Why do people mistakenly believe FF is better than cropped

[JR1]

I was reading a post here, "how far would you walk with a FF.... etc"

I was interested in a reply on the forum, I hope I have not taken it out of context, apologies if I have.

"AJOHNW
Basically I feel that crops of 1.5 are out and full frame is still in. ".

I find it interesting that there is a belief that FF is the way to go, or that it is in some way better or superior to cropped sensors, wrong.

When photography was in it's "heyday" so to speak, 15", 10" plates were THE way of Photography, as we moved on Medium format was and perhaps is still considered the standard format especially for studio, it was only really during the war that film was so hard to get that enterprising photographers realised that 35mm "cine" film could be adapted and used in "small format" cameras, (Oskar Barnack, who was in charge of research and development at Leitz, decided to investigate using 35 mm cine film for still cameras)

see link and google others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_camera

Now we have (skipped much and many years) crop sensors and more, but the ALL have their own, unique and very important place in photography.

FF is NOT the be all and end all in photography, I spend most of my time with sports photographers, nature and wildlife photographers and most are shooting crop, why because they offer the extra reach with tele/zoom lenses. Take the 7D, D300s for example, used the world over by pros and photographers in daily life, I chose to shoot crop for reasons, I could buy a couple of FFs tomorrow, I neither want nor need them, let alone "aspire" to them.

In reality there is no "standard" format, what there is, is a format that suits YOU, whether it is MF, FF, Crop or 4/3 or smaller, it is what best suits your needs and requirements.

My advice is, not to fall into the trap of believing that one is better than another, it is not, decide what you want to shoot, decide on the best system for you, and work with that.

[PhotoRob]

Hey Jeremy, all good points and it does boil down to personal need or preference, however would you agree that in general because full frame is associated with 'professional' accessories tend to be more robust for full frame cameras?

[ajohnw]

I have m 4/3 , canon and nikon crops and full frame - the 2 crops will most likely go at some point as they don't really offer anything over what m 4/3 can offer other than a conventional view finder. Full frame does offer something extra in those terms - and has a view finder so I may upgrade my 5D at some point.

You might say that with the right lenses on m 4/3 neither of the crop cameras have anything of real significance to offer.

So you have taken the comment out of context but that may well be my fault.

John
-

[saea501]

FF is NOT the be all and end all in photography, I spend most of my time with sports photographers, nature and wildlife photographers and most are shooting crop, why because they offer the extra reach with tele/zoom lenses. Take the 7D, D300s for example, used the world over by pros and photographers in daily life, I chose to shoot crop for reasons, I could buy a couple of FFs tomorrow, I neither want nor need them, let alone "aspire" to them.

In reality there is no "standard" format, what there is, is a format that suits YOU, whether it is MF, FF, Crop or 4/3 or smaller, it is what best suits your needs and requirements.

My advice is, not to fall into the trap of believing that one is better than another, it is not, decide what you want to shoot, decide on the best system for you, and work with that.

A small correction, if I may....crops don't offer additional reach. Focal length is the same on a crop or a full frame at any given setting. Crops do, however, provide a narrower field of view. So at 85 mm the focal length is the same on both full and a 1/6 crop, but the crop has the field of view in this case of 136mm, which is narrower than the 85mm.

And I agree, full frame is not necessarily going to make your pictures better.

The camera isn't what makes a great picture.

[Black Pearl]

Another small correction if I may....these day we generally refer to reach as being the narrower field of view that a crop body gives over a FF one.

As to the professional side of things then a D300s is a pro body regardless of the sensor size and the associated accessories are pro too.

[DanK]

both crop and FF have their advantages and disadvantages. I say that as someone who owns both. The fact is that for a great many people, it doesn't make any practical difference at all.

A small correction, if I may....crops don't offer additional reach. Focal length is the same on a crop or a full frame at any given setting. Crops do, however, provide a narrower field of view.

I don't know what you mean by "reach," but as I use the word, this is wrong. I use reach to mean this: "how far away can you be with a given focal length and still fill the frame?" Or alternatively, with two different formats, how long a lens do I need to fill the frame? The smaller the sensor, the longer the reach. This is just another way of saying what you did, that is, the smaller the sensor, the narrower the angle of view. Reach is a trigonometric function of angle of view. That is unquestionably one of the big advantages of a crop sensor. of course, this is mitigated to some extent if the FF has more pixels in total, because then you can crop the FF image to obtain the equivalent number of pixels, in essence giving the final image a narrower angle of view than the uncropped image.

[Davey]

I only own crop but bigger pixel pitch is a big plus for astronomy based images, there are a lot of strengths of each but many ff bodies come with more features as standard that few if any crop bodies have. Some of the higher end prosumer crops get trickledown from mid to high end ff but generally the AF system, viewfinder sizes, buffer size, build quality, weather sealing etc are better with many ff models. Granted it is not the sensor size in question for those thing but even there the shallow DoF and so on can make a huge difference to some photographers.

For me as an amateur and what stuff I shoot (mainly portraits) it is not a consideration but I rarely print bigger than a4 and it is for friends and family mostly. For pro who earns a living off it and prints big the higher end ff bodies and glass to go with it starts making major differences to them. Although they'd get good images with anything they need to know they can rely on their gear especially if there is no second chance and it's their career, for me it's no big deal since missing a shot wont ruin someones wedding photos for life etc etc.

[ajohnw]

both crop and FF have their advantages and disadvantages. I say that as someone who owns both. The fact is that for a great many people, it doesn't make any practical difference at all.

Just to clear up the quote that started this thread - if you shifted to a 4/3 format from a crop you would quickly reach the same conclusion and wonder if there was any benefit of using 1.5 crop over 2. in my view there isn't. On the other hand there are limited benefits in using full frame over either crop. How useful some of those are though is debatable for many.

It interesting to consider the evolution of film - medium format considered useless in comparison to plate for some time. 35mm considered useless compared to medium format - same. 1/2 frame considered useless compared with 35mm - didn't last long enough to find out.

Sound familiar? In some ways considered useless as the formats get smaller is true. Take plate. A decent extreme plate enlarger doesn't work vertically as the prints it can produce are too big for that. Similarly medium format will produce much bigger prints than 35mm. On the other hand 35mm would produce prints up to a size that was perfectly acceptable to many. The limitation here really was grain and dye technology.

On digital much depends on the lens and the pixel density. If I can take a shot that has so much detail that it needs at least a 27in diagonal or more to do it justice why would I want a crop factor of 1.5 when I can do it with one of 2. As a for instance one shot my wife persuaded me to take springs to mind even though I thought it was a waste of time. Bluebells in the woods. Couldn't see anything to frame so took a semi wide angle shot of the lot. The only thing the shot would be any good for is a rather large print.

John
-

[RichardTaylor]

I shoot with both older full frame (Canon 5D) and crop (Canon 40D and Canon 350D) bodies.

When it comes to high ISO shooting the 5D outperforms the 40D, so that will be my choice for a lot of low light subjects.
However becuse of the 40D better autofoucus performance ( and higher frame rate to a lesser extent) I have a much better chance of capturing an image for "action" subjects, like motor sport or birds in flight.

So at the end of the day they are just different tools.

[pnodrog]

There are many circumstances where FF is superior to a cropped sensor so it is incorrect to describe it as a mistaken belief. However I agree that often it may well be a misinformed belief.

[NorthernFocus]

The simple answer to the question posed is simple, human nature. Most any generalized notion is errant and yet such notions are very prevalent in all societies/cultures. Much of it stems from people looking to others opinions for guidance. And then following blindly the opinions of those chosen as worthy (based on whatever warrants such faith/confidence). It is to take advantage of this aspect of human nature that equipment manufacturers sponsor and/or pay professional photogs, athletes, race car drivers, etc. to showcase their products.

I own cameras with three different sensor sizes precisely because no one is "best". On the other hand, if there weren't multiple affordable choices available, I'd likely be perfectly content with whatever single format I had access to.

[JR1]

Hey Jeremy, all good points and it does boil down to personal need or preference, however would you agree that in general because full frame is associated with 'professional' accessories tend to be more robust for full frame cameras?

No, I use Metz 45 CL4-digital flashguns (2) and SB910, none are built just for FF, and why should FF be better built or associated with pros, as I said I know many pros who would not touch FF

[JR1]

I have m 4/3 , canon and nikon crops and full frame - the 2 crops will most likely go at some point as they don't really offer anything over what m 4/3 can offer other than a conventional view finder. Full frame does offer something extra in those terms - and has a view finder so I may upgrade my 5D at some point.

You might say that with the right lenses on m 4/3 neither of the crop cameras have anything of real significance to offer.

So you have taken the comment out of context but that may well be my fault.

John
-

Though I may hence the statement

[JR1]

There are many circumstances where FF is superior to a cropped sensor so it is incorrect to describe it as a mistaken belief. However I agree that often it may well be a misinformed belief.

Just as there are many instances a crop sensor is better than FF

[Colin Southern]

A small correction, if I may....crops don't offer additional reach. Focal length is the same on a crop or a full frame at any given setting. Crops do, however, provide a narrower field of view. So at 85 mm the focal length is the same on both full and a 1/6 crop, but the crop has the field of view in this case of 136mm, which is narrower than the 85mm.

And I agree, full frame is not necessarily going to make your pictures better.

The camera isn't what makes a great picture.

Technically quite correct of course, but in practice, resolving detail largely comes down to pixel density. If one has two 18MP cameras - one CF the other FF then the FF camera will need a lens that's 1.5 or 1.6 times the focal length of the lens being used on the CF camera to get both the same angle of view and resolve the same amount of detail. And because we're used to talking of focal lengths and not angular views, I think it's easiest to just refer to the "CF phenomena" as simply giving a pseudo focal length increase.

PS: Should not Field / Angle of View be measured in degrees and not millimeters? (considering it's an angle, not a length).

[Colin Southern]

Just as there are many instances a crop sensor is better than FF

Whether CF is better or worse can only be defined in terms of specific requirements. Using your thread title one could just as easily say "why do people mistakenly believe CF is better than a camera phone"; heck, a CF camera can't even make phone calls or send and receive text messages.

Flipped around, I would say that "believing FF is better than CF isn't always a mistake". I moved from 1.6x CF to 1.3x CF to FF because the CF didn't dive me enough FoV; so in my case it wasn't a mistake to believe FF is better than CF because it IS better for my purposes.

Perhaps a better title may have been "Why do SOME people believe that FF is ALWAYS better than cropped"?

[Mike Buckley]

All of the formats being discussed here are completely useless when making an image whose native size is 107.5 feet by 37.5 feet (32.8 meters by 11.4 meters) as explained here. Moral to the story: every format has its own unique characteristics that are beneficial or detrimental depending on the situation.

[davidedric]

I understand that every format has its role, but I still though I'd add where I am at.

I have crop and m4/3. I am very impressed with m4/3, and plan to use it for most of my shooting. I don't do large prints. However, for now, I will stay with the Canon crop for wildlife: the extra pixels cam be useful because with wildlife there is often a need to crop, and it also has significantly better autofocus for moving objects.

Before I got the m4/3 I was planning to upgrade the crop body to a 70D: better (more cross points) and faster auto focus, higher burst rate, usable live view. Why not upgrade the glass? Because to upgrade would mean buying L glass, and paying for and carrying a lot of extra glass I don't need is not my idea of fun. Contrast with m4/3 where pro-quality glass is available designed for the sensor, though not yet across all focal lengths. I suspect, given the rate of development, that in a couple of years m4/3 will be able to do anything that today's crop cameras will do, though they will not be a cheap option.

Incidentally, I recently saw a demo of images from a tiny Olympus camera (sorry, can't remember the model number) and was blown away by the quality (this was through digital projection). Olympus have also done something pretty neat with "digital zoom": the in-camera software interpolates between the pixels and the result is very little loss of image quality.

Dave

[ajohnw]

I fail to understand why people wont get their head round where full frame is better. Must admit it isn't a straight forwards thing to grasp. A simplistic view is that given that lenses can only be so good in terms of resolution a larger sensor can record more detail. The usual measure these days is line widths per picture height or cycles per pixel. These are very tightly related to the sensor the lens is tested on so can't easily be converted from one to anothert. Line pairs per mm are a different matter. If it's accepted that there is a limit to this then it's easier to see why larger sensors have higher resolution. It's hard to make direct comparisons but where figures are give excellent on full frame is in the range of 3200 to 3700 lw/ph and 2,280 to 2,800 on APS. It's hard to compare same field of view but an 85mm might reach 3,400 lw/ph on FF and a 50mm 2,600. That's a 50mm F1.4 against an 85mm F1.8, a F1.2 may reach 3700.. Use the same lens on crop and full frame and the lens resolution doesn't change but the angle of view does. This suggests that a full frame camera can crop for the same view but pixel densities may mess that up.

Yet another way to look at is diffraction. Or circles of confusion which for the same quality of lenses relate. These are set purely by F ratio and there is more room for them in larger sensors.

Some of the above is down to manufacturers after a fashion. Say a quality 70-300mm F5.6 full frame lens is scaled down to a crop sized sensor. It's still F5.6 and has the same angle of view so diffraction spot size hasn't changed but the aberrations the lens has have been scaled down and that will improve resolution. The 1 Nikon range are perhaps the best example of the scale effect. If you look at some of the lenses they give MTF plots and even include one done at 60 line pairs per mm, the other one they give is 20. I don't think I have ever seen a 60 plot on a FF lens. As Dpreview put it the format is fine providing they continue to make high resolution lenses for it but if the adapter is used along with Nikons other format lenses many wont work very well at all. The 1 Nikon range of lw/ph for excellence is 1740-2000. The primes get well up their too. Even the FF equivalent 27mm to 270mm gets well up their, crop factor is 2.7. If this level of resolution could be achieved on FF it would work out at 5,700 lw/ph. There are a number of reason why this wont happen.

Things are a bit weird on m 4/3. Take a 60mm macro lens. It hits over 2,750 lw/ph as do other primes. The new pro 12-40mm F2.8 does too. The kit 14-42mm doesn't reach that but it's not far behind it. Same for the 12-50mm. Graphs on this format go to 3,150. Bit weird that this is higher than circa 1.5 crops isn't it. Reasons - scale effect and the lenses are specifically designed for the format and includes high quality ones. The other one is cost. They aren't cheap. The benefit of the scale effects are significant but better quality control is needed as well.

Back to why FF might be better - Often better noise / iso relationships so it seems clear to me that pixel size still has some bearing on that. On the other hand any format is ISO 200 a problem. Not really. Is 400, unlikely. Snap 800.

No doubt this subject will crop up again and facts wont be considered. Anyway it became pretty clear to me once I bought a half decent m 4/3 (E-P3) set up APS started to look a bit dubious. I now have a few 4/3 lenses and it looks like this aspect has been part true for rather a long time. Maybe not part true as same date cameras etc would have to be compared. In that period graphs went to 2,450. Not much short of APS. The number is probably down to pixel density at that time. The better lenses reached that figure.

John
-

[ajohnw]

I understand that every format has its role, but I still though I'd add where I am at.

I have crop and m4/3. I am very impressed with m4/3, and plan to use it for most of my shooting. I don't do large prints. However, for now, I will stay with the Canon crop for wildlife: the extra pixels cam be useful because with wildlife there is often a need to crop, and it also has significantly better autofocus for moving objects.

Before I got the m4/3 I was planning to upgrade the crop body to a 70D: better (more cross points) and faster auto focus, higher burst rate, usable live view. Why not upgrade the glass? Because to upgrade would mean buying L glass, and paying for and carrying a lot of extra glass I don't need is not my idea of fun. Contrast with m4/3 where pro-quality glass is available designed for the sensor, though not yet across all focal lengths. I suspect, given the rate of development, that in a couple of years m4/3 will be able to do anything that today's crop cameras will do, though they will not be a cheap option.

Incidentally, I recently saw a demo of images from a tiny Olympus camera (sorry, can't remember the model number) and was blown away by the quality (this was through digital projection). Olympus have also done something pretty neat with "digital zoom": the in-camera software interpolates between the pixels and the result is very little loss of image quality.

Dave

I agree on tracking moving objects especially in the case of finding say seagulls soaring in low contrast situations. I had about a 50% success rate on an E-M5 but they were coming towards me. Howling freezing gale that gave me the ear ache so didn't check the preview and made a really stupid metering compensation mistake. Once on the subject all was ok focus wise though. The problem is that the lens may start short, go past and then go back again. It might even miss going back. Phase detection should clear this up.

Not sure if any one is shooting with an EM-1 but I wonder if they use phase to ensure the lens at least focuses in the right direction or just uses it when 4/3 lens are on?

Actually 4/3 none swd lenses aren't too bad on an EM-5 with the adapter. It appears to deliberately miss focus if any doubt. Odd experience focus confirm comes up and the lens immediately kicks out of focus so that it's obviously out in the viewfinder. If the confirm stays all is ok.

John
-