# Full Frame vs Crop Sensor



## tevo (Nov 6, 2011)

Can someone explain Full Frame Sensor vs Crop Sensor to me like I'm 5 years old? Honestly, I have spent a great deal of time trying to figure out what the advantage to one vs the other is, Zoom factor, etc., and I still cannot grasp it fully. I'm sure someone on this website has an excellent, understandable description of it, just as they do for almost every other question I have asked 


Thanks in advance!


----------



## kundalini (Nov 6, 2011)




----------



## tevo (Nov 6, 2011)

kundalini said:


>




hahaha :lmao:


----------



## analog.universe (Nov 6, 2011)

A full frame sensor is the same size as a piece of 35mm film (like 36x24mm).  A crop sensor is smaller than that by some factor.  Nikons are 1.5 times smaller, Canons are 1.6 times smaller.  As a result, the crop sensor only picks up a portion of the image projected onto it 1.5 or 1.6 times smaller than a full frame sensor would.  It effectively 'crops' the excess pixels around the edge.

This changes the effective field of view and depth of field at a given focal length.  When someone says a 50mm lens behaves like an 80mm when you mount it to a crop body, they're referring to the field of view.  Since you're discarding the edge of the frame, a lens appears to be 'more telephoto' than it would otherwise.

The depth of field at a given focal length and aperture will always be shorter on full frame, this is one reason why they are preferred.  It's easier to get a blurred background with a given lens if you have a larger sensor.

The other primary advantage to full frame is that each pixel is larger, allowing better dynamic range and lower noise.  As a result, full frame cameras almost always have better ISO performance than their same generation crop counterparts.


----------



## KmH (Nov 6, 2011)

The pixels of the full frame sensor tend to be bigger, because the image sensor itself is bigger.
Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

If you have 12,000,000 pixels and you put those pixels on a 36 mm x 24 mm image sensor, each of those 12,000,000 pixels are bigger than each of the 12,000,000 pixels on a 23.6 x 15.8mm (1.5 crop) image sensor.

The bigger the pixels are, the more light (bigger signal) they can gather. The more light (bigger signal) they can gather, the less image noise there is.

Be sure and take those Physics classes.


----------



## tevo (Nov 6, 2011)

analog.universe said:


> A full frame sensor is the same size as a piece of 35mm film (like 36x24mm).  A crop sensor is smaller than that by some factor.  Nikons are 1.5 times smaller, Canons are 1.6 times smaller.  As a result, the crop sensor only picks up a portion of the image projected onto it 1.5 or 1.6 times smaller than a full frame sensor would.  It effectively 'crops' the excess pixels around the edge.
> 
> This changes the effective field of view and depth of field at a given focal length.  When someone says a 50mm lens behaves like an 80mm when you mount it to a crop body, they're referring to the field of view.  Since you're discarding the edge of the frame, a lens appears to be 'more telephoto' than it would otherwise.
> 
> ...



This makes perfect sense, thank you!



KmH said:


> The pixels of the full frame sensor tend to be bigger, because the image sensor itself is bigger.
> Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography
> 
> If you have 12,000,000 pixels and you put those pixels on a 36 mm x 24 mm image sensor, each of those 12,000,000 pixels are bigger than each of the 12,000,000 pixels on a 23.6 x 15.8mm (1.5 crop) image sensor.
> ...



So both have the same pixel count, but the pixels are sized differently to fit the sensor. Got it, thanks KmH!  I am actually in Physics, we have not covered this yet.


----------



## dots (Nov 6, 2011)

tevo said:


> Can someone explain Full Frame Sensor vs Crop Sensor to me like I'm 5 years old?



Not really.



tevo said:


> Thanks in advance!



You're welcome.


----------



## tevo (Nov 6, 2011)

dots said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone explain Full Frame Sensor vs Crop Sensor to me like I'm 5 years old?
> ...




Hey, analog did a great job of it !


----------



## Derrel (Nov 6, 2011)

tevo said:


> Can someone explain Full Frame Sensor vs Crop Sensor to me like I'm 5 years old?



The Story of the Full-Frame and the Crop-Sensored Cammies: A Story For Childrensez:

"The full-frame sensor is Daddy's BIG-PICTURE taker camera. It has a big picture-catcher inside it, like a television in reverse. Instead of showing us pictures, its "catches" the light, and catches a picture!"

"The crop-frame sensor is Daddy's SMALLER-PICTURE taker camera. It has a smaller picture-catcher inside. The full-frame camera is the one Daddy payed a LOT of money for. The crop-sensor camera is the one Daddy bought for Mommy at Best Buy for $1100. The end"

Okay Tevo--which do you want for lunch--a grilled cheese or a tuna fish sandwich? And do you want apple juice, or milk? Apple or banana? Okay then, son, you got it! Now, go wash your hands, lunch will be ready in 10 minutes!


----------



## tevo (Nov 6, 2011)

Derrel said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone explain Full Frame Sensor vs Crop Sensor to me like I'm 5 years old?
> ...





.....can watch spongebob?


----------



## molested_cow (Nov 7, 2011)

Other than the sensor size difference, I am starting to feel the pain of owning a full frame camera. LACK OF AFFORDABLE GOOD LENS!!!!!

There's lot's of DX lens on the market, but very few FX ones. Take ultra wide angle for example, I am stuck with my old AF-D 20mm F2.8 because the 14-24 AF-S is out of my price range. Whereas I just bought the Tokina 11-16mm for my sister who uses D90. Since DX is the main stream, I don't see the trend reversing in the future.


----------



## paul85224 (Nov 7, 2011)

KmH said:


> The pixels of the full frame sensor tend to be bigger, because the image sensor itself is bigger.
> Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography
> 
> If you have 12,000,000 pixels and you put those pixels on a 36 mm x 24 mm image sensor, each of those 12,000,000 pixels are bigger than each of the 12,000,000 pixels on a 23.6 x 15.8mm (1.5 crop) image sensor.
> ...



So in other words, a 12MP D700 would produce a better image than a D90 and possibly a D7000 (even with the larger MP count)????

I have been eyeing the D700 for a little while.....


----------



## paul85224 (Nov 7, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> Other than the sensor size difference, I am starting to feel the pain of owning a full frame camera. LACK OF AFFORDABLE GOOD LENS!!!!!
> 
> There's lot's of DX lens on the market, but very few FX ones. Take ultra wide angle for example, I am stuck with my old AF-D 20mm F2.8 because the 14-24 AF-S is out of my price range. Whereas I just bought the Tokina 11-16mm for my sister who uses D90. Since DX is the main stream, I don't see the trend reversing in the future.



Is it possible to use a DX lens on an FX camera?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 7, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> Other than the sensor size difference, I am starting to feel the pain of owning a full frame camera. LACK OF AFFORDABLE GOOD LENS!!!!!
> 
> There's lot's of DX lens on the market, but very few FX ones. Take ultra wide angle for example, I am stuck with my old AF-D 20mm F2.8 because the 14-24 AF-S is out of my price range. Whereas I just bought the Tokina 11-16mm for my sister who uses D90. Since DX is the main stream, I don't see the trend reversing in the future.



I have a few choice FF lenses, I'm  "still holding out" for a newer version of the D700 and its getting old! Now if you want to work out a deal I'll trade you a DX D7000 and some cash for your FF..


----------



## Trever1t (Nov 7, 2011)

Yes, you can run a DX lens on a FF body but it totally defeats the purpose and you lose MP because you effectively crop the sensor.

There are very affordable FX lenses, you don't need to spend $1600+ but it's worthwhile to do so for the most part.

The D7000 is pretty close to the D700 in dynamic range, I believe I read that the D700 starts to excel over ISO 800 in comparison but otherwise IQ is very close.


----------



## TheBiles (Nov 7, 2011)

Plenty of affordable EF lenses... *cough*


--
Sent from my Droid Bionic.


----------



## analog.universe (Nov 7, 2011)

Once you get past 8 or 10 or so, more megapixels only really matter if you're going to be doing large prints at high resolution, or if you're going to be cropping off a substantial portion of the captured image.  If you're cropping, that's sort of the quick and dirty way around, and you should really just have a longer lens.  If you need the resolution for printing, there is absolutely no substitute.  Professionals with high resolution print requirements often use medium format cameras with 50 or 80 or more megapixels.  The highest quality, most expensive computer monitors are only 4 megapixel, and the more common "high resolution" monitors that come with high end computers are only 2.3.  So, if your images will be most often viewed on a computer monitor, additional resolution beyond twice the resolution of the display will make no difference.  Up to twice the resolution, and you may see evidence of the anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor.  If you're printing, this is a really good article on how much real estate you can get out of your sensor: How Big Can I Print by Thom Hogan

So in short, unless you're doing big prints, 12 megapixels is plenty, and the advantages of full frame will outweigh the advantages of a higher resolution sensor that is cropped.


With regards to lens affordability...  price is the primary advantage of a DX system.  Lenses are much easier to produce because they do not need to project as large an image circle.  However... I've found that as a result of this, the lenses that are produced for crop sensors only are rarely top of the line.  There are a few crop sensor lenses that are built to the same standards, but the vast majority are really built to a price point instead of a performance point.  For most tasks, FX lenses outperform DX lenses, even when mounted to DX bodies.  The only lens I have that is DX only is my Tokina 11-16, and only because no one makes a full frame lens that wide.  If I had full frame, the wide end equivalent field of view would require a ~17mm lens.  In this range are the Canon 16-35, Canon 17mm TS-E, Canon 17-40, Zeiss 18mm, etc...  All of which would outperform my Tokina, but are more expensive.  (the 17-40 is probably close in price and performance actually).  So yes, DX lenses are certainly more affordable, but they do not defy the "get what you pay for" rule.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 7, 2011)

tevo, this thread may help a little.  As photographers, we are visual creatures and a picture is worth a thousand words.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rence-between-full-frame-cropped-sensors.html


----------



## molested_cow (Nov 7, 2011)

That's why I am sticking to AF-D lens and not going for AF-S FX yet. Nothing wrong with the good'ol AF-D, but I do want to upgrade after a while.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 7, 2011)

kundalini said:


> tevo, this thread may help a little.  As photographers, we are visual creatures and a picture is worth a thousand words.
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rence-between-full-frame-cropped-sensors.html



Incredible difference.


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 7, 2011)

Why should I buy a full frame camera?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 7, 2011)

70 years of 35mm format cameras and you people can't find a lens you like?! Really?


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 7, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> Other than the sensor size difference, I am starting to feel the pain of owning a full frame camera. LACK OF AFFORDABLE GOOD LENS!!!!!
> 
> There's lot's of DX lens on the market, but very few FX ones. Take ultra wide angle for example, I am stuck with my old AF-D 20mm F2.8 because the 14-24 AF-S is out of my price range. Whereas I just bought the Tokina 11-16mm for my sister who uses D90. Since DX is the main stream, I don't see the trend reversing in the future.



I <3 Canon for that. The EF-S is their crop lens and last time I checked, which was several months ago, there only had 6-7 EF-S lenses out of their entire line up of photography lenses that consisted of 60-70 lenses and only a few of those 6-7 are lenses that are considered decent quality.

You could always look at 3rd party lenses or just go ahead and do what I did and purchase $4000 or so in lenses and get it over with.


----------



## dots (Nov 7, 2011)

tevo said:


> dots said:
> 
> 
> > tevo said:
> ...



For 5 year olds? did he? I don't think so


----------



## analog.universe (Nov 7, 2011)

dots said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> > dots said:
> ...



I would love to meet that 5 year old


----------



## Derrel (Nov 7, 2011)

The "serious" equipment testers, the ones with the biggest web sites and the best methods, have all noted one thing: the absolute BEST lens resolution figures have all come from full-frame cameras. We need to keep in mind, that real-world optical performance is a measure of both the lens, and the capture medium used behind that lens. The vast,vast majority of lenses have some imaging weaknesses and flaws. A full-frame d-slr from Canon, Nikon, or Sony is one of only a relative handful of models, ALL of which were designed and built to provide the best image quality possible at the price point for the camera. Canon has had the 1Ds series and the two 5D models; Nikon the D3 (D3,D3x,D3x) series and the D700 and NO others; Sony has made the A900 and A850. I think, in total, that equates to 11 individual full-frame d-slr cameras. Eleven. Few enough models that the "concept" of a full-frame camera is much,much,much more-discretely definable than some vague, mythologized "thing". We are talking about 1) rugged, Abrams-tank-like Canon 1Ds bodies and Nikon D3 bodies; affordable and reasonably lightweight, unobtrusive Canon 5D and 5D-II bodies, two very solid workmanlike and VERY "analog-camera-like" Sony bodies with huge viewfinders; and the Nikon D700--as sort of low-priced, almost-flagship-Nikon body that has most of what the $5,000 Nikon D3 had, but at half the price.

The APS-C crop-body field is FILLED with models, priced from $499 to, well, I don't know...so many models it's hard to keep track of them...

But the one constant that keeps coming back is that the eleven full-frame cameras have offered what was, at introduction, state of the art resolving power, image size, dynamic range, and overall picture quality that was or is, as high as their makers could manage. Period. Canon's original 11 MP 1Ds was not that good compared to the later cameras, but it was high-resolution. Kodak's 14n and the SLR/C and SLR/N version cameras were made in such small numbers I did not include them in my original "Eleven".

Full-frame is an entirely different image capture medium than APS-C is. Pure and simply. It is a much bigger capture format. It works very differently with all lens lengths. An 85mm or 105mm lens is almost useless indoors in a normal house on a crop-body camera. On a FF camera, both are very valuable tools. In small studios, crop-body cameras force the photographer to use very short focal length lenses in order top encompass full figure, standing people, or groups, and with the small capture format, that means wide-angle views BEHIND the subject distance, problems with background width, backgrounds that are distressingly in-focus, and apparent perspective distortion on extended limbs, and on the size of people in the front row of group shots, as contrasted with people in subsequent rows or at different distances.

Here's a simple rule: The smaller the capture format is, the deeper the depth of field at EQUIVALENT angles of view. If you want to shoot pictures where the "normal lens" has relatively shallow depth of field,and tend to blow the background out of focus easily, then use a medium format size capture, like 6x6 or 6x7 film. If you want to shoot pictures where the normal lens has pretty good depth of field, APS-C is nice. If you want to almost never have to worry about focusing, shoot with a camera that has a very SMALL capture size sensor or film.


----------



## tevo (Nov 7, 2011)

analog.universe said:


> dots said:
> 
> 
> > tevo said:
> ...



hi

im THIS many


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Nov 7, 2011)

tevo said:


> analog.universe said:
> 
> 
> > dots said:
> ...



Is this simple enough for you Tevo??

Full frame Sensor is BIG BIG BIG sensor and Crop Sensor is MEDIUM BIG BIG Sensor! 

There we go.. done!


----------



## tevo (Nov 7, 2011)

Nikon_Josh said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> > analog.universe said:
> ...



Yes, I have gained a better understanding of Full Frame vs Crop Sensor. Thank you. Now where the f**k is my apple juice?


----------



## Overread (Nov 7, 2011)

Nikon_Josh said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> > analog.universe said:
> ...



No no no 
Big Big Big sensor is large format
Big big sensor is medium format
Big sensor is full frame
Medium sensor is crop
Easy sensor is m4/3rds
tiny sensor is your point and shoot 
aaand
Baby sensor is your iphone


----------



## tevo (Nov 7, 2011)

Overread said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > tevo said:
> ...



WAIT. So if Big Big Big sensor is large format
and Big big sensor is medium format
and Medium sensor is crop... then...




what is camel?






o.0


----------



## Overread (Nov 7, 2011)

A fish of course


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Nov 7, 2011)

Overread said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > tevo said:
> ...



Why is it that someone has to ALWAYS come along and show me up????? ARGGHHH I hate this cruel world!!  Time to throw a tantrum I think!!! ha


----------



## tevo (Nov 7, 2011)

Overread said:


> A fish of course


----------



## tevo (Nov 7, 2011)

Nikon_Josh said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon_Josh said:
> ...



cmon now, lets not act like we're






THIS many...


----------



## unpopular (Nov 8, 2011)

And what about this?






lot of big big sensors = one big big big sensor?

(268 mp, if you're wondering)

And here's teh 720kg ultra compact camera that it belongs to:






http://www.popphoto.com/files/imce_uploads/eso1119d.jpg


----------



## tevo (Nov 8, 2011)

unpopular said:


> And what about this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Be careful, I dont think Josh appreciates you leaking pictures of the D800..


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 8, 2011)

Just placed an order for a new tiny D700 sensor, and a grip


----------



## unpopular (Nov 8, 2011)

There is just no end to this madness! Look at him, he's like "MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! I'll take over the WORLD!"






GPC1


----------



## tevo (Nov 8, 2011)

unpopular said:


> There is just no end to this madness! Look at him, he's like "MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! I'll take over the WORLD!"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now they just need to invent a photo printer the size of a small office building


----------



## unpopular (Nov 8, 2011)

While it won't set you back $14 million, the film certainly will! Where do you even get a roll of 9x12" film?!







TechKnow Sport: Gigapixel Camera Created!

Actually. I almost bought a 20x24" process camera that I was going to do god knows what with...


----------



## Netskimmer (Nov 8, 2011)

unpopular said:


> There is just no end to this madness! Look at him, he's like "MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! I'll take over the WORLD!"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Waits for intern to spill his cappuccino on it...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 8, 2011)

+1 and his expression may suggest he's still thinking about the "Occupy Wall Str." rally yesterday and the cappuccino product should've been handed out free from an "evil corporation"


----------



## cgipson1 (Nov 8, 2011)

Overread said:


> No no no
> Big Big Big sensor is large format
> Big big sensor is medium format
> Big sensor is full frame
> ...



Finally found a sig quote I like! lol!


----------



## unpopular (Nov 8, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:


> +1 and his expression may suggest he's still thinking about the "Occupy Wall Str." rally yesterday and the cappuccino product should've been handed out free from an "evil corporation"



Wait a minute! What does politics have to do with this ..... you sneaky bastard!


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Nov 8, 2011)

tevo said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > And what about this?
> ...



Ah right, this explains why Nikon are having trouble meeting manufacturing demands!! Didn't realise the new D800 was 700KG. Sounds like a nice walkaround camera!!!

Ah great, 200MP... AH wow this means I can CROP CROP CROP as much as I want, it means I don't have to frame and compose photographs properly. It means I can do loads and loads and loads of cropping so I can now just snap away, and go home and crop the photo to make decent photographs!


----------



## unpopular (Nov 8, 2011)

Yep.  And Gigipan is teaming with Ford and Nikon to create the Terrapan system. It will be shipped pre-mounted on a F150 crew cab and is capable of photographing THE ENTIRE WORLD.


----------



## jake337 (Nov 8, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> Other than the sensor size difference, I am starting to feel the pain of owning a full frame camera. LACK OF AFFORDABLE GOOD LENS!!!!!
> 
> There's lot's of DX lens on the market, but very few FX ones. Take ultra wide angle for example, I am stuck with my old AF-D 20mm F2.8 because the 14-24 AF-S is out of my price range. Whereas I just bought the Tokina 11-16mm for my sister who uses D90. Since DX is the main stream, I don't see the trend reversing in the future.




What about the tamron/sigma 14 f2.8,  tokina 17 f3.5 or the tokina 16-28 f2.8?? The 16-28 f2.8 price is up there though...


----------



## jake337 (Nov 8, 2011)

kundalini said:


> tevo, this thread may help a little. As photographers, we are visual creatures and a picture is worth a thousand words.
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rence-between-full-frame-cropped-sensors.html



I would like to see your thread go further with the addition of medium 6x7 format and large 8x10 format comparisons to 35mm and cropped sensors!


----------



## jake337 (Nov 8, 2011)

8x10 digital!





Photographer Spends Hundreds Of Thousands To Create 8×10 Digital Sensor | TechCrunch


----------



## unpopular (Nov 8, 2011)

I've been dreaming of building a low resolution, 4x5" 2d photo resistor by sublimating lines of Tin Oxide onto either side of a photo resisting wafer and measuring the resistance between the front and back of the sensor to form a passive imaging device.

It'd be hella inefficient, but i could say that I built my own sensor from scratch. I'll post details in the alt photo section later. I have work to do. Blech. Work.


----------



## ph0enix (Nov 8, 2011)

KmH said:


> If you have 12,000,000 pixels and you put those pixels on a 36 mm x 24 mm image sensor, each of those 12,000,000 pixels are bigger than each of the 12,000,000 pixels on a 23.6 x 15.8mm (1.5 crop) image sensor.
> 
> The bigger the pixels are, the more light (bigger signal) they can gather. The more light (bigger signal) they can gather, the less image noise there is.
> 
> Be sure and take those Physics classes.



That would suggest that a camera with less megapixels would always be preferred.  Obviously the pixels will be smaller as the number of MPs increases given constant sensor size (be it crop or full frame).   But I'm guessing that as the MPs increase, camera manufacturers figure out ways to capture more and better quality light in sensors with smaller pixels.  Correct?


----------



## analog.universe (Nov 8, 2011)

ph0enix said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > If you have 12,000,000 pixels and you put those pixels on a 36 mm x 24 mm image sensor, each of those 12,000,000 pixels are bigger than each of the 12,000,000 pixels on a 23.6 x 15.8mm (1.5 crop) image sensor.
> ...



Yes, that's correct.  The comparison made assumes identical technological capability in the production of each sensor.  As the whole industry moves forward, every sensor has better noise/dynamic range than the previous generation.  As well resolution goes up across the board.  The point is that given a certain level of available engineering, a full frame sensor will always perform better at the same resolution.  When you start comparing between generations the lines get fuzzy.  There are new crop sensors that have higher resolution AND better ISO performance than certain old full frame sensors.


----------



## tevo (Nov 8, 2011)

unpopular said:
			
		

> Yep.  And Gigipan is teaming with Ford and Nikon to create the Terrapan system. It will be shipped pre-mounted on a F150 crew cab and is capable of photographing THE ENTIRE WORLD.



I lol'd    :lmao:


----------



## tevo (Nov 8, 2011)

So how about..

FX lens on DX body... and vice versa?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 8, 2011)

tevo said:


> So how about..
> 
> FX lens on DX body... and vice versa?



My FX lens on my DX body = "only using the middle area of the lense or such"

My DX lenses on FX body = risk of dark corners and such, but i won't know for sure i sold them and ordered a FX body last night


----------



## tevo (Nov 8, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:
			
		

> My FX lens on my DX body = "only using the middle area of the lense or such"
> 
> My DX lenses on FX body = risk of dark corners and such, but i won't know for sure i sold them and ordered a FX body last night



D700?(;

and is it (necessarily) bad to only use the middle area of the lens?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 8, 2011)

tevo said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I haven't had a prob with either FX lenses on my DX body


----------



## tevo (Nov 8, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:
			
		

> I haven't had a prob with either FX lenses on my DX body



Is there some 'zoom factor' change?


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 8, 2011)

tevo said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When you stop down a lens, you're getting more of the middle and less of the edges and that creates a wider DOF, so no it's not necessarily bad. It will change some of  the characteristics of a lens between cameras though and using a DX lens on a full frame sensor won't let it shoot at the full resolution of the sensor.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 8, 2011)

tevo said:


> So how about..
> 
> FX lens on DX body... and vice versa?


You can use any FX lens on a DX body without any loss.

You can use a DX lens on an FX body, but with severe limitations.  The entire sensor will not be utilized and the result will be an approximate 5MP image.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 8, 2011)

analog.universe said:


> ph0enix said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



Now hold yer horses!

While everything you're saying is true, there is one fact that I think people miss out on.

Say you have two hypothetical sensors with identical Signal to Noise ratio, one is a lower resolution APS-C and the other is an slightly higher resolution 35mm, at around ISO 6400 these two sensors both start chugging out appreciable noise, and because the light sensor surface of both are about the same they both produce, EXACTLY the same amount of noise.

Now. Step into your time machine and go back to 1995 for a second. Before you there is a box of 8x10" TMAX 400 and a roll of 35mm TMAX 400. The client needs something with no visible grain. Which camera are you going to pick up, the Linhoff or the Nikon?

Funny though - both films are TMAX 400. Shouldn't they produce the same amount of grain? Of course they do, and as every photographer knows that grain doesn't need to be enlarged as much (if at all) with the 8x10 film. And that is why the 8x10 will seem smoother, when in fact it's really not.

Now. Back to the future and the two impossibly similar digital cameras. The same principle applies here. While the smaller sensor produces as much noise as the larger one in this case, the higher resolution APS-C will require more reduction in size to meet a specific end print size, as a result the noise - while being there, just like with the 8x10 film - becomes less noticeable.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I was looking at the NEX-5n and the NEX-7. While the NEX 5n does *slightly* better than the 7 due to it's lower resolution, the NEX-7 produces significantly larger files. So while at the maximum possible print size at any given dpi I might see slightly more noise on the 7, however due to the amount of reduction in any specific print size, I'd actually see less or similar noise. Especially considering how similar the 5n and 7 perform.

That of course is assuming that we all know how to use the light meter every single time and that if, in the weird instance we do screw up (which would never be out fault) we don't reach for the "exposure" slider in the RAW processor. Who would ever do such a thing? Obviously, lower noise also means better integrity and more flexible files. But that's another barrel of monkeys.


----------



## ChrisFACE (Nov 10, 2011)

analog.universe said:


> A full frame sensor is the same size as a piece of 35mm film (like 36x24mm).  A crop sensor is smaller than that by some factor.  Nikons are 1.5 times smaller, Canons are 1.6 times smaller.  As a result, the crop sensor only picks up a portion of the image projected onto it 1.5 or 1.6 times smaller than a full frame sensor would.  It effectively 'crops' the excess pixels around the edge.
> 
> This changes the effective field of view and depth of field at a given focal length.  When someone says a 50mm lens behaves like an 80mm when you mount it to a crop body, they're referring to the field of view.  Since you're discarding the edge of the frame, a lens appears to be 'more telephoto' than it would otherwise.
> 
> ...



This is the best explanation I have ever read. Thank you so much for being able to articulate this in a way I too can understand.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 11, 2011)

It does not always work like this. With higher MP, you can downsize the picture and the noise would also reduce.


----------



## dots (Nov 11, 2011)

That's neat!  DX and FX are both small format. 35mm always was and is a small format, regardless of all the digital hype.



jake337 said:


> 8x10 digital!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

