APS-C crop on a FF camera

rawr · 02-07-2015, 09:39 PM

I can see this issue is causing a lot of questions for people. 2nd thread on the same issue in just a week.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/287905-full-frame-crop-mode.html

**jatrax** · 02-07-2015, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by rawr

I can see this issue is causing a lot of questions for people. 2nd thread on the same issue in just a week.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/287905-full-frame-crop-mode.html

Some good info in that thread, thanks.

But I guess my question was if I want my 300mm to look the same as it always did can I just turn on the magical crop mode? And I'll get something that looks close to what a k-5 produces.

If that's true then why all the posts/threads making it seem that APS-C is better for long tele stuff? If all you have to do is crop to the same megapixels then what's the difference? I was thinking I would need to keep a crop body for tele use, but if I just crop from the FF to get the same thing then what's the point? Assuming 36mp cropped to 16mp. K-3 @ 24mp would of course yield a bigger file with more pixels on the subject.

clicksworth · 02-07-2015, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

But if we can crop a 16mp out of a 36mp frame and get the same look I don't think it will be a problem. You have the same number of pixels on the subject and that is all that counts right?

It's going to depend on the pixel density of the sensor. I had a Canon XT with 8 Mp, then upgraded to a 6D with 20 Mp. The density of those two comes out the same, so I get no improvement in detail after cropping. Your new FF sensor will need at least 2.25 time the Mp to keep up with your APS-C.

**clackers** · 02-07-2015, 10:25 PM

Much agonizing, Jatrax!

Instead of using a DA35 for a shot, you'll be getting out your DA50 - and keeping all those pixels! :-)

**jatrax** · 02-07-2015, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by clackers

Much agonizing, Jatrax! Instead of using a DA35 for a shot, you'll be getting out your DA50 - and keeping all those pixels! :-)

Ya, ya I know. And it just occurred to me that all those 35-?? F zooms will now be a lot more useful.

I guess the original post was me thinking you can just click the crop mode button and get that 'extra reach' but really it is the same as cropping in post.

I'm not 100% sure I want to go FF. Just trying to understand all the ramifications. I want to make sure it works for me. And if so what lenses should I be looking at over the next 9 months or so? I know I'll need a 24-70 although I would be delighted with a 24-105 f/4 instead.

I think it is going to be a long 9 months......

jawsy · 02-07-2015, 11:47 PM

... and don't forget that we've been using FA lenses in an artificially optimized manner. Once back on a FF, the pixel peepers out there will need to re-write their reviews for FA corner sharpness! I made the decision to upgrade my K20D this year to the K-3II (or equivalent), so I'll be giving the FF a lot of consideration. APS-C still has a lot of advantages over FF for me.

BrianR · 02-08-2015, 06:39 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by jatrax

If that's true then why all the posts/threads making it seem that APS-C is better for long tele stuff? If all you have to do is crop to the same megapixels then what's the difference? I was thinking I would need to keep a crop body for tele use, but if I just crop from the FF to get the same thing then what's the point? Assuming 36mp cropped to 16mp. K-3 @ 24mp would of course yield a bigger file with more pixels on the subject.

The usual arguments:

Pixel density (as clicksworth said): this has been a common mantra since the 24mp k-3 came out, no FF dslr could match it down to an aps-c crop, and you'd hopefully be able to crop even further if you need.
FPS: "low end" full frame dslrs cost more than a k-3 and shoot slower. Wildlife/sports photogs can be heavy into fps.
File size: Assuming the new FF has a native "APS-C crop" that outputs RAW files, it's no problem.
Cost: If you're always planning to crop down to APS-C size with your 300mm lens, then you're paying more for something you'll never use.
Body Size: FF body will likely be larger.

These factors will have varying importance to different users. If you're already using a beast of a telephoto lens then the size increase of a FF body will be marginal (possibly even helpful). If you're happy with 16mp out of an aps-c image, then a 36mp FF will crop down just fine (of course 50mp FF are starting to exist), etc.

**jatrax** · 02-08-2015, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by BrianR

The usual arguments:

Pixel density (as clicksworth said): this has been a common mantra since the 24mp k-3 came out, no FF dslr could match it down to an aps-c crop, and you'd hopefully be able to crop even further if you need.
FPS: "low end" full frame dslrs cost more than a k-3 and shoot slower. Wildlife/sports photogs can be heavy into fps.
File size: Assuming the new FF has a native "APS-C crop" that outputs RAW files, it's no problem.
Cost: If you're always planning to crop down to APS-C size with your 300mm lens, then you're paying more for something you'll never use.
Body Size: FF body will likely be larger.

These factors will have varying importance to different users. If you're already using a beast of a telephoto lens then the size increase of a FF body will be marginal (possibly even helpful). If you're happy with 16mp out of an aps-c image, then a 36mp FF will crop down just fine (of course 50mp FF are starting to exist), etc.

Good info thanks! I don't always use 300mm and thought that using a FF would help on the wide end then just turn on the crop mode to help on the long end. Guess there is no free lunch

Pixel density:

Q 43.44
Q7 29.3
K-3 6.66
5DS 5.86
K-S1 5.5
K-5 4.38
D810 4.22
645z 3.53
k-x 3.32
645d 2.75

So if I understand this right for pure telephoto, nothing considered except pixels on subject, the Q is the clear winner. With the k-3 as the best DSLR, well 24MP APS-C sensor. Of course other factors do come in to play but how does a FF sensor balance pixels on subject and the offsetting factors?

**Michaelina2** · 02-08-2015, 10:22 AM

What's the impact of pairing the HD 1.4TC with APS-C crop DA lenses (other than loss of an f-stop)? Does it NOT expand the DA's image circle to fit the FF frame so there's no loss of sensor pixel density/count?

Just curious... M

aleonx3 · 02-08-2015, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

Am I the only one who is going to think the FF stuff looks really wide to me? A 300mm lens on FF will look like a 200mm lens on a normal DSLR to me.

I am with you on this; Because most of us are used to the APS-C format at least in the Pentax land (unless of course, you use film), a 300mm lens on FF will definitely look like 200mm. Assuming the focal length designation does not change, ie. 300mm is 300.

---------- Post added 02-08-2015 at 12:42 PM ----------

Originally posted by jatrax

Good info thanks! I don't always use 300mm and thought that using a FF would help on the wide end then just turn on the crop mode to help on the long end. Guess there is no free lunch

Pixel density:

Q 43.44
Q7 29.3
K-3 6.66
5DS 5.86
K-S1 5.5
K-5 4.38
D810 4.22
645z 3.53
k-x 3.32
645d 2.75

So if I understand this right for pure telephoto, nothing considered except pixels on subject, the Q is the clear winner. With the k-3 as the best DSLR, well 24MP APS-C sensor. Of course other factors do come in to play but how does a FF sensor balance pixels on subject and the offsetting factors?

Assuming that one can turn on/off crop mode on the new camera, the new Pentax FF camera will need to have over 40MG sensor size.

kooks · 02-09-2015, 11:18 AM

Does anybody knows how is the ISO tolerance with Nikon when somebody use the Crop Mode?? i know that the ISO at the D810 goes up to 2855 +/- without any mayor noise but.. what about if it is use in crop mode? is it reduce to 1200 as most APSC ?

jsherman999 · 02-09-2015, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by kooks

Does anybody knows how. is the ISO tolerance with Nikon when somebody use the Crop Mode?? i know that the ISO at the D810 goes up to 2855 +/- without any mayor noise but.. what about if it is use in crop mode? is it reduce to 1200 as most APSC ?

It will almost exactly match an aps-c camera that's using the same sensor tech as the FF body.

For example, the D800 in 1.5x crop mode matches the D7000/K5 native output almost exactly - after crop it's giving you apsc output in terms of FOV/DOF, noise and DR at the same display sizes.

---------- Post added 02-09-15 at 01:06 PM ----------

To everyone who only shot aps-c and now will have to 'learn the FL backwards' when they pick up FF - I hear you

I had to do the same thing when I bought my first FF camera in 2010, I had never shot film really and had only shot aps-c SLR prior to that, so all the FLs had to be 'converted' the other way in my head when I was getting used to it. It's not a big deal. Its just about conversion so you know what to expect, there's no format that gives 'better' FOV than any other. YOu choose the lens you need, have available and can afford.

Wired · 02-09-2015, 12:40 PM - **1 Like**

how odd.... people badly want FF, and now they all wanna talk DA crop? I thought we all just wanted to use M glass until the end of time?

kooks · 02-09-2015, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

It will almost exactly match an aps-c camera that's using the same sensor tech as the FF body.

For example, the D800 in 1.5x crop mode matches the D7000/K5 native output almost exactly - after crop it's giving you apsc output in terms of FOV/DOF, noise and DR at the same display sizes.[COLOR="Silver"]

So we can expect that the Crop Mode will behave sort of like spects of the K3 +/- ..

**jatrax** · 02-09-2015, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Wired

how odd.... people badly want FF, and now they all wanna talk DA crop? I thought we all just wanted to use M glass until the end of time?

Nah, those guys are still too euphoric to even post here

They are all busy trolling ebay for more FF glass.............

Originally posted by jsherman999

I had to do the same thing when I bought my first FF camera in 2010, I had never shot film really and had only shot aps-c SLR prior to that, so all the FLs had to be 'converted' the other way in my head when I was getting used to it. It's not a big deal. Its just about conversion so you know what to expect, there's no format that gives 'better' FOV than any other. YOu choose the lens you need, have available and can afford.

I don't think it will be a huge problem, should get used to it. And since most references actually use FF as the base it might be easier than going the other way. Considering we still have guys complaining about "lenses not shooting as they were designed" after shooting APS-C for years I hope it goes better this way.

02-08-2015, 06:39 AM - 2 Likes	#22
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	Originally posted by jatrax If that's true then why all the posts/threads making it seem that APS-C is better for long tele stuff? If all you have to do is crop to the same megapixels then what's the difference? I was thinking I would need to keep a crop body for tele use, but if I just crop from the FF to get the same thing then what's the point? Assuming 36mp cropped to 16mp. K-3 @ 24mp would of course yield a bigger file with more pixels on the subject. The usual arguments: Pixel density (as clicksworth said): this has been a common mantra since the 24mp k-3 came out, no FF dslr could match it down to an aps-c crop, and you'd hopefully be able to crop even further if you need. FPS: "low end" full frame dslrs cost more than a k-3 and shoot slower. Wildlife/sports photogs can be heavy into fps. File size: Assuming the new FF has a native "APS-C crop" that outputs RAW files, it's no problem. Cost: If you're always planning to crop down to APS-C size with your 300mm lens, then you're paying more for something you'll never use. Body Size: FF body will likely be larger. These factors will have varying importance to different users. If you're already using a beast of a telephoto lens then the size increase of a FF body will be marginal (possibly even helpful). If you're happy with 16mp out of an aps-c image, then a 36mp FF will crop down just fine (of course 50mp FF are starting to exist), etc.

02-08-2015, 09:12 AM	#23
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991 Original Poster	Originally posted by BrianR The usual arguments: Pixel density (as clicksworth said): this has been a common mantra since the 24mp k-3 came out, no FF dslr could match it down to an aps-c crop, and you'd hopefully be able to crop even further if you need. FPS: "low end" full frame dslrs cost more than a k-3 and shoot slower. Wildlife/sports photogs can be heavy into fps. File size: Assuming the new FF has a native "APS-C crop" that outputs RAW files, it's no problem. Cost: If you're always planning to crop down to APS-C size with your 300mm lens, then you're paying more for something you'll never use. Body Size: FF body will likely be larger. These factors will have varying importance to different users. If you're already using a beast of a telephoto lens then the size increase of a FF body will be marginal (possibly even helpful). If you're happy with 16mp out of an aps-c image, then a 36mp FF will crop down just fine (of course 50mp FF are starting to exist), etc. Good info thanks! I don't always use 300mm and thought that using a FF would help on the wide end then just turn on the crop mode to help on the long end. Guess there is no free lunch Pixel density: Q 43.44 Q7 29.3 K-3 6.66 5DS 5.86 K-S1 5.5 K-5 4.38 D810 4.22 645z 3.53 k-x 3.32 645d 2.75 So if I understand this right for pure telephoto, nothing considered except pixels on subject, the Q is the clear winner. With the k-3 as the best DSLR, well 24MP APS-C sensor. Of course other factors do come in to play but how does a FF sensor balance pixels on subject and the offsetting factors? Last edited by jatrax; 02-08-2015 at 09:30 AM.

02-08-2015, 10:22 AM	#24
Michaelina2 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: SE Michigan USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,302	What's the impact of pairing the HD 1.4TC with APS-C crop DA lenses (other than loss of an f-stop)? Does it NOT expand the DA's image circle to fit the FF frame so there's no loss of sensor pixel density/count? Just curious... M Last edited by Michaelina2; 02-08-2015 at 11:29 AM.

02-09-2015, 12:02 PM	#27
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by kooks Does anybody knows how. is the ISO tolerance with Nikon when somebody use the Crop Mode?? i know that the ISO at the D810 goes up to 2855 +/- without any mayor noise but.. what about if it is use in crop mode? is it reduce to 1200 as most APSC ? It will almost exactly match an aps-c camera that's using the same sensor tech as the FF body. For example, the D800 in 1.5x crop mode matches the D7000/K5 native output almost exactly - after crop it's giving you apsc output in terms of FOV/DOF, noise and DR at the same display sizes. ---------- Post added 02-09-15 at 01:06 PM ---------- To everyone who only shot aps-c and now will have to 'learn the FL backwards' when they pick up FF - I hear you I had to do the same thing when I bought my first FF camera in 2010, I had never shot film really and had only shot aps-c SLR prior to that, so all the FLs had to be 'converted' the other way in my head when I was getting used to it. It's not a big deal. Its just about conversion so you know what to expect, there's no format that gives 'better' FOV than any other. YOu choose the lens you need, have available and can afford. Last edited by jsherman999; 02-09-2015 at 12:07 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Crop Factor from a 645 to a K3 APS-C	Cary Berman	Visitors' Center	33	06-09-2021 01:19 PM
35mm FF vs 35mm crop angle of view on APS-C camera	QCdude	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	01-26-2014 11:16 AM
Whats the crop factor for a 6x7 lens on a APS-C K-mount camera?	2her0ck	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	06-16-2013 11:45 AM
Pentax at P&E2013: FF under development, APS-C compact camera and more	Mistral75	Pentax News and Rumors	82	04-30-2013 06:30 AM
Need advice on a 14mm FF versus 18mm APS-C lens	CRPhoto	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	04-24-2009 09:56 PM

02-07-2015, 09:39 PM	#16
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	I can see this issue is causing a lot of questions for people. 2nd thread on the same issue in just a week. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/287905-full-frame-crop-mode.html

02-07-2015, 09:54 PM	#17
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991 Original Poster	Originally posted by rawr I can see this issue is causing a lot of questions for people. 2nd thread on the same issue in just a week. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/287905-full-frame-crop-mode.html Some good info in that thread, thanks. But I guess my question was if I want my 300mm to look the same as it always did can I just turn on the magical crop mode? And I'll get something that looks close to what a k-5 produces. If that's true then why all the posts/threads making it seem that APS-C is better for long tele stuff? If all you have to do is crop to the same megapixels then what's the difference? I was thinking I would need to keep a crop body for tele use, but if I just crop from the FF to get the same thing then what's the point? Assuming 36mp cropped to 16mp. K-3 @ 24mp would of course yield a bigger file with more pixels on the subject.

02-07-2015, 10:13 PM	#18
clicksworth Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 150	Originally posted by jatrax But if we can crop a 16mp out of a 36mp frame and get the same look I don't think it will be a problem. You have the same number of pixels on the subject and that is all that counts right? It's going to depend on the pixel density of the sensor. I had a Canon XT with 8 Mp, then upgraded to a 6D with 20 Mp. The density of those two comes out the same, so I get no improvement in detail after cropping. Your new FF sensor will need at least 2.25 time the Mp to keep up with your APS-C.

02-07-2015, 10:25 PM	#19
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Much agonizing, Jatrax! Instead of using a DA35 for a shot, you'll be getting out your DA50 - and keeping all those pixels! :-)

02-07-2015, 10:51 PM	#20
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991 Original Poster	Originally posted by clackers Much agonizing, Jatrax! Instead of using a DA35 for a shot, you'll be getting out your DA50 - and keeping all those pixels! :-) Ya, ya I know. And it just occurred to me that all those 35-?? F zooms will now be a lot more useful. I guess the original post was me thinking you can just click the crop mode button and get that 'extra reach' but really it is the same as cropping in post. I'm not 100% sure I want to go FF. Just trying to understand all the ramifications. I want to make sure it works for me. And if so what lenses should I be looking at over the next 9 months or so? I know I'll need a 24-70 although I would be delighted with a 24-105 f/4 instead. I think it is going to be a long 9 months......

02-07-2015, 11:47 PM	#21
jawsy Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 422	... and don't forget that we've been using FA lenses in an artificially optimized manner. Once back on a FF, the pixel peepers out there will need to re-write their reviews for FA corner sharpness! I made the decision to upgrade my K20D this year to the K-3II (or equivalent), so I'll be giving the FF a lot of consideration. APS-C still has a lot of advantages over FF for me.

02-08-2015, 10:38 AM	#25
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason Am I the only one who is going to think the FF stuff looks really wide to me? A 300mm lens on FF will look like a 200mm lens on a normal DSLR to me. I am with you on this; Because most of us are used to the APS-C format at least in the Pentax land (unless of course, you use film), a 300mm lens on FF will definitely look like 200mm. Assuming the focal length designation does not change, ie. 300mm is 300. ---------- Post added 02-08-2015 at 12:42 PM ---------- Originally posted by jatrax Good info thanks! I don't always use 300mm and thought that using a FF would help on the wide end then just turn on the crop mode to help on the long end. Guess there is no free lunch Pixel density: Q 43.44 Q7 29.3 K-3 6.66 5DS 5.86 K-S1 5.5 K-5 4.38 D810 4.22 645z 3.53 k-x 3.32 645d 2.75 So if I understand this right for pure telephoto, nothing considered except pixels on subject, the Q is the clear winner. With the k-3 as the best DSLR, well 24MP APS-C sensor. Of course other factors do come in to play but how does a FF sensor balance pixels on subject and the offsetting factors? Assuming that one can turn on/off crop mode on the new camera, the new Pentax FF camera will need to have over 40MG sensor size.

02-09-2015, 11:18 AM	#26
kooks Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: San José, Costa Rica Photos: Albums Posts: 794	Does anybody knows how is the ISO tolerance with Nikon when somebody use the Crop Mode?? i know that the ISO at the D810 goes up to 2855 +/- without any mayor noise but.. what about if it is use in crop mode? is it reduce to 1200 as most APSC ?

02-09-2015, 12:40 PM - 1 Like	#28
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	how odd.... people badly want FF, and now they all wanna talk DA crop? I thought we all just wanted to use M glass until the end of time?

02-09-2015, 12:51 PM	#29
kooks Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: San José, Costa Rica Photos: Albums Posts: 794	Originally posted by jsherman999 It will almost exactly match an aps-c camera that's using the same sensor tech as the FF body. For example, the D800 in 1.5x crop mode matches the D7000/K5 native output almost exactly - after crop it's giving you apsc output in terms of FOV/DOF, noise and DR at the same display sizes.[COLOR="Silver"] So we can expect that the Crop Mode will behave sort of like spects of the K3 +/- ..

02-09-2015, 12:56 PM	#30
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991 Original Poster	Originally posted by Wired how odd.... people badly want FF, and now they all wanna talk DA crop? I thought we all just wanted to use M glass until the end of time? Nah, those guys are still too euphoric to even post here They are all busy trolling ebay for more FF glass............. Originally posted by jsherman999 I had to do the same thing when I bought my first FF camera in 2010, I had never shot film really and had only shot aps-c SLR prior to that, so all the FLs had to be 'converted' the other way in my head when I was getting used to it. It's not a big deal. Its just about conversion so you know what to expect, there's no format that gives 'better' FOV than any other. YOu choose the lens you need, have available and can afford. I don't think it will be a huge problem, should get used to it. And since most references actually use FF as the base it might be easier than going the other way. Considering we still have guys complaining about "lenses not shooting as they were designed" after shooting APS-C for years I hope it goes better this way.