# making a case for that crop body camera



## chauncey (Feb 2, 2013)

A crop camera body utilizes the center portion of a full frame camera's FOV using the same lens, but...according to Canon's MTF characteristics,
that's precisely where most lenses are at their best.
Therefore that crop camera only gives you the very best of that lens. 
If you need a larger image in a landscape scenario...photomerge is a no-brainer, just use a longer lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2013)

How does using the best part of the lens help if I need to shoot at ISO 6400? :-\


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2013)

Unless you have really good Lglass on the camera, your APS-C sensor just may be out-resolving your lens.... in which case you loose the advantage of greater pixel density.

To me, the true advantage of APS-C is that you can make the lenses smaller and less expensive than FF lenses and you end up with a smaller and less expensive camera system.... the problem is that as sensor densities have increased they are now exceeding the resolution of the inexpensive lenses.... to get all the possible performance you can out of an APS-C camera you need to put the big glass on it.... and you have just shot down the weight and price advantages....

It's a more extreme example, but let's compare a FF DSLR to a point/shoot. Forget about the sensor..... it's the lens that we are looking at... A nice and expensive L lens can resolve to, say, 50 megapixels, and the P/S lens can resolve to 5 megapixels (not real numbers... made up for example and in the right ballpark). At some point in time the p/s cameras passed the 5 Mp mark.... they did not stop there, they kept on going till they got to 16 or 18 Mp.... They are not 3 or 4 times sharper than the 5Mp camera because they are limited by the lens..

This is the tipping point where APS-C is now.... the sensors are starting to out-resolve the glass... we can no longer say that twice as many pixels makes it 1.414 times as sharp (square root of 2), it might only make it 1.1 or 1.05 times as sharp.....

With FF cameras, the sensor is still not as good as a nice Lglass lens.

All this is without taking into account the obvious high ISO / dynamic range advantages of FF.

So to conclude, the advantage of APSC is to use smaller and less expensive lenses at a cost of image quality, yet if you "utilizes the center portion of a full frame camera's FOV using the same lens" you have lost that low cost advantage.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2013)

+1

The real 'case for that crop body camera' compared to FF is that it's cheaper than FF. That's not a slam on crop bodies - affordability is very important in the real world!


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 3, 2013)

I disagree with some of the points above with the APS-C big advantage being mostly about price.

When I bought my 7D, I was choosing between it and the 5DII. I chose the 7D over the 5DII because I felt, for me, it was a better "camera" overall. Since then I have added a 5DII to my kit (actually paid less for it than my 7D during a Canon refurb sale).

I don't have any EF-s lenses as I have multiple bodies in my kit.

I chose the 7D for the better Ai Servo focus system, pop-up speedlite commander (which I use all the time), viewfinder grid/ level, custom functions, better video integration...

I won't disagree that the 5DII has better RAW image quality/ high ISO overall, because it does, but that is the only thing it does better that the 7D. I use my 5dII personally more.

Professionally I actually use my 7D way more than my 5DII- I shoot a lot of product photography for packaging/ marketing/ PR. The majority of my professional photography (I'm a toy/ CE designer) is done with a 100mm macro and 2 430EXII Speedlites. This kit is super small and quick with just a 7D. I don't use my 7D at high ISO levels so I don't care about that "issue", and my photos don't print at 100%, so again you don't see all that "noise" EVER. I also like the crop the 7D does to my photo in camera (I'm not shooting 1:1 macro) since I want a little more DOF while filling as much of the frame as possible.

I also will take my 7D to the park as a "sports" camera to capture my 2yr old daughter. She is super fast


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> I disagree with some of the points above with the APS-C big advantage being mostly about price.
> 
> When I bought my 7D, I was choosing between it and the 5DII. I chose the 7D over the 5DII because I felt, for me, it was a better "camera" overall.



Exactly - the 7D is a better 'overall camera' than the 5DII - and it's cheaper (at least based on Canon's pricing), _because_ it's an APS-C body. 

Put it another way - to get a camera that exceeds the 'overall' performance (considering not just IQ, but AF, build, etc.) of the 7D, a year ago you needed to buy a 1-series body. Today, you could get something as 'cheap' as a 5DIII to beat the 7D...and that's twice the cost. It's not that the performance aspects that make the 7D a great camera aren't available in cameras with larger sensors - they are, it just costs a lot more to get them. That's what I mean by the APS-C advantage being lower cost. 

Like you, I had a 7D and 5DII, and used the former for birds, wildlife, and for my 4 year old's gymnastics. The 5DII's AF wasn't up to the task. But now that I have the 1D X, the 7D is relegated solely to gathering dust and hoping the 1D X breaks so it can fulfill its one remaining function - backup camera.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> I disagree with some of the points above with the APS-C big advantage being mostly about price.



"So to conclude, the advantage of APSC is to use smaller and less expensive lenses at a cost of image quality"

When I go hiking I carry a 60D with an 18-200 lens. That lens has to be about the worst lens that canon makes, but I carry it. This is the smaller part..... I could bring the 5D2 and some big Lglass and get nicer pictures, but it would be too big and heavy for me. "Smaller and lighter and with me" beats "bigger and better and sitting on a table at home" any day of the week.


----------



## Plamen (Feb 3, 2013)

chauncey said:


> A crop camera body utilizes the center portion of a full frame camera's FOV using the same lens, but...according to Canon's MTF characteristics,
> that's precisely where most lenses are at their best.


So far, correct.


> Therefore that crop camera only gives you the very best of that lens.


Now, this is incorrect because your just ignored the fact that the image from a crop camera has to be enlarged 1.6 times more. 

See this and this. It is about center performance; the FF advantage in the corners still exists (most of the time) but decreases.


----------



## Menace (Feb 3, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> I disagree with some of the points above with the APS-C big advantage being mostly about price.
> 
> When I bought my 7D, I was choosing between it and the 5DII. I chose the 7D over the 5DII because I felt, for me, it was a better "camera" overall. Since then I have added a 5DII to my kit (actually paid less for it than my 7D during a Canon refurb sale).
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## Menace (Feb 3, 2013)

I recently sold my 7d but am seriously considering buying another as a back up body as well as when extra reach is required.


----------



## bycostello (Feb 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> +1
> 
> The real 'case for that crop body camera' compared to FF is that it's cheaper than FF. That's not a slam on crop bodies - affordability is very important in the real world!



+1


----------



## chauncey (Feb 3, 2013)

Price/cost of gear...when one uses a 1DsIII and nothing but "L" glass, gear cost isn't a major consideration, quality of the print is a consideration.

Image size...that crop body image taken with multiple exposures and photomerged to the field of view of the FF camera magically turns into about a 46 MP image.

That crop body will put more pixels on target, birds in flight or that child playing BB in the gym, than will that FF camera, pixels on target determines IQ.

I would submit that nobody in our viewing audience could discern whether a print was made from a crop camera or a FF camera, assuming reasonable print size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2013)

chauncey said:


> That crop body will put more pixels on target, birds in flight or that child playing BB in the gym, than will that FF camera, pixels on target determines IQ.



Pixels on target is clearly not the sole determinant of IQ. If it was, the 7D should produce noticeably sharper images than a 1D X or 5DIII cropped to the same FoV - yet, at low ISO the IQ is quite similar, and at high ISO the cropped FF image is superior. 

In 'focal length limited' situations, the only advantage of more pixels on target is just that - more pixels. If the fewer MP of the cropped FF image are sufficient for the desired output (e.g., a reasonable sized print), the APS-C body doesn't offer any advantage except that it cost less to get that same IQ. 

As Don points out, the lower weight of some crop bodies, and the lower weight and smaller size of lenses with a smaller image circle, can also be an advantage.


----------



## steven kessel (Feb 3, 2013)

My passion is wildlife photography and my prime lens is the 100-400 4.5-5.6 L IS. I often have to do a significant amount of cropping even at 400mm in order to get useable images. The more I crop the more I have to contend with noise.

My two bodies are a 7D and a 5D Mark iii. Each has its advantages and I use both of them a lot. The 7D obviously gives me meaningfully greater reach. But, for me, it produces noisier images than the Mark iii. So much so that I generally shoot with considerably lower ISO on the 7D than on the Mark iii. The 7D also has a much slower, and for me, considerably less accurate autofocus than the Mark iii. I get far more blurry and useless photos with my 7D.

I've wound up using the 7D only at times where I really need the extra reach, where the lighting is bright, and where I'm not too worried about objects in motion. For all other shoots it's my Mark iii.


----------



## Plamen (Feb 3, 2013)

chauncey said:


> That crop body will put more pixels on target, birds in flight or that child playing BB in the gym, than will that FF camera, pixels on target determines IQ.



Most of the time, it puts less. You put more pixels on target only when you do not have high mp FF body (D800 and all that the future will bring), and need to crop a lot. I do not have a single photo taken with my FF body which is cropped more that just to do small corrections.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2013)

steven kessel said:


> My passion is wildlife photography and my prime lens is the 100-400 4.5-5.6 L IS. I often have to do a significant amount of cropping even at 400mm in order to get useable images. The more I crop the more I have to contend with noise.
> 
> My two bodies are a 7D and a 5D Mark iii. Each has its advantages and I use both of them a lot. The 7D obviously gives me meaningfully greater reach. But, for me, it produces noisier images than the Mark iii. So much so that I generally shoot with considerably lower ISO on the 7D than on the Mark iii. The 7D also has a much slower, and for me, considerably less accurate autofocus than the Mark iii. I get far more blurry and useless photos with my 7D.
> 
> I've wound up using the 7D only at times where I really need the extra reach, where the lighting is bright, and where I'm not too worried about objects in motion. For all other shoots it's my Mark iii.



+1. Exactly my experience. And, in practice the higher IQ and lower noise of the 5D III more than makes up for the loss of crop factor.


----------



## chauncey (Feb 3, 2013)

> Most of the time, it puts less


Oh really...take a picture of a ruler with the same lens on each camera then crop out a 1" segment of the ruler...you will have more pixels with the crop camera.


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Feb 3, 2013)

Crop body = 1.6x extra reach. Talking about the 7D, you also get 8fps. That's just awesome. After buying the 5D Mark III, I was planning on selling my 7D and EF-S lenses, but I decided against it. Other than the first two reasons listed, the main reason I couldn't part with it was my EF-S 17-55. I love that lens so much that I had to keep a body to use it with.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2013)

FatDaddyJones said:


> Other than the first two reasons listed, the main reason I couldn't part with it was my EF-S 17-55. I love that lens so much that I had to keep a body to use it with.



I hear this a lot. In case you didn't know, the FF equivalent of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens (adjusted for AoV and DoF for same framing), so the 24-105mm f/4L kit lens is longer, wider, faster, still has IS, and will deliver sharper images on FF than the 17-55 on APS-C. The better ISO performance of FF (>1.5 stops from 7D to 5DIII) more than makes for the loss of a stop of shutter speed. The only thing you're theoretically giving up is the high-precision center AF point...and since the center point of the 5DIII is reportedly more accurate than the center point of the 7D, and the 5DIII has overall superior AF, it's not much of a sacrifice. 

My advice: sell the 17-55 (I did), and probably the 7D, too.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 3, 2013)

Good used 7D's often sell for well under $1000, so they are a bargain. Some lenses perform better on APS-C, but some do better on FF. 
Like Neuro, my 7D no longer got any use when I bought my 1D MK IV. Eventually due to problems with my wrists, I bought a 1D MK III, it is far better overall than my 7D was, but the 7D did work very well with my 100mmL.
I'd certainly recommend a good used 7d.


----------



## Plamen (Feb 3, 2013)

chauncey said:


> > Most of the time, it puts less
> 
> 
> Oh really...take a picture of a ruler with the same lens on each camera then crop out a 1" segment of the ruler...you will have more pixels with the crop camera.



Most of the time, you do not use the same lens (same FL) to shoot the same object.


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Feb 3, 2013)

Yes, I realize the FF equivalency. This is getting off topic from the OP's original post, but I've read numerous times online that the 17-55 is sharper. I don't have a 24-105 to compare it to. However, I've never been disappointed with the performance of the 17-55. Coupled with the extra reach (my 70-300 for instance becomes a 112-480mm and faster frame rate... and no, I can't afford the 1DX's 14fps) it was enough to convince me to keep my 7D as a second camera. I now shoot with both, and they make a great combo. The similar interface and body style makes switching between the two a seamless experience. 

Bottom line is that if you can't take a good picture with a crop camera, then you can't take a good picture with a full frame camera either. As far as equipment goes, they're both excellent.


----------



## Plamen (Feb 3, 2013)

FatDaddyJones said:


> Crop body = 1.6x extra reach. Talking about the 7D, you also get 8fps. That's just awesome. After buying the 5D Mark III, I was planning on selling my 7D and EF-S lenses, but I decided against it. Other than the first two reasons listed, the main reason I couldn't part with it was my EF-S 17-55. I love that lens so much that I had to keep a body to use it with.



The 17-55 is a great lens, indeed, I used for several years. But ... the 24-105 on FF is even better, and not much different in weight and price.


----------



## Plamen (Feb 3, 2013)

FatDaddyJones said:


> Yes, I realize the FF equivalency. This is getting off topic from the OP's original post, but I've read numerous times online that the 17-55 is sharper. I don't have a 24-105 to compare it to.



I do. The 17-55 is sharper on the same crop body. What is even more amazing that it compares well to the 24-105 even at f/2.8 (and the 24-105 at f/4).

But the 17-55 on crop is softer than the 24-105 on FF. Not a huge difference, but it is easy to see. I have one comparison on my site, and of course, there is also TDP, PZ, etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2013)

Plamen said:


> FatDaddyJones said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I realize the FF equivalency. This is getting off topic from the OP's original post, but I've read numerous times online that the 17-55 is sharper. I don't have a 24-105 to compare it to.
> ...



I also had both, and Plamen is absolutely correct. That's why I sold my 17-55.


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Feb 3, 2013)

Neuro, what do you use as a standard zoom on your 7D? Or do you use a standard zoom on the 7D now?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2013)

FatDaddyJones said:


> Neuro, what do you use as a standard zoom on your 7D? Or do you use a standard zoom on the 7D now?



I would probably use the 16-35 II...*if* I needed a standard zoom for the 7D. But since I don't use the 7D at all anymore, it's a moot point.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 3, 2013)

Even if I had a 5DIII & a 1DX, I'd take the 7D to work because I can fire Speedlites off camera without any other equipment. I also don't need to even use a tripod cause the built-in viewfinder level features allows me to frame my shots easily. It's a simple and quick setup with minimal gear.

I'm shooting toys that are then masked out from the background and dropped onto packaging, sell-sheets, instruction manuals, web sites, etc. In this case, I really don't think the sensor size matters at all. If anything, the smaller sensor probably helps me with a little more DOF.

This camera is the right too for my job.


----------



## Plamen (Feb 3, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> If anything, the smaller sensor probably helps me with a little more DOF.



Smaller sensors do not have more DOF. You get the same DOF with equivalent settings; and if you push it too far, you get a very soft image due to diffraction anyway. 

Not that I disagree that the 7D can be better for what you are doing.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 3, 2013)

Plamen said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > If anything, the smaller sensor probably helps me with a little more DOF.
> ...



I haven't done a test, but wouldn't I have a shallower DOF if I used my 5DII with my 100mm macro with the same framing- ie: I'd have to be significantly closer with the 5D?

I always thought focus distance was part of the factor in DOF. Again, I'm not a lab tester of this stuff, I was only assuming another benefit to the amazing APS-C sensor


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 3, 2013)

I see a lot of people complain about the AF on the 7d for subject in motion. Is it erratic un-predticable or just motion in general?

I do a lot of skiing/snowboarding work with my 7D and 5d3 and have no issue on the AF with either through a 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8 mk II. Most of the motion I am capturing is smooth and fluid which lends to the ease of capture. I assume that the complaints come from BIF or such?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> I haven't done a test, but wouldn't I have a shallower DOF if I used my 5DII with my 100mm macro with the same framing- ie: I'd have to be significantly closer with the 5D?



Yes, at the same f/stop, the DoF would be shallower with FF. But when you consider diffraction (you can stop down the lens more on the FF sensor before diffraction costs you sharpness), there's no 'APS-C gives deeper DoF' benefit. Both formats can achieve the same deepest DoF for a given amount of diffraction, but the FF can achieve shallower DoF if desired. Just another benefit to the amazing FF sensor.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 3, 2013)

I'm just joking mostly. FF images are beautiful. I would have purchased the 5DIII over the 7D if that was the offering I had at the time. I just wish it had a pop up flash then!

I might have to write an open letter to Canon threatening to switch to Nikon! That will surely do it.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 3, 2013)

chauncey said:


> If you need a larger image in a landscape scenario*...photomerge is a no-brainer*, just use a longer lens.



I see this arguement alot but honiest to me the majority of merged pics look like exactly that, merged pics with fairly uninteresting composition.


----------



## Plamen (Feb 3, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> Plamen said:
> 
> 
> > pdirestajr said:
> ...



My remark did not include changing distance. After all, you could use the EF-S 60 macro, which is excellent.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2013)

The 7D came out in 2009. It is still a remarkably good camera. The fair comparison with FF as far as crop sensors go would be a 7D II vs 1D X or 5D III as they have 3 year newer technology in focussing and sensor. A 7D II with the focussing of the 1D X/5D III and an improved sensor would be an incredible beast.


----------



## comsense (Feb 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't done a test, but wouldn't I have a shallower DOF if I used my 5DII with my 100mm macro with the same framing- ie: I'd have to be significantly closer with the 5D?
> ...


+1 In addition, for the same DoF, infinity background blur (dependent on physical size of entrance pupil in an imaging setup) would be more with FF format as it allows larger entrance pupil. Could be little to significant depending on other parameter. In simple words, it can provide better subject isolation with right setup and object distance.


----------

