Why do people mistakenly believe FF is better than cropped

[lukaswerth]

I've given this question a little bit further thought: given that you would like to allow the possibility of big prints and much detail (which I want), even the FF is quite small. Huge enlargement factors, far more than in film days. Therefore all these questions I see in these days of where to focus in a landscape in order to achieve most sharpness, hyperfocal distance or not (it's "not", actually), and of which exposure times to use, and yes, a tripod, and oh, mirror up!

Enlargement factors for cropped are still larger (no pun intended), lenses must be still sharper, and there might be a physical limit for all this. Further, in principle, it should be easier with a FF sensor to get more dynamic range, better high ISO performance.

Further, more professional lenses, at least for some purposes, for FF (I couldn't get the angle of my 24mm PC-E, for instance, on a cropped sensor.

On the other hand, for much of street photography, I'd be damned if I bought a (FF) Leica for the price of a used car, and I would go for a Fuji film all the time, cropped or not. But in the end, I guess, it's my D800 of which I know, when I expose a picture, there are the details to enlarge, there is the dynamic range, there is this fantastic shadow detail.

Lukas

Lukas

[JR1]

The evidence would suggest at least all of us who posted to this thread...

Maddening, isn't it

And here lies the problem, as I said when I stared the thread ALL cameras have their merits, I personally don't want FF, I have no need for one, but that does not make cropped better or worse, just different.

I drive an MPV, I don't have a Mercedes or BMW, I have a Renault, why because that best suits MY needs, same with cameras, FF is NOT the holy grail any more than a BMW is to me.

[ajohnw]

And here lies the problem, as I said when I stared the thread ALL cameras have their merits, I personally don't want FF, I have no need for one, but that does not make cropped better or worse, just different.

I drive an MPV, I don't have a Mercedes or BMW, I have a Renault, why because that best suits MY needs, same with cameras, FF is NOT the holy grail any more than a BMW is to me.

I'm fairly sure I vaguely remember outlining the real differences with crop some where. One I should have added is that take a format and unless technology changes and it hasn't on the D800 noise will be worse that other cameras with with the same format and larger pixels.. A D4 for instance is worth about 2 stops extra over the D800 - circa the usual advantage mentioned for full frame.

Lenses are more interesting. Perhaps marginally more interesting than paint drying. Will manufacturers do an m 4/3 and produce high quality crop lenses that take advantage of the format - highly unlikely I suspect for pretty obvious reasons and there would also be a cost penalty due to it being a larger sized crop. Then a full frame user might not be able to crop the same view out of an APS camera that used the same lenses as the pixels would be too big. Perhaps not on a D800 though.

John
-

[Davey]

I think you're right with that, at the last photokina a few industry people said it wasn't worth it to do away with crop dslr in favour of mirrorless etc due to them filling a different niche and lens choice was a big thing. They found the average number of lenses bought by 4/3 owners was much lower than the number 1.5/1.6 crop dslr users bought on average. Most camera have a niche to which they are suited and there is no "better" just "more suited to particular task".

A few pros I follow use medium format cameras or digibacks because they are most suited to the task but for fast shots or portability they suck, they're heavy and slow to use, focus can be temperamental and studio portrait or tabletop shooting for hi-res work they are great but a sports shooter on the move wouldn't touch them. I've seen Heisler use none medium format stuff, even seen a stunning shot from McNally from his phone, it's just the right tool for the right job and ff suits some things more than crop.

IQ is not one of the big things in average circumstances low light and very high iso aside, funny thing seen recently was comparison of iphone to hasselblad with mf digiback. You can spot the differences even in small size BUT it is certainly closer than some would make out and for your average joe on the street not much between them.

[ajohnw]

I think you're right with that, at the last photokina a few industry people said it wasn't worth it to do away with crop dslr in favour of mirrorless etc due to them filling a different niche and lens choice was a big thing. They found the average number of lenses bought by 4/3 owners was much lower than the number 1.5/1.6 crop dslr users bought on average. Most camera have a niche to which they are suited and there is no "better" just "more suited to particular task"..

I feel they might be wrong. It might happen over time but just like 35mm film it could take a long time to overcome prejudices Might never happen as well. Those test resolution figures I quoted earlier based on resolution related to sensor size are correct and just on that basis 1.55 crop isn't really worth the having. Then there is the good lens aspect - some crops live up to the full frame lenses most don't. A full frame user could crop the same image as dslr crop user. It's rumoured that Canon are trying to mimic something like the mirrorless viewfinder experience on one of the dslr's that is due to come out. Why might they do that - well I don't need to use the preview to check the last shot I took.. Also looks like the histogram display may be telling me more than I realised. I will be interested to see just how close Canon can get to it.

Lens sales statistics can be misleading. Much will depend on what sort of person buys the camera. Say 2 types - watches a panasonic advert where some one is climbing a mountain - says great and buys one, another is genuinely interested in photography. Those people currently don't rate m 4/3. The other aspect of course is that many crop owners just have 2 lenses, same with m 4/3 but there will be a higher proportion with just the 1 that came with the camera.

One thing that I noticed when m 4/3 started getting noticed was people who bought one and expected fantastic pictures from day one compared with their previous compacts. Of course they saw similar problems but didn't realise that they were not as bad. A dslr would have offered them exactly the same experience. The other problem for m 4/3 is the types of camera on offer - a lot more variability than crop. Sony tried that with crop "compacts" and it didn't work out. Basically what serious photographer is going to buy a dslr type mirrorless camera when the same stuff is used in what are really glorified compacts with interchangeable lenses. Actually I suspect that aspect is likely to encourage people like that to buy the wrong style of camera if they decide to go that way. Obvious result once the novelty has worn of or even sooner is that they wont be happy with it. I feel that means that the format will have an uphill struggle.

Out of interest Olympus have stated in the past that they will make more lenses if people buy the ones they already make. They have so draw your own conclusions. Panasonic seem to be similar.

One thing I would be curious to see is Olympus getting their hands on a full frame sensor but then I do know exactly what happened when the film OM hit the market.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

It occurs to me that the title of this thread is missing the word "some". Because it is only a mistaken belief for some people.

[Manfred M]

Okay John - let's play your show graphs game, using the same website you used:

Let's take three "normal" prime lenses and see how to get identical blur.

Here I've input the standard "normal" primes for all three standard sensor sizes:

Full frame - f/4 50mm lens
1.5 Crop Frame - f/2.8 35mm lens (technically it should be 33.3333mm); one stop faster than the full frame
2.0 Crop Frame - f/2 25mm lens; one stop faster than the 1.5 crop frame and two stops faster than the full frame



What a surprise! Three "identical" curves indicating that to get the same level of lens blur, the mFT needs to be 2 full stops faster than the full frame lens and 1 full stop faster than the 1.5 crop factor.

Frankly, I do have a problem posting this graph, because I can't see the math behind it. Showing graphs without knowing the full context is something I don't like doing.

The mirrorless design used in mFT cameras has the inherent advantage of placing the lens quite close to the sensor; but this has nothing to do with mFT per se, it is just that this particular design advantage was first implemented by Olympus and Panasonic. It is there regardless of sensor size (Leica has used this principle in both their film and crop-frame and full-frame digital cameras).

[pnodrog]

It occurs to me that the title of this thread is missing the word "some". Because it is only a mistaken belief for some people.

It is of course a mistaken belief to think it is a mistaken belief....

In fact cropped sensor DSLRs only exist because up until about 2003 they could not economically manufacture FF sensors. It is a historical design compromise not a planned evolution.....

APS-C developed as a crop of APS-H not of the 135mm (FF) format.

But the whole discussion is about as useful as saying a truck is better than a car - it is the functions required and economic benefits that determines which is better for a particular purpose.

[dabhand]

Just a thought but wasn't every significant photo (whether digitally or on film) in the history of photography taken with a camera less technologically advanced than the better cropped / FF cameras of today ?

It always seems strange to me that photographers who cling to rules & techniques almost as old as the ark, will debate the gnats ear of technology.

+1 to "........Showing graphs without knowing the full context is something I don't like doing."

+1 to " it is the functions required and economic benefits that determines which is better for a particular purpose".

steve

[ajohnw]

Okay John - let's play your show graphs game, using the same website you used:

Let's take three "normal" prime lenses and see how to get identical blur.

Here I've input the standard "normal" primes for all three standard sensor sizes:

Full frame - f/4 50mm lens
1.5 Crop Frame - f/2.8 35mm lens (technically it should be 33.3333mm); one stop faster than the full frame
2.0 Crop Frame - f/2 25mm lens; one stop faster than the 1.5 crop frame and two stops faster than the full frame



What a surprise! Three "identical" curves indicating that to get the same level of lens blur, the mFT needs to be 2 full stops faster than the full frame lens and 1 full stop faster than the 1.5 crop factor.

Frankly, I do have a problem posting this graph, because I can't see the math behind it. Showing graphs without knowing the full context is something I don't like doing.

The mirrorless design used in mFT cameras has the inherent advantage of placing the lens quite close to the sensor; but this has nothing to do with mFT per se, it is just that this particular design advantage was first implemented by Olympus and Panasonic. It is there regardless of sensor size (Leica has used this principle in both their film and crop-frame and full-frame digital cameras).

I did admit my mistake and why it happens earlier. Looks like I made another as well a complete silly but did say off the top of my head.

The one I posted was more along the lines of distance from negligible blur.

John
-

[DanK]

I agree with Manfred--since anyone can post anything, I am skeptical of graphs if I can't see the math. (Even if the math is there, the graph can be wrong. Some years ago I figured out by calculating some values by hand that the graphics routine in a statistics package that had been used for years was wrong. The VP of the company wrote back to say that there was in fact an error in the code.) However, this graph is consistent with DOFmaster, which does supply the math, and that says that in very rough numbers, the aperture offset for a 1.6 crop, if you change focal lengths to keep the same angle of view, is 1 stop. It's not a constant, however.

But the whole discussion is about as useful as saying a truck is better than a car - it is the functions required and economic benefits that determines which is better for a particular purpose.

I couldn't agree more. Yesterday, I took a brief break at lunch to take a walk and shoot a few flowers, taking advantage of our very late spring. I took my 5DIII--by far the best camera I have ever owned--and a 100mm macro lens, so that equipment was sitting out this morning. This morning I decided I would do the same today, if I can free up the time. But then I remembered that the bumblebees are out, so I put a battery for my old crop 50D in the charger. For a number of reasons, I find the combination of a crop camera, a 100mm macro lens, and a 36mm extension tube to be the best I have for chasing bugs.

I think the paint is dry enough for me. On to the next room.

[ajohnw]

I
I couldn't agree more. Yesterday, I took a brief break at lunch to take a walk and shoot a few flowers, taking advantage of our very late spring. I took my 5DIII--by far the best camera I have ever owned--and a 100mm macro lens, so that equipment was sitting out this morning. This morning I decided I would do the same today, if I can free up the time. But then I remembered that the bumblebees are out, so I put a battery for my old crop 50D in the charger. For a number of reasons, I find the combination of a crop camera, a 100mm macro lens, and a 36mm extension tube to be the best I have for chasing bugs.

I think the paint is dry enough for me. On to the next room.

I wont mention the advantages of multi axis image stability for macro work then. Insects are just about beginning to show up here. Odd bumble bee from time to time but I suspect the flowers they like aren't fully open yet so they flit about.

It's been too dry for me for some time. I came in mostly on what to own for best of both worlds FF and m 4/3. Actually 4/3 is interesting too but no where near the weight advantages. Also dated cameras now.

John
-