FULL FRAME VS CROP SENSOR
Jul 24, 2015 16:01:56 #
RichieC
Loc: Adirondacks
I'm a Nikon full frame shooter, so I'll leave comments to this aspect.
Sounds like you have the glass already (I'm not conversant in Canon Glass either), so there isn't a good enough reason to switch brands with your investment. I know pro's who recognize the Nikon's specs, but prefer the Canon... they are not that different in the end. So nothing Nikon should be considered to be in your future.
So we are left with what that high end glass was made for... and what Landscapes were made for... Full Frame... (or is it visa versa) to get a print size in detail, where you can almost step into the photo.. well you can't get to that effect on a crop sensor without a ton of fancy stitching. Do the same fancy stitching on a full frame and you can fill an entire wall with a high res image. Its just superior in every aspect, and as a general rule, cameras with a full frame sensor are superior as well.
That being said, I still have use for a crop sensor camera, some things are fine, and as a backup it is great! Not dishing them totally, some great pics of mine are from a crop sensor. But your obvious next step is to move up to Full Frame in the brand you already have.
If you become nostalgic, you can dial the full frame back to use the same area as a crop sensor... just remember how you did it, you won't be able to stand it, and you'll want your full frame area back asap!
Sounds like you have the glass already (I'm not conversant in Canon Glass either), so there isn't a good enough reason to switch brands with your investment. I know pro's who recognize the Nikon's specs, but prefer the Canon... they are not that different in the end. So nothing Nikon should be considered to be in your future.
So we are left with what that high end glass was made for... and what Landscapes were made for... Full Frame... (or is it visa versa) to get a print size in detail, where you can almost step into the photo.. well you can't get to that effect on a crop sensor without a ton of fancy stitching. Do the same fancy stitching on a full frame and you can fill an entire wall with a high res image. Its just superior in every aspect, and as a general rule, cameras with a full frame sensor are superior as well.
That being said, I still have use for a crop sensor camera, some things are fine, and as a backup it is great! Not dishing them totally, some great pics of mine are from a crop sensor. But your obvious next step is to move up to Full Frame in the brand you already have.
If you become nostalgic, you can dial the full frame back to use the same area as a crop sensor... just remember how you did it, you won't be able to stand it, and you'll want your full frame area back asap!
Jul 24, 2015 16:23:42 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
The biggest benefit of a 5DIII full frame camera would only be seen if you make really big prints from your landscape images. I mean 18x24" or 20x30" or bigger. You should have plenty of resolution with your 7DII for very high quality as 16x24" prints.
To calculate this, look at the native resolution of the camera. In the case of the 7DII it's 5472 x 3648 pixels (for a total of just over 21MP). Now, 240 pixels per inch is all that's needed for the vast majority of printing. Some simple math tells us that you can make a 15.2 x 22.8 print without "up-rezzing" the image at all. 16x24" or even 18x24" would need only very minor up-rezzing. With care and minimal cropping, even larger would be doable.
Now, 5DIII at 22MP really isn't much higher resolution than 7DII. But FF is still better for larger prints simply because the image needs less magnification. An 8x10 (or 8x12, in order to use the entire image area) from 7DII is approx 13X magnification. In contrast, the same size print from a FF camera such as 5DIII is only about 8X magnification. The FF will have an advantage, regardless of image size... but the difference won't be as obvious until the prints are at or above the native resolution size (at whatever ppi is most ideal for the printing process)... So the 5760 x 3840 can be expected to start to show it's superiority at with 16x24" and larger prints (again using 240 ppi as the "ideal" print resolution).
Plus, the less crowded sensor of a FF camera allows for larger pixel sites, which can capture more light and, as a result, more fine detail.
Finally, most FF camera's are also able to use weaker anti-alias (AA) or "high pass" filters. These filters are used in digital cameras to prevent an optical aberration called moiré. This occurs when you are photographing a repeating pattern, such as you might see in the texture of cloth or building elements, for example, that are close to matching the pattern of the pixel array on the camera's sensor. The AA filter actually blurs the image a bit to reduce or prevent moiré. The image is then re-sharpened to bring back details. A full frame camera might get by with a weaker AA filter... or at the very least it's effect is less magnified (see above).
All that said, a full frame model such as 5DIII gives you a bit more potential for a lot of fine detail that will be most easily seen in very large prints. If you plan to print big (as is sometimes the case with landscape images), get a FF camera. If not making prints bigger than 16x24", the 7DII should do fine in this respect.
One other key advantage of a full frame camera is it's low light/high ISO capabilities. Because a FF camera's sensor is much less crowded (about 25,000 pixels per square centimeter in 5DIII, compared to upwards of 55,000 per sq. mm in the 7DII), there is less cross-talk, the pixel sites can be larger to capture more light, and any heat generated is better dissipated. All these factors make for less image noise at higher ISOs. So typically a FF camera can be used at one or two stops higher ISO than a crop sensor camera.
Wide angle lenses are often desirable for landscape photography. A 20mm or even 17mm or 15mm ultrawide for FF is typically more easily "corrected" than a 10, 11 or 12mm ultrawide that's needed to give similar angle of view on a crop sensor camera.
Finally, there is some additional "control" over depth of field with a FF camera. DoF actually doesn't change when sensor size does. If you used the same lens focal length with the same aperture and from the same distance, DoF would be exactly the same. However, in order to frame the image the same way, with FF you either need a longer focal length or to move close to your subject, either of which will effect DoF, appearing to make it shallower and relative background blur effect stronger. It also changes the apparent perspective of an image, "compressing" it more, when you do either of these actions. All this can make FF more desirable for portraiture, in particular, and especially when a more "dreamy" look is wanted, such as for wedding photography.
At the other extreme, a FF image also is less prone to loss of fine detail to an effect called diffraction. This is an optical effect causing image softening at "too small" lens apertures. There's about a stop difference between FF and crop, but because a FF also typically captures more detail, the difference may be a little greater than that. The upshot is that you can use somewhat smaller apertures with a full frame camera. It's also dependent upon image size/resolution, but where a crop camera might be limited to f8, beyond which diffraction starts to show significant effect in images, a FF camera should have no problem using f11 and probably even f16. Small apertures are often desirable for landscape and macro photography, especially, so FF might be best for these purposes.
But, everything isn't rosy with FF. Often the FF camera costs more and may be larger and heavier (though not the latter, in your case... 7D/7DII are almost exactly the same size and weight as 5D/5DII/5DIII). FF cameras also tend to be louder... the much bigger mirror and shutter moving around in there tend to make more noise. Rather than a "snick" sound you hear with a crop sensor camera you might hear a "ka-chunk" sound with FF! (5DIII does have one or two "quiet" modes that might help, but may slow the shooting speed of the camera).
Also, FF cameras are limited to FF-capable lenses only... which tend to be bigger, heavier and more expensive. All your current lenses are FF-capable, though... so it's not like you'll need to replace anything. In contrast, a crop sensor camera can use both FF-capable and crop-only lenses. Often the crop-specific lenses are smaller, lighter and more affordable. If you used telephotos, even among FF-capable lenses you would notice a more dramatic difference. For example, I use an EF 300/4L IS USM a lot on my 7Ds for sports photography. If I were using a FF camera instead, I'd need to get out the much bigger, heavier and more expensive EF 500/4L IS USM in order to frame the subjects the same way... and probably a tripod to sit it on, while the 300/4 is very handholdable and leaves me more mobile.
You may even notice some of this in shorter focal lengths. For example, like you I use the 24-70/2.8. For portraits, I actually prefer it on my crop sensor cameras. It's a little too short for portraiture of the types I mostly do, when on a FF camera. As a result, I usually carry at least a 135/2L, too, when I'm shooting with my FF camera. My EF 50/1.4 USM lens is a neat large aperture, short telephoto portrait lens on one of my 7Ds... but becomes what I consider a rather boring "normal" lens on my 5DII.
All this aside, there's a lot to be said for having both formats in your tool kit. I'd go with a cropper if I could only have one camera. But that's because I shoot a lot of sports/action, where the crop camera serves better... and it's quite capable for most other places I'd use it. Personally I do about 90% of my shooting with crop, only about 10% with FF.
But, others have mentioned, you also might want more glass, especially if you get FF and start shooting more landscapes with it! At the very least, I think you might want to consider an EF 16-35/4L IS USM, a newer model and quite sharp edge to edge... It even has IS which doesn't hurt, though personally I find it rather silly on short focal lengths like these. If it were me, for landscape work I'd especially want a wider lens like this.
You also may want a longer focal length, for the reasons I mentioned above. I'd recommend the EF 300/4L IS USM. It's quite good, even when paired up with one of the 1.4X teleconverters for a bit more reach. An alternative would be to just get a 1.4X and use it with your 70-200mm (though I think a 300mm prime would give better AF performance and image quality, on the whole).
That's something like $1500 to $3000 worth of lenses (if bought new), so you may want to sell off something (the 24-105 would be the first I'd let go... and the original 7D), and shop for used or refurbished lenses and/or camera. As long as you complement the FF camera with a 7D or 7DII, you might want to consider a 5D Mark II. It's got nearly the same resolution and high ISO ability of the Mark III. The latter has a much improved AF system, that I'd certainly want if it were my only camera. But the 5DII's AF is just fine for more sedentary shooting like landscapes, portraits and macro. And the crop camera can continue to handle any action/sports you want to shoot. 5DII are selling for about $1000 less than 5DIII. Either 5DII or III also will share batteries/chargers, memory cards and most other accessories with 7D/7DII. The control layouts are similar enough, too, that it's pretty easy moving back and forth between them.
Hope this helps! Weigh your options and have fun shopping!
To calculate this, look at the native resolution of the camera. In the case of the 7DII it's 5472 x 3648 pixels (for a total of just over 21MP). Now, 240 pixels per inch is all that's needed for the vast majority of printing. Some simple math tells us that you can make a 15.2 x 22.8 print without "up-rezzing" the image at all. 16x24" or even 18x24" would need only very minor up-rezzing. With care and minimal cropping, even larger would be doable.
Now, 5DIII at 22MP really isn't much higher resolution than 7DII. But FF is still better for larger prints simply because the image needs less magnification. An 8x10 (or 8x12, in order to use the entire image area) from 7DII is approx 13X magnification. In contrast, the same size print from a FF camera such as 5DIII is only about 8X magnification. The FF will have an advantage, regardless of image size... but the difference won't be as obvious until the prints are at or above the native resolution size (at whatever ppi is most ideal for the printing process)... So the 5760 x 3840 can be expected to start to show it's superiority at with 16x24" and larger prints (again using 240 ppi as the "ideal" print resolution).
Plus, the less crowded sensor of a FF camera allows for larger pixel sites, which can capture more light and, as a result, more fine detail.
Finally, most FF camera's are also able to use weaker anti-alias (AA) or "high pass" filters. These filters are used in digital cameras to prevent an optical aberration called moiré. This occurs when you are photographing a repeating pattern, such as you might see in the texture of cloth or building elements, for example, that are close to matching the pattern of the pixel array on the camera's sensor. The AA filter actually blurs the image a bit to reduce or prevent moiré. The image is then re-sharpened to bring back details. A full frame camera might get by with a weaker AA filter... or at the very least it's effect is less magnified (see above).
All that said, a full frame model such as 5DIII gives you a bit more potential for a lot of fine detail that will be most easily seen in very large prints. If you plan to print big (as is sometimes the case with landscape images), get a FF camera. If not making prints bigger than 16x24", the 7DII should do fine in this respect.
One other key advantage of a full frame camera is it's low light/high ISO capabilities. Because a FF camera's sensor is much less crowded (about 25,000 pixels per square centimeter in 5DIII, compared to upwards of 55,000 per sq. mm in the 7DII), there is less cross-talk, the pixel sites can be larger to capture more light, and any heat generated is better dissipated. All these factors make for less image noise at higher ISOs. So typically a FF camera can be used at one or two stops higher ISO than a crop sensor camera.
Wide angle lenses are often desirable for landscape photography. A 20mm or even 17mm or 15mm ultrawide for FF is typically more easily "corrected" than a 10, 11 or 12mm ultrawide that's needed to give similar angle of view on a crop sensor camera.
Finally, there is some additional "control" over depth of field with a FF camera. DoF actually doesn't change when sensor size does. If you used the same lens focal length with the same aperture and from the same distance, DoF would be exactly the same. However, in order to frame the image the same way, with FF you either need a longer focal length or to move close to your subject, either of which will effect DoF, appearing to make it shallower and relative background blur effect stronger. It also changes the apparent perspective of an image, "compressing" it more, when you do either of these actions. All this can make FF more desirable for portraiture, in particular, and especially when a more "dreamy" look is wanted, such as for wedding photography.
At the other extreme, a FF image also is less prone to loss of fine detail to an effect called diffraction. This is an optical effect causing image softening at "too small" lens apertures. There's about a stop difference between FF and crop, but because a FF also typically captures more detail, the difference may be a little greater than that. The upshot is that you can use somewhat smaller apertures with a full frame camera. It's also dependent upon image size/resolution, but where a crop camera might be limited to f8, beyond which diffraction starts to show significant effect in images, a FF camera should have no problem using f11 and probably even f16. Small apertures are often desirable for landscape and macro photography, especially, so FF might be best for these purposes.
But, everything isn't rosy with FF. Often the FF camera costs more and may be larger and heavier (though not the latter, in your case... 7D/7DII are almost exactly the same size and weight as 5D/5DII/5DIII). FF cameras also tend to be louder... the much bigger mirror and shutter moving around in there tend to make more noise. Rather than a "snick" sound you hear with a crop sensor camera you might hear a "ka-chunk" sound with FF! (5DIII does have one or two "quiet" modes that might help, but may slow the shooting speed of the camera).
Also, FF cameras are limited to FF-capable lenses only... which tend to be bigger, heavier and more expensive. All your current lenses are FF-capable, though... so it's not like you'll need to replace anything. In contrast, a crop sensor camera can use both FF-capable and crop-only lenses. Often the crop-specific lenses are smaller, lighter and more affordable. If you used telephotos, even among FF-capable lenses you would notice a more dramatic difference. For example, I use an EF 300/4L IS USM a lot on my 7Ds for sports photography. If I were using a FF camera instead, I'd need to get out the much bigger, heavier and more expensive EF 500/4L IS USM in order to frame the subjects the same way... and probably a tripod to sit it on, while the 300/4 is very handholdable and leaves me more mobile.
You may even notice some of this in shorter focal lengths. For example, like you I use the 24-70/2.8. For portraits, I actually prefer it on my crop sensor cameras. It's a little too short for portraiture of the types I mostly do, when on a FF camera. As a result, I usually carry at least a 135/2L, too, when I'm shooting with my FF camera. My EF 50/1.4 USM lens is a neat large aperture, short telephoto portrait lens on one of my 7Ds... but becomes what I consider a rather boring "normal" lens on my 5DII.
All this aside, there's a lot to be said for having both formats in your tool kit. I'd go with a cropper if I could only have one camera. But that's because I shoot a lot of sports/action, where the crop camera serves better... and it's quite capable for most other places I'd use it. Personally I do about 90% of my shooting with crop, only about 10% with FF.
But, others have mentioned, you also might want more glass, especially if you get FF and start shooting more landscapes with it! At the very least, I think you might want to consider an EF 16-35/4L IS USM, a newer model and quite sharp edge to edge... It even has IS which doesn't hurt, though personally I find it rather silly on short focal lengths like these. If it were me, for landscape work I'd especially want a wider lens like this.
You also may want a longer focal length, for the reasons I mentioned above. I'd recommend the EF 300/4L IS USM. It's quite good, even when paired up with one of the 1.4X teleconverters for a bit more reach. An alternative would be to just get a 1.4X and use it with your 70-200mm (though I think a 300mm prime would give better AF performance and image quality, on the whole).
That's something like $1500 to $3000 worth of lenses (if bought new), so you may want to sell off something (the 24-105 would be the first I'd let go... and the original 7D), and shop for used or refurbished lenses and/or camera. As long as you complement the FF camera with a 7D or 7DII, you might want to consider a 5D Mark II. It's got nearly the same resolution and high ISO ability of the Mark III. The latter has a much improved AF system, that I'd certainly want if it were my only camera. But the 5DII's AF is just fine for more sedentary shooting like landscapes, portraits and macro. And the crop camera can continue to handle any action/sports you want to shoot. 5DII are selling for about $1000 less than 5DIII. Either 5DII or III also will share batteries/chargers, memory cards and most other accessories with 7D/7DII. The control layouts are similar enough, too, that it's pretty easy moving back and forth between them.
Hope this helps! Weigh your options and have fun shopping!
Jul 24, 2015 19:09:58 #
Wow. I'm overwhelmed and honored with the time you took to go into such infinite and precise detail on my behalf to answer my question. It's very helpful and I will print it out as a reference for the future. Thank you very much, you have been very kind and generous with your time.
Jul 24, 2015 19:11:12 #
Jul 24, 2015 19:11:52 #
Jul 24, 2015 19:12:53 #
Jul 24, 2015 19:14:59 #
The 1 DX is more camera than I can justify. Thank you for your comment and suggestion anyway.
Jul 24, 2015 19:26:15 #
Based on the responses I've received, I believe your right. Thanks for your comment.
Jul 24, 2015 19:28:15 #
Thank you for the information. I watched the video and found it very informative. Thank you for taking your time to send me the link.
Jul 24, 2015 19:32:20 #
I watched the video link you sent and found it very informative. Thank you taking your time to do this on my behalf.
Jul 24, 2015 19:35:04 #
Jul 24, 2015 19:39:08 #
Jul 24, 2015 19:46:57 #
Thank you very much for the link. I watched the video and found the information very informative and helpful.
Jul 24, 2015 20:19:33 #
stumbo wrote:
Thank you very much for the link. I watched the video and found the information very informative and helpful.
You should click "quote reply" not just "reply" so we know what message you are replying to. Reply is when you want to make a general comment to no one post in particular.
I have the 7DII and 6D. Both have their places, I love both cameras. The 5DIII has slightly more megapixels and a lot better AF than my 6D. But the 6D sensor is newer tech and does just a slight bit better in low light. It is also smaller and lighter than the 5DIII. Since they are starting to discount the 5DIII it is a good time to get one, unless you think you might have buyers remorse when the 5DIV (or whatever they call it) hits the market. Then too the rumors about a 6DII might make waiting a little a good idea. Rumors say they will both come out sometime next year, the 5 early in the year and the 6 late. Well, we will see.
Jul 24, 2015 22:01:12 #
stumbo wrote:
I presently have a Canon 7D and the new 7D Mkii. I... (show quote)
Full Frame Camera's capture more Picture or "Area" at any given focal length due to a larger sensor. Consider the fact that you're now back to your days of 35mm, when those camera's of old, captured larger picture areas, (same now as full frame) except now, we're digital and we don't have to screw with film.
Because the pro's most often use full frame, most of the equipment and advancement associated with full frame is better than the cropped camera's. More expensive too. And you have more lenses to chose from, although, full frame lenses can be used on most cropped cameras.
Not much to cause a person to rush to full frame except the never ending desire to continue improving picture quality. Especially since the 7D mrk II is out, considered by most to be the "Professional" Cropped camera.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.