So You Wanna See the Difference Between Full Frame and Cropped Sensors?

[Robin Usagani]

The extra reach is just cropping down the FX to about 2/3 the height and width.

 

[Dominantly]

Very nice.

 

[Patrice]

Also, these are jpegs so they really won't give me the info I'm looking for. I just really want to know what the difference is between a DX image and an FX image that has been cropped

It should be identical. IQ may be a little different. The background, size of subject, size of circle confusion should be the same after you crop the FX image.

IQ is exactly what I'm wanting to see. I'm wanting to see exactly what the difference is between the two, and much of this extra "reach" you really get with a crop body.

Just as Schwetty says above and as has been explained in the other "crop" thread, there is no such thing as "extra reach" from a crop sensor camera. What you get is a smaller fraction of the image the lens projects, then you enlarge it more to fill the display space or print medium. A crop sensor camera does not magically turn your 135 mm lens, or any lens, into anything longer. As for the quality of the resulting image there is nothing intrinsically better in a full frame sensor and also nothing intrinsically worst in a crop sensor. The quality is dependant on many variables which have been combined by the various manufactures so as to optimize the imaging process for the desired results for each particular camera model.

 

[Patrice]

Double post.

 

[Carny]

The extra reach is just cropping down the FX to about 2/3 the height and width.

I understand the difference between the two as far as FOV and all of that. I really do. That is not what I'm asking but is the answer I keep getting.

It should be identical. IQ may be a little different. The background, size of subject, size of circle confusion should be the same after you crop the FX image.

IQ is exactly what I'm wanting to see. I'm wanting to see exactly what the difference is between the two, and much of this extra "reach" you really get with a crop body.

Just as Schwetty says above and as has been explained in the other "crop" thread, there is no such thing as "extra reach" from a crop sensor camera. What you get is a smaller fraction of the image the lens projects, then you enlarge it more to fill the display space or print medium. A crop sensor camera does not magically turn your 135 mm lens, or any lens, into anything longer. As for the quality of the resulting image there is nothing intrinsically better in a full frame sensor and also nothing intrinsically worst in a crop sensor. The quality is dependant on many variables which have been combined by the various manufactures so as to optimize the imaging process for the desired results for each particular camera model.

Yes, the difference between FF and crop has been explained. Beat to death really. BUT, no one has really answered what I've been asking. Some have come really close, but then go right back to the same claim. For instance, in the other thread:

I think everyone would agree that the 1Dx has better IQ than the 7D. I haven't actually looked at any 1Dx photos, but I think that is a safe assumption. So this sort of makes the argument for crop body counter-intuitive. Overall, the 1D wins. But, if you pick any section of a 1Dx image that is the same size as a 7D image, then the 7D image is better than just that section.

The answer is still the same: "However, image quality is not only resolution: those less pixels will have much less noise than 7D pixels, so from that point of view IQ will be still better."
What you speak of is number of pixels (and resolution, up to a certain point), not overall image quality. The larger physical pixels of 1Dx give much less noise than 7D. This is really crucial for IQ, and the main reason why everyone will agree that 1Dx has better IQ than the 7D. If you look at dark areas, with 7D, even with more pixels, you will see noise, while with 1Dx not. This is IQ (at least one component). But if you speak of pure pixel count yes, the same scene shot with the same lens and then cropped on a 1Dx will have less pixels than on 7D. And on 7D you will see some smaller details (depending also on lens), but just because you used 1Dx in the wrong way. A nature photographer would choose a crop body for the same reason: more reach at cost of some noise, instead of buying a longer and more expensive lens on a FF.
By the way, everyone would compare the same exact scene, to evaluate quality: so, for example, taking it with a 50mm on 7D and 80mm on 1dx, or walking closer with 1dx to have the same frame.

enzodm seems to really know what he is talking about, and he used the "more reach" argument.

Meanwhile, Schwetty is saying he thinks the FX cropped would be better than the DX.

They contradict each other, and I'm trying to figure out what is actually correct. I know the specific camera comes into play as well.

So, why does anybody use crop over FF?

What advantage does a crop have? (please don't say reach, lol)

Why don't birders, wildlifers, whoever, use a FF and then just crop the shot?

 

[tirediron]

[So, why does anybody use crop over FF?

What advantage does a crop have?

Cost.

 

[Overread]

Cost - reach (getting it right in camera does help) - generally superior AF (esp outside the 1D line for canon) - generally faster frames per second - generally a slightly larger buffer.

Also remember that the cropping against capturing the shot on a native crop sensor camera is always going to be a battle of end outputs and also resolutions and MP ratings of the cameras compared. So whilst cropping on some fullframe bodies will give you about the same or better than some cropped sensor the reverse might also be true.

 

[Carny]

Cost - reach (getting it right in camera does help) - generally superior AF (esp outside the 1D line for canon) - generally faster frames per second - generally a slightly larger buffer.

SEE!!! ^


How does it help, exactly?



It's looking like "reach" is just going to be one of those things that is technically incorrect but I'll just have to get used to because everyone uses it.

 

[tirediron]

Each time you see the word 'reach' in relation to crop sensors, exchange it for the term 'field of view'. In other words, a 50mm lens on a crop-body has the equivalent field of view of a 75mm lens on a FF body.

 

[Overread]

Yeps just like everyone calls exposure value exposure
But honestly the concept of more "reach" is pretty much what one sees through the viewfinder - even if its not accurate its a fairly simple concept to understand and explains away the real world effect one sees. Whilst its clearly been used (abused?) by marketing its going to stick around I suspect.

Asides which it helps because many people like to compose within the frame that they see. Furthermore a slightly larger view of the subject helps for focusing purposes and placement of the AF point.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Simple, direct and to the point. Excellent teaching thread with practical application for all skill levels. Hat's off to ya, sir.

 

[Carny]

Each time you see the word 'reach' in relation to crop sensors, exchange it for the term 'field of view'. In other words, a 50mm lens on a crop-body has the equivalent field of view of a 75mm lens on a FF body.

I'm just trying to figure out if there is any real advantage to it, or just a misnomer/marketing ploy.

 

[Robin Usagani]

OMG... OK I am going to explain it to you for the LAST time. If you still dont get it... I wont make any more replies. Just for conversation sake lets say you have 2 cameras. One is 24MP FX, one is 24MP DX. Both cameras will produce 6000x4000 (24mp) JPEG. You are standing from one location using same PRIME lens on both cameras. You shoot a house from this location with the DX camera and you have the PERFECT composition. You are happy with the result. The printer you are using use 300 dpi. You can print high quality print of 20" x 13.33" (resolution divided by 300). NOW you use your FX. It shoots wider than the DX. You take the shot on the same spot. You decided to crop your 6000x4000 jpeg to have the same look as your DX photo. That means you crop the sides and you end up having 4000x2667 resolution JPEG. That means wiht the same printer you can only have high quality print up to 13.33"x8.9".

The conclusion is....... if you print 13.33"x8.9" OR SMALLER... without a doubt the FX print will look better while DX is slightly worse (more noise) but not that much worse if we shoot it at low ISO. If you print something bigger than that, the DX will continue to print decent up to 20"x13.33" while the FX will need to use software interpolation to be able to print at 300 dpi that big. You will start seeing pixelation if you dont interpolate it with a software. If you interpolate, it is just guessing/adding pixels so your photo wont look as good.

Do you get it or not get it now?

 

[Overread]

Each time you see the word 'reach' in relation to crop sensors, exchange it for the term 'field of view'. In other words, a 50mm lens on a crop-body has the equivalent field of view of a 75mm lens on a FF body.

I'm just trying to figure out if there is any real advantage to it, or just a misnomer/marketing ploy.

Think of it just like a different angle of view. You'd get the same thing if you compared fullframe cameras (35mm film) to medium format - the med format would give you a far wider angle of view, shallower depths of field possible etc... In the end its not so much a case of chasing the ultimate resolution, but about chasing the camera bodies that fit your budget and also suit your shooting requirements.
If you shoot wildlife a weather sealed, fast AF camera body is a need and if you can't afford a 1D then something like a 50D or 7D is an ideal option. On the other hand if you shoot more studio and have less need of those features then the 5DMII (or 5D) is an option - that said if you shoot wildlife and use a 5DMII (or 5D) you'll have weaker AF - not impossible to use in any means, but weaker than the better AF of the 7D.
So you pick the tool that offers the best advantages for your shooting practice (and often people seriously into photography will end up with more than one camera for different applications).

 

[Carny]

OMG... OK I am going to explain it to you for the LAST time. If you still dont get it... I wont make any more replies. Just for conversation sake lets say you have 2 cameras. One is 24MP FX, one is 24MP DX. Both cameras will produce 6000x4000 (24mp) JPEG. You are standing from one location using same PRIME lens on both cameras. You shoot a house from this location with the DX camera and you have the PERFECT composition. You are happy with the result. The printer you are using use 300 dpi. You can print high quality print of 20" x 13.33" (resolution divided by 300). NOW you use your FX. It shoots wider than the DX. You take the shot on the same spot. You decided to crop your 6000x4000 jpeg to have the same look as your DX photo. That means you crop the sides and you end up having 4000x2667 resolution JPEG. That means wiht the same printer you can only have high quality print up to 13.33"x8.9".

The conclusion is....... if you print 13.33"x8.9" OR SMALLER... without a doubt the FX print will look better while DX is slightly worse (more noise) but not that much worse if we shoot it at low ISO. If you print something bigger than that, the DX will continue to print decent up to 20"x13.33" while the FX will need to use software interpolation to be able to print at 300 dpi that big. You will start seeing pixelation if you dont interpolate it with a software. If you interpolate, it is just guessing/adding pixels so your photo wont look as good.

Do you get it or not get it now?

THANK YOU!! FINALLY!!!!


This is what I've been looking for the whole time! Why didn't you say this to begin with? Everyone kept explaining the difference between ff and crop over and over! I was going as crazy as you must have been, lol!