Full frame cameras

[joebranko]

I am thinking of getting a full frame camera to replace my current Canon crop sensor T2i.
Is there any other advantage to a full frame other than a larger sensor with more mega pixels? Is there a significant improvement going from an 18 mp T2i to 20mp full frame?

[Manfred M]

My question to you would be what is it about going to a full-frame camera is going to give you better images you are getting with a crop frame camera? Remember that the FF body is going to be larger, weigh more and will likely be more expensive than a crop frame body. Lenses will also be more expensive and your current crop frame lenses will not work with a FF body.

You will get a larger viewfinder (which I prefer) and you will get shallower DoF. A 20MP FF camera will give you better noise performance than an 18MP crop frame camera too.

If you make large format prints, you will definitely notice a difference, but if you just view on a computer screen or post on the internet, you won't see any difference.

[William W]

I’ve used Canon APS-C, APS-H and 135 Format DSLRs and presently I own both APS-C and 135 Format Cameras. (APS-C Format is what you termed ‘crop sensor’ and 135 Format is what you termed ‘full frame’)

“Advantages” are personal and will depend upon what you like shooting and how you reckon your Procedures and Results. That does NOT mean that people who use ‘crop sensor cameras’ are not particular about their Photography.

Additionally in your particular situation you should reckon whether or not you will require new lenses. For example if you have Canon “EF-S Mount" Lenses, those lenses will NOT mount on your Canon ‘full frame’ camera. If you have Third Party "crop lenses for Canon DSLR" then (all that I know) lenses will be "EF Mount" and will mount on your 'full frame' camera , but you may (probably will) get an optical vignette in the image.

***

I will list, in no particular order, the advantages applicable for my Procedures and Results which are the basis for the reasons that I own a ‘full frame’ DSLR:

> to have available fast Wide Angle Lenses; I do a lot low level available light Photography for example, in confined spaces or where I want an expansive view such as a Jazz Club or Church interior, I can use a 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 and there are no equivalent Wide Angle Lenses, at that Lens Speed, for an APS Camera. Available Light Photography, especially Portraiture is a passion of mine.

> to have available the full use of movements for TS-E Lenses; I typically use a TS-E 90 for Portraiture and a TS-E 17 for Interior Architecture. Both Portraiture and Architecture are passions of mine.

> to have available an excessively shallow Depth of Field; I have some very fast lenses and I do use them wide open, especially for Portraiture. Any same Lens for Lens cannot get an equivalent extremely shallow DoF using an APS-C Camera.

> to have available the ability to print relatively large (typically 20 x24; 30 x 40), not that I do a print this big all that often now, but like the ability to do it well, if I choose to do it.

> generally speaking, at any given high ISO, you'll get better performance out a Canon 'full frame' DSLR than a Canon 'crop sensor' DSLR - now obviously that statement considers that we'd contrast like for like cameras. As already mentioned, Low light Photography is a passion of mine.

> to have the available mass and size to balance the lenses that I regularly use. Again this comment is more a generalization, because there are some hefty APS-C Canon Cameras, especially if you whack a Battery Grip on them.

WW

[FootLoose]

I am thinking of getting a full frame camera to replace my current Canon crop sensor T2i.
Is there any other advantage to a full frame other than a larger sensor with more mega pixels? Is there a significant improvement going from an 18 mp T2i to 20mp full frame?

FWIW, the Canon 6D II is 26 mp and the Canon 5D IV is 30 mp.

[pschlute]

If you crop your images extensively in PP (eg wildlife photography), going from a 18MP aps-c sensor to a 20MP FF sensor could be a disadvantage as your current camera will have a pixel density higher than a 20MP FF.

This is worth a look https://petapixel.com/2014/07/28/cro...-frame-debate/

[george013]

There's no direct relation between pixels and FF.
For me the main differences are the fact that 28 mm is 28 mm and not 42 for a Nikon or 48 for a Canon.
If you use short focal lengths a FF is a pro.
If you want to make large prints a FF is mostly better, but also depending on the camera. The coc of a FF is bigger.

George

[William W]

the main differences are the fact that 28 mm is 28 mm and not 42 for a Nikon or 48 for a Canon.

Just a by the way comment and I promise that there shall be no further comment from me on this particular point in this conversation - but . . . the FACT is that a 28mm lens is always a 28mm lens, no matter what camera it is plonked on.

This is only mentioned as an attempt to lessen the number of factiods and/or confusion circulated on the www and is certainly NOT intended to debate the issue with George nor cause him irritation.

WW

[george013]

Just a by the way comment and I promise that there shall be no further comment from me on this particular point in this conversation - but . . . the FACT is that a 28mm lens is always a 28mm lens, no matter what camera it is plonked on.

This is only mentioned as an attempt to lessen the number of factiods and/or confusion circulated on the www and is certainly NOT intended to debate the issue with George nor cause him irritation.

WW

Ok. I'll formulate it different. The angle of view of a 28mm on a FF is bigger as the angle of view on a crop camera. And when I use a wide angle of view more as a narrower, a FF will benefit more for me.

Edit.
You can use your fast wide angle lenses also on a crop camera. Nikon anyway.

George

[DanK]

Joe,

as someone who who has both formats, I think you are not going about this the best way.

I suggest you start by listing what features or functions you want in a new camera. Format should be one consideration, but only one.

Bill explained the advantages of a FF camera. I would only add a few things. One is that some of these are fairly modest advantages for many people, and they won't always be apparent. For example, the shallower DOF, which is in round numbers one stop, matters for peoiple who do narrow-DOF work with very fast lenses. It isn't of much importance to other people. If you aren't pushing DOF to its limit, you can just open up the aperture more. I often carry a small micro-four-thirds Lumix LX-100 when I don't want to shlep gear, and I just remind myself that the DOF is greater at any given aperture. The greater resolution is not going to be noticeable if you mostly post on the web or print small.

My favorite of the three cameras I own is my FF Canon 5DIII, and I use it far more than my crop sensor camera. However, it has its downsides: it's bigger and heavier, and the lenses are bigger, heavier, and more expensive. I am finding the weight more of an annoyance every year.

For my uses, the biggest advantage of a crop sensor camera is reach. This is not a function of sensor format as such, but rather of pixel density. Pixel density and angle of view determine reach, which I define has how far away you can be with a lens of a given focal length and get an equivalent number of pixels on the subject. With equal pixel density, crops have no advantage in terms of reach; you can simply crop the image to the same angle of view. However, in most cases, the crop will have greater pixel density, even if it has fewer pixels in total. This means that you can get more reach with a telephoto lens, and you can get more pixels on the subject when doing 1:1 macro work. So the two times I take my old 7D are when I am doing wildlife (very rarely) or bugs.

My experience is that other features, such as ergonomics and controls, make more of a difference for me. This was one of the reasons I switched years ago from a Rebel to a 50D. The controls on the 6D/80D are better, and those on the 5D/7D are better yet.

One of the main things you get as you move up the food change is better AF. My 5D III has an excellent AF system, but I find I make fairly limited use of it. I very much like having a lot of cross-type points even though I mostly use single point focus because I move the focus point around, but I don't make much use of the fancy tracking capabilities, etc. Valuable for some people, but not so much for me.

So I would make a list of what you want and how much you want it. That will help you figure out which compromise (and it probably will be a compromise) will serve you best.

[Manfred M]

There are two other advantages, in my view, with full frame cameras:

1. They tend to be larger and be marketed to advanced amateurs and pros, so there is more space on the body for controls / buttons. This means a lot of settings can be changed without having to rely on the menu system and often the main controls can be operated without the photographer having to taken his or her eye away from the viewfinder.

2. Being larger and heavier (including the lenses) means that it is easier to hold the camera steady. Add image stabilization to this and it makes it easier to hand-hold and get sharp images than with a smaller and lighter camera.

[DanK]

There are two other advantages, in my view, with full frame cameras:

1. They tend to be larger and be marketed to advanced amateurs and pros, so there is more space on the body for controls / buttons. This means a lot of settings can be changed without having to rely on the menu system and often the main controls can be operated without the photographer having to taken his or her eye away from the viewfinder.

2. Being larger and heavier (including the lenses) means that it is easier to hold the camera steady. Add image stabilization to this and it makes it easier to hand-hold and get sharp images than with a smaller and lighter camera.

I'm not sure I agree with these.

Re (1): at least in the Canon line-up, the controls are very similar across sensor size within each class. For example, they are very similar on the 5D and 7D models. Moreover, the size difference isn't enough to matter in terms of accessing the controls, in my experience. It's quite another story if you look at cameras that are smaller yet, such as many MFT cameras or, more extreme yet, pocket cameras. (My biggest problem with controls, comparing my crop and FF bodies, is simply that they are not of the same generation, so they have buttons and functions allocated differently--more than one can fix with customization.)

Re (2): Interesting. I have a hunch that this is nonlinear: it is harder to hold both very light and very heavy things steady. Regardless, I haven't noticed much of a difference in this respect, and while I haven't done an A/B test, I rely more on a monopod when I am using heavier gear, not lighter. Image stabilization in the Canon lineup depends on the lens, not the body. Assuming the same AOV, it should work the same.

[James G]

Joe, a bit late to this thread , been out and about

I'd say that you have already been given just about all there is to help decide, but, I have a 7DMk2 (1.6 crop 22mpx) and a 5DsR (full frame 50mpx)

I doubt I would have ever considered a full frame camera since the 7D met all my needs except for a single 'issue'. I shoot a lot of macro work and I also have a passion for stained glass.
I found that with my insect captures (always in the wild) that I regularly (50%+) had to severely crop the images. The 7D and a 1.6 crop sensor I reckoned was as good as a full frame camera, but given the the cropping issue, the 5DsR with twice the pixel count of the 7D 'compensates'/mitigates the effect of severe crops on image quality (particularly sharpness).

Additionally, the 5DsR is 'unique' in the Canon range in that it does not have a low pass filter which means that there is an image sharpness 'advantage' SOOC. (In 'ideal' capture circumstances of couse ......)

I have also found that the 5DsR is preferred when shooting stained glass, giving me more sharpness/acuity for fine detail.

If I did not shoot the type of macro that I do, I doubt I would have ever considered moving to a full frame format as being 'necessary'. Arguably, given the cost of the 5DsR in particular I am induling myself


.. James

ps I do my own printing up to A3+, and ocassionally to A2 and have never had any issues that could be put down to 'lack' of megapix with the 7D.

[DanK]

I found that with my insect captures (always in the wild) that I regularly (50%+) had to severely crop the images. The 7D and a 1.6 crop sensor I reckoned was as good as a full frame camera, but given the the cropping issue, the 5DsR with twice the pixel count of the 7D 'compensates'/mitigates the effect of severe crops on image quality (particularly sharpness).

I do a lot of bug macro as well. I don't think this is right. Apart from the AA filter issue and any sensor design issues, these two cameras ought to be similar for macro because their pixel densities are similar. Assume you have a bug that completely fills the frame of the 7D2 at 1:1. (Where one would find a rectangular bug, I don't know, but this makes the math easy.) With the 5DsR, this bug will fill exactly the same sensor area because the magnification is 1:1, which is completely independent of sample size. You have to crop away all of the extra sensor area from the 5D to get the same framing as you would have with the 7D.

If my quick math is right, the sensor of the 5D is 2.6 times the area of the sensor on the 7D2. If that is right, then this cropping will net you 19.2 MP from the 5D, vs. 22 MP from the 7D. Therefore, if the sensors were the same in other respects, they should give you similar detail.

Your reasoning would work if the framing were the same on the two cameras, that is, if the bug took up the same proportion of the total sensor area on both cameras. However, it won't. it will take up exactly the same area.

[Manfred M]

Re (1): at least in the Canon line-up, the controls are very similar across sensor size within each class. For example, they are very similar on the 5D and 7D models. Moreover, the size difference isn't enough to matter in terms of accessing the controls, in my experience. It's quite another story if you look at cameras that are smaller yet, such as many MFT cameras or, more extreme yet, pocket cameras. (My biggest problem with controls, comparing my crop and FF bodies, is simply that they are not of the same generation, so they have buttons and functions allocated differently--more than one can fix with customization.)

Dan - I have not looked at Canon bodies enough to agree or disagree with this statement, but it is definitely correct on Nikon bodies. There are simply more buttons that are well placed ergonomically when I compare say a D500 (top end crop frame camera) and my D810. Get into a consumer level camera, the differences are even more evident.

Re (2): Interesting. I have a hunch that this is nonlinear: it is harder to hold both very light and very heavy things steady. Regardless, I haven't noticed much of a difference in this respect, and while I haven't done an A/B test, I rely more on a monopod when I am using heavier gear, not lighter. Image stabilization in the Canon lineup depends on the lens, not the body. Assuming the same AOV, it should work the same.

This is basic physics (inertia) as work. Something heavier will resist changes in motion more than something that is light become more energy is required to overcome the mass. There is a limit, of course as muscles will fatigue more when holding something heavy, but in most instances the additional mass of a camera will give a steadier shot.

[xpatUSA]

<>

If my quick math is right, the sensor of the 5D is 2.6 times the area of the sensor on the 7D2. If that is right, then this cropping will net you 19.2 MP from the 5D, vs. 22 MP from the 7D. Therefore, if the sensors were the same in other respects, they should give you similar detail.

Not sure about "similar detail", Dan. The 5D has much larger pixels, so the same bug at 1:1 will have a much lower pixel count and look smaller on the computer monitor. Depends what is meant by "detail" of course ...

5D sensor samples at 156 px/mm (6.4um pitch); the 7D at 244 px/mm (4.1um pitch).

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/2

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/2

.

[DanK]

Not sure about "similar detail", Dan. The 5D has larger pixels, so the same bug at 1:1 will have a lower pixel count and look smaller on the computer monitor. Depends what is meant by "detail" of course ...

5D samples at 156 px/mm (6.4um pitch); the 7D at 244 px/mm (4.1um pitch).

Wrong 5D. James was writing about the 5DsR, which has a pixel pitch almost identical to that of the 7D2 (4.14 vs. 4.08). Your number is for the 5D III, I believe.

The critical # is density, not pitch, and I unless there is an error in my arithmetic, the numbers in my post are the relevant ones.

[xpatUSA]

Wrong 5D. James was writing about the 5DsR, which has a pixel pitch almost identical to that of the 7D2 (4.14 vs. 4.08). Your number is for the 5D III, I believe.

Yes, 5D II ... my mistake; I stand corrected.

The critical # is density, not pitch, and I unless there is an error in my arithmetic, the numbers in my post are the relevant ones.

Well, density is a dependent variable based on pitch (density=1/(pitch^2) but I do take your point.

[DanK]

Well, density is based on pitch (density=1/(pitch^2) but I do take your point.

Right you are. I was incorrectly taking pitch to refer to the actual photosite size, which it isn't. That isn't perfectly related to pitch. But this is all essentially rounding error in this case. The point is that because magnification is unrelated to sensor size, what matters in terms of pixel counts in 1:1 macro is pitch. A FF sensor and a crop sensor cut from the same wafer and paired with the same macro lens would produce identical images once the FF image was cropped to contain the same content as the crop image.

[billtils]

Right you are. I was incorrectly taking pitch to refer to the actual photosite size, which it isn't. That isn't perfectly related to pitch. But this is all essentially rounding error in this case. The point is that because magnification is unrelated to sensor size, what matters in terms of pixel counts in 1:1 macro is pitch. A FF sensor and a crop sensor cut from the same wafer and paired with the same macro lens would produce identical images once the FF image was cropped to contain the same content as the crop image.

Dan, Many more years ago than I care to confess to, there was an ad for Castrol motor oil, with the punchline "Oils ain't oils", and I have a faint memory (as in sort of recall the event but not sure where or when) that "pixels ain't pixels" and those on a FF have some advantages over crops, certainly ISO noise but perhaps more general IQ too? Is this still the case (if it ever was)?

[Manfred M]

Dan, Many more years ago than I care to confess to, there was an ad for Castrol motor oil, with the punchline "Oils ain't oils", and I have a faint memory (as in sort of recall the event but not sure where or when) that "pixels ain't pixels" and those on a FF have some advantages over crops, certainly ISO noise but perhaps more general IQ too? Is this still the case (if it ever was)?

Bill - if you were taken in by the Castrol add. then I can see where you might be coming from. Castrol oils, of the same quality level, will perform the same as oils manufactured to those specs as from any other manufacturer. Something similar can be said about pixels; two cameras of the same generation of sensors and pixel pitch should perform virtually identically.

The only time we can actually make out a difference is if we magnify the images from thos sensors. The full-frame image can be enlarged more before softening sets in than a crop frame sensor. So unless you are making large prints and then pixel peeping, one would be hard pressed to see any differences.