DSLR: Crop sensor vs Full-frame sensor

[floyd]

I've had a Nikon D7200 (crop sensor) for four/five years now and been happy with it. But I'm getting the itch to buy a full-frame (35mm) sensor DSLR because I understand the photo quality is better. But is the quality worth the extra investment in more expensive lenses and camera? I'm strongly considering a used D750 for $900.00 and a Tokina 24-70 mm lens ($900). But I don't want to spend all this money if there isn't a big difference.

I typically print 16x20 black and white prints with my Canon Pro-1000 printer, and the printed image is pretty good. Using the same parameters, will the D750 with a high quality lens give me better results? I'm hoping someone in drone land has upgraded from a crop sensor DSLR to a full frame DSLR and can provide his/her thoughts on whether the full frame is significantly better.

Thanks!

 

[Johnmcl7]

I guess the simplest answer no FF is not significantly better, you'll get roughly one stop better high iso, one stop shallower depth of field and better dynamic range. If you are constantly finding yourself struggling at higher iso or trying to squeeze as much DR out of the sensor then it's worth considering FF but other than that you might be disappointed with the upgrade as the D7200 sensor is still extremely capable.

My first DSLRs were Olympus 4/3 (one stop below the APS-C sensors, one stop better than the 1in sensors) but I eventually reached a point where the autofocus didn't do what I wanted so I decided to switch systems opting for Nikon with the choice of the APS-C Nikon D300 or the FF D700. I frequently struggled with high iso on the Olympus which was barely usable at iso 1600 so I opted for the D700 which had usable iso 6400. Although the system change was pricey I've never regretted it as the AF on the D700 was exceptional and the high iso superb as well.

I use a mix of systems now, the RX100m4/RX10m2 (1in sensor), Panasonic GH series (4/3in sensor), Sony Nex-6 (APS-C) and the Nikon D750/Sony RX1 (full frame). I mainly use FF these days because I shoot at high iso and want to squeeze every drop of light out of the camera but the smaller Nex-6 is still extremely good, it's just mostly redundant in my setup as it can't match the AF or battery performance of the D750.

 

[floyd]

Thank you for the insightful, in-depth explanation! Very helpful. The higher ISO isn't a big deal because I typically shoot at 100. I've been happy with Lightroom's ability to increase contrast/clarity, though it has had some limitations. I would like the extra stop of depth of field, however. I've stated to experiment with bokeh and liked some of the results. But I don't think buying FF is worth just having a stop more depth of field.

On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the razor sharpness of an 8x10 contact print and 1 being the fuzziness of a photo taken with a toy camera, where would you place a crop sensor and where would you place a 35mm sensor (same quality lens) when printing a 16x20 print?

 

[CincyTriGuy]

On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the razor sharpness of an 8x10 contact print and 1 being the fuzziness of a photo taken with a toy camera, where would you place a crop sensor and where would you place a 35mm sensor (same quality lens) when printing a 16x20 print?

You can't make a blanket statement like that. Johnmcl7 is totally accurate in saying a FF sensor will generally give greater high ISO and dynamic range performance, but that says nothing for things like image sharpness and color accuracy. There's nothing preventing a crop sensor body from taking a "better" picture than a FF sensor body under well-lit (or even moderately lit) conditions.

 

[Cymruflyer]

I own the Nikon D300, D7000, D500 and the full frame D610. The cropped D500 gives better high ISO than my full frame D610. I will say that a full frame camera will have more noise in the image than a cropped sensor due to the size of the sensor, most people are not aware of that. However like for like, with an expensive lens (don't bother putting on low priced budget lenses or you just wasted your money that full frame body) the full frame body will give you a better image.

With that said, if you are only comparing 8x10 or 16x20 and you know what you are doing in post and using a Pro lab for printing, I believe to the naked eye, you are not going to see any difference between the high end crop sensor camera body and the full frame camera body. Now take those digital images into the lab and examine them and yes you can tell the difference, but who ever does that?

If you really want to know, just go to a good camera shop or an online rental site and rent yourself a full frame body, biut one you can afford to buy as well, and then take a good lens out and shoot a like for like situation mounted on a tripod for best and even and equal results and then blow them up and ask a friend to tell you the difference. That will give you the best real life idea. I use my D500 for most of my work now, the others just collect dust. Well not exactly, but they live in the case most of the time now. Anyone want to buy a nice D7000?

A lens will make the biggest difference to your image. I have a range of lenses and my Nikon 28-300mm will not give me as good and image on the D610 as my Nikon 70-200 f2.8 on my D500 cropped body for example. Save your body money and put it into good glass. Then in a few years buy yourself a used full frame body, if you really feel you need one. The other thing to bear in mind is the file size of your full frame image over your cropped body. You will need far more HD purchases for storage over time.

 

[sar104]

I will say that a full frame camera will have more noise in the image than a cropped sensor due to the size of the sensor, most people are not aware of that.

That doesn't sound physically reasonable - perhaps I'm missing something. If we are talking about different sized sensors with a similar number of pixels/photosites then the larger sensor will have larger and deeper buckets and so, all other things being equal, will collect more photons for a given scene. And since the noise floor should be approximately independent of bucket size for similar technologies - that should make the signal-to-noise ratio higher with the larger sensor.

 

[lensimages]

Think of a sensor as a film negative the bigger the film the better the images, also take into account a Nikon prime lens is better than an aftermarket one, I use D800, D4, D3x all with the Nikon Pro only lenses, I am a retired Pro Photographer and most of my work was for the British Army so quality was key.

 

[floyd]

Think of a sensor as a film negative the bigger the film the better the images, also take into account a Nikon prime lens is better than an aftermarket one, I use D800, D4, D3x all with the Nikon Pro only lenses, I am a retired Pro Photographer and most of my work was for the British Army so quality was key.

Given I shoot primarily landscape and print 16x20 black and white, will a full frame sensor be a huge, moderate, minor, or negligible improvement over my current crop sensor on my D7200? Also, for whatever reason a used D750 is pretty much the same price as a used D800. If I decide to get a full frame, which would you recommend assuming equal quality lens?

 

[AMann]

A D7200 has about twice the pixel density of a D750, thus higher resolution than the D750 in crop mode.

One huge benefit to using a DX is for wildlife and sports photography- it is equivalent to a FX with a 1.5 teleconverter without the extra glass. You can get sharper shots with the DX than with the FX on the same lens without the additional teleconverter, and without the 1.5f loss of exposure. I kept my D7000 for this reason when I need more reach than what my 600/f4 Nikon lens will provide instead of using it with a teleconverter on my D750 to get the same crop factor.

The FX excels when using wide angle and other standard lenses for landscapes, portraits and other closer shots over the D700O series cameras, but they beat it hands down if you are shooting with a telephoto and want higher magnification and resolution.

 

[offtheback]

If it makes financial sense to you rent a FF camera and see for yourself.You could go to a brick and mortar store and take some photos with your camera and theirs and compare.My opinion is there won't be a very noticrable difference in 16x20 in FF vs crop sensor.I went from Nikon FF to Olympus m4/3 and under most circumstances hard to tell difference in print quality.FF is almost always more forgiving in low light and subjects with great dynamic range.Correct exposure can a be somewhat more critical with smaller sensors.)ETTR)

 

[offtheback]

Given I shoot primarily landscape and print 16x20 black and white, will a full frame sensor be a huge, moderate, minor, or negligible improvement over my current crop sensor on my D7200? Also, for whatever reason a used D750 is pretty much the same price as a used D800. If I decide to get a full frame, which would you recommend assuming equal quality lens?

From what I've read the 750 is great in low light and the 800 is great for resolution.750 is no slouch on resolution.

 

[pmf]

I’ve been a bit hesitant to jump into this debate since I’ve been following the pros and cons of full frame (FX) vs cropped (DX) for quite a while and I know how “partisan” it can get (kinda like Nikon vs Canon) , but I’ve found a very effective use of both body types in my photographic tool box. I own two Nikon bodies; a D-800E and D-7200. Simply I use the same lenses on both bodies depending on what I’m trying to capture. Generally, I use my D-800 with my wide angle lenses for dramatic landscapes, long exposures, and/or low light situations. I use my long zooms on the D-7200 and take advantage of the 1.5 crop factor. I use this for moon shots, wild life shots, portraits, and macro shots like flowers or bugs. The low light capability is not the same between the FX and DX bodies but the dynamic range of both is good enough to find a middle ground to make sure that the image range can be recovered from RAW files in post-processing for the proper exposure setting for your intended image. Both bodies are just tools I can call on as long as I understand how I can leverage their attributes combined with the available lenses I have that will work on both bodies.

I do have other smaller mirrorless cameras I’ve taken around but I use them much less since I got an Osmo-Pocket. I find this an incredible device since I can pull it out anywhere at any time. The 12 Mb resolution is not such a big drawback since photo software developers like Topaz Laps and Skylum are actively producing AI based software to upgrade resolution and reduce digital noise of still photographic images (stay tuned they are looking at the video recordings as well). Also, my favourite use of the Pocket is it’s the 3x3 pano mode. I import the individual files into Lightroom and stitch there. The outputs are very nice.

So, when I saw the topic of this thread I thought it might be helpful to bring the discussion back to drone STILL photography. For me when it came to a choice between an M2P vs M2Z, I went for the M2P. The 20 MB camera and adjustable aperture allows much more flexibility in the adjustable exposure triangle manipulation in capture and “digital” zooming after capture than having to “nail” the shot with optical zoom in real-time. And with the continuing development of AI processing software we can expect to take advantages of these tools for video as well as still photos.

I do have to admit that the first time I flew an M2P I was seduced by the video. Now I am on a whole new education process on how to acquire and process pleasing video captures.

Another lesson in that old dogs can learn new tricks!

 

[Idrach]

I’ve got a full frame (Canon 6D) but that’s because I shoot astro-photography and it’s great for deep space imaging (with a decent lens or the Borg 125SD I have an EF mount for )

The big advantage, for that, is that ff of a certain resolution and quality, has a lower noise level than the same in a crop sensor.

 

[floyd]

These responses are absolutely wonderful: informative and enlightening. Thank you!

I'm kinda leaning toward getting a used D800, but, because my D7200 uses DX lenses, I've heard using a DX lens on a full frame sensor defeats the purpose of having a full frame sensor. True or False?

 

[sar104]

These responses are absolutely wonderful: informative and enlightening. Thank you!

I'm kinda leaning toward getting a used D800, but, because my D7200 uses DX lenses, I've heard using a DX lens on a full frame sensor defeats the purpose of having a full frame sensor. True or False?

Those lenses won't use the entire sensor area, so somewhat self-defeating.

 

[yankfanp]

I've had a Nikon D7200 (crop sensor) for four/five years now and been happy with it. But I'm getting the itch to buy a full-frame (35mm) sensor DSLR because I understand the photo quality is better. But is the quality worth the extra investment in more expensive lenses and camera? I'm strongly considering a used D750 for $900.00 and a Tokina 24-70 mm lens ($900). But I don't want to spend all this money if there isn't a big difference.

I typically print 16x20 black and white prints with my Canon Pro-1000 printer, and the printed image is pretty good. Using the same parameters, will the D750 with a high quality lens give me better results? I'm hoping someone in drone land has upgraded from a crop sensor DSLR to a full frame DSLR and can provide his/her thoughts on whether the full frame is significantly better.

Thanks!

I used to own the nikon D7100 but upgraded to the D810, frankly the d7100 (which I gave my daughter) is excellent and I have a hard time seeing any huge increase in quality (without really pixel peeping). If I had it to do over again I might have spent money on better nikon lenses.

 

[AMann]

I used to own the nikon D7100 but upgraded to the D810, frankly the d7100 (which I gave my daughter) is excellent and I have a hard time seeing any huge increase in quality (without really pixel peeping). If I had it to do over again I might have spent money on better nikon lenses.

Yup, and that D7100 has a higher pixel density than the D810 - definitely a better “teleconverter” than using a real one on the D810.

 

[Johnmcl7]

Given I shoot primarily landscape and print 16x20 black and white, will a full frame sensor be a huge, moderate, minor, or negligible improvement over my current crop sensor on my D7200? Also, for whatever reason a used D750 is pretty much the same price as a used D800. If I decide to get a full frame, which would you recommend assuming equal quality lens?

I don't think it's going to be much of an improvement for that sort of use as the D7200 does pretty well for dynamic range and it offers decent resolution as well.

The D750 is a more general purpose FF DSLR and in particular over the D800 it has better AF (particularly in low light) and the handling on the body is better, the D800 has a hefty grip which doesn't sit in the hand well.

The D800 had a rough start to life with the initial models suffering AF issues then was replaced by the D810 which has meant second hand prices are pretty good. The D800 offers significantly more resolution than the D750 and slightly better DR in its ISO 50 mode as well. However taking advantage of the high resolution needs good lenses and good technique as well.

There are plenty sample raw files from either camera to download which I'd recommend doing, sticking them in your processing software and see you find working with them compared to your D7200.

 

[floyd]

Okay, you folks convinced me. I'm hanging on to my D7200 but am going to look into better glass. The lenses I'm using now I bought when I was pretty much a novice. Not that I'm much better a photographer now, but I do have a greater appreciation for the importance of good lenses. So, that being said, I'm going to start searching for some high-quality used Nikkor DX lenses. Currently I've got an middle of the road Nikkor 18-200mm, 50mm, and 10-20mm. I like all these focal lengths (may want to get a 35mm prime and drop the 50mm) but I think the glass is mediocre at best. Anyone suggest some similar focal lengths but superior glass lenses? I'd like to stick with Nikon lenses, but I'd be open to Sigma Art or Tamron lenses, too.

 

[AMann]

Okay, you folks convinced me. I'm hanging on to my D7200 but am going to look into better glass. The lenses I'm using now I bought when I was pretty much a novice. Not that I'm much better a photographer now, but I do have a greater appreciation for the importance of good lenses. So, that being said, I'm going to start searching for some high-quality used Nikkor DX lenses. Currently I've got an middle of the road Nikkor 18-200mm, 50mm, and 10-20mm. I like all these focal lengths (may want to get a 35mm prime and drop the 50mm) but I think the glass is mediocre at best. Anyone suggest some similar focal lengths but superior glass lenses? I'd like to stick with Nikon lenses, but I'd be open to Sigma Art or Tamron lenses, too.

For about $120 new, or $80 refurbished, the Nikon F/1.8D 50mm is a very sharp lens and is a great deal. It makes a 75mm equivalent with the DX which makes for a great portrait lens. My wife also uses it for professional archaeological documentation and everyone asks her what she used as they are always pixel peeping to look at artifact details and can’t believe the sharpness of it. I bought the 1.4D and it is soft in comparison.

I am assuming the D7200 has a built in AF motor? If so and you want a superior telephoto lens, look for a used Nikon 300mm/F4 - AF and built like tanks, and truly as sharp as the professional 300mm F2.8! (I own both and wish I had bought just then F/4.

Oh yeah, the 105 2.8 Micro is sweet!