Full Framed or Cropped

[DacrimL]

Just a general question regardless of camera types.

So which is the better way to go for a camera body FF (full frame ) or cropped?
I understand that FF lenses won't work on a cropped body as such, at least not without doing damage, whereas I have been informed that it will work the other way around.

What is the basic difference in image quality and types of uses? Is there specific fields for each type of body and lens combinations?

Cheers

[I @ M]

I understand that FF lenses won't work on a cropped body as such, at least not without doing damage, whereas I have been informed that it will work the other way around.

Whoa up there!!!!

Sounds like you have either been told a heap of bad info or you have totally misunderstood that which you have been told.

We must be a little more specific here regarding both brands and lenses so you need to tell us which camera system you are talking about.

Most APSC ( cropped frame ) camera bodies from the major manufacturers will have no problems with mounting a "full frame" lens on them and working perfectly.
There are exceptions to that scenario however but those exceptions are fairly rare.
The other way ( APSC lens on "full frame" body ) can be problematical due to either the inability to physically mount it or if the mounts are compatible the resultant image does not use the full area of the sensor.

However, there are still only miniscule amounts of combinations out there that will actually cause damage to either the lens or the camera.

[DacrimL]

I understand that FF lenses won't work on a cropped body as such, at least not without doing damage, whereas I have been informed that it will work the other way around.

Oops my bad sorry......you are right I@M, I have totally got it wrong. It should have been the complete opposite......where APSC lenses will not fit onto FF bodies.
I use a Canon EOS 450D.......which is as far as I am aware an APSC camera. However I do have a FF lens that works on it.

I guess I am looking to upgrade in the near future so was more interested in the differences to what each type of camera body is capable of achieving in respects to the type of fields one is better for......i.e, landscape, portraiture etc.....or does that not make any difference.

The other way ( APSC lens on "full frame" body ) can be problematical due to either the inability to physically mount it or if the mounts are compatible the resultant image does not use the full area of the sensor.

But does not the mirror fail to work correctly with the APSC lens on a FF body......some form of restriction?

[ameerat42]

DL, (It was going to be that or Dac/ri. Be prepared for anything)

I think - mainly opinion but with some observations thrown in - that now the Q of FF or CF isn't as important as it once was.
Factors that made one type better/worse in the past have been rather done away with, mainly through improved sensor technology,
and other body tweaks in the cameras themselves.

Perhaps you should ask what might be better for a particular type of photography, but even that may be a much of a muchness (or,
a bit of a bitness!!).

Ultimately, for whatever you do, image quality would have to come first. If it turns out there there is little discernible difference between camera
types then it comes down to what camera can provide other features that are good for you (and which you can afford).

Am(confusing, I know).

[Dug]

Since you are using a 450D lets stick to specifics of Canon in this situation.
A Canon crop frame camera will mount both an EF lens and EFs lenses with no issues.

A Canon FF has a mount that only takes EF lenses. The EFs lenses will not mount to safe guard that yes their design sets the rear element further back in the lens and could catch on the larger FF mirror.

[I @ M]

I guess I am looking to upgrade in the near future so was more interested in the differences to what each type of camera body is capable of achieving in respects to the type of fields one is better for......i.e, landscape, portraiture etc.....or does that not make any difference.

Holden or Ford?
Ooops, both those brands are now dinosaur status so the old argument can be laid to rest.
Similarly I believe that the arguments pertaining to APSC vs "full frame" are starting to wear thin. If you are considering Canon bodies and lenses then either the latest 7D or 5D will both be more capable cameras than most photographers can utilise. The big difference will come with the genre they are applied to. Bird photography and the inherent crop factor of an APSC body would lead me to look at the 7D, portraits would sway me the other way towards a 5D. The big factor is the quality of the lens in front of the body and the ability of the finger behind the shutter button.

But does not the mirror fail to work correctly with the APSC lens on a FF body......some form of restriction?

Queue the Canon experts --- I believe that the efs Canon lenses cannot be physically mounted on the "full frame" bodies to start with so any damage that results from such a union is likely to be through gross stupidity.

Have a read ------ http://support-au.canon.com.au/conte...200598300.html

[Mark L]

I guess I am looking to upgrade in the near future so was more interested in the differences to what each type of camera body is capable of achieving in respects to the type of fields one is better for......i.e, landscape, portraiture etc.....or does that not make any difference.

As Andrew touched on, it may depend on the fields you like to photograph, and possibly the lenses you already have.
So that's not much help!

[Tannin]

Full frame = less noise, cleaner image (much better in low light, not too different if the light is good), much better viewfinder in any light, greater cost, often much greater cost because the lenses can be very dear

Crop = cheaper, marginally smaller and lighter, higher pixed density (generally only useful for focal length limited tasks such as birds)

The lens/mirror damage thing you are thinking of applies only to really, really old cameras made before there was any such thing as an EF-S lens. I doubt that anyone still owns and uses a DSLR this old, except maybe the odd vintage camera collector - who by the nature of his hobby will know perfectly well that you mustn't mount an EF-S lens on that antique camera body. We are talking ... er ... from memory ... four models older than your ancient 450D. (Sorry, too lazy to refresh my memory there, maybe it was three. Look it up if you want the details; just search "EF-S lens" and take the first hit. But there is no need to do that: you won't be using a camera anything like that old.)

[ricktas]

Full frame = less noise, cleaner image (much better in low light, not too different if the light is good), much better viewfinder in any light, greater cost, often much greater cost because the lenses can be very dear

Hmmm. Full frame can mean less noise, cleaner image, but pixel density plays a part too. Exact same sensor, same manufacturing, one crop, one full frame, with equal equivalency of pixel density, should produce the same amount of noise, all things being equal. 2 sensors, both 24mp, then yes the full frame will have less noise/cleaner image cause those 24mp are spread across a bigger area thus each pixel on the ff sensor will be larger.

The rest of your post I agree with

[Kym]

Full frame = less noise, cleaner image (much better in low light, not too different if the light is good), much better viewfinder in any light, greater cost, often much greater cost because the lenses can be very dear

Not if the pixel pitch/technology is the same.
Consider 120 film ASA 100 and a 35mm film frame also ASA 100 -- the same exposure will have the same grain ... i.e. noise.
Take a 35mm sensor, and some black tape, mask the sensor down to APS-C size -- does the noise change due to the black tape? Of course not.

Crop = cheaper, marginally smaller and lighter, higher pixel density (generally only useful for focal length limited tasks such as birds)

Again, the pixel density is variable.
Eg.
The D800 has a pixel pitch of 4.88µm, while the D7000 has a pixel pitch of 4.78µm, the .10µm is almost insignificant.
Assuming the same software and CMOS technology the noise will be similar.

[Mary Anne]

Queue the Canon experts --- I believe that the efs Canon lenses cannot be physically mounted on the "full frame" bodies to start with

And you are right Andrew those EF-S lenses cannot be mounted into a FF body as they have a black rubber/plastic ? ring on them that makes them longer at that end.

so any damage that results from such a union is likely to be through gross stupidity.

Its not stupidity Andrew, more a bad sight thing when I picked up my Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens years ago and tried to put it on my FF 5D Mark 11 Canon body.
Its so easy to do and Hey Guess What *Its Human to Err * we all do it nobody is perfect and as you get older it gets worse.

I did not do any damage to my camera, though I did knock the plastic Focusing Screen out of the 5D Mark 11 it fell on the Tassie Oak floorboards and I stood on it.
Actually broke one the the tiny plastic lugs that click in/on to it somewhere in there. I could have bought one myself and put it in but with my eye sight no way.
Rang around a few places then sent it down to Sydney as here in Brisbane they wanted one and a half times the Sydney price, got it back in about four days.

Packed that fantastic EF-S lens away and when I get that 7D Mk11 I have ordered I will be using it, and I wont make the same mistake again Plus I will never upgrade my FF camera ever.

[DacrimL]

Have a read ------ http://support-au.canon.com.au/conte...200598300.html

An excellent read and makes a lot more sense to what I was asking thank you

[Lance B]

Not if the pixel pitch/technology is the same.
Consider 120 film ASA 100 and a 35mm film frame also ASA 100 -- the same exposure will have the same grain ... i.e. noise.
Take a 35mm sensor, and some black tape, mask the sensor down to APS-C size -- does the noise change due to the black tape? Of course not.

Except that you need to enlarge the APS C size more (1.5x or 1.6x) to match the FF image and therefore that will mean the noise is "amplified" or made to look bigger in relation to the FF image.

[Dug]

Crop vs FF

The say 700D or 7D (I and II) in crop and the 6D or 5D mk3 in full frame all have different strengths.
Sensor size is only part of the equation of what might suit your needs and depending on your usage it might be one of the less important factors.

All of them are capable of taking great pictures.

For instance I chose the 6D.
I shoot mainly static subjects.
Don't need or want a complex AF
I like its middle ground size
Don't use flash, so don't miss built in flash.
I like to shoot at night a good percentage of the time.
Don't have a lot of need for long reach.
Good price for a FF, more in the budget for lenses.

A good percentage of my favorite shots where taken on my previous 350D with the same lens I use now, so FF will not change your life or anything.

[Bennymiata]

I notice a huge difference in the IQ of shots between my 60D and 5D3, especially with noise.
While I don't like going above 1600ISO on my 60D (and even that is rare), I am happy to use the 5D3 up to 4000 ISO and still get good results.

I have a crop sensor Canon that does not accept EFs lenses, it's a Canon D60 (NOT 60D), that was my first digital SLR which I got around 2003, and it still works pretty well.
The screen on the back is about the size of a postage stamp though.

[arthurking83]

..... so FF will not change your life or anything.

Actually! .. it probably will(in some way) .. the cost of good lenses for the larger formats has to come from somewhere .. that'll be money not spent on something else(other peripheral accessories/holidays/family/life in general/etc..)

As for the potential in the actual image making side of using a larger format system .. it could provide the possibility for more enjoyment of the outcomes that one can achieve.

I reckon that this will be dependent on what you want to achieve, and the effort made trying to achieve it. More options in life, in general, can directly translate into more possibilities for change.

But the general premise of the comment sounds accurate.
If one has the outlook that getting a bigger(or better) camera will instantly generate better images without the necessary additional effort from the user .. then for sure .. life will probably not change much.