Crop Size Vs Full Frame - A point of view.

[John 2]

Came across this. I make no comment but in view of recent discussion on the subject, I thought it might be of interest.

http://www.fujirumors.com/crop-senso...eo-zack-arias/

[pnodrog]

Yep - if you do not have the skill a bigger and more expensive camera is not going to make you a better photographer. If you do have the skills only in extremely challenging or special circumstances is the camera going to make a significant difference.

How is it then that I think a new set of golf clubs will lower my score? .... We all live in hope.

[JR1]

Couldn't be bothered to watch the chap with ADHD, talk about OTT. He is a D***, with a twig

You can NOT compare FF with crop any more than you can compare a 2 seater sports car with a 6 seater MPV

I shoot crop D7100 for sports when I need the extra reach the crop gives me on my zooms, I also shoot D4s and D810 FF horses for courses

[DanK]

I read the article last night and was unimpressed. His thesis is that with technological advances, the differences between sensor formats has become smaller. It might well be true--or not--but he didn't offer any evidence. Showing tiny images on screen tells us nothing. Frankly, it read like something written by someone who used to be a FF fanboy and is now a Fuji fanboy and for some reason has to justify it.

As someone who shoots both, I think it's fairly clear what the pros and cons are. Given similar pixel counts, crop has more reach and is better for 1:1 macro. It's also cheaper and lighter. FF offers somewhat better low-light performance and a bit more detail if you print large. For any given maximum aperture, it offers shallower DOF, which can be either an advantage or a disadvantage, but if you are not shooting all the way open or all the way closed down, you can compensate by changing aperture. I think that much of the time for many people (including me), it makes no practical difference. Had the always-over-the-horizon 7DII been released a year ago, I'm not sure I would have bought my FF, as much as I enjoy it.

[Manfred M]

I agree with what Zack has said; BUT while he is right, he makes a couple of statements that really tell the truth:

1. Larger format sensors have better low light performance; so if this is not an issue, the advantage is lost.

2. A large format sensor gives you about 1 stop improvement in shallow DoF. If you are shooting wide open for that technical effect, it does make a difference, but if you are shooting at f/8 or f/11; who cares. Fast glass is still generally only available for full-frame cameras. Purpose built fast glass is finally starting to show up for crop frame cameras.

3. If you are publishing on the web or in a print-based publication, who cares, the image size is never going to be large enough to make any difference. On the other hand, if you are doing large prints, bigger is still better.

4. The viewfinder on full-frame on a full-frame is WAY LARGER and much easier to use for those of us wearing glasses. To me this is one of the main advantages of full frame cameras. You would think that the camera makers would have come out with a large viewfinder for the mirrorless cameras, but no, they have not.


Bottom line; at a high level, I agree with Arias; BUT it depends on your needs. I own a couple of mFT cameras, a crop frame and full frame and still shoot all of them. I've dragged both a full-frame and a crop frame camera all over some very remote parts of the world, but had the support in place (transportation and storage) to be able to use them. My next trip will be with the mFT with one or two lenses and a couple of filters, because I will be backpacking and doing some trekking. I would prefer to take the full-frame, because of its superiour performance, but it is not practical for me to do so.

[NorthernFocus]

Most of these sort of arguments are engaged in by people trying to justify there own actions/decisions. Or in the case of the article, simply needing to publish something to generate website hits and associated revenue. Like many others here I shoot multiple formats and on any given outing choose the one that best fits the need. But I have to admit that when bored it does provide interesting fodder for debate

[AB26]

I shoot crop D7100 for sports when I need the extra reach the crop gives me on my zooms, I also shoot D4s and D810 FF horses for courses

Why not rather use the D810 in crop mode, if you need the reach, when shooting sport?
The D7100 = 6fps and the D810 = 7 fps in crop mode.

The D4s with a 300mm f2.8 lens and a full set of TC’s will give you a 300mm lens, a 420mm lens a 510mm lens and a 600mm lens for shooting sport. That is what the D4s does best, shooting sport (best horse for this course in your arsenal), even in low light.

[Manfred M]

Why not rather use the D810 in crop mode, if you need the reach, when shooting sport?
The D7100 = 6fps and the D810 = 7 fps in crop mode.

The D4s with a 300mm f2.8 lens and a full set of TC’s will give you a 300mm lens, a 420mm lens a 510mm lens and a 600mm lens for shooting sport. That is what the D4s does best, shooting sport (best horse for this course in your arsenal), even in low light.

The only reason to shoot a full-frame camera in crop mode is when you mount a crop frame lens. Otherwise, you may as well shoot full-frame and crop in post.

For me, the main reason for shooting crop frame versus full frame is that the equipment is smaller and lighter.

[NorthernFocus]

Why not rather use the D810 in crop mode, if you need the reach, when shooting sport?
The D7100 = 6fps and the D810 = 7 fps in crop mode...

The D810 only shoots 6fps in DX mode unless you fit the grip and use either AA or EN-EL18a battery. It is a superior though darned expensive route to DX.

[John 2]

You may have noticed that I am an avid Fuji user. There came a point when I had to decide whether to upgrade my D7100 to a FF D600 or go for the Fuji. I now own a Fuji XT1. I did do some none scientific comparison. Is the IQ as good as the D600? Fuji's new sensor and affordable primes get it pretty damn close but despite the hype, there is a cleanness about FF images that the Fuji can't quite match yet. Is the AF as fast?. No but it's fast enough even for sports. However, it is at least as good in continuous mode and it is consistently accurate. The excellence of it's EVF is one of its selling points (check it out Manfred if you get the chance. I would be interested in how it compares). In terms of noise it's a match and at higher ISO settings, it more than holds it's own. Will I get rid of my D7100? No, Fuji don't yet offer a very long lens or a long macro, both of which I would want for wild life and nature.

This sounds like an advert for Fuji but it isn't. The point I am making and it is one I know I have made before, is that there comes a point at which "better" is "good enough" and for me, the technical capability of both cameras met that criterion. I was therefore left with a comparison of size and weight and the Fuji wins that hands down. I pick it up far more readily than the D7100 let alone a larger FF camera and as a consequence I am taking more photographs than I have for some time.

I guess therefore, I sympathise with the views expressed by Zack and I guess Dan, that also puts me in the category of someone justifying his action/decisions - but don't we all do that no matter which way we go. I would add one caveat though and that is that everything I've said is based on my needs as a photographer and they of course are not necessarily the same as for someone else.

[chauncey]

If you are publishing on the web or in a print-based publication, who cares, the image size is never going to be large enough to make any difference. On the other hand, if you are doing large prints, bigger is still better.

The debate is totally pointless unless, you print really big and have that anal retentive hang-up as do I,
i.e., nose distance viewing distance with prints.
But, newer generation gear is always a lot better than are older bodies...as an example, I refuse to take
any shot using higher than ISO 400.

[Manfred M]

John - I had a look at it while I was shopping around for a new small camera, and I did look at it and handle it when I was in the camera store. If I were starting over with a new system, I suspect it would have been near the top of the list, but I was not. Fuji has a long, storied history as a lens maker and is quite highly regarded as a lens maker for high-end video cameras.

I already had a couple of Panasonic lenses from my mFT video camera (a 14-140mm and a 100-300mm) so if really was a Panasonic versus Olympus decision. From a technical standpoint, I prefer the in-lens stabilization system that Panasonic uses versus the in-camera approach from Olympus. That and a few niggling other dislikes, I ended up with a Panny GX7 (got a great deal on it, which helped too).

[Glenn NK]

The only reason to shoot a full-frame camera in crop mode is when you mount a crop frame lens. Otherwise, you may as well shoot full-frame and crop in post.

For me, the main reason for shooting crop frame versus full frame is that the equipment is smaller and lighter.

Precisely.

[Wayland]

I've used most of the larger formats mentioned in the video. Still got the 5x4 and 645.

I carry a little Fuji in my pocket when I'm just wandering about and it's fine for most stuff.

There has to be a good reason for me to hump a heavy bag full of glass and tech very far these days, so when I was looking to downsize my gear, 35mm seemed light enough to carry but still gave me an acceptable level of quality for what I was doing at the time.

As things have improved, if I was making that decision now it might be different but I have no regrets or intention to change at the moment. I do a lot of low light stuff and I can't see that changing any time soon.

I have considered upgrading my compact X20 towards the X-Pro for travelling though.

At the end of the day you pick your tools depending on the job at hand. I don't know why people get so tribal about it all.

[rpcrowe]

Yep - if you do not have the skill a bigger and more expensive camera is not going to make you a better photographer. If you do have the skills only in extremely challenging or special circumstances is the camera going to make a significant difference.

How is it then that I think a new set of golf clubs will lower my score? .... We all live in hope.

How ridiculous; thinking that a new set of clubs will lower your score. However, every time I buy a new rod, reel or fishing lure, I am dead certain that I will catch more fish with the new gear

[pnodrog]

How ridiculous; thinking that a new set of clubs will lower your score. However, every time I buy a new rod, reel or fishing lure, I am dead certain that I will catch more fish with the new gear

New expensive gear may at least make us look like we know what we are doing.....

[davidedric]

New expensive gear may at least make us look like we know what we are doing.....

And that's why it should be avoided at all costs

[NorthernFocus]

No one needs to drive a Porsche/BMW/Mercedes either. And none of them make you a better driver. But it sure is nice to sit behind the wheel if you can afford it. Funny no one ever criticizes people for driving more car than they need.

Pro camera bodies are a pleasure to shoot with.

[Manfred M]

Pro camera bodies are a pleasure to shoot with.

I couldn't agree more; assuming that the shooter knows how to use it.

I remember chatting with a Leica shooter some time ago and when I saw his work, he should have stuck with a point & shoot; I suspect he would have gotten better shots with a bit of automation to help him.

[AB26]

No one needs to drive a Porsche/BMW/Mercedes either.

Add a little driving talent and a Porsche is soooo much fun to drive!