DocDav Loc: IN

A technical question.
I know that the more pixels you squeeze into the same area, each pixel gets smaller and at some “smallness” or other, you start to get an increase in noise.

Obviously, a full frame camera has more pixels just due to the larger size.

I shoot a cannon 80D crop sensor.

Keeping this all in mind my question is.

When I shoot with the same focal length on crop vs full frame and then crop my final product, it seems logical I need to crop less close with the smaller sensor than the larger sensor to get the same ultimate size since the same, say 50mm lens, is effectively longer on the crop camera getting me closer to my subject. Because of this full frame envy and pixel envy aren’t all they seem to be?

Yeah, I have full frame envy but to be honest, I get pictures I like with my current camera but the above question has just always bugged me and figured a few in here can provide an answer. I still want a full frame but want to learn more tech details anyway. Also partially my effort to learn and understand pixel's better.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Keep in mind, what was standard or generally understood at the start of digital photography around 2000 is not exactly the same now nearly 20 years later. Initial digital sensors where 'cropped' relative to a 35mm frame of film, from the entry-level through the top-line professional models. When 'full frame' returned to the industry, one obvious different was the low-light and significantly better noise performance of then leading-edge 11 mega pixels spread across an area defined by 35mm×24mm as compared to the same 11MP packed into an area defined by an APS-C 22mm×15mm sensor.

The differences today in current models are much less pronounced, while the size, weight and cost differences in the two types of cameras remain. If you're convinced more money on both a body and FF lenses will make you a better photographer, who can argue? What argument would work? An EOS 80D is a superior, professional-grade camera. To achieve a tangible, measurable difference with an equally general purpose body is at least $2000 in the Canon line, assuming you already own a set of EF lenses that will maximize this body and sensor. Add another $1500 for one or two EF lenses, if applicable.

I like to blow on the pipe and sing the siren's song of full frame. It's so easy to start a parade of willing participants. But, the single best way to improve your photography is to practice and improve your technique in both image capture and processing. A far distant second option is to improve the quality and capability of your lenses. Third place, so far back we turned off the stadium lights, is to replace an industry-leading 24MP camera with still another camera.

DocDav Loc: IN

pretty much what I figured. I'm not a pro but i shoot a "pro-level" camera so people think im cool...er...good...er...hey I do ok with it. :).

Like many of us, I always have a bit of envy for the next level but know it won't make me a better photographer.

But on a technical level am i correct about cropping from my current camera vs a full frame assuming the same focal length? That alone is a tech question that driving me nuts since i do like understanding the nuts and bolts and the mechanics regardless of whether that changes the crappy pic i took the other day of a cardinal.?

steve L Loc: Waterville Valley, New Hampshire

tgreenhaw

As long as you are composing your image the same, cropping is a non-factor when comparing full frame to crop sensor. The reality is that when you shoot with a full frame camera, you are likely composing the frame the same.

From my experience, the advantage of lower noise especially at high ISO settings with a full frame is negligible to the prosumer.

The biggest advantage IMHO is that you can get a shallower depth of field and better bokeh with a full frame. This can be a double edged sword though with poor focus due to too shallow DOF if you are not careful.

Unless there are shots you missed because of inadequate gear - you are properly equipped. Buying a newer fancier camera won't magically make all your photos better.

My experience is that upgrading the photographer pays far higher dividends and costs nothing more than time.

Kencamera

There is an interesting article on line where Roger N. Clark, an astronomer compares the noise levels between the 7D Mark II (a cropped sensor), and the 5D Mark III a full-frame sensor. Surprisingly he finds little or no difference between the two cameras. In fact he slightly prefers the 7D Mark II. He has 2 articles: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/#conclusions, AND http://www.clarkvision.com/reviews/evealuation-canon-7dii/index.html.

Ken

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Nicely put!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Pixels don't have a 'standard size' like a meter is always 100 centimeters. 10 pixels can fit on the head of a pin just as easily as a 1000 pixels. In the same level of light, more light will reach each individual of those 10 pixels as will reach any individual pixel in a group of 1000 on the same head of pin. This is where the noise performance difference can come into play as the smaller pixels have to be amplified more to a brighter resulting image in a low-light situation.

The cropping issue depends on the FF sensor and the amount of cropping as compared to the smaller sensor. The amount of remaining pixels may / may not be relevant to your intended use of the image. A 24MP sensor will yield a physical print of 20in x 13in at a 'gold standard' 300ppi, where 6000x4000px = 24MP. That same 24MP full-frame sensor also will print to 20x13in at 300 pixels per inch (ppi). But, if you have to crop more out of the full-frame 24MP to obtain the desired composition, you may have less pixels left for a larger high-quality print than had you started with 24MP from the already cropped sensor.

If you use your images primarily for online display, you just need around 2048px on the long-side to fill the screens of the majority of your target audience.

DocDav Loc: IN

thanks

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

The way I understand what you're asking is, "If I took a shot with a 50mm lens on a 24mp crop sensor and I took the shot on a 24mp FF with the same lens and cropped to get the same result, wouldn't the crop sensor provide a better image", and the answer is mostly yes, although ideally you wouldn't be using the same lens and would compose the shot in camera for minimal cropping.

Vietnam Vet

I have both crop and full frame cameras. I try to fill the frame as much as I can. What I do know is that my full frame camera which is older than my crop camera, deals with noise much better.

bleirer

Here is a quote from the article linked below, which proves to me that it is complicated:

Larger sensors (and correspondingly higher pixel counts) undoubtedly produce more detail if you can afford to sacrifice depth of field. On the other hand, if you wish to maintain the same depth of field, larger sensor sizes do not necessarily have a resolution advantage. Furthermore, the diffraction-limited depth of field is the same for all sensor sizes. In other words, if one were to use the smallest aperture before diffraction became significant, all sensor sizes would produce the same depth of field — even though the diffraction limited aperture will be different.


https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

The cropping of a FF image vs using a crop sensor body has been discussed many times on this forum and it usually depends on the cameras and resolution involved. I would just add that from my perspective, that other than the narrower DOF of FF (which is useful for subject isolation) or the ability to go wide without the distortion inherent of ultra wide lenses, it comes down to low light/high ISO performance and whether that is important enough for your shooting style to pay the price in $ and weight of FF.

Even though I LOVE my Fuji for its size/weight, I was reminded twice in the last week why I’m not ready to sell my FF Canon system and buy a stack of Fuji prime lenses. First, I was called upon to shoot an indoor HS wrestling tournament because the school needed pictures for the yearbook. I would have loved to take the Fuji, but instead, I took my 6lb FF 5D4, battery grip and 70-200 f 2.8, and I’m glad I did. To do the job, I needed to shoot at 1/250 and f2.8, and that resulted in ISOs between 8,000 and 10,000 in the dimly lighted gym. The Noise was not objectionable, but it would have been with the Fuji - that one stop was the difference between shots that could be published and shots that would have not been acceptable to me. I will certainly say that I was tired after 3 hours of holding this rig at eye level, but that was the price of good images. A week later, I attended a traditional party of musicians at a home where I usually (unobtrusively) shoot some of the “picking circles” and vocalists. This year, I took the Fuji, and it was a mistake. It was very low light, and even with a marginal shutter speed, I was at ISO 25,600. Just not usable - next year, I’ll lug around the Canon.

Now if you never shoot in situations like this, you may not “need” FF, but if you do, the weight and cost is the difference between success and failure.

SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina

I find the same thing and, the dynamic range is also quite noticeable, to me anyway.

Low Budget Dave

The full frame cameras will have slightly better noise, slightly better dynamic range, and slightly more control over thin depths of field. The only question is how much you are willing to give up to get those slight improvements.

Let say that the improvement in noise was 10% (over ISO 800 only). Let's say that the total additional cost (camera and lenses) was $2000, and the total additional weight was two pounds (in your camera bag at all times.)

Is it worth two grand and heavy backpack?