double negative wrote:
WRONG.  a crop sensor does not have better 'reach'.  It has the same reach as a FF camera.  It's just cropped.

James Ogilvie wrote:
Even Nikon, in their brochures about the D300, say that this camera offers more 'reach'. 

If I were to mount a 300mm lens on a D300 and shoot a bird on a tree branch, and that bird just happened to fill the frame corner to corner - and then mounted that same lens on a D700, that bird would be in the middle of the frame with space all around it.

And the bird will appear smaller in the D700 viewfinder, and in the produced image.

You can't tell me that isn't greater reach. It is.

Replace that D700 with a D800 and recalculate.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Replace that D700 with a D800 and recalculate.

But you're not comparing the same megapixels... compare the same "size" camera and you'll get very different results.  A "fair" comparison is D300 to D700/D3.

If you're trying to make a comparison with a 36mp D800 FX you should compare it to a 36mp DX body.

For example...

a 400mm lens at f8 focused at 100 feet on a DX body gives a depth of field of 6.02ft
a 600mm lens at f8 focused at 100 feet on a FX body gives a depth of field of 3.99ft

a 400mm lens with 1.5x "crop factor" on DX is "equal" to a 600mm on FX

however, I hope everyone here can comprehend how an image will look very different whether it has 3.99ft of depth of field compared to 6.02 feet.

Assuming the same as above, but at 150 feet (more like what I shoot with race cars) you have 13.6 ft depth of field on DX compared to 9.03 ft with FX.

They are not "the same"

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Doug, you are (surprisingly) missing the point. The only factor that matters in the "reach" equation is the density of the pixels on the sensor. No other factor matters, when people are talking about this particular "advantage" of APS format cameras. You can crop a 24mp image out of a D800 that will look absolutely identical to a 24mp image taken with a DX format camera, using the same lens at the same settings.

Have you done this personally?

I've done it with 12 mp cameras both DX and FX, and they are NOT absolutely identical.

If someone would like to give me a D800 and a 24MP DX, I would be very happy to compare.

However, shooting both FX and DX at the same time, same place, same subject, same lens and having the images look very different regardless of cropping, I am sorry, but I believe in my eyes and my personal experience.

Now, perhaps if people are shooting with a 70mm or 85mm lens, they may not see the differences that I do because of using the long glass, but the images are different.

ASYLUM - Photo wrote:
Thanks for the info, all. My two front runners at the moment are the D600 and 5DII.

Avoid the 5DII, it's dire! Poor AF unless you use single point AF, dated metering, 98% viewfinder (in a FF, wtf?), relatively slow frame advance and so on and on. I have no idea why that camera was held in such high regard!

The 7D smokes it, except for extreme resolution (but even that's debatable). And as for the D600, it makes the 5DII look like it was from the 1970's!

Personally, I don't know why you'd want to give up a 7D, after the 1DX and 5DIII it's the best camera from the big C. I can't get enough of it! Hardly use my D800's at the moment!

London Fog wrote:

Avoid the 5DII, it's dire! Poor AF unless you use single point AF, dated metering, 98% viewfinder (in a FF, wtf?), relatively slow frame advance and so on and on. I have no idea why that camera was held in such high regard!

The 7D smokes it, except for extreme resolution (but even that's debatable). And as for the D600, it makes the 5DII look like it was from the 1970's!

Personally, I don't know why you'd want to give up a 7D, after the 1DX and 5DIII it's the best camera from the big C. I can't get enough of it! Hardly use my D800's at the moment!

I simply wasn't happy with the files at least compared to the files from my Fujis. I felt that if I was going to have a big honkin SLR it should have big honkin image quality. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think I've settled on the D600 after more research. The oil spots do concern me, but I'm hoping it was only certain early batches.

DougBPhoto wrote:

Have you done this personally?

I've done it with 12 mp cameras both DX and FX, and they are NOT absolutely identical.

If someone would like to give me a D800 and a 24MP DX, I would be very happy to compare.

However, shooting both FX and DX at the same time, same place, same subject, same lens and having the images look very different regardless of cropping, I am sorry, but I believe in my eyes and my personal experience.

Now, perhaps if people are shooting with a 70mm or 85mm lens, they may not see the differences that I do because of using the long glass, but the images are different.

Are there any cameras made where the FF and crop version are 100% identical except for the size of the sensor?

As far as I know, no, which means your test was comparing red apples with green apple - close, but not the same.

London Fog wrote:

Avoid the 5DII, it's dire! Poor AF unless you use single point AF, dated metering, 98% viewfinder (in a FF, wtf?), relatively slow frame advance and so on and on. I have no idea why that camera was held in such high regard!

The 7D smokes it, except for extreme resolution (but even that's debatable). And as for the D600, it makes the 5DII look like it was from the 1970's!

Personally, I don't know why you'd want to give up a 7D, after the 1DX and 5DIII it's the best camera from the big C. I can't get enough of it! Hardly use my D800's at the moment!

The 7D is a far better camera in terms of operation, but the 5D2 is better in terms of image quality.

ASYLUM - Photo wrote:

I simply wasn't happy with the files at least compared to the files from my Fujis. I felt that if I was going to have a big honkin SLR it should have big honkin image quality. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think I've settled on the D600 after more research. The oil spots do concern me, but I'm hoping it was only certain early batches.

Have you considered keeping the 7D and putting the money in to a lens - specifically the 24 1.4 mkII?

Based on your port it looks like you're mostly shooting with strobes, so you don't have to worry about ISO. In terms of framing, take a look at this port: https://www.modelmayhem.com/1000677

There's some film mixed in there, but mostly he's shooting with a 7D/24 1.4. You've got more wide shots, but he's got some that match.

What that also means, is that you're putting your money into something that's not disposable like a camera body.

MC Photo wrote:
Are there any cameras made where the FF and crop version are 100% identical except for the size of the sensor?

As far as I know, no, which means your test was comparing red apples with green apple - close, but not the same.

I would ask you to rephrase your question in a manner that was more understandable, but I am afraid we are already going far astray of the OP's intent for this thread.

(Note: I am comparing D700 @ 4,256 x 2,832 to D300s at 4,288 x 2,848, native images from FX and DX, which seem like apples of pretty equivalent color.)


I think I already provided factual, technical information as to why there are genuine differences in the resulting images when comparing FF and DX bodies trying to render the subject at the same magnification/size.

I truly don't understand why people get hung up on some of this bullshit and have to argue it out.

If I'm 150 feet away from a race car in a corner and I want the resulting in-camera image (without using a crop mode feature) to be as close to the same size as possible when comparing FX and DX bodies where the resulting file dimensions (in pixels) are as identical as possible, the resulting images from the two cameras, even if the subject is a similar size, and the same exact aperture and shutter speed are used, the depth of field will be different, with the crop body image having more depth of field.

I have not personally compared the opposite situation as closely, trying to shoot wide-angle images (instead of highly telephoto images).

I suppose that if you put a 300mm lens on a D800 (which the OP does not even seem to be interested in) and compare the FX image to the DX crop image to a DX image shot on some other DX body with similar mp to the D800 DX crop, we could do some fantastic circle-jerk comparison to make you and some others happy.

I am simply comparing that I shoot event images that need to be framed properly in the camera, and I shoot with DX and FX bodies and even with the subject being the same size in the resulting images, there are visible and noticeable differences to the image.

Others are free to disagree, but I have to go by what my eyes and my clients eyes see, because that is really the primary reality that my images matter in.

DougBPhoto wrote:
I would ask you to rephrase your question in a manner that was more understandable, but I am afraid we are already going far astray of the OP's intent for this thread.

(Note: I am comparing D700 @ 4,256 x 2,832 to D300s at 4,288 x 2,848, native images from FX and DX, which seem like apples of pretty equivalent color.)


I think I already provided factual, technical information as to why there are genuine differences in the resulting images when comparing FF and DX bodies trying to render the subject at the same magnification/size.

I truly don't understand why people get hung up on some of this bullshit and have to argue it out.

If I'm 150 feet away from a race car in a corner and I want the resulting in-camera image (without using a crop mode feature) to be as close to the same size as possible when comparing FX and DX bodies where the resulting file dimensions (in pixels) are as identical as possible, the resulting images from the two cameras, even if the subject is a similar size, and the same exact aperture and shutter speed are used, the depth of field will be different, with the crop body image having more depth of field.

I have not personally compared the opposite situation as closely, trying to shoot wide-angle images (instead of highly telephoto images).

I suppose that if you put a 300mm lens on a D800 (which the OP does not even seem to be interested in) and compare the FX image to the DX crop image to a DX image shot on some other DX body with similar mp to the D800 DX crop, we could do some fantastic circle-jerk comparison to make you and some others happy.

I am simply comparing that I shoot event images that need to be framed properly in the camera, and I shoot with DX and FX bodies and even with the subject being the same size in the resulting images, there are visible and noticeable differences to the image.

Others are free to disagree, but I have to go by what my eyes and my clients eyes see, because that is really the primary reality that my images matter in.

I'm not sure which part is unclear.

My point is that there are two possible differences in sensors. One being the size, and one being the "design" - the size of the pixels, etc.

For instance, the 5D 1/2/3 are all the same size, but they are different sensor designs.

If there was such thing as taking a full frame sensor and cutting it with scissors to be the size of a crop, you'd have the same sensor design, but in a different size.

As far as I know, there are no sensors that have the same design, but one is crop and one is FF, like the last example.

My point is that in theoretical terms what you're saying could be right, but in practical terms - doing an actual test side by side, there are no cameras where you can see only a difference in sensor size, you will be seeing differences cause by additional differences between the two sensors, so it's not currently possible to make an exact A/B comparison.


For instance, let's say that all newer sensors look better than older sensors because their design and light gathering properties will have been improved.

If you prefer the look of a 5D3 over a 7D, you may be reactin to the better sensor design, not the sensor size.


I believe that one of the key things in becoming and expert at things is learning how to know when you're making valid comparisons, and that it is infact very difficult to do. So mostly we have to make invalid comparisons and over time see if they hold up. When you make valid comparisons, you're learn more, so when you've become an expert in one thing, you will be able to learn something new faster, because part of the learning process is learning how to assess comparisons, which you've already learned in the first subject. It's something I've had reasons to spend a lot of time thinking about.

I've done a lot of A/B comparisons where I learned the hard way that they are invalid and that some comparisons may be impossible to make.

MC Photo wrote:

I'm not sure which part is unclear.

My point is that there are two possible differences in sensors. One being the size, and one being the "design" - the size of the pixels, etc.

For instance, the 5D 1/2/3 are all the same size, but they are different sensor designs.

If there was such thing as taking a full frame sensor and cutting it with scissors to be the size of a crop, you'd have the same sensor design, but in a different size.

As far as I know, there are no sensors that have the same design, but one is crop and one is FF, like the last example.

My point is that in theoretical terms what you're saying could be right, but in practical terms - doing an actual test side by side, there are no cameras where you can see only a difference in sensor size, you will be seeing differences cause by additional differences between the two sensors, so it's not currently possible to make an exact A/B comparison.


For instance, let's say that all newer sensors look better than older sensors because their design and light gathering properties will have been improved.

If you prefer the look of a 5D3 over a 7D, you may be reactin to the better sensor design, not the sensor size.


I believe that one of the key things in becoming and expert at things is learning how to know when you're making valid comparisons, and that it is infact very difficult to do. So mostly we have to make invalid comparisons and over time see if they hold up. When you make valid comparisons, you're learn more, so when you've become an expert in one thing, you will be able to learn something new faster, because part of the learning process is learning how to assess comparisons, which you've already learned in the first subject. It's something I've had reasons to spend a lot of time thinking about.

I've done a lot of A/B comparisons where I learned the hard way that they are invalid and that some comparisons may be impossible to make.

Amazing how often it seems more productive to pee uphill than it is trying to get people on this site to broaden their thinking.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Amazing how often it seems more productive to pee uphill than it is trying to get people on this site to broaden their thinking.

Doug, I have a lot of respect for you and most of the posts you've made in the past. But in this case, you are simply wrong.

Let me try another example. Let's say we have two film cameras: one is a Hasselblad and the other is a Nikon. Both have 50mm lenses and are loaded with TXP film, and both take pictures with identical settings from the same tripod.

Then we print the 35mm negative full frame, and then we crop the 6x6 negative so its composition matches the 35mm negative, on paper the same size. From what you're saying, the two pictures will look different. Why?

Neil Snape wrote:
Today I decided and bought the 5DMKIII as a replacement to my dying 5DMKII.

Damn, here I was hoping you were going to switch so I could buy your Canon lenses...

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Doug, I have a lot of respect for you and most of the posts you've made in the past. But in this case, you are simply wrong.

Let me try another example. Let's say we have two film cameras: one is a Hasselblad and the other is a Nikon. Both have 50mm lenses and are loaded with TXP film, and both take pictures with identical settings from the same tripod.

Then we print the 35mm negative full frame, and then we crop the 6x6 negative so its composition matches the 35mm negative, on paper the same size. From what you're saying, the two pictures will look different. Why?

Again, what you're bringing in to the question is bringing in a different set of criteria.

In a large part of my work, I hear from photo editors who are curious why my images look so much better than images taken at the same time and same place but the other images were shot with full-frame and more expensive lenses but the quality of the image is viewed as very different, even though the effective focal length of the images may be "identical".

Comparing a 12mp DX to a 12mp FX using the same identical lenses, the image that is hitting the sensor (focal plane/plane of focus?) may be identical, but the sensors are not identical, therefore the images are not.  Yes, you can take the 12mp FX and crop in to get the same field of view, but then you have what, a 6mp image that you're trying to say is the same as a 12mp image.. clearly not identical.

Now, as I said earlier in other posts, when shooting for clients they often don't care what lens you use, they care about the image you give them.  They don't care if you shot it with a 400mm on a 12mp DX or a 600mm on a 12mp FX body, they only care what they (or their car) looks like, and I hope that you would agree that those images will look different even.

Of course, we could confuse the issue even more by saying you could shoot a 36mp D800 and use the crop mode, and/or try to compare that 16mp crop to a 16 mp crop camera, but then aren't you trying to compare two things that are basically the same thing, and then you're comparing camera to camera, not format to format.

The whole argument of cropping the FX images to give the same thing as DX just makes my head hurt.

For example, if the client wants a 36mp image, I need to use the FX D800 with long enough glass to give the client what they wants, I can't do the same thing with DX because I'm not aware of a 36mp DX body.

If there was, I could consider the image and decide how I want to render it based on the different results whether using DX or FX (and the focal length needed based on the sensor format.)

Perhaps discussed another way... using your DX and Hassy example.   If the DX with 50mm gave you the image how you want it, ie. the proper lens, I seriously doubt that you'd shoot the same setup with a Hassy and a 50mm intending to crop it when you print, instead, you'd use the proper lens of equivalent focal length, at least I sure as hell would.

Because back to your 35mm film camera example, if I looked at a subject and thought a 50mm was perfect, I would not then pick up my 28mm and shoot it thinking I'll just crop it later, just like I would not pick up a Hassy and think this shot calls for a 90mm and shoot it with a 50mm and crop it later.

I'd use the right lens for the job matched to whichever camera I was using, and if I had my choice of cameras, I'd use the one that gave me the resulting image that I would prefer.

We probably should not even talk about the difference in images shot with DX vs FX when shooting wider-angle panning shots and how they give different results even with trying to keep all other factors equivalent.  (On the other hand, my observations there are probably wrong too.)

PS: I appreciate the kind words.

DougBPhoto wrote:

Amazing how often it seems more productive to pee uphill than it is trying to get people on this site to broaden their thinking.

Are you being ironic?

Where in the following is there a single word that suggests you are trying to trying to broaden anyone's thinking?

"I would ask you to rephrase your question in a manner that was more understandable, but I am afraid we are already going far astray of the OP's intent for this thread.

(Note: I am comparing D700 @ 4,256 x 2,832 to D300s at 4,288 x 2,848, native images from FX and DX, which seem like apples of pretty equivalent color.)


I think I already provided factual, technical information as to why there are genuine differences in the resulting images when comparing FF and DX bodies trying to render the subject at the same magnification/size.

I truly don't understand why people get hung up on some of this bullshit and have to argue it out.

If I'm 150 feet away from a race car in a corner and I want the resulting in-camera image (without using a crop mode feature) to be as close to the same size as possible when comparing FX and DX bodies where the resulting file dimensions (in pixels) are as identical as possible, the resulting images from the two cameras, even if the subject is a similar size, and the same exact aperture and shutter speed are used, the depth of field will be different, with the crop body image having more depth of field.

I have not personally compared the opposite situation as closely, trying to shoot wide-angle images (instead of highly telephoto images).

I suppose that if you put a 300mm lens on a D800 (which the OP does not even seem to be interested in) and compare the FX image to the DX crop image to a DX image shot on some other DX body with similar mp to the D800 DX crop, we could do some fantastic circle-jerk comparison to make you and some others happy.

I am simply comparing that I shoot event images that need to be framed properly in the camera, and I shoot with DX and FX bodies and even with the subject being the same size in the resulting images, there are visible and noticeable differences to the image.

Others are free to disagree, but I have to go by what my eyes and my clients eyes see, because that is really the primary reality that my images matter in."

When you write "I am simply comparing that I shoot event images that need to be framed properly in the camera, and I shoot with DX and FX bodies and even with the subject being the same size in the resulting images, there are visible and noticeable differences to the image."


When I shoot events with FF and crop bodies there are "visible and noticeable differences to the image" because it's a dynamic shoot and no two photos are the same.

Talk about not understanding A/B comparisons. You're comparing photos of different compositions and saying "they look different", attributing it to the crop factor and not acknowledging that they're fundamentally different images.

On top of that you're not even following that I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying that as far as I know, there are no FF and crop sensors that can shoot the identical image. I'm saying that if you do the perfect A/B you will see differences because beyond the difference in sensor size, you're also comparing different sensor designs. You're probably comparing different lenses too. So, a crop and FF did in fact have no difference in perspective and DoF, you'd still see and difference.

The only person in this discussion who's close minded is you.

If you need me to clarify yet again, I'm happy to keep going until you understand. These things aren't always easy to grasp.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:

Doug, I have a lot of respect for you and most of the posts you've made in the past. But in this case, you are simply wrong.

Let me try another example. Let's say we have two film cameras: one is a Hasselblad and the other is a Nikon. Both have 50mm lenses and are loaded with TXP film, and both take pictures with identical settings from the same tripod.

Then we print the 35mm negative full frame, and then we crop the 6x6 negative so its composition matches the 35mm negative, on paper the same size. From what you're saying, the two pictures will look different. Why?

Film makes it even easier.

You take one roll of film, put it in a Nikon camera with a Nikon lens, shoot a photo. Then rewind the film, put it in a Canon camera with a Canon lens, wind it past the frame you've already shot and keep exposure, focal length, and framing identical. We've even eliminated the possible variation in film stock.

The two images will look different because they were shot with different lenses.

It's almost impossible to set up a proper A/B comparison.

DougBPhoto wrote:

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Doug, I have a lot of respect for you and most of the posts you've made in the past. But in this case, you are simply wrong.

The whole argument of cropping the FX images to give the same thing as DX just makes my head hurt.

I agree.

The way to A/B crop vs FF is to use the exact same lens, but use one that's designed for the crop, not the FF so that the same size image gets projected on to the larger sensor. Then you don't have to crop, or do any mathematic conversions.

You might have you use one that's designed for something smaller than 1.6 since the image probably is projected wider, not the exact size.