Full frame vs. Crop body

Mnemosyne

Is there something inherent to full frame cameras that makes photos better than from a crop body?

I don't claim to be an amazing photographer, but ever since I got my 1ds MII, my photos have been looking beautiful. Maybe my custom settings are set too extreme on my XTi and 40D, but they're not that far off default standard.

The colors, the sharpness, the fall off from depth of field are just sublime.

Am I missing something?

pathfinder

Your gratitude is heartwarming I truly am glad you are enjoying the 1DsMkII. It is still a great box!!

The individual pixels are generally significantly larger on a full frame camera than a crop body, so the noise is usually quite a bit lower. The body is quite a bit heavier, and I suspect contributes to less camera movement with shutter triggering than a much lighter camera also.

The Autofocus system on a 1 Series camera is head and shoulders better and smarter than a non-1 series camera as well. Not that a 40D isn't a very good camera, it is, but it does not grab AF in dim light like a 1 Series. It is like jumping out of a Prius, into a Corvette. There is definitely a noticeable difference.


The viewfinder is larger, brighter, and a larger percentage of the captured field is visible in the viewfinder at the time of exposure.

As you have noticed, the depth of field for a given fstop and focal length, is shallower with a full frame camera, helping render than lovely OOF bokeh we all love - better glass also plays a strong role here, and I know you have some pretty decent lenses!

I want readers to know that I am not trying to be critical of crop body cameras here - my main carry around camera, in my desk as I am writing this at work, is a 40D with a Tamron travel zoom. I use it a lot, despite owning a full frame body as well.

For those who don't know, the OP is my son and one of the editors/photographers of the Indiana Daily Student in Bloomington, and has had to make do with my hand me downs

I'm glad you like it, I thought you might!

Mnemosyne

I really love this thing. I almost wondered if it was the combination of the 24-105 L, but that shouldn't have made that much of a difference.

For the past two weeks I have been walking around campus just shooting for fun, and some of those photos have randomly been thrown into the paper because people liked them.

I was apprehensive at first getting a Digic II chip-set camera, having 2 digic III's. But it is just ridiculous. I don't even find myself struggling with the f/4 limitation in low light.

I mean, I had always wanted a full-frame, but if I had known the photos would turn out like this, I would have been bugging you 3 years ago

And at the rate you upgrade your stuff, I get some good hand-me-downs, so I'm not complaining.

Hopefully I can get some examples of photos sometime soon.

pathfinder

I don't think it is just full frame, but a 1 series with all the advantages I outlined above - AF, viewfinder, build quality.

You may at some point want to try a different focusing screen beneath your pentaprism. You can get other focusing screens from Canon, and you might find one with a split image range finder very useful for manual focus lenses in the dark. I think you give up Evaluative Metering with it, but as I recall, you don't use Evaluative metering that much do you?

Mnemosyne

I don't even know what evaluative does or how it works, so I doubt it.

I'm pretty sure with the way I shoot, especially in low light, spot metering is better for me.

pathfinder

You might like a split image range finder then.

ziggy53

The Canon 1Ds MKII is still a wonderful camera and I have considered it for quite a while for myself.

If you compare it and the 1Ds MKIII using the DXOMark tool:

http://tinyurl.com/dzgfwj

... and if you set the tool to "Print" evaluations, the MKII holds its own with the MKIII with regard to signal-to-noise ratios, Tonal Range and Color Sensitivity. Not too shabby. thumb

Adding in the superb AF section and shutter box and the camera still rounds out nicely as a professional tool.

Remember, this camera, the 1Ds MKII, cost $8000USD when it was new and people really did pay that for its features.

Qarik

I have always felt that a good full frame image is somehow different then a good crop image. I can't put it into words. Some times I look at an image and say to myself "that is from a full frame". 9 times out of 10 I am right. There just is feel to the image sometimes.

pathfinder

The original poster was saying the same thing, Qarik.

I shoot numerous cameras, and at web images sizes, I wonder if you can really tell which they were shot with.

Go to this page - http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/popular/#500775197_umGtX - one from my Popular gallery - there are images there shot with Mnemosyne's 1DsMkII, or a 5D, or a 5DMkII, or a 40D, or a G9 or G10. (It may be necessary to Click the Smugmug style button to get out of slideshow)

Start with this image of the leopard, and then the house cat that follows, and then do the next 15 or so.



Try to identify which image was shot with a full frame camera, a crop camera, or a P&S before checking the exif data. Keep score how accurate you are. Look at images no larger than XL.

Then come back and let us know how well you did.

I am very interested in hearing how well folks do at identifying which camera shot which image. My bet is that they don't do near as well as they think they will.

Who will go first?

LiquidAir

pathfinder wrote:

Try to identify which image was shot with a full frame camera, a crop camera, or a P&S before checking the exif data. Keep score how accurate you are.

Then come back and let us know how well you did.

I am very interested in hearing how well folks do at identifying which camera shot which image. My bet is that they don't do near as well as they think they will.

All currently cameras, (P&S and DSLR) can generate a good web resolution image. The difference between the cameras starts to show up when you push the envelope.

In my experience, the difference between full frame and crop shows up when you are pushing the limits of your lens. Good primes and L zooms don't show much difference at f/8. However open the aperture into the f/2 range and the difference is pretty dramatic. The higher magnification of the crop body means that any lens softness is magnified 60% more than with a full frame body which can matter when shooting wide open. The Canon 50/1.4 is a classic example; its is a much better lens on full frame than it is on a crop body.

As for the G9, at 100% crop I immediately see the difference from the 5D but at web resolution the difference is subtle (mostly color) until I tug on the shadow recovery slider; then the 5D blows the G9 out of the water.

Mnemosyne

LiquidAir wrote:

The Canon 50/1.4 is a classic example; its is a much better lens on full frame than it is on a crop body.

Oh trust me, I have tested this many times I don't even bother putting my 50 on a crop body anymore. It's just not worth the effort.

pathfinder

LiquidAir wrote:

All currently cameras, (P&S and DSLR) can generate a good web resolution image. The difference between the cameras starts to show up when you push the envelope.

In my experience, the difference between full frame and crop shows up when you are pushing the limits of your lens. Good primes and L zooms don't show much difference at f/8. However open the aperture into the f/2 range and the difference is pretty dramatic. The higher magnification of the crop body means that any lens softness is magnified 60% more than with a full frame body which can matter when shooting wide open. The Canon 50/1.4 is a classic example; its is a much better lens on full frame than it is on a crop body.

As for the G9, at 100% crop I immediately see the difference from the 5D but at web resolution the difference is subtle (mostly color) until I tug on the shadow recovery slider; then the 5D blows the G9 out of the water.

Ken, I agree wholeheartedly, that the images are distinguishable when pixel peeping.

Michael Reichman wrote a piece ( which I can't quickly find and link, this morning on the way to work ) about how hard it was to distinguish prints made from a G10 and full frame and even larger cameras at print sizes less than 10 x 15 or so. That was why I was specifying web based images, say no larger than XL on my smugmug account.

There is definitely more noise in the shadow tones from the smaller sensors as expected, but there are also ways to minimize that difference. Raise the black point slightly, and run through Noiseware,etc. As Michael showed, in prints, the difference is even less noticeable.

Qarik

let me refine what I mean. By simply looking at a randomn photo I can't say much. On occasion I will see a shot..stare at it..then ask the dude if it was a on full frame..and most of the time I am right.

I properly identified the tree shots as FF. One of the water fall shots as well. I thought the other waterfall shot was not but I was wrong. I was not sure about the other shots. I thought the house cat was maybe FF but I was wrong. heh

pathfinder

The tree shots from Yellowstone were all 5DMKII as you found out.

The tom cat - shot with 40D - fools a lot of folks, myself included

That was what I was trying to say - that at web size images - no larger than XL - it can be hard to tell what camera was used, if the camera was used skillfully to begin with.

Did you correctly identify all the G9 or G10 shots also?

Tee Why

To the OP.
I'd have to agree with you. Somewhat recently went from Crop (Canon's 1.6 and 1.3) to a 5D. I feel that there is more detail and more latitude in processing, along with slightly less noise.

The shallower dof is nice as well, but can stink if you want a big dof and have to really stop down. Some don't like the vignetting of lenses, when when I shoot wide open, I generally prefer vignetting. Stopping down takes care of that as well, so no big deal, but it's just more pleasurable to shoot with a full frame.

Tough to describe though.

Mnemosyne

So, I recently reset the custom color profile settings on my 40D, and now the photos look a LOT nicer. More in line with how they were looking on my 1ds

boulderNardo

Mnemosyne wrote:

Is there something inherent to full frame cameras that makes photos better than from a crop body?

I don't claim to be an amazing photographer, but ever since I got my 1ds MII, my photos have been looking beautiful. Maybe my custom settings are set too extreme on my XTi and 40D, but they're not that far off default standard.

The colors, the sharpness, the fall off from depth of field are just sublime.

Am I missing something?

I think it's been mentioned already in this thread - the biggest and most important difference IMHO is that you switched from a non-1-series body to a 1D!!!! HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference!

I switched from a 40D/50D to a 1D MkII. Not full frame, yet INCREDIBLE improvement in my photographs which I attribute to the ridiculously accurate AF...

_B

kdog

Mnemosyne wrote:

So, I recently reset the custom color profile settings on my 40D, and now the photos look a LOT nicer.

Could you elaborate on this so others can benefit as well? Sounds important, but I've no clue what it means or how to do it.

Thanks!
-joel

mtmcelvy

I have a Nikon D40... My friend/mentor has a d700 fx. we recently where together shooting and the difference is insane.. I know that comparing the d40 and the d700 is apples and oranges but it's still insane. I have seen other pictures he's taken with film and high end crop sensor and there is that something that just makes the picture better on the full frame..

kpmedia

Qarik wrote:

I have always felt that a good full frame image is somehow different then a good crop image. I can't put it into words. Some times I look at an image and say to myself "that is from a full frame". 9 times out of 10 I am right. There just is feel to the image sometimes.

Same here.
I was going to write a near-identical reply.