# Question about Full vs Crop Sensor Cameras



## Ema (Jul 22, 2019)

I have a Nikon D7100.  Saw sever videos on how 85mm prime is the best lens for portrait photography.  Even if I buy a DX lens, it really is not 85mm on a D7100 - correct? It'll be 85mm times 1.5 focal length. So should I be buying a 55mm (56mm to be accurate) to get the effect of a 85mm.
In other words, the crop factor still applies to a DX lens right?
Thanks


----------



## Derrel (Jul 22, 2019)

Yes the field of view Factor applies to both regular  lenses and to DX lenses. For example, on a full frame camera and 85 mm lens is an 85 mm short telephoto. If you put the same focal length of lens on the Nikon D 7100, you multiply the focal length 85 mm times 1.53and you arrive at something around 127 mm in terms of "effective focal length"as it relates to a full frame camera. So in other words on full frame any 85 mm lens is a short telephoto ; on a DX sensor camera,a lens that is 85 mm in length is more or less a medium length telephoto.

As you might have noticed,the Nikon company has an 85 mm macro lens that is DX, and also makes two or three 85 mm lenses that were designed for full frame cameras.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 22, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Yes the field of view Factor applies to both regular  lenses and to DX lenses. For example, on a full frame camera and 85 mm lens is an 85 mm short telephoto. If you put the same focal length of lens on the Nikon D 7100, you multiply the focal length 85 mm times 1.53and you arrive at something around 127 mm in terms of "effective focal length"as it relates to a full frame camera. So in other words on full frame any 85 mm lens is a short telephoto ; on a DX sensor camera,a lens that is 85 mm in length is more or less a medium length telephoto.
> 
> As you might have noticed,the Nikon company has an 85 mm macro lens that is DX, and also makes two or three 85 mm lenses that were designed for full frame cameras.



If you would like to have a lens that performs similarly to an 85 mm lens  on a full frame camera, then yes look for a lens from 50 to 58 mm in length. Nikon has a nice new 58  millimeter autofocusing lens,but it is fairly expensive. Most people will press a 50 mm lens into service, but with the 1.53X Field of view factor,A lens of that focal length will perform more like a 75 mm lens.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 22, 2019)

I would disagree with the idea that a lens of 85 mm in length is "the best" for
 Portrait work. I prefer a 105 mm lens to an 85 mm almost all the time, and I found that the 135 mm to 180 mm prime lenses were good, over the years there have been many zoom lenses which are really good for portraiture. One Lens was the 50-135 mm f/3.5 Nikon AIS, as well as many 70-200 mm zoom lenses or 80-200 mm Zoom lenses, as well as the 75-150 mm f/3.5 Series E zoom lens.  The idea that the 85 mm lens is "the best" is really quite an oversimplification and is in my opinion an outright untruth.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 22, 2019)

I recall reading an article years ago about a portrait photographer that didn't use anything shorter than 300mm.


----------



## Ema (Jul 22, 2019)

Thank you!!  Is it better to buy an FX lens, since there is always a path to upgrading the camera to a full frame one down the road.  Seems like investing in a DX lens means sticking with D7100 for the future.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 22, 2019)

I remember the author of a book called how to photograph women beautifully. He used to shoot a lot of advertising photos with the old Nikon 500 mm F5 reflex Lens . This lens was replaced by two different series of 500 mm F/8 lenses beginning around 1973

 There is much to be said for using a lens of 300 mm to isolate a person from their environment.

In my opinion the 85 mm lens does not give the ideal compression effect on the face and  tends to make the nose appear a little bit larger than I consider ideal. If you look very carefully at lens focal length comparisons where they move the camera farther and farther away as the lens gets longer, you will see  as the lens focal length gets longer, the face looks more idealized, a little bit "flatter".


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Jul 22, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I remember the author of a book called how to photograph women beautifully. He used to shoot a lot of advertising photos with the old Nikon 500 mm F5 reflex Lens . This lens was replaced by two different series of 500 mm F/7 lenses beginning around 1973
> 
> There is much to be said for using a lens of 300 mm to isolate a person from their environment.
> 
> In my opinion the 85 mm lens does not give the ideal compression effect on the face and  tends to make the nose appear a little bit larger than I consider ideal. If you look very carefully at lens focal length comparisons where they move the camera farther and farther away as the lens gets longer, you will see  as the lens focal length gets longer, the face looks more idealized, a little bit "flatter".



The only drawback is you need the room to be able to use it.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 22, 2019)

As far as investing in lenses goes there are only a  veritable handful of Nikon DX lenses that are considered investment grade. The vast majority of lenses for the Nikon company makes are designed to cover full frame sensors. 

As good as the D7100 is, I think that you will find that an equally modern full frame camera gives even better picture quality and you have access to more and better lenses both new and vintage.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 22, 2019)

if you are going to use a DX camera there is much to be said for buying DX lenses, especially zoom lenses.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 22, 2019)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> The only drawback is you need the room to be able to use it.



True, but the article said he had a warehouse as a studio.  He would still be able to back up with a 300mm to include a car.  And with that much floor space and volume, staging the lighting wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## ac12 (Jul 22, 2019)

Ema said:


> Thank you!!  Is it better to buy an FX lens, since there is always a path to upgrading the camera to a full frame one down the road.  Seems like investing in a DX lens means sticking with D7100 for the future.



Interesting delema.
What if you do NOT upgrade to FX.
Then you spent the xtra $ for a FX for maybe no advantage over a DX lens.
Although if you spend for the better FX lenses you will have more IQ than a DX lens.

The problem is there isn't always an easy equivalent FX lens.
A classic example:  I want a 70-200 equivalent lens for my DX camera.  But until the recent Tamron 35-150, NO ONE made a lens the in DX equivalent focal range of 45-135.  The closest was the discontinued Sigma 50-150.  So you have to choose between the Nikon FX 24-120 or 70-200.  Both are misses, the 24-120 is not long enough and the 70-200 is not short enough.


----------



## Dacaur (Jul 23, 2019)

I use Canon but same concept. I figure even if I do buy a full frame camera in the future I'm still going to want to keep or upgrade my crop sensor body, as the extra crop means I get more telephoto, so I don't worry if lenses I buy are made for full frame or crop sensor bodies....


----------



## Designer (Jul 23, 2019)

Ema said:


> I have a Nikon D7100.  Saw sever videos on how 85mm prime is the best lens for portrait photography.


Just get the 85.  

There is more to image quality than merely focal length, and trying to "convert" focal lengths is confusing you.  

There is a reason the 85 was recommended, which has very little to do with the focal length, and more the resulting image quality.  If you have to back up a few steps, so what?   

I also have a D7100 and I will use an 85 if I can't back up enough, and much longer lenses if I have the space.  Like 105, 135, 180mm, etc.


----------



## adamhiram (Jul 23, 2019)

I shoot on a crop sensor, and I think this issue is much simpler than it is often made out to be.  Determining the ideal focal length usually comes down to figuring out the desired field of view and how much space you have available for shooting.  Whether or not to get FX lenses is often a matter of what is available for the desired focal lengths.  Here are the lenses I use most often


85mm: This is my go-to lens for headshots and tighter portraits, and is about the longest lens I can use in a typical indoor space.  There are a few options available, but the AF-S f/1.4 and f/1.8 are the most common, both of which are FX.  I use the f/1.8 version, which many consider to be just as sharp, but at 1/3 the price.
50mm: For half or full body portraits, or those with multiple subjects, this is my go-to lens.  It is long enough that you don't get much perspective distortion and can still blur the background quite easily, but wide enough that it can be used for more than just portraits.  On a crop sensor, it feels a little too long for general use indoors.  Most go with the AF-S f/1.4 or f/1.8, both of which are FX.  I went with the f/1.8 in this case, simply because it autofocuses much faster.  There's a 58mm lens available as well, but at 7x the price, this was never a consideration for me.
35mm: These days I don't really use for this lens much, but it's the ideal normal prime if you want to travel light and don't want a larger zoom lens.  I got a lot of use out of this in the past, and it's still nice if I want to avoid standing out with a bigger lens.  There are DX and FX versions of this lens, and the price difference is big enough that it doesn't make sense to spend more for FX if you don't need it.
17-55 (or 18-55, 17-50, etc): This is basically the normal zoom range on DX, which is what spends the most time on my body.  It's the least exciting and most useful range.  Here, it makes sense to stick with a DX-only lens, since a 24-70 will be missing the very useful wide range.  I actually use the wide end for group portraits, typically between 17-24mm, I just need to keep the subjects away from the edges.
Hopefully you find this helpful.  If you're looking to take portraits, you can't go wrong with an 85mm, especially with Nikon's big lens sale going on this week.  You'll have a narrower field of view than on full-frame, but still very usable in most spaces.


----------



## photoflyer (Jul 23, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I prefer a 105 mm lens to an 85 mm almost all the time, and I found that the 135 mL to 180 mm prime lenses were good,



Would you agree that this depends in part on the environment in which you are shooting?  Some spaces may not be large enough to enable one to get far enough away from the subject to properly compose the image.  I think this is why some actually think of the 70-200 2.8 as a decent portrait lens in some situations.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 23, 2019)

The shooting environment is a huge part of it. For example in most living rooms with a full frame camera the 85 mm lens is OK for portraits. In most living rooms with a crop frame camera, an 85 mm lens is extremely tight. For example  at 20 feet with a full frame camera and 85 mm lens, you get a picture that is 8.47 feet tall; with a crop frame camera you have to be about 35 feet away to get the same 8.47 foot tall picture area.  So let's say you wish to do a bridal portrait of a standing couple and leave a little bit of room below the feet and a little bit above the head,an easily-achievable end result with a full frame camera and 85 mm lens, but extremely difficult in many houses with a crop frame camera and an 85 mm lens. Yes the 70 to 200 mm zoom lens is an extremely useful lens on the full frame camera, but on the crop frame camera  The same lens is extremely difficult to use in many smaller rooms


----------



## Ema (Jul 23, 2019)

Thanks for all the feedback. Learning a lot. A few more newbie questions:
a) Even the f/stop has to be multiplied by 1.5 crop factor right. So does it mean that the fastest I can go with a f1.8 lens on a crop sensor camera is f2.8? (1.8*1.5).  Or does it mean that I can use f1.8 but the photo quality if equivalent to a f2.8 on a full frame camera. In other words, I don't get the shallow depth of field of f1.8 but will get of a f2.8?
b) The kit lenses with D7100 are DX 18-55mm (f3.5-5.6) & DX 55-300mm (f4.5-5.6).  As I learned more about photography and watched youtube, I figured I need to upgrade to the next set of lenses.  One to get one for wide angle and also faster lenses at the different focal lengths.  I noticed different recommendations. Some buy individual prime lenses (35 f1.4, 55 and 85) and some recommend zoom lenses (like Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and Sigma 50-150 f1.8 etc).  

This is a hobby for me. Most of my pics will be of friends/family, some street shots and occasional landscape or travel photography.  I am not going into professional portraits, but having the skill will help score some brownie points with my wifey no doubt.   

Thanks for being patient with the newbie questions.  Just trying to make the right decision.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 24, 2019)

Ema said:


> Thanks for all the feedback. Learning a lot. A few more newbie questions:
> a) Even the f/stop has to be multiplied by 1.5 crop factor right. .........



No.

F/1.8 is f/1.8 is f/1.8.  Aperture has *nothing *to do with sensor size.


----------



## petrochemist (Jul 24, 2019)

480sparky said:


> I recall reading an article years ago about a portrait photographer that didn't use anything shorter than 300mm.


On large format that would be quite typical.
IIRC 300mm is the 'normal' focal length for 10x8" and it's like a short telephoto on 5x4


----------



## petrochemist (Jul 24, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I would disagree with the idea that a lens of 85 mm in length is "the best" for
> Portrait work. I prefer a 105 mm lens to an 85 mm almost all the time, and I found that the 135 mL to 180 mm prime lenses were good, over the years there have been many zoom Lenses which are really good for portraiture. One Lens was the 50 to 135 mm F3.5 Nikon AIS, as well as many 70 to 200 mm zoom lenses or 80 to 200 mm Zoom lenses, as well as the 75 to 150 mm series E zoom lens.  The idea that the 85 mm lens is "the best" is really quite an oversimplification and is in my opinion and out right untruth.


I think it comes down to working space.
An 85mm won't fit a head & shoulders subject in at distances short enough where perspective is a significant issue. Yet doesn't need excessive distance. If space allows longer focal lengths will work well. 
Shorter focal lengths can also work well IF the photographer is shooting full length portraits or people in their environment.

Of course the particular subject can have a significant effect on the best choice. Someone with very flat features might look better from somewhat closer, while someone with an unusually big nose benefits from the photographer using a longer lens


----------



## petrochemist (Jul 24, 2019)

480sparky said:


> Ema said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for all the feedback. Learning a lot. A few more newbie questions:
> ...



Using the crop factor on aperture will give about the right values for DOF, (but I rarely bother calculating that anyway)  for exposure purposes it's definitely not used.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 24, 2019)

petrochemist said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I recall reading an article years ago about a portrait photographer that didn't use anything shorter than 300mm.
> ...



Since the thread is about FX v. DX, that's a moot point.


----------



## Designer (Jul 24, 2019)

Ema said:


> ..I figured I need to upgrade to the next set of lenses. I noticed different recommendations.


Yes, you will get different recommendations, depending on who you ask.  Since you asked me, I will recommend some prime lenses. 

Reason: With some research, you can get lenses that will help produce very good image quality while gaining aperture and that may cost less than a comparable zoom lens. 

The reason why some people prefer zooms: Zoom lenses let you crop in camera, while prime lenses force you to walk closer or back up to frame your shot.  Note: you can also just shoot "wide" and crop later on your computer. 

Given the preferred subject material, for your first prime lens, get either a 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8.  These are good first primes and will give good results in "street", casual portraiture, landscape, and travel.  And they are not expensive.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jul 24, 2019)

480sparky said:


> Ema said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for all the feedback. Learning a lot. A few more newbie questions:
> ...


This... 
Plus, the aperture size number is based on DISTANCE from the FP to the Focal AREA. (The film or sensor). 
so the numbers are the same because the MOUNTING distance is the same on a FF v Crop. 

But I digress.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2019)

Nikon has a couple of extremely sharp 85 mm G series lenses. The F 1.8 model  and the F1.4 model are both two of the sharpest lenses Nikon makes priced under $4000. For many years I had the 85 mm F1.8 G but I recently sold it.

 Most 85 mm lenses are designed in such a way that they typically have prettier bokehthan 50 mm lenses.  The new 58 mm F1.4 is designed for very beautiful pictures. Some new 50 mm lenses from Zeiss and Sigma were designedfor critical sharpness, and have extremely hard  bokeh.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2019)

No, for exposure  there is no need for any multiplication or factor ---F5.6 is the same amount of light on both full frame and crop frame. Possibly what you were reading about is called equivalence, which means that a small sensor requires a wider f-stop to give you the depth of field as the same lens when it is used on a larger sensor.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jul 24, 2019)

Derrel said:


> No, for exposure  there is no need for any multiplication or factor ---F5.6 is the same amount of light on both full frame and crop frame. Possibly what you were reading about is called equivalence, which means that a small sensor requires a wider f-stop to give you the depth of field as the same lens when it is used on a larger sensor.


Good point. 
The small ICA of an APS sensor would thus cut out the bokhe of a FF lens, rendering the intent moot.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2019)

As far as equivalence, The people who seem to be most concerned with this do not shoot a APS-Csensors, but rather the small micro 4/3 size sensors.

In recent years there have been some very high speed primes made for people who would like to get really shallow depth of field, but who find that difficult to achieve with slow aperture lenses. Recently very high speed lenses such as F1.2 have been released by a number of companies. 

The website cameraquest.com has quite a few write-upson these lenses


----------



## Soocom1 (Jul 24, 2019)

A couple of points.
1: A "crop" sensor is not really "cropped" but just smaller than the host lens intent. 
The camera bodies are basically the same just diff. sized sensors.  The mounting distance back of lens to ICA is the same for both. Just that an APS camera can allow back focusing.

2: The ICA because it is smaller on an APS, the actual image from a FF lens is exactly the same but covers less of the image circle. 

Hence "cropped" 

This cuts vingetting and barrel distortion when usinf FF lenses.

The same principle is applied when using a Med. Format lens on a 35mm.  And even more so with an APS.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 24, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> .....Plus, the aperture size number is based on DISTANCE from the FP to the Focal AREA. (The film or sensor). so the numbers are the same because the MOUNTING distance is the same on a FF v Crop.........



And this can readily be observed by taking two lenses of different focal lengths and setting them to the same aperture.  Set them side-by-side so you can see through both, and the opening created by the aperture blades will be different sizes.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 24, 2019)

Derrel said:


> The shooting environment is a huge part of it. For example in most living rooms with a full frame camera the 85 mm lens is OK for portraits. In most living rooms with a crop frame camera, an 85 mm lens is extremely tight. For example  at 20 feet with a full frame camera and 85 mm lens, you get a picture that is 8.47 feet tall; with a crop frame camera you have to be about 35 feet away to get the same 8.47 foot tall picture area.  So let's say you wish to do a bridal portrait of a standing couple and leave a little bit of room below the feet and a little bit above the head,an easily-achievable end result with a full frame camera and 85 mm lens, but extremely difficult in many houses with a crop frame camera and an 85 mm lens. Yes the 70 to 200 mm zoom lens is an extremely useful lens on the full frame camera, but on the crop frame camera  The same lens is extremely difficult to use in many smaller rooms



Yep. Local fashion photog here converted an old funeral home into his studio. The rooms were large to begin with but he took out a wall between two of them so he could shoot models using a 250mm lens. You do what you have to do if that's what it takes to get the photo and you can charge $1250 per half day shoot.

Joe


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jul 26, 2019)

This has to be one of the most asinine arguments in photography.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jul 26, 2019)

Whatever type  or model of guitar someone were to provide, you cannot play like Stevie Ray Vaughn.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 26, 2019)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> This has to be one of the most asinine arguments in photography.



It's not an 'argument'.  It's a misconception, confusion, misunderstanding....


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jul 27, 2019)

480sparky said:


> crzyfotopeeple said:
> 
> 
> > This has to be one of the most asinine arguments in photography.
> ...


Yeah, point taken. Argument is the wrong choice of words. I probably should have said this topic. It just seems like beating a dead horse. You can probably search and find countless threads on this forum alone discussing the exact same thing. Not to mention the countless youtube videos.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 27, 2019)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> This has to be one of the most asinine arguments in photography.



No not really an asinine argument, since there are many practical applications based upon  The actual cameras in question. For example the Nikon D5… It is a professionally oriented full frame camera designed for action, whereas the D 500 is priced much more affordably, but is also designed for action. In consumer Nikons the D7200 is quite affordable now, after being at the top of the current consumer crop body camera heap for several years and the Nikon D610 would be the full frame counterpart. I really don't think this argument is asinine,as you say, but rather imminently a practical argument,based around practicalities. A crop frame camera takes 95% of the lenses Nikon has ever made and turns them into something they were never designed to be.

Full frame cameras and APS-C cameras are very different performers when used indoors with a 70 to 200 mm zoom, or indoors with a 50 mm lens, and so on. I shot APS-C from 2001 to 2007 or so, and ever since then I have owned at least one full frame digital single lens reflex. Based upon the lenses offered by Pentax, Canon, and Nikon, the crop frame camera has really been relegated to second-tier status.  These three companies really have never offered a good selection of lenses to leverage their cameras that were built with smaller than traditional sensors. The entire 35 mm ethos was built around the image being roughly 24 x 36 mm in size and proportion. Literally decades of lens development was geared toward making cameras that would use a capture size that was 24 x 36mm. Traditional lens lengths such as 20 mm, 24 mm,28 mm,35 mm, 50 mm, 85 mm 100 mm, 135 mm, 180 mm, 200 mm, 300mm, and a wide range of zoom lenses, were all designed to be used best on cameras with 24 x 36 mm Capture size. There have only been a handful of high-quality and I mean really high-quality professional-grade lenses designed by these three manufacturers for their small sensor cameras. The big three traditional camera companies have made it clear that they are operating a two-tier system. For example most APS-C cameras are sold as a kit with an 18 to 55 mm "Kit zoom" that is priced right around $100. How much does a 24 to 70 mm F2.8 zoom sell for these days? $2200 to $2499?  And how much does a well-respected third-party lens manufacturers 24 to 70 mm f/2.8
zoom lens retail for? $1200 or so?

If for example I have a 24 mm lens and put it on a Nikon D 7200 I have one type of lens; if however I put the same 24 mm lens on the Nikon D850 I have an entirely different type of lens.I see nothing ass in line in the above facts,  I see nothing asinine in the above facts,but they do see a wide range of practical decisions that must be made.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jul 27, 2019)

I can post pictures taken with a crop or full frame and the difference is indistinguishable. Full frame cameras have a crop mode, problem solved. If you can't afford full frame buy a crop and the necessary lenses and go take pictures. No matter which you choose it will not improve your photography that is determined by the person holding said camera. Price (which the gap is lessening) is the only consideration between full vs crop, end of story.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jul 27, 2019)

I have a full frame camera now because I can afford it. When I started in photography I had a crop camera because it was what I could afford at the time. Is the full frame more versatile? I would say yes. Is the hobby of photography more fun because I have a full frame camera? Absolutely not. I have felt creative and enjoyed the experience no matter what the camera. It is the place, the feeling the enjoyment of photography that matters. Enjoy what you have and what you can afford.


----------



## photoflyer (Jul 27, 2019)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> It just seems like beating a dead horse.



True but there many who are new to the forum every day and they usually find more recent threads.   When one is just starting out, understanding crop vs. full frame is very important. The manufacturers don't educate on this subject so it is up to us.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jul 27, 2019)

photoflyer said:


> crzyfotopeeple said:
> 
> 
> > It just seems like beating a dead horse.
> ...


Fair enough, that makes sense. However, I think it is misleading to try and come up with any reasons other than price to buy crop over full frame. IMO this is what makes this discussion pointless.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 27, 2019)

Fuji is one of the very few camera makers that has seen a problem that exists in the other brands. Fuji has made a whole series of lenses that are good equivalents  for the traditional focal lengths that have been used in 35mm photography since the 1930s.

 I think this  has been a huge part of the success of Fuji digital cameras, as much as the cool looking retro style of the cameras they offer.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 27, 2019)

If you would like to have access to 99% of 60 million Nikon lenses that have been made since roughly 1959, and you would like to have these lenses perform as they were designed to perform, then you want to buy a full frame camera. If you just want pictures,you can spend 350 bucks and purchase an entry-level Nikon D3400
And the Kit zoom. 

I have made some pretty darn good pictures with my iPhone 4, and with my iPhone SE. For that matter I made a few good pictures with a 1958 Ricohflex Super, and with a 1938 Argoflex. The camera does not matter that much, but to say that a Mercedes is the same thing as a Kia is disingenuous at best.  A Prius and a Tesla are both electric cars and they're both equal right?


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jul 27, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I have made some pretty darn good pictures with my iPhone 4, and with my iPhone SE.


If you are looking at them on a small computer screen. Enlarged or printed the quality is horrid.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jul 27, 2019)

Derrel said:


> A Prius and a Tesla are both electric cars and they're both equal right?


A Prius is not an electric car BTW


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jul 27, 2019)

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 (Jul 27, 2019)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> 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 (Jul 27, 2019)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> 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 (Jul 27, 2019)

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 (Jul 27, 2019)

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 (Jul 27, 2019)

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 (Jul 28, 2019)

Designer said:


> crzyfotopeeple said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Jul 28, 2019)

Soocom1 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. 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 (Jul 28, 2019)

Dacaur said:


> Soocom1 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. 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.
> ...


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


----------



## Derrel (Jul 28, 2019)

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 (Jul 28, 2019)

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 (Jul 28, 2019)

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 (Jul 28, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Dacaur said:
> 
> 
> > Soocom1 said:
> ...



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 (Jul 28, 2019)

Dacaur said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dacaur said:
> ...




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 (Jul 29, 2019)

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".


----------



## Original katomi (Jul 29, 2019)

Re above.. maybe someone who has both ff and crop could do this test. A side by side visual would be a lot easier to understand than 1000 words.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jul 29, 2019)

Dacaur said:


> 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."
> 
> ...





*One: 
Do not call me a liar. *

Two:   Let me be perfectly clear. In the example above:


The IMAGE CIRCLE in an APS camera is EXACTLY THE SAME as a 35mm camera.
The images are EXACTLY THE SAME image because the mounting distance in the two are EXACTLY THE SAME! The FOCAL distance is the same and the FOCUS distance is the same. 

Three: The 'crop" is a result of the APS image area being smaller than the 35mm in the same exact setup. The area of a 35mm is "CROPPED" with the LESS area of an APS image area.  
Therefore the image is still EXACTLY THE SAME! 

The difference comes when one *RE FRAMES* the image to fit the Field of View.  Therefore the images change when you change the focus and focal distance to fit the APS area!


----------



## Dacaur (Jul 29, 2019)

Wrong.

Take a full frame camera mount a 100mm prime lense on it, mount it to a tripod. Find a car, and back up untill the car just fills the frame, rear bumper to front bumper. 
Don't move the tripod, don't move the car.
Don't reframe.
Using the same lense, swap in a crop sensor camera. Take a picture, and said picture will NOT include the entire car. It will be missing quite a bit of the front and rear of the car.
That is not the same picture.
Full frame camera took a picture of an entire car.
Crop sensor camera took a picture of only part of a car.

The only way the pictures could be the same is if you reframed, that is physically move farther away with the crop sensor camera.


----------



## Original katomi (Jul 29, 2019)

Starting to make sense, so this is why when I tried out a ff canon in the shop with the lens, canon 70 200 f4 l series, I did not seem to have as much reach on the ff as I did on my 600d
Let me if I understand now for a given lens the image size is set and that this set size circle of light/image falls onto a rectangular sensor. A ff sensor will cover more of the circle than the smaller crop sensor in the latter case the light/image falling on the area around the sensor where it will not be registered. . Is this correct


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jul 29, 2019)

I will refer back to my original statement, this is a stupid argument and a waste of time. A truly talented photographer will take any system and achieve amazing results without focusing on all the bs semantics. No one will even know what type of camera you used and no one really cares. As long as you get the results YOU want that's all that matters. I guess it's better to sit at a computer and continue these childlike arguments. "YOUR A LIAR! NO I'M NOT, YOU ARE. DON'T EVER CALL ME NAMES. I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG, BLAH BLAH BLAH" Pathetic.


----------



## Dacaur (Jul 29, 2019)

Yes. 
Comparing two cameras, a ff and a crop sensor, both output an image size of approx 6000x4000 pixels, but on the crop sensor body, it's only capturing the center part of the image, effectively giving you more reach for a given zoom (1.6x for Canon) so the 70-200 becomes a 112-320)

In the above scenario taking a picture of a car, if you start with the crop sensor camera with the lense set to 70mm, in order to produce the exact same image with the full frame camera, you need to zoom in to 112mm.


----------



## Dacaur (Jul 29, 2019)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> I will refer back to my original statement, this is a stupid argument and a waste of time. A truly talented photographer will take any system and achieve amazing results without focusing on all the bs semantics. No one will even know what type of camera you used and no one really cares. As long as you get the results YOU want that's all that matters. I guess it's better to sit at a computer and continue these childlike arguments. "YOUR A LIAR! NO I'M NOT, YOU ARE. DON'T EVER CALL ME NAMES. I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG, BLAH BLAH BLAH" Pathetic.



I definitely agree it's a waste of time, however, letting incorrect information stand without challenge serves only to propagate incorrect information. It's not only the people here today that will see this. Years into the future some newbie wondering about ff vs crop sensors may find this thread on Google, and if the last word is that both will produce the same image, said new goes "huh, ok then I guess it doesn't matter, both will be exactly the same" and that's just not correct.
You see, it actually DOES matter. Using a crop sensor, all your lenses have, effectively, more telephoto, as well as not being able to take a photo as wide as the lense suggests, you cannot take a photo with a 100mm fov using a 100mm lense using a crop sensor camera. That matters.

Perhaps instead of going "you guys are dumb for arguing about this blah blah blah", you could join in the conversation to help people understand.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jul 29, 2019)

Dacaur said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Take a full frame camera mount a 100mm prime lense on it, mount it to a tripod. Find a car, and back up untill the car just fills the frame, rear bumper to front bumper.
> Don't move the tripod, don't move the car.
> ...


Read what I said. 

The IMAGE circle is EXACTLY THE SAME. 
Ergo.. The SAME EXACT IMAGE! 

THAT by definition makes the APS a "crop" because you are doing what? 
CROPPING THE IMAGE. 

Your thinking Image is defined by the final result. 
I am talking about the image created IN THE CAMERA on a FF over a crop is going to be exactly the same image, but the 'crop" image is caused by the smaller area of the APS. 

The Image when re-framed changes every aspect albeit only small amounts.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jul 29, 2019)

Dacaur said:


> Perhaps instead of going "you guys are dumb for arguing about this blah blah blah", you could join in the conversation to help people understand.


Nah, I think I will go out and take photos. I don't think anything discussed in this thread is of any value for actually going out and taking photos, so thanks but no thanks.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 29, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Dacaur said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.
> ...



Technically, the image circle is the same, ............ even if there's no camera present.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jul 29, 2019)

Be forewarned, the following is super technical and should only be read by hyper-intellectual types with a degree from some prestigious university.

Step 1: Look through the viewfinder of whatever camera/lens you have.
Step 2: Compose your shot
Step 3: Adjust camera settings (if in full Auto disregard this step)
Step 4: Press shutter button 
Step 5: Review and Repeat

Guaranteed to work every time.
Step 6 (optional): Go online and argue about image circles


----------



## Dacaur (Jul 29, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Dacaur said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.
> ...



Ah.
I see.
You are going on about something that doesn't matter in the least to the photographer. Any photographer.
 When you say " the image in both cameras..." I, and likely most of the population is thinking you are talking about the image we see in the viewfinder or screen, not the image projected inside the camera by the lense....
The image circle inside the camera doesn't matter. To anyone. Why would it? What matters, and what the op was questioning, was the image file resulting from pressing the shutter button.

For future reference, so many posts could have been avoided if you had just said what you meant "you are right, the image created when you press the shutter button is different depending on if you are using ff or a crop sensor. I was actually talking about something that doesn't matter on the least to the photographer, you know, something you can't actually see"
Would that have been so hard? This is why I asked for clarification several times. Again, maybe try something more than 'i have been doing this a long time" when someone questions you.....
For the record, I still don't believe you have done it and seen the result with your own eyes. You are speaking strictly in theory....


----------



## Derrel (Jul 29, 2019)

The idea that a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera produced "the same image "when shot with a particular lens used on both camera
Is not true. Take your full frame camera and  Mount a 24 mm lens. The picture will be a wide angle view. Pretty wide. Use the same 24 mm  Lens on a crop frame body and you will have basically a 36mm equivalent, with a much narrower angle of view.

 The crop frame sensor does not see the outer periphery of the projected image circle from the lens.

 Note that with a telephoto lens if you mount a 300 mm lens and aim it at a bird 100 feet distant the full frame and the crop frame will have the same sized bird, but in the crop sensor camera the bird will fill more of the frame area than it does in the fall frame capture.

Still the idea that a crop frame and a full frame sensor give "the same image"
is erroneous if by image we mean "picture".


----------



## photoflyer (Jul 29, 2019)

I really don't want to get caught up in the arguments so I have not quoted anyone.

But this link should help.

My Cloud

I took this series to compare body/lens/teleconverter combinations but it shows crop versus full frame for the same shot on a tripod from same distance.

The filename tells you with what equipment image was shot.

D...   6D   Mark II,   Full frame
T...    T7i.  Crop

300.  300 F4 L
70200.   70-200 F 2.8 L. @. 200mm

14.   1.4x teleconverter
20.   2.0x teleconverter
Blank    no teleconverter

So D70200-14.jpg  is the 6D Mark II   70-200@200mm and the 1.4x teleconverter.   T20200-14.jpg same but on the crop sensor.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 29, 2019)

This is the first time I have ever heard anybody try to say that a crop frame and a full frame sensor give the same image!

  Why does the OP ask about a field of view factor???????!!!!!!!because the field of view is different between a crop frame sensor and the full frame sensor, at every focal length.


----------



## sleist (Jul 30, 2019)

As someone who currently shoots Olympus m43, Nikon Dx, and Nikon FX, I see the following:

m43 + 45mm = 90mm EQ angle of view (2X crop factor)

DX + 58mm = 87mm EQ angle of view (1.5X crop factor)

FX + 85mm = 85mm EQ angle of view (no crop factor)

Depth of field at a given aperture decreases with increased sensor size.

The 3 setups above will give roughly the same image in the viewfinder when cameras are swapped out on a fixed tripod focused on the same subject at a fixed distance.  Depth of field will be different (as stated above) if all are shot using the same aperture.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jul 30, 2019)

Before cameras existed you had to be a painter.


----------



## greybeard (Aug 1, 2019)

On crop sensor, I always used a 50mm .  You can always shoot a little loose and crop but, if you run out of room, then you have a real problem.


----------



## beagle100 (Aug 3, 2019)

Dacaur said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Take a full frame camera mount a 100mm prime lense on it, mount it to a tripod. Find a car, and back up untill the car just fills the frame, rear bumper to front bumper.
> Don't move the tripod, don't move the car.
> ...



I believe that is true
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------

