# How to differentiate crop vs. FF



## Eldar (Oct 13, 2014)

I have been involved in a number of crop vs. FF discussions lately. I thought I had the arguments for and against well set. But, based on these discussions, I´m not so sure anymore. 

What I´d like your views on are what you see as the key arguments for and against the two sensor formats are from your perspective.

PS! I know DR is one, but please avoid turning this into a for/against more DR thread.


----------



## Khalai (Oct 13, 2014)

*Re: How to argue crop vs. FF*

Shallower DoF, better lowlight sensitivity and along with that, less noise (and arguably better colours and **) and of course proper wide lenses, were the top selling points for me, when I went fullframe on Jan 2014


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 13, 2014)

*Re: How to argue crop vs. FF*

It's a stop and a third, of noise performance and DOF control (assuming you can keep constant framing through either a change in focal length at the same f-stop or a change in subject distance). You pay for that just like you do with lenses.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 13, 2014)

jebrady03 said:


> You argue over camera sh*t? Seriously? There's more important things in life than ARGUING over camera formats.
> Use of the word "argue" implies that you're trying to "win" or persuade. Why not just state the merits of each and allow others to choose what's best for them. There's no one RIGHT system for everyone. No arguing needed.


Good point. English is not my native tongue. Differentiate is probably a better word.


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 13, 2014)

The differences are "neg•li•gi•ble".
Everything else is just noise and a lot of geeking out.


----------



## Joe M (Oct 13, 2014)

Until crop cameras are no longer manufactured, I suspect the debate on the merits of one over the other will never end. And there certainly are merits for one over the other. Some cite scientific measurements and some personal experience. A larger sensor area should always out perform a smaller one. You rarely see "crop vs. 1/3"" debates as we all know what will be better. I suspect it's because crop output is as good as it is that we see crop vs. FF ones. I haven't delved too much into the science part (SNR ratios and all the other electronic wizardry that goes on inside the cameras) other than to quote what others have said and I prefer not to do that. I leave that to those who know. 
What I can speak to is from the personal experience. Having used 20D, 40D, 7D along with 5D, 5D2, and now 5D3, I can say that there can be a difference. The crops, under certain circumstances, can definitely produce great photos. Under certain circumstances, the FF can trump the crops. Obviously I can only speak from my personal experience and with these cameras. I have no idea if another "crop brand X" will "beat" "FF brand Y". I'm at the point now that if I had to choose shooting crop or FF, I'd go FF. I actually did mainly because I found myself using the crops less and less. 
But I sort of digressed as really, the best way to find out which one is best for you and your uses, is to (if it's possible), shoot with each for a few days in every circumstance that's important to you and pick the one that performed the best. The camera that gave you the results you are happy with is the camera for you. Best is best but those who really are in the market for a camera should try them out for their needs. Actual raw performance of the cameras aside, I find that "the user's needs" is too often left out of the equation.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 13, 2014)

Everyone knows of the shallow dof and low light advantage that FF has over crop, assuming that is what you want. However here is my take on it: the smaller the format the less the magnification of the image in terms of both optical magnification ( shorter focal lengths) and physical capture ( sensor / film size.) This means that the combined technologies of optics and sensor have to overcome the problems thrown at them by physics in order to deliver an image that is the same as one shot on a larger format with greater magnification ( longer focal length lenses ) and larger physical capture, ( larger sensor / film). Also the smaller the format the greater the enlargement will have to be to view.

Given the current state of technology I find that in reasonable light, at low ISOs there is just no difference in the image if the subject is relatively close and therefor the detail to resolve is relatively large in the frame. 

However when you start photographing subjects that are far from the camera, and fine detail is very small, I find the larger the format the better the results ( air diffusion allowing etc). When I have shot the same landscape on both an original 5D (12.7mp) and a 650D (18 mp), although the 18mp crop sensor clearly had more resolution, the definition and 'IQ' was better from the 5D.

This is why serious landscape photographers always used large format film cameras over even medium format.

However technology is marching forward, and it will be interesting to see if a camera such as the 7DII when mated with a top end optic can match the larger format. I guess that if the optics and the sensor are good enough there is no reason why this can't happen, although there will always be the potential drawback of requiring greater enlargement which cannot be done away with.

Given the fact that technology is advancing I see no reason for crop cameras to go away; quite the reverse in fact.


----------



## kaihp (Oct 13, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> The differences are "neg•li•gi•ble".
> Everything else is just noise and a lot of geeking out.


I must politely disagree.


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 13, 2014)

In general I have found FF to have better DR, High ISO, and DOF. I generally like the "quality" of the images. I noticed a big difference between the look of my 5D MK II over my T2i. Very different breeds of camera, but I will probably always shoot fashion and beauty with a FF over a crop

For sports. I like the extra reach of the crop. Very big asset to throw on a solid 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and get 120-320 without a TC and not pay the focus penalty. 

If I do pick up the 7D MK II I would consider a 2nd 70-200 F/2.8 IS II so I could have one on the 5D MK III and another on the 7D MK II and cover 70 - 320 fairly effectively, or maybe hunt for a 120-300 Sigma and have the 70-200 of the 5D MK III and the 120-300 on the 7D MK III which would then be 192-480, or effectively have 70-500 (just a few short) at f/2.8

If what I hear about performance and image quality stands up, this would be a solid combo for sports until I upgrade the 5D MK III to a 1Dx


Come to think of it, in the Sports arena a 1Dx / 7D MK II with the above lenses would be extremely hard to beat.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 13, 2014)

The key advantage of APS-C sensors is lower cost. Crop bodies generally cost less (often far less), and when they don't (e.g. 7DII vs. discounted 6D) they generally offer significantly better features (particularly AF and frame rate). 

The oft-cited 'reach advantage' of APS-C sensors isn't much of an advantage. It's far less than 1.6x in practical terms.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The key advantage of APS-C sensors is lower cost. Crop bodies generally cost less (often far less), and when they don't (e.g. 7DII vs. discounted 6D) they generally offer significantly better features (particularly AF and frame rate).
> 
> The oft-cited 'reach advantage' of APS-C sensors isn't much of an advantage. It's far less than 1.6x in practical terms.



Right. With mediocre lenses it's more like 1.25x and with great lenses it's more like 1.5x (for the same pixel counts).


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 13, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> The differences are "neg•li•gi•ble".
> Everything else is just noise and a lot of geeking out.



If you think f/2.8 is a negligible difference compared to f/4.5, then I'd agree.


----------



## Coldhands (Oct 13, 2014)

A minor point, but one I think is worth mentioning, is the larger viewfinder with FF. I find it makes it easier to compose with and is just generally nice to have.

Obviously this becomes a moot point when referring to mirror-less cameras.


----------



## ritholtz (Oct 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The key advantage of APS-C sensors is lower cost. Crop bodies generally cost less (often far less), and when they don't (e.g. 7DII vs. discounted 6D) they generally offer significantly better features (particularly AF and frame rate).
> 
> The oft-cited 'reach advantage' of APS-C sensors isn't much of an advantage. It's far less than 1.6x in practical terms.


Hi Neuro,
Crop is a value for money. Are there any advantages in viewfinder other than reach? If we are using the same lens (adjust for the reach by cropping), subject will be bigger in view finder of crop. More focusing points on subjects or bigger subject per focus point for tracking might be advantageous right?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 13, 2014)

Very simple. If someone prioritizes absolute image quality, narrow DOF, and need to shoot at ISO 6400, must use FULL FRAME. 

On the other hand, if someone prefers wider DOF, size, weight, and lower price (combination of camera + lens) will find more advantages in APS-C. 

If someone needs to shoot the two scenarios I mentioned, must have an APS-C camera and another FULL FRAME.


----------



## SPKoko (Oct 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The key advantage of APS-C sensors is lower cost. Crop bodies generally cost less (often far less), and when they don't (e.g. 7DII vs. discounted 6D) they generally offer significantly better features (particularly AF and frame rate).
> 
> The oft-cited 'reach advantage' of APS-C sensors isn't much of an advantage. It's far less than 1.6x in practical terms.



Lower cost of the body and also much lower cost of the lenses. With a crop body you can build a very decent kit with the EF-S STM lenses (10-18 STM, 18-55 STM or 18-135 STM, 55-250 STM, 24 STM) for less than 1000$. Not the same quality, but it is pretty decent. How much would a similar kit covering from 16mm to 400mm equiv. cost in the FF world? The cheapest that I can think of is 17-40, 28-135 or 24-105, 70-300 non L...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 13, 2014)

With really good cameras being manufactured in both formats, the choice really comes down to your individual style of photography and what you are looking for. 

Full Frame is not a natural progression from Crop. If crop gives you what you want in the photograph, stay crop. Don'r feel that you have to move up to FF. While some may treat it as a status symbol, from a practical point of view, Crop works well for many good photographers.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 13, 2014)

There's one big advantage of full-frame that a lot of people don't recognize - the variety of zoom lenses starting at 24mm.

Full frame:
24-105/4L IS
24-70/4L IS
24-70/2.8 II
Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC
Sigma 24-70/2.8
Sigma 24-105/4 OS

Crop:
15-85/3.5-5.6 IS


----------



## TAW (Oct 13, 2014)

From a completely nontechnical perspective, after I purchased a 5DII, my 7D started collecting dust. I 'felt' I ended up with better pictures (or more accurately higher quality pictures from my perspective - pictures that I was happier with  ) Some of that was probably because I had more 'image' to work with for cropping, straightening..., the DOF differences.. The only thing I ever missed was the FPS and I can only think of a few shots I missed because of that... (and if I was a little better photographer, I wouldn't have missed those either )

For me - for whatever reason - I like the images I produced better with a FF.

Have a GREAT day!
tom


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 13, 2014)

ritholtz said:


> Hi Neuro,
> Crop is a value for money. Are there any advantages in viewfinder other than reach? If we are using the same lens (adjust for the reach by cropping), subject will be bigger in view finder of crop. More focusing points on subjects or bigger subject per focus point for tracking might be advantageous right?



It's still mainly overall cost. You're correct that using the same lens for a distant subject, more VF magnification and more AF points on subject are an advantage. But unless you're already at 1200mm (600 II + 2xIII), you're still talking cost savings. 600/4 on FF will beat 400/5.6 on APS-C. I suppose an argument could be made that the 600 II + 1.4xIII is f/5.6 and allows all AF points, so that on a 7DII vs. the 600 II + 2xIII on a 5DIII which gives just the center point with 4 expansion points. But at higher ISO (which are often needed at f/5.6 and narrower with subjects like BIF), the FF would deliver better IQ. 

It's anecdotal, but lots of bird photographers who shot with a 7D then got a 5DIII/1D X soon switched to using the 5DIII for birds. Notably, that includes some people on this forum who'd done some pretty detailed testing to demonstrate the reach-limited resolution advantage of APS-C. 

Besides cost (of camera + lens), there can be a size/weight advantage...but 7-series bodies are not significantly smaller/lighter, and with wide-to-normal lenses the differences aren't great. 




ajfotofilmagem said:


> On the other hand, if someone prefers wider DOF...will find more advantages in APS-C.



Sorry, but that's simply not true*. It's true that for the same framing, APS-C gives deeper DoF. So...you stop down the lens on FF and you get the same DoF. If you need to keep the same shutter speed, you raise the ISO and there's no difference in noise; if you can let the shutter speed drop, you get less noise on FF. 

In terms of DoF, FF allows you to achieve shallower DoF than APS-C if you want it, or the same DoF without penalty if you don't. 

*There's an exception, in that if your lens is stopped down to its narrowest aperture, APS-C gives deeper DoF because you can't stop the lens down further. But by then, diffraction will be softening the images a fair bit, and that will be worse on APS-C at typical pixel densities, so in that case you're trading sharpness for DoF.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's still mainly overall cost. You're correct that using the same lens for a distant subject, more VF magnification and more AF points on subject are an advantage. But unless you're already at 1200mm (600 II + 2xIII), you're still talking cost savings. 600/4 on FF will beat 400/5.6 on APS-C.



It's more complex if you need a zoom lens. A 100-400 will be better (for resolving power) on a 7D than on a 5D, and a longer option is either crazy expensive and narrow in range (200-400/4) or just becoming available from third parties (150-600s).


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, if someone prefers wider DOF...will find more advantages in APS-C.
> ...



Because of that diffraction, there is another option - a wider framing. Moving back or zooming out will get you DOF without costing you resolving power because diffraction has eaten it all anyway.


----------



## hsbn (Oct 13, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> There's one big advantage of full-frame that a lot of people don't recognize - the variety of zoom lenses starting at 24mm.
> 
> Full frame:
> 24-105/4L IS
> ...


You can use all of those lens on CROP too. It will change the field of view but it doesn't change the lens quality. Actually, you can even say that "There's one big advantage of CROP that a lot of people don't recognize - the variety of zoom lenses starting at 10mm"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 13, 2014)

hsbn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > There's one big advantage of full-frame that a lot of people don't recognize - the variety of zoom lenses starting at 24mm.
> ...



Well, 10mm on APS-C is 16mm on FF, and there's a good variety of 16-xx zooms for FF. 

The point is that 24-xx is a general purpose' zoom lens that covers wide angle to short tele. Still, while the difference between 24mm and 28mm is significant, there is a plethora of 17/18-xx zooms for APS-C.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 13, 2014)

I find the tonal range of FF images to be substantially better than those captured with a crop sensor. That said, I almost never recommend FF over a crop body for those seeking the most value per dollar.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 13, 2014)

Based on my experience, FF advantages are: better IQ, better in low-light, less DOF (when you want it), larger viewfinder. Advantages of Crop: more reach, more DOF (when you want it), uses the center (and better) part of lens, thus less vignetting, CA, distortion and overall sharpness. Much of the latter can be corrected on both FF and Crop, so may not be an issue.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 13, 2014)

dak723 said:


> Advantages of Crop: ...uses the center (and better) part of lens, thus less vignetting, CA, distortion and overall sharpness.



Vignetting and distortion, yes. CA depends on the type (axial vs. lateral), and can be worse (the typically higher pixel density on crop means CA from the lens covers more pixels). As for 'overall sharpness', assuming you're framing the same with both, the FF wins hands down. Pick a lens and compare FF with APS-C on TDP's ISO 12233 crops, the difference in sharpness is substantial.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 13, 2014)

Budget is the only reason to go with cropped.

Except maybe for the amazingly spec'd 7DII.


----------



## LesC (Oct 13, 2014)

I think the difference between FF & crop IQ wise is not always that great - quality of the lens used is more important but there's a reason why most Pros use FF. And if money was no object, who wouldn't go FF


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 13, 2014)

FF Advantaged:

- Better low light/high ISO performance
- Greater color depth
- Narrower DOF, which means better control of DOF
- Generally speaking, features in demand by pros more likely in FF (the 7D2 may buck the tide a bit on this)
- Sharper images given EF glass. This one surprised me. Check out the comparison of a 70-200 f2.8L II on a 1Ds Mk3 vs. a 60D 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
- Strengthens muscles if carried for 20 minutes every day.
- Simplifies one's bank account


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 13, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> A minor point, but one I think is worth mentioning, is the larger viewfinder with FF. I find it makes it easier to compose with and is just generally nice to have.
> 
> Obviously this becomes a moot point when referring to mirror-less cameras.



I was passing with a t1i the other day and the smaller viewfinder was killing me.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 13, 2014)

FF has less noise and retains more detail at higher ISOs. Given similar sensor tech levels it seems to be a good 2 stop advantage, sometimes a bit more.

There are lenses which do not have good crop equivalents. Canon's fast wide primes and T/S lenses are good examples, though this isn't a given (i.e. someone could make crop equivalents if they wanted).

In theory FF should have more DR (higher full well capacity) but Imatest testing doesn't always bear that out.

Crop gives you a built in 1.6x teleconverter with practically no downsides. Though, as others have pointed out, with the resolution of modern sensors this advantage is slim. For most subject/print size combinations you can just crop the center out of a FF file and have hardly any difference. The advantage now seems to be mostly in the viewfinder view.

Crop is cheaper, and some lenses are cheaper for the FoV and IQ because they're easier to manufacture for crop.

I know I'll get arguments on this, but...at ISOs where noise is effectively a "solved problem", and when all other factors are equal, there are no real IQ benefits to FF after processing. FF images are sharper OOC but the difference is well within the range of software (in camera or out) to correct. Human psychology being what it is people will claim to see differences when the labels are there and get totally lost when the labels are gone. I might say that you can still sometimes see a difference while pixel peeping...though that might be my own psychology at work...but in print it's completely lost.

I've tested this more times then I have wanted to when friends have challenged me on it, using both online test samples and in the field shots we have made. Even I am sometimes surprised at how much difference must exist before it's obvious to the human eye in print. 

In the most recent test a friend and I downloaded the Imaging Resource ISO 100 RAWs for the A7R, A7, 5D3, and 70D. We converted using optimum ACR settings for each (noise and detail); scaled everything to the A7R dimensions; then applied sharpening in PS to try to optimize three of them (the A7R is pretty much optimal from the RAW converter in this respect). Next we took strips and made a 4-Up print at 200 ppi, roughly the same as a 24x36" print.

My friend predicted we would easily see the differences between all four. I predicted A7R and 70D would be obvious but not the A7/5D3. The first print showed no advantage any where. At all. Even I was surprised that with my nose on the print, no advantage could be seen any where.

For the second our strips included the chart with small type on the far right. In that print we could see a difference in the rendering of the smallest type and it followed my prediction, but no difference any where else. Whether or not that difference would ever be seen by someone who wasn't looking for it is another question entirely. It was exceedingly small, a difference in the quality of the rendering, and only on the tiny type.

We're going to try again at some point in the field with three of the cameras, but I suspect the results will not change.


----------



## kphoto99 (Oct 14, 2014)

One advantage of crop is that after buying the camera body you will have more money left over to but an excellent lens. The higher quality lens will have more effect on the quality of the image then the camera


----------



## candc (Oct 14, 2014)

the key is under what conditions? using normal apertures under normal light there is really not much difference. i have done some comparison testing myself and found that to be true. ken rockwell says there is not much difference between the sl1 kit and the 5dii + 24-70ii. that's inflammatory hogwash right? not really.

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/sl1-vs-5d-mk-iii/

that's not to say the sl1 combo is just as good as the 5diii one but in that example he is right. 

how about this for a more extreme comparison.

http://petapixel.com/2014/10/02/zeiss-otus-85mm-f1-4-vs-two-year-old-pocket-camera/

i have seen your sample pics with the new lens and am really impressed. you know how to use it to its full advantage where nothing else compares but with medium apertures in normal light viewed at normal size? all the modern cameras even the cheapest do a good job. 

i bought a 6d for using in low light where it is really much better than the crop cameras. you can use pretty high iso with the crop cameras in good light to get your shutter speed up but if the light is bad ff is the way to go. 

also as everyone knows if you want that super shallow dof then you want a ff camera for it.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 14, 2014)

kphoto99 said:


> One advantage of crop is that after buying the camera body you will have more money left over to but an excellent lens. The higher quality lens will have more effect on the quality of the image then the camera



Perhaps, but as a general rule, as Neuro and others have pointed out, any given lens (assuming you can attach it to both) generates better images on a FF body than it does on an APS-C body; I think it would be a shame to buy an excellent lens (let alone all the high-end lenses listed by the OP) and then restrict yourself to using it on an APS-C body. 

(One could, in fact, make the opposite argument - that owning a FF body allows you to save money on lenses, at least in some circumstances (there's no FF equivalent to the remarkably cheap Canon 10-18mm, for instance), sometimes astonishingly so - there are some ridiculously cheap old manual prime lenses that make amazingly good photos when attached to a mirrorless FF body (perhaps they do on dslrs too, but mirrorless bodies make it incomparably easier to use such lenses). E.g. while everyone else has been getting worked up over the Sigma 50mm Art (which I'm sure is wonderful), I've been greatly enjoying using, on my Sony a7r, a Pentax/Super-Tak 50mm 1.4 (c. $90), a Minolta/Rokkor X 50mm 1.4 (c. $50) and a Nikkor 55mm 2.8 macro (but superb even at infinity - c. $100); but then I don't shoot sports, BIF etc....)

Anyway, in terms of sheer image quality, other things being equal, FF wins, for the reasons given by others (Sporgon's point is especially good). I have a couple of APS-C bodies, but I'm really not sure why. That said, whether the differences are of any significance, or are even noticeable at all, is another matter. It all rather depends on how the resulting images are viewed and how critical the viewer is (the same goes for differences in image quality among lenses, for that matter), and an APS-C body may make more sense for reasons unrelated to sheer image quality.

For me, the issue gets more interesting if you throw M43 into the mix, because that system, unlike APS-C, provides a big advantage over FF in terms of weight/bulk while providing image quality that rivals APS-C, albeit with a loss of shallowness of focus (plus, it tends to cost more than APS-C dslrs). Of course, it can't compare to FF at high ISOs (it's not much different from APS-C), but if you're not trying to freeze action, that's not an issue - thanks to the extremely effective IBIS in more recent Olympus M43 bodies (E-M5 and later), I have little difficulty in keeping the ISO at 200 most of the time, and, of course, since it's IBIS it applies to any lens you attach.

So there may not be an easy answer....


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 14, 2014)

Interesting thread so far. My jump to FF wasn't that long ago. I still use my 7D, but in comparison, the 5D3 images have more pop to them. That's part of the key. After getting the shot, it is easier to see the difference between FF and crop when comparing two similar photos side-by-side. However, good crop bodies with good glass can produce great images that can be hard to discern from FF when there's no side-by-side comparison.

Every body has boundaries where getting the shot and image quality is challenged. For me, the FF 5D3 was a better choice when I realized that I pushing my crop 7D beyond these boundaries. That's the biggest difference. If you live within the _sweet_ spot of a crop body, the advantages of a FF body are minor.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Perhaps, but as a general rule, as Neuro and others have pointed out, any given lens (assuming you can attach it to both) generates better images on a FF body than it does on an APS-C body;



Eh...it produces sharper images OOC and often images with more local contrast, but unless noise is a factor (higher ISOs) it's trivial to match this in post.



> there are some ridiculously cheap old manual prime lenses that make amazingly good photos when attached to a mirrorless FF body (perhaps they do on dslrs too, but mirrorless bodies make it incomparably easier to use such lenses).



They generally do the same when attached to a crop body.



> Anyway, in terms of sheer image quality, other things being equal, FF wins, for the reasons given by others (Sporgon's point is especially good).



At lower ISOs it's a wash. I've often said this, but my last FF vs. crop / higher MP vs. lower MP print test stunned even me, and silenced a friend who loved to debate this.

In fairness, it's a wash after post processing. But the differences are simply not that large to begin with.


----------



## Helios68 (Oct 16, 2014)

Pro FF:
+DR
+DoF
+Better high ISO performance (pixels are 2x larger on 5D Mkiii than on 70D for example)

Pro APS-C
+much cheaper in general

Crop factor 1.6x is not really an advantage. If your take just the center of the 5D Mkiii frame you get ~9.4MP which is enough to print A2 pictures without quality loss. But on the other side in good like conditions you can crop the image form an APS-C sensor too.

This brings me the following question. For wildlife which is better? APS-C or FF?


----------



## sandymandy (Oct 16, 2014)

Well i love wide angle so APS-C is really not my kind. Wide Aperture + wide lense doesnt match a small sensor


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 16, 2014)

Helios68 said:


> Pro FF:
> +DR
> +DoF
> +Better high ISO performance (pixels are 2x larger on 5D Mkiii than on 70D for example)
> ...



And when I want the center 30% of an APSc frame?

Crop wins for focal length limited situations.


----------



## Helios68 (Oct 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Helios68 said:
> 
> 
> > Pro FF:
> ...



Right but just when light is sufficient. And if you take the 30% in the middle even with a 22MP you will get a 2MP picture... which is quite small. Maybe you should have done something wrong with the focal length you choose...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Helios68 said:
> 
> 
> > Pro FF:
> ...



Naive and simplistic. What does crop 'win'?

With regards outright IQ technique will have a much larger impact on your images than a crop camera or cropping a ff camera. If you have a ff camera getting a crop camera will give you a very very small realisable resolution difference in focal length limited situations. It will give you different AF, framing, and fps figures which might very well have more impact.

If you have a 1Dx getting a 7D MkII for 'focal length limited situations' will almost certainly make little sense, if you have a 6D or a 5D MkIII it makes a much more complimentary tool.

Here are images I have posted many times, same generation 1Ds MkIII and 7D files from a focal length limited setup, the 7D crop has well over twice the pixels on target as the ff crop, but the differences in non optimally processed images, even at greater than 100%, are minimal.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Helios68 said:
> ...



Resolving power and noise.



> With regards outright IQ technique will have a much larger impact on your images than a crop camera or cropping a ff camera. If you have a ff camera getting a crop camera will give you a very very small realisable resolution difference in focal length limited situations.



About 50-70% depending on the full-frame camera. I have a 5D. The 7D2 will have about 90% more linear pixel density, and that most certainly will make a huge difference.

I've tested this myself, and even the difference between my T2i, 20D and 5D is a near-linear improvement with pixel density. Teleconverters wouldn't work if this weren't true, but they do work.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> If you have a 1Dx getting a 7D MkII for 'focal length limited situations' will almost certainly make little sense...



I'm certainly not planning to get a 7DII, it really offers no meaningful advantage for me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Resolving power and noise.



Funny, that isn't what my actual crops illustrate.



Lee Jay said:


> About 50-70% depending on the full-frame camera. I have a 5D. The 7D2 will have about 90% more linear pixel density, and that most certainly will make a huge difference.
> 
> I've tested this myself, and even the difference between my T2i, 20D and 5D is a near-linear improvement with pixel density. Teleconverters wouldn't work if this weren't true, but they do work.



Linear pixel density is a figure quoted by people who don't do same generation comparisons. I just posted a genuine unaltered same generation comparison and there is no 50-70% difference in either. On the other hand you believe a comparison is valid if you just go on pixel numbers or pixel size regardless of sensor generation, nobody else does.

The differences you will see between a 5D and a 7D MkII are down to the nine years difference in sensor tech and technique, nothing else. Compare a cropped 6D and a 7D MkII and I am fairly sure we will see the same differences I illustrate, practically none.

Indeed that 6D and 7D MkII is the spiritual upgrade for the thousands of people that owned both the 5D MkII and 7D.

There are real benefits to getting a crop camera, especially one like the 7D MkII for focal length limited situations, but 'Resolving power and noise' are not two of them, resolving power can get a nod in ideal situations, noise never seems to. The true benefits are AF, frame rate, viewfinder framing, and cost.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 16, 2014)

In essence what you are saying is that there's no point to increasing focal length. A 400/5.6 is no better than a 70-200/2.8 according to you. They have the same aperture, and similar optical quality, and an increase in focal length is exactly the same thing as a decrease in pixel size as far as resolving power goes.

Of course, you're just wrong.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> In essence what you are saying is that there's no point to increasing focal length. A 400/5.6 is no better than a 70-200/2.8 according to you. They have the same aperture, and similar optical quality, and an increase in focal length is exactly the same thing as a decrease in pixel size as far as resolving power goes.
> 
> Of course, you're just wrong.



No, that is absolutely not what I am saying.

What I am saying is 'in same generation sensors the differences between a crop camera, and cropping a ff camera to get the same fov, especially appropriate in focal length limited situations, shows negligible difference in resolution even in ideal situations'. You can only test this with same (or very close) generation sensors, 6D and 7D MkII would be valid, 5D MkII and 7D would be valid, etc etc, if you don't have two same generation sensors you cannot test this and any 'illustrations' are entirely bogus, as all yours have been when we have danced this dance previously. Specifically in this thread I am referencing a 7D MkII and current FF Canon cameras, the 6D, 5D MkIII and 1DX, now obviously none of us have a 7D MkII yet, but when we do I am fairly sure we will see the same thing.

So, same lens, same place, same subject magnification, crop ff to crop camera framing and look at the difference, exactly as I illustrated above, when you do that in realistic enlargements there is no visible difference, when you take enlargement up to well over 100%, as my crops do, the differences are just visible. The crop camera has slightly more resolution and more noise, if you mitigate the noise you lose the detail, if you sharpen the FF you get more noise, if you normalise them it is a wash even at these extreme enlargements.

This has been true for several generations of sensors and I tested it myself because I wanted a 7D, but after doing this chose to not get one. Now I would hope a 7D MkII would show an improvement over the MkI results, but it looks like I'd still be better off getting a 1D MkIV !

It is funny, I have had this similar conversation here several times, normally with people who don't own both, they argue endlessly about the 'resolving power' of the crop camera, the 'pixels on target advantage' etc, invariably when they get a FF camera they too don't see much difference.

Neuro, who used to own the 5D MkII and 7D, sold the 7D after getting his 1DX and doing similar tests, AlanF used to categorically state the difference was massive until he got his 5D MkIII and on and on............

Show me some 5D MkIII-7D MkII, or 5D MkII-7D >100% crops using the same lens from the same place to prove I am wrong, and my 1Ds MkIII and 7D crops which illustrate my specific point perfectly are also wrong.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> What I am saying is 'in same generation sensors the differences between a crop camera, and cropping a ff camera to get the same fov, especially appropriate in focal length limited situations, shows negligible difference in resolution even in ideal situations'. You can only test this with same (or very close) generation sensors, 6D and 7D MkII would be valid, 5D MkII and 7D would be valid, etc etc, if you don't have two same generation sensors you cannot test this and any 'illustrations' are entirely bogus, as all yours have been when we have danced this dance previously.



Baloney. I specifically went out and proved you wrong by shooting intentionally at highly non-ideal settings, and still the difference is quite substantial. Here it is again. The differences are much larger using ideal settings.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > What I am saying is 'in same generation sensors the differences between a crop camera, and cropping a ff camera to get the same fov
> ...



So, he states same generation sensors and cropping the FF sensor to the crop FoV, and you prove him wrong by showing (jugding by the image titles and pixel dimensions) a comparison between cameras from 2004, 2005, and 2010 (a 5-6 year technology gap), and upscaling some of the images. 

That was a complete fail. Care to try again?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Neuro, who used to own the 5D MkII and 7D, sold the 7D after getting his 1DX and doing similar tests, AlanF used to categorically state the difference was massive until he got his 5D MkIII and on and on............



I initially compared the 7D to the 5DII, and came to the same conclusion you have – APS-C image compared to FF image cropped to APS-C FoV, the APS-C has slightly more detail and slightly more noise, and one can be traded for the other so in practice, the only difference is in the MP of the resulting image, and if ~8 MP is sufficient for your output there's no advantage to using the crop body from a sensor IQ standpoint. Still, the 7D offered significant advantages in other areas - AF, frame rate, weather sealing, etc. The 1D X obviated all of those advantages, so I sold the 7D.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, who used to own the 5D MkII and 7D, sold the 7D after getting his 1DX and doing similar tests, AlanF used to categorically state the difference was massive until he got his 5D MkIII and on and on............
> ...



I am sorry, I knew that from earlier threads, I didn't mean to imply anything other than your having found the same thing when doing the same limited test.

As I said, for those that had a 7D and 5D MkII (and unlike you didn't go to a 1DX) the spiritual upgrade is the 6D and 7D MkII, they offer very complimentary feature sets that maximise the crop camera advantages in birding, sports, action and focal length limited scenarios. It seems 1 series cameras really do do it all though.........


----------



## jepabst (Oct 16, 2014)

One is not better than the other. Honestly, just depends on what you are shooting. The extra reach on the 7D from the 5D combined with a 200mm f/2.8 means you have 320mm reach for shooting sports. However, the 20mm on the 7D shooting landscapes means you are shooting at 32mm instead of 20mm. Do you want to shoot wide, long - what's your lens budget? This question is eternally pointless. They both make beautiful images.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 16, 2014)

jepabst said:


> This question is eternally pointless. They both make beautiful images.



And that, I feel, is just the reality of the issue.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

jepabst said:


> One is not better than the other. Honestly, just depends on what you are shooting.



True.



jepabst said:


> The extra reach on the 7D from the 5D combined with a 200mm f/2.8 means you have 320mm reach for shooting sports.



Not true. Look at my crops.



jepabst said:


> However, the 20mm on the 7D shooting landscapes means you are shooting at 32mm instead of 20mm.



The EF-S 10-22 is generally considered a better performing lens than either the 16-35 or 17-40, so no lack of ultra wide for crop and the price difference is less than $50 for FF. Indeed the 24-105 f4 L IS is generally much cheaper than the directly comparable EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS.



jepabst said:


> This question is eternally pointless.



Not true.



 jepabst said:


> They both make beautiful images.



True


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > What I am saying is 'in same generation sensors the differences between a crop camera, and cropping a ff camera to get the same fov, especially appropriate in focal length limited situations, shows negligible difference in resolution even in ideal situations'. You can only test this with same (or very close) generation sensors, 6D and 7D MkII would be valid, 5D MkII and 7D would be valid, etc etc, if you don't have two same generation sensors you cannot test this and any 'illustrations' are entirely bogus, as all yours have been when we have danced this dance previously.
> ...



Lee, I think another area you are going wrong with this comparison is that the 5D requires a fair amount of careful sharpening, whereas ( if I remember rightly back to 2004), the 20D did not. Bear in mind that back in the day those two cameras were aimed at different typical users. If you tried to optimise the 5D first I don't think there would be such a difference, and as the other guys have said, they are referring to current, or current-but-one generations cameras. 

What your test shows is that the later generation is better. No surprise there.


----------



## jepabst (Oct 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jepabst said:
> 
> 
> > One is not better than the other. Honestly, just depends on what you are shooting.
> ...


I'm not going to argue with you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

jepabst said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jepabst said:
> ...



Expressing an opinion is not necessarily arguing. This is a forum, a place for discussion ideas and thoughts. I expanded yours with my own and gave comments with easily verifiable facts to support my differing opinions, hardly an argument.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 16, 2014)

I have both a 7D and a 5D3 and use and like both, but for different things. I use Raw (almost) exclusively. Simply stated, the trade-off is (1) higher pixel density (i.e., smaller pixels), (2) larger sensor and/or (3) high frame rate. At any given price point, choose any two of the above.

The 5D3 gives better image quality, especially in very low light. Its Auto-ISO max is set to 12800 whereas the 7D's is set to 3200. In particular, the 5D3 seems to have more DR. Furthermore, regardless of what Canon says, I don't believe that the 7D2 image quality will match or exceed the 5D3's (or 6D's) image quality. 

The 7D uses smaller pixels than the 5D3. Thus, using a given lens focal length at a given distance from the subject, the 7D uses more pixels to make the image, unless the subject is so large that it "overfills" the 7D's field of view. A FF camera with the same pixel density as the 7D would have about 47MP. To maintain the same data frame rate as the 7D through the image processing circuitry would require dropping the FPS from 8 to about 3.2. Raising the frame rate back to 8 would requiring using better, faster and, therefore, more expensive circuitry.

Also, the smaller sensor of the 7D should have cost implications regardless of the number of pixels. The mirror and related components can be smaller and lighter and, in principle, cheaper and easier to produce.

So, what do I use and where? My default camera is the 5D3. The 7D is used almost entirely to photograph racing cars and motorcycles with a 100-400, 70-200 or 300 f/2.8 with or without TCs. When doing that, the 5D3 is usually also at hand, with a shorter lens attached. This is a role which the 5D3 can play but its predecessor, a 5D, couldn't. I suspect a 6D can't either. Anyway, unlike some, I find the extra "reach" to be real and advantageous. I suppose I could buy a 600 f/4 or Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 and a 1Dx , but then I'd have to carry them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> Anyway, unlike some, I find the extra "reach" to be real and advantageous.



Got any comparison images to back that up Bob?


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 16, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Lee, I think another area you are going wrong with this comparison is that the 5D requires a fair amount of careful sharpening, whereas ( if I remember rightly back to 2004), the 20D did not.



Other way around, actually.



> Bear in mind that back in the day those two cameras were aimed at different typical users. If you tried to optimise the 5D first I don't think there would be such a difference, and as the other guys have said, they are referring to current, or current-but-one generations cameras.



Each had their own optimized sharpening already applied.



> What your test shows is that the later generation is better. No surprise there.



The 20D and the 5D were the same generation, and the T2i was really not much better per unit of sensor area, except for the higher pixel count.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



The images are all shown with the same sensor area. The only meaningful difference is how that area is divided into pixels. As expected, the one with the smaller divisions wins in each case, and the 20D and 5D were of the same generation and same sensor performance per unit of area.

I'll say it again - smaller pixels are the same thing as a longer focal length, as any astrophotographer knows. That's why the astro folks generally talk about "image scale" which is measured in arc-seconds per pixel, rather than sensor size, pixel count and focal length. They know what actually matters - aperture diameter for light gathering and image scale for resolving power, subject to the limits set by diffraction and the atmosphere.

Saying smaller pixels don't help with "reach" (resolving power) is the same as saying a longer focal length doesn't help with reach, and it's just as wrong.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, unlike some, I find the extra "reach" to be real and advantageous.
> ...



Interesting debate. I go back and forth on this. 

Since buying a 5DIII about a year ago, I admit my 7D has pretty much been sitting, gathering dust (although I keep it as a back up). But, in the past year, I've had very little time to shoot distance-limited subjects as demand for portraits seems to take up most of my spare time these days.

But, I can't quite understand how a crop sensor would *never* provide an advantage in distance-limited situations. I'm certainly willing to agree that if you crop the full frame down to the same framing as a uncropped APS-C image, you won't lose much, if anything. But, intellectually, I can't get my head around the idea that if I need to crop the image much more significantly, having the extra pixels of a crop would not be an advantage.

Being math-challenged doesn't help, but it certainly seems from a logical point-of-view that eventually, as you slice and dice away pixels, you'll reach a point where the full frame image loses too much resolution and you'll be better off with the crop sensor's greater pixel density.

It might require some pretty radical cropping, but then again, I've been in situations that require radical cropping (A California Condor perched on the top of an outcrop at the Grand Canyon – absent the ability to fly, you can't get any closer than the edge of the Canyon.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Saying smaller pixels don't help with "reach" (resolving power) is the same as saying a longer focal length doesn't help with reach, and it's just as wrong.



No it isn't. 

You are obfuscating the very limited criteria I laid down by attempting to introduce spurious comparisons and strawman arguments.

Stick to the point, show me 5D MkIII vs 70D (or 6D and 7D MkII) focal length limited crops that demonstrate the crop cameras resolution advantage, if they demonstrate a clear winner I will show you where either your testing technique or post processing is failing you.


----------



## jepabst (Oct 16, 2014)

this whole topic should be about which camera is better for shooting _________? 

Decide what you are shooting, then you can decide what equipment is best for the job. There is no perfect tool.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



There are several points to make, first is I am a little maths challenged too and agree, it doesn't make sense, but my empirical results illustrate my point.

Secondly, I never said it will never make a difference, but in my empirical testing (on older generation bodies but same theory) I found it didn't make enough of a difference to be noticeable in big prints even in optimal conditions set up to favour the crop camera. I would love Bob or Lee Jay to actually come along with some decent examples illustrating their beliefs, I have done so for mine. I am not saying 'I am right you are all wrong', I am saying 'I found this to be true, has anybody doing the same comparison found the same?' and several, like Neuro, have. I have never seen anybody post direct comparison images that illustrate a very different result, certainly after optimal processing at any kind of actual reproduction size there never seems to be a difference.

Third, as I have always said, the feature set of a crop camera might well make it a better camera anyway, things like AF, fps, cost etc can't be ignored.

Fourth, my crops are actually set up to favour the crop camera in iso and aperture etc, but also I upsized the ff file to match the crop file pixel for pixel to 'level the playing field' for comparison purposes, this should favour the crop camera even more.

But in the end I base my buying decisions on empirical results, I can't see $1,800 worth of difference in those >100% crops to warrant the expense, and I was happy to pay $3,750 for a 300 f2.8 over a $1,455 300 f4.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

jepabst said:


> this whole topic should be about which camera is better for shooting _________?
> Decide what you are shooting, then you can decide what equipment is best for the job. There is no perfect tool.



That is what we are doing, I am just trying to make people actually look.

As for your image, so what? Explain my crops.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> > What your test shows is that the later generation is better. No surprise there.
> 
> 
> The 20D and the 5D were the same generation, and the T2i was really not much better per unit of sensor area, except for the higher pixel count.



I'm sure the better light-gathering capability of the T2i's pixels is irrelevant...at least insofar as ignoring it helps support your conclusion.


----------



## jepabst (Oct 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jepabst said:
> 
> 
> > this whole topic should be about which camera is better for shooting _________?
> ...


Nobody is saying your crops don't look good. I'm sure your cropped images look wonderful. Nobody is challenging that. You are being so matter of fact and it does feel argumentative. 8mp images can look great of course, but we don't need to point out that 18mp has certain advantages over 8mp given certain circumstances. If we are just generating web content then the 8mp is more than enough... I happen to think that what you see, the images you love, are far more important than the math. So I applaud you for standing ground on empirical - what you see - evidence. That's what matters. The graphic I made was just to show what you are giving up. Again, there is no -one size fits all tool.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

jepabst said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jepabst said:
> ...



You missed a big point in the crops jepast. The FF crop is upsized to 18MP, there is no 18mp - 8mp advantage, I am, effectively, 'giving up' nothing.


----------



## jepabst (Oct 16, 2014)

"_You missed a big point in the crops jepast. The FF crop is upsized to 18MP, there is no 18mp - 8mp advantage, I am, effectively, 'giving up' nothing._"


If you think you are giving up nothing go take both cameras, put on an identical lens and take a picture of an object that is far away, proceed to crop the shot from the 5DMIII to match the shot from the 7D, and then print them both at 30"x40"... 

You need your empirical evidence, go do that.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

jepabst said:


> "_You missed a big point in the crops jepast. The FF crop is upsized to 18MP, there is no 18mp - 8mp advantage, I am, effectively, 'giving up' nothing._"
> 
> 
> If you think you are giving up nothing go take both cameras, put on an identical lens and take a picture of an object that is far away, proceed to crop the shot from the 5DMIII to match the shot from the 7D, and then print them both at 30"x40"...
> ...



I did, and I am showing you a crop of over 100% magnification of that print file.

I used the same 300mm f2.8 IS on both cameras (actually I left the lens on the tripod and just changed bodies where it was), manual focus via live view, f5.6, iso200 (which favours the crop camera), wireless flash for maximum contrast, massive tripod, cable release etc etc.


----------



## jepabst (Oct 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jepabst said:
> 
> 
> > "_You missed a big point in the crops jepast. The FF crop is upsized to 18MP, there is no 18mp - 8mp advantage, I am, effectively, 'giving up' nothing._"
> ...


I don't know if you forgot to attach an image.. but I am with you, at the end of the day, in order to compare, we'll just be pixel peeping, the very thing I think we both agree is pointless and obnoxious. The images are what's important. I already know that the images will look almost identical despite the difference of resolution, until we get to 100% crops and pixel peeping, and nobody wants that.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Saying smaller pixels don't help with "reach" (resolving power) is the same as saying a longer focal length doesn't help with reach, and it's just as wrong.
> ...



Yes, it is.



> You are obfuscating the very limited criteria I laid down by attempting to introduce spurious comparisons and strawman arguments.



Your very limited criteria are irrational, and not within my control, as I don't own any of the cameras you irrationally demand, as though one makes any difference compared to the other.

A decrease in pixel size is the same as an increase in focal length. Here's proof you continue to ignore.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Naive and simplistic. What does crop 'win'?



I've made 16x20" prints of surfers where I ended up with 8-9 MP after cropping further into 7D files. FF couldn't have done that.

Agreed if you don't have to crop any further then the initial crop to match 1.6x and/or you don't print large it really doesn't matter.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 17, 2014)

This same debate seems to come up over and over again and people still cannot decide! You can pixel peep all day and discuss various wizz bang factors till we are all dead and buried (or bored to death!). 
Instead of quoting figures or other barely relevant specifications, why not simply try one out? That way you will see which size sensor best fills YOUR needs not what every bod else wants to recommend.
For reference the bulk of my photography is smaller bird species where (almost) everybody states confidently that FF is at a disadvantage. I agree there is a loss of "reach" but frankly it is a LOT less than you may think and most certainly nowhere near the 1.6 that the crop factor would suggest. Against that everything else is better with a FF camera for my birding uses. A while back I tried a 7D on my Canon 800mm F5.6, while the light was very good it produced nice results, when the light was good things were still OK, when the light was less than perfect it failed to produce useable files. Quite a while later my FF camera was happily giving me good images and I had yet to turn the IS on as the shutter speed was still OK, the ISO was up around 8000 but so what - images were still clean and needed no NR.
As you may have noticed I am a big fan of larger sensors, however these (FF) cameras are much more expensive and frequently a piece heavier. Crop cameras are perfectly capable of producing great images and they do it at lower cost - this makes them "better" for the majority of photographers. However I cannot see how an experienced photographer would suggest that a smaller sensor is going to produce a better image than a larger one, this has certainly not been my experience.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 17, 2014)

I have the simple answer to this one. Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that. Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@ *&%$#. That is the difference. How many here feel differently? If so, I will send you my 7D for a 1DX and even pay for shipping.

I still own a 7D. It took some of my favorite pictures. It is a great camera that can and has taken wonderful photos. Anyone shooting with it should be proud. But it has sat on my shelf losing value since I bought my 5DIII two years ago. I've done all sorts of tests. I just like the images from the 5DIII better. My wife can tell the difference, and our families have noticed the differences. It is more pronounced at high ISO, but it is also there at low ISO. Does that mean I could never be confused and that a crop camera could at some point produce a photo where I couldn't tell the difference. Of course, it is a great camera. But I'll take the 5DIII. thank you.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 17, 2014)

docsmith said:


> I have the simple answer to this one. Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that. Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@ *&%$#. That is the difference. How many here feel differently?



I do. I use both formats, choosing the one best for the situation. For speed and focal-length-limited situations, I use crop. For low light and best image quality when I am not focal length limited, I use full-frame.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > I have the simple answer to this one. Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that. Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@ *&%$#. That is the difference. How many here feel differently?
> ...



My post was supposed to be a bit lighthearted, but that actually is not an answer to the question. If you where forced to pick one format, FF or crop with the current bodies available, which format would you pick? For me it would be the 5DIII and FF and no contest.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 17, 2014)

docsmith said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > docsmith said:
> ...



I have to have two bodies, and neither could be a 1-series since I hate them.

In such an artificial situation, I'd probably choose two 7D Mark II's over two 5D Mark III's, but I'd far prefer to have one of each over either of the other two options.


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 17, 2014)

Perhaps I should read all of the prior six pages (and even some 7Dii reviews), but I suspect we're only having this discussion because Canon crop sensors are lagging a bit. Consequently, if you know where to look, you can see the differences between sensors. With other brands, the differences in image quality are smaller and the choice between crop and FF is more about lens selection, camera features, speed and megapixels, high ISO performance, depth of field, and cost.

Its a key consideration in relation to lens selection. But otherwise, I tend to feel that nobody can reliably tell if an image was taken with a crop sensor or FF sensor. And apart from the photographer, I doubt if anyone else really cares. Its just another feature to consider when selecting a camera - important to some, not so much to others.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 17, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > I have the simple answer to this one. Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that. Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@ *&%$#. That is the difference. How many here feel differently?
> ...


The answer is simple.... you have your eyes open  Try closing your eyes and your mind and then you will be ready for these endless debates....


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> Perhaps I should read all of the prior six pages (and even some 7Dii reviews), but I suspect we're only having this discussion because Canon crop sensors are lagging a bit.



:

No, they're not. Not in actual resolved detail as opposed to MP count. And not in high ISO, at least not for crop. Indeed it looks like the 7D2 has the best high ISO to date. (Still waiting on Samsung samples to appear.)

It also looks like the 7D2 may have dealt with banding issues. (Can't know for sure until it ships and/or RAWs are made available which allow one to explicitly test this.) Though it also looks like Sony still holds the crown for recovered shadow detail at base ISO.


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 17, 2014)

I've been hearing some positive murmurings about the 7Dii sensor, which is why I prefaced my comments accordingly. But,until DxO officially ranks the sensor any comments about about the 7Dii are just wild, unsubstantiated speculation and lack credibility.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 17, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > I have the simple answer to this one. Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that. Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@ *&%$#. That is the difference. How many here feel differently?
> ...



Well, in addition to comparing two heavily cropped images, the 5DIII shot at 1/800 f/7.1, ISO 800 (+1) and the 7D at 1/640, f/5.6, ISO 400 (+0.7). The images you are comparing should be the situation where the 7D beats the 5DIII because you used the same lens, are "reach limited," and you gave the 7D an extra stop of ISO (1.3 with the push). And yet, you are "not seeing that much difference." The different DoF could have also be a factor.

This is almost exactly what I found, even at the same ISO setting. In real world cases where the 7D should be beating the 5DIII, they were very comparable. I did actually create a few conditions where I thought the 7D was slightly better. But, when I took all the different types of conditions that I shoot, the 5DIII really pulled away for me. The obvious example is high ISO conditions. Compare shots from ISO 800 on up and tell me which you prefer? Even in your example, I like the colors from the 5DIII image a bit better. Granted that can be adjusted in post. Speaking of post, have you seen how much better the 5DIII files respond to PP compared to the 7D files? It isn't even so much that you can push the files further (although you can), it is that I like the response of the file better. 

Honestly, I do not want to prefer the 5DIII. It is more expensive and, except for photography, I tend to prefer "value" items. So, I'd prefer to still be using the 7D. But, I shot ~35,000 shots through the 7D. It is a great camera. But I do prefer the 5DIII.

If I were to line up the reasons it would go something like this (comparing the 5DIII to 7D):

Comparing similar images in the shooting conditions I typically shoot, preferred the 5DIII or found them to be even in the vast majority
5DIII files can both be pushed further in post and respond better to adjustments made
While both can use Canon's lens lineup, the majority of L lenses are better suited to a FF sensor (possible exception of the super telephotos)
AF is better, especially in low light
I prefer the bokeh from the 5DIII under similar conditions
I prefer the colors of the 5DIII
I prefer the noise of the 5DIII, it is a finer grain that is easier to treat in post
and, of course, I have found the 5DIII has better high ISO performance

Of course, some of that is because the 5DIII was released 3 years after the 7D and had newer technology, etc. I have been watching the 7DII closely and while I am still waiting for reviews of RAW files form production copies of the camera, it seems that it has narrowed the gap in several of the above areas. Considering I am now invested in FF, all that likely means to me is that I am looking forward to similar improvements in the 5DIV.

But, as you have both cameras, if you could only have one, which would you take? For me, it is FF and the 5DIII. Lee Jay picked two 7DIIs. 

None of this is meant as a put down of cropped sensor cameras. They are incredibly capable. I continue to see great pictures taken with them and, depending on what you shoot, may be all anyone needs. But, I find the FF sensor to be incrementally better. I am sure MF is incrementally better above that, and crop is incrementally better than 1" sensors and so on. It really gets down to which incremental (or ne.gli.gi.ble) improvement do you want before your needs/wants are satisfied. While I posted to this thread a couple of times, this is not a topic I get worked up about.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 17, 2014)

There are several ways to look at the "reach" benefit. The way I look at it is the number of pixel defining any particular subject. I've always heard that the human eye can differentiate 75-150 pixels per inch at normal viewing distances and that magazines require/prefer a minimum of 300 ppi. So, say you want a minimum of 75 ppi to define every inch of your frame, with the FF sensor and that 500 mm lens of yours, you have a range of 85 ft with the 5DIII but 130 ft with the 7D. 

This fits my general experience. In this example, less than 85 ft, FF would be better, in this middle range (85-130 ft) the 7D would be better and then greater than 130 ft, neither is providing the desired resolving power but are likely "comparable." Of course, those are absolute numbers and in the real world it is more minor shades of gray. But in my tests (which were not robust, more of me shooting trees at different distances with the same lens and different bodies), I was able to convince myself that there was a "middle range" where crop was better than FF (EDIT--I should stress, this was at a pixel peeping level and is likely the definition of neg.li.gi.ble). Granted, that was mostly regarding having adequate resolving power. The DR/Noise/Color sensitivity/etc do not stop being beneficial, but you do need adequate resolution.

As for the files. You have both cameras. Take a few pictures and play with them. Try adjusting highlights/shadows/color saturation/sharpness/etc. I still use a crop sensor body (EOS-M) and can tell the difference in PP. For example, in a similar shot, I tend to limit myself to lifting shadows +25 on crop, but +50-60 on the 5DIII. Above that, in some shots, is where I start to not like the effect.

If you are always shooting wildlife far enough away that you are reach limited on crop, I don't blame you for preferring crop. That is only <20 percent of what I shoot. I am usually not reach limited. Which is why I likely find the "L" glass better suited to FF. 24-x on crop isn't very wide. A 16-35 lens is a 26-56 FF equivalent. Which isn't much of a zoom range. The EFS 10-22 (which I had), 17-55 and 15-85 (what I used on my 7D) are optically great, but not up to the standards of the 24-70 II and do not have the build quality of the "L" lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, you are "not seeing that much difference."
> ...



The general response is that in focal length-limited scenarios, the crop sensor is *better*. It can be, if you're FL-limited _and_ at low ISO _and_ printing larger than 16x24"/A2. Unless all of those are part of the scenario, when FL-limited there's no real advantage to the smaller sensor. 

Many people state the 'reach advantage' as the reason they choose crop bodies, but I doubt that most of them actually obtain any actual advantage based on 'reach'. There are other benefits to crop bodies, and as I've stated previously, the main one is lower cost.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jackson_Bill said:
> 
> 
> > docsmith said:
> ...



Or cropping heavily. Some of my final shots were shot on crop bodies with 400mm lenses and are cropped to 1:1 in the final. I often find that I don't have enough pixels left after cropping my 20D. That's why the full-frame options don't interest me for this - none of them would give me more pixels left on the target than my 20D does, and some like the 1Dx would give me fewer pixels. The 7D II will give me 2.5 times more pixels left than my 20D does for the same cropping.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 17, 2014)

Yes, as stated, endless debating. A point worth reasserting is this. Crop vs. FF is not unlike teleconverter vs. bare. It is a significant advantage when reach limited to have the smaller region of spot focus to avoid AF locking onto undesirable objects. This is a major reason why I almost always head out with 300 2.8 II X 2 III when I'm anticipating shooting smaller birds even though I'm aware of the slight decrease in IQ. The X1.4 could have been left in the store in my case. Of course I don't love the loss in F stop but with the 6D that hasn't been much of an issue. 

My issue is, I'm ready for a second body and was contemplating 7D2 but now I'm hedging against a FF update. I also don't like the extra size but more so the weight the 1DX would bring for hiking, having bought a 1D2 cheap just to see if I'd adjust in that department.  

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...



agreed!

Using the same lens, an individual FF pixel is of better quality than an individual crop pixel, but in focal length limited scenarios there are more crop pixels on target. The quality difference between the two sizes also depends heavily on the lens used. On a very sharp lens, the difference is lower, but on a poor lens the difference per pixel can be striking... 

My tests earlier between a 60D and a 5D2 showed that with a poor lens (Sigma 120-400) that there was no reach advantage for crop, yet when used with a 70-200 or a 100L there was definitely an improvement in reach.

Which one is better depends on your needs and your glass.... there is no universal answer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Or cropping heavily. Some of my final shots were shot on crop bodies with 400mm lenses and are cropped to 1:1 in the final.



If I need to crop that severely, I don't consider the shot a keeper.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



My crops are upressed to the same size and shot with one of the sharpest lenses Canon make at an optimal aperture. Over 50% of the pixels in the FF crop are 'made up', yet they still give very little away to the crop cameras native pixels.

Hey, at least we are talking about the sales pitch now rather than just buying into it............


----------



## Eldar (Oct 17, 2014)

it´s been fun to follow the discussion. As I stated in the opening, I thought I had the pros and cons pretty clear, but realized that there was a bit more to it.

After about page 3 I thought I´d try to sum up the opinions so far, but I don´t think I´m the right guy for that. But it would be interesting if someone could try to make the comprehensive and objective list of pros and cons FF and crop.

Personally I have ordered the 7DII to be an addition to my 1DX for long reach, where I crop a bit too much today and where I also believe the AF will benefit from the 1.6x factor. I also see that it will be a very potent coupling with the 200-400mm f4L IS 1.4x lens. I do not use this lens for birding today, but I expect to do so with the 7DII. I´m also motivated by the AF and fps performance in such a small and light body, for long hikes, where size and weight are important issues.

But again, If someone could take on the challenge of making the ultimate objective guide to crop vs. FF ... Thank you in advance


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Or cropping heavily. Some of my final shots were shot on crop bodies with 400mm lenses and are cropped to 1:1 in the final.
> ...



Well, if I'm in a situation that cannot be repeated, which is nearly everything I shoot, I get what I can get.

A B2 happened to fly by near my house. I grabbed my camera and shot what I could. This is a 100% crop from the 20D image shot at 400mm.







We were in Orlando on vacation and got a chance to go to KSC to visit and possibly to see an Atlas V launch. We were lucky and MAVEN (the probe that just went into orbit around Mars) launched right on time. I shot it with the longest lens I had (400mm) on the only camera I had (5D). We were as close as we could get (Visitor's Center) and this is the resultant 100% crop.


----------



## Pit123 (Oct 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, unlike some, I find the extra "reach" to be real and advantageous.
> ...


I have both the 7D and 1D4, and they are same generation sensors.
I have done several tests between these body's, and in my opinion the reach advantage for 7D is quite clear. 
Especially using sharp lenses.
Here is 100% Crop from 7D vs upscaled Crop from 1D4, both iso 800:


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



So you would have no problems picking out which of these two frames in the gif of your two images came from which camera?

All I did was apply a curves layer to even up the lighting a bit, no sharpening or other forms of optimisation.

I think your evidence actually supports the other side of the argument, if you didn'y know the colour and contrast of each frame, ie they were shot better, I doubt anybody could tell the difference, and these are at 100% and >100%, at normal reproduction sizes I doubt if ever.


----------



## Pit123 (Oct 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Your copies look very soft to me, compared to mine. Do the curve layer makes the images soft?
Comparing soft images makes no sense to me...


----------



## Pit123 (Oct 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


And here is another comparison: 1600 iso. Now 7D image is downscaled to 1D4 size. And guess what: Less noise and more details on 7D image, except in black areas where hot pixels are bad.


----------



## Pit123 (Oct 17, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Pit123 said:
> ...



Another interesting comaprison:
1d4+500mm+2x vs 7d+500mm+1.4x (100%crops). Both wide open With same shutter. Which one would you choose? And you still say there is no crop advantage?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Your copies look very soft to me, compared to mine. Do the curve layer makes the images soft?
> Comparing soft images makes no sense to me...



That is because I resized the gif, here it is unresized, I guarantee nobody would get it right now without guessing even at 100% and above.

P.S. The 'sharper' one is the 1D MkIV with a fraction of sharpening.......


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2014)

I'm not seeing any real difference in any of the pairs. Doesn't that kind of support the other side ???

Again I'll say if you're cropping in so much that you're left with like 3 MP from the FF file...and you have to make a larger print...crop wins. You simply run out of pixels otherwise. But that's rare.

The flip side is that the same thing happens when you honestly compare FF vs. crop, same FoV and print size and all of their pixels, at low to mid ISO. A landscape photo with an 11mm on crop and a 17mm on FF. OOC you can see a difference, but after post processing...good luck telling them apart, even at 36". In fairness, in difficult situations FF files can take harder processing, but you can push a crop 14-bit RAW pretty hard as well.

Even high ISO at smaller print sizes is becoming more difficult to discern, though ISOs like 6400 and 12800 still clearly show off FF's light gathering advantage. But if Scott Kelby's samples are any indication...a crop 7D mark II will be usable at 16,000 for an 8x10. FF would look better even at 8x10 at that ISO, but how much better? It's ridiculous how good we have it.

We are far too concerned with minutia at a time when equipment is...by a wide margin...the best it has ever been.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> I'm not seeing any real difference in any of the pairs.



The 1000mm versus 700mm pair is the best one - the 700mm lens on the 7D won because it has 60% more linear pixel density and the 1D only had a 41% focal length advantage. Do that same test with the same focal lengths and the gap would be even bigger.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 18, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> I'm not seeing any real difference in any of the pairs. Doesn't that kind of support the other side ???
> 
> Again I'll say if you're cropping in so much that you're left with like 3 MP from the FF file...and you have to make a larger print...crop wins. You simply run out of pixels otherwise. But that's rare.
> 
> ...



But that isn't what my original crops, or the gif show. They are 100% and >100% crops and there is nothing in it.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 18, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> In fairness, it's a wash after post processing. But the differences are simply not that large to begin with.



If you need to post process the crop image to match the FF, then it's not a "wash". It's the crop getting its ass handed to it.


----------



## tayassu (Oct 18, 2014)

Eldar said:


> it´s been fun to follow the discussion. As I stated in the opening, I thought I had the pros and cons pretty clear, but realized that there was a bit more to it.
> 
> After about page 3 I thought I´d try to sum up the opinions so far, but I don´t think I´m the right guy for that. But it would be interesting if someone could try to make the comprehensive and objective list of pros and cons FF and crop.
> 
> ...



Ok, Eldar, as I had nothing to do, I looked through the pages and summed up the following:

-FF has generally got better IQ. As well in good light as in low-light situations, it provides less noise, better sharpness, better colors/tonal range and more DR.

-that being said, FF provides more possibilities for PP, as you can pull up the shadows higher or sharpen the image more before the noise comes in.

-FF has also got the possibility to go to a narrower DoF, which leads to the FF 'look'. This certainly can give your images some sort of pop.

-FF has better wide-angle and standard lens options, as there are no professional UWA's for crop and only one non-pro lens starting at equivalent 24mm (the 15-85), whereas for FF you have got plenty of 24mm zoom and UWA options. For APS-C, though, there are technically more lenses due the EF-S mount.

-Crop cameras use the better part of the lens, the middle. As EF lenses are calculated for FF, APS-C litterally merges out the flaws in the non-center regions (sharpness falloff, vignetting and partly CA) by using only the middle. Keep in mind, that with the same lens, FF produces sharper results, though, as I mentioned above.

-FF cameras normally have a larger and better VF (exceptions: 6D and 7DII)

-APS-C bodies and lenses don't cost as much as FF bodies and lenses, as well at buying them as at having them repaired.

-APS-C bodies and lenses are normally smaller and lighter than their FF 'equivalents' (again, exceptions: 6D and 7D (II) ).

-APS-C bodies provide more reach by a theoretical factor of 1.6. (This is not the case in real-life, it is more like 1.3 if I read that correctly, but I don't know about that.) This is a good thing for distance-limited situations (think birds) or budget-limited situations ('easy' access to 500mm and above). 

-as AlanF pointed out in a thread, it depends on distance which sensor format resolves finer detail; on long distances, APS-C is better, on short FF. This may only be true under certain circumstances, I don't know, I just collect opinions 

That is so far what I could find. I hope it helped! 
But keep in mind: both formats are capable of producing absolutely stunning and professional results, and the more important factors are composition, light, moment and know-how. As the not always right Zack Arias said (and in his case he was right): It's the moron behind the camera! 

A happy and fulfilling weekend to you all!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 19, 2014)

Just go shoot low-light sports with a 1Dx and a 7D. You'll quickly, very quickly, be able to differentiate crop vs. FF.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 19, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > In fairness, it's a wash after post processing. But the differences are simply not that large to begin with.
> ...



Because 50% or less USM is such a HUGE difference OMG! :


----------



## The Bad Duck (Oct 19, 2014)

I think this has been said already, but from my perspective I use FF to get a better use of my lenses. The shallow DoF and less noise on higher ISOs makes me able to use my f4 zooms and not upgrade to f2.8. 

Then when I want super shallow DoF I use primes, and same story here, I don't need the 50/1.2 L or the 85/1.2 L but I can make due with the /1.4 versions. That saves a lot of money and make my kit lighter so crop does not have to be cheaper and lighter, I'd say.

The larger viewfinder is also key. Large and bright, perfect. And important when shooting long hours.

When I bought my 5D the lenses available to crop did not fit my style, there were no good 15-85, the 70-200 was awkvard - too long on the wide side. 

Sometimes though I get too short DoF for some agricultural landscapes, crop could have helped there. I don't often carry the tripod when I do agriculture so I have a hard time with really long DoF. Also, when shooting with speedlites and modifyers and wanting a lot of the model/models in focus, crop could be usable since there is a limit to how much light the speedlites can give, and that is as you know controlled by aperture. Of course I can bump the ISO but anyway. To me, those are the two main downsides to FF. 

I don't see any way for me to go back to apsc. It does not fit me.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 19, 2014)

Eldar said:


> But again, If someone could take on the challenge of making the ultimate objective guide to crop vs. FF ... Thank you in advance



Even though I think Tayassu did a good job at summarizing the arguments, I'll take a stab at it too. The differences are, truly negligible. But negligible is a relevant statement. And it will be relevant to the photographer and circumstances.

Generally speaking, FF should be better in most ways where sensor/pixel size matters. The numbers are in, at equivalent ISO, current generation FF sensors have better noise, more DR, more tonal range, more color sensitivity, etc, etc. The other numbers are also in on the fact that at the same focal length, current generation crop sensor cameras can use more pixels to define a subject because of a narrower FOV (ie pixels on target). 

But, in most circumstances, a photographer cares about framing/perspective and would not shoot both a FF and cropped sensor camera at the same focal length. Which is why, in most circumstances, the benefit of a FF are more relevant.

But, ultimately, any difference is nibbling at the edges. In the center of the photography world (good light, reasonable distance to subject, etc), both can take great pictures. But, as you move from the center of the photography world to the edges, the differences may become relevant. To what extent depends upon the circumstances and photographer.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 21, 2014)

Look, it comes down to reach with the same lens vs. ability to work in a tighter space with a same lens.

After the retouching, you'll *know no difference* if we're taking IQ. It's like when people ask me if it's shot on a medium format, I say no, it's just retouched, and then they say I'm lying because it's got that "depth".

You have to develop your digital positives if you want the best results, just capturing images is the same like shooting analog with any film, and developing it at a kiosk, not the same as shooting specific film for the task, and sending it to an expert printer.


----------



## eninja (Oct 21, 2014)

kphoto99 said:


> One advantage of crop is that after buying the camera body you will have more money left over to but an excellent lens. The higher quality lens will have more effect on the quality of the image then the camera



True.. But after getting the quality lens, you try quality lens on a FF. IQ just rise, like a one-up, or Mario eating mushroom.

You can buy full frame, and a cheap prime lens...
Thats what I did, when I got the 6D and 28mm 1.8.

But (again). IQ put aside. You lose number of AF point if you get a full frame (referring to 6D vs crop). Which you may need to consider.


----------



## eninja (Oct 21, 2014)

I want to add one more important thing. Thanks to PBD, I now got an answer to my own question.

Having 6D and 70D. I just couldn't understand why the images in 70D is no good in any situation, IQ wise.. 

IT IS BECAUSE, my framing style did not change!!! Using 6D or 70D, my framing style is the same..

Thus FF always gives best quality since bigger pixel.

Thanks thanks for this enlightenment.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 21, 2014)

I've got both of these in the Montana wilderness right now (landscape, grizzlies, moose, eagles). The 6D crushes the 70D in IQ. I try to avoid using the 70D.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 21, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> Just go shoot low-light sports with a 1Dx and a 7D. You'll quickly, very quickly, be able to differentiate crop vs. FF.


Actually, before that you clearly see the difference in time to pay the camera. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Just go shoot low-light sports with a 1Dx and a 7D. You'll quickly, very quickly, be able to differentiate crop vs. FF.
> ...



EOS 7D Mark II preorder: $1799
EOS 6D after mail rebate: $1699

So, which is the FF camera?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


Dear friend Neuro:
Were not you the one who always said that there are more important things in a camera, besides the sensor? ??? 
With the exception of the sensor, 7D Mark ii seems a 1DX competitor rather than 6D. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



Of course. But obviously price is no longer an absolute differentiator between crop and FF.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I understand. But if I compare the Canon 6D with other APS-C cameras, the most similar model (not counting the sensor) seems to me that is the T5i.  8)


----------



## anthonyd (Oct 22, 2014)

There is another plus of the crop sensors, which unfortunately is lost in Canon because Canon does not make good lenses for their crop cameras. Crop sensors don't require all that glass.

Let's take a step beyond 1.6 and go all the way to the 2x that is 4/3. Have you seen the "ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm F2.8"? In FF equivalent it is a 600 f/2.8 but it is only 28.5cm/11.22'' long, weighs 3.29kg/7.25lb and costs $6,499.00.

The closest you can get to that with a Canon is the 600 f/4.0 that is 44.7cm/17.6" long, weighs 3.92kg/8.64lb and costs $11,999.00. If Canon made a 600/2.8 it would be mounted on a tank and cost more than the tank. And don't start with the "equivalent aperture", that's only for bokeh, the Zuiko is as fast as a 2.8.

Now, I know that a lot of FF fanatics will be tearing their clothes at the hearing of 4/3, but if you have to hike for a few miles to get to that great birding spot and you are lacking a tank (or $5500 extra), the reduced amount of glass that comes with crop sensors will suddenly sound appealing.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 22, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> Have you seen the "ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm F2.8"? In FF equivalent it is a 600 f/2.8 ...



600/5.6. You don't get something for nothing.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 22, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> Crop sensors don't require all that glass.


In principle you are right if you leave the DOF point away, but I have to correct you in some terms.



anthonyd said:


> Have you seen the "ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm F2.8"? In FF equivalent it is a 600 f/2.8


That's wrong as you do not take the size of the sensor into account. 
If you want to gather similar amount of light and want to achive the same DOF on FF 
a 600mm f/5.6 would be the equivalent.

To make a better comparison:
Take the EF 70–200 mm 1:2,8L IS II USM
If you want to have the same DOF on FT you would not need a 35-100 1:2,8 
but the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35‑100mm 1:2.0
If you compare those two, the Canon is lighter, cheaper and even smaller.
Of course, you can take at MFT the new M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40‑150mm 1:2.8 PRO. 
This will be lighter, smaller and cheaper than the 70-200 but for the tradeoff of DOF and absolute light gathering on the same area (!) of the sensor.



anthonyd said:


> And don't start with the "equivalent aperture", that's only for bokeh, the Zuiko is as fast as a 2.8.
> ...
> Now, I know that a lot of FF fanatics ...


Of course f2.8 is physically always f2.8 but your comparison here is wrong.
And of course you can take wonderful pictures with MFT.
And I am not a FF fanatic. Indeed and I am very interested in Olympus MFT system (as you probably can imagine by my knowledge about the lenses).
But your argument is physically only correct when you agree in the tradeoff of losing shallow DOF and absolute light gathering.
This you can only compensate by using lenses with bigger apertures and therefore losing the size/weight/price advantage.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 22, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> There is another plus of the crop sensors, which unfortunately is lost in Canon because Canon does not make good lenses for their crop cameras. Crop sensors don't require all that glass.



Even as a very critical Canon client, I think you are mistaken. Canon has the best APS-C lens range in the market from 10mm to 250mm focal range with a sufficient number of *excellent and affordable* EF-S lenses. IQ-wise, some of these are optically right up there with the best L lenses and most of them are actually "dirt cheap" relative to their performance and competitive offerings ... Fuji X, Sony E including the "Zeiss"-labeled stuff and any and all Nikon DX lenses. 

Unless you belong to those, who prefer to buy a 56/1.2 lens for a grand for use on an APS-C sensor only, rather than putting that grand towards an FF-sensored camera and much cheaper f/1.4 or f/1.8 glass for even better IQ, DOF, bokeh and photographic capability. 8) 

And if those EF-S lenses are not good enough for you ... well guess what, all EF lenses, L and Non-L work absolutely flawlessly on any Canon EOS DSLR, including those with APS-C sensors. 

Specifically I would like to mention the following winners in the EF-S range:

excellent 8)
* EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS 
* EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5
* EF-S 60/2.8 Macro
* EF-S 24/2.8 STM pancake [probably, not used it myself yet] 

very good 8)
* EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS STM
* EF-S 55-250/4.5-5.6 IS STM 
* EF-S 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS
* EF-S 10-18/4.5-5.6 IS STM

best APS-C kit lens on the market at rock bottom price 8)
* EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM

The only thing lacking in the Canon APS-C department for some years now is a sensor as good as or better than competitive offerings. Unfortunately 7D II disappoints in terms of IQ improvements, otherwise I'd buy one.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 22, 2014)

*Re: How to argue crop vs. FF*



Lee Jay said:


> It's a stop and a third, of noise performance and DOF control (assuming you can keep constant framing through either a change in focal length at the same f-stop or a change in subject distance). You pay for that just like you do with lenses.



exactly. 

It is a matter of how much photographic possibilities, capabilities and image quality you need or want and are willing and able to pay for. 

Also, while FF cameras and lenses are larger, heavier and more expensive than APS-C gear, the relation is certainly not proportional to sensor size. In real life, FF with more than 200% of Canon APS-C imaging area comes with a 0% [e.g. Sony A7/R, and all tele lenses>135 mm] to max. 50% size, weight, price "penalty". 
mFT and 1" sensored gear scales even less proportionately against FF in terms of capabilities, size, weight and cost.


----------



## rs (Oct 22, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > It's a stop and a third, of noise performance and DOF control (assuming you can keep constant framing through either a change in focal length at the same f-stop or a change in subject distance). You pay for that just like you do with lenses.
> ...


Have you seen the size/weight of the Pentax Q?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> anthonyd said:
> 
> 
> > Have you seen the "ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm F2.8"? In FF equivalent it is a 600 f/2.8 ...
> ...



It's always both amusing and rather sad that people don't understand the word "equivalent".


----------



## iron-t (Oct 22, 2014)

I started on "serious" digital cameras with MFT with its 2x crop factor. Performance in low light and DOF were worlds ahead of the compact cameras I had used before. There was absolutely no comparison in terms of image quality, visible even in small prints.

Then I moved to APS-C (Canon natch). It was not as big of a jump in IQ, but it was noticeable to me and others. This was when all the local Walgreens photo print counters started to make me fill out affidavits saying these were my photos--that I was not stealing them from a pro. (I know Walgreens prints are not the best but they are cheap and convenient--these are mostly non-critical prints for distribution to family.)

Then I moved to full frame. Again, not as big of an IQ jump. But you'll like your images better--especially where shallow DOF is desirable, as this is a readily noticeable difference between crop and FF--and you'll be better prepared in difficult conditions such as low light, contra light, etc.

To me the right balance of size/weight/IQ/convenience is: (1) 5D3 whenever and wherever it will be welcome; and (2) EOS-M where discretion or a casual vibe is more important than max IQ.


----------



## rs (Oct 22, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> the Zuiko is as fast as a 2.8.


You are correct, it is f2.8. And by that exact same premise, the Zuiko is 300mm long too.

What I'd like to know is, if small sensors lead to smaller, lighter systems, how come this lens designed for only a quarter of the frame size manages to weigh in at close on 50% more than the Canon 300/2.8? Even with a 2x TC and bigger body, there's a massive weight saving for the large sensor system, not to mention better handling.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 22, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> anthonyd said:
> 
> 
> > Crop sensors don't require all that glass.
> ...



No, MFT is a two times crop, you don't lose one stop of aperture you lose two stops (inverse square law, the sensor area is 1/4 the size).

If you want the same DOF you need a 35-100 f1.4 on a MFT compared to a FF 70-200 f2.8.

Nothing touches the 135 format for selective DOF control if that is important to you, further, iso takes a two stop crop factor hit when talking equivalence too.



100mm, f/1.4, 1/200, ISO 100, on a mFT (4/3) camera,

Gets an equivalent shot on a FF camera as 

200mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> No, MFT is a two times crop, you don't lose one stop of aperture you lose two stops (inverse square law, the sensor area is 1/4 the size).
> 
> If you want the same DOF you need a 35-100 f1.4 on a MFT compared to a FF 70-200 f2.8.


You're right! :-[
Thanks for correcting me. (Damn! I did it right at the 600 mm and then screwed it up) 
Makes it even worse for the MFT system. :-X


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 22, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > No, MFT is a two times crop, you don't lose one stop of aperture you lose two stops (inverse square law, the sensor area is 1/4 the size).
> ...



True, and it makes that ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35‑100mm 1:2.0 at $2,299 a FF equivalent of the 70-200 f4 at a much more modest $1,299. Why do people keep saying crop camera lenses are much better value! Compare for exactly the same photo and they are often not.

Neuro and I have often used the example of the 24-105 f4 IS on FF vs the 17-55 f2.8 IS on APS-C, they are very close equivalents in IQ as well as focal length and apertures, and the FF lens can be had for a few hundred dollars less.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 22, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> To make a better comparison:
> Take the EF 70–200 mm 1:2,8L IS II USM
> If you want to have the same DOF on FT you would not need a 35-100 1:2,8
> but the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35‑100mm 1:2.0



You'd actually need a 35-100mm f/1.4. The 35-100mm F/2.0 is equivalent to the 70-200 f/4.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > anthonyd said:
> ...



It's very odd, especially when the same people don't make the same mistake with teleconverters, which do exactly the same thing as smaller sensors (crop and enlarge).


----------



## jarrodeu (Oct 22, 2014)

For canon, exposure for a 400mm 5.6 on a crop (640mm 5.6) is the SAME exposure as a 400mm 5.6 on a full frame. By using a crop sensor the aperture doesn't magically shrink. Just like taking the center section of a full frame image to give the same view as a crop sensor does not shrink the aperture.

Jarrod


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2014)

jarrodeu said:


> For canon, exposure for a 400mm 5.6 on a crop (640mm 5.6) is the SAME exposure as a 400mm 5.6 on a full frame. By using a crop sensor the aperture doesn't magically shrink. Just like taking the center section of a full frame image to give the same view as a crop sensor does not shrink the aperture.



Yes, we know. But that doesn't make the resulting images *equivalent*. If you think it does, you may be trapped within the circle of confusion...


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 22, 2014)

jarrodeu said:


> For canon, exposure for a 400mm 5.6 on a crop (640mm 5.6) is the SAME exposure as a 400mm 5.6 on a full frame. By using a crop sensor the aperture doesn't magically shrink. Just like taking the center section of a full frame image to give the same view as a crop sensor does not shrink the aperture.
> 
> Jarrod



That is because _ correct photographic exposure_ is dictated by the_ intensity_ of light, not volume. So you are of course right that the exposure for a given f stop lens will be ( more or less depending upon the efficiency of the lens) the same irrespective of sensor size or image circle, but when you begin talking about Achieving the same result on different formats you must deal with _equivalence_ in all areas if you want to be correct - not just the 400 to 640 bit


----------



## jarrodeu (Oct 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jarrodeu said:
> 
> 
> > For canon, exposure for a 400mm 5.6 on a crop (640mm 5.6) is the SAME exposure as a 400mm 5.6 on a full frame. By using a crop sensor the aperture doesn't magically shrink. Just like taking the center section of a full frame image to give the same view as a crop sensor does not shrink the aperture.
> ...


I must have misread. I was under the impression that some people were arguing that 2.8 lens let in the light of an f8 when on the micro 4/3 mount.
Jarrod


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2014)

jarrodeu said:


> I must have misread. I was under the impression that some people were arguing that 2.8 lens let in the light of an f8 when on the micro 4/3 mount.



Only two stops different (f/2.8 vs. f/5.6), not three (f/8). But it's worth noting (again, it was mentioned earlier) that even though exposure is the same since it's based on light per unit area, total image noise is proportional to total light gathered, so with the smaller 2x crop sensor, you're not only gaining two stops worth of DoF, you're gaining two stops worth of noise. Or, if you prefer, you can stop down the FF sensor to match DoF, and if you don't need to maintain the same shutter speed you have less noise, while if you do need to maintain shutter speed you boost ISO and you're no worse off with the FF sensor. So...the smaller sensor gives you the ability to choose shallower DoF and/or lower noise if you want, or produce an equivalent image if desired.


----------



## rs (Oct 22, 2014)

jarrodeu said:


> I must have misread. I was under the impression that some people were arguing that 2.8 lens let in the light of an f8 when on the micro 4/3 mount.
> Jarrod


As Neuro said, two stops (f5.6), not three.

To understand this, you need to understand the difference between _total amount_ of light, and the _intensity_ of light. Think of a shaft of sunlight - use a magnifying glass to concentrate that light into a smaller area - you get no more light, but the intensity is increased. Just shrouding more of the light to make a narrower shaft leaves the intensity the same, and reduces the total amount.

A greater intensity of light is what's needed to make a smaller area receive the same _amount_ of light. Simply cutting/cropping out some light, and then magnifying/enlarging what's left afterwards results in less light captured. That's otherwise known as a lower signal, which requires more amplification/enlargement, typically resulting in more noise.


----------



## anthonyd (Oct 22, 2014)

I stand corrected, I misused the term "equivalent", partly because I was not thinking, partly because I was trying to make a point about focal lengths more than apertures (I know, I know I was being loud about the aperture too, don't shoot).

Sure, if you are doing portraits, where DoF matters, you'll go with FF. The same holds with low light where you want to minimize noise. However, if I were going to visit Alaska or Yellowstone, I think I'd buy a MFT camera and the Zuiko 300/2.8 lens rather than the 600/5.6 for my Canon. The combo will be cheaper, lighter, smaller and unless I'm shooting at dusk or dawn, the grizzlies will show the same size (and probably comparable IQ) on the same size print, or my screen.

Now, on my second complaint about Canon making good EF-S lenses. Yes, they do make some really good ones and some decent ones. However, there is a large range of lenses that they only make in EF. In particular the very long ones. Why should I buy a trash can sized lens if I want the reach of 800mm or more? How hard is it for Canon to make a 500mm EF-S L that weighs less, costs less and is smaller than their EF 800mm L?
Also, their 70-200 is phenomenal, and I'm very glad to own one. However, I use a crop sensor, so a lot of the glass in it goes wasted, and no, the 55-250/4.5-5.6 is not comparable.


----------



## anthonyd (Oct 22, 2014)

rs said:


> jarrodeu said:
> 
> 
> > I must have misread. I was under the impression that some people were arguing that 2.8 lens let in the light of an f8 when on the micro 4/3 mount.
> ...



rs, you might be right about light, but you are at 666 posts, so you got to post again to avoid being evil


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 22, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> The combo will be cheaper, lighter, smaller and unless I'm shooting at dusk or dawn, the grizzlies will show the same size (and probably comparable IQ) on the same size print, or my screen.



Time of day changes magnification? 



anthonyd said:


> Why should I buy a trash can sized lens


...


anthonyd said:


> I want the reach of 800mm or more



That's why


----------



## ashmadux (Oct 22, 2014)

Crop vs. Full frame.

As a 6d owner - my first full frame- im very unimpressed at its low iso quality. There is no 3d-ish POP that i have seen in so many 5d2/5d3 images over the years - image quality that i could easily see was not reproducible on my crop cameras. 

To these ultra pixel peeping eyes, the 6d is only slightly better at dynamic range than my t2i. High Iso handling is generally FANTASTIC, which is why i figure the low iso takes an image quality hit. Low light photography is a whole other ball game compared to my crop bodies.

So while i enjoy my 6d, its nowhere close to the full frame experience i thought it would be. Still dreaming of a 5d3 and non-ancient AF. 



-


----------



## rs (Oct 22, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > jarrodeu said:
> ...


Good point. Ok, here's one to sort out the number.

The Canon 300/2.8 is about the same price as the Olympus 300/2.8, yet the Canon is smaller, and even with the extra heft of the 2x TC and bulkier FF body, lighter. Plus it doubles up as a 4/3rds equivalent of a 150/1.4

I know which I'd rather buy (not taking into account the dropped 4/3rds mount) and carry with me


----------



## rs (Oct 22, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> Crop vs. Full frame.
> 
> As a 6d owner - my first full frame- im very unimpressed at its low iso quality. There is no 3d-ish POP that i have seen in so many 5d2/5d3 images over the years - image quality that i could easily see was not reproducible on my crop cameras.
> 
> ...


What lenses are you using?


----------



## anthonyd (Oct 22, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> anthonyd said:
> 
> 
> > The combo will be cheaper, lighter, smaller and unless I'm shooting at dusk or dawn, the grizzlies will show the same size (and probably comparable IQ) on the same size print, or my screen.
> ...



You didn't know that grizzlies shrink at night? 
I was trying to avoid responses about low light noise, but it's worded funny, you are right.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 22, 2014)

jarrodeu said:


> For canon, exposure for a 400mm 5.6 on a crop (640mm 5.6) is the SAME exposure as a 400mm 5.6 on a full frame. By using a crop sensor the aperture doesn't magically shrink. Just like taking the center section of a full frame image to give the same view as a crop sensor does not shrink the aperture.
> 
> Jarrod



No, the aperture stays the same. Aperture = 400mm/5.6 = 71.43mm. If you're going to call that a 640mm equivalent lens because of the smaller sensor, you have to call it a 640mm/71.43mm = f/9 equivalent f-stop too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> Sure, if you are doing portraits, where DoF matters, you'll go with FF. The same holds with low light where you want to minimize noise. However, if I were going to visit Alaska or Yellowstone, I think I'd buy a MFT camera and the Zuiko 300/2.8 lens rather than the 600/5.6 for my Canon. The combo will be cheaper, lighter, smaller and unless I'm shooting at dusk or dawn, the grizzlies will show the same size (and probably comparable IQ) on the same size print, or my screen.



Indeed. Because we all know having deeper DoF makes for better wildlife images. For example, the first image is much better than the second, it's much better that all the distracting stuff behind the subject is decently sharp focus.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



They do the same thing. So do scissors and bandsaws. That doesn't make them the same. Optical cropping and magnifying does not equal digital cropping and up sampling. The end is likely very similar, however (although with canon's signal chain, I imagine enlarging and increasing sensitivity before digitizing is better). It would be interesting to actually test which process takes a bigger noise penalty.


----------



## ritholtz (Oct 23, 2014)

I am waiting for FF camera with 24-105 STM for $999. Then, I will start thinking about FF.
How much improvement, I am going to notice for basic family use (screen up to 1600X900, printing up to 8X10 and videos up to 1080P) with FF. Unless I need very shallow dof, am I going to notice any ISO advantage if I need to stop down with FF. What is cheapest FF alternatives for 55-250mm and 10-18mm. I can get 50mm 1.8/40mm 2.8 prime to start with.

Thanks


----------



## anthonyd (Oct 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> anthonyd said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, if you are doing portraits, where DoF matters, you'll go with FF. The same holds with low light where you want to minimize noise. However, if I were going to visit Alaska or Yellowstone, I think I'd buy a MFT camera and the Zuiko 300/2.8 lens rather than the 600/5.6 for my Canon. The combo will be cheaper, lighter, smaller and unless I'm shooting at dusk or dawn, the grizzlies will show the same size (and probably comparable IQ) on the same size print, or my screen.
> ...



Oh c'mon neuro, DoF certainly matters, but this is a shot at 55mm with f/5.6 and a downward angle. Nobody would expect it to have a shallow DoF. If anything, this shot is an argument against the significance of sensor size, because the following shot I did with my crop sensor and it has a much nicer bokeh.


----------



## rs (Oct 23, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > anthonyd said:
> ...


The amount of background blur isnt just a function of sensor size and aperture. Relative distance between camera, subject and background all play a very important part too, so that owl shot has no relevance to the bear shots with a telephoto.

I can even get some notable separation with my iPhone if I'm shooting a subject at minimum focus distance with a background at or near infinity.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 23, 2014)

i do understand equivalence. 

BUT ... most of the time, in (super-) tele situations full equivalence is not necessary, as long as exposure (brightness of image) and angle of view (AOV) are identical: even on a mFT sensored camera a 300mm lens will have "more than thin enough DOF" @ f/2.8 to sufficiently isolate virtually any subject, unless it is pressed flat against a wall. And framing, perspective, magnification and shutter speed will be identical to using a 600/2.8 on an FF sensor. 

So a mFT 300/2.8 lens *would be* "good enough", irrespective of not being equivalent. 

However, in practice they are not, since physical size of tele lenses is dictated solely by size of entry pupil ... and therefore 300/2.8 lenses are as large and heavy for mFT sensors and FF sensors alike. Unfortunately there are no "un-utilized portions of glass elements in tele-lenses" when using smaller sensors.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 23, 2014)

ritholtz said:


> I am waiting for FF camera with 24-105 STM for $999. Then, I will start thinking about FF.
> How much improvement, I am going to notice for basic family use (screen up to 1600X900, printing up to 8X10 and videos up to 1080P) with FF. Unless I need very shallow dof, am I going to notice any ISO advantage if I need to stop down with FF. What is cheapest FF alternatives for 55-250mm and 10-18mm. I can get 50mm 1.8/40mm 2.8 prime to start with.


US$999  ??? ??? ???
Then you will have to wait a looooooong time. :
I agree that there are no EF lenses that compare (image quality versus price) as the great 55-250 STM and 10-18 STM.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2014)

Personally, if I were going to Alaska or Yellowstone, I'd take the best gear I could afford. 



anthonyd said:


> ...unless I'm shooting at dusk or dawn...



Personally, I would not go to a spectacular location to shoot wildlife and plan to bring gear I knew was not well suited for use at the great times of day for shooting wildlife.


----------



## ecka (Oct 23, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> Crop vs. Full frame.
> 
> As a 6d owner - my first full frame- im very unimpressed at its low iso quality. There is *no 3d-ish POP that i have seen in so many 5d2/5d3 images* over the years - image quality that i could easily see was not reproducible on my crop cameras.
> 
> ...



Really? From what I've seen, 5D2-3 and 6D images side by side look almost identical .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2014)

ecka said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Crop vs. Full frame.
> ...



If one has seen and admired a '3D-ish POP' in 5DII/III images taken by others over the years, but doesn't see that quality in one's own 6D images, I suppose "it's the camera" is one possible explanation. It's certainly a more palatable one than the far more likely and rational reason for the discrepancy.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > ashmadux said:
> ...



I would blame the camera. I would recommend selling the 6D and buying a 1D X since its pictures are $5000 better. At least the pictures taken with the wife's t4i of me with the 1D X instead of a 6D hanging from my shoulder would be better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> I don't agree with this "amount of light" argument. Consider a full frame sensor and an APS-C size sensor with pixels the same size as a full frame taking photos with the same lens at the same f-stop and the same distance from the subject. The signal to noise ratio for each pixel in the APS-C sensor will be the same as the S:N ratio as the corresponding pixels in an APS-C sized area of the ff.



True, but the 2.56x greater area of the FF sensor will gather more total light. Comparing noise at the pixel level isn't the same as comparing noise at the image level.


----------



## rs (Oct 23, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...


I don't know about you, but as a photographer, I strive to compose correctly, and I look at the image as a whole myself. Your above scenario doesn't make a huge amount of sense as the resulting photos would be very different. I'd start off by using an appropriate focal length on each format to capture the chosen image, not to mention choosing an aperture to achieve the desired DoF, and an ISO to achieve the desired shutter speed/exposure.

If you truly do use the same length lens, settings and distance from subject with the larger format, it would require cropping in post to achieve the framing you've strived towards with the APS-C body. Now we're left with the same image as an APS-C body would have taken - just under 40% of the image. In other words, just under 40% of the light. So to enlarge this small crop up to the same viewing or printing size that you would have wanted should the whole frame of that FF body have been filled correctly, you've now magnified what signal is left by 2.56 times. And strangely enough, the noise has been magnified by that exact same amount too.

If we could just keep cropping with no enlargement penalties such as additional noise, why would anyone bother with these huge telescopes in Hawaii? Surely we can just equip the optics in an iPhone with a sensor 10,000 times smaller than the 1/3rd inch sensor they currently have? We could see the most distant galaxies with unimaginable magnification and clarity, all from a device in your pocket? After all, it is an f2.2 lens


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 23, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...



If you crop the FF to the crop cameras size they are identical, but that wasn't how your earlier comment was worded. If you crop the ff to the same size as the crop camera they are, effectively, the same thing, a crop sensor.

If you take your first situation and use the entire image from both cameras then the ff camera must have 2.5 times the area, if the pixels are the same size on each the FF camera must have 2.5 times as many, if they have the same number of pixels the FF cameras must be 2.5 times the size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...



As PBD noted, you left out the 'crop the FF to APS-C FoV' bit out...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...



In that case, my mistake! Thanks for clarifying...


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 23, 2014)

ecka said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Crop vs. Full frame.
> ...



All else being equal, the 6D images are slightly better, because they have less banding noise in the shadows. Of course, that usually isn't obvious until you boost them by a couple of stops.




neuroanatomist said:


> If one has seen and admired a '3D-ish POP' in 5DII/III images taken by others over the years, but doesn't see that quality in one's own 6D images, I suppose "it's the camera" is one possible explanation. It's certainly a more palatable one than the far more likely and rational reason for the discrepancy.



There are three likely reasons: the lens, the lighting, and differences in post-processing choices. The camera shouldn't matter much at all, except insofar as it affects the choice of lens....


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 24, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > True, but the 2.56x greater area of the FF sensor will gather more total light. Comparing noise at the pixel level isn't the same as comparing noise at the image level.
> ...



SNR = sqrt(photon count)


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 24, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...


Yes, if a FF pixel and a crop pixel are the same physical size (and technology) the individual pixels will be identical in terms of signal and noise.

If both images were shot with the exact same lens, the same settings, and the same distance, the central 40 percent of the FF pixels would be exactly the same as the crop pixels.

In real life, with your equal size pixel scenario, we would try to frame the two pictures the same, so that means either a 1.6X longer lens on the FF camera, or walking closer until the image filled the screen the same. Either way you look at it, that gives you 2.56 times as many pixels of equal quality on the target, so when you "normalize" the FF picture for the same number of pixels as the crop image, you end up with better quality pixels on the FF image. You are choosing between more pixels of the same quality, or the same amount of pixels but of better quality. There is no way for crop to win in that scenario.

In the real world, with the cameras Canon makes now, FF wins the IQ contest in all but one scenario... and that scenario is when you are focal length limited, can't move any closer, have a GREAT lens, and good lighting. Under those conditions (happens a lot with small birds) the quality of your crop pixels is fairly close to your FF pixels, but you have more crop pixels on target so you end up with a better image from the crop camera. Everywhere else, FF wins.

NOTE that I have left cost out of the factors.... cost will change the point where you become focal length limited, affect lens quality, and may even eliminate FF altogether. If you have $3000 and want to take pictures of distant chickadees, a 7D2 and a Tamron 150-600 is your best bet. If you have $25,000, a 1DX, a 600F4, and a 1.4X or 2X teleconverter will be the best.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> In the real world, with the cameras Canon makes now, FF wins the IQ contest in all but one scenario... and that scenario is when you are focal length limited, can't move any closer, have a GREAT lens, and good lighting. Under those conditions (happens a lot with small birds) the quality of your crop pixels is fairly close to your FF pixels, but you have more crop pixels on target so you end up with a better image from the crop camera. Everywhere else, FF wins.



No, there's another one - when you're magnification (as in macro) limited.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 24, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > In the real world, with the cameras Canon makes now, FF wins the IQ contest in all but one scenario... and that scenario is when you are focal length limited, can't move any closer, have a GREAT lens, and good lighting. Under those conditions (happens a lot with small birds) the quality of your crop pixels is fairly close to your FF pixels, but you have more crop pixels on target so you end up with a better image from the crop camera. Everywhere else, FF wins.
> ...



Good point!


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Only my and Pit123's crops in this thread don't actually illustrate that to be a crop camera 'advantage' either, certainly not one to base a buying decision on, price, AF fps maybe, but IQ advantage, not so much.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453442#msg453442
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453961#msg453961


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 24, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > SNR = sqrt(photon count)
> ...



If you only look at one pixel, the per-pixel photon count would be all that matters. If you look at a whole image, the whole image photon count is what matters.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


To get that crop reach advantage, you need a *GREAT* lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough. My tests between a 5D2 and a 60D using those two lenses showed minimal differences in resolving power of distant objects between crop and FF. Using a 100L, crop definitely resolved distance objects better than FF, but it most certainly was not twice as good... maybe 20 or 30 percent better. (no scientific measurements taken, the percentage is a guess)

I am told, no personal experience, that the second generation "Big Whites" will act the same... but however you slice it, to get that crop reach advantage, you need some of the sharpest glass that Canon makes.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I understand what you are saying Don, but my example crops fly in the face of that. 

I used the best techniques possible to maximise the difference including using a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS @ f5.6 (nobody ever argued that isn't a great lens and without a TC gives little, if anything, to the MkII's), I did this to give the crop camera the biggest advantage its small pixels will ever have, it certainly isn't close to a real world situation, and the differences are just not there to any meaningful degree.

As an aside, I have tested my 50 f1.4 against my 100L Macro at f5.6, and the 50 is 'sharper', TDP iso charts agree with my findings.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> To get that crop reach advantage, you need a *GREAT* lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough.



Not true.

I'll challenge anyone to go out with a 1DX or 5DII or III and get a moon shot like this one with a 100-400L.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 24, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...



The shot noise for that pixel.



> Its the physics of why the crop (smaller pixels) shot noise can never be as low as the FF.



Shot noise is also called "photon counting noise".

If you have a larger sensor with the same pixel count, the shot noise per pixel is lower.

If you have a larger sensor with the same sized pixels, the shot noise for each pixel is the same, but you have many more pixels.

You can use software (noise reduction and downsampling) to trade all that extra resolution for much lower noise in the overall image with the same sharpness (resolution), and in fact that's what you end up doing when you compare the two images at the same final size.

All those photons that are collected by all those extra pixels count in the total signal (sharpness) to noise (noise) of the final overall image, and that's the reason that a larger sensor out-performs a smaller sensor in low-light despite having the same sized pixels. It's also why cropping 1.4x (linear) is like increasing ISO by 1 stop, and cropping 2x (linear) is like increasing ISO by 2 stops (as far as noise is concerned) - the same as a teleconverter requires for the same shutter speed.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 24, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > To get that crop reach advantage, you need a *GREAT* lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough.
> ...



Hand held.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=435.msg120132#msg120132
And here,
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=10014826


----------



## philmoz (Oct 24, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > To get that crop reach advantage, you need a *GREAT* lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough.
> ...



Nice image, well processed; but not sure I see the point.

It was shot with a 100-400L + 1.4x TC - so you could not even capture that image on a crop camera with the 100-400L alone.

Phil.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



As I said...not even close.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 24, 2014)

philmoz said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



And what's the purpose of a TC? Answer: To compensate for the sensor under sampling the lens. A 1.4x TC can be thought of as shrinking the pixels by 1.4x or as doubling the pixel count, rather than doing anything optically. They are equivalent, and in both cases if the lens isn't resolving the detail, the extra pixels or extra magnification won't help. But it does help as you just said yourself. And you are right.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 24, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Oh, I missed the bit where you didn't mention the TC, that was naughty of you. There are loads more FF images out there with 5D MkII/III's with TC's that are every bit as good as yours, I was just looking for 100-400's.


----------



## philmoz (Oct 24, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> philmoz said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



???


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Why? That shows that the bare lens was sharp enough to be dramatically out resolving the sensor, which itself had pixels 1.6x smaller than those in the 1DX. Oh, and this was a 2x TC and this shot was slightly better than the same shot taken with just a 1.4x. That's like a 72MP 1.6 crop sensor or a 184MP full frame sensor. And that's on a 16 year old zoom lens.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 24, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > You can use software (noise reduction and downsampling) to trade all that extra resolution for much lower noise in the overall image with the same sharpness (resolution), and in fact that's what you end up doing when you compare the two images at the same final size.
> ...



Yeah...and you can't do what I said unless you have all that extra light captured in all those extra pixels.



> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > All those photons that are collected by all those extra pixels count in the total signal (sharpness) to noise (noise) of the final overall image, and that's the reason that a larger sensor out-performs a smaller sensor in low-light despite having the same sized pixels.
> ...



Yes, they do.

One assumption that we always make is that quantization noise is negligible. That means, you can't see the individual pixels. If you can, that's another whole problem.

Since you can't see the individual pixels, your eye is essentially averaging some small number of pixels together. The averaging works like this - the noise goes down with the square root of the number of pixels averaged. Average 4 pixels, you cut the noise in half. Average 9, you cut the noise by a factor of three.

This works out the same as the decrease in shot noise from all that extra light - SnR goes with the square root of the number of photons collected.

In reality, all larger pixels do is block average. It turns out that block averaging is about the worst performing method of noise reduction there is. Even the most basic noise reduction is better, and modern advanced method are enormously better. So, smaller pixels that are block averaging less combined with modern noise reduction software will out-perform larger pixels since the larger pixel are doing the dumbest kind of noise reduction there is.


----------

