Please show me samples why full frame is better than crop? Take the challenge

adamandbean

Senior Member
Sorry to be a PITA, but perhaps the easiest way to help me understand is by you showing me a comparison of the same object in full frame vs crop, and why it is better. Again, I am not trying to stir up anything here- I just am curious as to why many people say that full frame is better.
I do realise the basic differences such as DOF and light gathering ability, but my d7000 looked better than the sony a7 in the previous post. This surprised me.

Many thanks,


Adam
 

WayneF

Senior Member
Sorry to be a PITA, but perhaps the easiest way to help me understand is by you showing me a comparison of the same object in full frame vs crop, and why it is better. Again, I am not trying to stir up anything here- I just am curious as to why many people say that full frame is better.
I do realise the basic differences such as DOF and light gathering ability, but my d7000 looked better than the sony a7 in the previous post. This surprised me.

Many thanks,


Adam


You might not be getting it yet. :) Just open any old previous image in your photo editer, make a duplicate, and then crop one of them to be 2/3 the size of first. Then zoom to enlarge the small one to show same size as the large one, side by side.

If assuming same lens is used (as true in this photo), this is exactly what DX does compared to FX. It is a crop, nothing more, nothing less... a crop. This crop and enlargement shows the same telephoto effect we imagine we see in DX.

We do choose different lenses to accommodate the different cropped view we see. And these different lenses do react accordingly. For example, 24mm is rather wide angle on FX, but is only slightly wide, a more normal view for DX. Cropped DX has to use a 16mm lens to see the same wide view as uncropped FX with 24mm. And a 16mm lens is becoming more extreme optically, likely more distortions, more diffraction, etc. Depth of field is different too.

Sensors vary widely too, and sensor pixel density can be a factor (resolution and noise). These have been FX advantages (and the wide angle views too).
 
Last edited:

AC016

Senior Member
As Zack says, neither camera has any feeling, vision and can not "feel" moment. Neither one knows anything about composition either. The one who has all of this, is the idiot behind the camera and that is you. You want to argue, or should i say bicker, about FF vs Crop sensors, you're wasting your time and energy. If you want to argue about real differences, compare an 8X10 to an APS-C sensor. You may actually be able to win that one. Watch the video and pay particular attention to what he says at 10:00. FF vs Crop is futile, lame, boring and so passe.
 
Last edited:

Eyelight

Senior Member
Depends on what you do and why you do it.

I suspect that a majority of photography committed in the world of the DX and FX formats could be done with either and a plethora of it could be done with a CX or smaller format.

Not saying that there are not images that would be better on one or the other, or that there are not conditions where FX would certainly have an edge. But if FX is better for everything simply because it's bigger, then why stop with the relatively small FX format.

Would every FX camera perform better in every situation than every DX camera???????

Depends on what you do and why you do it.
 

Bill16

Senior Member
Being one of those who have both DX and FX Nikon's, I get to have fun with both kinds. But to me it's not which one is better, but which one feels right for the shot I'm wanting to do. As has been said, this is an old argument. But to me they are both awesome! Lol :)
What I would recommend, is good one of each! ;)
 

J-see

Senior Member
From my little experience with both I'd say that it isn't necessarily about which is better but about what you are willing to trade in for something else.

It's not as if one of both only has advantages. What you gain, you lose somewhere else.
 

Eyelight

Senior Member
Thinking about it, there are only a few things that are different between the 2 formats, regardless of the cameras.

Considering the same subject & view:


FX
DX
DOF at same view & distance
Less
More
DOF at same focal length & distance
More
Less
Field of view at same focal length
wider
narrower
Focal length to achieve same FOV
longer
shorter


What else is there that is different that is strictly related to format?? The difference would be true for all cameras.
 
Last edited:

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Sorry to be a PITA, but perhaps the easiest way to help me understand is by you showing me a comparison of the same object in full frame vs crop, and why it is better. Again, I am not trying to stir up anything here- I just am curious as to why many people say that full frame is better.
Instead of making these silly "challenge" posts of yours and asking us to "prove" something to you, allow me to suggest your time and energy might be better spent by getting on Google, doing some research on the differences between full frame and crop sensor cameras, educating yourself on the topic in general, possibly even gain some first hand experience and then forming your own opinion?

By way of advice I would tell you if you can't discern the difference then don't pay for it and get on with life. By the same token, though, don't assume because you can't discern the difference that there is no difference to be discerned.

....
 

J-see

Senior Member
Does that hold true for all FX sensors against all DX sensors?

From what I read there should be a difference in noise and noise control between FX and DX. But lately I'm not sure of anything I read.

Bigger area to gather light should lead to less noise and a higher dynamic range.

Edit: I went looking and this I picked from Nikon's site.

"The FX sensor, with more "light gathering" area, offers higher sensitivity and, generally, lower noise."
 
Last edited:

J-see

Senior Member
For most photography it matters little if you use FX or DX. You pick the format you like and get the buttons you pay for.

There are only two arenas where the debate FX vs DX counts and that is wildlife and macro. It's purely about the crop advantage in regards to quality.

I've shot most of my macro with the DX and let's just assume it takes slightly better quality shots. But the price I pay is only being able to take a fraction of the shots I could take with the FX. In macro it is all about detail and while the DX has the crop advantage, the moment you need to push the ISO, the noise starts to ruin that detail. 75% of my macro shots are the lens pointed downwards. If there's one direction that lacks light, it is there. I need to have good days with good light to be able to shoot good macro shots. That's less an issue with the FX. An additional issue with macro is the closing down of the lens it requires. That demands loads of light which low ISO very often can't provide.

The other is birding. Some of you live in a tropical paradise but here it's not always great. Today I went birding for a bit and most shots required 1600 ISO to get my 1/1000th or 1/1250th shutter speed for flyers. With the DX 1600 ISO makes it harder to get a good shot, let's not even talk about 3200 or 6400.

The crop advantage comes at a cost but it depends on the circumstances if that cost matters. Here, for me, it makes the difference.
 
Last edited:

Bill16

Senior Member
I'll have to give this some thought. I hadn't considered some of the points you mentioned, and I may want to give my D700 a go at macro sometime.
I don't shoot birds, but I'm going to try to get more squirrel photos, and I know a higher ISO would have been a big help on my first couple tries. So my D700 might be the way to go there, even though I lose some reach without cropping.

Thanks for the info my friend! :D

For most photography it matters little if you use FX or DX. You pick the format you like and get the buttons you pay for.

There are only two arenas where the debate FX vs DX counts and that is wildlife and macro. It's purely about the crop advantage in regards to quality.

I've shot most of my macro with the DX and let's just assume it takes slightly better quality shots. But the price I pay is only being able to take a fraction of the shots I could take with the FX. In macro it is all about detail and while the DX has the crop advantage, the moment you need to push the ISO, the noise starts to ruin that detail. 75% of my macro shots are the lens pointed downwards. If there's one direction that lacks light, it is there. I need to have good days with good light to be able to shoot good macro shots. That's less an issue with the FX. An additional issue with macro is the closing down of the lens it requires. That demands loads of light which low ISO very often can't provide.

The other is birding. Some of you live in a tropical paradise but here it's not always great. Today I went birding for a bit and most shots required 1600 ISO to get my 1/1000th or 1/1250th shutter speed for flyers. With the DX 1600 ISO makes it harder to get a good shot, let's not even talk about 3200 or 6400.

The crop advantage comes at a cost but it depends on the circumstances if that cost matters. Here, for me, it makes the difference.
 

J-see

Senior Member
My main problem with the DX for macro has always been light. I've constantly been hunting for a stop I could take here to invest there. ISO was the main reason. The very maximum I could use was ISO 800 and that ruined plenty a shot. When shooting handheld 1/320s to 1/400th would give the best results since I'm shooting that close, any imperfection just stands out. I could gain some when using a tripod but the reality is that unless you're shooting flowers, tripods aren't very practical for bugs. At least not for fast movers. A flash might help too but also isn't always practical and you need quite a system to shoot flying bugs that require 1/1000th or more.

When I went into the woods here, macro was close to impossible. The overgrowth eats most light and combined with a lens pointing downward, a mushroom in some clearing at low shutter I could manage but anything moving fast was "look at" only.

The FX I can take into the woods and shoot. I'm sure I would have a hard time pulling of a fully detailed 1:1 macro at ISO 6400, especially if I need to crop that but when being able to use the full shots, I can get away with quite some ISO in comparison to the DX. Evidently, the D750 is pretty decent at it.

I don't know how your D700 will perform but it might turn out to have advantages for certain shots.

For all other things DX vs FX matters little. Higher dynamic range and such is great but only matters when comparing. It's the same with DoF, FoV or Bokeh. Those differences are only obvious when putting two identical shots next to the other. For a shot on its own, it would matter little. None can look at a shot and say "that's typical FX or DX" because of those. At least not when having zero EXIF information.

It's only now I have the D750 shots next to my D3300 that the differences are obvious and I can point out what I like more in the one or the other. Before that, I was perfectly fine with anything the D3300 shot. And most of those differences have to do with the dynamic range they grab. But it's 500$ vs almost 5 times that price. I'd be sad if there wouldn't be any difference.

Here's an example of two rather similar shots. Keep in mind both use a different lens too so sharpness should be ignored to a degree.

This is the bridge shot at night with the D3300 and a shot I was perfectly happy with.

007-3.jpg

This is the same bridge, other side of the canal shot with the D750. Yes the clouds make a difference but the range is what makes most.

023.jpg

I also lost quite some detail to clipping for the D3300 (bottom of the shot, path) while this wasn't the case for the D750. For both, I was standing in a pitch black area. The D750 was shot with LE noise reduction off. Not a good idea but it still did well.
 
Last edited:
Top