Can you tell which one is crop or full frame?

A

adamandbean

Senior Member
I cannot. Even when I zoom in I do not see any difference. Is full frame really that more detailed? If it is, I cannot see it. One is f4 at 1/60 and the other is f4.5 at 1/80. D7000 and Sony a7 D7000 with sigma 15mm 2.8 fisheye. Sony a7 with 28-70mm kit lens.

Adam
 

Attachments

  • DSC00006.jpg
    DSC00006.jpg
    57 KB · Views: 151
  • DSC_0432.jpg
    DSC_0432.jpg
    72.2 KB · Views: 150
W

WayneF

Senior Member
One image is 15mm, the other between 28 and 70 mm. The bigger image (esp the bigger background) is probably the longer lens.

Crop and full frame is not about detail. It is about frame area.. (and while it depends on the sensors, also possibly about the size and numbers of the pixels in that area)

If using the same lens on both, the image out of the lens is the same of course. Digital merely tries to reproduce it.
If using the same lens on both, and standing at same spot, full frame shows the scene half again wider (not cropped smaller).
If using the same lens, cropped DX has to stand back half again farther to show the same scene in the smaller area (so we use shorter lenses - then depth of field changes when we stand closer - however DX generally has greater DOF).

All of the images are presented on the number of pixels that the sensor can do (which varies in models). Digital noise and high ISO performance is improved by pixel size, which depends on pixel density in that area. And the (lens image captured by the sensor area) DX image has to be enlarged half again more for us to view it the same size later.

See FX - DX Lens Crop Factor
 
Last edited:
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
If everyone just shot the best they could with what they had, there would not be a need for these silly little DX vs FX threads.

DX shooters who want to but can't afford to get into FX land trying to justify their equipment with silly little hand shots and such. Please, stop the madness.
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
Blacktop said:
If everyone just shot the best they could with what they had, there would not be a need for these silly little DX vs FX threads.

DX shooters who want to but can't afford to get into FX land trying to justify their equipment with silly little hand shots and such. Please, stop the madness.
Click to expand...


Gee, you just ruled out 90% of the threads here.... D3100 vs D7100, 60mm macro vs 105mm macro, Nikon vs Tamron, etc, etc, etc.

Do you have that authority? If you don't want to read it, then it seems easier if you just don't read it.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
WayneF said:
Gee, you just ruled out 90% of the threads here.... D3100 vs D7100, 60mm macro vs 105mm macro, Nikon vs Tamron, etc, etc, etc.

Do you have that authority? If you don't want to read it, then it seems easier if you just don't read it.
Click to expand...

Di I have the authority to do what? Make a comment?
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
Come on guys, lets play well together :)

I think we need examples with the same lens. It's really more about different tools for different purposes. DoF is a huge difference.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Rick M said:
Come on guys, lets play well together :)

I think we need examples with the same lens. It's really more about different tools for different purposes. DoF is a huge difference.
Click to expand...

If we're going to compare shots between a DX and an FX camera, I think (IMHO having absolutely no authority) , we need to see more then just someones left hand.
If I'm wrong in my opinion I apologize and will refrain from further posting.
 
S

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
In any kind of "scientific" comparison, you can only change one variable. In this case, you could change bodies. You can't change lenses, background, focal length, lighting...... You're asking for trouble when you post something like this.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
With sensors getting so much better, it's more what you shoot to get the best results. For a birds/wildlife, I'd take the D7100 over my D610. People/events/landscape, I'd want my D610 instead. Narrow DoF, D610. Sports, D7100.
 
K

Krs_2007

Senior Member
Yep, too many variables. If you really want to see the difference then take a low light shot with both having the same ISO, you will see a difference. But again like mentioned the variables are not good for the comparison you are trying to make.
 
A

adamandbean

Senior Member
Well, the answer is this: Photo 1 is Sony a7 with kit lens 28-70mm. Photo 2 is d7000 with sigma 15mm 2.8d fisheye. Photo 2 looks better to me , but I was disappointed as I took photo 2 with MY camera! I was expecting photo 1 to be special as it is full frame and everyone keeps saying that "full frame is better", but I cannot see it. Is it possible that the sigma 15mm is a very good lens? Much better than the sony kit 28-70mm?
I am actually trying to buy a full frame but haven't seen why everyone raves about it? And I am not trying to stir up here but would like to convince myself. Anyway, if full frame is really that much better, shouldn't we see the difference just from shots like the ones above? Surely it is not necessary to compare them under controlled conditions.


Adam- Nikon user
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
What I think is that with the size reduction imposed by the format of our Forum, it will be nearly impossible to see the difference here. Print a large print of both and then, maybe you'd be able to see a slight difference. Of course, the DoF will be different and I suspect that within the normal iso range (100-1600), the difference would hardly be noticed by common viewers. We can discuss all we want, but until we can stand in front of actual prints made by both, we'll never be able to judge on a computer screen with 1200x1200 pixels prints.
 
S

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
Adam.....hate to criticise....but comparing a fisheye lens shot with a Sony kit lens is just wrong on so many levels. It does nothing to prove your theory about which is better....full frame or cropped sensor cameras.

Personally, having owned both and the A7, it depends on what you are shooting. The lens has a tremendous lot to do with it too. Generally, I liked the D7100 for taking my auto show pictures, but when stood side by side with my D610, they BOTH took amazing shots with lots of detail and very high resolution. The D7100 allowed me to crop out looky lou's who were all over the fairgrounds. It was easier, and no OLPF. The D610 also took amazing pictures using the same lens. Check out the thread and compare the shots I took with the same lens. I was using the Nikon 14-28 mm f/2.8, one of the Holy Trinity from Nikon. Some of the pictures were shot with the D7100 and some with the D610. That's more of a fair comparison, because I used the same lens on both bodies. I was just going to use the D7100, but some people here suggested I use the D610, as I was wasting the capabilities of the lens when shooting with the D7100. Hogwash, I say....I mean Hogwarts. The D7100 took in my opinion just as good, if not better shots than the D610. I really liked them both. Here is the link>
 
Last edited:
Top