Full Frame vs crop body

happysmileylady

This is discussion/curiosity only...

I am currently working with an XSI. And crops...well, they are bugging me. Particularly if I have to crop out something I missed when composing (a bag in the corner, what have you.

So I am wondering, those that shoot and prefer full frame, why? Basically I am wondering if the stuff that bugs me in cropping is something that is solved by full frame. Like, I find that it's hard to crop things out and maintain the right aspect ratio to get good prints out of the crop. Does a full frame give more room to crop things out, without loosing other things due to the ratios?

(lord I hope that makes sense....I am currently on meds for a medical issue, and they make me a little loopy at the moment, so I am not sure how cloear I am being)


ETA: not looking to buy/upgrade any time soon at all, no money to do so, just curious

rainbow

The FF has the same aspect ratio as the crop cameras. So if I understand you correctly, it will not alleviate any frustration you have of incorrectly composing a shot and trying to crop something out while maintaining the same aspect ratio. The FF taken from the same spot will be like having a wider lens when shooting from that same spot using the same lens.

Depending on the model, you can crop more without a degradation of the image. This is in part related to the megapixels of that model.

happysmileylady

Ok, so either I am not understanding ff bodies...or am totally not explaining myself right.

So, to see which it is, can someone post some images shot on a FF vs on a crop body (obviously without any crops applied) and/or explain the differences?

happysmileylady

Note to self, posting at 12:30 pm on meds isn't always the best idea. Problem is, apparently the meds make me more talkative in addition to loopy:D

rainbow

Better for you to experiment yourself.

Take your XSi and take a photo with your lens zoomed at 80 mm. Now take the exact same photo with the lens zoomed at 50 mm. The second photo is what a FF picture (like with a 5D) would look like IF you shot it at with an 80 mm lens. The first is obviously the way it would look with an 1.6X crop body like the XSi.

(Above assumes you have a lens with this zoom range)

rookieshooter

Funny, I usually have to crop stuff out in the corners that wasn't in the viewfinder like leaves and branches and stuff, but FF does give you wider coverage.

However in your situation you probably just need to take a step back and compose more carefully instead of spending the $1,000 or so extra for a FF sensor camera (compared to crop body).

Scott_Quier

Both the FF and the croppers produce images that conform to the 2:3 ratio. So, if you have issues cropping an image from a crop-body, you will have the same issues with an image from a FF - assuming similar field-of-view.

Sensor sizes:
XSi --> 22.2mm x 14.8mm ==> 2:3
5D2 (FF) --> 36.0mm x 24.0mm ==> 2:3

ivar

happysmileylady wrote:

I am currently working with an XSI. And crops...well, they are bugging me. Particularly if I have to crop out something I missed when composing (a bag in the corner, what have you.

So I am wondering, those that shoot and prefer full frame, why? Basically I am wondering if the stuff that bugs me in cropping is something that is solved by full frame. Like, I find that it's hard to crop things out and maintain the right aspect ratio to get good prints out of the crop. Does a full frame give more room to crop things out, without loosing other things due to the ratios?

Besides all the technical ups and downs of a ff: Regardless of the camera being a full-frame camera or not, what you will see through your viewfinder is what you will get (approximately, usually the viewfinder cuts a very tiny bit from the edges). So, using either camera you need to make sure that things like bags in corners are not there when you take the shot, since you will end up with the same problem. Does that make sense?

mercphoto

happysmileylady wrote:

This is discussion/curiosity only...

I am currently working with an XSI. And crops...well, they are bugging me. Particularly if I have to crop out something I missed when composing (a bag in the corner, what have you.

I need a clarification. Could you see that bag in the viewfinder? If so, the problem isn't the camera, its the photographer. Or did you not see it in the viewfinder and it then shows up in the very corner of the image? Your XSI does not have a 100% coverage viewfinder. In other words, the final image will have a bit more than what you see in the viewfinder. Some more expensive cameras do have 100% coverage viewfinders, but that's not because they are full-frame.

Photoskipper

rookieshooter wrote:

Funny, I usually have to crop stuff out in the corners that wasn't in the viewfinder like leaves and branches and stuff, but FF does give you wider coverage.

However in your situation you probably just need to take a step back and compose more carefully instead of spending the $1,000 or so extra for a FF sensor camera (compared to crop body).

Some cameras have the viewfinder cover less than 100%. Please check the menu how much the viewfinder cover.

I prefer to have the photo cover more and crop it in the computer to avoid missing anything and I have better control of composition. Shooting in the field depends a lot on the mood and situation. I may not have too much time to think about the actual composition and have it done at home with more thinking. shooting it very tight may limit the creativity on the later days. I like to revisit the photos and re-do the composition when I am free.

The reason I picked up FF was the old habit. I was so used to films and slides in the old days, before the digital era. Having the crop body is difficult for me.

Another thought was the FF has wider space between the pixels and provide high color dynamic and less noise. In general, it performs better at higher ISO.

Honestly, I think the crop body will become the main stream and leave the FF to the die hard film guys (like me). The cost of crop sensor is much lower than FF (check on Canon site for the manufacturing to FF, it low yield and much less sensor product per disc). Crop body become more good value.

Manfr3d

I prefer fullframe because of the brighter viewfinder and because depth of
field apears shallower. Shooting crop is like looking through a keyhole in
comparison. I would not worry about coverage, the back lcd always shows
100% of the frame.

divamum

Manfr3d wrote:

I prefer fullframe because of the brighter viewfinder and because depth of
field apears shallower.

Tangential question: WHY is dof shallower on FF? I always think of crop as "zoomed" slightly vs a FF, so in my mind that means the crop should have less DOF, but clearly that isn't the case. Can anybody explain this in a way that the mathematically clueless (that would be me) might understand?

mercphoto

divamum wrote:

Tangential question: WHY is dof shallower on FF? I always think of crop as "zoomed" slightly vs a FF, so in my mind that means the crop should have less DOF, but clearly that isn't the case. Can anybody explain this in a way that the mathematically clueless (that would be me) might understand?

The wider an angle of lens, the deeper the depth of field. And with a crop sensor camera you have to use a wider focal length to capture the same shot as with the full frame camera. Therefore your depth of field will be deeper.

To get the same shot at 16mm on a FF camera would require a 10mm lens on a crop camera. That wider focal length generates a deeper depth of field.

Manfr3d

divamum wrote:

Tangential question: WHY is dof shallower on FF? I always think of crop as "zoomed" slightly vs a FF, so in my mind that means the crop should have less DOF, but clearly that isn't the case. Can anybody explain this in a way that the mathematically clueless (that would be me) might understand?

The DOF is the same on FF and CROP, it only apears to be less on a FF camera because the DOF (what is sharp in the image) is not magnified by
cropping the image.

mercphoto

Manfr3d wrote:

The DOF is the same on FF and CROP, it only apears to be less on a FF camera because the DOF (what is sharp in the image) is not magnified by
cropping the image.

Well, yes, if you stand in the same place with both cameras and use the same focal length lens you get identical DOF. But that doesn't produce the same image. To produce the same image on the crop camera will require a wider focal length. And that will increase the DOF.

JohnBiggs

divamum wrote:

Tangential question: WHY is dof shallower on FF? I always think of crop as "zoomed" slightly vs a FF, so in my mind that means the crop should have less DOF, but clearly that isn't the case. Can anybody explain this in a way that the mathematically clueless (that would be me) might understand?

You are right. But because you are going to frame the shot the same, you will actually get closer to the subject with a full frame. This is going to make your DOF more shallow.

Manfr3d

mercphoto wrote:

Well, yes, if you stand in the same place with both cameras and use the same focal length lens you get identical DOF. But that doesn't produce the same image. To produce the same image on the crop camera will require a wider focal length. And that will increase the DOF.

Correct

divamum

Thanks guys - after months of wondering this, it finally makes sense

jmphotocraft

divamum wrote:

Tangential question: WHY is dof shallower on FF? I always think of crop as "zoomed" slightly vs a FF, so in my mind that means the crop should have less DOF, but clearly that isn't the case. Can anybody explain this in a way that the mathematically clueless (that would be me) might understand?

What merc said. Another way to think of it is like this: to get the same composition out of a FF camera as a crop camera using the same lens on both, the FF camera will have to zoom in and/or move closer to the subject. Both of these things create thinner DOF.

Cygnus Studios

I also prefer the FF as a holdover from the film days. Most of my shots are done with wide lenses. Having spent a couple of years with the crop sensor system, I had forgotten just how amazing a good wide shot looks until the D3 came out.

ziggy53

Cygnus Studios wrote:

I also prefer the FF as a holdover from the film days. Most of my shots are done with wide lenses. Having spent a couple of years with the crop sensor system, I had forgotten just how amazing a good wide shot looks until the D3 came out.

I too like the qualities of the FF systems with better control over DOF leading my justifications. Large aperture lenses with curved diaphragm leaves just work soooo nicely on FF.