Hello again, dear reader! I'm in touch with you, Timur Mustaev. Do you know what a full-frame sensor is in SLR cameras? How does it differ from truncated matrices? Why are they more expensive? What if you don't have a full frame sensor?

Before answering these and other questions that interest you, let me congratulate you on the first day of summer. I don’t know how things are with the weather, but in Dushanbe it was +36C today. In other words, summer has begun in full. How are you doing, what can you brag about? I also congratulate you on Children's Day, take care, love, appreciate both your own and other people's children. Children, this is a ray of light in our hearts!

In one of the previous articles, the topic of the camera was touched upon. Surely after reading it, there was some ambiguity associated with full-frame cameras. Today I will tell you about their advantages and disadvantages. After reading the article, you will find out what a full-frame camera is for, how shots from full-frame and crop cameras will differ, what are the advantages and disadvantages of such solutions.

Full frame matrix.

So, in order to understand what a full-frame camera is, you need to understand the concept of “full frame”. The frame size is considered to be the dimensions of the photosensitive element located in the camera body. Physically, they are completely different. “Full” is considered to be standard 35 mm elements, since this size has been standard for many years.

The width and height parameters of such matrices are 36 and 24 mm, respectively. This is where the concept of a crop matrix comes from, which was discussed in one of the previous articles. The reason for the creation of "cropped" matrices was and still is the high cost of producing full-fledged sensors for digital cameras. Of course, now the technical process has become less expensive, however, the production of elements of standard sizes is still not the cheapest pleasure.

Of course, there were compact cameras before. They tried to make them as inexpensive as possible for both purchase and maintenance. This necessitated the creation of "crop films", if I may say so, but they were very rare: even now it is difficult to find a well-preserved camera with a reduced size film.

Closer to the end of the training, our teacher showed a very interesting camera, which was used by the intelligence services of the USSR in the middle to the end of the last century. They showed us the Vega camera, which was produced in Kyiv in the 60s. Surprisingly, it was fully functional, even the film was in place. The size of his film frame was 14 × 10 millimeters, and only 20 shots were placed in the drum.

Of course, we ourselves could not work with him, since we were forbidden to take him with us to photo practice, but we nevertheless considered a few frames captured by Vega. The quality for this kind of cameras in our exhibit was quite good, especially considering the diminutiveness of its lens. However, this did not prevent the scouts from doing their job with high quality.

Features of a full size photosensitive element

It is no secret that the image received by the crop matrix will be smaller than that obtained on the full-fledged one. This, as you can see, was discussed in a previous article. For the most part, the story was about truncated matrices, but now it's time to talk about full-size sensors. It has both advantages and disadvantages. It seems to me that it is worth starting from the first.

So, why are they so valued by professionals?

Advantages of full-size cameras

Firstly, detail. Due to the larger size of the matrix, the resulting raster image boasts better picture clarity. Even the smallest details in full frame are rendered better than in crop, if we compare the results shot with one lens.

Secondly, larger viewfinder. No matter what anyone says, it is not advisable to cover a small photosensitive element with a large mirror. Of course, the size is also affected by the prism, but the latter in such cameras, as a rule, is larger than in mass-produced ones. For mirrorless devices, this is an even more significant plus, due to the higher resolution of the resulting image.

Thirdly, the size of the pixel itself. If the manufacturer decides not to increase the number of photosensitive units, but to make them a little larger, then this will make the sensor more sensitive to light rays. Regardless of what some photographers say, full-frame cameras tend to produce lighter images.

Fourth, good depth of field. Due to the best ISO sensitivity provided by big size pixel, it will be much easier to achieve a good depth of field on such a device.

“What is IPIG?” you ask. This stands for Depth of Field used space. Why is this needed? It's simple: for stronger or weaker blurring of the background. The main thing you need to know here is that full-frame matrices allow you to “conjure” with this parameter most effectively.

Fifth, no zoom effect. It was also mentioned in the article about the crop factor. Perhaps this is one of the main differences from reduced matrices, which allows you to save large quantity images in one frame. It can play like positive role in the frame, and negative. For example, at a great distance from the object being photographed, this can play a negative role, and when working in the “portrait” genre, everything will be exactly the opposite.

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

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

I want to say right away that the comparison turned out to be very subjective, since the cameras were different levels, they used different optics, they were controlled by different people. So, after showing the spy device, the teacher began to voice the task for the next work for us: it was necessary to create a full-fledged photo essay.

In part, we were lucky: in the center of additional training, a driving school neighbored us, and on that day, a driving competition among novice drivers was held on the territory of the local autodrome. I think it's not worth going into the essence of the details, that's not what you came here for.

So, the competition began, and my classmates and I went to the circuit to take the treasured shots. I didn’t have the best Nikon D3100 in my hands, so I decided to immediately agree with the guys working with the Canon 5D Mark II to shoot in turn. Both devices, by the way, were used with whale lenses. We agreed that after some time we would exchange cameras for a better understanding of the devices themselves and to get the maximum number of shots.

Upon arrival at the studio, everyone immediately began to transfer frames to laptops for processing. Inserting a memory card, I did the same, after which I began to consider the result. Looking through the photo for the second time, I caught myself thinking that at long distances (about 50-100 meters) Canon took pictures of more or less acceptable quality, but the D3100 showed an impressive result, as for a budget amateur SLR camera.

Of course, close-up pictures were taken: it was necessary to take pictures of the winners, the cars that brought them to such a result, and the teachers-mentors. The result on Canon was impressive. Nikon also performed well, but somewhere he lacked sharpness, in other places the picture seemed a little noisy, and you should not forget about the zoom effect.

After viewing the photos, I came to the following conclusions: Canon is capable of everything, you just need to choose the right set of lenses, but with Nikon everything is not so simple. Of course get high-quality pictures you can, but Nikon's getting perfect shots on short distance given quite difficult, due to the crop factor. Nevertheless, he more than justified his cost, however, like Canon.

Disadvantages of full size cameras

The first and, perhaps most significantly, the difficulty of photographing at long distances. The larger light range, good image clarity and ease of taking pictures are offset by weaknesses when shooting at long focal lengths. Of course, this is solved by a specialized lens, which will significantly hit your pocket.

Second but no less significant is the cost. In addition to expensive "glasses" (as the lens is called in slang), you will have to pay a round sum for the carcass itself. Of course, professionals will not stop even at a six-figure price tag, since such an acquisition will pay off quickly enough.

Third minus weight. A large matrix, a large mirror, a large viewfinder ... More and more requires a capacious body to accommodate. Among other things, lenses for large carcasses have also never been famous for their lightness. Configurations with expensive telephoto lenses, the lenses of which are made of glass with a special coating, will be especially difficult.

Fourth the disadvantage is the narrow specialization of full-frame matrices. While a crop with a coefficient of 1.5-1.6 can be called standard and universal. Full-frame sensors are focused mainly on shooting up close. Of course, you can use a full-frame camera for long-range shooting, but it will be much more difficult and expensive to do this. In addition, it will not be easy for a beginner to implement a device with a standard-sized matrix, even close up.

So, the moment has come to understand whether we need a full-frame camera or not? If you are one of the top photographers in the city and photography is your main income, then it is definitely worth it. If you are a hobbyist thinking about upgrading your crop camera, then the acquisition will be a very dubious action. Whatever is written here, you should correctly evaluate all the pros and cons, and then decide which type of matrix to choose.

If you want to get to know your camera in more detail, understand what it is capable of, understand the basic properties of building a composition, understand how to make a beautiful blurred background, learn how to control the depth of field and much, much more. Then to help you, a really super video course " Digital SLR for beginners 2.0". Believe me, you will draw a lot from it useful information, and your pictures will turn into masterpieces.

I hope you enjoyed this article and now you know what the phrase "full-frame camera" means. If the information turned out to be useful, then be sure to subscribe to my blog, there are a lot of interesting things ahead of you. You can tell your photographer friends about the blog, let them also join quality photography. All the best, dear reader, see you soon!

All the best to you, Timur Mustaev.

In this article, we will discuss several myths, as well as the advantages and disadvantages. full frame sensor and explain how it can affect different types photos. We will also look at ways to fine-tune your shooting equipment so that you can full force use your full frame camera.

For good examples here we used a full-frame Nikon D600 and Nikon with an APS-C sensor. We will not go into the unique specifications of each camera manufacturer, as this may seem confusing and distract you from the discussion on our topic. But the principles discussed below will apply equally to full-frame DSLRs from Canon, Sony, Leica, or any other brand.

What is full frame?

"Full frame" is a term used to describe cameras that have the same sensor size as a 35mm film camera with a size of 36mm x 24mm. But most DSLRs use a sensor that is about 24mm x 16mm.

This is close to the APS-C aspect ratio, which is why they are often referred to as APS-C format cameras. Nikon makes cameras in both sizes, but uses its own designations. Its full-frame models are designated "FX" and its APS-C cameras are designated "DX".

Initially, almost all DSLRs used the smaller APS-C format. Sensor technology was in its infancy and large sensors were too expensive to manufacture.

Full-frame cameras have become less expensive over the past few years, and while the Nikon D3, D3s and D3x are offered to consumers at the price of professional DSLRs, the Nikon D800 and D600, released in 2012, cost much less. The price for them is still not low, but they are more affordable.

Nikon full frame sensor

The bigger, the better

In the days of film photography, it was believed that the larger the negative, the best quality you get an image. The same applies to digital sensors. The full-frame Nikon FX sensor is one and a half times wider than the DX format sensor. This affects the quality of the photos.

In general, pictures taken with a full-frame camera are sharper, with more detail, smoother midtones, a wider tonal range, and a greater sense of "depth."

Therefore, more and more enthusiasts and photography enthusiasts will be thinking about switching from a Nikon (or any other brand) DX-format camera to a full-frame model.

Despite the improved quality, which is easy to demonstrate, there are also disadvantages. Mirrored Nikon cameras DX formats are not only cheaper, they are in many ways easier to use and more practical.

Lens compatibility with full frame sensor

Another question that pops up when moving to full frame is with lenses. You can have one camera body today and another tomorrow, which cannot be said about a lens that can be considered a long-term investment. Years ago you could buy a Nikon D50 and it might be outdated, but the lens you got back then hasn't lost its relevance.

Along with the release of DX-format digital SLR cameras, Nikon also launched the production of a number of DX-format lenses for them. So if you decide to go full-frame FX, then you will definitely have to invest heavily in new lenses.

You can use DX-format lenses on an FX camera, but only in crop mode. The camera limits the area of ​​the sensor being used to a DX size box in the middle, so you don't benefit from the sensor's full resolution.

For example, in crop mode, a 36-megapixel D800 will produce 15.3-megapixel images. In this case, the 16-megapixel D600 will reduce the resolution to 6.8 MP. Thus, DX lenses are not particularly promising.

Of course, you may already have some FX lenses, such as Nikon's 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 telephoto zoom, which is popular with DX-format SLR owners, when it's actually an FX-format lens.

If you're thinking about switching to an FX camera in the future, start investing in FX-format lenses now because they will work on any Nikon DX-format SLR. The image below clearly illustrates what happens when you combine a sensor and a lens of different formats.

crop factor

Other big difference between DX and FX formats is what they mean by lens angle. The DX sensor captures a smaller area of ​​the image, so it looks like you're using a longer focal length lens.

If you mount a 50mm lens on a DX camera, your photos will look like they were taken with a 75mm lens. This is the so-called "crop factor". Photographers also refer to it as "equivalent focal length", but it's actually the same thing.

Nikon's sensor's DX crop factor is 1.5, which means you multiply the actual focal length of the lens by 1.5 to get the equivalent focal length.

This can work in your favor with DX cameras. For example, if you have a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 lens mounted on a D7000, it effectively becomes a 450mm f/2.8!

If you upgrade to a full frame camera like the D800 in the future, your 300mm f/2.8 lens will still work just fine as a regular 300mm.

There are many things to consider when choosing between DX and FX formats, including practical and technical considerations.

Why is the depth of field different?

Theoretically, lenses should give the same depth of field on both FX and DX format cameras, so why would FX cameras produce less out of focus backgrounds?

Typically, on an FX camera, you need to stop down about 1/3 stop to get the same depth of field as with a DX-format camera.

Why is this happening? Because you are not actually using the same lens on both cameras. The smaller sensor on the DX model means you can use a shorter focal length to get the same angle of view.

For example, if you are using a 50mm lens on an FX camera, then on a DX camera you need to mount a 35mm lens to get the same angle of view - and the 35mm lens will give you much more depth of field due to its short focal length.

How to shoot with a full frame sensor

You need to improve your shooting technique to properly take advantage of the full frame sensor. Here's how to do it.

Investment in lenses
You will lose the advantage of wide sensor resolution if you use old or cheap lenses. good choice there will be Nikon's new 24-85mm VR, or 24-70mm f/2.8.

Focusing
The focus point is critical to using extra resolution. Manual focus is not always accurate enough, autofocus may be more accurate.

Aperture setting
You need one stop less aperture to get the same depth of field as a DX camera. Avoid apertures smaller than f/11 because diffraction will affect sharpness.

"Safe" shutter speed
Instead of 1/30s with a 30mm lens, try using 1/60s or even 1/125s for example.

Use a tripod
To ensure maximum sharpness in the image, use a tripod. Choose a quality one, it will not only be durable, but also reduce vibration from cars and people moving past.

Memory improvement
An 8 GB memory card may be sufficient on your 16 megapixel DX-format camera. But in the D800, it is only enough for 103 uncompressed RAW files.

How does a full frame sensor affect your photos?

Increasing the sensor size to full frame affects appearance your photos. It's about not only about megapixels.

1. Image quality
Full-frame photographs tend to have more detail and more dynamic range than images taken with a DX-format DSLR. With a good subject in the right shooting conditions, the quality advantage becomes clear.

2. Feeling of depth
The shallow depth of field that you get when shooting with a full-frame camera adds a strong sense of depth to the photo. It can prevent you from getting the maximum depth of field that you are aiming for, for example, in landscape photography.

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

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

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

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

FROM electronic viewfinder even simpler - there you immediately see the image obtained from the central part of the sensor without darkening the 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 blurring of the far and near ground in the DX format looks (visually looks) stronger than in the full FX mode.

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

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

First picture:

Original shot from Sony a7II camera. The picture has a lot of circles (discs) of blur

Second picture:

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

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

Let's take a separate pronounced disk (circle) of blur.

From the full size photo:

Blur disk in full size image

From the cropped photo:

The selected blur disk in the pictures has the same size in pixels.

A full-size photo taken with a Sony a7II is 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 image of the entire image (0.23%).

The cropped shot from the Sony a7II is 3936 x 2624 pixels (10.328.064 pixels). The area of ​​the circle is Pi*D*D/4 and equals the same 54.297 pixels. In this case, the size of the circle is 1/190 of the image of the entire image (0.53%).

When switching from a full-length 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, squaring it.

A serious conclusion: if you shoot on cropped and full-length cameras to 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) different amount 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 did not do this, because the experiment can not be considered 100% honest. You can conduct your own investigation of circles of blur at infinity yourself.

Spoiler 3: in the article, I show images reduced to the same pixel dimensions - 1200 pixels on the long side. This must be taken into account.

Spoiler 3.1: for comparison, crop and full frame shots were adjusted to the same size. The pictures have the same aspect ratio of 2:3, while down scale the pictures look the same.

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

Spoiler 5: do not confuse DOF and far/foreground blur force. The depth of field may be the same for two shots, but the strength of the background/foreground blur will be drastically different. To put it very roughly, DOF is most dependent on the F-number (aperture number), and far/foreground blur is most dependent on the focal length of the lens.

The trick is that the ratio of object size to frame size will change. To shoot the same object, 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 the full-frame and cropped cameras), in the case of a cropped camera, you will have to move further from the subject being shot than in time of using a full-frame camera.

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

To maintain the proportions of the object being shot in the frame with a full-frame and cropped APS-C camera, the focusing distance should 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 factor .

All the pictures below were taken with the same ISO settings, and , but with different focusing distances and cropping modes (it's the same as shooting with cropped and full-frame cameras at the same settings).

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

The second shot was taken in crop mode (DX mode), focusing distance is approximately 45 cm (data from ). The picture was taken on the same camera, from the same position as the previous photo, just this time the 'Format DX 24 x 16' mode is on (a complete analogy if a cropped camera was used). You can see how zoomed in the shot is:

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

The fourth shot was taken in crop mode, focusing distance is approximately 60 cm (data from ). The picture was taken on the same camera, from the same position as the previous photo, just this time the 'Format DX 24 x 16' mode is on (a complete analogy if a cropped camera was used). You can see how zoomed in the shot is:

Comparison of a picture on a “full-format” camera and a “cropped” camera:

It is clearly seen that the proportions of the object being shot in the frame remained the same (i.e. with the same scale), but the perspective has changed. In the case of the DX mode, the perspective has become narrower (visually felt as an influx of the background). The reduced 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 next GIF animation. Notice how in DX (i.e. crop) mode, the background “approaches”, squeezing the perspective:

A small note. Although I indicated that the difference in focusing distance should be 1.5 times to obtain the same shooting scale, 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 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, at the same time it shows 45 cm. Also, the lens has the Focus Breathing effect - changing the angle view while focusing. Yes, and the pictures, nevertheless, are not quite similar due to lens distortion (at the edges of the full frame they are more noticeable).

A small conclusion that everyone passes by: subject to the shooting scale (the subject being shot has the same proportions in paired shots) to a full-frame camera and to a cropped camera, using the same and the same F number (for example, the same fixed lens with the same F number) visual blur (disks blur zones) on the crop will look larger than on the full frame. Yes exactly! The crop, in fact, will blur the far/foreground more strongly. If you don't believe me, then just take a close look at the GIF animation above. You can visually see how much the blur zone disks of the DX camera are larger than the blur disks of the FX camera. I believe that this is the reason why it is so difficult to distinguish between full frame and crop shots using the same lens at the same value. Photographers psychologically expect a stronger blur on a full-frame camera, but it turns out quite the opposite. The radius of the disc of confusion, in this case, increases by K times, where K is the coefficient . Strange, but everyone passes by this conclusion.

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

In order for the images from the full frame and the crop to be the same (or very, very similar), you should use different focal lengths and values.

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

  • cropped camera uses 50 mm focal length and f / 2.8
  • full frame camera uses 75mm focal length and f/4

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

The first picture was taken in full frame mode:

Similar shots

44 mm instead of 50 mm turned out, most likely, for several reasons:

  • perhaps it has not honest 75 mm at the long end, but 70 (like most lenses of this class)
  • perhaps 44 mm of focal length is inscribed in not quite correctly. Who knows how the 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 turned out due to:

  • different world
  • 2.8 * 1.5 = 4.2, but the camera cannot set the value of 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 into the material from the article yourself.

Results

  1. The most obvious outcome. If you shoot the same scene on a cropped and full-frame camera, using a lens with the same focal length, at the same aperture value and from the same distance, then change the zoom level.
  2. Not an obvious result. If you shoot the same scene on a cropped and full-frame camera, using a lens with the same focal length, at the same aperture value and from the same distance, then the blur effect on a cropped camera will look stronger(due to the different scale of the blur zone / disk, see pictures with blur disks). In numerical terms, the strength of the blur increases by a 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 the actual shooting. It is this feature that caused this article to be written.
  3. Focus distance difference between cameras different sizes matrices, when using a lens with the same focal length and maintaining the shooting scale, it corresponds to the coefficient . For APS-C cameras (such as Nikon DX), compared to full-frame cameras, you will have to increase the shooting distance in 1.5 times to maintain the same shooting scale.
  4. Perspective difference. With the same lens on a cropped and full frame camera you can't get the same pictures. due to different rendering of perspective (see the first GIF-animation).
  5. The same frames (as far as possible due to different matrix resolutions and other conventions) from cropped and full-frame cameras can only be obtained on lenses with different focal lengths(see second GIF animation). In order for cropped camera shots to be as close as possible to shots from a full-frame 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 the Nikon DX crop, K = 1.5.

Thank you for your attention. Arkady Shapoval.

Today we have an extremely popular and interesting topic for many. The matrix is ​​one of the most important components of any digital camera. Today we will talk about her physical size. Why do many people go after "full frame", how it differs from "crop", and what better fit to you? These are the topics I would like to discuss.

FullFrame vs. Crop

Once upon a time, when dinosaurs walked the earth and photographers used film technology, 35mm film was considered a classic of the genre. It is its dimensions that are used today for starting point when defining such a thing as "Crop factor". The crop factor today is the ratio of the diagonal of a 35mm film to the diagonal of the matrix of the camera in question. It is worth noting that 35mm in itself is the width of the film, its diagonal is 43.3mm.

Cameras with a crop factor of 1 are called full-frame cameras. Contemporary examples such cameras are Nikon D610, Nikon D810, Canon 5D Mark III, Sony A7r and others. Most DSLRs and mirrorless cameras have a crop factor of about 1.5 (among amateur Canon DSLRs have a crop factor of 1.6). Examples of such cameras: Nikon D7000, Canon 100D, Pentax K3 and so on. Compact cameras today can have the crop factor of a decent DSLR (Fujifilm X100T has a crop factor of 1.5), or they can have tiny 1/2.3″ sensors (crop factor of 5.62).

Camera Nikon D800 "in section". What shines green is the matrix


As it should already become clear - the smaller the crop factor, the larger the matrix and the more expensive the camera. The size of the matrix, like nothing else, affects the final price of the camera. For those who are especially curious, I will also note this interesting fact: There are digital cameras with a crop factor less than one (eg 0.71). Such cameras are called "medium format". But this is an extremely specific technique, which we will no longer talk about today. Those who need such cameras already know enough about them.

Returning to the pricing policy, let's see what we have here with the prices of cameras. The cheapest full-frame camera options are Nikon D600, Canon 6D, Sony A7. But even they cost from 70 thousand rubles. If you look at cameras with a smaller sensor, for example, the Nikon D7100 / D7200 and Canon 70D (the best amateur cameras today) reflex cameras Canon and Nikon), then their price is around 40-45 thousand rubles. At the same time, the same Nikon D7100 differs from the Nikon D600, in fact, only in the size of the matrix. And now, looking at this huge difference in price, many amateur photographers reasonably ask: do they need it at all?

So, the larger the matrix, the:

  1. More details in the photos, and the sharper and clearer the picture appears. Everyone has seen pictures from "soap dishes", in which small objects do not have details - this is just the lack of a small matrix.
  2. Less noise in photos taken at high ISOs. Indeed, the size of the matrix greatly affects the amount of noise in the photographs.
  3. Halftones are better worked out, transitions from one color to another are smoother than on small matrices.
  4. Less depth of field, which, of course, lovers of "bokeh" will appreciate.
  5. More familiar focal lengths. The values ​​of the equivalent and real focal lengths for the full frame are the same. We have already talked a lot about focal lengths in the article “What to choose? 35mm vs. 50mm vs. 85mm" .

I mean, here's the dilemma. On the one hand, the larger the matrix, the more expensive the camera. On the other hand, the more details in the pictures, less noise, more beautiful "bokeh". Now let's think, do you need it?

If you are buying your first SLR or mirrorless camera, then taking a full-frame camera does not make sense. The difference in image quality between a crop DSLR and a soap dish is very large. But the difference in the technical quality of the picture between an amateur SLR entry level and a full-frame camera is unlikely to be noticeable to a beginner. And as they say, if you can't see the difference...

Beautiful background blur is easier to get with a full-frame camera

But there is a difference, only experienced amateur photographers can feel it. Whether a large matrix is ​​worth such colossal overpayments (first for the camera, and then for the lenses) is up to you to decide. Personally, my opinion is that the price of full-frame equipment today is unreasonably high. At the same time, cameras of the Nikon D7100 level allow you to get simply fantastic pictures, with due skill and good optics, of course.

And now let's give some examples of comparing full-frame and crop-matrix.

Comparing FF and APS-C: Noise

First of all, let's compare the crop camera and FF for noise. In the role of crop - a camera with an APS-C sensor Canon 100D. Full frame camera - Nikon D610. All photos in the post have EXIF, you can check the shooting settings yourself.

This photo was taken with a Canon 100D at ISO 3200

And this picture was taken on Nikon D610 at ISO 3200

The difference between the images is not visible (in terms of noise) when evaluating images in web quality. However, if you dig a little deeper and zoom in on the images, the difference becomes more apparent.

This is the so-called "crop" of the first frame - a cut out section of the image

And this is the cropped section of the second image taken on a full-frame camera

Second crop shot with Canon 100D

And this is another crop of a frame shot on a FF camera

The frames above show the difference between the full-format and APS-C matrices much better. The noise in the photos taken with the Canon 100D is more pronounced than in those taken with the Nikon D610.

Comparing FF and APS-C: dynamic range

Dynamic range is one of the key characteristics of a photomatrix. We will not talk about it in detail - this is a topic for a separate article. But the key thing that interests us is the possibility of post-processing the received images in situations, for example, when the frame came out too dark, and we have to change its exposure already in the graphics editor. Below you can see two such frames, which we will try to "pull out". The first one was shot on a Canon 100D, the second on a Nikon D610. Please note that there are areas in the image where details are almost indistinguishable (lower right corner).




After "lightening" the frames, we get the following results.




In terms of posting photos online, again, there is little to no difference. But let's take a look at the crops of these frames to see how the images coped with shadow stretching.

Shot with Canon 100D after pulling shadows

Shot from Nikon D610 after pulling shadows. This part of the frame on the FF camera is already moving into the blur zone. Ignore it - look at the noises

Obviously, the full-frame camera did a much better job. Initially, the photos were taken with the same settings, including ISO - 800 units are set on both frames. There is practically no noise in the second frame. Ultimately, this means that it is easier to salvage frames with exposure errors taken on a full-frame camera than on a camera with a smaller sensor.

What I would like to say in the end. As you already understood, the larger the matrix, the better. As for the choice between a matrix with a crop factor of 1.5 and a full-frame matrix, the advantages of the latter will be obvious only to experienced amateur and professional photographers. For beginners, buying such equipment does not make much sense. Perhaps that's all. Make the right choice!

After reading a bunch of spam on the topic “Which is better - crop or full frame”, I decided to try to understand this issue.

To begin with, let's recall the main provisions (we have already talked a little about).

The crop factor changes the field of view without changing the focal length. Exactly the same results can be obtained when shooting full frame and then cropping the edges of the frame. This also means that when using a crop factor camera perspectivedoes not change. You can do this experiment: look with one eye into the viewfinder of a camera with a 50mm lens, and with the other - at the same scene without a camera. You will see that the angle of view will be the same. Regardless of whether you have a full-frame sensor or a crop.

But, if the number of pixels is the same, then it will seem that the focal length has just changed by the value of the crop factor. See? The scene remained the same, the angle of view did not change, but the picture turned out to be, as it were, cut out of a larger one. Hence the feeling of changing the focal length of the lens. Stopping for a second and thinking, even re-reading the above and checking with your feelings, you will understand that all this pure truth. The focal length of the lens has not changed. Only the scope of its use has changed. Of the entire area covered by it, we have chosen only the middle.

Now let's think: what do we get from this? What is the strength, brother, and what will you have to put up with?

Firstly, when using a device with a crop matrix, a more efficient use of long-focus optics is possible. After all, the entire line of interchangeable lenses is shifting to a longer area - instead of 85mm (on film and a full-frame matrix this is a good portrait lens), we get 85 * 1.5 = 130mm. And this is a decent TV. And from 200mm you get 300! Free! Here you are very good news for photographers and sports reporters. The other side of the coin is a wash out of the line of wide-angle lenses. Judge for yourself - 24mm turns into 36, and 20 - into 30. In film times, a 20mm lens completed the line of wide-angle optics and was an object of sighing for an army of professionals. And having turned into 30, it became an ordinary budget glass. Here is the conclusion for lovers of landscape and architectural photography - it is better to be friends with full-frame equipment and get good old film lenses out of closets.

Secondly. As you know, the quality of the lens changes from the center to the periphery (for the worse). If you stumble upon data on lens resolution somewhere in the literature, you will see that it is measured as the ratio of the number of lines per millimeter in the center to the number of lines per millimeter at the periphery. Therefore, using a full-size lens with a cropped sensor, we win in terms of lens quality, since only the central, higher-quality area is taken into account.

The manufacturers of photographic equipment simultaneously with the start of the production of devices began the production of entire lines of special lenses designed specifically for such devices. It is clear that these lenses are backwards incompatible with full-frame counterparts, if only because of the strong . In addition, for example, Canon, in their devices, also applied the technical incompatibility of lenses from bottom to top.

Here are the names of the series of digital lens lines from leading manufacturers:

  • Canon— EF-S
  • Nikon— dx
  • Sony— DT
  • Pentax— DA
  • Sigma— DC
  • Tamron— Di II

Now here's something else. Let's take two devices - one with a full-frame matrix, the other with a cropped one. We will put a 50 / 1.4 lens on a full-frame device, and on a device with a crop matrix - to get the same fields images - 35 / 1.4. The image area will be the same, but what will happen to ? Remember, we found out that, all other things being equal, the depth of field will be less at the lens with more focal length. This means that in order to get the same pictures, the aperture of the 50 / 1.4 lens will have to be covered. The difference will be even more significant when using, for example, a pair of 85mm versus 135mm. But how much? I managed to find such data in an article on choosing a normal lens for a full-frame device. The article, however, is dated 2010, but for understanding the essence of the process, I think this is not particularly important. (Of course, simple calculations can be easily carried out, but in the picture it looks much more spectacular).

See what's the difference? Conclusion - with the same image field (for example, when shooting a portrait) and using a full-frame sensor and a lens for it, we will get a smaller depth of field. On the other hand, when using a cropped matrix, the depth of field increases, which cannot but rejoice when shooting, for example, a landscape.

Another very important advantage of a full-frame device is its increased . Moreover, the difference is so significant that for the sake of this fact alone, many professionals switch to full frame.

dry residue.

Pluses of a full-frame matrix (Full Frame - FF).

  • Matrix, and therefore a wide range of sensitivity, and, consequently, a wider range of possibilities for using the camera;
  • As a result of belonging to an expensive class - a rich strapping: a metal case, two flash drives, a large bright viewfinder, a shutter designed for a million clicks and other premium goodies;
  • Smaller depth of field (not the fact that this is always a plus).

Minuses.

These devices have only one minus - the price as a reflection of belonging to an expensive class, because the matrix is ​​​​the most expensive part of the device.

Advantages of a crop sensor camera

  • Shift the focal length of the entire line of lenses to a "longer" area. It becomes a plus for photo hunting and sports reporting;
  • The ability to use old film and modern full-frame optics (taking into account the crop factor, and almost certainly - in manual mode, which, by the way, is not always a drawback. For example, if autofocus does not work in video mode, then film fast fixes in this case - the best choice);
  • Large depth of field (maybe a minus).

Minuses

  • Shift the focal length of the entire line of lenses to a "longer" area. The downside is for shooting landscape and architecture. For real wide angle lenses- digital only.

That's all. The final choice, as always, is yours. I sincerely hope I didn't confuse you even more. If so, welcome to the comments.