in available light at high ISOs, a full frame camera like the 6D is certainly worth it. If you are outside shooting below ISO 400 or 800, you may not see that much of a difference. I assume sharp lenses and good technique. 
I have the 60D and 6D and prefer the 6D for portraits.


----------



## jcarapet (Jul 19, 2015)

Yes and no. My 5d3 takes infinitely better pictures IMHO, but I notice it more on color vibrance and shadow details with portraits. things that don't always relate to portraits when you have lighting and post processing. 

full frame wins on low light noise which is the conditions I shoot in most of the time. I can still get excellent results from my crop.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 19, 2015)

I have both FF and crop cameras. I don't do portraits often but I ALWAYS go for FF when that situation arises. I only use crop if I need the extra reach (or speed), like sports or animal shooting. Even in good light, there is definitely an IQ difference between FF and crop in most cases (how much of a difference it is can vary depending on lens selection - in some cases, the difference can be negligible with weaker/older glass). 

Having said that, there are plenty of portrait shots I've taken with my old Rebels and 60D (before I had FF) that I was happy with and still hold up real well.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 19, 2015)

I purchased a used 5D last November with the intent of using it for portraits, while leaving my 60D for children's sports and macro. Comparing portraits shot between both of them, I like the output of the 5D better. As others have stated, it has to do with the DOF differences between the two cameras and I feel that the 5D shots are sharper. Now I'm not going to say drop everything and go FF because you can also get very nice portraits out of a crop camera. To get the same look though, you will need to adjust your distance to the subject and the distance from the subject to the background if you are looking for that nice blurred look. It's easier to make portraits "pop" with a FF camera, but not impossible with a crop.

Now, low light, noise, etc. is a different story, but that wasn't a part of your question. Given good lighting, you can create pleasing images with both. 

For my portraits on crop, I use the 50 1.4, 60 2.8 macro, and 85 1.8.
For my portraits on FF, I use the 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and 70-200 2.8 II.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 20, 2015)

I remember when I was photographing events using film Fuji ISO 200 and aperture F5.6 because I needed sharpness for everyone in a group. At that time I did not encourage me to buy a F2.8 zoom because I would stop down to F5.6 in 90% of shots.

Today I use APS-C camera and zoom lens F2.8 and feel I have more control of DOF. However, my personal taste evolved and I use also prime lenses F1.4 for individual pictures.

In short:

If you want wider DOF, APS-C will simplify things, and zoom lenses are lighter, compact and inexpensive.

If you want more shallow DOF, Full Frame will make things easier.

If you need to shoot in the dark, and no flash, full frame is the best choice.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 20, 2015)

Thank all of you for the thoughtful replies!


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 20, 2015)

I use APS-C (Fuji), FF (Canon) and MF (Fuji & Mamiya). As far as depth of field goes between APS-C and FF, sure, there is a difference. But both produce great images. The depth of field on APS-C is still wafer thin with wide aperture lenses and should be able to satisfy most people - except perhaps those with an unhealthy fixation for blurry backgrounds. Other people might have different views, and it is hard to argue against the fact that a FF camera gives you the option to shoot wide open or stop the lens down. 

My MF lenses are comparably slow lenses and they aren't noticeably better in generating blurry backgrounds. In fact, they're probably worse. I see any advantages for MF in relation to blurry backgrounds as largely hypothetical as there aren't many options for fast lenses. Overall image quality and "the look" is a different matter.

I think the true answer lies in the lenses you use. If sharpness is critical, an APS-C camera/lens combo that you feel comfortable using at f/1.2 is just as good as a FF camera/lens combo that you need to stop down to f/2. Although, good luck finding wide aperture EF-S primes.


----------



## eninja (Jul 20, 2015)

My 6D vs 70D with 50L.

With the full frame, at any ISO, Wow!!!
50L on the 70D, even at iso 100, I could not love it.. I really don't understand why, 
they say, what the 70D does is just crop it 1.6 times, and add somemore pixel.
But I don't know why 70D + 50L looks uglier than 6D + 50L cropped.

I just forget it, cos viewfinder AF never works on 50L either. Too bad.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 20, 2015)

Another photographer came to me with the following: 
If you are shooting for a given depth of field then there is a benefit of higher sync speed as well as being able to shoot at a larger Aperture. Say for example you are shooting with comparable lenses 24STM vs 40STM on bodies with similar resolution:

Scenario 1:
Option A: 760D with 24mm STM: 1/250s f/2.8 ISO 100: 600RT range = 12.9m
Option B: 5D-III with 40mm STM: 1/200s f/4.5 ISO 100: 600RT range = 8m

Notes: 
1.) The 5D-III creates images almost 2 stops cleaner than the 760D.
1.1) With the 5D-III you could bump up ISO to 200 for a faster shutter speed to use HSS
1.2) With the 5D-III you could also bump up ISO to get more flash range.
2) The [email protected] is noticeably better than the [email protected]

So my response was lets make some changes to camera settings:

Scenario 2:
Option A: 760D with 24mm STM: 1/250s f/2.8 ISO 100: 600RT range = 12.9m
Option B: 5D-III with 40mm STM: 1/400 f/4.5 ISO 400: 600RT range = 14.4m

Assuming the flash can illuminate the subject properly with option A, then with option B I'll have sharper images(due to lens performance), can capture movement better (faster shutter speed) and I'll have faster recycle times.

The reason I personally choose to shoot with APS-C is if I want to be carrying less valuables with me or if I want to attract less attention. If light is ample then APS-C is a good enough option as you can close down your aperture to shoot lenses near their optimum resolving aperture. If light is unpredicable then I'll carry full frame because I know it offers me more flexibility with lens performance at wider apertures and sensor performance and higher ISOs.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 20, 2015)

It's a pretty good question.
My 2 cents worth.
I'd always grab my full frame camera (5D III) when taking portraits.
Why - the full frame gives me options for great depth of field, the file quality is better and gives me more flexibility for adjustments in post processing, the lens are the focal length they state (rather than having to multiply by 1.6).
Having said that I have two APS-C cameras. The Canon 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 both make for lovely portrait lens.
So does the 100mm Macro. The produce rich images with plenty of detail.
A full frame can resolve too much details when it comes to portraiture. I took a series of photos with lights and a 5D Mark III and a 85mm 1.2 stopped down to F8.
I was battling with gum disease , tooth decay, big pores on the skin. I had to use blur filters in photoshop to not show up all the flaws. They generally looks fine at the time they were sitting for the photo but the close up resolution was incredible with lights.
In summary I'd say - working away with a APS-C camera you can take brilliant photographs. If you want shallow depth of field then you probably need full frame.


----------



## anthonyd (Jul 20, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> ...
> However there is one other thing to bear in mind with FF, and that is the data is more robust in extreme post processing. This may, or may not be important to you.



+1

The comments on high ISO and low light performance that you most frequently hear when asking about FF are mostly irrelevant when it comes to portraits, but the point that Sporgon is bringing up is huge. If you are an expert in light and you always have the ability to modify and control light, then the camera body doesn't matter much. If you want to be able to compensate for suboptimal light in postprocessing though, then you should invest in a body that maximizes that ability.

In my personal experience, lifting shadows on skin in shots done with the 60D, without changing the skin tone or increasing noise beyond acceptable levels, is a challenge.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 20, 2015)

Trolling Post Removed by MOD


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Jul 20, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> anthonyd said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to be able to compensate for suboptimal light in postprocessing though, then you should invest in a body that maximizes that ability.
> ...



... and here is where the topic will go off the rails ha ha


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> A full frame can resolve too much details when it comes to portraiture. I took a series of photos with lights and a 5D Mark III and a 85mm 1.2 stopped down to F8.
> I was battling with gum disease , tooth decay, big pores on the skin. I had to use blur filters in photoshop to not show up all the flaws.



Is an overall reduction of detail better? Did you apply blur globally, or exclude areas like eyes where sharper is generally preferred?


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Jul 20, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Would you use a Point and Shoot? A Camera phone? All can take decent portraits in the right hands. As the sensor gets larger, its possible to get a shallower depth of field and more detail, which is why lots of pro photographers use medium format.
> 
> I've had many cameras with different sized sensors, the largest sensor being FF. At the price for a 6D, I'd get one for portraits over a crop body. I'd get a crop body like the 7D MK II for wildlife and Macro. I'm still waiting for a price drop below $1000.
> 
> ...



IS IT ME ARE U ALWAYS DOWNGRADING THE 7D MARK 2 U KEEP PUTTING IT IN THE SAME BOAT WILDLIFE & MACRO
ITS DOES EVERYTHING WELL 
b4 U BASH ME OR GET SUPER TECH INSTEAD BEING 1 DIMENSIONAL HAVE U TRIED IT DOING EVERYTHING A PHOTOGRAPHER CAN DO? OUTSIDE OF WIDLIFE AND MACRO smh


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 20, 2015)

Keeping with APS-C vs Full Frame but switching to landscapes. 

7Dii + EF-S 10-22mm vs 6D + EF 16-35 f/4.0, shooting anytime during the 'golden hour', just how much better is full frame. 

My understanding is that full frame also draws finer detail better, fallacy or fact?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 21, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Keeping with APS-C vs Full Frame but switching to landscapes.
> 
> 7Dii + EF-S 10-22mm vs 6D + EF 16-35 f/4.0, shooting anytime during the 'golden hour', just how much better is full frame.
> 
> My understanding is that full frame also draws finer detail better, fallacy or fact?


What aperture will you shoot each camera at? 

At equivalent apertures I imagine the 6D will generally be sharper. The 6D pixels are 256% the size of the 7D-II pixels. The 6D's lens is therefore under much less optical scrutiny. In general, the flaws of the 7D-II's lens will show up much more easily.

This is not exactly the same as your requested comparison, but might of be of interest:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=271&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 21, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > A full frame can resolve too much details when it comes to portraiture. I took a series of photos with lights and a 5D Mark III and a 85mm 1.2 stopped down to F8.
> ...


By the wonders of photoshop I made them look fantastic. Better than they ever looked.


----------



## ksgal (Jul 21, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Many of you have or have had a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera. Asking specifically about portraits: Do you see a huge difference? Does your lens choice vary that much? Say a person has an EF 85mm 1.2L or EF 200mm f/2L... would you hesitate to use those lenses on your crop sensor camera for portraits? Maybe someone has examples of those two lenses on both a crop and full frame camera of the same subject? Thanks!



Light and Lighting are the number 1 factors for portraits. 

I have both 5DII, 7DII. for quality of picture, no, I don't see a difference (course, I don't use extreme lifting or extreme exposure for portraits, either, I get my flashes out and go to town either way, most of the time.)

In fact, when I am doing horse portraits, I prefer my 7DII, I want more DOF at a wider aperture to keep the iso down, so the 7DII + 70-200 f2.8 is the perfect pairing. 

The time I reach for the 5DII is human portraits, and when I'm going for as shallow DOF as I can. 

I don't know how many times I read that the 7DII is for sports and wildlife, but I think it is also a great portrait camera, very nice to be able to AF exactly where you want focus to be, and not have to focus- and then re-compose (which I'm totally tired of, and dont' like about the 5DII or 6D.) The difference in image quality between my old 50D and the 7DII is significant. 

The difference in image quality between the 7DII and the 5DII both properly exposed? Not significant, IMHO. 

What I want to do drives my lens selection and camera choice, I use the tools to achieve the results I need. I'll use my 17-40 F4L if I want for a portrait, and I'll put it on the camera that helps me achieve the look I'm going for. 

You do notice how the lenses field of view changes between the two. But taking a portrait can be achieved with anything. HOW you want the portrait to look should drive the choice of lenses and camera. JMHO

*** one caveat, if going to very high iso, then doing ETTR on the 7DII is VERY important, or the noise climbs substantially, but I'm talking 6400 iso and up)


----------



## photon (Jul 22, 2015)

ksgal " The difference in image quality between my old 50D and the 7DII is significant. 

The difference in image quality between the 7DII and the 5DII both properly exposed? Not significant, IMHO. "

It's important to compare like for like. In your first comparison, you compare a flagship crop sensor to a sensor both several generations older and also from a different product tier. When you compare the FF vs Crop you are stating that there isn't much difference, but now you are comparing the flagship crop to a couple generations older FF. With digital photography the sensor technology is very important along with the sensor size.

I found 2 things regarding noise when I compared a 60D to a 6D on shots overall:
1- ISO performance was considerably better. If i have to move the 60D over 1600 I consider it a lost shot, and when I do decide to gamble, usually delete it in the viewfinder. With the 6D this is how I treated 6400. That's pretty substantial to me and not insignificant.

2-this is subjective, but I also found that the noise itself was less distracting to the image, I typically noticed I was applying less noise reduction because at a certain level the noise just looked natural enough to blend and I doubt it would end up printing at any decent size.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 22, 2015)

Except that we're talking portraits so high ISO performance isn't that relevant. But you make a good point that FF adds more versatility with respect to ISO and you're free to use it if you want.

After thinking about this for a couple of days, I'm of the opinion that most of the differences between a crop and full frame camera are so minor that they're hardly worth raising. The only substantial differences are resolution and narrower depth of field and even these aren't that dramatic. They might even be detrimental. I've heard many photographers complain that their clients don't understand photography and that they need to explain that things like "bokeh" and how things are "meant to be blurry". Paying clients don't appreciate how hard it is to get both ears in focus when you're shooting at f/1.2.


----------



## photon (Jul 22, 2015)

Hillsilly "They might even be detrimental. "

No. Unless we are discussing cost/weight. If we are discussing pure performance, no. There is nothing "detrimental" to using FF over Crop.

If you can lay out an example with numbers, I will humbly retract the above.

Everything is connected in the exposure triangle. You cannot adjust one factor and not effect the others. So when someone says they "prefer to shoot at f 2.8 on crop and get more in focus at a lower ISO than shooting at F4 on FF" there is a misunderstanding of ISO performance and the ultimate image results.


----------



## nc0b (Jul 22, 2015)

Hillsilly. How could you ever have the ears in focus, assuming you focused on the eyes, at f/1.2? I want the ears out of the DOF, but not blurry. If the ears are blurry, then a lot of the hair is blurry, too. So I am in your camp wanting reasonable depth of field, if I am reading you correctly. If one is shooting between 85mm and 135mm at f/2 or wider, with tack sharp on the eyes and eyelashes, I would expect to have no skin pore resolution. (I am not talking about blemishes which can be fixed.). I don't want the cheeks to look like pancake makeup like you see on HD TV on the local news! With a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II my f-stop is more likely to be f/5.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 22, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> After thinking about this for a couple of days, I'm of the opinion that most of the differences between a crop and full frame camera are so minor that they're hardly worth raising. The only substantial differences are resolution and narrower depth of field and even these aren't that dramatic. They might even be detrimental. I've heard many photographers complain that their clients don't understand photography and that they need to explain that things like "bokeh" and how things are "meant to be blurry"...



Yes, very well said. 

Although I think the differences in high ISO performance is probably the most significant, more so than depth of field or resolution (There isn't much difference in resolution between a 5DIII at 7D II -- different size pixels, yes, but nearly identical resolution). But, since this thread is about portraits, ISO performance isn't hugely relevant.



Hillsilly said:


> Paying clients don't appreciate how hard it is to get both ears in focus when you're shooting at f/1.2.



I absolutely have found the depth of field issue to be detrimental at times with portraiture, for exactly the reason you state. Frankly, it's often hard to get both eyes in focus if the subject isn't staring at you head on, even at f4 and above. Plus there is the fact that subjects move. Eyes can be in focus when you start to press the shutter, but quickly go out of focus by the time the picture is taken. 



photon said:


> Hillsilly "They might even be detrimental. "
> 
> No. Unless we are discussing cost/weight. If we are discussing pure performance, no. There is nothing "detrimental" to using FF over Crop.



See above



photon said:


> Everything is connected in the exposure triangle. You cannot adjust one factor and not effect the others. So when someone says they "prefer to shoot at f 2.8 on crop and get more in focus at a lower ISO than shooting at F4 on FF" there is a misunderstanding of ISO performance and the ultimate image results.



You can adjust one factor and not affect the others. If you are shooting portraits it's very easy. Pick your aperture, and then, If using ETTL, the strobe will adjust the light for you. If using manual, you can up the flash exposure yourself.


----------



## photon (Jul 22, 2015)

This whole "detrimental DOF" thing is way out of context. No sensor prevents you from stopping your lens down past wide open. If you feel the perfect DoF is at 1.2 on crop, why are you refusing to stop the lens down on a FF? You increase contrast, you increase resolving power, and you give up nothing. You aren't comparing like for like.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 22, 2015)

photon said:


> This whole "detrimental DOF" thing is way out of context. No sensor prevents you from stopping your lens down past wide open. If you feel the perfect DoF is at 1.2 on crop, why are you refusing to stop the lens down on a FF? You increase contrast, you increase resolving power, and you give up nothing. You aren't comparing like for like.



You give up shutter speed, or ISO. Also smaller sensors use proportionally shorter focal length lenses which have other effects other than dof.

Another thing to bear in mind is that all FF cameras are effectively 'high-end', crop sensors not so. It seems to me that there are very subtle differences in crop sensors that are 'the same' in other more expensive or cheaper cameras. Not sure what this is, micro lenses etc ? But what I'm saying is in the 'crop vs FF' debate, to be fair you must look at higher end crop cameras to make a fair comparison.


----------



## photon (Jul 22, 2015)

Sporgon I completely agree with you one shutter speed/ISO. That is why I addressed ISO originally, but it was dismissed later by someone comparing DoF and it cannot be dismissed. 

Just so we are all on the same page with this, and not comparing different points, would you agree that:

DoF at F2.8 on a crop is ~ the same as the F4.4 on FF? Just over a full stop.

The ISO performance of same generation and product tiers of FF camera's have at LEAST that much ISO improvement over crop? I think some would argue 2 full stops, but we don't even need to go that far to be equal.

Also, at no point am I addressing the point of diminishing returns here. I cannot compare the value of anything beyond my own definition of value and to some the value of cost/reward for a crop may make crop the perfect choice for some.

What I am trying to make clear is that even if a crop camera is going to give you 99% the performance of a FF (again value/cost/diminishing returns ignored because we are just sticking to performance and the purchaser will have to decide individually if the cost is worth it) that at no point are you GIVING UP performance and possibilities going to FF.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 22, 2015)

photon said:


> Sporgon I completely agree with you one shutter speed/ISO. That is why I addressed ISO originally, but it was dismissed later by someone comparing DoF and it cannot be dismissed.
> 
> Just so we are all on the same page with this, and not comparing different points, would you agree that:
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree with what you've said, and I think that basically what you are arguing is that the high ISO performance of recent generation FF cameras means that you can now use greater dof with a faster shutter speed by increasing the ISO and not losing any IQ. 

In terms of what you're likely to be giving up by going to FF, for many it will be frame rate and smaller form, and well as part of your bank balance. Overall I think APS's ace card is cheaper cost.


----------



## ksgal (Jul 23, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Many of you have or have had a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera. Asking specifically about portraits: Do you see a huge difference? Does your lens choice vary that much? Say a person has an EF 85mm 1.2L or EF 200mm f/2L... would you hesitate to use those lenses on your crop sensor camera for portraits? Maybe someone has examples of those two lenses on both a crop and full frame camera of the same subject? Thanks!



Here, I'll put it more plainly,

No, I would not hesitate to put those lenses on my 7DII (crop) and other than DOF, no you will not see a big difference other than DOF. 

And yes, I think I can compare the IQ off my 7DII vs my 5DII for portraits and state there is no significant difference other than DOF, and I have the added bonus of being able to put my AF point where I need it and not focus/recompose like I have to with the 5DII. The ISO used for portraits is going to be in then 100-800iso range. In this case, I'm comparing apples to apples on price point and ISO - or compare the 6D vs 7DII if you like... for portraits, in the normal sense, you won't see a difference on an 8x10 print. So yes, I think comparing (price wise/iso for portraits) the 7DII, 6D and 5DII is fair, and in going to 6D- FF you will gain and loose some abilities over the 7DII. (AF/FPS vs WIFI, high iso)

I easily agree that for some things, FF is the gold standard, but for portraits??? Saying you must use FF for portraits? Must use FF for those lenses? No, I don't agree. Crop sensors have come a long way from where they were with the 40D (and that was the gold standard for portraits BTW, a crop camera!)
YMMV


----------



## photon (Jul 23, 2015)

No one ever said must use full frame. 

Yes of course you can compare any two things you would like.

I can compare a new AMD processor to an 3 year old intel processor and state that I do not see much difference.

Yes you can mount EF lenses to EF-S camera's because they were designed for you to do so.

Perhaps depending on countless difference scenarios the benefits of a FF can be marginal at best.

No at no point, other than cost/wieght, are same generation FF camera's a "detrimental" alternative to APC. Again the value is yours to debate. Not the math.


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 23, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> photon said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon I completely agree with you one shutter speed/ISO. That is why I addressed ISO originally, but it was dismissed later by someone comparing DoF and it cannot be dismissed.
> ...



Well said by both and I am 100% in agreement. One can always achieve the greater DOF on FF and still maintain just as good (actually better) IQ then the on the crop camera. But the opposite is not true. FF will always give the option, whether is is used or not, to achieve a narrower DOF then one can achieve with a smaller sensor.

That aside, I think there is a pretty good consensus in this thread that either is fine for portrait work. With good light (which is the case with speedlites) the IQ is very high with either sensor.


----------



## Pookie (Jul 23, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Many of you have or have had a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera. Asking specifically about portraits: Do you see a huge difference? Does your lens choice vary that much? Say a person has an EF 85mm 1.2L or EF 200mm f/2L... would you hesitate to use those lenses on your crop sensor camera for portraits? Maybe someone has examples of those two lenses on both a crop and full frame camera of the same subject? Thanks!



I own both of these lenses, crops, FF, MF and the only reason I wouldn't use either of these lenses on a Canon crop would be distance from subject (unless a special situ)... you know my story CanonFanBoy, speaking from experience, all this gear is great but THE most important thing to *me *when taking portraits is something that has not been mentioned here. Quality portraits have much more to do with subject and photographer interaction than all this tech sensor stuff, especially these days with all the great quality cameras available. DOF for me is just a subjective choice, you can get great bokeh at f/8 if you know how to setup for it. You don't need the 200 f/2 for that at all. 

If you want to make your subject really uncomfortable and capture that feeling... pull out a WA and stick it super close to their face. Not saying these lenses shouldn't be used for portraiture but there is a good working distance to capturing a nice portrait. There are many great portraitists that go to great lengths discussing interaction and subjects being relaxed relating to quality portraiture. Not many I know are discussing sensors or film choice. Not saying it isn't discussed but I hear a lot more about interaction than anything else in the circles I work in. Much of this is related to not having to yell at your subject or encroaching on their personal space. I've always felt a good distance would be somewhere near general conversation distances and often this is where I make my lens selection. It probably why I carry more lenses than I'll ever need when heading out for a session...

Edit... The assumption here was you're talking about head and shoulder portraits... not environmental or full length body portraits. There are lots of different types of portraits and not sure that was clarified. Also why the trinity contains 35, 50/85, 135... it covers all you bases related distance and types of portraits you may encounter.


----------



## FTb-n (Jul 23, 2015)

I think the 85 1.2 would be a great portrait lens on a crop body and ! wouldn't hesitate to use one. The 200 might be a bit long for me on crop -- but, fine for FF.

So which is better for portraits, crop of FF? FF is better for all circumstances where body bulk and budget doesn't matter. FF offers greater control over DOF, greater color depth, sharper images, and cleaner high ISO images. In some cases, any of these can be an asset with a given portrait, in others, not so much.

Are the differences significant? They can be when you get more discriminating and push your gear to their limits. But, they are often most noticeable when comparing a crop image directly with a FF image of the same subject. If the photos are for the photographer, this can make a big difference. However, most who don't live and breath photography will have trouble determining if a good portrait was taken with a crop body or a FF body.

The bottom line is that both sensor sizes can yield great portraits. Crop sensors can capture great images. Full frame sensors simply give you more to work with. Which can be more than you need for a given situation, or just enough to turn a good image into a great one.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jul 24, 2015)

I had a 5D Classic for a while and bought a 7D Classic for the better autofocus system. I ended up using the 5D for almost everything because I liked working with the low noise files in Lightroom. The 7D images would "break up" for lack of a better term if I adjusted them more than a little. If your images are perfectly lit and exposed, then it wouldn't make much difference, but in the real world, I like to be able to make adjustments in post-processing.

For me, the crop sensor bodies have assumed the role of travel and hiking cameras. In those situations, I often take multiple exposure bracketed photos and use HDR software.

I have a couple of Rebel-class bodies that serve this role very well. I still have my old 7D, but it rarely gets used. Seems strange to have a crop sensor in such a large, heavy body, but I keep it around as a backup to my current 5D3, because the controls are quite similar.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 24, 2015)

After I went FF, It's hard to use aps for portraits. FF I'd just where these big primes are meant to live infront of.


----------



## Zv (Jul 24, 2015)

I guess you could use crop with fast lenses but it's just easier and a little cheaper to use FF. When I had my 7D I was constantly using f/4 on my 70-200 and often had to bring along a faster lens. When I switched to FF I noticed for most shots f/4 was actually pretty decent and gave a nice amount of OOF background. I rarely use my 135L @ f/2 as I like to have most facial features in focus. But least I have options. To get the same look on crop I'd need the 85L which was out of my price range. I also fee the fast primes are wasted on crop with regards to portraits unless you had dual purpose like shooting sports too. But then again - teleconvertor. 

The other thing that bugged me was focal length. I wanted a 50mm lens to be a 50mm lens and not 80mm. To get 85mm I could crop but then that's extra hassle. Just so much easier with FF and portrait primes.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 24, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Personally I think Canon were quite astute in producing the 7DII, more in touch than Nikon, who continue to lag on the high performance crop sensor front.
> 
> However there is one other thing to bear in mind with FF, and that is the data is more robust in extreme post processing. This may, or may not be important to you.



that's true within makes
but you can put a d7200 up against a 6d and the 7200 is comparable or superior in image quality metrics from base thru 800 iso. At 1600 iso and above the 6d's sensor size and large pixels will provide a slight advantage, accord'in to DxO mark.. But in reality, the cleaner files from the d7200, along with much better color fidelity than the Canon, would allow this particular crop sensor to run with the big dogs a lot farther than you might expect.

Otherwise, good lenses, light and composition and there's really little to differentiate FF from crop. with small, very fast lenses available for small sensors, even MFT can be somewhat competitive with DoF.
Put the same lense on any body, frame the same at the same aperture and you'll end up with fairly similar results unless low light or working distance is an issue.

I still prefer to grab my big FF body with lots of controls on it for most shooting, but a Fuji with a fast lens and a patient subject can do extremely well too.


----------



## Freddy (Jul 24, 2015)

After reading loads of reviews, I decided to get (bought yesterday) the 760D and 17-55 as I thought it looked really good value. I'll let you know in a week or two how things are going. It seemed good sense as I already have the 10-22. After many years, I was still using a 350D! It will be interesting to compare to friends who use FF and see what the difference really is. I keep reading that high MP FF cameras are good for prints up to 3ft. wide, but the truth is I'll only maybe print one like that every few years to frame and put on the wall. Still, time will tell on all these points.


----------



## TheJock (Jul 25, 2015)

I have been interested in this post as I have just bought a new 5DIII which now accompanies my trusty 70D.

Today I did a little comparison test between the two, sorry that the test subject material is poor, but I was pushed for time and it’s summer in Dubai so going outside is pretty much off limits.

I shot the subject with both the 50mm f1.4 USM and 100mm f2.8 USM and the first thing I noticed was that the minimum focus distance remained as claimed between both model; 31cm for the 100mm and 45cm for the 50mm. This distance is the distance between the sensor locations to the subject, as seen in the first two photos below (of the 50mm lens).

The 3rd and 4th photos are the 50mm f1.4 at minimum focal distance; they’re labelled accordingly with the settings.


----------



## TheJock (Jul 25, 2015)

And for the 100mm. 
I thought I’d go extreme, so the first images are at ISO 800……


----------



## TheJock (Jul 25, 2015)

……the next 2 are at ISO 12,800 
All the rest of the setting were the same across both models, neutral picture style, evaluative metering and AWB.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 26, 2015)

Freddy said:


> After reading loads of reviews, I decided to get (bought yesterday) the 760D and 17-55 as I thought it looked really good value.


I'd be curious to hear your thoughts after using it for a while. I continue to have images captured on a 30D accepted into exhibitions. To be accepted, you need to be in the top 10% to 30% of entrants. And on the entries, there is no indication of the camera or lens used - so as close to an impartial blind test as you can get. While scientists can argue the benefits of a larger sensor over a smaller one (and while I'll typically agree and picked up a FF camera several years ago), ultimately I think it makes very little difference. FF cameras have extra capability over APS-C, but if you've got a great scene in front of you, its going to look fine whether its taken on a 760D or a 6D.



Stewart K said:


> ...Today I did a little comparison test between the two...


What do you think? If you go looking for it, there's a little more noise with the 70D, but I'm surprised how well it stands up at ISO 12,800. Probably early days with the new camera, but are you noticing a big improvement in image quality with the 5Diii, or are the differences not as big as you might have expected?


----------



## TheJock (Jul 27, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> What do you think? If you go looking for it, there's a little more noise with the 70D, but I'm surprised how well it stands up at ISO 12,800. Probably early days with the new camera, but are you noticing a big improvement in image quality with the 5Diii, or are the differences not as big as you might have expected?


I’ve always been highly impressed with the high ISO capabilities with my 70D. I shot a Karting event at night on the day of purchase and found all the images usable even although I was at 6400 ISO. The 70D is still a *far * more capable camera than I am photographer, but I’m GAS mad at the moment ;D
It is still early days with the 5DIII, but the fact that the AF works with my 100-400L + 1.4xTCIII combo on it makes it instantly worth the money. Time will tell how well it performs in my hands........or should that actually be the other way around!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 27, 2015)

Stewart K said:


> It is still early days with the 5DIII, but the fact that the AF works with my 100-400L + 1.4xTCIII combo on it makes it instantly worth the money. Time will tell how well it performs in my hands........or should that actually be the other way around!!!!!!!!!!



Before I stopped cycling entirely I used to joke that my bikes were going to unionize and strike for an upgraded rider.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 27, 2015)

Nice fly! The fish should like it.


----------



## ksgal (Jul 27, 2015)

Stewart K said:


> ……the next 2 are at ISO 12,800
> All the rest of the setting were the same across both models, neutral picture style, evaluative metering and AWB.



You are showing well what I'm seeing in my 7DII compared to my 5DII - the image quality is much closer than the old 'crop vs FF' debate would lead you to believe. 

The very latest crop sensors have come a long way (baby!) from where they were, and have closed the gap between Crop and FF, IMHO.


----------



## photon (Jul 28, 2015)

ksgal "You are showing well what I'm seeing in my 7DII compared to my 5DII - the image quality is much closer than the old 'crop vs FF' debate would lead you to believe. 

The very latest crop sensors have come a long way (baby!) from where they were, and have closed the gap between Crop and FF, IMHO. "

How do you feel about the gap between crop and FF camera that isn't well over 6 years old? Do you feel you get similar iso performance to the 6D? How about the color space, does that seem equal to you as well?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 29, 2015)

Ive almost stopped using my crop camera except in specific areas such as wildlife and airshows, the IQ and overall perspective difference to my mind is more pleasing and I would be reluctant to buy a replacement for my 7D but not for my 6D.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 10, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Many of you have or have had a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera. Asking specifically about portraits: Do you see a huge difference? Does your lens choice vary that much? Say a person has an EF 85mm 1.2L or EF 200mm f/2L... would you hesitate to use those lenses on your crop sensor camera for portraits? Maybe someone has examples of those two lenses on both a crop and full frame camera of the same subject? Thanks!



By far the greatest difference is your skills as photographer and quality of lens you use. Whereas the difference in camera almost always will be impossible to eyeball in a portrait shot.

A lot has been written here about the DOF effect of the 1.6x form factor. The difference is there for sure - but 
I challenge anyone here to claim they can blindtest if a 85mm f/1.2 portrait shot is taken with a specific form factor sensor.

Side-by-side you will in some cases be able to tell. But often you may not even in this case be able to see the difference.

Now, so why do I then myself prefer shooting my own portraits with a FF sensor? This has to do with the added flexibility, more megapix available, better noise and easier retouch I can do with the FF raw file.

I think that for many who prefer shooting FF the last considerations mentioned above are in fact the important ones.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Sep 12, 2015)

photon said:


> Sporgon I completely agree with you one shutter speed/ISO. That is why I addressed ISO originally, but it was dismissed later by someone comparing DoF and it cannot be dismissed.
> 
> Just so we are all on the same page with this, and not comparing different points, would you agree that:
> 
> ...



I sometimes find the comparison more difficult when one must crop the ff image to equal that if the crop sensor. It is nice to have the advantage of being able to get closer to the subject using FF. However it is much more difficult to get closer to some subjects and so cannot fill the frame like one wants. Zooms help but most of them have their own issues that degrade the IQ.

The reality is that unless you are pushing the envelope, you would not be able to tell the difference between say a 7d2 and a 5diii image unless you start pixel peeping.


----------



## Arty (Sep 13, 2015)

I used an 85 F1.8 on a 6D and a T2i at the same children's museum and took photos of my grandson. The visits were a few weeks apart. You get more detail with the 6D, but that doesn't necessarily make for better portraits. On a T2i, the 85 mm lens gives you the field of view of a 135 on full frame. I was able to get the sort of shots that would need the 135F2 on full frame.
Detail was not quite as good on the T2i, and that is an understatement. However, finest detail may not always be needed when photographing a kid.
The differences are there, but if you looked at the photos in an 8x10 photo or on an IPad, I am not sure that they would seem that large. For large prints, the format matters, as it does for landscape and architecture. The biggest differences are when the light gets low and ISO needs to be high.
I found the 85 was a bit too long for indoor photos on crop, and would give me head shots. If that is what you want, an 85 is fine on a crop. It worked better outside. A 50 on crop gives you the same view as an 85 on full frame.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 13, 2015)

Has anyone mentioned vignetting? Some people dislike it, but it must add to the 'full frame look', given how much of the edges are cropped out on a smaller sensor.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Sep 14, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Has anyone mentioned vignetting? Some people dislike it, but it must add to the 'full frame look', given how much of the edges are cropped out on a smaller sensor.



Not much of an issue these days. If you use canon lenses, it can be corrected in camera or in post with most of the popular editing tools. Many third party lenses are also supported in most editors.


----------



## Pookie (Sep 14, 2015)

unfocused said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Asking specifically about portraits: Do you see a huge difference? Does your lens choice vary that much? Say a person has an EF 85mm 1.2L or EF 200mm f/2L... would you hesitate to use those lenses on your crop sensor camera for portraits?
> ...



Owning both of these lenses I can say I would never hesitate using either, but the truth of the matter if given the choice... I always grab a FF over my crops.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 14, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone mentioned vignetting? Some people dislike it, but it must add to the 'full frame look', given how much of the edges are cropped out on a smaller sensor.
> ...



I meant it as a positive thing. I suppose you can add it in afterwards, but you get less with a crop camera. I'd almost always leave it in for portraits.


----------

