|
In the full-frame vs. crop debate, there's certainly an incentive for crop sensors in some situations. If I'm using my 80-200 and I'm wanting more on the long end, a full-frame body would be a dumb choice for me, because then I'd essentially have to buy a 300 2.8 or crop everything in post. There's a lot of awesome reasons to go full frame, but some pretty valid ones not to as well.
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:In the full-frame vs. crop debate, there's certainly an incentive for crop sensors in some situations. If I'm using my 80-200 and I'm wanting more on the long end, a full-frame body would be a dumb choice for me, because then I'd essentially have to buy a 300 2.8 or crop everything in post. I was always under the impression that full frame was superior for things closer such as portraits due to getting a shallower depth of field with the same focal length/f stop equivalent of a crop sensor. However, shooting stuff such as sports/birds a crop sensor makes more sense as it basically gives you extra reach on a lens for the very reasons you describe.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
FF is pretty much a marketing tool to allow the camera manufacturers to sell a very expensive 'pro' camera that is clearly distinguished from 'amateur' bodies. They are artificially more expensive. The only intrinsic benefit of FF is the shallower DOF. The other benefits such as greater resolution/less noise are only true when compared to CF sensors of the same generation. Give it a couple of generations and I'd rather have a newer CF, than the older FF. Eventually, we are going to reach a point where CF sensors give all the performance you need and FF will become have no technical advantage (other than DOF) and it will be purely a marketing decision to manufacture them. We've already hit the megapixel upperlimit of desirability (no-one is going to demand a 500MP sensor) and it won't be too long before ISO gets to a similar point where whtehr your body has ISO102,400 or ISO204,800 isn't a major plus point.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 09:15
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:I was always under the impression that full frame was superior for things closer such as portraits due to getting a shallower depth of field with the same focal length/f stop equivalent of a crop sensor. However, shooting stuff such as sports/birds a crop sensor makes more sense as it basically gives you extra reach on a lens for the very reasons you describe. I have a GH1 (thank Bowbles!) with a 2x crop factor, and I REALLY enjoy using the Nikon 180 2.8 ED IF AI-S on it. Super long reach, small sensor isn't THAT noisy despite being old. There's some pretty valid uses for small sensors. Having said that, the laws of physics pretty much dictate that sensors with larger photosites per megapixel will always be objectively better, but I agree that the difference is gradually narrowing between crop vs. full-frame performance.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
spog posted:Eventually, we are going to reach a point where CF sensors give all the performance you need and FF will become have no technical advantage (other than DOF) and it will be purely a marketing decision to manufacture them. Untrue. Think of it the other way around: if full‐frame sensors have the same pixels density as crop sensors, they’re superior in every way: crop for the extra “reach” or don’t for the extra megapickles/stop‐and‐a‐third of noise. That stop+ of noise will always be there, because you’re enlarging less for the same print size.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 09:35
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Untrue. Think of it the other way around: if full‐frame sensors have the same pixels density as crop sensors, they’re superior in every way: crop for the extra “reach” or don’t for the extra megapickles/stop‐and‐a‐third of noise. spog posted:only true when compared to CF sensors of the same generation
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:I think the argument was that eventually that extra stop of noise will not be that great of a benefit when ISO 200,000+ is acceptable. Noise is already dominated by statistical fluctuations in the quantity of arriving photos. It might be possible to squeeze a couple of stops out of improved colour separation (e.g. Panansonics “micro color splitters”), better microlenses, &c., but there’s a physical limit and it’s not far off.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:He did qualify it by saying That's exactly it. FF has an IQ equal to CF 2-3 generations newer - but not more than that. Take an extreme example:  1992 1.2MP It still has a shallower DOF than a 600D - but as for image resolution/noise performance, I know which one I would have. As CF improves to the point of being good enough for 'everyone' - FF only offers the DOF as a benefit.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
spog posted:FF is pretty much a marketing tool to allow the camera manufacturers to sell a very expensive 'pro' camera that is clearly distinguished from 'amateur' bodies. They are artificially more expensive. This is pretty wrong. Crop sensors are already hitting the point where increasing megapixel count has diminishing returns on image quality. In fact, all of Canon's crop cameras that have ~18 megapixels are diffraction limited at f8. Compare that to a full-frame 18mp sensor that is diffraction limited at f13. Yes, you can get improvements in sensor technology and improvements in software for noise reduction, but the absolute fact of the matter is that smaller sensors (with smaller photosites) will have intrinsically less signal to noise ratio than a larger sensor. This isn't something that can be engineered around - its a basic law of physics. What you are thinking is that engineering can trump physics, and I'm not saying that can't be done - in fact, I also believe that given enough time crop sensors will achieve almost-parity with full-frame sensors. But the solution is preposterous. I don't need the super awesome crop sensor of 2020. I need the sensor that gives me the images I need now. And for now, the best sensors are full-frame ones.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
This is after I spent a good page of text promoting S35 in the video thread, I'm a hypocrite. Ignore this post. XTimmy fucked around with this message at 14:11 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:I would also point out to get, say, a 35mm field of view on a APS-C crop you need a ~21mm lens, which introduces a poo poo-ton of distortion which may not be preferable when shooting a waist length portrait. Obviously depth of field is "A Thing" for full frame, but you don't need to get as technical as pixel density to find other reasons to go with FF for certain applications Nope. Perspective distortion is a function of distance. Focal length is irrelevant, except that wider angles of view encourage getting closer to fill the frame. If the angle of view is the same on both cameras, this isn’t a concern.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Nope. Perspective distortion is a function of distance. Focal length is irrelevant, except that wider angles of view encourage getting closer to fill the frame. If the angle of view is the same on both cameras, this isn’t a concern.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
spog posted:The other benefits such as greater resolution/less noise are only true when compared to CF sensors of the same generation. Give it a couple of generations and I'd rather have a newer CF, than the older FF.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
You've got it backwards. New CF = old FF. Of course 6D > 550D. e: compare a 5D to a 700D.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
I'll also make the argument that lenses purpose-built for full-frame are much better suited for full-frame cameras than crop cameras. I'd rather have my ultra-wide be the 16-35 2.8 than a 10-22 3.5-4.5.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
Why do you say that? The only reason I can see is the maximum aperture (and we're talking double the price here). FF lenses on crop sensors benefit from using the center of the image projection, everyone knows that. FF lenses on FF sensors are the same as EF-S lenses on crop sensors.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
The "full-frame" lens on "crop bodies" issue is going to be made irrelevant sooner than later by good, cheap telecrompressors. That's a great example of engineering circumventing physical limitations. For example, an EF-S 10-22 f2.8 would be heavier, longer and would most likely require an even bigger front element than the existing EF-S 10-22 f3.5-f4.5. But stick a telecompressor on the 16-35L and you'll get a lens functionally equivalent to an EF-S 10-22 f~2. In fact, it seems rather odd to me that CaNikon haven't come out with a good first-party telecrompressor to "convert" FF to CF lenses. I'm still wondering if that new Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens is just an older 35-70 f2.8 design that is telecompressed by Sigma.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:You've got it backwards. New CF = old FF. Of course 6D > 550D. A 5Dmk1 has cleaner output than a 700D. That's more Canons fault than anything, since they haven't updated their crop sensors since 2009. A better comparison would be 5D or 1Ds1 to an OM-d, x-e1 or d3200/d5200. All of which are pretty fantastic smaller format cameras. But that's still like a 5 year+ release date difference.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
The difference between full frame and crop body isn't that hard to understand. Imagine you're out in a field at night with a projector and a portable screen. You set up the screen so that the edges of the projector's image falls right at the edges of the screen. This is what happens when you're shooting full frame using full frame lenses, where the screen is the sensor and the projector is the lens (except that the image is actually a circle that gets masked to a rectangle before it hits the sensor). Now you take a pair of scissors and cut that screen to be 1.6x smaller. You're now seeing the exact same image minus a good portion around the edges. It's not going to add any distortion or change the image in any way at all other than cropping off the edges... there's no way it could. That's a crop body sensor.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
bisticles posted:Words Yeah we're past this point. The discussion now is that engineering trumps physics after a 3 year product cycle, which is patently false.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
That assumes the same pixel density on the crop and full frame sensors. Typically, FF and CF sensors of the same generation do not have the same pixel density. Usually the CF is higher.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Canon keeps the pixel density as it is on the FF sensors, because they think the trade-off in noise is not worth it. That's why the 5D Mk3 has practically the same resolution as the Mk2. Nikon went with APS-C pixel density on their (pro?) FF sensors. The 100% crops probably feature the same noise as an APS-C sensor image, but practically, the image's going to be resampled down most of the cases, mitigating that noise to some degree. One could argue that there may be different benefits to either collecting more photons in a larger site, or running a higher resolution and resampling the noise away. Eliminating noise by resampling gets mixed results, unless it is in power of two ratios, but the Nikon has the benefit of a respectively higher resolution Bayer filter.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:That assumes the same pixel density on the crop and full frame sensors. Typically, FF and CF sensors of the same generation do not have the same pixel density. Usually the CF is higher. True, but the idea is that in the future crop sensors will be as good as full frame, by which time they’ll have the same pixel density: that’s the real limit, not raw pixel count. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 16:23 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
bobfather posted:In fact, it seems rather odd to me that CaNikon haven't come out with a good first-party telecrompressor to "convert" FF to CF lenses. I'm still wondering if that new Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens is just an older 35-70 f2.8 design that is telecompressed by Sigma. You need extra backfocus to fit the glass in there - this is why Metabones came out with a SLR (long backfocus) -> mirrorless (short backfocus) adapter. I guess we could see it now that we have the EOS M and the J1 but I think both companies are afraid of cannibalizing their SLR body sales.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
bobfather posted:In fact, it seems rather odd to me that CaNikon haven't come out with a good first-party telecrompressor to "convert" FF to CF lenses. I'm still wondering if that new Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens is just an older 35-70 f2.8 design that is telecompressed by Sigma. As far as I understand it, those only work for mirrorless because of the minuscule flange distance.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Why do you say that? The only reason I can see is the maximum aperture (and we're talking double the price here). FF lenses on crop sensors benefit from using the center of the image projection, everyone knows that. FF lenses on FF sensors are the same as EF-S lenses on crop sensors. The FF lenses are sharper optically better, have a constant and better aperture (usually with more blades, too), focus faster, are better made, are weather-sealed, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
dakana posted:The FF lenses are optically better, have a constant and better aperture (usually with more blades, too), focus faster, are better made... this is only true with modern lenses. Comparing kit lenses that were made for manual bodies and the EF-S lenses or DX lenses would be a better comparison. Your comparing what Canon and Nikon release for people with a lot of money and are interested in investing a lot of money into their camera kits. I know with my pentax, there are plenty of lovely FF lenses that exist and crop sensor equivalent lenses that are better in almost every way.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Noise is already dominated by statistical fluctuations in the quantity of arriving photos.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Less spergy chitchat about sensor density and poo poo only science should care about, and go shoot some loving photos. Your photos dont care about how photons reached which sensor. FF vs Crop is stupid. You know what tools you need for your style, use em. Dont let some imaginary gimmick tell you its holding you back. Its as dumb as the 135 vs 120 vs 220 vs 4x5 and the ever large format 110 arguments. Just loving shoot some drat photos 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Full frame cameras are pretty nifty if you want to take pictures of something close to you, I guess. Maybe I'm stupid and haven't realized how I can make the 28mm get a picture of the whole family in our living room on a crop sensor camera. I guess I should wait for crop sensors to improve so I can do this instead of buying a full frame camera?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
dakana posted:The FF lenses are sharper optically better, have a constant and better aperture (usually with more blades, too), focus faster, are better made, are weather-sealed, etc. These are all purely artifacts of who the cameras are marketed to. The Nikon 35/1.8 DX, the Sigma 30/1.4, 30/2.8, 19/2.8, and Tamron 17-50/2.8 all exist, and something like the Canon 17-55 is a L lens in everything but the red ring. Pentax has tons of weather-sealed crop stuff. It's just that people who spring for full frame are usually going to want better quality gear so we tend to see more high-end features in that segment. There's also the historical factor that full frame used to be what pretty much everybody shot (24x36mm film), and build quality was generally higher then until autofocus came along and lenses needed to get looser tolerance.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:Full frame cameras are pretty nifty if you want to take pictures of something close to you, I guess. Maybe I'm stupid and haven't realized how I can make the 28mm get a picture of the whole family in our living room on a crop sensor camera. I guess I should wait for crop sensors to improve so I can do this instead of buying a full frame camera? Yes you should wait until Crop sensors can shoot wider than 28mm. Its sad that in this day and age Nikanontax hasnt made a Crop camera capable of mounting wide angle lenses.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:Full frame cameras are pretty nifty if you want to take pictures of something close to you, I guess. Maybe I'm stupid and haven't realized how I can make the 28mm get a picture of the whole family in our living room on a crop sensor camera. I guess I should wait for crop sensors to improve so I can do this instead of buying a full frame camera? Buy a $100 Sigma 19/2.8 instead of a $2400 camera
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
kcncuda71 posted:this is only true with modern lenses. Comparing kit lenses that were made for manual bodies and the EF-S lenses or DX lenses would be a better comparison. Your comparing what Canon and Nikon release for people with a lot of money and are interested in investing a lot of money into their camera kits. I know with my pentax, there are plenty of lovely FF lenses that exist and crop sensor equivalent lenses that are better in almost every way. We might be coming from different places. I'm trying to argue against the premise that the full-frame designation is a marketing technique, when in reality professionals use full frame cameras because that's what offers the best performance in a whoooole poo poo load of arenas. You're not going to use a crop camera and crop lenses professionally because they are objectively inferior -- it has nothing to do with marketing and everything to do with the fact that full-frame systems are different in a whole lot of ways than crop cameras, and no good professional photographer is going to say "ho hum, full frame is a marketing term and I can totally just use my crop stuff and do the same things in the same environments."
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
dakana posted:We might be coming from different places. I'm trying to argue against the premise that the full-frame designation is a marketing technique, when in reality professionals use full frame cameras because that's what offers the best performance in a whoooole poo poo load of arenas. You're not going to use a crop camera and crop lenses professionally because they are objectively inferior -- it has nothing to do with marketing and everything to do with the fact that full-frame systems are different in a whole lot of ways than crop cameras, and no good professional photographer is going to say "ho hum, full frame is a marketing term and I can totally just use my crop stuff and do the same things in the same environments." The only non-marketing distinction between any "crop" sensor and a "full frame" sensor is the size of the sensor, period. Everything else is marketing - it's whether Canon felt like putting a decent AF system on the 7D or whether they're going to cut costs like the (full frame) 6D, or didn't bother weather sealing it, etc. Of course there are inherent advantages to a large sensor size - depth of field, plus, as mentioned, we're running into the laws of physics and megapixel counts won't be able to increase much further unless the sensors start getting bigger too. But supporting features can be present that provide everything else you ascribe to "full frame systems" (weather sealing, AF performance, build quality, etc), and a professional photographer is probably not going to care that he shot that game on a 7D instead of a 1Ds (unless he's rolling in enough cash not to care). Even depth of field can be faked if you want (the photojournalism thread cries out). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:19 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
dakana posted:We might be coming from different places. I'm trying to argue against the premise that the full-frame designation is a marketing technique, when in reality professionals use full frame cameras because that's what offers the best performance in a whoooole poo poo load of arenas. You're not going to use a crop camera and crop lenses professionally because they are objectively inferior -- it has nothing to do with marketing and everything to do with the fact that full-frame systems are different in a whole lot of ways than crop cameras, and no good professional photographer is going to say "ho hum, full frame is a marketing term and I can totally just use my crop stuff and do the same things in the same environments." In a lot of ways it is. The only real difference between crop sensor and full frame is the size of the sensor. Any major differences are R&D into making it work in the digital era. All the bells and whistles they throw on could be adapted to crop sensor technology, and it usually is to a limited extent. Looking at the difference between a pentax k-5ii and a 645d the only major difference is the sensor and accomodations for the sensor (I shoot pentax so this is the easiest to compare for myself). Both are weathersealed, both have two dimensional leveling, sensor cleaning, and top LCD. Hell, they both have similar body construction. The 645d though costs $7000 vs the k-5ii's $1000. The big difference is the sensor that picks up pictures. Even the lenses are of similar quality, they just need to accomodate a bigger image circle. I'm pretty sure a professional could get away with a crop sensor if they really wanted, but camera companies are striving to make the people who spend large amounts of money happy, which are the people who buy Nikon d4's and Canon 1dx's. Which means that they are going to be putting the best optical formula's and nicest designed lenses into the format that people are spending money on.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
I had to make sure I had not clicked "Its NOT All About the IMAGE: Post quotes from Internet Photographers ITT" thread, because thats what this thread sounds like now. Thanks, jerks.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Buy a $100 Sigma 19/2.8 instead of a $2400 camera
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Musket posted:I had to make sure I had not clicked "Its NOT All About the IMAGE: Post quotes from Internet Photographers ITT" thread, because thats what this thread sounds like now. That’s funny, because you’ve posting in here recently Unless what you really mean is “I’m right and you’re wrong, lalala I’m not listening”.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:It's not compatible with my camera, sorry. Sounds like your first-party left a big gaping hole in their lens lineup. It's not really a problem with crop sensors themselves. It's a major reason I ended up getting a (crop) mirrorless to replace my (crop) DSLR, Sigma has actually been putting out cheap primes that fill the gap between a 50mm (cheap and available, but too long for general use) and superwides (like the Samyang 8/14mm, which don't need much focusing). Pentax has also made crops their primary platform and don't have some of the gaps in the prime lineups that Canon/Nikon have. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:46 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:32
|
|