Full frame V crop?

[jaimesommers]

I am studying photography at Uni and wondered what the difference is between full frame and crop, not really the technical aspects so much as to what the eye sees.

I am trying to figure out if I really need a full fram, and the expense that goes with it or not?

Thanks,

Jaime

[cosmicma]

i think it depends on what you are photographing
as you will probably know with cropped sensors you will not get as much in the frame as you would with a full frame sensor which could be a bad thing for landscape and portrait photography
a cropped sensor can have advantages for wildlife photography where the part of the frame that is lost won't really count but this really depends on how close you are to your subject ( usually not that close )

full frame sensors tend to fair better in low light because the cell sites tend to be bigger allowing them to gather more light

the reality is if you can afford a decent full frame camera ( 5d mk11 for example ) then i would go for that rather than splashing out on a cropped sensor camera and wishing you had gone for a full frame

to sum up
dissadvatages of full frame = none ( well maybe price )
dissadvantages of cropped frame = landscape , portrait photography

[Forseti]

Originally Posted by cosmicma

to sum up
dissadvatages of full frame = none ( well maybe price )
dissadvantages of cropped frame = landscape , portrait photography

Um, let's also not forget that for a full frame camera you also need top quality glass to stick in front of it otherwise every imperfection of the lens will be greatly magnified - diffraction and vignetting to mention but two. A cropped frame camera giving a reduced FOV (field of view) and hence giving the illusion of having zoomed in is much more forgiving

[KeithT]

Full-Frame every time. I have used the classic 5d for the past 2 years and would never go back to crop. I would go back to using film before that day arose. As for glass, well yes, the better glass the better image, but don't discount Sigma EX glass which is at least 1/3rd cheaper than L series glass and great value for money. Also all the Canon gold rim primes are excellent on the 5d.

[flake]

I have a question, and that is why are you asking us when you have the benefit of all the experience of the university lecturers?

The question is not as simple, nor as clear cut as people might have you believe.

FF is great for wide angles 16mm on a FF Canon equals 10mm on a crop; because there's more area pixel sites are generally larger, that's not to say the pixels themselves are, so generally there's lower noise & greater dynamic range.

Crop on the other hand will give you a narrower field of view, giving you longer reach with a given focal length, take an object and take a photo with a crop and a FF and the #image taken with the crop will appear to be much larger. The same goes for Macro too, at 1:1 an insect will appear much larger on a crop frame because proportionately it fills more of the sensor, to get the equivalent on FF you need a 1.6 macro .

Lenses for FF need to be better quality too, the fall off in resolution can be very noticeable with some, even the L types show it, I'm afraid that this is just the laws of physics and there's no way round it.

Then there's the loss of depth of field with a larger sensor, so be prepared to make greater use of aperture f stops. On the other hand FF sensors will allow you to use greater f numbers before diffraction starts to degrade the image quality.

If you have the money to buy a 5D MkII then I'd advise you to consider the 1D MKIII which has a 1.3 crop sensor, half way between FF an APS-C . It's just been superceeded by the MkIV so prices should be good, the pro spec body will last up to all kinds of abuse (even student type), and it will produce results as good as any pro. If digital didn't progress so fast it would probably last you a life time.

Some day the price of the new 1D MkIV will fall to something more reasonable (£2500?) but at the moment it's at a huge £4500.

FF suits landscape & portait & low light. Crop suits action, (sports etc), wildlife and macro

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by cosmicma

dissadvantages of cropped frame = landscape , portrait photography

I don't see why portraiture is harder with APS-C or 4/3 sized cameras. It gives you a longer FoV and, therefore, isolates your subject from their background more. To me, thats a positive thing.

I know it's not as simple as "FF for wide angle, cropped for longer focal lengths" but... it does sort of make sense.

[flake]

FF is suited to portraits because there is more control over depth of field. APS-C does not give you a longer FOV it gives a narrower one, why would that isolate the subject from the background more?

It is a common misconception that longer lenses give a shallower depth of field, the reality is that so long as magnification stays the same, then depth of field stays the same. If you're wondering about this then there's an article about it here

[KeithT]

Of course there are advantages to both crop and FF, but in my experience using both, I have personally noticed more film like qualities with FF which I like. Often, it's that bit of controlled softness over total corner to corner pin-sharp that leads me to my film-like qualities way of thinking. This might be psychological, I don't know, but the files from the 5d seem to me to be more creamy and natural - if that's the right word to use - and what I liked about film negatives and even slides. As for light fall off, this is something that has been bandied about by a lot of FF reviewers, but to be honest I have never suffered greatly from it with my only L lens, a 24-105, or my new Sigma 50 EX DG for that matter. In truth I think it is over stated. If I have ever had a tad of vignetting at 24mm it has been easy to adjust in Photoshop anyway.

It is a personal choice at the end of the day though, but my honest view is, if you have the means to buy into full frame, you won't want to return to crop once you have done so, especially if you have come from 35mm film.

I hope my post doesn't sound snobby. It isn't intended that way.

[flake]

I think the 5D with its 12MP resolution and the Nikon D3 don't show the marked fall off in resolution the 5D MkII does. A while ago I posted an example of this on the 17 - 40 f/4 L which in the words of Photozone "The center and even the border performance is very high here but there isn't really anything left deserving the word "resolution" in the extreme corners at f/4 and f/5.6."

With a camera which is able to make full use of that centre resolution you really do notice the difference at the edges, this is of course not an issue with a crop sensor. Of course this was an issue back in the film days, where digital correction wasn't possible, but high resolution cannot be corrected in post so it's essential to buy lenses carefully, and to use them at the optimum settings to get the best from them.

[cosmicma]

hmm... this seems to have gone from a none technical question into a science lesson

lets face it if your spending the kind of money full frame cameras demand i don't think your gonna put cheap glass in front of it