canon 5d question ff vs crop

k2c1959

i am wanting to know from the "GURU's"... i have been thinking of stepping up to the 5d camera due to full frame capabilities. i feel as though i'm missing out on something, not sure what.. i was always happy shooting film and since going to digital, i feel as though using the crop cameras i'm losing out on half a picture each time i use them. i mainly shoot landscapes and general outdoor photos,some portrait work, indoor amatuer sports. is it really me or just do photos (posted) actually look that much better on ff versus crop. i have a plethora of lenses, so lenses are not a concern, i have been thru the search on the boards and have not really found what im looking for, i guess what im asking is , is it really that much a difference going from crop to ff. searching for answers here, or maybe just a justification to spend mo' money.....:dunno

mercphoto

My own personal opinion is that full-frame has only a few benefits:

1) lower noise due to large pixel sensor sites
2) larger, brighter view finder
3) better for wide-angle photography
4) better for shallow depth of field photography

Crop factor cameras have a few benefits:

1) better for telephoto photography
2) can benefit from redesigned lenses (see Canon's EF-S as one example, or 4/3's system as a better example)
3) conversely, if using a "full frame" lens, the crop factor camera only uses the central "sweet spot" of the lens
4) smaller sensors are much less $$$ and always will be

I do admit I like the viewfind in my 1.3X crop factor 1D Mark II over my 1.6X factor 20D. Larger, brighter, nice. But I shoot telephoto a lot, so its a toss-up with me.

Regarding my comment about $$$ and sensor size I've had several people tell me that full-frame sensors will eventually get "cheap". I tend to disagree. A 24x36mm piece of silicon is huge. But nonetheless, a crop factor sensor will always be smaller than full-frame, and will always be less expensive.

One real problem full-frame sensors have, however, is the fact that a light sensor really wants light to hit it perpindicular to the surface of the silicon. This happens automatically at the center of the image. But conventional lenses let light hit at an angle at the edges of the sensor. This is not a problem with film, but is a problem with digital. Those "digital" lenses you see advertised are usually designed with a final rear element that makes as much of the image as possible strike the sensor at a right angle, even towards the edges.

thebigsky

mercphoto wrote:

3) conversely, if using a "full frame" lens, the crop factor camera only uses the central "sweet spot" of the lens.

I've never fully understood this argument, if your lens quality is such that you only want to use the 'sweet spot,' can you not, given that the full frame camera will typically have a larger resolution just shoot an imaginary border around your image and crop the image?

Am I missing something?

Charlie

Richard

thebigsky wrote:

I've never fully understood this argument, if your lens quality is such that you only want to use the 'sweet spot,' can you not, given that the full frame camera will typically have a larger resolution just shoot an imaginary border around your image and crop the image?

Am I missing something?

Charlie

Gee, Charlie, maybe you can, but it's just one more thing to think about while you are shooting. As for me, I am grateful when I haven't forgotten to change the ISO to the appropriate setting. That said, one does always have the option of cropping in post.

Cheers,

pathfinder

KC,

I think Bill has done an excellent job of describing the relationships between FF and APS based DSLRs.

I shoot with a 20D or a 5D, largely depending on whether I want to use a wide angle or a telephoto, AND how large I anticipate the prints may be needed. The focusing and handling of the 20D and the 5D seem very similar in my hands. The viewfinder is brighter in the 5D than the 20D, but does not come close to a 1DMkll.

I also shoot with a 1DMKll - here the advantage is not the different sensor size, but the speed and accuracy of autofocus and the faster high speed frame rate.

In short, I choose which camera to use based more on expected needs, not that I think one is 'better' than the other. To choose which is 'better' means precisely defining your needs as to which is really 'better'.

I love shooting with a 1DsMKll in the studio, but I strongly prefer to carry a 20D for an afternoon's walk, UNLESS I really need the capability of the 1 series camera. I define 'better' as better for the task I plan to execute in the next few hours. Size and weight enter into this decision also. As well as cost, obviously.

For shooting birds with long telephotos, I prefer the 1DMll strongly over a 5D - faster focusing, faster frame rate, etc, but less pixels and less ability to enlarge or crop slightly. I also shoot a 20D with a 300+2X TC precisely because it is light and encourages shooting handheld for those shots that do not present themselves to tripod based shooting.

Like a good carpenter, you need to understand what each tool does the best, and choose accordingly. For the price of a 5D, you can have a 30D and some excellent lenses. Excellent glass is a much better use of limited funds as they will be with you longer and provide you with better images whichever body you are using.

I see lots and lots of excellent shots here on dgrin and on the web that were shot with Digital Rebels - BUT they did have first rate lenses and shooting technique.

The argument over FF versus APS sensor based cameras tends to miss the point - choose whichever works the best in your hand with your eye. Many of use who grew up with film SLRs tend to prefer FF, because out eyes tend to see FF, but a good crop sensored camera can be a real boon to a sports shooter or a wildlife shooter who needs good LONG glass.

You may find that you are like me and eventually will not be happy until you have both.

LiquidAir

Here is how I would call it:

If on your 1.6 crop body much of your photography is at 200mm or longer you will be significantly happier sticking with the crop format. Getting the same reach on full frame is both much more expensive and heavier than it is in the crop format.

If you mostly shoot with slow midrange zooms, you won't notice much difference between the formats. The performance of the 17-85 EF-S on a 30D and the 24-105/4L IS on a 5D will be fairly similar. The 5D will be better, but the difference is not huge and probably doesn't justify the difference in price for most people.

If you shoot with the PJ suite (24-70/2.8L and the 70-200/2.8L IS) full frame starts to pull significanly ahead. The range of shots available to you with those leneses is definitely broader on full frame than it is on a crop body.

If you shoot with fast midrange primes the full frame is dramatically superior to what you will get on a crop body. I shoot mostly with the 35/1.4L, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and the 135/2L and they give me images that are completely out of the reach of the crop format. The larger sensor gives a shallower depth of field than is possible in the crop format and the lower pixel pitch gives sharper images at wide apetures.

mercphoto wrote:

One real problem full-frame sensors have, however, is the fact that a light sensor really wants light to hit it perpindicular to the surface of the silicon. This happens automatically at the center of the image. But conventional lenses let light hit at an angle at the edges of the sensor. This is not a problem with film, but is a problem with digital. Those "digital" lenses you see advertised are usually designed with a final rear element that makes as much of the image as possible strike the sensor at a right angle, even towards the edges.

On the issue of sensor vignetting:

This is much more of an issue for rangefinder and P&S style cameras than it is for SLRs. On a Leica, since there is no mirror the lens can get extremely close to the sensor so the angle of incidence is very large. Leica had to design special microlenses for their sensor to deal with this issue. On an SLR the lenses must provide clearance for the mirror so the angle of incidence can never get very large. The minimum lens to film plane distance on a 35mm SLR is about 35mm. The distance from the center of the frame to the corner is just under 22mm. This means the maxium possible angle of incidence on an SLR is 38 degrees which is not really all that steep. Measured vignetting on the 5D from this is about 1/6 of a stop which is barely perceptable. The reality is that sensor vignetting is not worth worrying about. All the vignetting you will actually see on a 5D is due to the lens not the sensor.

jdryan3

pathfinder wrote:

You may find that you are like me and eventually will not be happy until you have both.

That's it!. I need to go buy that 30D I want as a backup.

Seriously though, I had the original Digital Rebel. and upgraded to the 5D, mainly because I wanted to print large (12x18) images and the wide angle. I do see more vignetting on my 24 f/2.8 wide open, and a little on my 70-200 f/2.8 wide opne, but nothing I can't live with for now. I also had a 75-300 and it was very decent if on a tripod on the 300D (effective 480) but that lens had it own problems.

Bottom line: if you shoot wide, the 5D is very good. But you will pay for the reach you get on a crop. I chose the 1.4x extender as an interim solution until I get the <cough> 400 f/2.8 <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

claudermilk

I think Pathfinder got it best. They are each tools with a different purpose. Here's some heresy: to me a 5D is a downgrade from my 20D. Why? Slower frame rate and the fact that it's FF. For my use the 24-70 and 70-200 are just right on a 1.6 sensor. To do better, I'll need to go to the Mk IIn--quieter shutter, 8.5fps and still 1.3 crop. So in my case, the 5D is the wrong tool for the job.

pathfinder

Precisely, a 5D's frame rate is only 3 fps, and seems glacial to a 20D shooter.

It is interesting that Chris likes the 24-70 on a 20D - I do not -it is too big and too heavy for MY taste - But I use a Tamron 28-75 on a 20D routinely. Or a 24-105 on a 5D.

As for large prints, I made lots of nice 13x19 prints with a 6Mpxl 10D, so a 20D should do that easily. For a 5D, I think 16 x 20 or so. Or even larger.

The slow frame rate for the 5D should not bother a wedding shooter though, and the shallower DOF with an 85mm lens might be really nice, as is the brighter viewfinder.

They are all great tools, and each has their own best uses. But they are all so much better than film ever was, what's not to like??

Tee Why

Several months ago, Practical Photography while testing the 16MP 1DsMII took same shots with it and a Rebel XT (8MP). They then printed 4x6, 8x12, and 12x18 inch prints and asked people, including photographers, to tell which was from a better camera. For 4x6's 96% couldn't tell the difference, for 8x12, 87% couldn't tell the difference, and for 12x18 prints, 66% couldn't tell the difference.

pathfinder

But.... you can crop an image from a 5D or a 1DsMkll and retain a lot more quality than if you cropped a 20D image a similar amount........ But then, I ALWAYS compose to the edges of the frame, and never have to crop any unnecessary portion of my frame:D

Tee Why

A 20D will also crop for you at a 1.6 factor, so I'm not sure if that is a big point. As you pointed out, if you shoot long, a cropped body may be better.

claudermilk

pathfinder wrote:

Precisely, a 5D's frame rate is only 3 fps, and seems glacial to a 20D shooter.

It is interesting that Chris likes the 24-70 on a 20D - I do not -it is too big and too heavy for MY taste - But I use a Tamron 28-75 on a 20D routinely. Or a 24-105 on a 5D.

As for large prints, I made lots of nice 13x19 prints with a 6Mpxl 10D, so a 20D should do that easily. For a 5D, I think 16 x 20 or so. Or even larger.

The slow frame rate for the 5D should not bother a wedding shooter though, and the shallower DOF with an 85mm lens might be really nice, as is the brighter viewfinder.

They are all great tools, and each has their own best uses. But they are all so much better than film ever was, what's not to like??

Like I said for my uses. The 24-70 on my 20D happens to be the *perfect* range for the coffee shop venue I frequently shoot at--from exactly full-body at 24mm to head-and-shoulders at 70mm. At the black-box theaters the 70-200 goes from small group at 70mm to head-and-shoulders at 200mm, so 98% of what I want to do is accomplished there. For me these combos are absolutely the right tool for the job. The day I finally am able to scratch together enough to add a MkIIn, I'll probably not be in love with the 1.3 crop for a while.

As for size, well, I guess I'm weird in that the 20D/grip/24-70 seems just about right to me. With an Op/Tech pro strap, I've carried that around all day comfortably as a walk-around setup.

The really nice thing is that Canon gives us all these choices to get the optimum setup for each of our uses.

surly

cost
The only reason I see to shoot with a smaller sensor is cost and if thats so important there are plenty of tiny PS's with small sensors

I think if one to rent a 5D one (just) might prefer it over the 1.6 crop sensors