# Full frame vs Crop sensor (good info)



## Feezor (Jul 10, 2010)

I have been looking for a good explanation and a good way of comparing a full frame vs a crop sensor and I came across this website and found it very helpful so I thought I should share and maybe help someone else out.

EOS 5D vs. EOS 20D - Full Frame vs. APS-C Sensors - Bob Atkins Photography


I didn't understand alot of the graphs and explanations of the graphs but all the other information is all really good and helpful, or at least it was for me.

MAKE SURE TO READ PAGE 2!!!


Hope this helps someone.


----------



## TiCoyote (Jul 10, 2010)

Well, basically, his points are true.  But first of all, this article is 2 years old.  Canon and Nikon have each released 2-4 new generations of cameras since them.  Much has been done with noise reduction since then.  

Secondly, I wouldn't trust anyone who writes an "informational" article but has so much brand loyalty.  

_There has been some talk of whether APS-C sized sensor cameras, such as  the EOS 20D are "enough" and whether there's any need for full frame. This talk often comes from non-Canon users who don't  have the option!_  :er: (I wish I had a barfing smiley)  

A larger sensor will produce a better image, hands down.  Ask Derrel.  A larger sensor, even with a lower pixel count will still produce a better image _in many cases_, because there will be less noise.  

A smaller sensor means a smaller and lighter camera.  Some find this easier to manage or more convenient.  It also means a cheaper camera, and many find this attractive.  There is some theory that a crop sensor makes use of the "sweet spot" of a lens meant for a full-frame sensor.  This is debatable.  But it does allow you to use a smaller, cheaper lens.  

I shoot with the 50D.  If the 5DII cost the same, weighed the same, and took pictures at the same rate, I'd trade my 50D in for one in an instant.  Even if it the 5DII didn't take video.  In fact, if the 5DII cost and weighed 20%  more than the 50D, and it only shot 5fps, I'd still buy one.  But even the 5DI used won't bring that package.  (Canon R&D, if you're reading this, I'm your target market!)  

In any case, I'm glad you found the article informative, but take it with a grain of salt.  

Oh yeah, and having a better lens just _might _make a _teeny _bit of difference, regardless of the body.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 10, 2010)

TiCoyote said:


> There is some theory that a crop sensor makes use of the "sweet spot" of a lens meant for a full-frame sensor.  This is debatable.


I think I would say that it's fact - not debatable.

The corners are always the 'worst' part of the image.  Crop sensors don't record the 'corners', so what you get is the best part of the image circle offered by any lens.

That said, I still prefer full frame...


----------



## cfusionpm (Jul 10, 2010)

TiCoyote said:


> Secondly, I wouldn't trust anyone who writes an "informational" article but has so much brand loyalty.
> 
> _There has been some talk of whether APS-C sized sensor cameras, such as the EOS 20D are "enough" and whether there's any need for full frame. This talk often comes from non-Canon users who don't have the option!_ :er: (I wish I had a barfing smiley)


 
Well, the article may have been _last modified_ in 2008, but if it's going off the 20D and 5D, that would have put it closer to 2005. At the time, Canon was the only full frame DSLR in town. The Kodak thing was short lived and already discontinued and Nikon wouldn't have a full frame untill 2007 with the D3. So if the article was originally written around that time, it would have been accurate to say that


----------



## Feezor (Jul 11, 2010)

I guess I found this interesting because I would like a full frame body for the wide angle shots and for the better quality. But I was unsure of whether it was worth almost double if not more money for those reasons. I really have been looking at the 5D mark II  I can find them new for around $2100-2500 and obviously the more reputable places are the more expensive. I might just try and look for a used one. Anyway this thread isn't about me. 

So would you guys same the theories in this article are still semi true or at least a good guide line?


----------



## cfusionpm (Jul 11, 2010)

There is a solution for wide angle on crop sensors: the EF-S 10-22mm gives about the same field of view as the 16-35 would on a full frame. There are also off-brand alternatives from Sigma and Tamron. Sigma also (recently?) came out with a super duper wide angle 8-16mm (~12-24mm FF equivelant).

There are plenty of reasons to get a FF camera, but if it's just for wide angle, there are certainly other options.


----------



## dak1b (Jul 11, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> TiCoyote said:
> 
> 
> > That said, I still prefer full frame...
> ...


----------



## Feezor (Jul 11, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> There are plenty of reasons to get a FF camera, but if it's just for wide angle, there are certainly other options.



I do want the wide angle but after researching it a little more and going through my photo library I do see the difference in quality. My brother has the 5d mark II so I do have something to compare it too. I do also plan on using my photos to print out and decorate the walls in my house as I think it would be nice to have people say "wow thats a great photo" and I could gladly say yes I took that. And with my understanding from this website for enlarging photos the quality will be far better when enlarged if taken with a FF camera


----------



## sovietdoc (Jul 11, 2010)

Thing is...you can have cheap(er) lens with a crop and have very very good quality, but if you go FF, you'll need L glass (if you're with Canon) or something very similar.

There is no way around good glass.  It's expensive because it's the best you're gonna get.  And glass doesn't age as much as DSLR's.


One valuable lesson I've learned from purchasing a fast prime for my cam, was that canon optimizes their lens across the perimeter, sigma optimizes the center and towards the edges the quality/contrast will drop significantly.  So if you have a FF cam, L glass is the way to go, but if you have a crop, you can get the same result from a quality EX DG lens.  Depends what you're shooting, but if you don't care, saves you big $$$


----------



## sleist (Jul 11, 2010)

You lose reach moving to FX.  Whether or not that matters to you depends on what you shoot, what you own for glass now, and how much you are willing to spend to recover that reach.  A lot of people would rather keep using their 400mm as a ~600mm on a quality crop sensor than spend money on FX and then spend a lot more money regaining that 200mm that just disappeared.


----------



## KmH (Jul 11, 2010)

TiCoyote said:


> _!_ :er: (I wish I had a barfing smiley)


Click on [more] in the Smiley box on the right.
uke:uke:uke:uke: They call it a puke smiley.


----------



## dak1b (Jul 11, 2010)

KmH said:


> TiCoyote said:
> 
> 
> > _!_ :er: (I wish I had a barfing smiley)
> ...


LOL gotta love the smileys:mrgreen:!


----------



## fokker (Jul 11, 2010)

sleist said:


> You lose reach moving to FX. Whether or not that matters to you depends on what you shoot, what you own for glass now, and how much you are willing to spend to recover that reach. A lot of people would rather keep using their 400mm as a ~600mm on a quality crop sensor than spend money on FX and then spend a lot more money regaining that 200mm that just disappeared.


 
This is only partly true; if you're comparing say a 5D mk2 with a 40D then the 5D (21.1 MP) has greater pixel density than the 40D (10.1 MP), which means you can crop the image down after taking it and still have the same field of view while retaining even more detail in the remaining area.


----------



## shaunly (Jul 11, 2010)

If you can afford it, FF is the way to go! The high ISO quality alone is worth it for me. Being able to shot at pretty much any kind of lighting, making even a f/4 a fast lens, and color accuracy at 5000ISO! I came from a D40, then D90, now a D700, so yes I've had plenty of experience with both sensor. 

Yes, cropped sensor lenses does offer ultra wide (8, 10, 12mm) but IQ on those lens can not be compared to a FX lens..(i'm speaking from a Nikon user standpoint).


----------



## shaunly (Jul 11, 2010)

fokker said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > You lose reach moving to FX. Whether or not that matters to you depends on what you shoot, what you own for glass now, and how much you are willing to spend to recover that reach. A lot of people would rather keep using their 400mm as a ~600mm on a quality crop sensor than spend money on FX and then spend a lot more money regaining that 200mm that just disappeared.
> ...



I think he was referring to Nikon sensor since he mentioned FX. So in that case it's technically true but then again, if you can afford it, just go with a bigger telephoto. And if your shooting requires 300, 400, 600mm prime telephoto, then I'm pretty sure your a professional. In that case, spending money on your gears to make you more money shouldn't be a problem.... just my 2cent =P


----------



## fokker (Jul 11, 2010)

shaunly said:


> fokker said:
> 
> 
> > sleist said:
> ...


 
Nikon or Canon, the point remains valid if you keep pixel densities in mind.


----------

