Crop v Full Frame, my own test

Obviously this question has been debated to death on many forums, but I thought I would just share some results where I used four people to get their opinions.
So the set up was my Full Frame Canon 5d2 with a Canon 17-40 lens v my Crop Nikon D7100 with a Tokina 11-16 lens.
I used a tripod and took great care to capture similar light with identical settings.
I sent the files to four people and asked them to be as honest as possible, pixel peep etc and let me know which images were the best. These were landscape shots that I used.
To my surprise the results were as follows: two people thought the D7100/11-16 were slightly sharper/better colour rendition and the other two people thought there was no difference between both sets of images (I must admit I struggled to see any difference).
I did a few with a higher iso and the Full Frame won due to noise appearing in the crop images.
I didn't do any low light trials, but I would expect the FF to win that battle.

However, I think this goes to show that a crop body and lens can easly hold its own in the Landscape department. Sure there are much better combinations out there, but for any one starting out thinking they have to purchase FF gear, I would say think again.

As a result of my test, my remaining Canon gear is up for sale and I will soon be a Nikon only guy

Peter, This is a little puzzling to me that you use different camera brands, camera bodies (with different sensors), and lenses (maybe similar) to compare, and verify the quality of the images from each set of equipment, and then determine if the image of either FFS or CS is better (or equivalent). How would you expect if you use the same brand bodies with FF and CS for the same test? More curiously, for basing your switch (or become a Nikon-only user) on the test outcome, does it mean you won't acquire and use any Nikon FF bodies? I really doubt it. But maybe I am missing something here because I don't own and use any FF camera any brand (though I am hearing much about Canon R6, R5, and even R3). Still wish you well and joy in the photography adventure with any brand.

Peter, that was very intersting to read, but why did you choose your D7100 here over the D500? Just curious.

I'm betting that if you used the D500 for a low light comparison it would stack up quite favorably against the FF Canon. I believe it does better in that regard than any of the 7xxx series, no?

blackstar said:

Peter, This is a little puzzling to me that you use different camera brands, camera bodies (with different sensors), and lenses (maybe similar) to compare, and verify the quality of the images from each set of equipment, and then determine if the image of either FFS or CS is better (or equivalent). How would you expect if you use the same brand bodies with FF and CS for the same test? More curiously, for basing your switch (or become a Nikon-only user) on the test outcome, does it mean you won't acquire and use any Nikon FF bodies? I really doubt it. But maybe I am missing something here because I don't own and use any FF camera any brand (though I am hearing much about Canon R6, R5, and even R3). Still wish you well and joy in the photography adventure with any brand.

Click to expand...

Until a few years ago, all my gear was Canon only and during that long period of time I found FF to be better for landscapes based on the FF bodies and crops I owned at that time. I gradually made the switch to Nikon having tried a couple of bodies/lens from friends who were firmly in the Nikon camp.
My initial thoughts were along the lines of finding a good crop and then maybe adding a FF at some stage. Before I had the chance to look at a FF purchase I had read an article which suggested the D7100 could match the D600 when it came to Landscape shots. Maybe the missing filter on the D7100 really helps��
So I decided to see how my very capable Canon FF would stand up to my Nikon crop. Given that the latter performed very well, it has certainly made me think I will not be looking to add a FF to my collection in the near future.
I suspect there might only be a couple of things that may tempt me in the future and that is the low light performance not being very good on the crop and not so good iso performance.
I do agree, it was not a very scientific or normal match to compare, but more a case of highlighting that crop bodies can hold their own in Landscape Photography. Often the first thing you hear for people looking to get into this field is, FF is the way to go. Well I beg to differ ��

Dangerspouse said:

Peter, that was very intersting to read, but why did you choose your D7100 here over the D500? Just curious.

I'm betting that if you used the D500 for a low light comparison it would stack up quite favorably against the FF Canon. I believe it does better in that regard than any of the 7xxx series, no?

Click to expand...

Good point and all I can offer is that I intend to use my D500 as my wildlife/sports body and my D7100 probably as my everything else body.
I have always in the past had a similar set up with a couple of different bodies in different camera bags with lens to match the occasions in the appropriate bags ��. I did this with my Canon system, my Minolta system and my Pentax system before that (Goodness it took me a long time to get to the holy grail of the Nikon). Where I got the idea from, I don’t know. Hopefully I’m not the only photographer out there with this weird set up, LOL
Of course I will try out the low light capabilities of my D500 but I will be surprised if it can match a FF sensor.

I'd be quite interested in seeing your results should you ever try that comparison! And you know I'll be rooting for the home team

Good point Peter. The D500 is totally great for wildlife/sports photography (take a look at the D500 shots posted for this year, everyone of them is wildlife/sports). I plan to stay with with my D7200 since I don't do that much wildlife/sports. I am sure, the D7100 will work OK.