Let's talk about some established opinions (or myths?) about small camera sensors.
We will talk about matrices with a crop factor of more than x2.
This research material was born as a response to some statements from visitors to our channel #Youtube. Statements (about cameras with cropped matrices) such as: “slag”, “for amateurs”, “not serious”, “flawed photographers with cropped cameras”, etc.
Some research conducted with different cameras from different manufacturers led us to the conclusion: modern cameras (produced in the last 2 years) with a crop sensor (crop from 2.7 to 1.5) have improved the quality of photos so much that the proud owners of Full frame cameras are slowly will go into a narrow niche advertising photography for large format printing.
And that's why.
At the moment, several myths (or misconceptions - as you like) are quite common about the advantages of full frame (full-frame matrices) compared to matrices with a crop factor:
Myth 1
Narrow dynamic range of cropped matrices. Those. The smaller the physical size of the sensor, the narrower the dynamic range. What is dynamic range?
Sensor dynamic range- this is the range of brightness between the darkest and lightest point of the image that the camera is able to record.
It is measured as the ratio of the maximum and minimum exposure values of the linear portion of the characteristic curve.
In practice, dynamic range describes a camera's ability to highlight details in shadow and light.
“Narrow dynamic range” - from a technical point of view, in photography this means that part of the gradations in the brightness of the image will not be recorded by the digital camera matrix and will be lost.
The statement is more true for old matrices.
For modern matrices, this indicator has reached a level where the boundaries and the difference between crop and full-frame matrices are erased.
Myth 2
Low resolution crop matrices.
If you are not going to print a poster in A-1 size, you will not need a resolution of more than 10 million pixels. By the way, Olympus sensors (OMD M-5, M-1) have a resolution of 16 megapixels). And the Nikon D3200 resolution is 24 megapixels, with a crop size of 1.5!
For reference, the E-M5 Mark II features a 40-megapixel 40M Hi Res Shot mode. The company relied on an advanced stabilization system, and today, essentially the same technology has made it possible to obtain an image with a real resolution of more than 40 megapixels on the same 16-megapixel sensor.
Frames taken in this mode “stretch” beautifully. That is, you can increase them up to 600-700 percent and get ready-made billboards for a small skyscraper. They “stretch” so well because “the pixels have no edge effects.”
16 mgpcs today is a reasonable minimum. Modern technologies make it possible to produce an m4/3 format sensor with high resolution without any problems, but here an inexorable and merciless phenomenon comes into play - diffraction.
The more megapixels you need to fit into the same sensor size, the smaller the cell must be, and the sooner diffraction occurs when you tighten the aperture, and the image begins to lose detail.
Myth 3
The smaller the matrix, the greater the digital noise. (Noisy at high ISO)
Cropped cameras are capable of taking photographs of acceptable quality with a sensitivity of ISO 6400!
You can take into account that the recently announced Fuji X-pro2 can work perfectly at ISO 12800, like a full frame.
And practice shows that noise reduction is influenced by processor performance in conjunction with high matrix technology. This is proven by example Canon 600D And Canon 650D- with the same matrix, but different processors, the noise level in the latter is several orders of magnitude lower. (similar situation Nikon D3200 Xspeed3 Nikon D3300 Xspeed4. There seems to be a significant difference in the noise level for similar matrices).
An example of an evening photograph taken with Nikon 1 V1 (10 MP), Helios 44m-4 MS lens, at ISO800 on a 2.7 cropped matrix (Dnieper embankment)
Myth 4
Low class camera
There is an opinion that crop cameras cannot meet all the requirements of professionals and, accordingly, do not reach the pro level in terms of class. To prove the opposite, you can look at the work of professionals performed with crop-top mirrorless cameras on such sites as 500px.com, Yandex photo, Flickr, etc.
*Very similar to works done with specific camera models on Yandex Photo by simply entering the camera (or lens) model into the search bar. The search takes into account EXIF camera data. For example:
And again, as an example, we will use the Olympus OMD M-1 camera. All the camera systems are simply amazing.
As the market shrinks, competition between manufacturers becomes even fiercer. Olympus certainly has an advantage over Nikon and Canon in this segment. This company has done everything to create a camera that will beat the competition. The only manufacturer that can compete with Olympus here is Panasonic, which also has its own line of Micro Four Thirds cameras.
Main characteristics of the Olympus OM-D EM-1 camera
Matrix: CMOS format 4:3 (physical size - 17.3x13 mm), number of effective pixels - 16.1 million.
Micro Four Thirds mount
Processor: TruePic VII
Viewfinder: electronic, 2,360,000 dots, diopter adjustable, 100% field of view
Image Stabilizer: Sensor shift, 5-axis, vertical or horizontal activation; compensation range up to 5 EV steps
Focus: contrast
Focus area: 81 zones, automatic and manual selection, auto selection when face detection is active, manual selection in zoom view mode
OM-D E-M5 Mark II is a representative of the “middle class”. In the sense that the flagship E-M1 is aimed at professionals or super-enthusiastic amateurs, the E-M10 is aimed at successful people who are passionate about photography. And the E-M5 and E-M5 Mark II are for enthusiast photographers. This is the “middle class”.
Myth 5
Lack of bokeh
We agree 50/50. There is bokeh, but it is not as aggressive as on full-frame cameras. For a more artistic blur of the background, it is advisable to use optics manufactured for this crop. In this case, light particles (photons) will be received by the matrix from the optics in the full spectrum and this will guarantee maximum blurring of the background.
The cheapest telezoom NIKOR 55-200mm VR DX f4-5.6. Nikon D80 camera, 1.5 DX crop.
The minimum depth of field (achieving artistic bokeh) using a telephoto lens is obtained at the longest end of the focal length. In this example, 200mm.
Myth 6
Limited ability to work with manual optics.
— All cameras in the Olympus model range retain the operation of the camera’s exposure meter, which makes it possible to work in aperture and shutter priority modes. There is also a digital zoom (or “screen magnifier”) that magnifies the image in the focusing area by 10 times and allows you to comfortably focus. In other words, working with manual optics is simply fun for the photographer.
Full Frame gets slippery underfoot. And soon it will become more and more difficult to justify the purchase of an expensive, heavy full-frame camera.
The Olympus company has never in its history produced matrices with a crop less than 4/3. Why? Is it really like that? famous company So he doesn’t respect himself and does “slag”? What about the ratings? best cameras (recent years) By different countries a world where Olympus ranks first with its flagships?
The answer is simple: the company makes a quality product for both amateurs and professionals on conditions of sufficiency. Olympus offers optimal models for consumers in different classes. Those. the product meets the requirements of consumers.
Full-format Nikon and Sony cameras (maybe others) can operate both in normal full-format mode, when the entire camera sensor is used to obtain an image, and in cropping mode. For example, you can use the APS-C (DX for Nikon) crop mode. In this mode, only the central area of the camera sensor is used. The size of this area exactly matches the size of the matrices on cropped APS-C cameras. To put it simply, full-format cameras can be made to ‘work with a crop’.
The ability to shoot in crop mode allows me personally to slightly manipulate equivalent focal lengths (EFLs). For me, this turned out to be a very nice feature when shooting with prime lenses.
Example of using crop mode: I often photograph events with a fast fifty-dollar lens and a full-format camera. Sometimes I can't get close enough to the subject, so I turn on the crop mode. To do this, in the camera menu, just turn on the ‘Image area’->’Select. image area’ and select the value ‘DX format 24 x 16’ there. In the “AF Point Illumination” setting, I have the value “Off” selected, which allows, after enabling the ‘DX Format 24 x 16′ function, to darken the unused area of the image visible in . In fact, through the optical viewfinder, I only see the image that I get after releasing the shutter. Visually, it seems that the lens turns from a 50 mm prime into a 75 mm one. This trick makes it easier to frame the future shot and reach more distant subjects.
Of course, I understand perfectly well that the exact same result can be obtained by cutting out the central part of the photo during processing (the result will be 100% similar to what I get with the 'DX Format 24 x 16' function). But psychologically it is much more convenient to frame the frame directly during shooting.
WITH electronic viewfinder it’s even simpler - there you immediately see the image obtained from the central part of the sensor without darkening the areas in .
So, switching between FX formats<->DX and shooting the same scenes with the same lens, I noticed that sometimes the background and foreground blur in DX format looks (visually) stronger than in full-frame FX mode.
It should be just the opposite! We all know the story that full-format cameras blur the background more strongly. How then?
Look at the next two photographs and note for yourself where the blur in the background is stronger. Blurring refers to the size of the circles of blur.
First photo:
Original shot from a Sony a7II camera. The image has many circles (disks) of blur
Second photo:
Original from a Sony a7II camera in APS-C mode (actually a cut out of the central part of the previous photo)
Visually, the blur zone in the second image is more pronounced, and the blur discs are larger. At the same time, the second picture, roughly speaking, was taken with a cropped lens. This happens if you shoot from the same distance without maintaining the proportions in the frame.
Let's take a separate, clearly defined disc (circle) of blur.
From a full-length photo:
Blur disk in a full-frame photo
From the cropped photo:
The selected blur disk is the same size in pixels across photos.
A full-length photo from a Sony a7II measures 6000 x 4000 pixels (24,000,000 pixels). The area of the circle is Pi*D*D/4 and equals 54.297 pixels. In this case, the size of the circle is 1/442 of the entire image (0.23%).
The cropped photo from the Sony a7II measures 3936 x 2624 pixels (10,328,064 pixels). The area of the circle is Pi*D*D/4 and is equal to the same 54.297 pixels. In this case, the size of the circle is 1/190 of the entire image (0.53%).
When moving from a full-format shot to a cropped one, the ratio of the blur disk to the entire frame increased by approximately 2.3 times. The same number could be obtained thanks to the coefficient Kf=1.5 by squaring it.
A serious conclusion arises: if you shoot with cropped and full-format cameras on the same lens, at the same value and from the same distance, then due to different proportions of blur zones.
Spoiler 1: different cameras of the same type (crop or full frame) have different numbers of megapixels, but the ratio of the blur disk to the entire frame will be the same.
Spoiler 2: I was asked to do an experiment with a point light source placed at infinity. I didn’t do this, so the experiment can be considered not 100% fair. You can conduct your own investigation of the circles of blur at infinity.
Spoiler 3: in the article I show pictures reduced to the same size in pixels - 1200 pixels on the longest side. This needs to be taken into account.
Spoiler 3.1: for comparison, cropped and full frame images were adjusted to the same size. The pictures have the same aspect ratio of 2:3; when downscaled, the pictures look the same.
Spoiler 4: the article is not about depth of field. Do not confuse depth of field and blur disk.
Spoiler 5: do not confuse the depth of field and the blur power of the distant / foreground. The depth of field may be the same for two shots, but the strength of the background/foreground blur will be radically different. To put it very roughly, the depth of field depends most strongly on the F number (aperture number), and the blur of the distant/foreground depends most strongly on the focal length of the lens.
The tricky part is that the ratio of object size to frame size will change. To shoot the same object, in in this case- a twig with berries, with the same scale (so that the size of the twig in the frame is the same on both a full-format and a cropped camera) in the case of a cropped camera, you will have to move further from the subject being photographed than when using a full-format camera.
To maintain the proportions of the subject being photographed in the frame from a full-format and cropped APS-C camera, the focusing distance must differ by 1.5 times. The difference in focusing distances is easy to calculate using my calculations.
Very important: the difference in focusing distance corresponds to the coefficient.
All the pictures below were taken with the same ISO settings, and , but with different focusing distances and framing modes (the same as if they were shot with a cropped and full-format camera at the same settings).
The first photo was taken in full frame mode (FX mode), the focusing distance is approximately 45 cm (data from):
The second picture was taken in crop mode (DX mode), the focusing distance is approximately 45 cm (data from). The photo was taken with the same camera, from the same position as the previous photo, just this time the ‘DX 24 x 16’ format mode was turned on (a complete analogy if a cropped camera was used). You can see how much the shooting scale increases:
Let's move the camera away from the object being photographed. The third photo was taken in full frame mode, the focusing distance is approximately 60 cm (data from):
The fourth photo was taken in crop mode, the focusing distance is approximately 60 cm (data from). The photo was taken with the same camera, from the same position as the previous photo, just this time the ‘DX 24 x 16’ format mode was turned on (a complete analogy if a cropped camera was used). You can see how much the shooting scale increases:
Comparison of a photo taken with a “full-format” camera and a “cropped” camera:
It is clearly visible that the proportions of the subject being photographed in the frame remain the same (i.e. with same scale), but the transfer of perspective has changed. In the case of the DX mode, the perspective has become narrower (it is visually felt as an influx of distant background). The compressed perspective in the DX image matches that of a 75mm lens used on a full-frame camera.
The change in perspective is clearly visible in the following GIF animation. Notice how in DX mode (i.e. crop) the distant shot “zooms closer”, compressing the perspective:
A small note. Although I indicated that the difference in focusing distance should be 1.5 times to obtain the same shooting zoom, you can see that in this case the difference is 60cm/45cm=1.33 times. A small error may be due to the fact that the data may not be recorded entirely accurately. This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that the lens has an MDF equal to 45 cm, but I did not shoot on MDF, since the focus ring was not screwed all the way, but at the same time it shows 45 cm. Also, the lens has the Focus Breathing effect - changing the angle review while focusing. And the pictures, nevertheless, are not quite similar due to lens distortion (at the edges of the full frame and are more noticeable).
A small conclusion that everyone passes by: while maintaining the shooting scale (the subject being photographed has the same proportions in paired photographs) on a full-format camera and on a cropped camera, using the same and identical F number (for example, the same fixed lens with the same number F) visual blur (out-of-focus zone discs) on the crop will look larger than on the full frame. Yes exactly! The crop will actually blur the background/foreground more. If you don't believe me, then just take a close look at the GIF animation above. You can visually see how much larger the blur zone discs of the DX camera are than the blur discs of the FX camera. I believe that it is for this reason that it is so difficult to distinguish between full-frame and cropped images using the same lens at the same value. Photographers psychologically expect stronger blur on a full-frame camera, but it turns out quite the opposite. The radius of the blur disk, in this case, increases by K times, where K is the coefficient. It’s strange, but everyone ignores this conclusion.
To ensure that full-frame and cropped images are the same (or very, very similar), you should use different focal lengths and values.
For example, if you take a lens, then the same pictures on a full-format and cropped camera should be obtained, for example, in the following case:
The following images were taken at the same focusing distance. The camera was always in the same place. Only the exposure pair and focal length settings changed. The exposure value (shutter speed/aperture) was changed to compensate and the blur strength.
The first photo was taken in full frame mode:
Similar pictures
44 mm instead of 50 mm was most likely due to several reasons:
- perhaps it has not an honest 75 mm at the long end, but 70 (like most lenses of this class)
- Perhaps the 44 mm focal length is not entered quite correctly. Who knows how Tamron chips are programmed
- Most likely, during the test I still made a slight deviation in maintaining the similarity of the picture
Slightly different pictures were obtained due to:
- different light
- 2.8*1.5=4.2, but the camera cannot set the value F/4.2, you can only select F/4.0 or F/4.5, F/4.0 is closer to the theoretical calculation
- different distortion at different focal lengths and framing modes
- different at different focal lengths and framing modes
All test materials in RAW+JPEG format can be downloaded from this link and you can dig deeper into the material from the article yourself.
Thank you for your attention. Arkady Shapoval.
Article text updated: 11/23/2018
A little over a year ago I switched from a cropped Nikon D5100 DSLR to a full-frame Nikon D610 model. Immediately I started getting questions about whether it even made sense to spend money on buying a full frame. My answer was this: a full-frame matrix, in addition to having a working ISO two to three times higher, also allows for stronger background blur and significantly improved image detail, is characterized by a different picture geometry. If the first two factors are not particularly in doubt among experienced photographers, then the latter statements require clarification. Today we will look at how a full frame changes the viewer’s perception of the image.
Note. How was this photo tutorial written? First, I compiled a theoretical part, drew diagrams explaining the statements and theoretically concluded that a full frame is significantly better than CROP in terms of picture geometry.
Then I took a full frame cameraNikon D610 and croppedNikon D5100, went into town to take real-life example photos to illustrate what I said in the article. And what? In practice, it turns out that the difference can often not be noticed at all!
I deliberately do not change the text below (as originally written), so that you, dear reader, can see the points in which I may have been mistaken.
We are convinced that in full-frame cameras such as Nikon D750 or Canon EOS 5D Mark III, the level of working ISO exceeds the values of cropped DSLRs, for example, Nikon D7100 and Canon EOS 70D comparative review my new Nikon D610 DSLR (link at the bottom of the page). I am sure that manufacturers do not specifically produce CROP with a photosensitivity level equal to a full frame, since then they could lose a significant part of the market: many amateur photographers will not buy more expensive versions of DSLRs or mirrorless cameras.
The effect of a full frame on the degree of background blur (bokeh) can be explained in the diagram. Let's say we want to photograph a portrait of a beautiful girl using a cropped Nikon D5200 DSLR and a Nikon 50 mm f/1.4G lens.
What needs to be done to shoot a frame with a Nikon D800 FX camera within the same boundaries? There are 2 ways: move closer by 30% or stay in place, but use a lens with a focal length 1.5 times shorter (for example, Sigma 35 mm f/1.4 Art). As we know, the degree of background blur depends on several factors, including the distance to the subject: the smaller it is, the more expressive the bokeh, and the shorter the focal length, the weaker the bokeh.
Figure 2. To shoot a portrait with the same frame boundaries on a CROP Nikon D5200 and a full frame Nikon D800, you will have to use different distances to the subject (or use lenses with focal lengths that differ by 1.5 times). The girl is shooting with a Nikon D5200, the man is shooting with a Nikon D800.
When it comes to the concept of focal length, it is clear that many photographers are confused by the terms “equivalent focal length” and “viewing angle”, often used to describe the characteristics of the sensors of various cameras.
To put it simply, focal length is the distance from the optical center of the lens to the camera sensor onto which the image is projected.
We must clearly understand that the concept of “lens focal length” is an optical parameter that is in no way affected by the camera model or the type of sensor used in it. The value of the real FR is usually indicated by the manufacturer on the lens body. For example, on the Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 lens the real value is indicated, which does not change whether we use this width on a crop Nikon D7200 or on a full frame Nikon D810.
Photo 5. Even on the lens of the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-W350 soap dish the real focal length is indicated so that there is no confusion (FR = 4.7-18.8 mm). After reviewing the technical specifications on the manufacturer’s website, you can find out that the equivalent focal length for this model is 26-104 mm (crop factor Kf=5.62). The maximum aperture ranges from f/2.7 at the short end to f/5.7 with the tube fully extended.
Field of view (also called “viewing angle” or “field of view angle”) is that portion of the image that is visible when using the lens with the camera: from bottom to top, from left to right. If we shoot with a digital SLR, then the field of view is almost the same image that we see in the viewfinder. True, in some SLR cameras, the viewfinder coverage is less than 100%, so we see less in it than will be displayed in the photograph. For example, the Nikon D5500 amateur camera has a viewfinder field of view of 95%, i.e. it is 5% less than what the camera will photograph. Hence, the real field of view is what the camera will capture, not necessarily what we see in the viewfinder.
Lens manufacturers often use the term "angle of view" or "maximum viewing angle" in their specifications. For example, when used at full frame, the Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM prime lens has a maximum angle of 94°, while the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM macro lens only has a maximum angle of 13°40′.
As we can see, 94° is much wider than 13°40′. This is why at a focal length of 20mm a lot of space will be included in the frame, but at 180mm we will see a narrower part of the image.
The main difference between viewing angle and field of view is that the former refers to the characteristics of the lens, while the latter refers to the combination of the lens and the camera on which it is used. For example, the Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM prime mentioned above will show an angle of view of 94° only on the full frame of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III. As soon as we install it on a Canon EOS 80D camera with a cropped APS-C matrix, the field of view, i.e. the image we get becomes smaller: 63°.
I had to calculate the field of view angle for Canon myself, but Nikon publishes data for both CROP and full frame on its website: “Nikon FX format SLR cameras” and “Nikon DX format digital SLR cameras.”
The actual, real physical characteristics of the lens (what it sees) do not change. As explained below, the matrix of a cropped DSLR simply “cuts off” part of the image, which leads to a narrowing of the “field of view angle”.
Now let's move on to the definition of “equivalent focal length,” which many photographers have difficulty understanding. The word "equivalent" is associated with era film photography. In those days, the focal length was always the same as indicated on the lens barrel. When digital SLRs began to be produced, the size of the matrix was no longer always equal to the frame size on 35 mm film (usually smaller to reduce cost). Reducing the size of the sensor has resulted in cropping of the edges of the image - what photographers call "crop". The most interesting thing is that the image is not cropped by the matrix or camera - it is simply “ignored”.
Let's look at the illustration (red arrows represent light entering the camera):
As can be seen in figure (a), the full-frame sensor captures most of the image transmitted by the lens, and the cropped sensor mainly shows the central area (b). We see that the light travels the same path inside the camera, but in a cropped DSLR only a certain part of it is exposed, and the rest passes by. The term "cropping" can be misleading because it is usually associated with "cutting off" part of an image. But once again, the picture is not cropped, just some of the rays pass by the sensor and are ignored.
Manufacturers are aware of this phenomenon, so they offer lenses designed specifically for cropped cameras to reduce their size and cost. Nikon’s designations are “DX”, Canon’s cameras are “EF-S”. In such lenses, the image construction scheme can be described as in option “a” of the picture above, only the diameter of the circle will be smaller - image (c).
If you put a DX lens, for example, Nikon 17-55 mm f/2.8, on a full-frame Nikon D700 camera, it will “capture” only part of the scene, and a dark vignette will appear around the edges. True, modern full-frame Nikon cameras recognize cropped lenses and automatically lower the resolution (if you enable this option in the menu), but Canon EF-S glasses do not work at all on full frame.
How is it that cameras with different sensor sizes have a matrix with the same resolution? For example, the full-frame Nikon D750 has 24.3 megapixels and the cropped Nikon D7200 is equipped with a 24.2 megapixel matrix. This is because the Nikon D7200 has a much smaller pixel size (and, accordingly, their density on the sensor is higher). In practice, it turns out that more pixels enter the central area of the lens when using CROP, and a larger lens is required High Quality, capable of “resolving” this density. If the lens does not have good optical properties, the picture will be less sharp.
Let's return to the definition of "equivalent focal length". Reading discussions on forums about choosing a telephoto lens for a cropped DSLR, you can come across the following statements: “A Nikon 70-300 telephoto on a Nikon D7100 will have a field of view equivalent to that of a lens with a focal length of 105-450 at full frame.” And this is a true statement. Another amateur photographer says: “My Nikon 70-300 telephoto lens on my Nikon D5500 turns into 105-450 mm, magnifies the image more.” And this is a wrong statement, since the degree of increase has not changed.
Where did these big 105-450mm numbers come from? Let's look at what crop factor is and how these "equivalent" numbers are calculated.
We saw how smaller matrices ignore the large circle of the image. Now let's discuss the crop factor, which is used by digital camera manufacturers and amateur photographers when describing sensors and calculating the “equivalent focal length”. While reading camera reviews, you've come across phrases like “The Nikon D3300 has a crop factor of 1.5” or “The Canon EOS 750D has a crop factor of 1.6.” The concept of crop factor was introduced when digital cameras began to be produced with a matrix smaller than that of film, and it is used to show how much smaller the field of view will be when using a lens and such a small sensor. Manufacturers needed to somehow explain how much the image on a small matrix looks “enlarged” in comparison with a 35 mm film frame (35 * 24 mm).
When I calculated the area of the matrix of a full-frame camera and compared it with the area of the sensor of a cropped camera (for example, Nikon D810 and Nikon D3200), I was very surprised, since it turned out to be 2.3 times larger: on a full frame S = 36 * 24 = 864 mm 2, on crop S=24*16=384 mm 2. But when we calculate focal length, we are not talking about sensor area. The crop size is calculated by dividing the diagonal length of the full frame by the diagonal length of the cropped sensor.
It's time to remember geometry. Remember how to calculate the diagonal length of a right triangle? Here is the formula: L=√ (X² + Y²). At full frame it is 43.26 mm (square root of 35 2 + 24 2), and for CROP it is 28.84 mm (square root of 24 2 + 16 2). If we divide 43.26 by 28.84, we get 1.5 - the ratio of the lengths of the diagonals of the full-frame and cropped matrices (this is a rounded number, the real one is about 1.52).
What to do with this ratio? This must be multiplied by to get the “equivalent focal length”. For example, a Nikon 105mm f/2.8G macro on a cropped Nikon D500 DSLR has a field of view equivalent to 157.5 mm.
I don’t have this macro lens, I’ll explain using the Nikon 70-300 zoom as an example. Let's say I installed it on a cropped Nikon D5100 DSLR and set the focal length to 105 mm, and then decided to change it to a full-frame Nikon D610 - to get the same field of view, for a full-frame camera you can set the lens focal length to 157.5 mm.
Looking at Figure 1 with a diagram of shooting a portrait with a full-frame Nikon D810 and a cropped Nikon D5200, I recall another myth that thrives on amateur photographers forums: “Cropped DSLRs are more suitable for photo hunting of birds and animals than full-frame ones, since the focal length is multiplied by the cropped one for the crop factor! For example, a Tamron SP AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon F telephoto lens on a cropped Nikon D7100 camera will produce a focal length of 105-450 mm (multiplied by AF=1.5 for Nikon).”
But we have already figured out above that the focal length of a lens is a value that remains constant both on CROP and on the full frame. Let's say we took the latest full-frame Nikon D5 model with a Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 telephoto camera with us on a photo hunt and met a moose in the forest. They photographed him from a distance of 20 meters.
Now we change the carcass to a professional cropped Nikon D500 camera and photograph the animal from the same distance. Due to the smaller field of view, with the same focal length, we received a “cropped photo”. When we look at the result of our photo hunt on a Full HD monitor, the image will “stretch” across the entire screen and it will seem that it has increased.
Someone will exclaim: “I told you that the KROP Nikon D500 magnifies the image by one and a half times, so it is better suited for photographing wild animals and birds!” To this I will answer: “Once again, the focal length, and therefore the scaling, remains unchanged on both types of matrices. A cropped Nikon D500 DSLR is preferable if you print photos on paper of maximum sizes. If you show your pictures to guests on a 1980*1020 px monitor or store them in a photo album with dimensions of no more than 20*30 cm, then a full frame is more suitable for photo hunting, since it has a 1.84 times higher working ISO. The numbers are taken from the Dxomark website (Nikon D5 has ISO 2434 units versus 1324 for the crop Nikon D500).
Let's organize a photo hunt in practice. Let's take a Nikon D610 full-frame DSLR and photograph a sparrow.
If we want to shoot a frame with exactly the same boundaries on a crop Nikon D5100 with the same Nikon 70-300 telephoto lens, we will have to move 50% further from the subject.
Photo 12. Imitation of photo hunting for birds with a CROP (for example, Nikon D7200) and a Nikon 70-300 telephoto camera. For shooting, I took Nikon D610 and moved further 50%. 1/2000, -0.33, 5.6, 400, 250. Please note that our imitation looks better than the original could look, since the Nikon D610 has larger pixels and lower requirements for the quality of optics.
Let's say your telephoto lens has a focal length of 250 mm - maximum, i.e. you couldn't zoom in 50% by standing in the same position as Photo 10-1. What is the advantage of full frame? The fact is that he already has a reserve for CROP of 50% more. Plus - the working ISO is 2 times higher than that of cropped models, which would help when shooting at dusk.
Another example of the advantage of a full frame over CROP: if you compare the Canon EOS 5D Mark III and Canon EOS 70D models, their working ISO is 926 and 2293, respectively - which means a full frame will allow you to make a much shorter shutter speed, which is important in this genre (by the way, Canon 70D and color rendition is noticeably worse if you look at the comparison table: 22.5 and 24 bits with a discernible difference of 1 bit).
Thus, when shooting wildlife on the full frame of the Nikon D5, we get the advantage of a high working ISO, and can crop (i.e. “sprinkle”) the image, if necessary, with the ratio we want, and not with the “preset” one on Nikon D500 crop factor Kf=1.5...
In describing a photo hunt for moose, let’s imagine that we need a frame exactly like the one in Figure 9-a. Then a photographer using a cropped Nikon D500 DSLR will have to either move 1.5 times further away, or take a telephoto with a focal length 1.5 times longer. It is clear that at a distance of 30 meters all the details will look smaller. Just for fun, let’s compare different pictures not only from full frame and Crop, but also from other devices for digital photography: soap dishes and smartphone.
Here's a diagram showing the difference between full frame sensor, crop sensor DSLR or mirrorless, compact cameras and phones. For analysis, we will take the following models (in brackets: crop factor, real focal length, EGF):
If we want to get a frame with the same boundaries, we will have to move away at a distance proportional to the crop factor of the digital camera.
To conduct the experiment, I take a full-frame Nikon D610 camera with Nikon lens 24-70mm f/2.8 and shoot 5 frames.
Note: in each frame the “vase” drops lower - this is my flaw: when moving away from the subject, in order to maintain the same angle, the height of the tripod should have been proportionally raised.
The resulting images eloquently indicate a change in image detail when shooting on cameras with different matrix sizes. At the same time, in our experiment the pixel size is not reduced: we use the same 24 MP full-frame sensor from Nikon D610. In practice, the FujiFilm X-Pro2 crop also has 24.3 megapixels (although the area is 2.3 times smaller), the expensive Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 point-and-shoot camera is 20.9 megapixels (the area is 7.4 times smaller), expensive ultrasonic Sony CyberShot DSC-HX60 - 20.4 megapixels (area 30.2 times smaller) and iPhone 6s phone - 12 megapixels (area 50 times smaller).
Pixel dimensions can be calculated by dividing the area by the number of pixels. It is clear that in compact cameras it is very small, which leads to an increase in digital noise (they are “strangled” by the built-in noise reduction, but at the same time the detail of the picture is lost) and requirements for optics (and on cheap digital cameras it is not of such quality).
The reader may ask: “Why, in practice, do we not have to photograph such a composition from a great distance”? Answer: “Due to the crop factor, the iPhone 6s smartphone only cuts small piece images from the center and we are able to get closer. We previously saw that it has an equivalent focal length of 29.89mm. And if the matrix of the iPhone 6s was as large as that of the full frame Nikon D610, then photo No. 15 would look like this.
I think that full-frame and cropped photographs are of practical importance, since other models are equipped with short-focus lenses that allow you to get much closer to the subject. But when we move away or move closer while photographing, we change the perspective of the image (which is why in each photo above the “vase” becomes smaller, although I CROPPED so that the borders of the frames coincided).
The laws governing the transfer of three-dimensional space on a two-dimensional plane of a photograph are described in detail in the wonderful textbook by Lydia Dyko, “Fundamentals of Composition in Photography,” published in 1988 (we discussed another wonderful book by this author, “Conversations about Photography Skills,” in the article on how to learn how to set the settings of digital cameras) . I will give here a presentation of one of the interesting points describing the rules for depicting linear perspective on a plane.
Obviously, the shooting objects include several elements, each of which is located at some distance from the camera. In a photograph, the scale of each block is determined by how its dimensions in the photograph and in reality compare. All this is described by a formula showing that the scale of the image is inversely proportional to the distance to the subject and depends in direct proportion on the focal length of the lens. As a result, the closer the subject is to the photographer, the larger it is in the photograph, and the further away it is, the smaller it becomes.
Let's take an example: we are photographing a spring landscape with three apple trees of the same height using a full-frame Nikon D750 camera with a Nikon 85mm f/1.4G prime. The distance between each tree is 3 meters.
In Figure 22-1, the distance from the camera to the front apple tree is 50 meters. Accordingly, to the 2nd – 53 meters, to the 3rd – 56 meters. It can be seen that the difference in distances is not so great: between the near and far tree – 12% ((56/50)*100%-100%). This is why all three objects are approximately the same size in the image. And when the dimensions of objects are similar, it seems to the viewer that they are very close to each other and there is no gap between them - the perspective is not felt at all.
Now let's come 20 meters closer (Figure 22-2) - the ratio of distances between the first and last apple tree has increased by 2 times: 20% (from the first tree 30 meters, from the second - 33 m, from the third - 36; ((36/30 )*100%-100%=20%). Linear perspective in such a picture is felt better, since the sizes of more distant objects have decreased more noticeably.
If the amateur photographer approaches another 10 meters (Figure 22-3), the difference increases to 30% (20, 23 and 26 meters). And when he came very close (22-4), up to 5 meters, the front apple tree did not enter the frame, the rear ones were very small. The viewer understands perfectly well that there is space between objects in the frame and feels depth (5, 8 and 11 meters, 120%).
Now let's think about what will happen if a photographer removes the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G AF-S portrait prime from his Nikon D750 camera and replaces it with the Nikon 14mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor Nikkor ultra-wide-angle lens. He will have to come closer by a distance of 6.1 times (P=85/14=6.07): from 50 to 8.2 meters. Then the ratio between the front and back apple trees will be 73% (8.2, 11.2 and 14.2 meters).
Returning to the topic of the article “how does CROP differ from full frame”: if an amateur photographer decides to replace the Nikon D750 with a cropped Nikon D7200 DSLR, he will have to move 50% further, i.e. stop 12.3 meters from the subject. Accordingly, the difference in the ratios between the foreground and background will also become different: 49% (12.3, 15.3 and 18.3).
Maybe this 24% difference between 73 and 49% will not seem so big. But the proportion changes noticeably if we take other distances between our trees. For example, look in the table below what the ratios will be if one apple tree is separated from another not by 3 meters, but by 20 meters.
In the already mentioned photography lesson about how to configure shooting parameters for cameras Nikon, Canon, Sony and others, we noted that high buildings you need to photograph from afar and from a hill so that the lens axis is as horizontal as possible. Let's look at the diagram to see what happens if we get close to a subject who is taller than the photographer.
We see that when shooting on long distance the lengths of the upper (1-2) and lower (1-3) beams are approximately the same. And as we got closer, the lengths of the segments changed significantly (4-2 and 4-5). The difference in distance P1 is noticeably larger than P0. From the explanations above we know: the larger this delta, the larger the objects in the foreground are than the analogs behind; This is why distortion and tilting of vertical lines occurs if the lens axis is not horizontal during photography.
Here's another diagram showing how the proportions of an object change when we tilt the camera's axis up or down, and explains why tall buildings need to be photographed from an elevated position.
Again, when shooting our building with a full-frame mirrorless Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II camera, we get closer than when photographing with a cropped Fujifilm FinePix X100 mirrorless camera, so the degree of distortion is higher.
Each photographer has a different answer to this question. For me, buying a full-frame Nikon D610 DSLR meant the opportunity to get better picture detail, high working ISO and low digital noise, and more noticeable bokeh. The obvious disadvantage is the high price (although it all depends on what parameters to use to compare the cost: in the discussion of the Nikon D610 camera, I compared it with the advanced CROP Nikon D7200, where I noted that a full-frame camera is more expensive than a cropped one... by only the cost of two prime lenses - fifty dollars).
Please note that the information described in this article technical features full frames do not have such a serious meaning if the photographer does not know the rules and laws of artistic photography. If a professional picks up a crop-top Canon EOS 1200D, he will take hundreds of times more interesting pictures than a novice amateur photographer who bought himself a professional full-frame Canon EOS 5D Mark III. Although, it is the professional who will experience the inconvenience caused by the limitations of the amateur Canon 1200D in comparison with the Canon 5D Mark 3…. Have you seen that excellent parameters technical characteristics my Nikon D610 do not lead to the same high results in the artistic value of my photographs. I understand that I could continue learning photography with the kit that I had: a cropped Nikon D5100 DSLR, a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 wide-angle lens, a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 reporter, and a Nikon 70-300 telephoto camera. But, as I wrote earlier: hunting is worse than captivity.
Happy photography, my friends! Let the photographic equipment you own now bring only pleasure and joy from good photographs for a long time.
P.S. I don’t mind if you subscribe to notifications about new articles on the site (see form below). And if you share the link to the article on social networks, I’ll just kiss you!
Theory is a theory, but it must be tested in practice. Imagine that you took two cameras and came to Yekaterinburg, walked around pedestrian street named after Weiner. Will the KROP Nikon D5100 limit you that much? Will viewers be able to distinguish which DSLR a particular frame was shot on?
I present to your attention a pair of photographs. I tried, if possible, to use the same settings (but not always, because I forgot and was too lazy to write down) and approximately the same angles. I will keep the intrigue: I will not label which photo was taken on which camera.
Correct answer: example photos 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 39 and 40 were taken on a cropped Nikon D5100 DSLR with a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. The remaining images were taken on a full frame Nikon D610 with the same reportage zoom.
What conclusion can I draw from comparing these paired images? Firstly, the wider dynamic range and color rendition of the Nikon D610 compared to the Nikon D5100 is striking. Secondly, from a geometric point of view, the difference in the picture is almost unnoticeable. Thirdly, if you buy a newer cropped model, for example, Nikon D7200, then in terms of DD and color depth, as we saw in the graphs from the Dxomark website in my reviews earlier, it is comparable to the Nikon D610.
Friends, hello!
Today I would like to talk about a topic that belongs to the category of holivar and about which many keys have been broken in forum battles. Let me make a reservation right away that this is not fundamental material, and I set myself a simple goal - to help new people in the world of photography make their choice. All. There is no point in arguing on the topic, proving anything with foam at the mouth, and there is no point in it. Oh, yes, everything stated below is just my humble opinion, in common people IMHO.
If you wish, you can skip the thoughts immediately and the specifics of choosing a camera, but I still recommend reading in order, especially for beginners - I tried to describe it in such a way that the material would “settle” well in my head and be meaningful.
First of all, I write for beginners who choose their first camera and are faced with an endless ocean of cameras. I'll say this:
There is no perfect camera. There is a camera that will solve your specific problems in your specific conditions in the best way.
We live in the real world, and, without realizing it, we solve many optimization problems every day: how to distribute the family budget in the best way, how to carve out enough time for vacation and not “sit out” in work matters, what is best to cook for dinner so that there is more left over time to relax, which English school to enroll in - which is further away with an excellent teacher or which is close to work, but with a worse teacher, etc., etc. ...
The same is true in the world of cameras. Here, too, optimization revolves around several factors, and it is very important to set priorities correctly in order to maximize... the result obtained ( I almost wrote “profit”).
Optics are the main violin in your photo system. Set yourself up for the fact that most of the budget will go to her. And the carcass can be bought practically “as change”.
Regarding the variety of cameras - yes, it is great; in large online stores and aggregators there are hundreds. BUT! Having understood what you really need, you can stop at literally a few competing models, the choice of which can be difficult for both enthusiast photographers and professional photographers, because where logic ends, brand strength and predisposition come into play to it, social confirmation (what your favorite photographers, bloggers and just people you trust shoot with) and other subjective factors. And this is normal, I don’t see anything wrong with it - the equipment you use should bring pleasure from the process of use.
If you take a closer look at the camera market, the main “watershed” runs along the line of matrix size. We have already considered the sizes of matrices and their influence, you can find them at the link. Let me remind you that the reference points for the matrix sizes are as follows:
There is, of course, also a medium format, but it is very expensive and specific, and people who purchase such equipment know exactly what they are doing and why they need it.
I cannot recommend cameras with a matrix size smaller than Micro 4/3 for beginners due to their limited functionality, the inability to change optics and the worse characteristics of the matrix. And in terms of picture quality, the cameras of top-end smartphones play a part in their field. Selected models may be good as a second/third lightweight camera for travel. But in general, I don’t recommend considering them. This means the choice is between full-frame models and cameras with a crop factor (1.5, 1.6, 2), which is what the title says.
Important! If you think that your photos will automatically become better after switching to full frame, then this is not so. About what exactly influences getting a good photo.
There is an opinion that a full frame is better and, if possible, you should take it. I would not rush to such conclusions and keep in mind that a good camera is one that suits your needs.
The question of choosing between crop and full-frame models is important - just look at the prices of cameras and optics, and it will become clear that you need to clearly understand why you need a full frame in order to buy it.
If you are a beginner amateur, then your choice is crop, simply because, throwing away a lot of money, you will not get anything in return, simply failing to unleash the potential of the camera. If you are a professional, then you should think about a full frame, but you don’t need my thoughts, you’ll figure it out yourself!
Photo by Maria Plotnikova I’ll make a reservation that many professional photographers (by this I mean people for whom photography is their main activity) shoot with full-frame cameras and, to a lesser extent, with top-end cropped lenses, because for a number of reasons it’s more convenient to use them professional activity(it’s more convenient to work with wide-angle optics, more convenient controls, all-weather, longer shutter life if it’s a DSLR, etc.). For example, at the Olympics and sports competitions they shoot with a Canon 1D X Mark II or Nikon D5. Wedding photographers have taken a liking to the Canon 5D Mark III; previously, the very practical workhorse Nikon D700, which is now quite old, was in use. Landscape photographers who travel through difficult-to-reach areas of light will love the high resolution and dynamic range of the Nikon D810, D850.
But this does not mean that a full frame will be just as good and justified for you. Remember, you can shoot anything you want with a crop, and even more)
For convenience, I have structured the advantages and disadvantages of both types of cameras.
I note that the shortcomings of crop when using Micro 4/3 systems appear even more clearly, so they appeal to me a little less in terms of purchasing them as the first and main camera. If I take them as a second one, then I treat them well.
Refer back to this list as you consider your choices. However, the list is good, but choosing is still difficult. That's why…
Answer the following questions honestly:
Did you answer? Which question caused the most difficulty? 1st and 3rd, guess it? I’ll write about the first question – which camera should you look in the direction of when shooting a particular genre.
Trips– crop is preferred, because less weight. Less frustration in case of loss/theft.
Scenery– crop or FF. With a large budget, FF may be preferable due to higher resolution, top-end wide-angle optics, slightly wider dynamic range (dynamic range) and color depth, which makes it easier to “pull” details from RAW and can make transitions in midtones smoother. But remember that for a small increase in quality in this segment you will pay a lot.
Portraits– crop or FF. You can shoot perfectly with both. If you want to blur the background “into the trash,” FF is preferable, but I don’t see the point in this - the crop here is more than enough, and completely blurring the background and making it unreadable is not a very good practice.
This is where you really need a full frame, so when shooting evening portraits, especially in motion. Here he is beyond competition.
Night landscapes– crop or FF. I don’t see any point in overpaying for FF in this genre.
Studio photography– crop or FF. Crop will be enough, FF will not provide any special advantages.
Concerts, clubs– FF is preferable due to the best picture at high ISOs. If you often shoot at such events, I strongly advise you to take a closer look at full-frame cameras.
Sport, wild nature - crop The camera will work as a standard teleconverter (). And, most importantly, a first-class autofocus module is important in this genre. Nowadays there are top-end crop lenses with ultra-fast focusing. As an example – Nikon D500.
Astrophotography– probably FF, because needed good picture at high ISO, good attitude signal/noise at long exposures. But this is a very specific topic, I have never taken astro photography, and on this issue you need to ask people who photograph stars (there are also several directions there).
Now go back to the three questions above. Answer yourself as honestly as possible, try to weigh everything again and evaluate it rationally. These questions are very important and form the basis of making smart choices.
Let's return to the other side of our optimization problem - price (point 2). There are both crop and full-frame cameras:
A schematic display of how much the conditional quality of a camera increases as the price increases. I made a schematic sketch for a general understanding of the distribution of the picture among the classes of cameras depending on the price. By quality here I mean an average indicator, including the matrix, assembly, autofocus, work at high ISO, etc.). It may seem that a budget crop is something that is not even worth looking at, although in fact modern cameras of this class will allow you to shoot a lot, this is already a good standard.
So, with budget and middle-class crop it is clear - if you only have money for it, then this article is not even worth asking - take it and calmly shoot - I assure you, if you wish, you will get excellent work!
Top full frame is also clear. If you need it, and you clearly understand why, you are wasting your time here.
Full frame of the middle price segment - if in terms of the genres discussed above, it suits you and the shortcomings also described above do not bother you, you have some money left for the development of the system, then buy it - you will definitely be satisfied. In these price segments of cameras everything is clear and the choice is not very difficult to make.
A full frame should only be taken if you have good financial resources, then it won’t be a hassle.
The most interesting thing begins at the intersection of a top-end crop and a budget full frame - there is a small price difference between them, and given the financial capabilities, this is where the headache begins: “Should I buy a full frame?” What can I say? First, you need to work through the list of genres above as clearly as possible and determine in which genres you will be shooting the most time. Perhaps at this stage it will be clear where to stop. Secondly, you need to go to point 3 (think about your readiness to invest money in photographic equipment in the future).
And then the question comes up - shouldn’t I take a full-frame camera and start assembling optics for it, i.e. for the future? I am not in favor of this approach because it can become very burdensome for personal or, worse, family budget. And instead of enjoying it, you can think, when will you get another lens? “No, it won’t work, I’ll take another one, cheaper...” In addition, it is worth remembering that the financial costs of photography are not limited to the combination of camera + lenses. This also includes a case or photo backpack, batteries, memory cards, tripods, filters, flashes, teleconverters, cleaning products, other accessories and... a computer. Yes, yes, today's darkroom is a computer.
All this will take a very, very long time, no doubt about it. And it’s difficult to take even what you need in one fell swoop. I will specifically focus on the computer. Its main part for a photographer is the monitor, which correctly reproduces colors and at which you can sit for a long time with relatively little eye fatigue. The resolution of modern full-frame cameras is 30, 42, 46, 51 MP. This is a heavy load on the processor and on the storage/backup system for large volumes of shooting. To work in editors, it is not a multi-core processor that is important, but a high-speed processor and a storage subsystem - SSD + hard drive(s). As I mentioned above, you need to think about backups so that it won’t be excruciatingly painful in the future. If you don’t have such a machine now, and you want to take photography seriously (and you do, otherwise there would be no choice between full frame and crop), feel free to include it in your expenses. And this is expensive.
Yes, with a crop camera you also need all this, but the lenses there are cheaper (there is a choice), the computer can be simpler, the filters are cheaper.
Bottom line: if you decide that you need a full frame and in the foreseeable future (1-3 years) you plan to invest in the system until it is fully equipped, you can try it. Otherwise, it is better to limit yourself to crop and get a more complete and balanced system right now.
Above we examined the issues of genre and budget that underlie the right choice. Now let's check the seriousness of your intentions regarding photography) Are you ready to take in... No, not like that. Are you ready to give photography a place in your life for many, many years to come?
Count the yes/no answers. If the majority or all are “yes” - ok, your intentions are serious) If partly “no” - ... If the majority are “no” - I think you hardly need a full frame. Of course, this questionnaire is not the final solution, but an opportunity to think about how important photography is to you.
Let me summarize and add my 2 cents with personal preferences. I'm leaning towards a set of the upper segment of the crop + good optics. In this case, you will be able to take more lenses good quality, more fully forming the range of focal lengths you need. If you take 1-2 lenses on a full frame, then 2-4 on a cropped frame. Such a kit will be self-sufficient for most genres.
Full frame may be preferred if you have a large amount of free money and understand that the increase in picture quality will not be that great, i.e. you will pay significantly more, but the gain will be insignificant. See for yourself - if the disadvantages of full frame do not play a special role for you personally and you have a lot of free money that you want to spend on photographic equipment, the choice is obvious. If, in addition to a full-frame camera, you buy a cheap lens and then eat crackers, then it’s better not to.
To summarize, it seems to me that the price/quality optimum is somewhere in the vicinity of top crop cameras.
This is the conversation we had today. I hope I didn’t bore you, and that food for thought will help you make the perfect choice for you! Of course, I welcome questions, opinions, additions and other communication in the comments) See you later.
Something in Lately often, in the most different places, and with a variety of people, I have to speak out about the so-called crop, by which they traditionally mean 22 mm and similar APS-C size matrices, and in some cases (like, etc.) even more compact sensors. My position on this issue is simple - crop is good, crop has undoubted advantages, and it should not be considered defective. I’ll explain this now, and then give a link here ;-)
First of all, I think that the term “crop” itself is stupid, more of an auxiliary one, because this concept helps to quickly calculate the equivalent focal length in comparison with 35 millimeters. And this word, for obvious reasons, and for good reason, has some kind of humiliating connotation. Here everything depends on the starting point - absolutely any matrix can be called cropped, so a fetish “full-frame” sensor can be called a crop from a medium format, and a medium format a crop from a large one. But they are not called that because it is not customary.
What to call these reduced matrices? It was possible to come up with a different name or, quite simply, get by with the same one - 23 mm, 22 mm, 18 mm. But, since 35 millimeters is the de facto standard in mass photography (convenient, practical, but far from the best in terms of pictures), and experienced photographers were initially accustomed to counting the focal length from it, knowing full well that 28 millimeters is a wide angle, 50 “staff” gives the perspective of the human eye, and 135 millimeters is “portrait”, a reference point is needed.
Fujifilm X-Pro 1 | ISO 1600 | 1/50 sec | [email protected]
The concept of “crop 1.x” allows you to recalculate the focal length in EGF without unnecessary mental strain, knowing that the multiplier is 1.6x, and quickly multiplying 50x1.6 in your head to understand that on Canon cameras with an APS-C matrix, such as 650D/ 60D/7D "fifty dollars" is already closer to a portrait than to a staff one. You shouldn’t tell me in the comments that nothing turns into anything - I don’t believe in magic either, but I know the topic of changes in perspective and depth of field, depending on the shooting distance, well. So...
Adding its own note to the negative is a wave of old smart publications written at the time of the beginning of sensors of this size, replete with discussions about the size and density of light-sensitive pixels of the matrix, discussions about the increase in noise with an increase in the density of points on the sensor. Many years have passed since those times, and a modern camera with a 22 mm sensor provides at high ISOs a picture so clear that one could only dream of it on “full frame” and the most expensive professional cameras of the recent past. Since then, we have moved far ahead in dynamic range and in-camera algorithms, and this forward trend continues, along with the growth of megapixels, which in those days was considered something ungodly.
Fujifilm X-Pro 1 | ISO 3200 | 1/30 sec | [email protected]
In fact, the evolution of photographic equipment is almost in a spiral, and the trend of consumer interest shifting towards mirrorless cameras confirms this. There has always been a battle between larger and smaller cameras in the history of photography. Both medium format and 35 millimeters appeared as an attempt to reduce the size of the camera and its set of optics to a convenient size that is easy to walk around with and shoot anything and everything. It is enough to recall the history of photography in relation to the Second World War, to remember that it was the advent of compact 35 mm cameras and film that allowed photographers to survive by filming military operations using the principle of “leaning out, shooting, hiding.”
This format itself was then only a technical compromise between quality and portability.
So, why is crop crop good? Large cameras were and remain the domain of a professional, and I know this well from my own experience, putting a 10-kilogram backpack with optics on my back, hanging two “adult” Canon 1D class bodies with fastened professional lenses on my shoulder. Owners of large cameras know well how difficult it is to motivate yourself to take a kit with you - every time you go, you choose what to take and what not, which lenses will be needed and which ones you can safely leave at home. Walking while “unloaded” is a dubious pleasure; carrying such a set with you on vacation is a curse.
Fujifilm X-Pro 1 | ISO 1600 | 1/30 sec | [email protected]
At the same time, I am well aware that in field conditions a large set is most often redundant. Yes, I win in terms of picture quality, rate of fire, focusing speed, but I’m more noticeable, I attract unnecessary attention, I get physically tired faster, and I don’t have to shoot in extreme sports, when that same quality, speed and focus is needed, if you analyze result. Modern compact cameras have already learned high-speed continuous shooting, and autofocus has improved in speed to work reliably in the dark, and noise at ISO, up to 6400, on many models, is very low. A couple of years ago, when shooting with the Canon 1Ds Mark II, I tried not to go above ISO 1000, but today with the EOS M I can easily allow myself ISO 1600 and higher.
The bright advantage of crop is that a smaller sensor allows you to create more compact optics, and mirrorless cameras are an example of this. If you have to choose between a backpack that can kill you and two pockets of a winter jacket, which one should you choose? This is obvious to me. If all the optics that cover the required range of focal lengths fit into the case of an amateur handheld video camera, as happens with a set of fixes for Fujifilm X-Pro 1, I’m only happy, and if the picture quality is comparable, at the same time, to the Canon 5D Mark II, I'm happy.
When the conversation about mirrorless cameras begins, the size and weight of the bodies are most often compared, they say the Fujifilm X-Pro 1 weighs 450 grams, and the Canon 5D Mark II only 810, and three hundred grams does not matter. If you only had to carry the carcass with you, I would agree. But let's add inexpensive optics to the weight of a nickel - 28 mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 100 mm f/2.8 Macro (an equivalent set of standard lenses is available for the X-Pro 1 - 18/2, 35/1.4 and 60/2.4 Macro). We get 310+290+600 grams, that is full set two kilograms, against 116+187+215 and a full set of 968 grams. Again, a bag versus two pockets of a winter jacket. But Fujik is one of the largest mirrorless cameras, isn’t it?
Fujifilm X-Pro 1 | ISO 200 | 1/125 sec | [email protected]
Fujifilm X-Pro 1 | ISO 3200 | 1/40 sec | [email protected]
Fujifilm X-Pro 1 | ISO 6400 | 1/30 sec | [email protected]
Fujifilm X-Pro 1 | ISO 6400 | 1/60 sec | [email protected]
The fact that on 22 mm matrices with the same aperture the depth of field turns out to be wider in some cases, in most cases even a plus. Yes, it becomes more difficult to separate the object from the background in general terms, and yes, it is more difficult to blur the background into full milk at f/4. But more often I come across a situation where more depth of field is needed - shooting in a studio, indoors, reporting, traveling, groups of people - these are the scenarios when milk in the background is not required, and on a camera with a larger sensor you even need to cover the aperture to everything was sharper. And here we get a paradox when leaving the aperture wider open and shooting at lower ISOs we get a more interesting picture.
Of course, there is the wonderful 5D Mark III, for which we can consider ISO 12800 and 25600 to be working, but again - price, size, weight. Both the flagship and its 4K brother 1D C, personally my favorites among all DSLRs - they are wonderful, they give, but imagine them as everyday cameras, for daily shooting, which you always have with you, just in case? Which ones are appropriate with a business suit or at a party where you are an invited person and not a photographer? Are these cameras from the “take it out of your pocket and shoot” category?
Fujifilm X-Pro 1 | ISO 6400 | 1/9 sec | 35mm @ 1.4 handheld, moonlight
Let's take another look at the advantages of cameras with smaller sensors:
