Full frame cameras - pros and cons. What to choose? Crop or full frame

Hello again, dear reader! I’m in touch with you, Timur Mustaev. Do you know what a full frame sensor is? SLR cameras? How does it differ from reduced matrices? Why are they more expensive? What to do 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 your weather, but here in Dushanbe today it was +36C. In other words, summer has begun in full force. How is the weather with you, 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 still some uncertainty associated with full-frame cameras. Today I will tell you about their advantages and disadvantages. After reading the article, you will learn why a full-frame camera is needed, how pictures from full-frame and cropped cameras will differ, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of such solutions.

Full frame sensor.

So, to understand what a full-frame camera is, you need to understand the concept of “full frame”. The frame size is usually 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 35mm elements, since this size has been the standard for many years.

The width and height parameters of such matrices are 36 and 24 millimeters, respectively. This is where the concept of crop matrix appears, which was touched upon 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 they existed before compact cameras. They tried to make them as inexpensive as possible both to purchase and to maintain. This necessitated the creation of “crop films,” so to speak, but they were very rare: even now it is difficult to find a well-preserved camera with reduced-size film.

Towards the end of the training, our teacher showed a very interesting camera that was used by the USSR intelligence services in the mid-late last century. They showed us the Vega camera, produced in Kyiv in the 60s. It's amazing that it was fully functional, even the film was in place. The size of its film frame was 14x10 millimeters, and the drum held only 20 photographs.

We ourselves, of course, were not able to work with him, since we were forbidden to take him with us to photographic practice, but we nevertheless examined several frames captured by Vega. The quality of our exhibit was quite good for this type of camera, especially considering the diminutiveness of its lens. However, this did not prevent the scouts from doing their job efficiently.

Features of a full-size photosensitive element

It is no secret that the image obtained with a crop matrix will be smaller than that obtained with a full-fledged one. This, as you can see, was discussed in the previous article. To a large extent, the story was about cut-down matrices, but now it’s time to talk about full-size sensors. It has both advantages and disadvantages. It seems to me that we should start with the first ones.

So why are they so valued by professionals?

Advantages of full-size cameras

Firstly, detail. Due to the larger matrix size, the resulting raster image can boast better image clarity. Even the smallest details will be depicted better in full frame than on a cropped lens, if you compare the results shot with one lens.

Secondly, larger viewfinder size. No matter what anyone says, covering a small light-sensitive element with a large mirror is impractical. Of course, the size is also influenced by the prism, but the latter in such cameras is usually larger than in mass-produced ones. For mirrorless cameras, this is an even more significant advantage, due to the higher resolution of the resulting image.

Third, 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, this will make the sensor more sensitive to light rays. No matter how some photographers explain it, full-frame cameras tend to produce lighter images.

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

“What is depth of field?” you ask. This stands for depth of field of the space used. Why is this necessary? It's simple: for stronger or weaker background blur. The main thing you need to know here is that full-frame matrices allow you to “work magic” with this parameter most effectively.

Fifthly, 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 large quantity images in one frame. This can play both a positive role in the frame and a negative one. For example, at a great distance from the subject being photographed, this can play a negative role, but when working in the “portrait” genre, everything will be exactly the opposite.

At sixth, even with large values ISO setting 1600-3200, the appearance of digital noise is minimal.

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

I would like 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 different people. So, after showing the spy device, the teacher began to tell us the task for next job: it was necessary to create a full-fledged photo report.

We were partly lucky: at the additional training center there was a driving school next to us, and that day a driving competition among novice drivers was being held on the territory of the local race track. I don’t think it’s worth going into details; that’s not what you came here for.

So, the competition began, and my classmates and I went to the race track to take the cherished shots. What I had in my hands was not the best best Nikon D3100, so I decided to immediately agree with the guys working with the Canon 5D Mark II to shoot in turns. Both devices, by the way, were used with whale lenses. We agreed that after some time we would exchange cameras to better understand the devices themselves and get the most large quantities pictures.

Upon arrival at the studio, everyone immediately began transferring frames to laptops for processing. Having inserted the memory card, I did the same, after which I began to examine the resulting 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 impressive results, as for a budget amateur SLR camera.

Of course, close-up photographs were taken: it was necessary to photograph the winners, the cars that brought them to this result, and their mentor teachers. The result on Canon was impressive. Nikon also performed well, but in some places it lacked sharpness, in other places the picture seemed a little noisy, and you shouldn’t forget about the zoom effect.

After finishing looking at the photos, I came to the following conclusions: Canon is capable of anything, 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 images, but Nikon makes it quite difficult to get perfect images at short distances due to the crop factor. Nevertheless, it more than justified its cost, just like Canon.

Disadvantages of full-size cameras

First and, perhaps most significantly, the difficulty of photographing at long distances. A larger light range, good image clarity and ease of taking pictures are offset by weaknesses when shooting with long focal length. Of course, this can be solved by using 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 fairly quickly.

Third minus - weight. A large matrix, a large mirror, a large viewfinder... It increasingly requires a spacious housing for placement. Among other things, lenses for large bodies have also never been famous for their lightness. Particularly difficult will be configurations with expensive telephoto lenses, the lenses of which are made of glass with a special coating.

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 primarily focused on close-up photography. Of course, you can use a full-frame camera for long-distance shooting, but this will be much more difficult and expensive. In addition, even up close it will be difficult for a beginner to implement a device with a standard size matrix.

So, the time 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’s definitely worth it. If you are an amateur thinking about upgrading your crop camera, then the purchase will be a very dubious action. No matter what is written here, you should competently evaluate all the pros and cons, and then decide which type of matrix to choose.

If you want to get acquainted with your camera in more detail, understand what it is capable of, understand the basic properties of composition, understand how to create a beautiful blurred background, learn how to control the depth of field and much, much more. Then a really great video course will help you " Digital SLR for a beginner 2.0" Believe me, you will get a lot out of it useful information, and your photos will turn into masterpieces.

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

All the best to you, Timur Mustaev.

Introduction

A couple of years ago, with the purchase of the 5D Mark II, I finally stopped being interested in cameras with non-full format sensors. The new “five” with excellent pixel density, good ergonomics, a good buffer and fast recording to flash cards completely covered my needs, and therefore I threw all thoughts about the existence of crop out of my head. However, recently I had to refresh my memory and do some digging in this direction.
The fact is that I received a rather interesting question in the mail about changes in depth of field, depending on the size of the matrix. The letter lay on the sidelines for a relatively long time, because... The topic was quite distant and of little interest to me, but when I started answering it, I became interested and began to dig deeper. This prompted me to a whole chain of thoughts, which I decided to bring to its logical conclusion within the framework of this article, especially since from communication with dmitry_novak I knew for sure that the problem was very urgent.

Surprisingly, in the end the topic turned out to be interesting even for those photographers who will never shoot with a cropped lens in their lives. In particular, I discovered things for myself that I didn’t know about, even after writing and creating a depth of field calculator with new circle of confusion standards.

At first glance, this is a relatively simple question, and almost every photographer is superficially familiar with it. But on the other hand, I have not yet seen sufficiently in-depth analyzes of this topic on the Internet, but I have seen quite a few heated debates, a great many misconceptions and a whole bunch of not entirely successful stereotypes that mislead even experienced photographers.

As everyone knows, Full Frame cameras usually have less depth of field than Crop cameras (under similar conditions). However, this does not mean that in order to achieve the maximum large depth of field it is necessary to resort to using cameras with a non-full-format matrix.

So:

First, let's try to compare Full Frame and Crop under absolutely identical conditions.

Task: get a sharp frame with the largest possible depth of field (without sacrificing quality).
Main condition: Frames from Full Frame and Crop must be the same both in viewing angle and in quality (sharpness, detail).
Means: two hypothetical cameras with 12.0 MP matrices (Full Frame and Crop).

1) To get the same picture for Crop and Full Frame, let’s take lenses with 50 and 80mm FR, respectively.
2) We clamp the aperture until the quality begins to drop seriously. Here I focus on diffraction-limited aperture (DLA) (for more details, read the third part of my article, about diffraction).
3) In crop, the diffraction limitation of the aperture occurs much earlier than in the full format (f/9 and f/14.3, respectively).
4) Now I enter the data into the depth of field calculator (at my home, especially for this article, I created a special version of this depth of field calculator, with the “hypothetical cameras” and apertures I needed). The results can't help but rejoice! It turns out that there is no difference between crop and full format in such conditions. You could even calculate the maximum resolution limit at such apertures, focal lengths and frame formats, and this number would also be the same! In general, at maximum apertures, physics itself equalizes the capabilities of these cameras :)

It would be quite possible to put an end to this, but I went further in search of opportunities to “deceive physics”, considering everything possible options, and I found another very interesting thing that I can’t help but write about as part of this article.

Is it possible to fool physics?

- Is it worth using a camera with a larger pixel size, because this will allow you to close the aperture further?
- It makes no sense. If we use a camera with a larger pixel size on the same format, then our resolution (number of megapixels) will simply drop. The same effect can be achieved without changing cameras, if you simply tighten the aperture harder, closing your eyes to diffraction.
If we increase the size of pixels without reducing their number, then the size of the matrix will increase, and again we will have to close the aperture to achieve the required depth of field. And then diffraction will put everything in its place.

- Will the quality improve if the number of megapixels on the matrix is ​​increased?
- No, we have already reached the theoretical limit of resolution. Unfortunately, the picture will not get much better, because the resolution is limited not by the matrix, but by the diffraction limitation of the aperture.

- What if you increase the number of megapixels, but take a lens with a smaller DF, and then crop it?
- In fact, this is exactly what we just did when considering the 1.6 crop. And it doesn’t matter whether we crop it ourselves, or whether the manufacturer initially puts a “crop” in our camera, nothing will change.

What if you shoot with the same lens, and to make the shots look similar, just change the distance to the object (move further away)?
- In this case, we will get a photograph with a different perspective, i.e. this will be a slightly different photo. As for the depth of field, Crop not only won’t win here, but will also lose! And this is exactly what is very interesting. Let's take a closer look at the situation.

Surprising but true!

1) This time we will take the same lens (50mm) for both cameras.
2) Due to the crop, the viewing angle is different.
3) Let's leave the apertures the same - a little larger than the DLA mark, so as not to significantly degrade the quality.
4) Due to the difference in viewing angle, the distance to the subject on the crop will have to be increased from 5 to 8 meters in order for the subject to fit into the frame.
5) In this case, an object up to 3.6 meters along the long side of the picture can fit into the frame. Both on the body and in full format.
6) I enter all the numbers into my calculator again, and it turns out that full format DOF will be... more!

I have often heard the opinion that to increase the depth of field, you can take a shot from a greater distance and then frame it. Well, the numbers say the opposite. It is much better to close the aperture, but not crop. Perhaps this is the most interesting lead from the entire article :).

Shall we crop it?

Controversial points. It is important

The only thing I cannot take into account in this note is the severe lack of light. If you include the lack of lighting in your reasoning, you will begin to have rather shaky arguments that “crop is noisier than full format,” but “in full format you need to close the aperture more strongly.”
What is better to choose in such conditions, to say for sure impossible , because it all depends on the specific camera. Therefore, if you need maximum depth of field in conditions of acute lack of lighting, then you will have to make a decision yourself, based on your specific situation.

Additional bonuses

Small the advantages are on the side of the full format. Firstly, by closing the aperture more strongly, we, perhaps slightly, still improve the quality of the image (except for diffraction, which we take into account separately here). As a result, the picture tends to be ideal over its entire area, and due to the larger area of ​​the matrix in full format, the requirements for lens sharpness are 1.6 times less than on a crop lens (although on a crop lens the corners are not included in the frame).
Secondly, with an excess of light, the advantage is that a large matrix, as a rule, makes less noise (with an equal number of pixels). Among other things, magnification for printing comes into play here. If we want to print a photo of 36*24 cm, the image from the full format will have to be enlarged 10 times, and from 1.6 crop - 16 times!

Conclusion

If you already have a full-format camera, but for subject matter, macro or landscapes you are thinking about buying a crop, in order to achieve a large depth of field, now you can spend the money you have put aside to greater advantage. :) I also recommend reading the article

Crop or not crop.

Practical advice: Should you buy a full-frame DSLR?

Right away “on the shore” I want to warn you that my practical advice is based purely on personal experience, i.e. IMHO. Maybe it will be useful for someone.

A few months ago I myself was a supporter of the “crop” method; I confidently believed that the Nikon D5100 camera (with a set of lenses) fully covered my photography needs. A couple of times I entered into a debate with a colleague about the lack of need to switch to the full-frame format. Another interesting fact, on the Internet I came across a short article devoted to just this topic. It briefly listed the criteria for choosing a full-frame camera, and if you answered “no” at least a couple of times, then there was no point in switching to more professional photographic equipment. Of course, this boosted my confidence. BUT now I use a full-frame camera (Nikon D610), i.e. at some point I radically changed my mind and made a choice in favor of “NOT CROPE”.

For convenience, I have already prepared my own list of 15 criteria or questions, taking into account my personal experience, is it worth switching from crop to full frame or not?

So. If you answered “NO” to at least two questions, then I think you should hold off on switching to full frame or think it over again (maybe talk to someone who already has the necessary experience).

Questions:

That's all. The answer is simple. At some point, without expecting it, I was able to answer all the above questions for myself with the answer “YES”

You decide!

Let me add a little fuel to the fire (on the topic of what fits in the frame)... The Nikon D610 DSLR camera allows you to take a crop or non-crop photo (full frame) using one button on the camera body.

This is what you get from one focal length. The crop area is highlighted in the frame... to be honest, at first I was amazed by the result.

One of the most important and basic parameters of any photographic equipment is the size of the photosensitive sensor of the camera. And we are not talking here, but about the actual physical area of ​​the photosensitive element.

Previously, most photographers shot with film cameras, which used the so-called 35mm film(film standard since the distant 1930s). Those were quite a long time ago, and somewhere since 2000, digital SLR cameras (DSLRs) became very popular, the principle of operation of which remained the same as in film cameras, but instead of film, the digital SLR cameras began to use an electronic light-sensitive matrix, which forms the image .

That's just the price for making such a matrix hundreds of times more expensive than regular film. Due to the huge price of producing an analogue of 35mm film and the general complexity of manufacturing a huge matrix with millions of transistors, a number of manufacturers began to produce crop sensor cameras. Concept ‘ cropped matrix’ means that we are talking about a smaller matrix than the standard 35mm film size.

Crop factor(Crop – from English “ cut") is an indicator for cropped matrices; it measures the ratio of the diagonal of a standard 35mm film frame to the diagonal of the cropped matrix. The most popular crop factors among CZK are K=1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0. For example, K=1.6 means that the diagonal of the camera matrix is ​​1.6 times smaller than the diagonal of a full-frame sensor or the diagonal of 35mm film.

In fact, not all central control cameras are equipped with a cropped matrix; now there are many cameras with a matrix size equal to the size of 35mm film, and K=1.0. Cameras that there is a matrix the size of a classic 35mm film, are called full frame digital SLR cameras.

Cropped cameras are usually APS-C cameras with K=1.5-1.6, or APS-H cameras with K=1.3. Full frame cameras are usually called Full Frame. For example, cropped APS-C Nikon cameras are called Nikon DX, and full-frame ones are called Nikon FX.

DX (cropped camera, APS-C type, K=1.5) 23.6 by 15.8 mm 372.88 sq.mm.

FX (full frame camera, K=1.0) has a matrix with dimensions of approximately 36 by 23.9 mm, the area of ​​such a matrix will be equal to 860.4 sq.mm

Now we divide the areas of the matrices and we get that the DX matrix is ​​smaller than the full-frame matrix in 2.25 times. To quickly calculate the real difference in physical dimensions full-frame and cropped cameras, it is enough to square the crop factor. So, DX cameras use a crop factor K=1.5, we find that the areas of DX and FX cameras differ by 1.5*1.5=2.25 times.

If we install a standard (for example) lens with a focal length of 50mm on a cropped camera and look through the viewfinder, we will see that the viewing angle has become narrower than with the same lens on a full-frame camera. Don't worry, there's nothing wrong with the lens, just because the sensor of a cropped camera is smaller, it only “cuts out” the central area of ​​the frame, as shown in the example below.

The difference between a cropped and full frame camera. The first photo was taken with a full frame camera and a 50mm lens, the second photo was taken with a cropped camera and the same lens. The viewing angle on the cropped camera has become smaller.

At the same time, many people have the opinion that the lens is changing - but this is just an illusion. In fact, the viewing angle that a person observes in the viewfinder changes, the lens does not change. - This physical quantity lens and it will remain the same on any camera. But because of this illusion, it is convenient to say that the visible image on a cropped camera is similar to a 75mm lens (50mm*1.5=75mm) when used on a full-frame sensor. That is, if you take two tripods and two cameras - one full-frame, the other cropped, and attach a lens with a focal length of 75mm to the full-frame one, and a lens with a focal length of 50mm to the cropped one - then in the end we will see an identical picture, since they have viewing angles will be the same.

Conclusions:

Cropped cameras (cropped matrices) are simply smaller matrices, and in order to understand the amount of matrix reduction, the concept of crop factor is used. The crop factor is convenient to use to obtain the EGF of lenses when using them on cropped cameras. To get the EGF of any lens when using it on a cropped camera, it is enough to multiply the focal length of this lens by the crop factor of the camera.

More information in sections

If you have ever been interested in the design of a camera, then you have probably heard the term “full-frame” camera. Many photographers speak enthusiastically about cameras with large sensor sizes, citing a number of reasons. Today we'll take a quick look at why so many photographers choose these cameras and what exactly the benefits of full frame are.

Overview of matrix sizes

To understand what full frame means, we need to look back into the past and consider the basics of image creation. Throughout the existence of cameras, various sizes of matrices or films have been used.

The matrix is ​​a detail digital camera, which is responsible for image formation. When the camera shutter opens, the matrix begins to capture and recognize the image and continues to do so until the moment.

The full-frame sensor of the Canon 5D is much larger than that of classic digital SLRs with the APS-C system.

In film cameras, the role of a “sensor” was performed by a separate exposed frame of film. The most popular size in the pre-digital era was 35mm wide film. Full-frame cameras are cameras with a matrix that is the same size as 35 mm frame film cameras.

Before the advent of full-frame cameras, smaller sensors were mostly used. Nikon simply calls these cameras DX, and you may also see the term "APS-C" but it applies to DSLR cameras with a slightly smaller sensor size. Photographers, as a rule, call such cameras with a truncated sensor nothing more than “cropped-sensor” cameras or say that the camera has a “crop matrix”.

On soap boxes and mobile phones matrices with even smaller sizes are used.

Advantages of full frame cameras

Amid all this talk about sensor sizes, the question arises why many photographers prefer a full-frame camera, what are the advantages of a full-frame camera? It turns out that cameras with a smaller sensor size can only dream of the advantages that full-frame cameras have.

Their most important advantage is higher image quality. The larger the matrix, the better the camera recognizes details.

As we mentioned above, mobile phones and point-and-shoot cameras have the smallest matrix sizes. Manufacturers are trying to solve this problem and improve the quality of images obtained by cameras on mobile phones and point-and-shoot cameras, but it is unlikely that in the near future it will be possible to achieve image quality from these cameras comparable to the quality obtained on full-frame cameras.

Additionally, cameras with larger sensor sizes tend to have better . This means they perform better in dimly lit environments, giving you more options for working in such situations.

Visualization of matrix size

This figure shows the difference in the sizes of different types of matrices:

On small cameras, the so-called “crop factor” is clearly visible in terms of the focal length of the lens. The main difference between a full frame and a crop is the size of the depicted space that falls into the frame:

a larger sensor captures more space per image.

On full-frame cameras, a 50mm lens will provide a “normal” image at medium ranges, but on smaller sensors the same lens will have a telephoto or zoom effect. The image looks as if the photo has been cropped or truncated at the edges, hence the name crop sensor.

Switch to full frame

If you are planning on switching to full frame, then first I would recommend refusing to buy a fancy camera of the latest model, and looking for something simpler and a little older and, preferably, on the used camera market. Previously, a huge barrier to purchasing a full-frame camera was its cost.

Currently, this problem does not exist, since the Canon 5D can now be purchased for about $700 or even less, and Nikon's D700 is also falling in price. Each of these cameras doesn't necessarily have the latest features, but they both offer pretty decent image quality.

Full frame Canon camera The 5D can be purchased for under $700 on the used market, and this choice is the least expensive option when upgrading to a full-frame digital camera.

When upgrading to a camera with a larger sensor, you should also consider the cost of purchasing full-frame lenses. After all, not all lenses that you screw onto your “cropped” camera are suitable for use on a full-frame camera.

Most cheap way- is to choose a set prime lenses with a fixed focal length. Both Canon and Nikon have f/1.8 lenses across the spectrum that are not only effective in low light, but are as sharp as expensive lenses.

Before abandoning your old “cropped” lenses, I would advise you to check in practice whether they will work on your new full-frame camera. Surely one of them will do.

Conclusion

Full frame cameras are becoming more and more popular and their prices are falling, especially in the used camera market. Now, having considered all the advantages of full frame, it becomes clear why many professionals prefer this type of camera.