Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Why Would Anyone Buy A Cropped Sensor, Over A Full Framed Camera?
Page <<first <prev 10 of 27 next> last>>
Feb 15, 2018 10:00:55   #
RRS Loc: Not sure
 
Feiertag wrote:
Just curious!


Well I have 2 of each, 3 photographers or more always on our trips to Yellowstone. The grandson, 12 years old, likes the crop over the FF because he mainly uses a 18-135mm lens and he says that he likes the reach. The set up with a FF body and the 70-200mm f/4.0 with a 1.4 extender is heavy for him. There's little difference between any of the 4 bodies as far as pixel count goes. Both FF bodies cost considerably more then the crop bodies, I always buy the body and the any additional lenses as I feel we have a need. The 18-135 I bought at Bozeman camera on the way to Yellowstone so we all had a little reach. The last FF cost a lot more and I had been using a crop on my long lenses but like the focusing system and IQ that I'm getting with the FF. Now why to buy a crop body, on a FF a 600mm f/4.0 with a 1.4 is now at 840mm at f/5.6, one stop lost. The 600mm f/4.0 on a Canon crop is now 960mm at f/4.0. Before someone jumps me I do know that a 600mm lens is and always will be a 600mm lens and I know all about cropping too but since all 4 bodies have just about the same pixel count one full stop can be big at certain times of the day, early and late. Look at the cost and weight of the Canon 7DMKII to the 1DX MKII , maybe that can explain the why of a crop body.

Reply
Feb 15, 2018 10:02:24   #
BDHender
 
Because my D810 can't do everything my D500 can and viceversa.

Bryan

Reply
Feb 15, 2018 10:04:36   #
TonyBot
 
burkphoto wrote:
Because the difference between full frame, APS-C, and Micro 4/3 just isn't that great for many applications. If your images are going to go onto a photo-sharing web site, corporate web page, eBay, or social media account, NO ONE can tell the difference. If you make 4x6" prints, NO ONE can tell the difference. Even at 8x10, it's difficult to see differences in a blind test.

Photography is a SYSTEM of components. The weakest component in the system limits the rest of the system to its quality. That weakness can be lack of knowledge, or hardware, or software, or a combination!

Back in the film days, you could have the finest Leica glass or Nikon glass or Canon glass available, and load Panatomic-X or Pan-F in your camera, but if you printed your negatives with an EL-Cheapo enlarging lens instead of an EL-Nikkor or Schneider Componon-S, it didn't matter. The enlarging lens was the weakest link in the system, so all you got was mush! (I know because I've been there and done that. When I bought the EL-Nikkor, my prints were several orders of magnitude sharper, more contrasty, and had much finer tonal gradation).

These days, most of the better cameras and lenses in any format, any brand, are excellent. They are far more capable instruments than most photographers realize, either because they don't know what they are doing with them, or they have serious shortcomings in the rest of their *systems.*

Is your monitor calibrated and profiled with a hardware colorimeter and matching software? If not, your monitor is dishonest. What you see will not be what is printed, or what is seen on someone else's calibrated and profiled monitor.

Are you adjusting raw images in decent post-processing software, on that calibrated monitor, in "proofing profile" reference to the printer profile you will use? If not, your output isn't honest.

Are you printing BIG BIG prints, on a pigmented inkjet printer, using OEM inks (or the very best knock-offs), photographic quality papers, and the right ICC profiles? Are you printing from 16-bit files, converting ProPhoto RGB color space to the printer profile in use? If not, you're not getting the most color from your files.

There are many reasons to buy a full frame camera, but there are just as many reasons to buy an APS-C camera or a Micro Four Thirds camera or a smartphone. Each has its uses. But when it comes right down to it, THE CAMERA MAY NOT MATTER. Spending $3000 to $7000 might make you feel good, but unless you have the chops and the rest of the system to reap the benefits of that purchase, fugeddaboutit!

If you balance your system and concentrate on improving your techniques at every stage, your basic technical image quality will improve. If you focus on developing a point of view, a vision, a sense of timing, a sense of composition, an understanding of light, color, balance, line, form, angle, perspective... THOSE things matter just as much or more than whether you have a full frame or smaller sensor.

When I figured that out, my world changed. I want to communicate visually... not fret over or brag about the size of my big chip or the length of my lens. (Hmm, reminds me of an old blues song I need to go play...)
Because the difference between full frame, APS-C, ... (show quote)


Burkphoto said it best: If you're not making BIG prints, you don't need it. I can get decent 13x19s and good 16x20s out of my "crop" sensor. But if I want to crop a lot, or go bigger, APS-C just ain't gonna cut it. So, for the moment (or months, actually), I'm sticking with what I have. The same with a good, wide format, printer. As with any tool I use, I buy the best I can afford. Right now, it's a decent camera body, and "L" (or
ED)(or whatever flavor) lenses.

Reply
 
 
Feb 15, 2018 10:06:18   #
rodpark2 Loc: Dallas, Tx
 
DaveO wrote:
We had no knowledge of a difference and were not interested in just spending money for more megapixels. Had we investigated or been informed, it would not have changed our choice.

We have both, seems there were things other than more megapixels.



I have lots of both. Cost being the first factor and lens availability the next. Something unmentioned is the smaller sensor cameras have higher depth of field, so focus is not as critical. I photograph The Solar Car Challenge every year and prefer by Nikon D7XXX's over later FF cameras because I can set at F8 and basically point and shoot, getting great candids. I'd have to use F11 for the same effect on a FF. Conversely I use FF for portraits for very shallow DOF. I have even smaller Canon S100 models where DOF is never an issue, like shooting reflections through and into store windows. Focus is more critical the larger the format, just as with film. It's why smart phones are so popular, everything is in focus most of the time. Most lenses are best in the F5.6-F8 range and shooting landscapes my require F11 in FF cameras so diffraction is starting to limit sharpness. Image quality is getting better and better on small sensors so it's hard to tell much difference, other than FF having advantages at really high ISO. Just my take on it.









Reply
Feb 15, 2018 10:08:21   #
Feiertag Loc: British Columbia, Canada
 
The bottom line seems to be that if one could afford a FF, APC-C wouldn't enter the picture (pun). I don't buy that the FF body is much heavier. My D750 doesn't weigh that much more than my D7100.

Reply
Feb 15, 2018 10:09:27   #
47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range
 
robertjerl wrote:
I own both.
Yes money is a major factor but so is the much debated "reach" from the crop sensor. When using a high end crop sensor body you are also carrying less weight and getting that "reach" with a smaller, lighter, less expensive lens(or more reach from the same lens)
And there is a difference in the images. The crop sensor puts more pixels on the subject when used from the same distance and showing the subject to the same size. That said, the FF has advantages too, esp when the light gets dim.

Example, I used to use a 6D (20mp) and a 7DII (20mp). If I cropped so a bird was the same size in the image taken with both bodies then the 7DII had all 20 mp in the image while the 6D had 12.5 mp in the image. If I could use "foot zoom" to get the 6D image the same then the advantage returned to the 6D image. But if I took the 7DII to that same closer distance then it gave me a "closer" view again.
6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. Just change techniques dependent on the body I was using.
Now if I could afford the long fast teles (and was able to carry/hold that weight and size) I would stick with FF all the time.
I own both. br Yes money is a major factor but so ... (show quote)

I also own both a 6d and a 7d2. I agree with your logic completely. I use the 7d2 when I want the added reach, focusing system, and burst rate. The 6d is my landscape and lower light goto camera. Each has their own stack of lenses. A 70-200 f/4L IS, Sigma 150-600 and 100 macro being the only ones that are shared. With an ideal wallet, I’d replace both with an affordable FF that has the best and desired features of the two.

Reply
Feb 15, 2018 10:10:46   #
agillot
 
if you do birds , a crop sensor bring the bird closer on a telephoto lens , but you may loose some info s

Reply
 
 
Feb 15, 2018 10:13:35   #
Edia Loc: Central New Jersey
 
Feiertag wrote:
The bottom line seems to be that if one could afford a FF, APC-C wouldn't enter the picture (pun). I don't buy that the FF body is much heavier. My D750 doesn't weigh that much more than my D7100.


Maybe so. But what about the weight of the FF lens? If you are going telephoto, the 300 mm FF lens will be much heavier than a 200 mm DX lens and much more expensive to boot.

Reply
Feb 15, 2018 10:14:25   #
Mercer Loc: Houston, TX, USA
 
For myself, and I suspect for many of us, it's not a question of preference. It's simply a matter of budget. Mercer

Reply
Feb 15, 2018 10:19:44   #
Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast
 
Feiertag wrote:
Just curious!


Why not ask why FF vs Medium format or Mirrorless vs DSLR? In all cases it comes down in the end to budget, style of shooting and photo requirements and which one would make more sense than the other to the user or photographer. CHOICE! Thank goodness we have them

Reply
Feb 15, 2018 10:33:13   #
dhowland
 
Anyone not getting full frame because of the cost should really consider the Pentax K1 !

Reply
 
 
Feb 15, 2018 10:33:16   #
Idaho
 
Both have their place. I like my small C when I need something something small and light which often happens. Also, I can put it in "riskier" places with less concern. In many situations it is all I need such as your basic snapshot environment . Other times my 850 is the one so you really need two!

Reply
Feb 15, 2018 10:37:07   #
Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA
 
It is about economics. And for me the FF is a better window to create images and video. The Nikon example is a good one.
I had the D7000 and loved the camera. But then went to the FF Nikon and their is a difference. The size of the image and it's
ability to capture light is a big difference for me. And of course the glass on your camera makes a big difference.
I will say today the camera's are amazing. I have the Sony a6300 and the a7s II. The a6300 makes great images.
The a7s has a magic to the FF low light images.
I thank Nikon for the D7000 and all the years I had with their cameras. I was asked to shoot a video with this camera
at my grandsons school for autistic children. I did a pretty good job a video and some stills.
It started my career as a videographer and image maker. I thank the companies that have created these great
camera's. What gear we have today. And it can be bought from under $1000 for a canon & lens. And an investment
of $3500 will get you a great setup that to me is pro. What a great time to be passionate about cameras.

Reply
Feb 15, 2018 10:37:44   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
dhowland wrote:
Anyone not getting full frame because of the cost should really consider the Pentax K1 !


Sure, if you are just starting out and don't already have lenses for other brands.

Reply
Feb 15, 2018 10:44:40   #
Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana
 
Feiertag wrote:
I maybe from a different line of thinking because I lost my precious wife to cancer, almost five years ago. She was eight years younger than me. I would have traded places with her if I could. She was one of the finest human beings that I have ever met. I think of her everyday.

Her death made me realize that there is no point in drinking cheap wine or buying nothing less but the best camera equipment. BTW, make everyday as if were your last because there my not be a tomorrow. Just do it and enjoy life. Cheers!
I maybe from a different line of thinking because ... (show quote)


First and most important, my heart goes out to you over the loss of your beloved wife. However, while I agree with you in theory about getting the best things life has to offer, you have to be able to afford the price of admission.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 10 of 27 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.