| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2008 04:38:40 PM · #1 |
Like many others I daydream over how I might upgrade my camera body to either the 50D or the 5DII sometime when I have some spare $. One question I have is that given the 5D is full frame, would a crop of the resulting shot equate to the same quality as a shot on a 1.6 crop sensor? I worry about losing reach in going FF.
So, to give an example...if I shoot on a 1.6 crop sensor (the 50D for example) with a 200mm lens, and I shoot on a full frame sensor (the 5D for example) with a 200mm lens and then crop the resulting shot, would I see similar quality of the resulting image? |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:43:44 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Like many others I daydream over how I might upgrade my camera body to either the 50D or the 5DII sometime when I have some spare $. One question I have is that given the 5D is full frame, would a crop of the resulting shot equate to the same quality as a shot on a 1.6 crop sensor? I worry about losing reach in going FF.
So, to give an example...if I shoot on a 1.6 crop sensor (the 50D for example) with a 200mm lens, and I shoot on a full frame sensor (the 5D for example) with a 200mm lens and then crop the resulting shot, would I see similar quality of the resulting image? |
Dislaimer: I am not an expert in photography, I just know a bit about image analysis...and I have not tried full frame bodies either. But just the science of it hints to me that the closer to the center you go on the sensor, the better image quality (lower distortion and aberration) you can expect. This owes itself to the fact that lenses are -not- perfectly aspherical, and what goes through their central axis should have lower optical distortions. All this is of course assuming teh same quality sensor is used. So in this case, cropping a full frame image may give better image quality. I wouldnt be surprised if there are exceptions in practice though.
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 16:46:42. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:49:23 PM · #3 |
If I remember correctly the pixel density on the 30/40D was the same as the 5D. The 5D having more sensor area resulted in a larger image file.
The only time it became an issue for me was during a Macro challenge run under the Minimal rule set. A 50mm macro on a 30D is tighter on the subject at the same distance than it is on the 5D. Cropping was not allowed so I was forced to get closer to the subject for the same relative magnification.
Now the 50D is higher in megapixels than the 20/30/40D, so the pixel density issue may be different. The macro situation above will still exist though. Also know that cramming more MP onto a sensor does not necessarily translate in to higher image quality. In some instances, image quality can be reduced even though the MP count goes up.
Not sure this helped. ;-) |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 04:55:16 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
if I shoot on a 1.6 crop sensor (the 50D for example) with a 200mm lens, and I shoot on a full frame sensor (the 5D for example) with a 200mm lens and then crop the resulting shot, would I see similar quality of the resulting image? |
You would likely see less noise, a shallower DOF, and more sharpness (from the shorter focal length at a given shutter speed) on the full frame image. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 05:09:31 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
if I shoot on a 1.6 crop sensor (the 50D for example) with a 200mm lens, and I shoot on a full frame sensor (the 5D for example) with a 200mm lens and then crop the resulting shot, would I see similar quality of the resulting image? |
You would likely see less noise, a shallower DOF, and more sharpness (from the shorter focal length at a given shutter speed) on the full frame image. |
If that's the case then the "reach" argument for crop sensors doesn't hold up does it? |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 05:57:26 PM · #6 |
| When you crop you obviously lose resolution. With a 5D, that may be an issue, especially if you want to print the image larger. I can't see it being as big of a deal with a 5DII, because of how much resolution it has. But I dunno. I personally don't think a crop from a 5D would be as high of quality as a normal shot on a 1.6x camera like a 40D or 50D. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 06:07:47 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Anti-Martyr:
When you crop you obviously lose resolution. With a 5D, that may be an issue, especially if you want to print the image larger. I can't see it being as big of a deal with a 5DII, because of how much resolution it has. But I dunno. I personally don't think a crop from a 5D would be as high of quality as a normal shot on a 1.6x camera like a 40D or 50D. |
I wondered if the cropping would just be taking the resolution down to similar to what the cropped cameras are producing anyway? The 5D2 being 21mp while the 50D is 15mp. So in the end we are left with a similar resolution image perhaps? |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 06:24:18 PM · #8 |
In my unprofessional opinion. Given two sensors, one full frame, one cropped, each with the same mp. The cropped sensor will yield a better result than a full frame cropped, provided a professional lens is used.
Things to take into account, a cropped sensor samples a smaller area of the image or light, therefore imperfections in the lens will be amplified, however edge blur will be reduced along with vignette. A full frame using the whole glass would yield smaller imperfections however increased edge blur, vignette, and CA.
A full frame sensor, cropped, then resized to match the original image size (simulating what a cropped sensor would do), would actually yield (assuming the same number of mp as the cropped sensor) a much worse image since detail would be spread across fewer pixels in the cropped area.
So if I have all that correct, which I may not, heh. Given a professional lens, I would think...
Cropped Sensor > Full Frame Sensor (Cropped and Resized)
Full Frame Sensor + 300mm lens > Cropped Sensor + 200mm
So genuine reach cannot be beat, otherwise a cropped sensor is second best, cropping a full frame sensor would be a last resort.
Again all this assuming the same number of mp on each sensor. If the full frame sensor has more mp then much of this becomes moot. So, after cropping the difference in the number of pixels between the cropped sensor and the cropped image is what matters, given a good lens.
Anyone care to correct me? I'm a little spacy right now *shakes head and falls over* damn flu...
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 07:37:27 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by togtog:
In my unprofessional opinion. Given two sensors, one full frame, one cropped, each with the same mp. The cropped sensor will yield a better result than a full frame cropped, provided a professional lens is used.
Things to take into account, a cropped sensor samples a smaller area of the image or light, therefore imperfections in the lens will be amplified, however edge blur will be reduced along with vignette. A full frame using the whole glass would yield smaller imperfections however increased edge blur, vignette, and CA.
A full frame sensor, cropped, then resized to match the original image size (simulating what a cropped sensor would do), would actually yield (assuming the same number of mp as the cropped sensor) a much worse image since detail would be spread across fewer pixels in the cropped area.
So if I have all that correct, which I may not, heh. Given a professional lens, I would think...
Cropped Sensor > Full Frame Sensor (Cropped and Resized)
Full Frame Sensor + 300mm lens > Cropped Sensor + 200mm
So genuine reach cannot be beat, otherwise a cropped sensor is second best, cropping a full frame sensor would be a last resort.
Again all this assuming the same number of mp on each sensor. If the full frame sensor has more mp then much of this becomes moot. So, after cropping the difference in the number of pixels between the cropped sensor and the cropped image is what matters, given a good lens.
Anyone care to correct me? I'm a little spacy right now *shakes head and falls over* damn flu... |
This was my understanding as well. I seem to recall a study a while back that had side by side examples which came to the same conclusion.
Message edited by author 2008-10-28 19:39:42.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 07:59:59 PM · #10 |
| Here is a link where a comparison of a full frame and cropped sensor with images to compare. Bottom line, it is hard to make a case for one or the other. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 08:39:14 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
if I shoot on a 1.6 crop sensor (the 50D for example) with a 200mm lens, and I shoot on a full frame sensor (the 5D for example) with a 200mm lens and then crop the resulting shot, would I see similar quality of the resulting image? |
You would likely see less noise, a shallower DOF, and more sharpness (from the shorter focal length at a given shutter speed) on the full frame image. |
Not so for the shallower DOF; assuming both images are shot with the same 200mm lens at the same f/stop, DOF between the APS-C image (an effective 320mm) and the cropped-to-match FF image (also an effective 320mm) would be identical.
R. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/27/2025 12:29:45 AM EST.
