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

jaomul · Mar 12, 2014

^^
Read the post correctly. I said in a well light photo (LOW ISO) difference is not huge.

As for dof I am not talking about farther away and cropping.

Of course the "most" does not apply to you, as you are obviously an expert on all these things

Gavjenks · Mar 12, 2014

Read the post correctly. I said in a well light photo (LOW ISO) difference is not huge.

It still is. Dynamic range at low ISOs jumps significantly between crop and full frame.

Which is also easy to tell visually. Either:
1) The highlights and/or shadows are clipped in the crop and not in the full, or
2) The photos look the same, but the person misses the shot or spends a lot more time processing HDR and has fewer images in their portfolio with the crop sensor.

Inherently, low ISOs = dynamic range upgrade, high ISOs = lower noise upgrade. Both by about 1 stop for crop --> FF

As for dof I am not talking about farther away and cropping.

Well you should be talking about both, because they are equal. Why does cropping with your sensor count but not cropping in photoshop? They are identical concepts. That's why it's called a "crop format sensor." Thus, the crop sensor isn't doing anything "better" by getting deeper DOF due to cropping, because you can also crop the larger sensor (in software) to the same effect.

So there's no reason to buy the crop sensor "to get a deeper DOF." if you want to buy a crop sensor for its smaller pixels, or for the cheaper price, okay, great (though those are both temporary advantages only). But don't buy it for it's DOF.

jaomul · Mar 12, 2014

Any discussion can have many points of view with a grey area. People buy lenses for a fullframe for a purpose, also on a crop.

If you compare a 60mm f2.8 Lens on a crop and a 90@2.8 on a fullframe and stick these 2 cameras with 2 photographers and a model on a rock with a waterfall each side. You both have just enough Room to stand Far enough back to fill the frame with a half body shot. At f2.8 the fullframe will give a shallower dof.

Now they both want a shot with a very deep dof but light is low. Which camera will achieve a deeper dof at speeds that eradicate camera shake(iso has to remain 100). I suggest that the fullframe guy stepping back and cropping is not a good idea

JerryLove · Mar 12, 2014

jaomul said:
If you compare a 60mm f2.8 Lens on a crop and a 90@2.8 on a fullframe and stick these 2 cameras with 2 photographers and a model on a rock with a waterfall each side. You both have just enough Room to stand Far enough back to fill the frame with a half body shot. At f2.8 the fullframe will give a shallower dof.

I just had this argument.

1) The issue is that you are standing a different distance away, not that the sensor is smaller.

2) You could keep the same distance and use a different lens to re-compose your shot. You wouldn't actually change DoF, but you would change the amount of background which, subjectively, makes the background seem more out-of-focus.

Gavjenks · Mar 12, 2014

jaomul said:
Any discussion can have many points of view with a grey area. People buy lenses for a fullframe for a purpose, also on a crop.

If you compare a 60mm f2.8 Lens on a crop and a 90@2.8 on a fullframe and stick these 2 cameras with 2 photographers and a model on a rock with a waterfall each side. You both have just enough Room to stand Far enough back to fill the frame with a half body shot. At f2.8 the fullframe will give a shallower dof.

Now they both want a shot with a very deep dof but light is low. Which camera will achieve a deeper dof at speeds that eradicate camera shake(iso has to remain 100). I suggest that the fullframe guy stepping back and cropping is not a good idea

His problem isn't that he has a full frame camera. His problem is that he's a moron who ONLY brought a prime 90mm lens to a shoot on a perilous rock face with no room to move. He deserves to get stuck with undesirable DOF. The other guy is probably equally dumb but just happened to get lucky this time.

You can always contrive some preposterous situation to say one product might be better. "What if a crow stole your pullitzer prize winning memory card, and you need to hit it by throwing your DSLR, and it's JUUUUST far enough away that you can hit it with a Rebel T2i, but not with a heavier full frame?! OMIGOSH crop would be better then!"

Okay... meanwhile back in real people world, 99.9% of people don't end up in situations like that and thus fail to reap any of those "benefits"

Robin Usagani · Mar 12, 2014

I will take the 5D Mk 2 for sure. Yeah the AF isnt that great but it still takes kick ass photos. The AF isnt that bad when your subject is well lit despite not having that many points.

runnah · Mar 12, 2014

jaomul said:
Any discussion can have many points of view with a grey area. People buy lenses for a fullframe for a purpose, also on a crop. If you compare a 60mm f2.8 Lens on a crop and a 90@2.8 on a fullframe and stick these 2 cameras with 2 photographers and a model on a rock with a waterfall each side. You both have just enough Room to stand Far enough back to fill the frame with a half body shot. At f2.8 the fullframe will give a shallower dof. Now they both want a shot with a very deep dof but light is low. Which camera will achieve a deeper dof at speeds that eradicate camera shake(iso has to remain 100). I suggest that the fullframe guy stepping back and cropping is not a good idea

Quite possibly the worst example I've heard on here in the last hour.

robbins.photo · Mar 12, 2014

Gavjenks said:
jaomul said:

Any discussion can have many points of view with a grey area. People buy lenses for a fullframe for a purpose, also on a crop.

If you compare a 60mm f2.8 Lens on a crop and a 90@2.8 on a fullframe and stick these 2 cameras with 2 photographers and a model on a rock with a waterfall each side. You both have just enough Room to stand Far enough back to fill the frame with a half body shot. At f2.8 the fullframe will give a shallower dof.

Now they both want a shot with a very deep dof but light is low. Which camera will achieve a deeper dof at speeds that eradicate camera shake(iso has to remain 100). I suggest that the fullframe guy stepping back and cropping is not a good idea

Click to expand...

His problem isn't that he has a full frame camera. His problem is that he's a moron who ONLY brought a prime 90mm lens to a shoot on a perilous rock face with no room to move. He deserves to get stuck with undesirable DOF. The other guy is probably equally dumb but just happened to get lucky this time.

You can always contrive some preposterous situation to say one product might be better. "What if a crow stole your pullitzer prize winning memory card, and you need to hit it by throwing your DSLR, and it's JUUUUST far enough away that you can hit it with a Rebel T2i, but not with a heavier full frame?! OMIGOSH crop would be better then!"

Okay... meanwhile back in real people world, 99.9% of people don't end up in situations like that and thus fail to reap any of those "benefits"

Just curious but does that crow snatching a memory card thing happen a lot where you're from?

Also I'm starting to think maybe I need to get out more because I have yet to shoot a model standing on a rock with my back to a 300 plus foot cliff. Fortunately though I did have the foresight to invest in more than one lens so I might just be ok there.

Lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

jaomul · Mar 13, 2014

Bad example. Correct. Point tried to make was no one cares about focal length equals x on a fullframe. Your apparent field of view on the camera you are using is all that matters. For a regular portrait a crop guy would likely have a 50 and a ff use an 85mm. They stand approx same place to get a similar shot. Dof is different for both. That's all.

Gavjenks · Mar 13, 2014

For a regular portrait a crop guy would likely have a 50 and a ff use an 85mm. They stand approx same place to get a similar shot. Dof is different for both. That's all.

...unless the FF guy wanted deeper DOF!! In which case he would use a 50 and crop out the middle of it. Thus, if the FF has 1.6x as many pixels too (like the D800), no advantage whatsoever for crop format for depth of field.

Your argument seems to rely on all full frame users being clueless and dumb and not using tricks available to them (or you know, reading their manual. not even a trick, the Nikons come with a crop mode right in the settings), and all crop sensor users being savvy and knowledgeable and exploiting differences on purpose.

jaomul · Mar 13, 2014

^^
Not at all Gavjenks. Bringing an accusation that I think a certain type of camera user has less knowledge than another is a weak and immature argument. You can be correct with your maths explanations, no problem. I'm out of this one. You crop the centres from your photos all you like

JerryLove · Mar 13, 2014

Gavjenks said:
...unless the FF guy wanted deeper DOF!! In which case he would use a 50 and crop out the middle of it. Thus, if the FF has 1.6x as many pixels too (like the D800), no advantage whatsoever for crop format for depth of field.

I'm not sure the math works that way.

I believe it's 1.6x in a single dimension, making the needed pixel difference something like 2.5. This appears born out by the performance of a FX sensor in DX mode.

36x24mm = 864 mm^2
24x16mm = 384 mm^2

So yea. 2.25x the number of pixels.

Robin Usagani · Mar 13, 2014

What he said ^^^.

You need a lot more pixels to be cropping like a cropped sensor and still have 16 mp.

Braineack · Mar 13, 2014

Robin Usagani said:
What he said ^^^.

You need a lot more pixels to be cropping like a cropped sensor and still have 16 mp.

a 24MP FX will crop to 10MP in DX mode.

My D600 produces an image of 6016x4016. That's 24,160,256 pixels.

in 24x16 mode, it's a 3936×2624 image, or 10,328,064 pixels, or 10.3MP.

You need a D800 to get 16MP in DX mode.

This is why a heavier MP crop sensor is probably more ideal for telephoto work.