Why go full frame?

[smoke665]

What I like about the crop body is the extra reach when shooting for distance. I like t

I shoot both a APS-C Pentax K3ii, and a K1Mii, the idea that crop factor changes the focal length of a lens is a common misconception. Crop factor only changes the FOV. If you shoot the same lens on a APS-C and a FF and crop the FF to the equivalent FOV it's the same image. A good read https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-crop-factor

As I like to shoot a little loose so I can crop for a specific print later, I generally use the FF. My K3ii paired with a DA18-135, is a great walk around combo because of its luggter weight.Most FF bodies have a Crop Mode that only uses part of the sensor. I never use it because I've never found an advantage. Seems senseless to not capture all the scene possible, when you can crop post.

 

[Ysarex]

I shoot both a APS-C Pentax K3ii, and a K1Mii, the idea that crop factor changes the focal length of a lens is a common misconception. Crop factor only changes the FOV. If you shoot the same lens on a APS-C and a FF and crop the FF to the equivalent FOV it's the same image. A good read https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-crop-factor

As I like to shoot a little loose so I can crop for a specific print later, I generally use the FF. My K3ii paired with a DA18-135, is a great walk around combo because of its luggter weight.Most FF bodies have a Crop Mode that only uses part of the sensor. I never use it because I've never found an advantage. Seems senseless to not capture all the scene possible, when you can crop post.

In GWWhite's case the extra reach provided by his 7D over his 1D is real. You're right there's no actual focal length change -- same subject distance and you get the same magnification on both sensors from the same lens. But there is a pixel density change that has a real effect; it's camera specific. Both the 7D and 1D are 18 megapixel cameras that both produce 5184 x 3456 images. If you crop the 1D image you're going to get less than 5184 x 3456 pixels. It comes down to how many pixels are you putting on the subject and that determines how much detail you can record. In this case the 7D puts more pixels on the subject and if you want to call that more "reach" -- maybe not the best term, but the result is real.

I have a similar situation. My APS-C sensor camera is 24 mp producing a 6000 x 4000 pixels image. I have one FF camera that is also 24 mp and if I crop that image I get less pixels on the subject = less ability to resolve fine detail. But I also have a FF camera with a 45 mp sensor and if I crop that image I get pretty much the same pixels on the subject that I get from my APS-C camera.

So it's fair to say that my APS-C camera delivers more "reach" compared to my FF camera #1 and does not deliver more "reach" compared with my FF camera #2.

"Reach" is a poor term to use as it implies a change to the lens that does not occur. The effect of more pixels on the subject however is real and often the reason behind people making the claim.

 

[smoke665]

Both the 7D and 1D are 18 megapixel cameras that both produce 5184 x 3456 images

The OP didn't specify which 1D series it was, the 1Ds first came out with only 11.1 mp, the the later model 1Dx had 18mp. In either case I would agree that there would be an apparent difference primarily in sharpness, and tonal gradation, however the actual magnification created by the focal length is still the same. In my case the resolution of the FF is way more than APS-C , as such I've not seen any noticeable difference perceived or not, between an image cropped post and the APS- or using crop mode on the FF.

The fact remains that crop factor has no bearing on the focal length of lens. The "perceived difference" is a function of the camera specs and not the size of the sensor.

 

[Ysarex]

The OP didn't specify which 1D series it was, the 1Ds first came out with only 11.1 mp, the the later model 1Dx had 18mp. In either case I would agree that there would be an apparent difference primarily in sharpness, and tonal gradation, however the actual magnification created by the focal length is still the same.

Yes, same magnification both sensors (I said that), but for example in the case of my Fuji versus SL the Fuji delivers a 6000 x 4000 pixel image while the cropped SL image is 3936 x 2624 or 24 mp versus 10 mp. The difference is much more than a loss of sharpness. I've tested it and the loss in resolution and recorded detail is significant. The Fuji renders a much better, higher quality image because it's putting double the pixel count on the subject at the same magnification. For anyone in the same or similar situation that makes the APS sensor camera the superior choice rendering a more highly detailed image. It's strictly situational and depends on the pixel density of the cameras being compared. For some folks it's a very real difference while for others it's not -- just need to be clear about cause.

In my case the resolution of the FF is way more than APS-C , as such I've not seen any noticeable difference perceived or not, between an image cropped post and the APS- or using crop mode on the FF.

The fact remains that crop factor has no bearing on the focal length of lens. The "perceived difference" is a function of the camera specs and not the size of the sensor.

It's not a "perceived difference" -- more pixels on the subject is a real difference. The new Fuji APS sensor cameras (X-T5/X-H2) have 40 mp sensors and they're putting double the number of pixels on the subject as my 45 mp FX Nikon. Bird and wildlife photographers are excited because they represent a real quality boost at a lower cost.

 

[smoke665]

not a "perceived difference

Like the word "reach", "perceived" is not a good term, if the if the pixel density is equal or more than the FF being compared. Regardless the term "reach" is incorrect in all cases, as there's no change in focal length regardless of pixel density.

 

[Ysarex]

Like the word "reach", "perceived" is not a good term, if the if the pixel density is equal or more than the FF being compared. Regardless the term "reach" is incorrect in all cases, as there's no change in focal length regardless of pixel density.

Bad words but a distinction that produces a real improvement in image quality and cost savings. What should we call it?

 

[blister]

I like full frame because I frequently crop large amounts of my captures. If I was better at my "on the spot composition" I wouldn't need to do this.

 

[smoke665]

What should we call it?

Anything but "reach" as that perpetuates a fallacy

 

[Soocom1]

Those including Ysarax might remember a similar discussion on this subject quite a few years back where I made a point and got heavily savaged for it.

If shooting an APS and a Full frame camera on the same tripod (lets make the assumption of a 1Ds and a 1D n (which BTW is an APS H size, not APS C)) and the exact same lens (lets say a 28-105 mm l lens). Using the Full Frame focus on the car where the bumpers are from edge to edge in the full frame. (Assuming the distance is say 45 mm equivalent).
Then switch out the cameras to the 1D and same exact focal distance and the same exact physical distance, the image will "crop" the car where about half the hood and a goodly portion of the trunk will be out of the image.

Then this brings in the second argument.

If setting the APS camera at the same physical distance and adjusting the lens to put the car in full FOV, the next issue that comes into play is the magnification factor of the image is greater with the APS than the FF and the image will actually loose resolution the larger the magnification.
(More pixelization).

I have played this argument time and time again and it always falls back to sensor size.

 

[Ysarex]

Those including Ysarax might remember a similar discussion on this subject quite a few years back where I made a point and got heavily savaged for it.

If shooting an APS and a Full frame camera on the same tripod (lets make the assumption of a 1Ds and a 1D n (which BTW is an APS H size, not APS C)) and the exact same lens (lets say a 28-105 mm l lens). Using the Full Frame focus on the car where the bumpers are from edge to edge in the full frame. (Assuming the distance is say 45 mm equivalent).
Then switch out the cameras to the 1D and same exact focal distance and the same exact physical distance, the image will "crop" the car where about half the hood and a goodly portion of the trunk will be out of the image.

Then this brings in the second argument.

If setting the APS camera at the same physical distance and adjusting the lens to put the car in full FOV, the next issue that comes into play is the magnification factor of the image is greater with the APS than the FF and the image will actually loose resolution the larger the magnification.

No. Magnification is a function of lens focal length and subject distance period. The same lens focused on the same subject at the same distance will project the same image magnification onto two different size sensors. A lens doesn't change the image it projects if you change the size of the film/sensor.

Enlargement on the other hand can become an issue if you're trying to take the same photo with two different size sensors. But to do that you'll have to change lenses between the two cameras. That's not the issue that was discussed here.

(More pixelization).

I have played this argument time and time again and it always falls back to sensor size.

 

[Soocom1]

No. Magnification is a function of lens focal length and subject distance period. The same lens focused on the same subject at the same distance will project the same image magnification onto two different size sensors. A lens doesn't change the image it projects if you change the size of the film/sensor.

Enlargement on the other hand can become an issue if you're trying to take the same photo with two different size sensors. But to do that you'll have to change lenses between the two cameras. That's not the issue that was discussed here.

When I refer to magnification I am no speaking of the camera.
I am speaking of the enlargement 9magnification of the image0 to be viewed.

 

[Ysarex]

When I refer to magnification I am no speaking of the camera.
I am speaking of the enlargement 9magnification of the image0 to be viewed.

Enlargement is not pertinent to what we've been discussing here. That's a different concern & is off topic. That would enter in, as I noted, where you're comparing "the same photo" taken with two different sensor size cameras which would require you to change lens focal length.

 

[smoke665]

aken with two different sensor size cameras which would require you to change lens focal length.

Or you "enlarge the crop image post to match the resolution of the full frame. If you crop the FF to match the APS-C and equalize the resolutions there would be no change in magnification.

 

[Ysarex]

Or you "enlarge the crop image post to match the resolution of the full frame. If you crop the FF to match the APS-C and equalize the resolutions there would be no change in magnification.

??

I was referring to the situation where a FF and APS sensor camera are compared and enlargement plays a role -- typically using each camera to take "the same photo." First assumption if we're comparing for a difference due to sensor size no cropping of either sensor can occur -- got to use the whole thing.

To get "the same photo" then next assumption is perspective can't change. That requires both cameras take the photo from the same place relative to the subject. And final assumption then to get "the same photo" from each camera is the framing must be the same and that will require different lens focal lengths.

This is the common comparison scenario that I think Soocom1 was referring to in which enlargement to the final image will be factor. And that's not what we've previously been discussing when the topic "reach" was brought up.

 

[smoke665]

This is the common comparison scenario that I think Soocom1 was referring to in which enlargement to the final image will be factor. And that's not what we've previously been discussing when the topic "reach" was brought up

In simple terms if the image circle projected by "X" lens was a pie, then the FF sensor gets a bigger piece, and the Crop sensor a smaller piece, but the "pie" size doesn't change. Since I really like pie......I want the bigger piece.