full frame digital and cropped sensor, a question

[back alley]

not trying to troll here or start an argument...

am trying to understand the reasons why folks do not like cropped sensors...

if i look at sensors like i used to look at film it makes some sense to me...there is/was 8x10 film, 4x5, 5x7, 120 and 35mm film among others...
for many, the masses, 35mm film was the most popular and many cameras and lenses were part of that equation.

when digital sensors came along they were/are also made in many sizes...full frame and apsc are 2 among the many. apsc is smaller than full frame and so some might not care for the smaller size...understood.

but most folks seem to object based more on the impact that the lenses have on apsc cameras. that being the 'change' in focal length or field of view.
so, is it a certain kind of rigid thinking that makes the ff more to people's liking or a difference in image quality or the need to shift mental gears and realize that my 40mm lens is now acting like a 61mm lens??

 

[andredossantos]

I have always shot two primes: a wide (28mm or 35mm) and a 50mm. On a crop body I lose both of these focal lengths.

Yes, I can get a 25mm and a 21mm, or
something. But then I lose having a fast normal, etc. I think it's more of a comfort thing. Yes, I can simply adapt but i do this for fun so why compromise?

FWIW, I went back to film until I could afford a FF camera.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I'm with you...crop sensor is OK with me. Sometimes it's an advantage. I confess I have made the FF leap, but mostly for the better sensor, not the crop. My DSLR is APSC too, and I think it's great.

 

[gb hill]

To me it would be a mental thing. I would want a 40 to render like a 40mm lens. Reason to buy a cv21mm I guess. BTW how do camera's such as the M8 bring up the correct framelines to match the field of view of said lens with the cropped sensor?😕

 

[back alley]

one of the cool things that i have discovered is that i really like the 60mm pov!
while the 40 was always a fvae now it's a fave for different reasons!

 

[LKeithR]

I suspect that most of the dislike of APS-C comes from the way it "modifies" our favourite lenses. After all 35mm was "the" standard for a long time so it only makes sense that many of us--especially old codgers like me--base our expectations of FOV and reach on it. I personally don't have a big issue with APS-C; I've adapted quite nicely and simply buy and/or use lenses that give me the reach and/or FOV that suits a particular task and everything is fine. To take this one step further, however, I'm quite keen to acquire a mirrorless compact sometime in the not too distant future but I know I won't be looking at any of the m4/3s offerings because I can't abide by the 2x crop factor.

On another tack, with sensors, as with film, the larger the size the more detail one can have in an image. As well as 35mm we've also had MF and LF, each providing progessively greater amounts of detail but at a higher price point and with less convenience but that's always been a choice based on cost and convenience rather than availability...

 

[back alley]

greg, i don't know if i can describe it...but my 40 still looks like a 40 to me...even with the 60mm pov...the images may be cropped some but they also 'feel' like a 40 still.

 

[LKeithR]

one of the cool things that i have discovered is that i really like the 60mm pov!
while the 40 was always a fvae now it's a fave for different reasons!

This is one of the things I've come to realize--I have learned to like my lenses for what they produce and what they "are" as opposed to what some standard says they should be...

 

[gshybrid]

A 40mm on a cropped camera is not really the same as a 60 on a FF... it's equivalent to a 40 on a FF that has been cropped. The relationship between the foreground and the background changes with different focal lengths regardless of the sensor size. I recently moved to FF and I must say it is nice to be utilizing the edge to edge performance of the Leica glass I paid a premium for.

one of the cool things that i have discovered is that i really like the 60mm pov!
while the 40 was always a fvae now it's a fave for different reasons!

 

[David67]

A 40mm on a cropped camera is not really the same as a 60 on a FF... it's equivalent to a 40 on a FF that has been cropped. The relationship between the foreground and the background changes with different focal lengths regardless of the sensor size. I recently moved to FF and I must say it is nice to be utilizing the edge to edge performance of the Leica glass I paid a premium for.

I don't think the relationship between the foreground and the background changes with different focal lengths. It only changes if you change your POV.
The differential focus between foreground and background may differ, but otherwise a cropped 50mm gives the same image as a FF 75mm.

Personnally I like APS C in DSLRs : smaller camera, and you use the center of the lens only.
But of course I prefer film if I have time.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Started taking photos with a 35mm film SLR and bought lenses with the angle of view I wanted to use. That was one of the reasons for never getting a cropped sensor DSLR. Every time I looked through a cropped sensored DSLR's viewfinder it was like looking down a tunnel even compared to an FN2m's viewfinder. My first DSLR was the D700 and I got my angle of view and non tunnel like viewfinder back. As a bonus I got better high iso performance and and my DOF back that I was used to. I imagine that if you came directly into DSLRs near the start of digital it would not matter to you because that would be your normal. I guess it is a matter of what you are used to.

Bob

 

[SciAggie]

For me, when I went from a crop sensor DSLR to a FF I noticed a change in image quality that I preferred. The high ISO performance improved as well. So I like full frame. That being said, I shoot a lot of sports with my DSLRs and there is a reduction in frames per second with the increase in sensor size. The impact on the effective focal length is noticeable but is neither a pro or con from my point of view - just different.

 

[former member]

The full-frame sensor is most important for wide-angle lenses. For portraits, and tele-photo work, not as important. I've been packing the M8 and M9 with the same lens on each, to try to get a feel for this. The full-frame is nice, but for portraits- not a necessity. For wide-angle work, it is a big improvement.

 

[damien.murphy]

After spending a month or two walking around with a dslr in hand, I am sure glad for crop sensors.

A full frame sensor has natural benefits in terms of dynamic range, high iso performance and ultimately megapixel capacity. I don't like the trade-off's though, namely the increased weight and increased cost. On the weight issue alone, I discovered several years ago, wearing a mid range model dslr (Nikon D200) with even a small prime mounted, around my neck, would cause strain, and am more than happy to utilise smaller dslr's to alleviate this issue.

Unfortunately in the dslr world, smaller dslr's usually mean less well specified/ lower range models. After adjusting to a lens set that simulates the focal lengths I'm comfortable with, I've absolutely no qualms in shooting a crop sensor dslr, and find no real deal breakers in doing so, with regard to the slow paced shooting, I normally use my film rangefinders for.

My lessons buying used film cameras have taught me that older dslr's do not suddenly become poor performers overnight, just because they've been superceded by the latest and greatest model, and am quite happy to utilise dslr's a generation or two old, which can usually be had for buttons compared to the cost of the newest lastest models.

In all, not really sure why so many aspire to full frame dslr's, when in many cases, crop sensor dslr's may suit them better. I'm really just threading water though, until digital cameras reach the point where it is possible for a camera to have high resolution, great high iso, and the dynamic range of negative film, in a body comparable to the size of an old-style film/ rangefinder camera body.

 

[berlincontemporary]

but most folks seem to object based more on the impact that the lenses have on apsc cameras. that being the 'change' in focal length or field of view.

I like my fast vintage lenses from corner to corner, thats where all sorts of optical "defects" come into play. All that is lost on a smaller sensor.

It doesnt matter much with perfectly sharp lenses or stopped down though.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Most DSLR systems now employ lenses designed for the format, and the geniuses at Sony have annihilated the low light advantage of all but the very best FF cameras. The CCD in the M9 is a special case, but in DSLR-land, FF is not as relevant as it once was.

 

[berlincontemporary]

I don't think the relationship between the foreground and the background changes with different focal lengths. (...)
The differential focus between foreground and background may differ

???

Has been discussed to death already and there´s a huge wikipedia article on it.

 

[damien.murphy]

The full-frame sensor is most important for wide-angle lenses. For portraits, and tele-photo work, not as important. I've been packing the M8 and M9 with the same lens on each, to try to get a feel for this. The full-frame is nice, but for portraits- not a necessity. For wide-angle work, it is a big improvement.

It is important, when your focal length of choice is not available on a crop sensor camera. In my case, shooting a crop sensor dslr means all the great 85- 100mm 'portrait' lenses out there become unreasonably long, and unsuitable for my style of portrait shooting. In the past, I've made do with 50mm lenses which approximate a 75- 85mm field of view on a film slr, but shooting lenses designed with high sharpness and unimpressive bokeh, means it is nothing more than a compromise solution. This was the main draw in the past for me for 'full-frame' cameras, and not just an issue restricted to wide shooters.

 

[former member]

Damien- should have thought about that. Being a Sonnar fanatic, my 105 does not get much use on the DX format Nikons. I use it on the old E3. At some point, i will pick up a D700 or something to use my SLR lenses. Right now, My F2AS and F2Sb get used.

For the Leica M8, the 5cm Sonnar worked out to a short portrait lens.

 

[jky]

Mostly comfort & high iso.
Re: comfort
A 35 is a 35... no need for a 28 on a 1.33 crop or a 24 on APS-C.
Re: high iso.
My D700's sensor negates the need for artificial lighting in many situations.