Is an older full framer still better than the latest aps-c?

[IronMaskDuval]

For example, the Canon 5d Mark II vs the Nikon D7100. They seem rather comparable, but is the aps-c doing it marginally better?

 

[JerryLove]

Not inherently so, no. The better camera will vary not only by which two individuals are being compared, but by the preferences of the purchaser.

I won't try to compare those specific two cameras, but the specs, from ISO performance to focus-speed are all available. There's nothing magic about FF sensors that cannot be expressed in statistics.

 

[SCraig]

For example, the Canon 5d Mark II vs the Nikon D7100. They seem rather comparable, but is the aps-c doing it marginally better?

DxO rates the Canon 5DII 41st overall and the Nikon D7100 19th overall. I'd say that's more than marginal.

 

[Derrel]

"Better" by what metric? The 5D and 5D-II have rather modest autofocus systems, and are really basically $389 EOS Elan class bodies with no built-in flash, no built-in commander, and fairly simple, sluggish body subsystems. Those two cameras were really NOTHING like the new 5D Mark III, which is more of a pro-level type of design and build. I shot the 5D (aka the 5D Classic from 2006 to 2012). It's a VERY simple, kind of slow-feeling camera, but the images it made under studio lighting and decent light were always really nice. One thing about the 5D: at ISO 1,600 it still delivered good image quality, but by ISO 3,200 it was notably worse. One thing that made the 5D so great was that the dynamic range declined very slowly as the ISO went up and up and up...it did not "nose-dive" like so many other cameras did in its day as the ISO went up and away from base-ISO.

The D7100 is smaller and more nimble-feeling than the 5D, and it's a more-modern camera. As far as other old full framers...I'd rather have a Nikon D3s than a D7100.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Ok, so my next question is, why spend that much more on ff when the aps-c can do almost the same thing if you have room to step back further. I understand that the ff captures more of the frame, but is it worth that extra jump in money? I know there are pros and cons when comparing the two, but why call a D3s a pro and not the d610 or d7100? Does having the ff sensor alone consider it a pro model, because I can't imagine it's what makes the pro photographer.

 

[Gavjenks]

There are like 60 different things you could compare them on... They are better on some not as good on others. It also depends heavily which APS-C you're comparing them to. A 5D Mk II has professional style ergonomics and build, for instance, completely separate from any issues of its sensor. You can get the same on APS-C, but you'll end up paying as much money anyway oftentimes.

Ok, so my next question is, why spend that much more on ff when the aps-c can do almost the same thing if you have room to step back further.

Wide angle is NOT a reason to get full frame. a 10mm crop-only lens costs about the same as a 14mm full frame compatible lens, and crop lenses often go down to 18mm standard whereas full frame lenses go down to 24mm standard (most of the difference negated right there), etc. And the widest available crop only lenses are wider by almost exactly the crop factor.

The reason to go full frame is largely for low light performance, higher dynamic range, and different DOF given a single perspective. And/or high resolution without sacrificing light performance for some models (D800 for instance, 36MP, but pixels the same size each as APS-C typical)

Also for the build quality and ergonomics, which are not exclusive to full frame, but as mentioned above, you pay similar $$ for those features in crop anyway, so often it's worth it to just go ahead and get the better low light ability on top of it.

 

[rexbobcat]

Ok, so my next question is, why spend that much more on ff when the aps-c can do almost the same thing if you have room to step back further. I understand that the ff captures more of the frame, but is it worth that extra jump in money? I know there are pros and cons when comparing the two, but why call a D3s a pro and not the d610 or d7100? Does having the ff sensor alone consider it a pro model, because I can't imagine it's what makes the pro photographer.

The "pro" and "consumer" designations are just to show which segment certain cameras are marketed to.

 

[JerryLove]

Ok, so my next question is, why spend that much more on ff when the aps-c can do almost the same thing if you have room to step back further.

I want to be clear: this question has no real relationship to your former question which compared advantages of newer tech with advantages of larger frames.

If there's no change in the basic sensor technology, moving to FF does one of two things (other than get rid of the crop factor). It either increases the resolution (about double based on dual-mode Nikons), or it increases the size of the individual "pixels" on the sensor, resulting in things like better light sensitivity. (also possible is a mix of the two above)

Of course, FF is often bundled into bodies that are better in other ways as well.

I understand that the ff captures more of the frame, but is it worth that extra jump in money? I know there are pros and cons when comparing the two, but why call a D3s a pro and not the d610 or d7100? Does having the ff sensor alone consider it a pro model, because I can't imagine it's what makes the pro photographer.

A D3 is an entirely different class of camera.

It has a terrific image processor, shoots at 9fps, shot at ISO 6,400 without noise (excellent for the time), dynamic range, faster AF.

Forget age. Look a the current Canon 1D(whatever) compared to the 5DmkIII. The 1D has no more pixels (I think less actually), and is actually a form of crop sensor (1.2x rather than 1.6x), but is still the better camera for a certain audience, with its blinding fast burst rate, nigh-instant focus, and massive pentaprisim.

In short: there's more to a camera than the number of pixels on its sensor... or indeed, its sensor at all.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Ok, so my next question is, why spend that much more on ff when the aps-c can do almost the same thing if you have room to step back further.

I want to be clear: this question has no real relationship to your former question which compared advantages of newer tech with advantages of larger frames.

If there's no change in the basic sensor technology, moving to FF does one of two things (other than get rid of the crop factor). It either increases the resolution (about double based on dual-mode Nikons), or it increases the size of the individual "pixels" on the sensor, resulting in things like better light sensitivity. (also possible is a mix of the two above)

Of course, FF is often bundled into bodies that are better in other ways as well.

I understand that the ff captures more of the frame, but is it worth that extra jump in money? I know there are pros and cons when comparing the two, but why call a D3s a pro and not the d610 or d7100? Does having the ff sensor alone consider it a pro model, because I can't imagine it's what makes the pro photographer.

A D3 is an entirely different class of camera.

It has a terrific image processor, shoots at 9fps, shot at ISO 6,400 without noise (excellent for the time), dynamic range, faster AF.

Forget age. Look a the current Canon 1D(whatever) compared to the 5DmkIII. The 1D has no more pixels (I think less actually), and is actually a form of crop sensor (1.2x rather than 1.6x), but is still the better camera for a certain audience, with its blinding fast burst rate, nigh-instant focus, and massive pentaprisim.

In short: there's more to a camera than the number of pixels on its sensor... or indeed, its sensor at all.

I wasn't looking to buy. I'm happy with my D7100. I am just trying to understand the equipment side of things.

 

[skieur]

For example, the Canon 5d Mark II vs the Nikon D7100. They seem rather comparable, but is the aps-c doing it marginally better?

In comparison test shots at ISO 1600, the Nikon D7100 has more digital noise than the Canon 5d Mark II.

 

[KmH]

Ok, so my next question is, why spend that much more on ff when the aps-c can do almost the same thing if you have room to step back further.

I want to be clear: this question has no real relationship to your former question which compared advantages of newer tech with advantages of larger frames.

If there's no change in the basic sensor technology, moving to FF does one of two things (other than get rid of the crop factor). It either increases the resolution (about double based on dual-mode Nikons), or it increases the size of the individual "pixels" on the sensor, resulting in things like better light sensitivity. (also possible is a mix of the two above)

Of course, FF is often bundled into bodies that are better in other ways as well.

I understand that the ff captures more of the frame, but is it worth that extra jump in money? I know there are pros and cons when comparing the two, but why call a D3s a pro and not the d610 or d7100? Does having the ff sensor alone consider it a pro model, because I can't imagine it's what makes the pro photographer.

A D3 is an entirely different class of camera.

It has a terrific image processor, shoots at 9fps, shot at ISO 6,400 without noise (excellent for the time), dynamic range, faster AF.

Forget age. Look a the current Canon 1D(whatever) compared to the 5DmkIII. The 1D has no more pixels (I think less actually), and is actually a form of crop sensor (1.2x rather than 1.6x), but is still the better camera for a certain audience, with its blinding fast burst rate, nigh-instant focus, and massive pentaprisim.

In short: there's more to a camera than the number of pixels on its sensor... or indeed, its sensor at all.

I wasn't looking to buy. I'm happy with my D7100. I am just trying to understand the equipment side of things.

Then learn about pixel pitch and SNR - signal-to-noise-ratio.

 

[Steve5D]

I don't really see the point in viewing one as "better" than the other.

They're different.

When shooting portraits, my full frame produces far superior images than my crop. Conversely, the full frame comes up short in motorsports when compared to the crop.

As to the question of "Which is better?", my response would be "For what?"

 

[Gavjenks]

I don't really see the point in viewing one as "better" than the other.

They're different

For now, this is sort of true.

Presumably, in the near future, full frame will become almost universally simply better, period. Namely, when the majority of full frames are like the D800 and have the same pixel pitch as crop frames, allowing you to use the pixels individually, or pool across them for better low light abilities, using firmware.

If/when that happens, there will be zero advantage to owning a crop frame (other than cost, which will become more and more negligible of a difference as both get cheaper). Because if pixel pitch is the same (like the D800), then you can just take a photo of your motorsports from further away and simply crop it down in post processing to get precisely the same image with the same resolution you would have gotten with the crop camera. Yet if you want to take portraits using the full sensor, you can.

Full frame will do both things, and crop frame will only do one of the things and not do it any better.

 

[jaomul]

To be fair, if paired with the correct lenses or at least the nest available at a certain price point most people could not tell the difference between a well light shot between a crop or fullframe (I said most, some can and likely they are photographers).

Low light image quality is a different story with noise and Dr generally better on fullframe.

With the newest range of cameras even pros are using m4/3 systems in place of previous fullframe models. This may indicate that sensor size is not as critical for many.

Grant it due subject position etc, shallow dof is easier to achieve on larger formats, but on the flip side a deeper dof is achievable with faster shutter speeds on smaller formats due not having to select such small apertures.

I think aps-c is a good mix of abilities for most users, especially those stepping up to a dslr/csc for the first time

 

[Gavjenks]

a deeper dof is achievable with faster shutter speeds on smaller formats due not having to select such small apertures.

No it's not, you can just shoot with the larger format further away, and then crop it to the desired framing later, to also achieve deeper DOF. And with a 36MP FF versus a 24MP crop frame for example (same pixel size), you'd have just as much resolution either way too.

To be fair, if paired with the correct lenses or at least the nest available at a certain price point most people could not tell the difference between a well light shot between a crop or fullframe (I said most, some can and likely they are photographers).
Low light image quality is a different story with noise and Dr generally better on fullframe.

Noise IS the visual difference. So you're saying "The average person can't notice the noise difference. But noise...! Well, that's a different story!"

Huh?