What to choose? Crop or full frame. We are heading towards full frame. A quick guide to choosing a full frame camera

When I was just beginning to understand the basics of photography, I constantly came across the following incomprehensible terms: CROP, CROP, CROP factor. At the same time, I learned another concept - full frame, and in any context there was a contrast between them, which simply confused me, an absolute beginner, and then I decided to find out what these interesting terms mean and what they are differences between them? Actually, this is what I decided to write about in this post.

CROP factor - what is it in cameras?

What does this strange word mean - KROP? Logic dictates that for the concept of this term one must turn to English language. Indeed, translated from English, “crop” means “to trim.” Okay, we already have something. Next, we will turn to the technical characteristics of the cameras themselves: one is the so-called CROPPED one (take Nikon d3100 as an example), and the other is full frame (for example, Nikon d800).

Looking through the description, we find the item of the same name - CROP factor in the characteristics of the matrix. Let's compare the data from Nikon d3100 and Nikon d800.

In the characteristics we can see the following values:

For professional SLR Nikon cameras d800 values ​​are slightly different:

As can be seen from the technical characteristics of these two SLR cameras, it’s all about the matrix, namely its size - the Nikon d800 has a matrix size that is almost 1.5 times larger than the Nikon d3100. Thus, we have determined the main difference between CROP and full frame - this is a trimmed matrix.

Where did this concept come from - CROP factor, what do the numbers 1, 1.5 in this line mean, and what are the advantages of a full frame over CROP factor 1.5? Let's figure it out.

The history of the origin of the concept of “CROP factor”

In general, the concept of “full frame” goes back to the past: in the days of film cameras standard size a frame of 35mm film measured 24x36mm. With the advent of the era of digital cameras, film was replaced by a light-sensitive element (silicon wafer), consisting of large quantity sensitive elements (photodiodes), and similar in principle to a conventional solar battery - the so-called CCD matrix. Now the matrix of a digital SLR camera with dimensions of 24x36 is considered full, or full frame. Manufacturing and installing matrices of this size is not only quite expensive, but also labor-intensive, which is why cameras of this level often cost several times more than cropped ones.

In general, it is probably not possible to “shove” a full-size matrix into a regular digital point-and-shoot camera or mobile phone, or a compact budget SLR, and therefore manufacturers have taken the path of simplifying/cheapening/reducing the size of both the matrix and, as a result, the photographic equipment itself, and precisely for designations of how much the dimensions of such matrices diverge from the reference dimensions of 24x36 and the concept of CROP factor was introduced. The CROP factor of a full-size matrix was taken as 1, and from this figure the determination of the sizes of all other “trimmed” matrices began by comparison with the “standard” - 24x36.

How to calculate the CROP factor of a matrix?

Knowing the CROP factor of the matrix, it is not difficult to calculate its real physical dimensions. For example, if a camera’s specifications indicate a value of 1.5 in the “CROP factor” line, this means that it has a physical matrix size that is 1.5 times smaller than the standard ones - we simply divide the dimensions of the full frame 24x36 by 1.5, and we get 16x24 (+ /-1). The opposite is also true. When manufacturers assign a CROP factor value to a certain matrix, they also compare it with the “standard”, and they do this very simply - by dividing the width and height of the full frame by the same dimensions of the desired matrix: simply divide first 24/16, and then 36/24 and we get the figure 1.5 - that is, it turns out that each size has decreased by one and a half times, which means that the CROP factor of such a matrix will be 1.5.

There is also another simple formula to determine the CROP factor:

K f = 35mm diagonal / matrix diagonal = 43.3/28.8 = 1.5

The diagonal of a standard 35mm frame is approximately 43.3mm. The diagonal of a 16x24 matrix is ​​calculated using the Pythagorean theorem:

16 2 + 24 2 = D 2

832 = D2

Now we just extract Square root from 832, we get 28.8, and using the formula above we calculate the CROP factor.

Thus, we obtain the CROP factor of a matrix with dimensions 16x24 - 1.5.

What is the difference between a frame taken on KROP and a frame taken on a camera with a full-size sensor?

In reality, everything is much simpler: with the same focal length of the lens on a full-frame camera, more space will fall into the frame than on a camera with a Crop factor of 1.5.

To clearly show this, I will give an example that shows how the camera itself sees reality, and how the matrix cuts the size of the frame.

How the lens sees reality, and how the frame of the CROP matrix and full frame is cropped

As you can see from the example above, a circle is the area formed by the lens. The matrix is ​​made in the form of a rectangle, and therefore crops the image in accordance with its geometric shape. We see the same rectangular image through the viewfinder eye. The full-size matrix occupies almost the entire field of view of the lens, with the exception of the rounded areas (the part of the image highlighted by a black frame in the example), as a result of which darkening (vignetting) may appear at the edges since the sensitivity of the matrix to the corners of the frame decreases, and a little less light gets there . A trimmed sensor occupies a smaller area (green area), so it is almost impossible for it to capture more space, even though the lens size allows it.

Manufacturers indicate the focal length of a lens based on those obtained when using it on a camera with a CROP factor of 1 (full frame), so a focal length of 50 mm on a full frame will be equal to 75 mm on a CROP camera. To calculate the actual or equivalent focal length on a camera with a cropped sensor, we will simply need to multiply its value by the CROP factor. For example, Nikon d3100 at a set focal length of the lens of 100 mm will give an equivalent focal length of 150 mm (100 * 1.5 = 150).

It is important to understand that a cropped matrix does not increase the focal length in the true sense of the word, but simply uses a smaller area (smaller viewing angle), and as a result, the illusion of increasing the focal length is created. In essence, the result is an image from a full frame cropped by 1.5 times and enlarged to normal physical dimensions corresponding to a certain number of megapixels of the camera, but this does not in any way affect its quality, as when cropping in a photo editor.

Thus, the cropped matrix makes wide-angle lenses not so wide-angle, but when using a telephoto lens on the crop there is slight advantage– where for a camera with a trimmed matrix a distance of 200 mm is enough, on a full frame you will have to set the focal length to 300 mm, etc.

What other differences are there between CROP and full frame?

Less noise at highs ISO . It is known that the matrices of full-frame cameras are much less noisy at high ISO values. Big square The photosensitive element in a full-frame camera exceeds the area of ​​an incomplete matrix with a CROP factor of 1.5 by 2.25 times (24*36 = 864; 16*24 = 384; 864/384 = 2.25), allowing manufacturers to install larger photocells. Large photocells can perceive much large quantity light, which in turn leads to a reduction in noise at high ISOs by the same number of times. For example, at ISO 1600 on a cropped camera, the matrix will make the same noise as at 3200 on a full-frame camera, or at ISO 800, the full-size sensor will be as noisy as at ISO 400 on a cropped camera, i.e. the noise will be almost invisible.

Larger viewfinder. Among other things, on full-frame cameras, due to the enlargement of the matrix, the size of the viewfinder itself has also increased. This, of course, is much more convenient; such a viewfinder causes much less strain and fatigue on the eye. It also makes it easier to manually focus and control automatic focusing.

Weight and dimensions. As a rule, full-frame cameras are larger and heavier compared to cropped ones. This is not explained by an increase in the size of the matrix itself, but rather by design features. For example, let's compare the weight of Nikon d3100 and Nikon d800 - the weight of the first is 505 g including the battery, and the weight of the second is 1000 g, so the difference is almost 2 times. In addition to the increased weight of the camera, we also get heavier full frame lenses.

What to choose: CROP or full frame?

So, to summarize: the main advantage of full frame, from my point of view, is the ability to shoot at high ISOs without the appearance of noticeable noise. Second important point is that a full frame, roughly speaking, can accommodate more space in the picture than a cropped frame. The price for this is its increased weight and size, as well as often cloudy conditions. high price. A cropped camera is deprived of these advantages, but let’s say I shoot at high ISOs quite rarely, and in most cases I still have enough space in the crop frame, especially since I often shoot on , and this undoubtedly gives its advantages on a cropped camera, so for For now, I decided to form a collection of high-quality optics, and only then, perhaps, switch to full frame. If, let’s say, you are buying your first DSLR, and still don’t know what you want from it, don’t chase the full frame promoted and imposed by the manufacturer, but buy a KROP first, and spend the remaining money on high-quality lenses and training in the basics of photography - this will be the most reasonable solution - and only then decide for yourself whether you need a full frame?

This is where I will probably end the article, I hope it will be useful to you and will clarify the question of what the CROP factor is, as well as how a full frame differs from a CROP camera.

If you liked or helped the article, as a thank you, you can click on the social network buttons below, but if after reading you still have questions, or you didn’t like the article, and you want to criticize and bring even greater clarity to this question– please write in comments, they are accepted with great desire and gratitude! Good luck and success in learning photography!

Also, do not forget that each article on the blog has an author, and if you copy it, then please indicate an active link to the source, open for indexing, or at least to the main page of the site website, be respectful of other people's work.

Full-format Nikon and Sony cameras (maybe others) can operate both in normal full-format mode, when the entire camera sensor is used to obtain an image, and in cropping mode. For example, you can use the APS-C (DX for Nikon) crop mode. In this mode, only the central area of ​​the camera sensor is used. The size of this area exactly matches the size of the matrices on cropped APS-C cameras. To put it simply, full-format cameras can be made to ‘work with a crop’.

The ability to shoot in crop mode allows me personally to slightly manipulate equivalent focal lengths (EFLs). For me, this turned out to be a very nice feature when shooting with prime lenses.

Example of using crop mode: I often photograph events with a fast fifty-kopeck lens and a full-format camera. Sometimes I can't get close enough to the subject, so I turn on the crop mode. To do this, in the camera menu, just turn on the ‘Image area’->’Select. image area’ and select the value ‘DX format 24 x 16’ there. In the “AF Point Illumination” setting, I have the value “Off” selected, which allows, after enabling the ‘DX Format 24 x 16′ function, to darken the unused area of ​​the image visible in . In fact, through the optical viewfinder, I only see the image that I get after releasing the shutter. Visually, it seems that the lens turns from a 50 mm prime into a 75 mm one. This trick makes it easier to frame the future shot and reach more distant subjects.

Of course, I understand perfectly well that the exact same result can be obtained by cutting out the central part of the photo during processing (the result will be 100% similar to what I get with the 'DX Format 24 x 16' function). But psychologically it is much more convenient to frame the frame directly during shooting.

It’s even easier with an electronic viewfinder - there you can immediately see the image obtained from the central part of the sensor without darkening areas in .

Closer to the point

So, switching between FX formats<->DX and shooting the same scenes with the same lens, I noticed that sometimes the background and foreground blur in DX format looks (visually) stronger than in full-frame FX mode.

It should be just the opposite! We all know the story that full-format cameras blur the background more strongly. How then?

Look at the next two photographs and note for yourself where the blur in the background is stronger. Blurring refers to the size of the circles of blur.

First photo:

Original shot from a Sony a7II camera. The image has many circles (disks) of blur

Second photo:

Original from a Sony a7II camera in APS-C mode (actually a cut out of the central part of the previous photo)

Visually, the blur zone in the second image is more pronounced, and the blur discs are larger. At the same time, the second picture, roughly speaking, was taken with a cropped lens. This happens if you shoot from the same distance without maintaining the proportions in the frame.

Let's take a separate, clearly defined disc (circle) of blur.

From a full-length photo:

Blur disk in a full-frame photo

From the cropped photo:

The selected blur disk is the same size in pixels across photos.

A full-length photo from a Sony a7II measures 6000 x 4000 pixels (24,000,000 pixels). The area of ​​the circle is Pi*D*D/4 and equals 54.297 pixels. In this case, the size of the circle is 1/442 of the entire image (0.23%).

The cropped photo from the Sony a7II measures 3936 x 2624 pixels (10,328,064 pixels). The area of ​​the circle is Pi*D*D/4 and is equal to the same 54.297 pixels. In this case, the size of the circle is 1/190 of the entire image (0.53%).

When moving from a full-format shot to a cropped one, the ratio of the blur disk to the entire frame increased by approximately 2.3 times. The same number could be obtained thanks to the coefficient Kf=1.5 by squaring it.

A serious conclusion arises: if you shoot with cropped and full-format cameras on the same lens, at the same value and from the same distance, then due to different proportions of blur zones.

Spoiler 1: different cameras of the same type (crop or full frame) have different numbers of megapixels, but the ratio of the blur disk to the entire frame will be the same.

Spoiler 2: I was asked to do an experiment with a point light source placed at infinity. I didn’t do this, so the experiment can be considered not 100% fair. You can conduct your own investigation of the circles of blur at infinity.

Spoiler 3: in the article I show pictures reduced to the same size in pixels - 1200 pixels on the longest side. This needs to be taken into account.

Spoiler 3.1: for comparison, cropped and full frame images were adjusted to the same size. The pictures have the same aspect ratio of 2:3; when downscaled, the pictures look the same.

Spoiler 4: the article is not about depth of field. Do not confuse depth of field and blur disk.

Spoiler 5: do not confuse the depth of field and the blur power of the distant / foreground. The depth of field may be the same for two shots, but the strength of the background/foreground blur will be radically different. To put it very roughly, the depth of field depends most strongly on the F number (aperture number), and the blur of the distant/foreground depends most strongly on the focal length of the lens.

The tricky part is that the ratio of object size to frame size will change. To shoot the same object, in in this case- a twig with berries, with the same scale (so that the size of the twig in the frame is the same on both a full-format and a cropped camera) in the case of a cropped camera, you will have to move further from the subject being photographed than when using a full-format camera.

Test. Get the same full frame and crop shots using the same lens

To maintain the proportions of the subject being photographed in the frame from a full-format and cropped APS-C camera, the focusing distance must differ by 1.5 times. The difference in focusing distances is easy to calculate using my calculations.

Very important: the difference in focusing distance corresponds to the coefficient.

All pictures below were taken with the same ISO settings, and , but with different focusing distances and framing modes (the same as shooting with a cropped and full-format camera at the same settings).

The first photo was taken in full frame mode (FX mode), the focusing distance is approximately 45 cm (data from):

The second picture was taken in crop mode (DX mode), the focusing distance is approximately 45 cm (data from). The photo was taken with the same camera, from the same position as the previous photo, just this time the ‘DX 24 x 16’ format mode was turned on (a complete analogy if a cropped camera was used). You can see how much the shooting scale increases:

Let's move the camera away from the object being photographed. The third photo was taken in full frame mode, the focusing distance is approximately 60 cm (data from):

The fourth photo was taken in crop mode, the focusing distance is approximately 60 cm (data from). The photo was taken with the same camera, from the same position as the previous photo, just this time the ‘DX 24 x 16’ format mode was turned on (a complete analogy if a cropped camera was used). You can see how much the shooting scale increases:

Comparison of a photo taken with a “full-format” camera and a “cropped” camera:

It is clearly visible that the proportions of the subject being photographed in the frame remain the same (i.e. with same scale), but the transfer of perspective has changed. In the case of the DX mode, the perspective has become narrower (it is visually felt as an influx of distant background). The compressed perspective in the DX image matches that of a 75mm lens used on a full-frame camera.

The change in perspective is clearly visible in the following GIF animation. Notice how in DX mode (i.e. crop) the distant shot “zooms closer”, compressing the perspective:

A small note. Although I indicated that the difference in focusing distance should be 1.5 times to obtain the same shooting zoom, you can see that in this case the difference is 60cm/45cm=1.33 times. A small error may be due to the fact that the data may not be recorded entirely accurately. This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that the lens has an MDF equal to 45 cm, but I did not shoot on MDF, since the focus ring was not screwed all the way, but at the same time it shows 45 cm. Also, the lens has the Focus Breathing effect - changing the angle review while focusing. And the pictures, nevertheless, are not quite similar due to lens distortion (at the edges of the full frame and are more noticeable).

A small conclusion that everyone passes by: while maintaining the shooting scale (the subject being photographed has the same proportions in paired photographs) on a full-format camera and on a cropped camera, using the same and identical F number (for example, the same fixed lens with the same number F) visual blur (out-of-focus zone discs) on the crop will look larger than on the full frame. Yes exactly! The crop will actually blur the background/foreground more. If you don't believe me, then just take a close look at the GIF animation above. You can visually see how much larger the blur zone discs of the DX camera are than the blur discs of the FX camera. I believe that it is for this reason that it is so difficult to distinguish between full-frame and cropped images using the same lens at the same value. Photographers psychologically expect stronger blur on a full-frame camera, but it turns out quite the opposite. The radius of the blur disk, in this case, increases by K times, where K is the coefficient. It’s strange, but everyone ignores this conclusion.

Test. Get the same full frame and cropped shots using different lenses (or a zoom lens)

To ensure that full-frame and cropped images are the same (or very, very similar), you should use different focal lengths and values.

For example, if you take a lens, then the same pictures on a full-format and cropped camera should be obtained, for example, in the following case:

• The cropped camera uses a 50 mm focal length and F/2.8
• the full-format camera uses 75 mm focal length and F/4

The following images were taken at the same focusing distance. The camera was always in the same place. Only the exposure pair and focal length settings changed. The exposure value (shutter speed/aperture) was changed to compensate and the blur strength.

The first photo was taken in full frame mode:

Similar pictures

44 mm instead of 50 mm was most likely due to several reasons:

• perhaps it has not an honest 75 mm at the long end, but 70 (like most lenses of this class)
• Perhaps the 44 mm focal length is not entered quite correctly. Who knows how Tamron chips are programmed
• Most likely, during the test I still made a slight deviation in maintaining the similarity of the picture

Slightly different pictures were obtained due to:

• different light
• 2.8*1.5=4.2, but the camera cannot set the value F/4.2, you can only select F/4.0 or F/4.5, F/4.0 is closer to the theoretical calculation
• different distortion at different focal lengths and framing modes
• different at different focal lengths and framing modes

All test materials in RAW+JPEG format can be downloaded from this link and you can dig deeper into the material from the article yourself.

Results

1. The most obvious result. If you shoot the same scene with cropped and full-length cameras, using a lens with the same focal length, at the same aperture value and from the same distance, then it will be change the shooting scale.
2. Not an obvious outcome. If you shoot the same scene with cropped and full-length cameras, using a lens with the same focal length, at the same aperture value and from the same distance, then the blur effect will look stronger on a cropped camera(due to different scales of the blur zone/disk, see pictures with blur disks). In numerical terms, the blur strength increases by the square. As a result, we can say that in such a situation, the crop camera blurs the background more strongly. I noticed this feature during actual shooting. It is this feature that prompted the writing of this article.
3. Focus distance difference between cameras with different sizes matrices, when using a lens with the same focal length and maintaining the shooting scale, corresponds to the coefficient . For APS-C cameras (for example, Nikon DX), compared to full-format cameras, you will have to increase the shooting distance by 1.5 times to maintain the same shooting scale.
4. Difference in Perspective. With the same lens on a cropped and full-frame camera You won't be able to get identical pictures. due to different perspectives (see first GIF animation).
5. Identical frames (as far as possible due to different matrix resolutions and other conventions) from cropped and full-format cameras can only be obtained on lenses with different focal lengths(see second GIF animation). In order for pictures from a cropped camera to be as close as possible to pictures from a full-format camera, on a cropped camera you should use a focal length K times smaller than on a full frame, and an aperture number K times smaller than on a full frame. K is the coefficient. In the case of Nikon DX crop K=1.5.

Thank you for your attention. Arkady Shapoval.

© 2014 site

Digital cameras are called full-frame (FX or Full-Frame) if the dimensions of their matrix are 36 x 24 mm, coinciding with the dimensions of a standard frame of small-format film type 135. Cameras with a smaller sensor (APS-C, DX, Micro 4/3), i.e. having a crop factor greater than one are called part-frame, cropped, or simply cropped.

The myth about the absolute superiority of full-frame cameras over crop-factor cameras is so firmly rooted in the mass consciousness that I’m even somehow embarrassed to debunk it. After all, everyone knows that a full-frame camera is better than a cropped one. And why is it better, if it’s not a secret? Most amateur photographers find it difficult to answer this question, but are firmly convinced that “real quality” is achievable only with a full frame. Since Nikon and Canon unanimously declare that purchasing a full-frame camera is the ideal solution to all photographic problems, and a legion of amateur photographers unconditionally agree with this thesis, then maybe the full frame really has some wonderful properties, which evaporate without a trace, all you have to do is reduce the size of the sensor by one and a half to two times?

It is not difficult to understand photographic equipment manufacturers. Their goal is to increase profits, which means that both Nikon and Canon would prefer that when choosing a camera, you buy the most expensive model, regardless of whether it suits your true needs. Since full-frame DSLRs are more expensive than cropped ones, the desire of photo giants to convince potential buyers of the need to purchase a full-frame camera seems quite natural. Amateur photographers, in turn, readily believe advertising because, firstly, they are not used to thinking critically, secondly, they sincerely believe that “more” or “more expensive” always means “better”, and thirdly, they are generally inclined greatly exaggerate the role of photographic equipment in the process of obtaining a beautiful photograph.

The desire of a beginning amateur photographer for a full frame is usually emotional, not rational. Everyone wants to shoot full frame, but not everyone really needs it. Meanwhile, often using a camera with a crop factor is a completely reasonable decision, and its capabilities are sufficient for almost most photographic situations.

Do not misunderstand me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with full frame cameras. After all, the size of the photosensitive material is one thing you can never have too much of. And the need to operate with such a clumsy artificial concept as equivalent focal length irritates many. If you passionately want to shoot at full frame and you can afford it, then why not? Just don't be under the illusion that your photos will automatically improve as a result of switching to full-frame technology.

This article is addressed primarily to those who are hesitating between crop and full frame and would like to know about the practical consequences of increasing the sensor and whether the game is even worth the candle? The problem is becoming even more pressing due to the fact that full-frame cameras, gradually becoming cheaper, are ceasing to be purely professional tools, and now there are models on the market that differ from each other almost exclusively in sensor size and price, but are otherwise similar to each other, like twins (for example, Nikon D7100 and Nikon D610).

In the following paragraphs, I will try to reveal as objectively as possible the actual differences between crop and full frame, which affect both image quality and ease of use. You will see that both classes of cameras are not without both advantages and disadvantages, although the gap between them is not nearly as wide as between DSLRs in general and compacts, the sensors of which are truly negligible. I'll mainly be referring to Nikon and Canon DSLR systems as the most popular, but most of the material holds true for other brands as well.

Dynamic range

A full-frame camera potentially has a greater dynamic range than a camera with a crop factor. This is a direct consequence of the increase in the physical size of the photomatrix. As you know, the size of the full frame is 36 x 24 mm, while the size of the APS-C format matrix (Nikon DX), which has a crop factor of 1.5, is 24 x 16 mm. Change linear dimensions sensor by 1.5 times means a change in its area by 2.25 times. Thus, with equal resolution, i.e. with the same number of photodiodes, larger photodiodes of a full-frame sensor will have approximately twice the larger capacity, compared to photodiodes in an APS-C format sensor. Twice the photodiode capacity means a twofold increase in the signal-to-noise ratio, i.e. Increasing the dynamic range by one exposure stop. As a result, full-frame cameras have a maximum ISO sensitivity that is on average one stop higher than similar models with an APS-C sensor, and at equal ISO values, full-frame sensor noise is less noticeable. Roughly speaking, APS-C at ISO 3200 is noisier than full frame at ISO 6400. At lower ISOs the difference is not nearly as obvious, and when shooting at the base sensitivity value (usually ISO 100), the advantage of full frame is manifested only in the ability to stretch a little more freely shadows in post-processing.

I would like to emphasize that the above comparison is valid only for cameras that have the same resolution and were released at approximately the same time. Technologies do not stand still and modern cropped cameras are objectively superior to older full-frame models, including in terms of dynamic range. If you don't intend to shoot at crazy ISO values, the dynamic range of any modern camera will be quite enough for you, as long as it has a crop factor of no more than two. Most people are unlikely to notice a difference of one or two stops of dynamic range at all. If it seems to you that your camera is noisy at high ISOs, then in order to prevent perfectionism, try shooting a little film with ISO sensitivity 800, and you will be surprised at how clear the picture is from your amateur digital SLR.

Depth of field

Depth of field depends on frame size only indirectly. To obtain the same image angle, a camera with a crop factor needs a lens with a shorter focal length than a full-frame camera. Reducing the focal length leads to an increase in depth of field in proportion to the crop factor, and vice versa - the longer the focal length, the smaller the depth of field. As a result, with equal values ​​of aperture, equivalent focal length, focusing distance and resolution, a full frame gives approximately one and a half times less depth of field than APS-C. For example, if an aperture of f/4 was used for a certain photo taken full frame, then to obtain a similar image (while maintaining perspective and depth of field) using an APS-C camera, you will need an aperture of f/2.8.

Obviously, full-frame cameras have some advantage in cases where you need to separate the main subject from the background using a shallow depth of field, as is the case when shooting portraits. On the contrary, if the photographer’s goal is to get a sharp frame right up to the horizon, which often happens in landscape photography, then the advantage is on the side of cameras with a smaller format sensor, since, all other things being equal, they provide a greater depth of field.

Lenses

Full frame Nikon and Canon systems include a huge variety of lenses to suit any need. The choice of lenses for cropped cameras is much more modest. Of course, you can use full-frame lenses on cropped cameras, but, firstly, due to the crop factor, choosing the right lens with a given equivalent focal length is not always possible, and secondly, is that why they buy cropped cameras to put heavy equipment on them? and expensive full-format optics? Unfortunately, neither Nikon nor Canon consider it necessary to produce lightweight and compact crop primes, being in the naive delusion that superzooms are enough for the user of amateur DSLRs, and in general, it would be better if he switched to full frame and did not deprive the poor Japanese of their earnings. Wide Angle Lenses from Nikon and Canon for full-frame cameras can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Exotics like tilt-shift lenses are only available within Canon Full-Frame and Nikon FX.

But when it comes to telephoto lenses, owners of cropped cameras are in an advantageous position, and this is where the use of full-frame optics is completely justified. Due to the notorious crop factor, 200 mm turns into at least the equivalent of 300, and 300 into 450, which is not so bad even for photographing wild animals. This is why many photo hunters who want to optimize their expenses prefer cropped crops.

Viewfinder

Optical viewfinders on full-frame cameras are definitely more convenient, larger and brighter. A large viewfinder makes the eye less tired and allows better control over autofocus, not to mention manual focusing.

But cropped cameras have an unexpected advantage over full-frame cameras, which lies in the convenient location of autofocus points in the viewfinder. If in cropped cameras the focusing points cover a fairly large part of the viewfinder field, then in full-frame cameras all the points, no matter how many there are, are grouped in the center of the frame.

The fact is that the dimensions of the focusing module in all SLR cameras, both cropped and full-frame, are approximately the same, but since the viewfinder of full-frame cameras is itself larger, the area covered by the focusing points seems smaller. If you focus primarily using the central AF sensor and then recompose the shot, the squashed focus points won't bother you, but if you prefer not to change your composition after focusing, the lack of peripheral sensors may be an issue for you.

Dimensions and weight

On average, full-frame cameras are larger and heavier than cropped ones, but the reason for this is not the sensor, which weighs a little, but rather the positioning of a particular model and related design features. Reliable and, as a result, overweight professional models are now universally equipped with full-frame sensors, while lightweight plastic amateur cameras make do with reduced-format matrices. At the same time, models located at the intersection of two classes can be very similar in their parameters and differ from each other only in the size of the sensor and accompanying units (such as the shutter and viewfinder), and as a result have almost the same dimensions and weight.

However, few people carry a camera without a lens. Full-frame lenses are noticeably heavier and bulkier than crop lenses. Of two homologous ones, i.e. covering the same range of equivalent focal lengths of optics kits, a full-frame kit will weigh on average one and a half times more.

Thus, if you need a lightweight travel system, the total weight of which will not exceed one kilogram, consisting of a camera and two or three lenses covering a range of focal lengths from 28 to at least 300 mm equivalent, then full-frame solutions simply do not exist here. If you need professional reporting equipment, which today is exclusively full-frame, then you will inevitably have to put up with its impressive dimensions and solid weight.

Price

Of course, full-frame cameras are more expensive than cropped ones. Today prices for current cropped DSLR cameras start from five hundred dollars, while full-frame ones start from about two thousand. The difference in price is explained not only by the fact that the photomatrix is ​​really the most expensive part digital camera, but also by the pragmatic approach of photographic equipment manufacturers to the formation model range. Even if the sensors were worthless, Nikon and Canon would still make full-frame cameras more expensive for purely marketing reasons.

In any case, even if you have enough money to switch to full frame, think about it: have you really exhausted the photographic capabilities of the crop, or is this idea artificially imposed on you? Isn't it better to spend extra money on purchasing additional lenses, flashes, a tripod, educational literature, in a word, those things that will have a much more direct and obvious effect on your photographs than simply increasing the format?

Thank you for your attention!

Vasily A.

Post scriptum

If you found the article useful and informative, you can kindly support the project by making a contribution to its development. If you didn’t like the article, but you have thoughts on how to make it better, your criticism will be accepted with no less gratitude.

Please remember that this article is subject to copyright. Reprinting and quoting are permissible provided there is a valid link to the source, and the text used must not be distorted or modified in any way.

One of the most important and basic parameters of any photographic equipment is 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 the physical dimensions of a full-frame and cropped camera, just 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 is the physical size of the 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 their 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

This question worries a considerable number of amateur photographers who are looking for their “next” camera to replace the inexpensive amateur model on which they learned the basics of photography and from which they grew. At the same time, I really want that, in addition to the growth of megapixels, the new device will have some fundamentally new capabilities that will allow you to rise to the next level in creativity. And here the full-frame comes into view for many Canon EOS 5D is a camera that was once positioned as a semi-professional one, but is now sold used, sometimes for ridiculous money.

What is the Canon EOS 5D (not Mark)?

This device was produced between 2005 and 2008 and was the first relatively affordable full-frame DSLR. Against the background of cropped cameras of his time it was distinguished by its image quality - a resolution of 13 megapixels (versus 6-10 for the “crop” cameras of that time), approximately 2 times higher operating ISO, and in general, the picture from it was subjectively more vibrant, voluminous and beautiful. When the first “nickel” was released, many film photographers purchased it. "Pervopyatak" still has many fans - mainly because it is a full frame for ridiculous money. Unfortunately, every year the number of copies in good condition is decreasing and soon you will find a Canon EOS 5D in good condition will be a great success, but this will not be a reason to send the old man to the dustbin of history; he will rather go into the “retro” category.

The main characteristics of the Canon EOS 5D are as follows: full-frame CMOS sensor with a resolution of 13 megapixels, 9 phase focusing sensors, of which 1 is cross-shaped, located in the center. Mirror viewfinder with coverage of about 96% of the frame, continuous shooting of 3 frames per second and... that's all! No video recording, no life view, no built-in flash, no scene programs, connection to a computer via USB 1.0.

In RAW the result is much better, but to “develop” it you need to use advanced software like Adobe Photoshop Lightroom (even the ancient 3rd version “knows” Canon EOS 5D). The standard Digital Photo Professional RAW converter will provide results similar to in-camera Jpeg.

The Canon EOS 5D also has many settings in “custom functions” that a beginner should not mess with - type of flash synchronization, type of focusing screen, mirror lock, etc. Unfortunately, the 5D doesn't have autofocus micro-adjustment (it was introduced in the Mark II), so when buying a new lens, be sure to test it for front/back focus.

In general, the Canon EOS 5D is an archaic, oaky, slow, simple and reliable full-frame camera designed for shooting in manual mode in RAW format. In order for them to shoot, you need to know what you are doing and how it should be done, and in case of failure, do not blame it on “some Carlson” :)

What's really good about the Canon EOS 5D?

Good photo sharpness

Having a full-frame sensor with a modest resolution of 13 megapixels, the Canon EOS 5D is very loyal to the resolution of the lens. Even with budget zooms like the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM you can get a very decent picture. This, judging by the reviews of the owners of this lens and this body. Personally, I use the Canon EF 24-105mm 1:4 L IS USM lens and find it very sharp across the entire focal length range and at any aperture, while on the 5D Mark III it noticeably blurs. If you attach a prime lens, even an inexpensive one, to the camera, the sharpness will be simply ringing. Here is an example of a photo taken with an inexpensive Canon EF 40mm 1: 2.8 STM prime (will open on Yandex.Photos):

Working ISO in RAW

What is written below is only relevant for the RAW format. The default ISO range is 100-1600, but can be expanded from 50 to 3200 through custom functions. Many people are excited about ISO50, but to be honest, I didn’t notice big difference as a picture with ISO100. Up to ISO400, the picture looks smooth, noise can only be seen under a microscope, and even then, it is not annoying and is removed in Lightroom without a visible decrease in detail. At ISO800 there is already a slight “roughness” of the picture, but it is not annoying and is perceived as light film grain. Lightroom can significantly reduce noise at ISO800, but you probably won’t be able to get rid of it completely. ISO1600 can also be called quite workable if you shoot in RAW. Here's an example photo taken at ISO1600 in RAW under room lighting.

Test photo

Noise reduction in Lightroom. Original At ISO3200 the noise is already clearly noticeable and no amount of suppression can get rid of it.

Canon EOS 5D noise at ISO3200 without noise reduction

Noise reduction in Lightroom As you can see, the sharpness is no longer the same.

Color rendition and dynamic range

No matter what anyone says, the Canon EOS 5D has excellent color rendition with normal optics. I use it to shoot landscapes, portraits, and reportage. When working with natural light I have never seen “plastic flowers”, “carrot yellow skintones”, excessive blue, yellow, red, green, etc. At correct setting exposure and balance white photos They turn out true and beautiful at the same time. The maximum that remains to be done during processing is to adjust the levels, contrast, and saturation.

It’s interesting to practice light overexposure. Instead of immediately fading the colors into white, as amateur technology does, the matrix seems to “resist” for some time before giving up. Here is an example of a photograph - the foreground is in the shadows, the background is illuminated by the bright sun.

Fortunately, additional lighting on the PP would have been useful here, but it simply wasn’t there, all hope was for the dynamic range and it, in principle, was justified. From this we can conclude that the dynamic range of the Canon EOS 5D is quite good. The in-camera curve settings spoil the impression a little - the shadows at the “default” settings turn out to be too dark, but they look quite good in Lightroom, especially when shooting at low ISOs.

When shooting landscapes, the Canon EOS 5D also shows itself with the best side. The sharpness is excellent, the colors are beautiful.

In difficult contrast lighting, you can use exposure bracketing in steps of +-1EV, and then mix the images into “moderate HDR” in Photoshop or Photomatix. At the same time, they will turn out with beautiful and juicy flowers and smooth halftones, for example, like this.

Full-frame portrait photography

To maintain proportions and scale as the frame size increases, you need to proportionally increase the focal length - I think this is known to all more or less advanced amateur photographers. An increase in focal length entails a reduction in depth of field, that is, if we previously photographed portraits on a cropped lens with a 50mm/1.8 lens, then on a full frame we will need an 85mm/1.8 lens for the same shooting (for example, many prefer other focal lengths for portrait). As the focal length increased, the depth of field decreased and the background blur increased. But it becomes more interesting to shoot with fifty dollars. It’s clear that for a complete picture it’s worth giving photographs from some “top-end” glass like 50/1.2L, but I’m not a portrait photographer and the only thing I had on hand at the time of writing this review was the Soviet Helios 44M lens (58mm/ 2) and I adapted it to the “nickel” as a mid-plane portrait. It turned out that even with it, portraits in everyday situations look very interesting, “not soapy.”

Just a portrait of my wife offhand, without any staging or additional lighting. I have always argued and will continue to argue that the background, blurred by artistic unusual bokeh, plays no less important role in the composition than the foreground. With cropped cameras, all the delights of “bokeh” lenses remain outside the frame. Although, each author has his own opinion on this matter, some, on the contrary, consider it a virtue.

The benefits of full frame for landscape photography

For me, as a landscape photographer, full frame opened up new horizons in my creativity, thanks to the full use of wide-angle optics. The Samyang 14mm lens at full frame is simply a bomb! :)

However, now a lot of ultra-wide-angle optics with focal lengths from 8 to 16 mm have been released for cropped devices, so the problem of a lack of wide angle on a cropped device is easily solved by purchasing the same Samyang, but not 14, but 10 millimeters.

Disadvantages of Canon EOS 5D

Dust/moisture protection

She simply doesn't exist! Even if you don’t change the lens, the camera sucks dust out of nowhere, and as a result, characteristic specks from dust particles appear on the matrix in the photographs. I used to bother with cleaning the matrix, I even bought special device(a set of “mops” for the matrix), but now I limit myself to blowing off the main dust from the matrix using a blower as it accumulates. It’s just that now I’ve started to use this camera less often (for everyday shooting I have an Olympus mirrorless camera), and the Canon EOS 5D is a camera “for the soul”.

Autofocus

Another weakness the first "nickel" (yes, judging by the reviews, the second too). There is only one cross-shaped sensor, located in the center of the frame. It is simply unrealistic to focus using the outer sensors when there is insufficient lighting, so you have to resort to the “old-fashioned” method - focusing using the central sensor, reframing, shooting.

Slow continuous shooting

When shooting single frames, this is not annoying at all, but if we are going to shoot something in motion with wiring or are photographing some fast-paced event, 3 frames per second is nothing. Like Canon EOS 1100D. When I bought a mirrorless camera, I was amazed that this “wizard” has a continuous shooting speed of as much as 8 frames per second :)

In-camera JPEG

Do not use it under any circumstances unless you want to be completely disappointed in this camera. There is noise in the photographs, rough halftones that do not transfer well in Photoshop - hello from 2005! :)

Auto mode

It would be better if it did not exist (as well as the Jpeg format). It is clear that it was made “for show,” but any modern amateur DSLR shoots better in auto mode than the Canon EOS 5D.

White balance

White balance presets were programmed as if on another planet. If we shoot in cloudy weather and select the “cloudy” BB, everything turns yellow. We shoot in a room with incandescent lamps, set the BB to "incandescent lamp", everything will turn yellow again. We set the “automatic BB” and, damn it, everything turns even more yellow. Of course, the WB can be adjusted precisely - set to a gray card, set the color temperature, adjust the hue, and finally shoot with white balance bracketing... But will you do this? I just turned on “automatic BB” and shoot in RAW, and then I edit the BB in Lightroom using my own presets - “indoors on 5D”, “outdoors on 5D”, etc. It takes extra time during processing, but I don’t see any other way.

conclusions

5 reasons why you should buy a Canon EOS 5D

• This device teaches photography. It won't think for you, giving you manual mode. The P, TV, AV modes are half measures; in them you will have to deal with a rather stupid machine.
• This device teaches you how to process photos. Once you try to shoot in Jpeg, you will quickly realize that this is a bad idea and start mastering RAW, and then HDR is not far away.
• This device doesn’t care what lens you have (the main thing is that it’s EF and not EF-S). Even with a "tin can" it will give a decent picture.
• This device is a tool for creating masterpieces; there is great potential for this. The amount of accompanying “hemorrhoids” does not count :)

5 reasons why you shouldn't buy a Canon EOS 5D

• The newest copy at the moment (2017) is already 9 years old. These devices were actively used by wedding photographers, they were chased in tail and mane. Someone is now buying a 5D “for slaughter”, because it is cheap and full-frame, and then selling it for the same price or more. It is difficult to find a copy without dead pixels on the matrix and a shutter that has not lived out its life. The new shutter plus the work to replace it makes the total cost of the Canon EOS 5D body comparable to a more recent used 5D Mark II.
• The device is slow. Autofocus tends to live its own life until you “poke its nose” at one of the 9 focusing points. Slow continuous shooting. By and large, this is a device for leisurely staged photography, but not for reporting.
• Dull automation - the BB turns yellow, automatic exposure metering regularly makes mistakes, it’s better not to use in-camera JPEG at all.
• Vacuum cleaner! Dust sucks always and everywhere, even if it just sits in your bag for weeks. I have no idea how he does it.
• Morally outdated. Compared to modern models of DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, it looks like a dinosaur in terms of functionality. LiveView is especially lacking (remember when shooting on a tripod or macro).

Appendix - full-size images of Canon EOS 5D

Photos were taken under different lighting conditions and converted from RAW to Jpeg Adobe program Photoshop Lightroom ver.3. I tried to select images with a large dynamic range so that I could evaluate how the camera simultaneously handles bright objects, light and midtones, and moderate and deep shadows. Bright sunny day

Enough dark room, shooting against the light Canon lens 24-105/4L, ISO1600

Handheld night photography Lens Canon 24-105/4L, ISO3200

Night photography with a tripod Lens Samyang 14mm/2.8, ISO100

Do I want to change it for something?

Yes and no. Yes - because there is a catastrophic lack of speed during reportage shooting. No - because in all other respects the “Pervopyatak” completely suits me, I’m used to it and don’t see the point in shelling out almost 100 thousand for a 6D carcass or 200 thousand for a Mark 3. Lately I’ve been thinking about buying a Canon-type reporter camera to pair it with EOS 7D Mark II - for those cases when a “machine-gun” rate of fire is needed. But these are just thoughts out loud for now...