JD750 Loc: SoCal

Lots of emotion expressed on this subject of crop vs full frame digital sensors. But there is a bigger picture. ;)

Zack Arias makes some very good points about the futility of the argument of crop vs full frame sensor size.

Crop sensors can full frame: crop or crap

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

In regard to digital though, medium format digital is anywhere from 2 to 10 times more expensive than full frame. Anything above that is strictly film. With film you basically pay for every shot whether it is good or not. And if you want to share your film shots online they must be digitized.
Regarding crop or full frame, full frame is generally 2 to 5 times more expensive than crop sensor cameras. So it boils down to money for most people.
Bob

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I watched the video. It was a hoot :) There are obviously differences between each sensor size, but of course, what he was stressing was that in the end those differences by themselves are less important then the skill of the photographer behind the viewfinder. Something I strongly agree with.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I agree with the 'guy behind the camera.
I also agree with the technology advancing on both (if not all digital system)

I sort of disagree with the dismissive comparisons.
1) Progress in sensor seems to be faster in smaller sensors (phones and PS)
2) Pixel density supersedes the size of a sensor but this is not mentioned.

Then again, this is a short video so one cannot ask too much.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Hmmm well back in my film days I shot both 35mm and medium 6x6, I shot the 35 for convenience usually when traveling and some of my favorite 35s are somewhat compact fixed lens rangefinders. When I wanted it I shot the 6x6 for detail and art. I have shot APS-C and FF digital and I agree that the image quality is fairly the same at least on my two cameras, Canon 50D and Canon 6D however I prefer the way the lenses play out on the FF. I often shoot street stuff in tight areas or shoot events in small rooms and a 24mm on a FF is wider than a 18mm on a APS-C. Just my preference.

Wilsondl3

The bigger the format the less you have to enlarge to get bigger prints. The smaller the format the more oblivious the defects are. That is the facts folks. - Dave

Bill_de Loc: US

This same argument, with some different terminology, raged many years ago when some arrogant photographers claimed they could produce professional quality images with those toy sized 35mm camera. It got so bad that somebody produced larger format camera bodies deigned to hide a Leica. It was done to prove a point and eventually smaller was accepted, for the same reasons smaller format cameras are acceptable today.

The difference today is that for the mass market, the format is growing instead of shrinking.

My prediction is that even smaller sensors, great image stabilization, and extremely sharp tiny lenses, will put all the advantages of large format in the palm of our hands, or in our sun glasses.

Then someone will come out with something better that will start out bigger. Cell phones were big, then they got small, now they are getting bigger.

And the circle of life goes on.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

Crop vs Full Frame vs Other formats ----Interesting video & the guy makes a good point -- However he did not & probably for good reason answer the question --- Based on my experience I feel any answer must begin with -- "It all depends" -- My personal answer to Crop vs Full Frame vs Other formats -- is I shot up until 2009 with an EOS 3 film camera -- By then I had purchased a lot of gear including the 6 lenses I now use --- Since I did not want to sacrifice my lenses angle of view & could not afford film anymore I picked the then new 5Dmk2 --- Heck without all that prime fixed focal length glass I may have gone digital years sooner & been quite happy with a cropped sensor --- Must also say I love really large prints!!

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

it's sad that this post turns into an either or debate.it should be about what your desire and need dictates.

Bushymonster Loc: Oklahoma City. OK.

I just don't need the FF myself. If I had money to buy several camera's and lenses I would try one but I am not going to poster size any photo's soon. I will stick to crop.
-Bushy

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

I'm very interested in your comment that you IQ is about the same in both your cameras. I was thinking of purchasing the Canon 5d mark ii the first of the year, keeping my Canon 70d.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Admittedly I don't print anything larger than 8X10 anymore but with L series lens on the 50D and 6D there is little to no discernable difference other than working out the DOF in the photo especially when shooting portraits. The 50D with L series lens is extremely sharp. On the same token standard USM lenses on the 6D are noticeably inferior. The biggest difference for the way I shoot between the 50D and 6D is the way the 6D handles lenses; as already mentioned, 24mm on the 6D is 24mm FOV. 18mm on the 50D is 28mm FOV. The 6D also handles low light a lot better than the 50D but I think the 70D is near to 6D in that respect. I think it depends a lot on how and where you shoot. I think if I shot primarily studio and portrait I would/could stay with the 50D with good L series lenses. If you haven't done so already, borrow or rent a FF for a week and see if you need one.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Thanks for replying. I may do that.

Chicopee Loc: NY State, USA

I don't know just where this fits in...and probably not on this page but I have a question.
I currently am using an olympus 4/3rds camera w/ the stock lens (for example) 14-42 which they say is the eq. of 28 - 84....or double a 35 mm lens.
What happens if I use my minolta 50mm 1.4 (w/ adapter)......does that 50 become 100? and what effect does that have, if any, on the aperature?.....would I, instead of using 5.6 use 3.5 or something like that?
Thanks....this has puzzled me.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Indeed, for years many photographers have claimed that their full frame cameras are capable of better images when compared to the crop cameras. It was hard for me to swallow that.
I shot a D7000 against a D800 in the mountains of Virginia. I tried the 24-70 f2.8 to see how it would rate against my 28-105 D variable apertures. In the middle of the zoom ranges I did not see a significant difference in quality with both cameras. I am sure the professional lens do better in the corners but the corners of the frame is something that has never taken my sleep away. My pictures made that day were as good as those made by the D800 and all the files were edited using a Mac.
I bet that enlarging to humongous sizes would have immediately shown the difference but I seldom go beyond 13x19.
The M43 system offers excellent quality if a good lens is used. My portraits using the Olympus EP-5 and Sigma 60mm f2.8 Art lens are as good in quality as those I shoot with my D7000 and the 105mm f2.5 lens. For general photography the Zuiko 12-40 f2.8 Pro does a remarkable job and the enlargements are awesome.
When using film we were using medium format and 4x5 negatives because we could see the quality in enlargements. Modern sensors are of excellent quality and the absence of grain at low ISO makes them great when it comes to enlarge a file.
Today it is becoming more and more difficult to say which enlargement came from which camera and I am in full agreement that the person behind the camera continues to be a decisive factor in good photography.