Canon full frame or cropped frame
 

Can anyone point me in the direction of photographs taken with a Canon full frame and a cropped frame camera with similar lens and lighting conditions and where these can be compared side to side along with additional data if available ?
What I am trying to work out and it's purely a personal decision is if the additional cost of going full frame is worth it.

Hi Duncan,

I'm guessing you are already aware that the main difference between full frame sensor and a cropped sensor will be the field of view. This will mean that when using a telephoto lens with a say a 2x cropped sensor and a 300mm lens it doubles the focal length of the lens to 600mm. On a full frame camera you would need a 600mm lens to capture the same image at the same magnification. Likewise, when you are using a wide angle lens you will be able to capture a much wider sweep of the landscape with the full frame sensor than with the cropped sensor. So this begs the question, what type of photography do you usually use your camera for?

Now in answer to your question regarding websites that you can compare the two, I've had a look around and I can find plenty of sites that have reviewed both cropped sensor and full frame sensor cameras, with sample images. Sadly, none of them allow you to compare the images side by side, just their respective specifications.

[quote=ianpinion;6306]
I'm guessing you are already aware that the main difference between full frame sensor and a cropped sensor will be the[B][U] field of view[/U][/B]. This will mean that when using a telephoto lens with a say a 2x cropped sensor and a 300mm lens [B][U]it doubles the focal length of the lens to 600mm[/U][/B]. On a full frame camera you would need a 600mm lens to capture the same image at the same magnification.[/quote]

Excuse me Ian, but either you haven't explained yourself well or you also have a misunderstanding on this subject. :) You start off by giving the correct answer and then go on to contradict yourself. A 50 mm lens used on a sensor with a 1.6X crop factor would produce[B] the same field of view[/B] as a 1.6 x 50 = 80 mm lens on a 35 mm full frame sensor. [B]The focal length however, does not and cannot change[/B], just it's field of view (FOV). A 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens, regardless of the sensor type. As a result of the somewhat smaller FOV the[I] illusion[/I] is that one has zoomed in but this is only an illusion and using words such as magnification is misleading - focal length has not changed. As I've already said, a 50mm lens or indeed a 300mm lens will always be a 50mm lens or 300mm lens. Don't think that owning a camera with a sensor having a crop factor means you only need to go out and buy a 300mm lens to achieve the same magnification as a 600mm lens thereby saving money, it simply doesn't work that way. ;)

[QUOTE=duncan22;6266]Can anyone point me in the direction of photographs taken with a Canon full frame and a cropped frame camera with similar lens and lighting conditions and where these can be compared side to side along with additional data if available ?
What I am trying to work out and it's purely a personal decision is if the additional cost of going full frame is worth it.[/QUOTE]

Well here's a little advice from someone using FF. I don't think you're asking about the effect of the crop factor, you're just wanting a like for like comparison, so based on that here's my take on it all.

If you compare crop frame against FF with a top quality lens or a prime or lesser quality, the FF will give you better image quality, with smoother gradients and nicer colours, but if you can't afford the camera body and a set of top end lenses you're going to be in for a cruel surprise, because the camera capable of returning such fine images simply won't produce them for you. Problems which are not visible on a crop frame sensor will conspire to degrade the Image, these are usually seen towards the edges of the image.

Distortion, vignetting, and resolution fall off are just some of the issues which you are likely to see, plus if there are any optical faults in the lens it can go from an irritation to unuseable on FF.

Even with good quality optics you are still going to have this effect, only not quite as noticeable:

Canon 24 -105mm IS L f/4 distortion on crop 1.8% and not a problem, on FF is a rather more visible 4.3% Vignetting wide open at .4 EV and a huge 2.4 EV on FF Resolution is more difficult to describe because of the difference in sensor resolution, however there is a much more marked fall of towards the edges. Of course stopping down improves most parameters.

Nikons 24 - 70mm f/2.8 G ED is no exception either distortion at 1.1% on crop and unnoticeable, while on FF it's a rather more visible 3% Vignetting wide open is .45EV on FF it's 1.55EV again border resolution falls markedly.

This is to illustrate what happens when top end lenses are used poorer quality ones start off with worse figures which might be acceptable on crop, but simply aren't on FF.

Aside from those considerations, crop cameras are better suited for some kinds of photography, such as sports wildlife and macro, because of the reduced FOV, greater depth of field, and higher pixel density. Full frame is better for landscape some architechture and portrait photography.

I don't think the FF camera should be regarded as some kind of holy grail to aspire towards, they do become more diffcult to use, will show up mistakes mercilessly, and won't return good results unless they are paired with the best lenses. Be prepared to spend a lot of lenses if you do buy one.

Thank you for your responses.
I think Flake has answered my question very well.
Unfortunately most of my photography is Landscape but balanced against the cost of going full frame I will stick to what I have got.

[QUOTE=Forseti;6318]Excuse me Ian, but either you haven't explained yourself well or you also have a misunderstanding on this subject. :) You start off by giving the correct answer and then go on to contradict yourself. A 50 mm lens used on a sensor with a 1.6X crop factor would produce[B] the same field of view[/B] as a 1.6 x 50 = 80 mm lens on a 35 mm full frame sensor. [B]The focal length however, does not and cannot change[/B], just it's field of view (FOV). A 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens, regardless of the sensor type. As a result of the somewhat smaller FOV the[I] illusion[/I] is that one has zoomed in but this is only an illusion and using words such as magnification is misleading - focal length has not changed. As I've already said, a 50mm lens or indeed a 300mm lens will always be a 50mm lens or 300mm lens. Don't think that owning a camera with a sensor having a crop factor means you only need to go out and buy a 300mm lens to achieve the same magnification as a 600mm lens thereby saving money, it simply doesn't work that way. ;)[/QUOTE]

Hi Forseti,

Yes you're quite right, I understand the theory myself but didn't necessarily explain it that well. It was getting late, I was tired, what more can I say. No excuses, it's a fair cop.... lol:o

I should have just stuck to the angle of view as you say as it's less confusing.

[quote=ianpinion;6368]Hi Forseti,

No excuses, it's a fair cop.... lol:o

.[/quote]

Oh alright then, you're forgiven. :D

My personal opinion is that FF is worth it, especially for landscape work, you really dont see the fuss about it until you look through the viewfinder, a larger brighter view finder is essential as it can get quite dark once you have all those landscape filters attached. Lets also not forget that the DOF from a 1.6 is not the same as FF which can lead to unexpected bokeh at certain aperture settings. Its true that distortion is more noticeable on certain lenses when using FF but this is because you are seeing/ using more of the light being resolved by the lens, the effect of this is that FF shows up poor glass, you need good lenses to show off the capability of the camera. The 24-105 always had terrible distortion at the wide end, but thats a trade off of the design, and is more a fault of the lens than the FF bodies its attached to. Facts and tests aside, yes there may be distortion in the labs but i really do feel sorry for people who take these tests to heart when they feel saddened at their purchasing decisions as a result of an internet report, what is important is that this is a great hobby and we should enjoy it, taking pictures of the world and people and animals that live in it is simply wonderful in my opinion. To the original OP i hope you enjoy your landscape work dont forget a tripod is a essential bit of kit and please post your pics to the forum threads.
Enjoy your weekend.

Oh dear, will this controversy never end. I have read a lot of rubbish on this subject, like a prime lens will alter its angle of view if put on a crop camera compared to a full frame. Also a crop camera will give you a greater DOF.

I have just upgraded to the 5d mark 2 from a 350d, difference in massive. The extra quality in the picture is noticeable.