# Cropped versus Full



## Chamelion 6 (Dec 1, 2010)

I did a quick search but didn't find exactly this, and I was wondering...

I'm an old film guy.  I started on a Minolta SRT 101, and moved to Canon A-1 and F-1 manual cameras.  Only recently did I start shooting digital so I'm behind the learning curve.

Currently I'm shooting a Canon T1i and when I got it I was not thrilled about the cropped sensor, feeling it was going to be like shooting on a glorified 110 film camera.  After using it for several months I've decided the cropped sensor isn't so bad after all.  Most of the things I'm looking for in an upgrade have little to do with the image quality directly.  I feel my lenses are more of a limitation to my IQ than the cropped sensor.

Mostly I shoot candids and street stuff.  I shoot at night a lot and never print above 11 x 14.  

I'm looking to save up and upgrade to a 7D, mainly for the improved AF system, weather proofing, and the more professional build quality.  I plan to keep the T1i as a backup...

I've never really shot a full frame camera.  For what I do, is the advantage of a full frame really justified considering the cost?


----------



## Light Artisan (Dec 1, 2010)

I'm struggling with this now myself and debating on getting rid of 2 crop bodies (D300s and D7000) for 1 full frame (D700).

Your post made me think twice.


----------



## Chamelion 6 (Dec 1, 2010)

Yeah... Reading through your thread is what made me decide to ask.

Seems to me the 7D is cheaper than most full frames.  It seems I'd be better off just getting a 7D and then upgrading my glass.  The more I read and the more I look at images the more I don't feel a Full Frame camera has all that much to offer in my case.  But I do feel the AF system and the sturdier build would be immediate benefits.  

I feel like I have to really baby the T1i and I try to minimize it's exposure.  The 7D would give me a lot more shooting freedom.


----------



## boomersgot3 (Dec 1, 2010)

While the 7D is a good camera the camera doesn't really make the picture! You should invest in good glass lens before you upgrade to a better body! A friend of mine has a ORIGINAL REBEL XT and her pics are sharper and just as good  of quality them my 5DMII..... You can have a $5,000 camera but shooting with a cheap kit lens will give youpoor results.. Good glass makes all the difference! As far as the 7D vs others... I really like the 50D (CHEAPER TOO).... I have that as well as the 7D and 5DMII


----------



## Chamelion 6 (Dec 1, 2010)

I'm not that unhappy with the image quality though... Even through my mediocre glass. I tend to shoot up tight and close and crop very little. And the nature of the stuff I shoot and the way I shoot it I've just not felt either the camera or the lenses are screaming for an upgrade. I'm pretty comfortable with both at the moment.

Where I'm feeling limited is in the lack of weather proofing and build quality. I stress over ever little knock and bump and I don't like taking it out in bad weather. That's where I feel I'm being held back by the equipment. And in those situations I more comfortable with my kit glass cause I stress less over the bumps and dings.

But I feel like if I'm gonna consider a new body, I should really think about a full frame sensor versus the cropped. If I'm gonna wind up going full frame eventually why upgrade twice?

I just don't want to get the 7D then feel like I should have just gone full sensor. I see the next upgrade as long term and it's going to influence the lenses I get. I don't want to start investing in lenses for a crop body and have to sell, and I don't want to have the "Gee, I might go full sensor, do I wanna by this crop body lens" question over my head every time I look at a new investment in glass either.

I guess I just wanna get this sensor thing straight in my head before I start upgrading anything.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 1, 2010)

"shooting on a glorified 110 film camera"

YES, Canon's APS-C sensor size is almost exactly that of 110. FF or 24x36mm digitial is virtually the same size as 135 standard, ie 24x36. Remember how people regarded 110 film and its suitability?

APS-C give more depth of field at the same image magnification than 135 format. 135 format makes your lenses perform the way they used to, meaning with full angle of view, and the same kind of depth of field, and DOF isolation/background control, as you might be used to after years of 135 format photography.


Where 24x36 digital really comes to the rescue is with the 70-200 zoom, and the 50,85,100,135,and 200mm prime lenses. A 70-200 is much more limited on APS-C than it is on FF, for people and event work. An 85mm lens is almost useless indoors for people work on APS-C, but on FF, Bammo! it's once again what is "was designed to be". If you like prime lenses, there's not much better than the FF size sensor, which leverages the 24,28,35,50,85,100,135,180,200 lengths.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 1, 2010)

Chamelion 6 said:


> For what I do, is the advantage of a full frame really justified considering the cost?



Please provide:
- Average yearly income
- Cost of living
- Quantitative measure of love of the art.

You'll be amazed at what some of us do to justify our purchases when really a disposable film camera would be the best option 

Really this question is for you to answer. A lot of hobbyists consider full frame as the shiny thing they need in order to be taken seriously. I have seen people who have borderline bankrupted themselves to buy a D700 when they couldn't even afford nor had any lenses capable of utilising it. They spent all day smugly running around with their glorious 5mpx camera and cheap kit lens on the front, but they will swear it made them a better photographer.

Treat it like any other investment. What will you get, what's it worth to you, and then look online to see if you can get it for that cost.


----------



## Chamelion 6 (Dec 1, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Chamelion 6 said:
> 
> 
> > For what I do, is the advantage of a full frame really justified considering the cost?
> ...


 
LOL! 

I'm not planning on going pro anytime soon. I'll happily sell my photos if someone offers to buy, but I'm not looking for the sale. I'm also more interested in impressing people with my images than my gear.

I think Derrel brings some valid points about the lenses and their relationship with crop sensors, and it's one that concerns me. It does seem that the lens mfgs are taking crop bodies seriously though as there seems to be some decent quality glass designed for them. But it'd still be nice to have my primes behave the way I'm used to on my old 35's.

Back in the film days I was torn between 35 for the convienence and cost and 4x5 for quality. Now I seem to be torn between my crop body for the cost and convienence and the full frame. In film I stuck it out with the 35. It's that same delima again.

That said, I'm more concerned with the image quality of the sensors at the moment. The big difference between my current T1i and the old 110 negative is that enlarging the 110 enlarged the grain so that even modest 8x10 enlargements were pretty bad. The cropped sensor takes modest enlargements pretty well. 8x10's and even 11x14's seem to hold their integrity pretty well. That suprised me quite a bit. Do the full frame sensors produce a signifigantly better image compared to croped sensors with regards to only modest enlargements? Say 11x14 and under?

Cause if not, the 7D looks like where I need to be.


----------



## ann (Dec 2, 2010)

Last year I went through this same process.  I tested several bodies including the D300 vs the D700 against my D100 and after much teeth grinding I went with the D700.

For my eye there is a difference in the quality of the image; it is hard to articulate, but it has a certain smoothness .

If I had only been interested in shooting JPEG I probably would have gone with the D300 as I like the way that file type looked right out of the camera; not that the D700 was bad, just different, but 99% of my work is in RAW so that piece of the decision was easy to make.

However, my lenses are all high end and the test was made using a 35-70 2.8 an oldie but goodie


----------



## Buckster (Dec 2, 2010)

I wrestled with the same thing this year and decided to get the 7D.  From the beginning, I was unhappy with the images while working with them/editing at full size - it reminded me of working with sand art, and I employed noise reduction pretty liberally on most everything I shot as a basic step in Lightroom.  Web size images and prints up to 13 x 19 appeared to be just fine, but I just never could really come to grips with what I saw while working with them.

After a few months of that, I got a 5DMKII.  I'd wanted a full frame DSLR anyway to get back closer to my 'roots' (I'm an old 35mm film shooter too), especially for portrait work.

Frankly, I was blown away at the difference in quality, and have rarely shot the 7D since.  I'm actually planning to sell it as soon as I replace a couple of EF-S lenses with their full-frame counterparts on the wide end.

YMMV

I'd strongly suggest getting your hands on both, shooting a few test shots on your own memory card, then take the card home and work with the images yourself to determine which suits you best.  Most camera shops that carry the gear will let you do this to help you with your purchase decision.


----------



## boomersgot3 (Dec 2, 2010)

Buckster-Maybe you had a bad version of the 7D becuase mine handles grain VERY VERY Well.... I can't tell much difference between the quality of my 7D and my 5DMII  when laid out in front of me in LR3... Or When printed..  There are many reviews comparing 7D to 5DMII and the 7D seems to win every time. It has alot more AF points and the FPS is higher as well.. as far as ISO capabilities and shooting at night they seem to compare.... 
as far as shooting full frame.... If your used to a crop sens already then save your money and get the 7D.. I shoot with both and it doesn't seem to bother either way... When shooting full frame more has to be cropped to make a "normal" frame size. You can use most of your lens on a full frame and crop.. Some wide angles you can' t use on a 5DMII but for the most past they are all compatible... I have about 15 lens and the only 2 I can't use on my 5DMII is the 18-55 and my 10-22


----------



## Buckster (Dec 2, 2010)

boomersgot3 said:


> Buckster-Maybe you had a bad version of the 7D becuase mine handles grain VERY VERY Well.... I can't tell much difference between the quality of my 7D and my 5DMII when laid out in front of me in LR3... Or When printed..


Could be. Here's what mine looks like with random screen shots of nothing in particular side by side: 100% crops, both with Canon 100-400mm L glass, straight out of the camera, no noiseware, no editing, nothing changed, shot RAW.

7D on the left 5DMKII on the right:







To my eyes, there's a significant difference in the two, with a ton of grainy looking noise on the left and practically zero noise on the right.



boomersgot3 said:


> There are many reviews comparing 7D to 5DMII and the 7D seems to win every time.


I would have to dispute that, when it comes to IQ. Here's DPReview's take on the two:








boomersgot3 said:


> It has alot more AF points and the FPS is higher as well..


Neither of which help the IQ in any way.



boomersgot3 said:


> as far as ISO capabilities and shooting at night they seem to compare....


Look again at the DPReview above. Close, but 5DMKII still comes out on top, and with the IQ far above 7D's, it doesn't even matter if they both handle high ISO well - it just means that the IQ doesn't get much worse at higher ISOs than it is at lower ones.



boomersgot3 said:


> as far as shooting full frame.... If your used to a crop sens already then save your money and get the 7D..


Not necessarily true. In any case, the OP says he's coming from 35mm, which is full frame.



boomersgot3 said:


> I shoot with both and it doesn't seem to bother either way...


To each his own. Perhaps I'm pickier.



boomersgot3 said:


> When shooting full frame more has to be cropped to make a "normal" frame size.


Sorry, but that's a ridiculous thing to say. I shouldn't even have to explain why, and if I do, it's not worth wasting my time.



boomersgot3 said:


> You can use most of your lens on a full frame and crop.. Some wide angles you can' t use on a 5DMII but for the most past they are all compatible... I have about 15 lens and the only 2 I can't use on my 5DMII is the 18-55 and my 10-22


It's because they're "EF-S" lenses. Duh.


----------



## Chamelion 6 (Dec 2, 2010)

First, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. This is exactly the kind of stuff I was hoping to come out in this discussion.

@ Buckster... I definately see your point. 

But now let me ask you this. I have a very limited budget so anything I spend on the body takes away from my budget for the glass. That's probably the biggest reason for going with the 7D for me. I feel I need a sturdier camera so the new body is a priority for me.

With that in mind and with your experience, would you prefer your 7D with your higher end lenses, or the 5D and more mid level quality lenses. Which would you feel would be the better compromise.

I've been thinking the 7D was good enough and left me the opportunity to invest more in the glass... 

I'm also wondering if it might be the camera, the 7D images don't look much better than my T1i images. Like I said, I'm pretty happy with the IQ if the T1i, but I've heard some really good stuff about the 7D...


----------



## Buckster (Dec 2, 2010)

Chamelion 6 said:


> First, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. This is exactly the kind of stuff I was hoping to come out in this discussion.
> 
> @ Buckster... I definately see your point.
> 
> ...


I would always go for the better glass, if I *had* to choose between the two. The glass, if taken care of, will last you through many future bodies, and you don't want a bunch of low quality glass on your hands to put on future (better) bodies, especially not with bodies that could benefit well from the best lenses.

And of course, any body you put that better glass on will benefit from it, and the 7D absolutely needs it, by all accounts including my own experience with it.

That said, knowing what I know now, even choosing to buy the better glass, I'd still pass on the 7D and keep saving my nickels and dimes for a body that delivers better IQ, like the 5DMKII - but that's just my opinion.

If you don't view or print large from the 7D, you probably won't even notice any IQ issues at all. On the other side of that coin, the same can likely be said about your current body. So is it really any better IQ than your current camera, based on what you saw? If it's not, what are you getting for $1500?

A tougher body? Is that really worth $1500k? To you, it might be. Me? I'd tough it out and keep saving till I could get a tougher body AND great IQ.

More AF points? Do you need them? Do you use them? Do you find it to be a limitation on your current camera that it doesn't have a gazillian AF points, or does it honestly not seem to really affect you, given what and how you shoot?

More frames per second? Again, does that work to your advantage for the kinds of things you shoot? Do you find yourself often maxed out on your current body, cursing it's inability to shoot 8 frames per second, causing you to miss the killer shot, or is it in all honesty just not really much of an issue?

The crop sized sensor? Some folks seem to think it gives them more zoom or something. Of course, it's more like just cropping a photo with software or scissors - it doesn't magically give you longer lenses, just snips away some of your normal-sized photo on all sides - every time you shoot with it. Me? I'll crop the ones I want to crop later.

You can evaluate the other "advantages" in the same way. Just be honest with yourself about them, and don't fall into the "shiny new object" trap where you find ways to justify it just because you really want this shiny new toy to play with, and any excuse will work (I'm speaking from experience here, not putting you down!).

Example would be jumping up and down with glee and a wild "gotta have it" look in your eyes because it can shoot video, if in reality you have no intention of ever using it for that. (I've never even tested it on mine).

At the end of the day, you've got to evaluate this based on your *real needs* and desires over everything else, including anyone else's opinions. For me, the 7D was a waste of money that could have bought a nice lens for the 5DMKII. For you though, it might be just the thing that takes you to the next positive step in your photographic journey.

Don't know if that helps at all, but best of luck to you whatever road you take.


----------



## Chamelion 6 (Dec 3, 2010)

Thanks again for the feedback, everyone.  I've been mulling this over and have pretty much decided to keep looking at the 7D as my next step.  The 5D seems to have the better image, but that's not why I'm upgrading.  Given the difference in cost I think for what I do is more that what I need.

Years ago I shot with two A-1 bodies and a manual F-1.  Both the A-1's were in an out of the shop, usually because dust or something got into mechanism and caused it to act up.  The F-1 was a tank and never gave me a second's trouble.  I've come to appreciate weather sealing and build.  Like my old F-1, I thiink the 7D will get me that and I can feel a little easier when I'm out shooting in the weather and crap.

I don't NEED the extra FPS or the better AF system, but both those features will be useful...  Yeah, the more I think about it, the 7D is a nice fit.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 3, 2010)

Goodo, I was going to say high ISO performance is where full frame cameras really shine on account of having a physically larger pixel to capture light. Beyond high ISO I would treat it as a function of depth of field and size/weight. Full frame naturally producing a narrower depth of field, and APS cameras assuming lenses are designed for them have smaller, lighter glass for the same type of lens.


----------



## boomersgot3 (Dec 6, 2010)

Ok just a compare... Shot a weddign this weekend... I used my 24-70 on both bodies... BOTH had ISO 2000........
Both had exact settings... F 2.8 ss 320 ISO 2000
 the 7D shown here has hardly ANY grain at all.....





Shown below is a 100% crop SOOC of the 5DMII...




Again---SAME DAY SAME SETTINGS EXACTLY... SAME CAMERA Just a 100% crop..


----------



## boomersgot3 (Dec 6, 2010)

Obviously when processed in lightroom the WB will be corrected! LOL


----------



## Buckster (Dec 7, 2010)

boomersgot3 said:


> Ok just a compare... Shot a weddign this weekend... I used my 24-70 on both bodies... BOTH had ISO 2000........
> Both had exact settings... F 2.8 ss 320 ISO 2000
> the 7D shown here has hardly ANY grain at all.....


Pardon me, but your EXIF data is calling you a liar.

Per the EXIF data, the top image was shot with the 5DMKII at ISO 160, f/5, 1/2000 sec., -2/3 EV.

The bottom image was also shot with 5DMKII, this time at ISO 2000, f/3.2, 1/160 sec., 0 EV.

Not only are they not the same settings, where's the 7D shot at all, let alone at the same settings and shown with at 100% with no editing please?


boomersgot3 said:


> Again---SAME DAY SAME SETTINGS EXACTLY... SAME CAMERA Just a 100% crop..


Make up your mind please. If your intention is to show a 100% crop comparison of IQ between the two bodies, per your first statements in the post, this doesn't do it.

Someone's confused, and I don't think it's me.


----------



## boomersgot3 (Dec 7, 2010)

Sorry posted the wrong image... Sorry posting on 2 boards at same time


----------



## L1ttleslugger (Dec 9, 2010)

so i read through this and heres my input. i know i know...

i learned to shoot digital mainly on nikon. i wouldnt say i got great but i got to a point where i was really happy with the end product. but i started noticing that i wanted higher quality, the 10mpx my d60 was putting out to me wasnt cutting it, so i decided i would upgrade. i looked at how much i would be able to spend, including buying new glass. i planned on sticking with nikon but a friend let me use his 50d. i was using his 70-200 2.8. and loved how it felt and performed. i was shooting drifting pictures at that point and as i was walking back to meet up with him i noticed some models and decided i wanted to see how it performed on people. he saw me shooting them and rushed over. stopped me and told me that if i was gonna shoot models that i should use his 5dmk2 with the same lens. i was asstounded by how great the combo was together. i knew little about ff cameras but after that i did my research and studied up on it. i bought the 5dmk2 knowing it was in my budget while still being able to buy lenses. imo if you have the money and enjoy photography, i dont care when people say you bought the equipment thinking itll make you better. if thats what they want to think then i let them think it. i bought the equipment cause i could afford it without eating ramen for 3 months straight. and because i love photography.
thats my input take it how you will.


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 9, 2010)

OP, since you shoot mostly candids, I would suggest the crop body for the 1.6x reach you will get over the FF.  This suggestion, however, might change if by 'and street stuff' you mean cityscapes which might require a really wide angle.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 9, 2010)

boomersgot3 said:


> Again---SAME DAY SAME SETTINGS EXACTLY... SAME CAMERA Just a 100% crop..


 Yet completely different lighting conditions.  This is not a comparison.


----------

