DSLR cameras - full frame sensor vs. crop sensor

[Turbonium]

I'm on the market for a new DSLR. The majority of the photos I'm going to take are architectural and experimental. I don't really do portraits.

Supposedly, architectural shots benefit from a full frame sensor over the crop sensor, as is found in entry level DSLRs (like the Canon T3i or T4i). I'm not really sure why this is the case.Can anyone confirm/explain this through knowledge or experience?

 

[MrSquished]

a bigger difference than FF vs an APS-C for architectural work would be getting a tilt-shift lens i think.

my guess is the only reason people would suggest FF over crop for architectural work is lens availability for FOV on the wide end - off the top of my head (without going fisheye) i know there are 14mm UWA lenses for FF, and the widest lens on APS-C is a 10mm lens which = 15 or 16mm in FF terms (depending on Nikon or Canon) on a crop system. 1-2mm on the Ultra wide end is significant.

however in architectural shots a larger DOF is often used, and an FF sensor has 1-stop shallower DOF than a crop sensor. for your experimental side though, the shallower DOF may be useful.

personally i was invested in the APS-C format but carrying around all that weight and bulk made me stop taking the camera out or enjoying my outing when i did - and you simply can't take a good architectural shot without a camera on you. so i switched to MFT. lens selection is quite good though not as much variety quite yet as a canon or nikon set - however MFT has two major consumer lens manufacturers behind it (and others, but more on the industrial side) in olympus and panasonic, so it's catching up, and quickly.

when you say experimental photography what do you mean?

 

[Turbonium]

when you say experimental photography what do you mean?

Examples: setting up a tripod and doing a long exposure shot of a set of escalators, or simply setting up a bunch of objects on a table and taking an abstract shot of it.

Despite taking photography in highschool years ago, I'm still a novice when it comes to the technical side of photography (but that's more because of the sheer amount of stuff there is to know). I'm very adept artistically though.

That being said, I've taken good architectural shots with a simple point-and-shoot and haven't noticed much limitations aside from the obvious (probably due to my lack of technical knowledge); I'm assuming any half-decent DSLR is better than a point-and-shoot in every department, crop sensor or not, so I can't really go wrong - anything should be an upgrade.

 

[disappoint]

I'm on the market for a new DSLR. The majority of the photos I'm going to take are architectural and experimental. I don't really do portraits.

Supposedly, architectural shots benefit from a full frame sensor over the crop sensor, as is found in entry level DSLRs (like the Canon T3i or T4i). I'm not really sure why this is the case.Can anyone confirm/explain this through knowledge or experience?

Simply put, for Architectural shots, both indoor and outdoor, but especially important for indoor, is the need for WIDE angle photography.

A crop sensor by it's very nature is cropping, or put another way, ZOOMING IN to the lens. You don't want that for Arch. photog.

The downside is full frame is more expensive.

It CAN be done with a crop sensor, you will just need a wider angle lens.

Lets take an example. Typical DSLR crop sensor body may have a 1.6 crop. This means your lens is now "zoomed in" 1.6 times. So a 100mm lens becomes a 160mm lens. A 10mm lens would become a 16mm lens. With a full frame sensor these lenses are as labeled.

A 60% crop is quite significant and noticeable.

The reason you want wide angle for Architectural, especially indoor, is that while you can zoom out with your feet outdoors, indoors you're limited to how far you can "foot zoom" by the wall your back is up against.

There is a limit to how wide angle a lens you can use due to fisheye effects. In other words, the picture becomes distorted. So in essence, a full frame sensor allows you to take a wider angle shot without this distortion.

Hope this helps, good luck. Feel free to ask more questions.

 

[MrSquished]

Examples: setting up a tripod and doing a long exposure shot of a set of escalators, or simply setting up a bunch of objects on a table and taking an abstract shot of it.

Despite taking photography in highschool years ago, I'm still a novice when it comes to the technical side of photography (but that's more because of the sheer amount of stuff there is to know). I'm very adept artistically though.

That being said, I've taken good architectural shots with a simple point-and-shoot and haven't noticed much limitations aside from the obvious (probably due to my lack of technical knowledge); I'm assuming any half-decent DSLR is better than a point-and-shoot in every department, crop sensor or not, so I can't really go wrong - anything should be an upgrade.

camera bodies on the dslr side come and go, but a good lens will stay with you through multiple body upgrades (as long as you stay in the same mount system).

read about tilt-shift lenses and figure out if it's worth it to you. from what i know they can be rather expensive.

a big thing here is your budget, what is it?

 

[T9D]

You don't need full frame.

I actually went to Micro four thirds too. Got sick of carrying around those giant huge cameras. I ended up never having my camera on me so it can't be better if you never actually have it to take shots. Very happy with Micro 4/3's. I bring it everywhere. ( I do shots for my realestate properties inside and out). But also enjoy people shots, and nature. It's not as good for sports or fast shots at the moment though because autofocus needs some refinement in speed still. It's still a pretty new format but moving fast.

 

[SaigonK]

Full Frame, you dont need it but its worth it.

 

[Turbonium]

a big thing here is your budget, what is it?

I don't really have one, but I can't imagine wanting to spend more than $1000 total on camera and lens(es) - I can always upgrade to a better camera body later on, once I get technically savvy.

A thousand dollar budget really limits me to crop sensors DSLRs, doesn't it? Honestly, if I can "get by" with a 1.6 crop factor with appropriate lenses, I don't really care (for the time being). I can really only know through experience how limiting the crop factor is, and that will come through owning and using the camera.

Just wondering though: with ALL cameras, WYSIWYG, right? I mean, it's not going to crop what I see in the viewfinder, is it? I understand the image presented by the viewfinder as being "already cropped".

 

[phucheneh]

...there's a camera forum. Just sayin'. You'll probably get more input from SLR owners.

Anyhow, seems to me the only difference is going to be in what kind of lenses you want to buy. As long as the lens 'matches' the camera type, there won't really be a difference, will there?

Full frame seems like the obvious choice, though- won't it support the biggest variety of lenses and get the widest angles with the least amount of effort/money spent on said lenses?

If you're coming from a point and shoot, I think you'll find about anything, even with the lens it comes with, will be capable of producing much better pictures. Are you talking about a fully automated P&S, or do you have some experience using manual focus, setting aperture and shutter, ect? I'd like an SLR, but have been able to make due with my old-ass Canon A-series because of the manual control it offers.

 

[Turbonium]

...there's a camera forum. Just sayin'. You'll probably get more input from SLR owners.

Totally didn't see it, despite looking for it. Thanks.

If a mod could move this thread over, that would be awesome.

 

[Turbonium]

Just wondering though: with ALL cameras, WYSIWYG, right? I mean, it's not going to crop what I see in the viewfinder, is it? I understand the image presented by the viewfinder as being "already cropped".

Ugh. Some research shows that, at least with most crop sensor DSLRs, the viewfinder shows around 95% of the actual image being captured, not 100%.

I suppose it's better than if it were >100%, because I can always crop an image as desired with an image-editing program.

 

[disappoint]

Ugh. Some research shows that, at least with most crop sensor DSLRs, the viewfinder shows around 95% of the actual image being captured, not 100%.

I suppose it's better than if it were >100%, because I can always crop an image as desired with an image-editing program.

A crop sensor isn't doing a digital zoom. All of the megapixels the sensor has are going to be in the final image which will be cropped compared to a full frame sensor. So it's essentially the same as a lens zoomed in. With a crop sensor your lens is 1.6x more zoomed in (higher focal length). Example 100mm full frame becomes 160mm crop if it's a 1.6 crop sensor as in typ. Canon DSLRs.

 

[Blackjack200]

I have a Nikon D40 and 10-24mm lens, that I use for my rental business.

I'm not sure what the crop factor is, but I think of it as equivalent to 15-36mm. Keep in mind that even though it is not a fisheye lens, there is still tremendous distortion associated with taking a 90 degree plus field of view and flattening it out.

I like it a lot though.

 

[disappoint]

A thousand dollar budget really limits me to crop sensors DSLRs, doesn't it?

Yes. But if you buy lenses which fit both full frame and crop bodies (they don't all fit) then you can always upgrade to a full frame later and use those same lenses.

 

[MrSquished]

here is why i switched to mft - comparison of my olympus OM-D EM-5 with a panasonic 12-35 f2.8 lens and then my old canon 40D APS-C with a 17-55 EF-S f2.8IS lens. i get 24mm vs 27mm on the wide side which is a nice difference and more preferrable to having longer reach. better IQ sensor wise

you may want to consider an OM-D kit with the 12-50 kit lens or 14-42 kit lens, which can be had for about 1k. the 12mm is wide enough (24mm FF equivalent) to do some architectural shots, though you will want to go wider.

even if you bought a dslr kit you would still get a similar range of a zoom kit. just having an ultrawide lens will not give you as much opportunity to try other kinds of photography.

 

[disappoint]

I have a Nikon D40 and 10-24mm lens, that I use for my rental business.

I'm not sure what the crop factor is, but I think of it as equivalent to 15-36mm. Keep in mind that even though it is not a fisheye lens, there is still tremendous distortion associated with taking a 90 degree plus field of view and flattening it out.

I like it a lot though.

I think Nikon crop factor is typically 1.5
Canon is 1.6

 

[elitejp]

Im not really familiar with other cameras outside of nikon and canon dslr but with full frame cameras you overall get a better picture and it will give a clearer picture when shooting in darker situations. Crop will give you 90-95% what full frame offers at a very good price. As others mentioned the crop gives you a different field of view than the full frame. So if your taking shots indoors of architecture than the full frame would be better in that it will give you a wider field of view. If you havent been limited with your point and shoot than I couldnt see how a crop would limit you especially with the assortment of lenses that are made for crop and widening your field of view. I shoot a Canon crop and have a 24-70mm lens which is terrible trying to take pictures inside a small room of family or friends because its hard to fit everyone in. On a full frame it wouldnt be a problem. However after borrowing a friends 18-55mm for a christmas party it was easy to include everyone. There are many lenses like that for crop cameras that are excellent such as the tamron/Sigma 17-50 and the canon 17-55 (not sure what nikons counterpart lens is), and the sigma 30 1.4 and 50 1.4 are both excellent. So my recommendation would be stick with crop since crop technology has really advanced. If you were willing to spend more than by all means get a ff. But at 1000 dollars including a lens i think crop is the only way to go. Buying a used crop will also free up some money for buying a better lens.

 

[elitejp]

I think Nikon crop factor is typically 1.5
Canon is 1.6

yes thats true. What crop means is that a 35mm lens on a ff will look like a 56mm on the canon (35mmX1.6) and 52mm on the Nikon (35mmX1.5)

 

[SecurityTheatre]

I used to shoot some architecture.

You want a lens that is 15mm or wider, to get those really stunning photos, especially the indoor ones.

Architecture demands the extremes. With a wide angle lens, the "scope" of a photo is what draws you in. Foreground elements (say, a spiral stairway) get bloated out of proportion, so you need to be aware of that, but you can use it.

(random example: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2fdwS3Y1V...1600/Absolutely_Stunning_Architecture+_04.jpg)

You can get stunning outdoor shots with very long lenses (300mm or longer) as well, but that's only from long distance. The perspective compression of these long shots can make a building really feel like part of something bigger.

(random example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/7692829846/)

You CAN get along with a crop-factor body like The Ti3 or D3200, but you will need to invest in one of the 8mm or 10mm wide angle lenses.

Be aware that these lenses will not work properly on a full-frame camera, if you do end up upgrading later.

The widest full-frame lens (non-fisheye) is the Sigma 12-24mm. So 12mm is as wide as you can go on full-frame. Sigma also makes a 8-16mm for crop bodies (both Nikon and Canon), so you can find an 8mm lens (equivalent 13mm) on a crop sensor.

Both of these lenses are over $1000 for the lens alone.


The widest full-frame lens that I've ever seen for sale at a super cheap price (under $500) is Sigma's old 15-30 lens. That will work on a full-frame body, but is a bit hard to find and has some nasty distortion (which is easy to fix in Lightroom using the built-in profiles). Sometimes you'll find one of the old 10mm or 11mm crop-sensor zoom lenses from Canon, Sigma or Tamron on the market too. Those can be good values, but I don't know exact prices.

I just found this one online. Good deal... http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-10-24mm.../dp/B001G7PIBC

You can get an 18mm lens on your crop-frame body for super cheap, but the effective 24mm is just blah boring for architecture. Again, wider is better, shoot for under 15mm, although the 10mm above (equivalent 16mm) should cut it on a crop-sensor body.

good luck!


Edit: PS, avoid having people in your shots with the 15mm and wider lenses. They get really weird looking at that range unless they're at a distance and near the center of the frame.

 

[Turbonium]

...

Alright, so the lower the mm "rating", the wider the lens, right? Newb question, I know...

Anyway, I might pick up a T4i with a lens (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II), which I understand to be a general purpose, "meh" type of lens. I figure I'll use it for a bit to get a feel for what it can and can't do, then perhaps pick up a wide angle lens, given I like those architectural/abstract type shots.

Would a 17-40mm lens be good enough, say to make a shot like the spiral staircase example you posted? I seriously have no idea, but I'm guessing no (not for a crop sensor body, anyway). In that case, what about a 10-22mm lens paired with a Rebel?

 

[Anteaus]

What going fullframe get's you is a larger sensor which translates to more light sensitivity at a given pixel density. Assuming you use equiviliant focal lengths, if you take a 20 megapixel full frame sensor and compare it to a 20 megapixel crop sensor the image "quality" will be comparable. Where the benefit comes is that the larger sensor on a fullframe camera will allow you to operate at a lower ISO, thus getting cleaner images when light becomes more scarce. There are other differences that come with simply operating with difference focal lengths such as a DOF, but all of that is workable with appropriate lenses.

If you have abundant light then lens selection becomes more crucial than the sensor. A decent crop sensor is perfectly adequate to give great images. I went from a D7K to a D600 and while I think the D600 is a better camera I can put images from both cameras in front of you and I swear you can't tell them apart in many cases unless you look at the files themselves.

Bottom line, if you have the money I think full frame cameras are worth the money. Sensor aside, build quality and feature sets tend to be in line with the price you pay so it's never so straight forward as a sensor only argument. A prosumer crop body such as a D7K or D300S and some nice glass will do wonders.

Disclaimer: I mention Nikon because that's what I shoot with but everything I said applies equally with Canon or other brands.

 

[MrSquished]

the widest is not always better for architecture because the distortion and converging lines start to look off. from reading architectural photographers post they usually don't go wider than 16 or 17mm if I remember right, and ultimately a Tilt-Shift lens is the best because it handles perspective distortion - but they are very expensive.

a crop sensor with a 10-20mm will give you 15 or 16mm at the wide end depending if you go Nikon or Canon (1.5 vs 1.6 crop factor)

on micro four thirds you have two options - the panasonic 7-14mm or olympus 9-18mm - or you can get a four thirds lens and adapter. mft the crop factor is 2x, so a 7-14mm lens gives you the same FOV as a 14-28mm on full frame.

google architectural photography and read and look at images. some people like the distortion sometimes - i don't mind it all the time as it can create a dramatic look but often the ultra widest angles are better for landscape vs architectural because they arent composed mostly of lines.

 

[elitejp]

mm just stands for millimeters which corresponds to the angle of the lens and the lower mm is the wider the field of view. I would skip the 18-55mm because it is just a so so lens and grab a sigma 17-50 os which is a very capable lens, also the sigma 30mm f1.4 is considered extremely nice and would really produce some nice pics of what you mentioned. I personally would shop for used with these lenses because they are made for crop and many people sell them only because they changed to full frame and sold off their crop camera. Also unless you need something found in the t41 I would look at previous models. The pic quality are all roughly the same from the t2i forward and it will save you tons of money. Maybe just keep a lookout on craigslist for whatever model may be going for a good price.

Hopefully Nikon shooters can give some opinions on a good nikon setup as im really impressed with some of sonys and nikons stuff.

 

[Turbonium]

I would skip the 18-55mm because it is just a so so lens and grab a sigma 17-50 os which is a very capable lens, also the sigma 30mm f1.4 is considered extremely nice and would really produce some nice pics of what you mentioned.

How does a 18-55mm lens compare to a 28-70mm lens? I have experience with the latter (albeit on a full frame equivalent - a traditional SLR actually).

 

[elitejp]

Sorry im not familiar with that lens and there is so much to look into when trying to decide what lens is a good choice for what you like to shoot. What does seem apparent is that you get what you pay for. The 24-70 2.8 i shoot with is a sigma and although the pics are nice its nothing like the 85 1.8 i have which is just stunning. It needs more pp when used. When I played around with the 18-55 I thought it wasnt as good as the sig 24-70 and the af was incredibly slow. It was darn near impossible to focus and get a shot of some baby kittens running around while the sigma was very snappy.


The reason Ive recommended the sigma 17-50 2.8 os is because overall its a great lens at a great price, also the Tamron 17-50(non vc) is an excellent choice . The Canon 17-55 is better but really expensive and unless you have disposable income I dont think it is necessary. Then adding a prime such as the sigma 30 1.4 or the Sigma 50 1.4 for a dreamy dreamy look. All of this can be done fairly inexpensively.