FF vs Crop question

[ronlane]

Can someone please explain to me the need for a full frame camera if you are just going to crop the picture? How often do you crop a picture in PP?

 

[480sparky41 40]

I crop 99% of my work in post. But that has nothing to do with a 'crop' sensor.

 

[MLeeK]

The biggest advantage of full frame is that the pixels in a full frame are larger giving you much less noise at high ISO's.
Your depth of field is less in a full frame giving you some amazing bokeh.
The angle of your view is not restricted as is with a crop.
The advanced crop bodies have been getting a lot of pro bells and whistles lately, but they still aren't getting ALL of the pro bells and whistles.

 

[ronlane]

The biggest advantage of full frame is that the pixels in a full frame are larger giving you much less noise at high ISO's.
Your depth of field is less in a full frame giving you some amazing bokeh.
The angle of your view is not restricted as is with a crop.
The advanced crop bodies have been getting a lot of pro bells and whistles lately, but they still aren't getting ALL of the pro bells and whistles.

Okay, I can understand that. It just seemed weird to me when I was thinking about it tonight. Thank you.

 

[MLeeK]

The noise difference is a major deal. Especially for lifestyle portraits, sports, weddings.

 

[ronlane]

I can agree with that. I took my T3i to a softball game the other night and had to use high ISO's and got some really grainy pictures. Thank God for PS.

 

[480sparky41 40]

Full-frame cameras enjoy perks like higher fps rates, larger buffers & faster write speeds, larger/brighter viewfinders......

 

[KmH]

Because some of the popular print sizes have different aspect ratios from most 135 format (35 mm film, 3:2 aspect ratio) shaped image sensors, photographers learn to 'shoot fat', which is leaving room in the viewfinder to allow for post production cropping to those different popular print aspect ratios (mainly 5:4 and 7:5).
Of course that is regardless the size of the image sensor in the camera.

Full frame image sensors cost a lot more to make than crop size image sensors, because significantly fewer full frame image sensors can be made on each wafer of silicon.

Making full frame cameras cost more to make even if all other features/functions are equal to a crop sensor camera.

A full frame image sensor is 36 mm x 24 mm 864 sq mm). a Nikon APS-C image sensor size varies a little by model but is about 23.5 mm by 15.5 mm (364.25 sq mm). Canon's APS-C image sensor is even smaller at about 22 mm x 15 mm.

So a full frame Nikon image sensor is about 2.4 times larger than a Nikon APS-C size image sensor. Since a wafer of silicon is round and image sensors are rectangular, there is more wasted silicon when FF sensors are made than when crop sensors are made. So, it turns out only 1/3 as many FF sensors can be made on a single silicon wafer compared to the number of crop sensors made on a wafer of silicon.

 

[skieur]

One advantage however of crop body cameras is the ability to use smaller, handheld, telephoto lenses to get the same reach as larger, heavier telephoto lenses on a fullframe. If you are shooting where tripods aren't possible or they slow you down, then you are more likely to "get the shot" with a lighter telephoto on a crop body camera than with a heavier lens on a full frame.

skieur

 

[Tee]

One advantage however of crop body cameras is the ability to use smaller, handheld, telephoto lenses to get the same reach as larger, heavier telephoto lenses on a fullframe. If you are shooting where tripods aren't possible or they slow you down, then you are more likely to "get the shot" with a lighter telephoto on a crop body camera than with a heavier lens on a full frame.

skieur

This makes no sense. You can use lighter telephoto's on full frame bodies as well. The problem is you're equating "light" lenses+crop body+extra reach= awesomeness. When in reality "light" telephotos+variable apertures+any body=crap.

 

[skieur]

One advantage however of crop body cameras is the ability to use smaller, handheld, telephoto lenses to get the same reach as larger, heavier telephoto lenses on a fullframe. If you are shooting where tripods aren't possible or they slow you down, then you are more likely to "get the shot" with a lighter telephoto on a crop body camera than with a heavier lens on a full frame.

skieur

This makes no sense. You can use lighter telephoto's on full frame bodies as well. The problem is you're equating "light" lenses+crop body+extra reach= awesomeness. When in reality "light" telephotos+variable apertures+any body=crap.

Let me try it super-simple. On a crop body a 300mm lens is equivalent to 450mm in (35mm full frame terms.) A 450mm lens on a full frame camera is going to be heavier than a 300mm lens on a crop body camera and probably have a slower f stop (speed).

Do you understand, now?

skieur

 

[amolitor]

You can get the same effect by cropping the image from the full-frame sensor. You lose some pixels along the way, but depending on what you're comparing you may have more of them to start with.

 

[bratkinson]

One advantage however of crop body cameras is the ability to use smaller, handheld, telephoto lenses to get the same reach as larger, heavier telephoto lenses on a fullframe. If you are shooting where tripods aren't possible or they slow you down, then you are more likely to "get the shot" with a lighter telephoto on a crop body camera than with a heavier lens on a full frame.

skieur

This makes no sense. You can use lighter telephoto's on full frame bodies as well. The problem is you're equating "light" lenses+crop body+extra reach= awesomeness. When in reality "light" telephotos+variable apertures+any body=crap.

Let me try it super-simple. On a crop body a 300mm lens is equivalent to 450mm in (35mm full frame terms.) A 450mm lens on a full frame camera is going to be heavier than a 300mm lens on a crop body camera and probably have a slower f stop (speed).

Do you understand, now?

skieur

A 300mm lens on a crop body is STILL a 300mm lens, regardless of what body it is mounted on. The only difference is that the field of view (angle of view) is narrower on the crop body. Thus, only the center area of the image projected by the lens onto the sensor is 'sensed'. The rest of the light falls on the black plastic of the camera body. This smaller area of the image matches that of a longer lens (450mm, if a 1.5 crop sensor) in terms of the recorded image, but it is not magically 'zoomed in'.

Consider taking a broadside picture of a car such that each bumper 'just touches' the edges of the image in the viewfinder of a full-frame body. To get the same picture with the same lens on a crop body, it would be necessary to back up 5-10 feet to get the same image. Shooting with the crop body from the same location as was shot with the full-frame body would result in an image only from the bottom of the front windshield to the bottom of the rear window. The hood, trunk, and both bumpers would not be in the image recorded by the crop body camera. Is this considered as 'zooming in'? No. It is merely a 'cropped picture'.

The confusion may arise when looking at the two pictures on your computer. As the smaller image recorded by the crop sensor camera must be enlarged more times to fill your computer screen, it would seem like it was zoomed in. But it was not...it was only enlarged on your computer. No different than using an enlarger to make a bigger print from a negative.

 

[usayit]

A 450mm lens on a full frame camera is going to be heavier than a 300mm lens on a crop body camera and probably have a slower f stop (speed).

Amolitor and Bratkinson,

Neither of your responses contradict what skieur is saying.... Yes 300mm is still 300mm but the difference isn't just the FOV. Skieur is saying the lenses designed for crop sensors will also be smaller and lighter. Let's take it a little further than APS crop vs full frame to simplify the comparison. Lets talk FF vs Micro 4/3 cameras. These cameras have an even smaller crop: 2x. The Panasonic 100-300mm zoom designed for the micro 4/3 system is going to be equivalent to a 200-600mm FOV on FF. There is no 200-600mm zoom lens on FF that is the size of a beer can (size of 100-300mm on micro 4/3).

 

[manaheim]

The biggest advantage of full frame is that the pixels in a full frame are larger giving you much less noise at high ISO's.
Your depth of field is less in a full frame giving you some amazing bokeh.
The angle of your view is not restricted as is with a crop.
The advanced crop bodies have been getting a lot of pro bells and whistles lately, but they still aren't getting ALL of the pro bells and whistles.

Unless yer one of those mo-rons with a D800.

Like me.