Why do they say full frame is better than cropped?

With all the steps in technology, and crop sensor camera's becoming better and better. Does this statement still hold true? Are full frame camera's still better than crop?

It's like saying Hum Vees are better than other vehicles. In some situations it may be true. In many others not so much.

I have found that most of the time people, including experienced photographers, can't tell the difference between my large prints (up to 20"x30") shot with my 8mp APS-C Canon 20D and my 21mp 35mm 5DII. At least for ISOs 400 and slower.

I agree with Henry. Having both, there are definitely times when the full frame body is the only one to use, other times, it doesnt matter too much.

Low light photography is certainly at the top of my list when the full frame body is the one to grab; it simply has better high ISO abilities.

That makes sense, I was in my local hole in the wall camera store and the owner is one of those people that has a answer for everything. Usually his answers are full of technical information and easy to get lost in. He was talking to another person in the store today and kept saying "full frame is better than cropped any day of the week" over and over again.

So that is where my question came from.

Fiesta! wrote: He was talking to another person in the store today and kept saying "full frame is better than cropped any day of the week" over and over again

If that were true there would be little point in making APS-C format professional cameras. The reason there is a choice is because each has strengths and weaknesses that have to be assessed individually.

Full frame gives you more DOF and true FL's. The only advantage crop sensors has is reach.

Full frame Vs. Crop sensor cameras

Advantages of full frame sensor cameras:

-could take full advantage of your wide angle lens. This is useful for shooting landscapes.
-better image quality when using high ISO. This is helpful when shooting in low light situations where flash is not available or permitted.

Disadvantage of full frame sensor cameras:
-more expensive bodies
-lenses are bigger


Advantages of crop sensor cameras:
-could take advantage of crop factor to take more detailed shots at longer distance. This is useful when shooting sports and wildlife.
-cheaper than full frame cameras.

Disadvantage of crop sensor cameras:
-could not take full advantage of the wide angle focal length of the lens.

Many APS-C DSLRs have a faster flash sync speed than 35mm DSLRs.

As photographic technology improves, and the quality people want is available in a smaller camera, that format becomes popular. The consumer cameras of 120 years ago would be considered large format. Film got better and people switched to medium format folders and TLRs. By the late 20th century 35mm was good enough for most folks. Today APS-C digital doesn't have too much trouble matching, even beating, 35mm film.

Henri Cartier Bresson's peers told him 35mm was for amateurs and tourists. I think he proved them wrong.

So my question is how did 35mm, which used to be considered small format, become "full frame"? Why isn't 6x7cm or 4x5 or 8x10 full frame? They must be very full frame.

Henry Peach wrote: Many APS-C DSLRs have a faster flash sync speed than 35mm DSLRs.

As photographic technology improves, and the quality people want is available in a smaller camera, that format becomes popular. The consumer cameras of 120 years ago would be considered large format. Film got better and people switched to medium format folders and TLRs. By the late 20th century 35mm was good enough for most folks. Today APS-C digital doesn't have too much trouble matching, even beating, 35mm film.

Henri Cartier Bresson's peers told him 35mm was for amateurs and tourists. I think he proved them wrong.

So my question is how did 35mm, which used to be considered small format, become "full frame"? Why isn't 6x7cm or 4x5 or 8x10 full frame? They must be very full frame.

LOL, no they would be medium format and large format. The term 'full frame' refers to the imaging sensor being the same size as a frame of 35mm film. DSLR bodies are based on the same form factor as 35mm SLR bodies, thus the 35 mm comparison. A medium or loarge format camera is a completely different form factor.

Henry Peach wrote: It's like saying Hum Vees are better than other vehicles. In some situations it may be true. In many others not so much.

I have found that most of the time people, including experienced photographers, can't tell the difference between my large prints (up to 20"x30") shot with my 8mp APS-C Canon 20D and my 21mp 35mm 5DII. At least for ISOs 400 and slower.

That't the point right?! 400 and lower ISO there won't be much difference, but FF is generally a lot better at higher ISO levels. It's not just the amount of grain either, it's the quality of the grain. I found it's much smoother and more even on FF cameras as opposed to crop cams.

That and more details, shallower DOF and full use of a lenses field of view make FF cameras the best choice.

Like Scotty said, only advantage is reach.

You don't get more "reach" with a smaller format. A particular focal length on any format creates exactly the same image size on the sensor/film. The photographer is just asking the lab to enlarge it more, which of course could be done with photos from any camera of any format.


"Why do they say full frame is better than cropped?"

Because in general people like to say bigger is better, about almost everything. They make these generalizations because they don't want you to think or learn, they just want you to salivate over the next upgrade, and keep spending your money. Or they want to say my toys are better than your toys. Cameras have always come in a variety of formats, and the advantages and disadvantages of choosing a smaller or larger format are pretty much the same today as they were 100 years ago.

Here's an obvious advantage of smaller format: they are significantly cheaper. Not important to everyone, but some folks don't want to/can't spend $2000+ on a camera body.

Henry Peach wrote: You don't get more "reach" with a smaller format. A particular focal length on any format creates exactly the same image size on the sensor/film. The photographer is just asking the lab to enlarge it more, which of course could be done with photos from any camera of any format.


"Why do they say full frame is better than cropped?"

Because in general people like to say bigger is better, about almost everything. They make these generalizations because they don't want you to think or learn, they just want you to salivate over the next upgrade, and keep spending your money. Or they want to say my toys are better than your toys. Cameras have always come in a variety of formats, and the advantages and disadvantages of choosing a smaller or larger format are pretty much the same today as they were 100 years ago.

Here's an obvious advantage of smaller format: they are significantly cheaper. Not important to everyone, but some folks don't want to/can't spend $2000+ on a camera body.

Reach and FL are two different things.

I'm with HP on this one...

There's some things an 8"x10" (large format camera) can do that a 35mm or DSLR simply can't. But, there are also lots of things they can do that an 8x10 can't. One is a slow laborious process requiring a tripod. The other is small, fast, light and can go anywhere.

Sometimes the smallest camera (and lenses) are best. Other times you need the flexibility of a large format camera. Sometimes a full frame body is the right tool to use, and other times a cropped sensor camera will do just fine. They're simply different "tools" used for different reasons.

So the answer to the "which is better" q. is simply which tool is best for what you want to use it for.

Matthew

BTW there are times a DSLR may not be allowed into certain venues. At those times, a pocket or phone camera would take better photos -- unless you have planned for a press pass.

For wildlife Cropped is king when using a lens meant for film/FF. This is due to it cropping the image already once, it doesnt give you more reach but crops the the Field of View amking it appear to have more reach. This is an advantage over the Full Frame because you have the latitude to crop it again and make the subject even larger. For a FF to get the same apparent sixe of the cropped sensor you have to crop it, and to get the crop of a cropped sensor you have to crop even more degrading the image. Full Frame as others have stated rule the High ISO and wide fields of view. So if you like having reach go croppedif you shoot wide and at lower light levels full frame.Either way both beat the hell out of film in High ISO and versatility.

MLKstudios wrote: I'm with HP on this one...

There's some things an 8"x10" (large format camera) can do that a 35mm or DSLR simply can't. But, there are also lots of things they can do that an 8x10 can't. One is a slow laborious process requiring a tripod. The other is small, fast, light and can go anywhere.

Sometimes the smallest camera (and lenses) are best. Other times you need the flexibility of a large format camera. Sometimes a full frame body is the right tool to use, and other times a cropped sensor camera will do just fine. They're simply different "tools" used for different reasons.

So the answer to the "which is better" q. is simply which tool is best for what you want to use it for.

Matthew

BTW there are times a DSLR may not be allowed into certain venues. At those times, a pocket or phone camera would take better photos -- unless you have planned for a press pass.

I don't think this was ever about large format?