Please stop promoting crop sensors for the "extra reach"

[qleak]

Disclaimer: Apparently I'm dead wrong in many of the things I say below. Proceed with caution

I love my crop sensor D7100. That being said I'd like to address some common misconceptions people have about crop sensor cameras. I'm not trying to pick on anyone, I've even probably thought, said or typed some of these myself. I wonder how much of this is me trying to rationalize the pot of money I set on fire for my photography gear.

Here's the one that is prevalent:

"Crop sensor cameras have extra reach"

This unfortunately is utter nonsense. Suppose you have a crop sensor and a full frame sensor from the same generation and manufacturer with roughly the same pixel density. See the diagram below:

There will be a copy of the crop sensor inside the full frame sensor. All you have to do is crop the photo. Get it? That's why it's called a crop sensor.

Some cameras even have a mode to do this that discards the outside of the frame to save space. If you're lucky they'll even have a viewfinder mode to help with the composition. But that's all it is, saving memory space. If you can't afford memory cards what are you doing in photography?

Some people would argue weight is an advantage of crop sensors, and there is some truth to this too, but is a ~100g difference really that big of a deal? You're likely to be putting much more weight into lenses and lighting equipment anyway!

You might argue crop sensor lenses are lighter. If you are a sick perverted individual you can use crop lenses on FF bodies anyway. All you have to do is crop the image or just deal with black parts of the frame.

Some other supposed advantages of crop sensor and my criticism:

• Higher frame rate (what are you doing spraying and praying? It's not even an advantage if you go to the pro line.)
• Higher flash sync speed ( not always true. but congrats anyway you may gain 1/3 EV)
• Deeper depth of field (nope just crop a FF image and you have exactly the same).
• Better (or worse) bokeh ( this is a property of the lens, aperture, focal length and focus distance. If it's in frame it will be the same)

The real advantage of crop sensors is price. Let's be honest, you knew that already didn't you?

Being in photographer, especially if you want to do it professionally, is about managing your expenses. That's why we're not all running around with digital hasselblads or phase one cameras. Most of us don't need them enough to justify the cost.
I may need some popcorn for the responses to this

 

[photoguy99]

Except that Nikon's current crop of crop sensors have substantially smaller pixel pitch. So.

And, yeah, cheap like borscht.

 

[480sparky]

.........There will be a copy of the crop sensor inside the full frame sensor. All you have to do is crop the photo. Get it? That's why it's called a crop sensor..........
You might argue crop sensor lenses are lighter. If you are a sick perverted individual you can use crop lenses on FF bodies anyway. All you have to do is crop the image or just deal with black parts of the frame................

It's not as simple as that.

My D600, in DX mode, give me an anemic 10.3mp. The same shot, taken with my D7100, provides me with a generous 24mp.

 

[Braineack]

I'd rather a d7100 if I was shooting for reach

using tapatalk.

 

[qleak]

Except that Nikon's current crop of crop sensors have substantially smaller pixel pitch. So.

And, yeah, cheap like borscht.

My D600, in DX mode, give me an anemic 10.3mp. The same shot, taken with my D7100, provides me with a generous 24mp.

Fair points. But higher pixel density does not ensure a better image. I was going to suggest a test shot, but I'm convinced there is no point a forum resolutions.

How about the DX mode on a newer model. The d600 predates the d7100 by 4 years and has roughly the same number of pixels. What's the resolution on the DX mode on the D610?

And, yeah, cheap like borscht.

I have no idea what you mean by this? Did I even say cheap anywhere?

I'd rather a d7100 if I was shooting for reach

Care to elaborate?

 

[photoguy99]

Cheap like borscht.

I can buy a D3300 which for any given lens puts more pixels on a bird than anything else out there, for some absurdly tiny amount of money.

If the only consideration is putting pixels on a bird, it kicks ass over, say, a D810. As well as everything else except the other Nikon 24mp crop cameras.

 

[photoguy99]

One might almost say it has more reach. In an extremely well defined and unambiguous way.

 

[qleak]

Well holy crap the d610 doesn't have a sensor update... so it's DX mode is about the same ~10MP.

Okay so I stand corrected here. The pixel density of the d7100 is much higher than the pixel density on any FF camera. So there really is more reach.

Seeing is this thread is likely to continue indefinitely maybe a moderator can close it or delete it please

 

[480sparky]

........How about the DX mode on a newer model. The d600 predates the d7100 by 4 years and has roughly the same number of pixels. What's the resolution on the DX mode on the D610?........

Sorry. I'm not independently wealthy and can't go buying every camera out there just to 'test drive' them. I'll leave that to others.

But I will say I can see a very marked difference between a shot taken with the D600 in DX mode and the same shot taken with the D7100. That's why I bought the D7100.... to shoot with the 'extra reach' it gives me, and still have the ability to crop where the D600 begins to falter. The D7100 will win that race all day long, any day, any track, any weather.

 

[e.rose]

I'm not even going to read this.

I just came in to like it.

Because I agree with your title alone.

 

[Raj_55555]

I don't even see an argument here, I agree with just about all the posts in this thread.

I used to be one of those gullible people who believe that DX cameras have the same effect as adding a teleconverter to a lens, thus giving them 1.5X more reach. And the camera cos. do promote their cameras like that, and most reviewers don't bother to explain it properly for the laymen either. So yeah, I'd like it if they stopped promoting things like that.
I'd still get the D7100 if I was shooting for reach, but now I understand why and that is very important.

 

[sashbar]

While you are chewing your popcorn, I recommend you to read your line about DoF once more slowly and think about it.

• Deeper depth of field (nope just crop a FF image and you have exactly the same)

Just FYI: Аs sensor size increases, the depth of field will decrease for a given aperture (when filling the frame with a subject of the same size and distance). This is because larger sensors require one to get closer to their subject, or to use a longer focal length in order to fill the frame with that subject. This means that one has to use progressively smaller aperture sizes in order to maintain the same depth of field on larger sensors.

Higher frame rate is sometimes very important, depending on your photography, and it is not necessary sport or birds. There are times when I need it with street photography, and 8-10 f/sec is VASTLY more useful than 4-5 f/s.

I personally do not even consider FF, and it has nothing to do with money. I need deeper DoF and, more importantly, smaller size. The size is a huge disadvantage of a FF camera as far as I am concerned. Some guys prefer larger bodies, but not me. It is because of my particular interests in photography. Even with FF mirrorless (Sony) lenses are too large for my liking. I want my cameras to be with me most of the time and the prospect of being a weekend photog carrying around a large and heavy bag once a week is not really appealing.

My current FUJI X-T1 is in a different league regarding the size and weight, compared to FF ( But in the same league regarding IQ) . Hell, I did not even consider a prosumer crop like D7100 because of it's weight and bulk. My other camera is Ricoh GR, which I can put in my shirt pocket, it has a cropped sensor just like D7100, has some controls that D7100 lacks and gives a great IQ. Try to spend a day in the city shooting with this little gem and you will look at FF elephants in different light. My friend who is a pro fotog with years working for top agencies and papers tells me that for the life of it he can not understand amateurs buying full frame cameras.

As for Full Frame versus Crop definitions, the so called Full Frame sensor is horribly cropped compared to medium format or even more so large format cameras.

 

[runnah]

I will take down my flyers and cancel the awareness walk.

 

[qleak]

While you are chewing your popcorn, I recommend you to read your line about DoF once more slowly and think about it.

I think i choked on my popcorn, you are right and I must be reading the wrong kind of articles.

I found a bit more mathematically geared draft that lays out the equations for depth of field in terms of Field of view and outside the box parameters. And apparently DOF can be larger, smaller, or the same for the same field of view on different formats. It just matters what you change, it probably warrants an entirely different thread. I'm apparently too tired for nuanced arguments tonight, I'll examine it later

 

[Derrel]

Well holy crap the d610 doesn't have a sensor update... so it's DX mode is about the same ~10MP.

Okay so I stand corrected here. The pixel density of the d7100 is much higher than the pixel density on any FF camera. So there really is more reach.

Seeing is this thread is likely to continue indefinitely maybe a moderator can close it or delete it please

Well-played sir, well-played! In less than one hour you took a stand, and then utterly reversed your position on it! So we KNOW that you are flexible, and open to new ideas! It's okay. No big deal. It's really not the end of the world.