Difference Between Full Frame (35mm) Sensor & Cropped (APS-C) Sensor

richard balonglong · 06-26-2012, 09:50 AM - **1 Like**

Good day fellow Pentaxians!

*****(UPDATED)*****
As what from the title says, it's to explain the difference between sensors from APS-C (like the Pentax K-5/Canon 7D/ Nikon D7000) to 35mm Full Frame (like Canon 5D mkII, mkIII/Nikon D700, D800) and what are the effects on photographs.
Many photographers are still confused on the difference between the two, and thus only concerned on the number of pixels and the dynamic range of the camera's sensors.

So, here's a video made by Karl Taylor, a photographer from UK, a quick overview explaining the difference:

Youtu.be

_________________________________________
Full Frame vs APS-C
1) Full Frame and APS-C sensors on a projected Full Frame Lens' Image Circle:

- 200mm lens on Full frame
- 300mm FF equivalent on APS-C (1.5x), but on Full Frame you can just crop it out on post process if you want a tighter composition.

2) BOKEH / Depth of Field (85mm lens)
- 85mm @ f/1.4 on Full Frame; Subject at 3 meters away from lens:

- 85mm @ f/1.4 on APS-C; Subject 3 meters away from lens (same amount of bokeh but tighter composition due to 1.5x crop factor):

- 85mm @ f/1.4 on APS-C; subject 4.3 meters away (moving backwards to get the same composition but now losing the amount of bokeh)

3) Aberrations
- Here, let's compare the effect of aberrations between full frame and aps-c using the same lens, 85mm @ f/2.0:
On Full Frame Sensor

But on APS-C Sensor, which is a 1.5x crop factor

- Now, the aberrations are also magnified to 1.5x, thus emphasizing the aberration more.

With all of this said in here, that's why many professional photographers much prefer cameras with larger sensor. They don't just seek a quality image resolution and/or with higher pixel count and/or better dynamic range, but also seek a format which gives them more control on their photographs.
So, we hope that Pentax-Ricoh would really come up a fine full-frame Pentax DSLR...

Last edited by richard balonglong; 06-26-2012 at 11:10 PM.

joe.penn · 06-26-2012, 10:03 AM

Very Cool! Very cool as it shows/compares medium format!

**DAZ** · 06-26-2012, 07:16 PM

It has been a long time since I have heard so much misleading half truths useless information. I know what the differences are between formats but mostly all he says is things like bigger is bigger and smaller is smaller. At one time he will say to get a given look in a photo you have to use FF and the next he is saying you can get the same by making some changes. He did not show a single difference between the formats other then one is a crop of the other.

Each format is a crop of a bigger format. Saying that a FF can give a smaller DOF then an APS-C to a face has no meaning if the DOF is so small that not even the eyes are in focus. There are definite and distinct differences between formats that he is not illustrating. In the end all he leaves the viewer with is the concept that to take better photos you need to spend more money on better equipment like a “pro”.

DAZ

Unsinkable II · 06-27-2012, 07:58 AM

There are many situations when you would not choose to use a 1.4 on FF wide open, but when the opportunity arises, APS-C is owned.

I'm not even using my Z-1p or K-x as much these days. My new 3D camera (phone) is technically hugely inferior, but it is capturing absolute magic. Wow, wow.

Only a Matrix 360 spin would portray moments better.

Big thumbs up as a camera for parents or pet lovers. Get a 3D camera and capture moments as you couldn't otherwise.

LFLee · 06-27-2012, 08:13 AM

My FA ltd lenses are waiting for their true master to unleash their real power...
I also want to see how my A 50 f1.2 perform on a FF.

Come on Pentax! I'm sure your FF will be the best in its class!

normhead · 06-27-2012, 08:17 AM - **1 Like**

How do you know it's all propaganda? Every image is shot to look good in Full Frame and then the FF is shown as a crop. He could just as easily have shot everything to look good in APS-c and then shot full frame to show that the extra image is un-necessary. Or he could have done the real comparison, shots with the same FoV using APS-c and FF. However, he chose to hype the more expensive camera's he owns. Why would a pro do that you ask? He's trying to convince you to use his services, because he has this "bigger equipment" that you can't afford. It's disingenuous, but what you expect from FF fanatics.

eddie1960 · 06-27-2012, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Unsinkable II

There are many situations when you would not choose to use a 1.4 on FF wide open, but when the opportunity arises, APS-C is owned.
.

this is the point most people wanting FF try and make. there is another. If you are shooting on apsc with a 70 @ say f 2.8 you can get the same image but likely with better sharpness using a 105 @ f4 on FF. it isn't always about thin DOF sometimes it's about being able to achieve the effect while still being within the best sharpness zone for the lens. stopping down like that also is likely to minimize any CA

the only thing i will give this guy is that apsc is a crop of ff. No Sh*t Sherman. what he doesn't go on to do is equivalent comparisons that can show the real benefit - ie for the same FOV at say 3 feet both lenses wide open the FF will give thinner DOF and when stopped down to achieve the same DOF it should perform sharper and with less CA. those are the lens use arguments in any case. but the idea you need a big ass FF pro camera to achieve top notch results is utter BS. a Good Photographer can achieve top notch results with almost any camera within the limitations of the camera. (I didn't say pro because many self styled pros are not good photographers and there are some absolutely amazing amateurs)

One thing a true pro would do is pick the right tool for the job. If it means using a large format and shooting 8x10 they will do it (if the job pays for it - otherwise they may find a lower cost alternative or turn down the job). If it needs a cheap holga they will use that. for a true pro the camera is just a tool to achieve an end result. Some tools aren't worth owning because you have little use for them then you rent (for instance when I need long and fast - almost never - I will go rent a canon body lens for the weekend if it is justified - or more frequently i will rent a lighting setup for an event and charge it to the client. almost all my work is available light but occasionally i need to supply lights (1 award show every year i supply the continuous system which covers for all the video media guys as well)

redrockcoulee · 06-27-2012, 09:21 AM

Now I know I must give up my 4X5 and switch to 5X7 with the same lenses.

All but one of them will cover 5X7 and one will even cover whole plate. So I not doing the lenses justice by not shooting them full frame.

A photo of the girl shot with the cropped sensor by with a 50 1.4 in addition to the 85 at the same distance would have been useful in illustrating differences between the two formats as of course the one format will have tighter shots with the same lens at the same location. That is a given. How would the 50 1.4 compare to the 85 1.4 at the same distance? Would this not show the full frame superior? I admit I did not really watch the video as no sound at work but basing on the still images.

richard balonglong · 06-27-2012, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by redrockcoulee

A photo of the girl shot with the cropped sensor by with a 50 1.4 in addition to the 85 at the same distance would have been useful in illustrating differences between the two formats as of course the one format will have tighter shots with the same lens at the same location. That is a given. How would the 50 1.4 compare to the 85 1.4 at the same distance? Would this not show the full frame superior?

Ah, that is a good question. Here's an answer to that with this link:
85mm on FF vs 50mm on APS-C

jsherman999 · 06-27-2012, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

... No Sh*t Sherman. ...

Eh?

.

richard balonglong · 06-27-2012, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by normhead

He's trying to convince you to use his services, because he has this "bigger equipment" that you can't afford. It's disingenuous, but what you expect from FF fanatics.

This is not about "bigger equipment = better photographer" and about "FF fanatics" and hyping an expensive cameras. It's about the advantages of a bigger sensor over a smaller sensor on a photograph. Here's a question for you, why would you prefer an aps-c dslr over a micro 4/3 or a point&shoot cameras?

eddie1960 · 06-27-2012, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Eh?

.

lol not aimed ayt you of course, that saying must have driven you nuts as a kid

My first name is Denis, I got really tired of Denis the Menace (though to be true i probably was

)

normhead · 06-27-2012, 09:57 AM

And if it was a macro shot and you desired more DoF? You can always design a test that will prove a point. Or as I used to say when I was a teacher, I can write a test every body will pass, or a test everyone will fail, but what would be the point of either? Can I design a test using these same two lenses and cameras where the APS-c image looks better? Of course I can. And if this wasn't a biased test, the author would have done it. Once again, you have an author who set up a test where FF looks pretty good, and then compared it to a different format. No one argues that the two formats aren't different. Demonstrating a system's weakness without a similar image showing it's strength is pure propaganda. Why do you guys keep positing this crap. We know FF users have this whole thing going on about controlling depth of field. The point being, for most of us it's irrelevant.

Look at this shot...

Great bokeh, added depth of field. You can get a nice bokeh with APS-c. You might have to move your funny stuffed toy out a bit from the wall. Of course that would require you using your skills as a photographer for something other than trying to prove your point. It's easy to understand why you get these comparisons though. Why would anyone who just paid through the nose for an FF system do anything but try and prove to himself (and others) that it's better. To do otherwise would just be proving he/she wasted their money. Of course they are going to "prove" FF is better. By any means necessary. Or to put it another way... they have a vested interest in the results, and they know enough about photography to know how to cook them.

The thing is, it doesn't matter how many times you show what you can do with an FF, you can never prove that someone who was actually trying couldn't do just as good a shot with the same subject and an APS-c. The fact that you can't doesn't mean someone a bit more in tune with the APS-c format couldn't have.

richard balonglong · 06-27-2012, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

a Good Photographer can achieve top notch results with almost any camera within the limitations of the camera

Yes, a good photographer can achieve top notch results with almost any camera, even an iPhone's camera for example. But as what you've said, there's the limitation. So the photographer may have to seek better option to achieve what one really wanted especially if it's a paid job.

normhead · 06-27-2012, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Yes, a good photographer can achieve top notch results with almost any camera, even an iPhone's camera for example. But as what you've said, there's the limitation. So the photographer may have to seek better option to achieve what one really wanted especially if it's a paid job.

And sometimes that better option will be APS-c. Sometimes it will be FF, sometimes it will be MF. You pays your money and you takes your pick.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sensor Difference: Which is closer? APS-C to a M43 or M43 to a Digital Camera	rustynail925	Photographic Industry and Professionals	6	09-09-2012 05:36 AM
Full Frame or 1.6 sensor with TAKs	tak-pix	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	9	04-01-2012 04:22 PM
Why do people want a Full Frame sensor?	RobG	Pentax DSLR Discussion	98	02-15-2012 09:12 AM
Comparing FF to APS-C: What difference does the bigger sensor make?	dosdan	Photography Articles	26	07-29-2011 02:53 PM
Arguably the worlds best sensor, and it's way smaller than full frame. 500+ MP	Clinton	Photographic Technique	25	03-04-2011 09:10 PM

06-26-2012, 10:03 AM	#2
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Very Cool! Very cool as it shows/compares medium format!

06-26-2012, 07:16 PM	#3
DAZ Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Everett, WA USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 744	It has been a long time since I have heard so much misleading half truths useless information. I know what the differences are between formats but mostly all he says is things like bigger is bigger and smaller is smaller. At one time he will say to get a given look in a photo you have to use FF and the next he is saying you can get the same by making some changes. He did not show a single difference between the formats other then one is a crop of the other. Each format is a crop of a bigger format. Saying that a FF can give a smaller DOF then an APS-C to a face has no meaning if the DOF is so small that not even the eyes are in focus. There are definite and distinct differences between formats that he is not illustrating. In the end all he leaves the viewer with is the concept that to take better photos you need to spend more money on better equipment like a “pro”. DAZ

06-27-2012, 07:58 AM	#4
Unsinkable II Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,352	There are many situations when you would not choose to use a 1.4 on FF wide open, but when the opportunity arises, APS-C is owned. I'm not even using my Z-1p or K-x as much these days. My new 3D camera (phone) is technically hugely inferior, but it is capturing absolute magic. Wow, wow. Only a Matrix 360 spin would portray moments better. Big thumbs up as a camera for parents or pet lovers. Get a 3D camera and capture moments as you couldn't otherwise.

06-27-2012, 08:13 AM	#5
LFLee Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,292	My FA ltd lenses are waiting for their true master to unleash their real power... I also want to see how my A 50 f1.2 perform on a FF. Come on Pentax! I'm sure your FF will be the best in its class!

06-27-2012, 08:17 AM - 1 Like	#6
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	How do you know it's all propaganda? Every image is shot to look good in Full Frame and then the FF is shown as a crop. He could just as easily have shot everything to look good in APS-c and then shot full frame to show that the extra image is un-necessary. Or he could have done the real comparison, shots with the same FoV using APS-c and FF. However, he chose to hype the more expensive camera's he owns. Why would a pro do that you ask? He's trying to convince you to use his services, because he has this "bigger equipment" that you can't afford. It's disingenuous, but what you expect from FF fanatics.

06-27-2012, 08:17 AM	#7
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Unsinkable II There are many situations when you would not choose to use a 1.4 on FF wide open, but when the opportunity arises, APS-C is owned. . this is the point most people wanting FF try and make. there is another. If you are shooting on apsc with a 70 @ say f 2.8 you can get the same image but likely with better sharpness using a 105 @ f4 on FF. it isn't always about thin DOF sometimes it's about being able to achieve the effect while still being within the best sharpness zone for the lens. stopping down like that also is likely to minimize any CA the only thing i will give this guy is that apsc is a crop of ff. No Sh*t Sherman. what he doesn't go on to do is equivalent comparisons that can show the real benefit - ie for the same FOV at say 3 feet both lenses wide open the FF will give thinner DOF and when stopped down to achieve the same DOF it should perform sharper and with less CA. those are the lens use arguments in any case. but the idea you need a big ass FF pro camera to achieve top notch results is utter BS. a Good Photographer can achieve top notch results with almost any camera within the limitations of the camera. (I didn't say pro because many self styled pros are not good photographers and there are some absolutely amazing amateurs) One thing a true pro would do is pick the right tool for the job. If it means using a large format and shooting 8x10 they will do it (if the job pays for it - otherwise they may find a lower cost alternative or turn down the job). If it needs a cheap holga they will use that. for a true pro the camera is just a tool to achieve an end result. Some tools aren't worth owning because you have little use for them then you rent (for instance when I need long and fast - almost never - I will go rent a canon body lens for the weekend if it is justified - or more frequently i will rent a lighting setup for an event and charge it to the client. almost all my work is available light but occasionally i need to supply lights (1 award show every year i supply the continuous system which covers for all the video media guys as well)

06-27-2012, 09:21 AM	#8
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	Now I know I must give up my 4X5 and switch to 5X7 with the same lenses. All but one of them will cover 5X7 and one will even cover whole plate. So I not doing the lenses justice by not shooting them full frame. A photo of the girl shot with the cropped sensor by with a 50 1.4 in addition to the 85 at the same distance would have been useful in illustrating differences between the two formats as of course the one format will have tighter shots with the same lens at the same location. That is a given. How would the 50 1.4 compare to the 85 1.4 at the same distance? Would this not show the full frame superior? I admit I did not really watch the video as no sound at work but basing on the still images.

06-27-2012, 09:29 AM	#9
richard balonglong Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Baguio City, Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 350 Original Poster	Originally posted by redrockcoulee A photo of the girl shot with the cropped sensor by with a 50 1.4 in addition to the 85 at the same distance would have been useful in illustrating differences between the two formats as of course the one format will have tighter shots with the same lens at the same location. That is a given. How would the 50 1.4 compare to the 85 1.4 at the same distance? Would this not show the full frame superior? Ah, that is a good question. Here's an answer to that with this link: 85mm on FF vs 50mm on APS-C

06-27-2012, 09:43 AM	#10
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by eddie1960 ... No Sh*t Sherman. ... Eh? .

06-27-2012, 09:45 AM	#11
richard balonglong Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Baguio City, Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 350 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead He's trying to convince you to use his services, because he has this "bigger equipment" that you can't afford. It's disingenuous, but what you expect from FF fanatics. This is not about "bigger equipment = better photographer" and about "FF fanatics" and hyping an expensive cameras. It's about the advantages of a bigger sensor over a smaller sensor on a photograph. Here's a question for you, why would you prefer an aps-c dslr over a micro 4/3 or a point&shoot cameras?

06-27-2012, 09:46 AM	#12
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by jsherman999 Eh? . lol not aimed ayt you of course, that saying must have driven you nuts as a kid My first name is Denis, I got really tired of Denis the Menace (though to be true i probably was )

06-27-2012, 09:57 AM	#13
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	And if it was a macro shot and you desired more DoF? You can always design a test that will prove a point. Or as I used to say when I was a teacher, I can write a test every body will pass, or a test everyone will fail, but what would be the point of either? Can I design a test using these same two lenses and cameras where the APS-c image looks better? Of course I can. And if this wasn't a biased test, the author would have done it. Once again, you have an author who set up a test where FF looks pretty good, and then compared it to a different format. No one argues that the two formats aren't different. Demonstrating a system's weakness without a similar image showing it's strength is pure propaganda. Why do you guys keep positing this crap. We know FF users have this whole thing going on about controlling depth of field. The point being, for most of us it's irrelevant. Look at this shot... Great bokeh, added depth of field. You can get a nice bokeh with APS-c. You might have to move your funny stuffed toy out a bit from the wall. Of course that would require you using your skills as a photographer for something other than trying to prove your point. It's easy to understand why you get these comparisons though. Why would anyone who just paid through the nose for an FF system do anything but try and prove to himself (and others) that it's better. To do otherwise would just be proving he/she wasted their money. Of course they are going to "prove" FF is better. By any means necessary. Or to put it another way... they have a vested interest in the results, and they know enough about photography to know how to cook them. The thing is, it doesn't matter how many times you show what you can do with an FF, you can never prove that someone who was actually trying couldn't do just as good a shot with the same subject and an APS-c. The fact that you can't doesn't mean someone a bit more in tune with the APS-c format couldn't have.

06-27-2012, 10:01 AM	#14
richard balonglong Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Baguio City, Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 350 Original Poster	Originally posted by eddie1960 a Good Photographer can achieve top notch results with almost any camera within the limitations of the camera Yes, a good photographer can achieve top notch results with almost any camera, even an iPhone's camera for example. But as what you've said, there's the limitation. So the photographer may have to seek better option to achieve what one really wanted especially if it's a paid job.

06-27-2012, 10:09 AM	#15
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Quote: Yes, a good photographer can achieve top notch results with almost any camera, even an iPhone's camera for example. But as what you've said, there's the limitation. So the photographer may have to seek better option to achieve what one really wanted especially if it's a paid job. And sometimes that better option will be APS-c. Sometimes it will be FF, sometimes it will be MF. You pays your money and you takes your pick.