Photos from full frame cameras "Just look better"...
Discussion
I've read a few posts on other forums here and there by people who seem convinced that photos taken with full frame bodies simply look better than other photos from say, a crop DSLR, and that you can pretty much always tell.
Others claim you can't tell, and indeed I read one brief test where forum members were invited to view a series of photos, of the same scene, taken by both Canon full frame and crop cameras... Turns out most people couldn't tell which was which.
I'm of the opinion that full frame photos often look better due to the superior technical skill of the photographer, and probably the use of much better lenses. After all, by the time you have worked your way up the DSLR food chain and taken the (expensive) decision to go full frame, you are most likely a much more competent and experienced photographer than someone who has popped out to the shops and bought a Nikon D3100 for example.
What are your thoughts (and example photos) of full frame Vs crop?
Can you tell just by looking at a photo?
I'm aware that both have practical Pro's and Cons, such as FF being better for wide angle, and lower noise at high ISO for FF, but I'm trying to ignore those aspects and just concentrate on the 'look' and image quality of a photo.
Fire away...
Others claim you can't tell, and indeed I read one brief test where forum members were invited to view a series of photos, of the same scene, taken by both Canon full frame and crop cameras... Turns out most people couldn't tell which was which.
I'm of the opinion that full frame photos often look better due to the superior technical skill of the photographer, and probably the use of much better lenses. After all, by the time you have worked your way up the DSLR food chain and taken the (expensive) decision to go full frame, you are most likely a much more competent and experienced photographer than someone who has popped out to the shops and bought a Nikon D3100 for example.
What are your thoughts (and example photos) of full frame Vs crop?
Can you tell just by looking at a photo?
I'm aware that both have practical Pro's and Cons, such as FF being better for wide angle, and lower noise at high ISO for FF, but I'm trying to ignore those aspects and just concentrate on the 'look' and image quality of a photo.
Fire away...
Canon have only just introduced a FF camera as their top model (the 1DX) Prior to that it was the 1Div which I have and that's a crop sensor (1.3x)
I certainly don't think FF is better per se, it just has different uses. Need more reach? Get a crop sensor. More width? Full frame. There is nothing wrong with the quality of images produced by crop sensor cameras, indeed I'm quite underwhelmed by what I've seen from the 1DX compared to what my 1Div can produce, including high ISO capability. Here's a shot taken with my 1Div since you asked:
And another taken with my 7D (1.6x crop sensor). Neither camera has a problem with excess noise:
I certainly don't think FF is better per se, it just has different uses. Need more reach? Get a crop sensor. More width? Full frame. There is nothing wrong with the quality of images produced by crop sensor cameras, indeed I'm quite underwhelmed by what I've seen from the 1DX compared to what my 1Div can produce, including high ISO capability. Here's a shot taken with my 1Div since you asked:
And another taken with my 7D (1.6x crop sensor). Neither camera has a problem with excess noise:
I don't think it is easy to tell just from looking at results.
There are reasons to want full frame (high ISO, wide lenses working as wide as they should, shallower DoF etc) but similarly reasons to want a crop (cheaper lenses, more reach which lends itself to things like wildlife, sports etc).
For me I like having the width of lenses, the brighter viewfinder etc which is why I now use solely full frame bodies (5D3 and 1Ds2).
There are reasons to want full frame (high ISO, wide lenses working as wide as they should, shallower DoF etc) but similarly reasons to want a crop (cheaper lenses, more reach which lends itself to things like wildlife, sports etc).
For me I like having the width of lenses, the brighter viewfinder etc which is why I now use solely full frame bodies (5D3 and 1Ds2).
2slo said:
Canon have only just introduced a FF camera as their top model (the 1DX) Prior to that it was the 1Div which I have and that's a crop sensor (1.3x)
Not quite .... before the 1D-X there was the 1DsIII as the top of the range full frame offering and I am aware of a few people who use that model who don't currently see the benefit they would get for their purposes if they moved to a 1D-X. Realistically that is no great surprise if you consider th level of re-investment required and the possibility that the new benefits that become available are not especially relevant to the photographic activity you mostly undertake.I think the gap between the cameras as Imagers (as opposed what they offer by way of a tool to suit a job) has narrowed rapidly in recent times but comparing end results has too many additional variable in play to be very meaningful. IMHO.
andy-xr said:
The photos that fell out of my D700 when I had it had a bit more clarity to them and were a lot cleaner than the D300 it replaced. I was also able to throw it around a lot more in low light with ISO performance, so I'll kind of agree with the general point.
Funnily enough that's the exact switch I made. I'd be hard pushed to tell the difference in a typical scene with good lighting. I was blown away by the low light capability of the D700 though. It's not really just about noise handling as that is often fixable with whatever body you're using. What I was amazed by was the colour rendition and detail retention at high iso in grim lighting. I had a D5100 for a while which is probably still at the top of the tree in terms of crop sensors and though it was commendable in low light it just doesn't compare to the D700. An FF viewfinder is nice too.
Gad-Westy said:
I was blown away by the low light capability of the D700 though. It's not really just about noise handling as that is often fixable with whatever body you're using. What I was amazed by was the colour rendition and detail retention at high iso in grim lighting.
Although they're not to do with the sensor *size* per se but other factors. The difference as far as sensor size goes is wider angle and shallower DOF for any given parameters.Having just switched from crop to FF , as usual, I have a view... 
I've noticed some increase in absolute IQ at base ISO with the 5d2 over the 7D. Better colours (representation, gradients) and better per pixel sharpness.
But its nothing you would notice unless on a big print if you apply the same level of technique,glass and processing.
edit:- some moar stuff.
As you push the ISO up the difference grows though.
ISO 320 on the 5d3 is effectively 'free' in terms of dynamic range and noise. By ISO 400 the 7d was starting to fall apart for landscapes.
I'd be happy shooting ISO 800 on the 5d2 for a decent print, on the 7D i would be printing once size smaller at least.
I've noticed some increase in absolute IQ at base ISO with the 5d2 over the 7D. Better colours (representation, gradients) and better per pixel sharpness.
But its nothing you would notice unless on a big print if you apply the same level of technique,glass and processing.
edit:- some moar stuff.
As you push the ISO up the difference grows though.
ISO 320 on the 5d3 is effectively 'free' in terms of dynamic range and noise. By ISO 400 the 7d was starting to fall apart for landscapes.
I'd be happy shooting ISO 800 on the 5d2 for a decent print, on the 7D i would be printing once size smaller at least.
Edited by RobDickinson on Thursday 27th September 21:47
My D700 definitely produces sharper images than the D300S I now use as my spare body... At first I thought it was just because my 300S was a bit knackered after 250,000 actuations, but now the 700 is pushing 180,000, it is still definitely sharper - with the same lens, ISO, etc... In fact, I often find I have to use the 1.4 TC on the D700 to get the same shot as the D300s and it's still sharper!
I should add this is all action photography, so maybe the focus speed is the difference? Better hardware / software perhaps? Or maybe the bigger sensor area helps focussing?
I should add this is all action photography, so maybe the focus speed is the difference? Better hardware / software perhaps? Or maybe the bigger sensor area helps focussing?
Crop sensors give greater DoF for any given aperture so if you're going for the shallow DoF/ bokeh look, full frame will excel. The quality of the blur is also visibly different IME D300 vs D700.
On the same Nikon model comparison, I've also noticed a change that I've put down to increased dynamic range whereby shooting in high contrast situations the D700 retains its highlights for longer and loses less detail to shadows. Might be any one of a number of factors though, really- picture style, processing latitude etc
On the same Nikon model comparison, I've also noticed a change that I've put down to increased dynamic range whereby shooting in high contrast situations the D700 retains its highlights for longer and loses less detail to shadows. Might be any one of a number of factors though, really- picture style, processing latitude etc
AndWhyNot said:
Crop sensors give greater DoF for any given aperture
Surely, only if you move the camera as well? After all a crop is just a crop, it's no different to cutting the edges off a full frame image, it's not going to change the DOF. What FF does allow you to do is reduce the subject distance and still keep everything you wanted in shot. That does of course change DOF but also perspective so it's not quite apples vs. apples. ETA DOF Master seems to disagree with me in that changing the camera between D300 and D700 (and changing nothing else) does indeed change DOF. So someone please tell me how on earth that works because it's messing with my mind! Is it an illusion based on the change of field of view?
Edited by Gad-Westy on Friday 28th September 08:24
Simpo Two said:
Gad-Westy said:
I was blown away by the low light capability of the D700 though. It's not really just about noise handling as that is often fixable with whatever body you're using. What I was amazed by was the colour rendition and detail retention at high iso in grim lighting.
Although they're not to do with the sensor *size* per se but other factors. Well maybe but if you pack the same technology into a full frame sensor as a crop sensor, you'd expect the FF to perform better, particularly if total pixel count was similar (i.e FF has larger pixel sites). Like for like FF always seem to do better at high iso.
I agree that for the same technology a FF senor should be better quality than a crop, and if you had the same image taken on both types, printed very large and positioned side by side you could probably tell the difference. However if given a selection of different images taken on different cameras I'm not convinced you'd be able to pick out the FF from the crop.
Gad-Westy said:
Well maybe but if you pack the same technology into a full frame sensor as a crop sensor, you'd expect the FF to perform better, particularly if total pixel count was similar (i.e FF has larger pixel sites). Like for like FF always seem to do better at high iso.
Indeed but if you cut the middle part out of the sensor to turn 'FF' into 'crop', the high ISO peformance would be the same, you'd just get a smaller angle of view.Very true, but in actual products Canon and Nikon have been keeping the pixel density lower on their full frame sensors compared with crop sensors of the same generation. Though if the rumours of the Canon 3D are true (close to 50 mega pixels) they will have a FF sensor with a pixel density approaching that of their latest crop sensors.
We need to decide what the debate is. Is it:
FF photos look better because the photographers are likely to be better
FF photos look better because the electronics/processing is better
FF photos look better because the sensor is physically bigger (which is how I interpreted it) - in other words, forget pixels and noise and look at the photograph.
FF photos look better because the photographers are likely to be better
FF photos look better because the electronics/processing is better
FF photos look better because the sensor is physically bigger (which is how I interpreted it) - in other words, forget pixels and noise and look at the photograph.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff