Question about Full vs Crop Sensor Cameras

[crzyfotopeeple]

To clarify on my comments because I believe there is some misunderstanding. A super expensive, high end, professional full frame camera is considerably more capable than a consumer level crop camera. The issue is not everyone can afford a super expensive high end camera, therefore crop sensor cameras exist in the market.

 

[beagle100]

To clarify on my comments because I believe there is some misunderstanding. A super expensive, high end, professional full frame camera is considerably more capable than a consumer level crop camera. The issue is not everyone can afford a super expensive high end camera, therefore crop sensor cameras5 exist in the market.

indeed, why 99.999 % use a "crop" cell phone for pics

 

[Designer]

To clarify on my comments because I believe there is some misunderstanding. A super expensive, high end, professional full frame camera is considerably more capable than a consumer level crop camera. The issue is not everyone can afford a super expensive high end camera, therefore crop sensor cameras exist in the market.

You're mostly correct, but to be fully correct, you should acknowledge the process of how "crop" sensor cameras came into existence in the first place.

I will tell you.

When digital photo sensors were first introduce into the consumer market, the cost to produce sensors was such that the 35mm sensors were substantially more than for smaller sensors, so camera manufacturers introduced "crop" sensors to the consumer market to sell more cameras.

Naturally, camera manufacturers would like to keep on promoting their "professional" cameras and charging more money for them, so there is the marketing strategy of maintaining different lines of cameras.

Therefore, they put more technology into the "professional" lines to keep prices up, even though the same technology could be put into the "crop" bodies for only a little more cost. See the Nikon D500 for example.

 

[Derrel]

These days a person can buy a used Canon 5D classic for $300-$375, or a used Nikon D600 or D610 Or a used D800 for from $600-$800.

 

[Derrel]

I should point out that it is easily possible to pay $500-$800 on the used market for several cameras that have full frame sensors and which retailed at $3,599 up to $5,000 when those same cameras were new and current models.

The Canon 5D, the Canon 5D Mark II, the Nikon D600 and D610, and the Nikon D700, D800, and the Nikon D3s are the camera models I am referring to. For $1000-$1150, A person can buy a pretty clean Nikon D3X, which is an incredible camera, although at higher ISO levels like 3200 I personally think that the D610 and the 800 perform better.

It is easily possible to get extremely high image quality for less than $800, in camera that will last most people two decades or more.

 

[Derrel]

The Nikon D2x that I bought for $5000 in May 2005 is now available on the used market for around $300-$350, and it is not as good a picture maker as the new Nikon D500. Crop sensor cameras have made huge strides in the image quality that they provide, but full frame cameras have always been of extremely high quality as far as image characteristics go. Even the cheapest full frame camera of its era, The Canon 5D, produced extremely good images from its lowest ISO valueup to around 1600. There is and was a certain quality or look to Canon 5D files. It was an inexpensive camera body with a very,very good imaging sensor inside of it.

 

[Soocom1]

To clarify on my comments because I believe there is some misunderstanding. A super expensive, high end, professional full frame camera is considerably more capable than a consumer level crop camera. The issue is not everyone can afford a super expensive high end camera, therefore crop sensor cameras exist in the market.

You're mostly correct, but to be fully correct, you should acknowledge the process of how "crop" sensor cameras came into existence in the first place.

I will tell you.

When digital photo sensors were first introduce into the consumer market, the cost to produce sensors was such that the 35mm sensors were substantially more than for smaller sensors, so camera manufacturers introduced "crop" sensors to the consumer market to sell more cameras.

Naturally, camera manufacturers would like to keep on promoting their "professional" cameras and charging more money for them, so there is the marketing strategy of maintaining different lines of cameras.

Therefore, they put more technology into the "professional" lines to keep prices up, even though the same technology could be put into the "crop" bodies for only a little more cost. See the Nikon D500 for example.

Actually....


The first digital SLRs were full frame.
The Nikon and Canon DCS in collaboration with Kodak were all full frame.
The Minolta RD 175 was also full frame.

The reason why the sensors were cut to APS size was because of the silicon wafer industry.

Silicon wafers that make the sensors in digital cameras have their origins in the old round solar panel designs from the early 1980's The wafers were originally round because they are grown as a crystal structure in long tubes.

These tubes typically are around 6-10 feet long and were a standardized 6 inches because the grown crystals had integrity issues beyond that size in the beginning and also because the wafer industry was not involved or concerned with photography.

The typical size of silicon wafers are cut from an ingot that was a standard 6 inch diameter. You can cut 4 35mm sensors from a 6 inch round with a substantial amount of waste.

With APS, the amount of waste is greatly reduced and the number of sensors cut from the 6 inches is higher than with 35mm.
The APS size was chosen because of the leftovers from the Advanced Photo System (APS) debacle.

The equipment was cheaper to hold onto and the original glass was all for full frame sizes and trying to retool the 35mm side of things for high production didnt make sense.

There are many who believe its impossible to create a full frame medium or large format sensor, but its simply a matter of tooling.


In regards to the image quality between FF vs. crop, what MUST be remembered is that the MOUNTING DISTANCE is the same in both for such camera lines as the EOS and Nikon. The glass focuses at the same focal distance because its easier and cheaper to produce such.

Hence, the image produces is exactly the same because it IS the same, because the FOCAL DISTANCE and MOUNTING distance is the same.

The only reason why we have this stupid argument is because many simply do not grasp the concept that the 'crop" is actually delegated by the reproduction ratio.

If you mount say an EOS 100mm lens on a Canon 5D (full frame) and that mounted on a tripod, take a picture of a car, then switch the camera out to a crop sensor, but use the same exact lens and the same exact distance, the image in both cameras are exactly the same. Then take the picture with the same exact distance without re framing, and voila, the "crop sensor" image must be enlarged more to equal the same reproduced image from a full frame image on a 4x6 or 8x10 print.

The economic advantage simply came along for the ride.

 

[Dacaur]

If you mount say an EOS 100mm lens on a Canon 5D (full frame) and that mounted on a tripod, take a picture of a car, then switch the camera out to a crop sensor, but use the same exact lens and the same exact distance, the image in both cameras are exactly the same. Then take the picture with the same exact distance without re framing, and voila, the "crop sensor" image must be enlarged more to equal the same reproduced image from a full frame image on a 4x6 or 8x10 print.

The economic advantage simply came along for the ride.

You have obviously never done this.
The images will not be exactly the same.
The image made by the crop sensor camera will be only the center part of the image on the full frame. Try it.

 

[Soocom1]

If you mount say an EOS 100mm lens on a Canon 5D (full frame) and that mounted on a tripod, take a picture of a car, then switch the camera out to a crop sensor, but use the same exact lens and the same exact distance, the image in both cameras are exactly the same. Then take the picture with the same exact distance without re framing, and voila, the "crop sensor" image must be enlarged more to equal the same reproduced image from a full frame image on a 4x6 or 8x10 print.

The economic advantage simply came along for the ride.

You have obviously never done this.
The images will not be exactly the same.
The image made by the crop sensor camera will be only the center part of the image on the full frame. Try it.

Actually I have and I have been "playing" this: from about 2000 onward.

 

[Derrel]

The bottom line is this. A bigger sensor has larger pixels given the same megapixel count compared with a smaller sensor. A 24 million pixel Nikon D610 Has larger pixels than does the sensor in a Nikon D7100,which also has 24 million pixels. Not too surprisingly the 24 million pixel Nikon D610 does a little bit better at high ISO settings than does the older D7100.

Sensors have improved by generation. The earliest sensors had really poor ISO performance, but with the advent of Sony's Exmor generation, we saw a huge leap in performance.

When Sony premiered the Exmor sensors they suddenly leapt to the forefront, passing Canon. Sony began to sell ist sensor technology to whoever wanted it, and Nikon,Pentax, Fuji,and Hasselblad were quick to realize the advantage of buying a sensor that performed at the top of the possibility scale.

Let's put it this way: a good big sensor produces a higher quality image than a small sensor of the same megapixel count and manufacturing generation.

 

[Derrel]

24 million pixels seems to be common with current technology and about as high as we can go in megapixel count in a 1.5x or 1.6x sensor and still have at least usable ISO performance at the higher levels such as 1600 and 3200. I expect it in another 10 years that Technology will have made it possible to double those settings with maybe even better quality then we get today. On the full frame Front,I expect ISO levels of 512,000 Might be actually useful for real photographer uses.

 

[Soocom1]

IMO if what I have seen in some of the trade mags come true, this will be academic anyway i about 15 years.

Propogation of 3d tech and holographic imagining is on its way in.

 

[Dacaur]

If you mount say an EOS 100mm lens on a Canon 5D (full frame) and that mounted on a tripod, take a picture of a car, then switch the camera out to a crop sensor, but use the same exact lens and the same exact distance, the image in both cameras are exactly the same. Then take the picture with the same exact distance without re framing, and voila, the "crop sensor" image must be enlarged more to equal the same reproduced image from a full frame image on a 4x6 or 8x10 print.

The economic advantage simply came along for the ride.

You have obviously never done this.
The images will not be exactly the same.
The image made by the crop sensor camera will be only the center part of the image on the full frame. Try it.

Actually I have and I have been "playing" this: from about 2000 onward.

You are either lying about having done it, or lying about the results you got.
Same lense, same distance, you most certainly will NOT get the exact same picture on a full frame vs crop body. This isn't opinion or something debatable. It's fact.

 

[Soocom1]

If you mount say an EOS 100mm lens on a Canon 5D (full frame) and that mounted on a tripod, take a picture of a car, then switch the camera out to a crop sensor, but use the same exact lens and the same exact distance, the image in both cameras are exactly the same. Then take the picture with the same exact distance without re framing, and voila, the "crop sensor" image must be enlarged more to equal the same reproduced image from a full frame image on a 4x6 or 8x10 print.

The economic advantage simply came along for the ride.

You have obviously never done this.
The images will not be exactly the same.
The image made by the crop sensor camera will be only the center part of the image on the full frame. Try it.

Actually I have and I have been "playing" this: from about 2000 onward.

You are either lying about having done it, or lying about the results you got.
Same lense, same distance, you most certainly will NOT get the exact same picture on a full frame vs crop body. This isn't opinion or something debatable. It's fact.

Your not understanding what I said, and please don't accuse me of lying.


I have been doing photography for a very long time and playing with digital for 20 years.

Please dont tell me I am a liar.

 

[Dacaur]

I mean, it was pretty clear what you said, and you have had several chances to clarify.
You said:
"If you mount say an EOS 100mm lens on a Canon 5D (full frame) and that mounted on a tripod, take a picture of a car, then switch the camera out to a crop sensor, but use the same exact lens and the same exact distance, the image in both cameras are exactly the same."

That statement is false. That's not my opinion or something up for interpretation. If I am misunderstanding some part of what you said, please advise which part I am not understanding.
Same lense, same distance, only difference is full frame vs crop sensor. The image will not be the same.

I don't easily call people liars. There is always the chance someone mistyped,right? So I respond for clarification. When I respond and instead of clarifying you respond back with "I've been doing this a long time", I have to assume you re-read what you wrote, and still believe it to be true. What you wrote and I quoted is not true. Perhaps you didn't type what you meant to type. Don't be so offended when someone disagrees with you that you don't even stop to wonder why they are disagreeing. It's possible you know way more than them because you "have been doing this for a long time". It's also possible you are wrong. Don't jump right to "I have been doing this for a long time so I couldn't possibly be wrong".