What is the difference between FF and APS-C - full frame or crop. Choosing a semi-professional Canon DSLR - crop or full frame

Let's talk about some established opinions (or myths?) about small camera matrices.

We will talk about matrices with a crop factor of more than x2.

This research material was born as a response to some statements of visitors on our channel #youtube. Statements (about cameras with cropped sensors) such as: “slag”, “for amateurs”, “not serious”, “flawed photographers with cropped cameras”, etc.

Some studies conducted with different cameras from different manufacturers led us to the conclusion: modern cameras (released in the last 2 years) with a crop sensor (crop from 2.7 to 1.5) have raised the photo quality so much that the proud owners of Full frame cameras are slowly will go into the narrow niche of 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 is the range of brightness between the darkest and brightest point in the image that the camera can capture.

Measured as the ratio of the maximum and minimum exposure values ​​of the linear section of the characteristic curve.

In practice, dynamic range refers to the camera's ability to pick out details in shadows and in light.
"Narrow dynamic range" - from a technical point of view, in photography, this means that part of the brightness gradations of the image will not be fixed by the matrix of a digital camera 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 matrix are erased.

Myth 2

Low resolution crop matrices.

If you're not going to print an A-1 size poster, you won't need more than 10 million pixels. By the way, Olympus sensors (OMD M-5, M-1) have a resolution of 16 megapixels). And the resolution of the Nikon D3200 is 24 megapixels, with a crop of 1.5!

For reference, the E-M5 Mark II has a 40-megapixel 40M Hi Res Shot mode. The company has relied on an advanced stabilization system, and today, in fact, 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 are perfectly "stretched". 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 "pixels don't have edge effects."

16 megapixels today is a reasonable minimum. Modern technologies make it possible to produce an m4 / 3 format sensor without any problems and with a high resolution, but here an inexorable and merciless phenomenon comes into play - diffraction.
The more megapixels you need to fit in the same sensor size, the smaller the cell should be, and the sooner when the aperture is clamped, diffraction will occur, and the image will begin to lose detail.

Myth 3

The smaller the matrix, the greater the digital noise. (Noisy at high ISO)

Cropped cameras are capable of taking acceptable quality pictures with sensitivity - ISO 6400!

You can take into account that the recently announced Fuji X-pro2 can work fine at iso 12800 as a full frame.

And practice shows that noise reduction is affected by processor performance in conjunction with high matrix technology. This is shown as an 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 is a significant difference in the noise level with similar matrices).

An example of an evening photograph taken by Nikon 1 V1 (10 MP) Helios lens 44m-4 MC, at ISO800 on a cropped matrix 2.7 (Dneprovskaya embankment)

Myth 4

Low grade camera

There is an opinion that crop cameras cannot cover all the requirements of professionals and, accordingly, do not reach the pro level in terms of class. As proof of the opposite, you can see the work of professionals made on mirrorless crop cameras on such sites as 500px.com, Yandex photo, Flickr, etc.

*Very well done by specific camera models on Yandex-photo by simply entering the camera model (or lens) into the search box. The search takes into account the EXIF ​​data of the cameras. For example:

And again, as an example, let's take the Olympus OMD M-1 camera. All camera systems are simply amazing.

As the market shrinks, competition between manufacturers becomes even more fierce. Olympus in this segment, of course, has an advantage over Nikon and Canon. This company has done everything to create a camera that will outperform the competition. The only manufacturer that can compete with Olympus here is Panasonic, which also has its own line of Micro Four Thirds cameras.

Key Features 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 areas, auto and manual selection, auto selection with face detection active, manual selection in zoom view

OM-D E-M5 Mark II - representative of the "middle class". In the sense that the flagship E-M1 is aimed at the pros or over-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 enthusiastic photographers. This is the "middle class".

Myth 5

No bokeh

Agree 50/50. There is bokeh, but it is not as aggressive as on full-frame cameras. For a more artistic background blur, it is advisable to use optics released 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 be a guarantee of maximum blurring of the background.

The cheapest tele-zoom NIKOR 55-200mm VR DX f4-5.6. Camera Nikon D80, crop 1.5 DX.

The most minimal 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.

- In all cameras of the Olympus lineup, the operation of the camera's exposure meter is preserved, which makes it possible to work in aperture and shutter priority modes. And there is also a digital zoom (or “screen magnifier”) that magnifies the image in the focus area by 10 times and allows you to comfortably focus. In other words, working with manual optics is simply a pleasure for the photographer.

Under the feet of the Full Frame becomes slippery. And in the near future, justifying the purchase of an expensive heavy full-frame camera will become more and more difficult.

The Olympus company has never in its history produced matrices with a crop of less than 4/3. Why? Does such a well-known company really disrespect itself and make “slag”? But what about the ratings of the best cameras (of recent years) in different countries of the world, where Olympus with its flagships takes first place?

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.

Hello again, dear reader! I'm in touch with you, Timur Mustaev. Do you know what a full-frame sensor is in SLR cameras? How does it differ from truncated matrices? Why are they more expensive? What if you don't have a full frame sensor?

Before answering these and other questions that interest you, let me congratulate you on the first day of summer. I don’t know how things are with the weather, but in Dushanbe it was +36C today. In other words, summer has begun in full. How are you doing, what can you brag about? I also congratulate you on Children's Day, take care, love, appreciate both your own and other people's children. Children, this is a ray of light in our hearts!

In one of the previous articles, the topic of the camera was touched upon. Surely after reading it, there was some ambiguity associated with full-frame cameras. Today I will tell you about their advantages and disadvantages. After reading the article, you will find out what a full-frame camera is for, how shots from full-frame and crop cameras will differ, what are the advantages and disadvantages of such solutions.

Full frame matrix.

So, in order to understand what a full-frame camera is, you need to understand the concept of “full frame”. The frame size is considered to be the dimensions of the photosensitive element located in the camera body. Physically, they are completely different. “Full” is considered to be standard 35 mm elements, since this size has been standard for many years.

The width and height parameters of such matrices are 36 and 24 mm, respectively. This is where the concept of a crop matrix comes from, which was discussed in one of the previous articles. The reason for the creation of "cropped" matrices was and still is the high cost of producing full-fledged sensors for digital cameras. Of course, now the technical process has become less expensive, however, the production of elements of standard sizes is still not the cheapest pleasure.

Of course, there were compact cameras before. They tried to make them as inexpensive as possible for both purchase and maintenance. This necessitated the creation of "crop films", if I may say so, but they were very rare: even now it is difficult to find a well-preserved camera with a reduced size film.

Closer to the end of the training, our teacher showed a very interesting camera, which was used by the intelligence services of the USSR in the middle to the end of the last century. They showed us the Vega camera, which was produced in Kyiv in the 60s. Surprisingly, it was fully functional, even the film was in place. The size of his film frame was 14 × 10 millimeters, and only 20 shots were placed in the drum.

Of course, we ourselves could not work with him, since we were forbidden to take him with us to photo practice, but we nevertheless considered a few frames captured by Vega. The quality for this kind of cameras in our exhibit was quite good, especially considering the diminutiveness of its lens. However, this did not prevent the scouts from doing their job with high quality.

Features of a full size photosensitive element

It is no secret that the image received by the crop matrix will be smaller than that obtained on the full-fledged one. This, as you can see, was discussed in a previous article. For the most part, the story was about truncated matrices, but now it's time to talk about full-size sensors. It has both advantages and disadvantages. It seems to me that it is worth starting from the first.

So, why are they so valued by professionals?

Advantages of full-size cameras

Firstly, detail. Due to the larger size of the matrix, the resulting raster image boasts better picture clarity. Even the smallest details in full frame are rendered better than in crop, if we compare the results shot with one lens.

Secondly, larger viewfinder. No matter what anyone says, it is not advisable to cover a small photosensitive element with a large mirror. Of course, the size is also affected by the prism, but the latter in such cameras, as a rule, is larger than in mass-produced ones. For mirrorless devices, this is an even more significant plus, due to the higher resolution of the resulting image.

Thirdly, the size of the pixel itself. If the manufacturer decides not to increase the number of photosensitive units, but to make them a little larger, then this will make the sensor more sensitive to light rays. Regardless of what some photographers say, full-frame cameras tend to produce lighter images.

Fourth, good depth of field. Due to the better ISO sensitivity provided by the large pixel size, it will be much easier to achieve a good depth of field on such a device.

“What is IPIG?” you ask. This stands for Depth of Field used space. Why is this needed? It's simple: for stronger or weaker blurring of the background. The main thing you need to know here is that full-frame matrices allow you to “conjure” with this parameter most effectively.

Fifth, no zoom effect. It was also mentioned in the article about the crop factor. Perhaps this is one of the main differences from reduced matrices, which allows you to save more images on one frame. This can play both a positive role in the frame and a negative one. For example, at a great distance from the object being photographed, this can play a negative role, and when working in the “portrait” genre, everything will be exactly the opposite.

At sixth, even at high ISO settings of 1600-3200, the appearance of digital noise is minimal.

Comparison of full-frame and cropped devices. A case from one's life

I want to say right away that the comparison turned out to be very subjective, since the cameras were of different levels, they used different optics, they were controlled by different people. So, after showing the spy device, the teacher began to voice the task for the next work for us: it was necessary to create a full-fledged photo essay.

In part, we were lucky: in the center of additional training, a driving school was next to us, and that day, a driving competition among novice drivers was held on the territory of the local autodrome. I think it's not worth going into the essence of the details, that's not what you came here for.

So, the competition began, and my classmates and I went to the circuit to take the treasured shots. I didn’t have the best Nikon D3100 in my hands, so I decided to immediately agree with the guys working with the Canon 5D Mark II to shoot in turn. Both devices, by the way, were used with whale lenses. We agreed that after some time we would exchange cameras for a better understanding of the devices themselves and to get the maximum number of shots.

Upon arrival at the studio, everyone immediately began to transfer frames to laptops for processing. Inserting a memory card, I did the same, after which I began to consider the result. Looking through the photo for the second time, I caught myself thinking that at long distances (about 50-100 meters) Canon took pictures of more or less acceptable quality, but the D3100 showed an impressive result, as for a budget amateur SLR camera.

Of course, close-up pictures were taken: it was necessary to take pictures of the winners, the cars that brought them to such a result, and the teachers-mentors. The result on Canon was impressive. Nikon also performed well, but somewhere he lacked sharpness, in other places the picture seemed a little noisy, and you should not forget about the zoom effect.

After reviewing the photos, I came to the following conclusions: Canon is capable of everything, you just need to choose the right set of lenses, but with Nikon everything is not so simple. Of course, you can get high-quality pictures, but Nikon’s getting perfect shots at a short distance is quite difficult, due to the crop factor. Nevertheless, he more than justified his cost, however, like Canon.

Disadvantages of full size cameras

The first and, perhaps most significantly, the difficulty of photographing at long distances. The larger light range, good image clarity and ease of taking pictures are offset by weaknesses when shooting at long focal lengths. Of course, this is solved by a specialized lens, which will significantly hit your pocket.

Second but no less significant is the cost. In addition to expensive "glasses" (as the lens is called in slang), you will have to pay a round sum for the carcass itself. Of course, professionals will not stop even at a six-figure price tag, since such an acquisition will pay off quickly enough.

Third minus weight. A large matrix, a large mirror, a large viewfinder ... More and more requires a capacious body to accommodate. Among other things, lenses for large carcasses have also never been famous for their lightness. Configurations with expensive telephoto lenses, the lenses of which are made of glass with a special coating, will be especially difficult.

Fourth the disadvantage is the narrow specialization of full-frame matrices. While a crop with a coefficient of 1.5-1.6 can be called standard and universal. Full-frame sensors are focused mainly on shooting up close. Of course, you can use a full-frame camera for long-range shooting, but it will be much more difficult and expensive to do this. In addition, it will not be easy for a beginner to implement a device with a standard-sized matrix, even close up.

So, the moment has come to understand whether we need a full-frame camera or not? If you are one of the top photographers in the city and photography is your main income, then it is definitely worth it. If you are a hobbyist thinking about upgrading your crop camera, then the acquisition will be a very dubious action. Whatever is written here, you should correctly evaluate all the pros and cons, and then decide which type of matrix to choose.

If you want to get to know your camera in more detail, understand what it is capable of, understand the basic properties of building a composition, understand how to make a beautiful blurred background, learn how to control the depth of field and much, much more. Then to help you, a really super video course " Digital SLR for beginners 2.0". Believe me, you will draw a lot of useful information from it, and your pictures will turn into masterpieces.

I hope you enjoyed this article and now you know what the phrase "full-frame camera" means. If the information turned out to be useful, then be sure to subscribe to my blog, there are a lot of interesting things ahead of you. You can tell your photographer friends about the blog, let them also join in high-quality photography. All the best, dear reader, see you soon!

All the best to you, Timur Mustaev.

When choosing a DSLR or lens, it is important to understand the difference between full frame and crop. These differences and what they mean for your photography.

Macro photography, like this photo of a ladybug, is one area where sensor size makes a difference.

Digital SLR cameras have a sensor, which is the thing that takes the place of film. The size of this sensor is of great importance, it determines the characteristics of the camera.

Similar to the days when everyone used 35mm film, when people refer to a full frame digital camera, they talk about a camera with a sensor of about the same size, one full frame of 35mm film.

APS-C

What does APS-C stand for? In English Advanced Photo System Type-C.

APS is a film camera format, Index 'C' stands for "Classic" option for using this type of film.

And finally, the APS-C digital camera sensor format is equivalent to the “classic” format (type-C from Classic), the frame size of this format is 25.1 × 16.7 mm (frame aspect ratio 3:2).

How does this relate to your photography?

APS-C sensor, smaller than full frame sensor. This means that the edges of the image corresponding to a full frame camera are cropped (cropped) by the APS-C sensor. The picture below gives you a rough idea of ​​what it looks like. You can see that the full frame captures much more of the scene.

And since the APS-C sensor is smaller, it has the peculiarity of how much fine detail it can capture, comparable to how an artist paints on a smaller canvas.

The APS-C sensor crops the edges of the frame compared to a full-size sensor.

So why isn't everyone using a full frame sensor?

A full-frame sensor is larger than APS-C, and this makes cameras with it more expensive to manufacture, and therefore more expensive at retail.

And because FF cameras have a larger sensor, they need larger lens diameters, which precludes buying some of the less expensive lenses made exclusively for use with APS-C cameras.

Are there any advantages to APS-C

But first of all, it must be said that full-frame cameras do the same things as APS-C. They work exactly the same. But since they capture different areas of the frame, we may end up with slightly different images, and the differences are more than just cropped edges of the frame.

Increasing background blur allows for the foreground provided to stand out more

bokeh

Imagine that you are photographing a flower with an APS-C camera. You are standing close to the flower because you want it to take up the entire photo. Now imagine there is some grass in the background. This grass is distracting somehow from the subject being photographed, and therefore you want to blur it further so that the flower is more visible. This way you open up the aperture as much as you can to reduce the depth of field, which makes the grass look more blurry than it actually is.

You are now using a full frame camera and looking through the . The same lens. Same camera settings. But surprise! This flower no longer fills the frame. And you see all the scenery around it that was cropped by the APS-C camera. Well, what to do? You can take a photo and crop the photo in an image editor and end up with the same picture. Or you can move closer to the flower.

Moving closer makes it bigger and the flower fills the frame again. Because you are now physically closer to the flower, the perspective on the flower seems a little more extreme, maybe a little more dynamic. And now you are focusing closer again. And when you focus closer, something really important happens, and the depth of field becomes smaller.

And the background of the grass suddenly became even more blurred, which means that the flower stands out even more.

So you have the same subject, the same lens, the same aperture, but the full frame resulted in a completely different photo! In this case, you may prefer a full frame camera.

macro photography

You marvel when you see an insect on a flower that you didn't notice before.

You have a macro lens and now you want this insect to fill the photo.

At this point, an APS-C camera might be more useful because you don't have to stand as close to the insect as possible to fill the frame. This can be used to reduce the chance of scaring him.

But that's not all. Since getting enough depth of field is notoriously difficult in macro photography, you'll probably also appreciate the slight increase in depth of field that comes from photographing your insect at a greater distance.

Depth of field increases as you move further away from the subject. This can give an APS-C camera. In view of the advantage when shooting macro photography, because they fill the frame with the subject from a greater distance.

A sensor that only captures the center of the scene can sometimes work to your advantage.

Canon APS-C cameras such as the 70D and 7D are often said to have a crop factor of 1.6. Nikon APS-C cameras (also known as Nikon DX format) have a crop factor of around 1.5.

The crop factor is sometimes called the multiplicative factor because when you multiply it by the focal length of the lens, you see a difference in how the lens frames your subject.

Mount a 100mm lens on a full frame camera and it behaves like a 100mm lens. But if you mount the same 100mm lens on an APS-C body at a factor of 1.6, the focal length will be 1.6 × 100 = 160. And the 400mm lens on an APS-C camera will frame the scene like a giant 640mm telephoto lens. at full frame. So using an APS-C camera kind of makes your telephoto lenses appear longer in focal length. You see, an APS-C camera doesn't really zoom in on anything more than a full frame. Another advantage of the crop is that the pixels of an APS-C sensor are small enough and packed tightly enough to capture more detail. In other words, the combination of a cropped sensor plus "pixel density" can actually result in some benefits!

An APS-C camera and a full frame camera with identical lenses will see different amounts of the same scene.

The above phenomenon can be important for things like wildlife photography, where most of your subjects will be very far away. But it's not so good for wide angle shots. Because full-frame cameras have full advantage over wide-angle lenses, since APS-C crops all the outer areas of a wide-angle image, which means that the lens is not as wide-angle as it was on full frame. For example, a 20mm wide angle lens on APS-C will have a 32mm f.r. and a correspondingly smaller viewing angle.

I mentioned the artist's canvas analogy earlier, and I want to get back to it right now.

We now know that full frame sensors are larger. So imagine that you are an artist trying to draw as many small details as possible on a canvas. It makes sense that the larger the canvas you are working on, the easier it will be.

APS-C sensors may try to regain some advantage they have lost in size by reducing the size of the pixels. This is equivalent to how the artist, using a smaller canvas, is forced to use a thinner brush. However, a 35mm sensor will still benefit in terms of detail, especially with more camera megapixels (the pixel will also be smaller).

So now we know that full frame can be the best in terms of image detail. So what if you want to print a giant poster with enough detail? In such a case, you full frame may be the best choice.

Specialized Lenses

Some lenses are designed to work only on crop sensors. Therefore, if you have a full frame camera, you may not be able to use some of the lenses available for APS-C models. Of course, if you're buying a lens, you'll need to make sure it fits your camera. However, some people with APS-C format cameras choose such lenses, only such lenses will work at full frame with 2 times less resolution. This is a personal preference, of course, and in my opinion erroneous and not rational.

Yes. Even if our photographs are in the form of rectangles (the shape of the matrix is ​​​​rectangular), the image projected by the lens is actually circular. If the image circle is large enough to completely cover the camera sensor, then you have no problem.

The image projected by a full frame lens is more than large enough for a small APS-C sensor. Thus, you will lose parts of the image around the edges.

Can you use a lens made exclusively for APS-C cameras on a full frame body?

A lens made only for APS-C format cameras projects an image that is not large enough for a full frame sensor.

Lenses made for APS-C cameras probably won't work with a Canon full-frame camera because the mount is different, in the case of Nikon and Pentax the lens will fit, the photos will be cropped at the edges and 2 times lower resolution or have significant vignetting.

For these reasons, I personally would not recommend using an APS-C lens on a FF camera.

Full Frame Benefits

• make full use of wide-angle lenses
• allow the photographer to move closer to the subject and reduce the depth of field
• the larger sensor has advantages that can result in less noise and slightly more detail in images
• great for landscape photography, art photography, real estate photography or pre
• a large matrix has aperture - an advantage in low light.

Full frame disadvantages

• more expensive than APS-C
• it is more difficult to take a picture with a distant object, it is more difficult to photograph birds and animals that can be frightened.

Crop Benefits

• APS-C cameras are cheaper
• Cheaper lenses as they contain fewer elements and smaller diameter lenses
• Great for sports/wildlife and macro photography

Crop Disadvantages

• wide-angle lenses lose some of their wide-angle effect
• blurs the background less
• as a general rule, the smaller the matrix, the more noise in the images and slightly less fine details, less dynamic range
• if you decide to go full frame later on, you won't be able to use your APS-C lens collection.
• In some cases, the light sensitivity of the matrix is ​​​​lower - a small drawback that manifests itself when working in low light.

You know now how, simply by changing the size of the sensor, additional possibilities open up in photography. Remember that both types of cameras do the same things, but in slightly different ways, and these differences are used to the maximum by photography professionals.

Probably, the title of the article will seem provocative to many. In it, I will express my opinion - is it worth it, when choosing a camera, to strive to buy a full-frame camera. Throughout the history of my passion for photography, I have had many different cameras in my hands - both with crop factor (DSLRs, mirrorless) and full-frame (Canon EOS 5D, 5d Mark II, 5D Mark III). When I think about what I would buy myself if I didn't have Canon's zoo of full-frame optics, I increasingly come to the conclusion that it would most likely be a crop factor camera and most likely .

As a comparison, I will use Canon DSLRs, but in principle, everything that will be said below is applicable to other manufacturers - the difference, if any, is in the details. So let's go.

Working ISO

Most modern cropped cameras retain the ability to shoot with more or less acceptable quality up to and including ISO 3200. There are exceptions, both up and down, but in general the picture is the same. To confirm this statement, I turned to dpreview.com and compared the noise level in RAW cameras Canon EOS 700d, Canon EOS 60d, Canon EOS 6d, Canon EOS 5d mark III. Unfortunately, they did not have test shots from newer models. The result is this.

Canon EOS 700D, RAW, ISO 3200:

Let this be your starting point. We choose a model with a higher class.

Canon EOS 60D, RAW, ISO 3200:

A little better - there is noise, but it has a finer structure and is easier to suppress in Lightroom without a significant reduction in detail.

And now the full frame. Empirically, we select ISO in such a way that the noise level is comparable to cropped cameras. It turned out to be twice as large as previously expected.

Canon EOS 6D, RAW, ISO6400:

Actually, we did not see anything new - the full frame "rules", the working ISO is at least 2 times larger.

Let's look at the problem of choosing cameras not from a technical point of view, but from the point of view of common sense. With all the advantages of full-frame matrices over crop-factor matrices, one should not forget that optics are of decisive importance for the quality of the shooting result.

Canon's cheapest new full-frame camera right now is the EOS 6D. The carcass costs about 100 thousand rubles. You can find a "gray" one for 90 thousand. 10 thousand rubles remain for the lens. What can you buy with this money? Canon EF 50mm 1.1.8 STM or Canon EF 40mm 1: 2.8 STM (). You can photograph full-length portraits, medium plans, if you're lucky, then landscapes. To buy a universal zoom for a full frame, you need to fork out at least 25 thousand, and most likely - 30 or more. This will be "dark" on the long end of the Canon EF 24-105mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS STM. If you want a constant aperture ratio of 1:4 - the price will increase at least 2 times (Canon 24-70mm 1: 4L), and if you swing at Canon 24-70mm 1: 2.8L II - 4-5 times.

Widget from SocialMart

There is also a budget "Elka", but this glass is quite old. It was quite good on the "first penny" with its 13 megapixels, but on the 21-megapixel 5D mark III the sharpness is not the same. Canon has recently updated this lens with the release of its second version. I have not personally tried it, probably, its resolution is higher, but its cost has also increased markedly compared to the "first" 24-105L.

And now - an unexpected twist. We refuse the full frame and buy Canon EOS 70D for 60 thousand rubles (or even cheaper). We have about 40 thousand rubles left for the lens. Let's see what you can hang on the crop for this money (or save a little / borrow)?

Widget from SocialMart

Pay attention - these are lenses with a constant aperture of 2.8 and even 1.8! You should not write off universal zooms with variable aperture, the same Canon EF 18-135mm IS USM. Relatively inexpensive and very easy to use.

As for Sigma 18-35mm 1:1.8 Art, this is generally a unique glass that has no analogues yet. A lens with an aperture ratio of 1:1.8 is more than 2 times brighter than 1:2.8 and more than 4 times brighter than 1:4. In this scenario, we get the opportunity to shoot on a Canon 70D (or any other cropped carcass) at a fully working ISO 1600, where a full-frame carcass with a Canon 24-70mm 1: 4 lens of a comparable cost will need ISO6400.

That's some fun math. Conclusion - if you refuse to purchase a full-frame camera in favor of a cropped camera with a fast lens, you can save quite a significant amount of money and still not lose in picture quality. This time...

Focus, rate of fire

If we compare the characteristics of the 70D and 6D, it quickly becomes clear that the "seventy" is more perfect in this regard - "hybrid" focusing is supported, thanks to which tracking autofocus will work when shooting video. The 70D has 19 cross-type focus sensors, while the 6D has 11, with a cross-type only in the center. In practice, this difference will be sharply felt in reportage shooting, when you need to photograph something in motion.

And the 70D, compared to the 6D, has almost 2 times higher burst speed - also an important detail.

If you want a combination of full frame, normal autofocus and a more or less decent rate of fire, buy the 5D Mark III. Simple Marketing! But in this case, there is another strong player in the cropped legion - the Canon EOS 7D Mark II. It costs a little less than 6D, but in terms of speed it has no equal among semi-professional DSLRs.

Using Wide Angle Lenses

A common myth is that a full frame is significantly superior to a crop in terms of the possibilities of using wide-angle optics, allowing you to capture a larger piece of space in the frame. Now this statement is very controversial, since a large number of ultra-wide-angle lenses have appeared on the market, created specifically for crop. Moreover, among them there are quite budget solutions, for example,. Also, do not forget about the wide-angle optics of Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang. The focal length of ultra wide-angle lenses for crop starts from 8 mm - there are regular wide-angle and fisheye lenses. This is more than enough to experiment with crop perspective.

Logically, it would be worth comparing the cost of cropped wide-angle lenses with similar full-frame ones, but the principle is the same as when comparing the cost of regular zooms. Full frame optics are more expensive.

Telephoto, macro

In this regard, the crop factor is an indisputable advantage, since it increases the scale of objects by 1.5-2 times. A 300 mm lens, which, in general, "do not sew a tail on a dog" in a full frame - 300 mm is too much for a portrait, too small for a photo hunt, on a 1.6 crop it turns into 460 mm.

I recently played around with an adapter from Canon EF to Micro 4/3 (crop 2) and at 300 millimeters (which turned into the equivalent of 600 mm) I got these photos:

Portrait photography

Artistic portraiture is probably the only genre in which full frame wins over crop. The difference is most noticeable when using high-aperture optics.

Thanks to 100% use of the lens's field of view, full-frame shots can be taken from relatively close distances and still get powerful background blur. All you need is a fast "portrait" lens.

This photo was taken under reportage conditions with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and a Canon EF 85mm 1:1.2L lens (which costs slightly less than a cast iron bridge). Photo without processing.

On a crop, to get such a photo, you will either have to reduce the focal length (for example, use a lens up to 50 mm), or shoot from 1.5 times greater distance. Both will noticeably reduce background blur. For this purpose, our Krasnogorsk plant produced a rather interesting glass - Zenith 50mm 1: 1.2.

Widget from SocialMart

This lens appeared relatively recently, but has already gained many fans. Naturally, it is not without flaws, the main of which is the lack of autofocus. The closest autofocus Canon 50mm 1.4 in terms of characteristics costs about 25 thousand rubles, but it is not worth this money - dull glass without zest and "magic".

From the "fifty dollars" I really liked the Sigma 50mm 1: 1.4 ART, but that's a completely different story.

Summing up

It's time to draw some conclusions.

Not so long ago, many predicted the disappearance of cropped DSLRs as a class - they will be replaced by mirrorless ones. SLRs will remain only full-frame. At one time, I also held this opinion. Observing the situation, we have to reconsider our attitude to crop and full frame.

The crop isn't going anywhere. Over time, the characteristics of APS-C matrices will come close to full-frame. Even despite the megapixel races. Already, the working ISO of APS-C sensors has approached the value that can be described as "enough in 99% of cases." For those cases when ISO is not enough, there is a fast optics made specifically for crop and it costs much less than a full-frame one of the same characteristics.

I am by no means trying to dissuade you from full frame! If it is possible to buy a full-frame carcass with good optics, I am happy for you. If you don’t have enough for optics, and you don’t plan to make money with photography in the foreseeable future, it would be quite reasonable to purchase a semi-professional body with an APS-C sensor and a good fast lens - this will give you more opportunities compared to a full-frame carcass with a “dark” a whale lens, which, in fact, will kill all the advantages.

Friends, hello!

Today I want to talk about a topic that belongs to the category of holivars and about which a lot of keys are broken in forum battles. I must say 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 a choice. All. There is no goal to argue on the topic, to prove anything with foam at the mouth, and there is no point in this. Oh, yes, all of the following is just my humble opinion, in the common people IMHO.

If you wish, you can skip the reflections and immediately the peculiarities of choosing a camera, but I still recommend reading in order, especially for beginners - I tried to describe it so that the material in my head “lay down” well and was meaningful.

About the variety of choice and right thinking

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 tasks in your specific conditions in the best way.

We live in the real world, and without realizing it, we solve many optimization tasks every day: how to distribute the family budget in the best way, how to find enough time for vacation and not “sag” in work matters, what is better to cook for dinner so that there is more time to rest, which school of English to enroll in - which is far away with an excellent teacher or which is close to work, but with a worse teacher, etc., etc. …

It's the same in the world of cameras. Here, too, optimization revolves around several factors, and it is very important to prioritize correctly in order to maximize ... the result obtained ( almost wrote "profit").

Optics are the main violin in your photosystem. Set yourself up for the fact that most of the budget will go to her. And the carcass can be bought practically “for change”.

Regarding the variety of cameras - yes, it is great, in large online stores and aggregators, the bill goes to hundreds. BUT! Having understood what you really need, you can literally stop at units of competing models, the choice of which can be difficult for both enthusiastic and professional photographers, because where logic ends, brand strength comes into play, predisposition to it, social confirmation (what your favorite photographers, bloggers and just people you trust shoot for) and other subjective factors. And this is normal, I don’t see anything wrong with that - the technique you use should bring pleasure from the process of use.

Coexistence of worlds - what do we choose from?

If you look closely at the camera market, then the main "watershed" runs along the line of the size of the matrices. We have already considered the dimensions of the matrices and their influence, can be found at the link. Let me remind you that the reference points for the size of the matrices are as follows:

• Full frame (aka FullFrame, aka FF, aka FF, aka full frame);
• Crop (aka APS-C, meaning crop factor 1.5 or 1.6);
• Micro 4/3 (crop factor 2);
• Less than Micro 4/3 (that is, compacts with non-replaceable optics and with an even larger crop factor).

Of course, there is 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 impossibility of changing optics and the worst characteristics of the matrix. Yes, and the quality of the picture in their field is partly played by the cameras of top smartphones. Individual models can be good as a second/third lightweight travel camera. But in general, I do not recommend considering them. This means that the choice is between full-frame models and cameras with crop factor (1.5, 1.6, 2), which is what the title says.

Important! If you think that your pictures will automatically get better after switching to full frame, then this is not so. About what exactly affects getting a good picture.

There is an opinion that a full frame is better and, if possible, it is necessary to take it. I would not rush to such conclusions and keep in mind that a good camera that suits exactly 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 becomes clear that you need to clearly understand why you need a full frame to buy it.

What do professionals prefer?

If you are a beginner amateur, then crop is your choice, simply because, throwing away a lot of money, you will not get anything in return, simply by not being able to unleash the potential of the camera. If you are a professional, then you should think about the full frame, but you don’t need my thoughts, you’ll figure it out yourself!

Photo by Maria Plotnikova

I will make a reservation that many professional photographers (I mean by this people for whom photography is the main activity) shoot with full-frame cameras and, to a lesser extent, with top crops, because for a number of reasons it is more convenient to work with them in professional activities (it is more convenient to work with wide-angle optics, more convenient controls, all-weather capability, higher shutter life if it is a DSLR, etc.). For example, at the olympiads and sports competitions they shoot on the Canon 1D X Mark II or Nikon D5. Wedding photographers have chosen the Canon 5D Mark III, before there was a very practical workhorse Nikon D700, now quite old. Landscapers traveling through hard-to-reach places of light like the high resolution and dynamic range of the Nikon D810, D850.

But this does not mean that the full frame will be just as good and justified for you. Remember, on the crop you can shoot anything you want, and even more)

Advantages and disadvantages of full-frame and crop cameras

For convenience, I structured the advantages and disadvantages of both types of cameras on the shelves.

Crop Benefits

• convenient work with long-focus optics (in fact, crop is a free built-in teleconverter (a device for increasing the focal length));
• smaller weight and size indicators, which makes it possible to assemble a relatively compact set;
• acceptable price.

Crop Disadvantages

• worse work at high ISO;
• fewer wide-angle options;
• budget and middle price segment models are worse in design;
• smaller viewfinder, which is less convenient with manual focus.

Full Frame Benefits

• cleaner picture at high ISO, which means noticeably better performance when shooting moving objects in low light (for example, shooting an evening report);
• the ability to get an ultra-small depth of field compared to crop, provided that an object of the same scale is placed in the frame.
  The depth of field is not affected by the size of the matrix! Only the equivalent component is important. This is an interesting topic, but not within the scope of this article;
• more dynamic range (very little);
• greater color depth (as a rule, also slightly);
• the viewfinder is larger than on the crop, which is convenient.

Full frame disadvantages

• large dimensions and weight of both the camera and lenses for it (full-frame lenses are larger and heavier);
• less convenient work with long-focus optics (a very relative minus, because you can use a teleconverter or crop mode on a FF camera, which is permissible with a resolution of matrices that exceed crop ones);
• high price.

I note that the shortcomings of crop when using Micro 4/3 systems appear even more clearly, so they impress me a little less in terms of buying as the first and main camera. If you take it as a second, then I treat them well.

Refer back to this list as you contemplate choices. However, the list is good, but it's still difficult to choose. That's why…

3 questions for an easy choice

Answer the following questions honestly for yourself:

1. What are your tasks? What are you planning to shoot, in what genre?
2. What is the budget for the whole system, including optics and accessories?
3. Do you plan to expand the system, buy additional equipment in the future? Simply put, do you plan to invest in photo equipment in the future? If yes, then to what extent?

Answered? What question caused the most difficulty? 1st and 3rd guess? I will sign for the first question - which camera should be looked at when shooting a particular genre.

Selecting FF or crop for a specific genre

Travels- crop is preferred, because less weight. Less disappointment in case of loss/theft.

Landscape- crop or FF. On a larger budget, it may be preferable to FF due to higher resolution, top-end optics at wide angle, slightly wider DD (dynamic range) and color depth, which makes it easier to "pull" details from RAW and can make halftone transitions 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 great for this and that. If you want to blur the background “into the trash”, FF is preferable, but I don’t see the point in this - there is more than enough crop here, and completely blurring the background and making it unreadable is not a good practice.

Here's where you really need a full frame, and that's when shooting evening portraits, especially in motion. Here he is out of competition.

Night landscapes- crop or FF. For FF in this genre I see no reason to overpay.

Studio photography- crop or FF. Crop will be enough, FF will not give much advantage.

Concerts, clubs- FF is preferred due to the best picture at high ISO. If you often shoot at such events, I strongly advise you to take a closer look at full-frame cameras.

Sports, wildlife- crop. The camera will work as a regular teleconverter (). And, most importantly, a first-class autofocus module is important in this genre. Now there are just top crops with ultra-fast focusing. As an example - Nikon D500.

Astrophotography- probably FF, because you need a good picture at high ISO, a good signal-to-noise ratio at slow shutter speeds. But this is a very specific topic, I have never taken an astro photo, and on this issue you need to be interested in people who shoot stars (there are also several directions there).

Now go back to the three questions above. Answer yourself as honestly as possible, try again to weigh and evaluate everything rationally. These questions are very important, and underlie the right deliberate choice.

A question of price

Let's return to the other side of our optimization problem - the price (point 2). Both crop cameras and full-frame cameras are:

• budgetary;
• middle segment;
• top.

Schematic representation of how much the conditional quality of the camera grows with an increase in price.

I made a schematic sketch for a general understanding of the distribution of the picture by class of cameras depending on the price. By quality here I mean an average indicator, including a matrix, assembly, autofocus, work at high ISOs, etc.). It may seem that a budget crop is something that you should not even look at, although in fact modern cameras of this class will allow you to shoot a lot, this is already a good bar.

So, with a budget and middle-class crop, it’s understandable - if there is money only for it, then the question of this article is not worth it - take it and shoot calmly - I assure you, if you wish, you will get excellent work!

The top full frame is also clear. If you need it, and you clearly imagine why, you are wasting your time here.

A full frame of the middle price segment - if it suits you in terms of the genres discussed above and the disadvantages also described above do not bother you, there is a reserve of money 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.

Full frame should be taken only with good financial opportunities, then it will not be stressful.

The most interesting thing begins at the intersection of the top crop and the budget full frame - there is a small price difference between them, and with financial opportunities, this is where the headache “Should I buy a full frame?” What can be said here? First, you need to work through the list of genres above as clearly as possible and determine which genres will be filmed in the most time. Perhaps already at this stage it will be clear where to stop. Secondly, you need to go to point 3 (think about your willingness to invest in photographic equipment in the future).

Take a full frame "for growth"?

And then the question pops up - should I take a full-frame camera to 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 a personal or, worse, family budget. And instead of having fun, you can think, when will it be possible to take 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 a bunch of camera + lenses. This is also 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 drag out very, very well, no doubt. And to take in one fell swoop even the right one is difficult. Separately, I will dwell on the computer. Its main part for the photographer is a monitor that correctly reproduces colors and at which one 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 big load on the processor and on the storage / backup system with large volumes of shooting. For work in editors, it is important not a multi-core, but a high-speed processor and a storage subsystem - SSD + hard drive(s). As mentioned above, you need to think about backups so that in the future it will not be excruciatingly painful. If you don’t have such a machine now, and you want to seriously engage in photography (and you want to, otherwise there would be no question of choosing between a full frame and a crop), feel free to include in the costs. And it's expensive.

Yes, with a crop camera, all this is also necessary, but lenses are cheaper there (there is a choice), a computer can be simpler, filters are cheaper.

Total: if you decide that you need a full frame and in the foreseeable future (1-3 years) plan to invest in the system until it is fully equipped, you can try. Otherwise, it is better to limit yourself to crop and get a more complete and balanced system right now.

Extended questionnaire - how serious are your intentions?

Above, we looked at the genre and budget issues 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 make a place for photography in your life for many, many years to come?

1. Do you purposefully shoot at least 2 times a month, enjoying it?
2. Have you been doing photography for more than a year, and you don't stop liking it?
3. Are you planning to do commercial photography?
4. Ready to spend $4,000 or more on photographic equipment?
5. Do you have more than one lens?
6. When you go on a trip where free time/travel is foreseen, do you usually take your camera with you and take the time to shoot?
7. Not using Auto mode?
8. The main format in which the work is carried out - RAW?
9. Do you occasionally spend time in photo editors (LR, PS, Capture One, etc.)?
10. Are you using any of the following: tripod, external flash, photo filters, reflectors?
11. Does your photo archive contain thousands / tens of thousands of photos that you periodically view?
12. Carefully store your photo archive and are afraid to lose it?
13. Do you print photos?
14. Do you like showing off your photos in a good way in front of friends, relatives, on photo forums?
15. Do you just get high when you shoot, process, print photos, talk about photography, read about it?

Count the yes/no answers. If most or all are “yes” - ok, your intentions are serious) If partially “no” - ... If the majority is “no” - I think you hardly need a full frame. Of course, this questionnaire is not the final solution, but an occasion to reflect on how important photography is to you.

“So, what is your opinion on what to take - crop or full frame?” - you ask

I will summarize and insert my 5 cents with personal preferences. I'm leaning towards a set of high end crop + good optics. In this case, it will turn out to take a larger number of good quality lenses, more fully forming the line of focal lengths you need. If you take 1-2 lenses on a full frame, then on a crop 2-4. Such a set will be self-sufficient for most genres.

A full frame can be preferred if you have a large amount of free money and understand that the increase in image quality will not be so big at all, i.e. pay much more, while the gain will be negligible. See for yourself - if the disadvantages of a full frame do not play a special role for you personally and there is 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 you better not.

In summary, it seems to me that the optimum price / quality is somewhere in the vicinity of top crop cameras.

This is what we had a conversation with today. I hope I didn’t tire you, and food for thought will contribute to the choice that is ideal for you! Of course, I am glad to have questions, opinions, additions and other communication in the comments) See you.