The choice between crop sensor and full frame depends on your needs and shooting style, making it essential to grasp how each one works.
Coming to you from Rocky Mountain School of Photography, this informative video dives into the key differences between crop sensor and full frame cameras. The primary distinction lies in the sensor size. Full frame sensors measure 24mm by 36mm, the same size as 35mm film. In contrast, crop sensors are smaller. This size difference affects the field of view, which is how much of the scene the sensor captures. With a crop sensor, you get a narrower field of view compared to a full frame sensor using the same lens.
The video further explains how using a crop sensor camera with a full frame lens can result in higher image sharpness. This is because crop sensors only use the center part of the lens's light circle, which is typically the sharpest area. This setup can be beneficial for achieving crisp photos, especially if you are using professional full frame lenses on a crop sensor camera. It also discusses the field of view and focal length differences, emphasizing that while the focal length remains the same, the effective focal length changes due to the crop factor.
Another significant aspect covered is the depth of field. Full frame cameras generally provide a shallower depth of field compared to crop sensor cameras. This is due to the larger sensor size, which allows for more background blur and better separation of the subject from the background. If you prefer those creamy, blurred backgrounds in your portraits, a full frame camera might be more suitable for you.
Weight and size are practical considerations. Full frame cameras and lenses are typically larger and heavier than their crop sensor counterparts. If you travel frequently or prefer a lighter kit, crop sensor cameras can be advantageous. They offer a balance between quality and portability, making them a popular choice among travel and street photographers.
Check out the video above for the full rundown.
Please quit perpetuating the biased "crop vs. full" language that was misappropriated by camera makers' marketing departments to upsell consumers. There's nothing "cropped" about ANY sensor format, as cropping involves REMOVING some of what was previously an integral part. I mean, if I'm full-height at 5'10", is anyone shorter a cropped human? And, what about all those taller folks? Are they "medium format" or what? There's nothing "fuller" about an uncropped image from a 35mm-format sensor than one from any other-format sensor.
The appropriate question to title this article is, "Which format is right for you?" Alternatively, sticking with historical tradition, we could ask, "Small format or smaller format, which is right for you?"
I'm guessing the "full-sized van" vs. "minivan" distinction back in the day must have been rough on you.
I'm guessing you still don't know what "crop" means. Try a dictionary. Also, if "medium format" is medium, and "large format" is large, what does that make 35mm format? I'll give you a hint: it starts with "s".
It was a joke.
I am quite aware of the meaning of the word "crop". I have some righteous sativa growing in my garden. Your snarky dictionary comment seems quite ill-humored. As someone who worked in the electro-optics industry for 35 years, I am quite certain that I am knowledgeable on the subject. I would even venture to say that I am more knowledgeable, but comparing CV's holds no interest for me. As arguably an expert in EO systems, I have no problem with simplified nomenclature that aids others in a fundamental understanding of a complex concept, even if it is not 100% accurate. It is much more effective than a byzantine correctness that is more obfuscatory. My experience is that only college professors and wannabe technical experts are worried about it. Hell, even Newton's law of gravity is not 100% correct, given what we now know of general relativity, but it is taught in every intro physics class because it captures the essence of the problem.
It is difficult to seriously believe that camera manufacturers misappropriated the term to use it to "upsell" consumers. The term was coined with the first digital cameras, at a time when there were no full-frame sensors, to make it easy for film SLR shooters to relate to the 35 mm standards that were intuitively understood. So, it is hard to attribute an ill-intent to the coining of the term, or its adoption and subsequent usage. To believe it was somehow disingenuously promoted by the evil manufacturers is conspiratorial thinking.
To paraphrase Jacques Cornell, "Try Wikipedia". "The terms crop factor and focal length multiplier were coined to help 35 mm film format SLR photographers understand how their existing ranges of lenses would perform on newly introduced DSLR cameras which had sensors smaller than the 35 mm film format, but often utilized existing 35 mm film format SLR lens mounts"
Crop factor is merely a term of art. As a specialized field, photography has many terms of art, as do all specialized field. These terms of art are definitive and understood, if not 100% grammatically pure. Should the industry have dropped the term after 10 years, once 36 mm sensors were introduced? I see no benefit that would have come from this, and I don't think Mr. Webster was rolling over in his grave over it.
In the argot of photography, the terms f-stop and aperture have come to be used interchangeably. As a scientist, I know that they are not equivalent. Aperture is the diameter of the entrance pupil, and f-stop (actually f-number, if one wants to be prickly about it) is the ratio of focal length to aperture. However, we all know the practical usage and effect of f-stop, even if we erroneously refer to it as aperture. It is part of the accepted lexicon of the field, even if not pedantically pure. As a professional in the field of designing EO systems, none of this causes me any heartburn. I just don't feel the horror when someone says they used an aperture of 2.8. And I just don't get upset when people talk about crop factor.
Oh, and thanks for telling me to try a dictionary. It has some very nice words in it!
"Don't worry. Be happy". Meher Baba
"Your snarky dictionary comment seems quite ill-humored."
Your snarky minivan comment seemed quite ill-humored.
"It is difficult to seriously believe that camera manufacturers misappropriated the term to use it to "upsell" consumers. The term was coined with the first digital cameras, at a time when there were no full-frame sensors"
No, the phrase "full-frame" was coined long before digital, and it had a quite different meaning. It referred to an image that was not cropped POST-capture and generally referred to prints that included the entire image captured on the exposed area of film. The SIZE of the film was never relevant. Ever seen a print from film that included a black border caused by including the unexposed area of film beyond the edges of the image? That was done to prove that the print was "full-frame" and not cropped in the darkroom. It was a purist thing. The modern meaning of "full-frame" gained currency only after camera makers, which until then had made mostly APS-sensor cameras, started using it to convince consumers to buy their more expensive 35mm-format cameras.
You don't need a fancy technical CV to know this stuff. You just have to have been paying attention for long enough to know the history. I learned photography pre-digital, souped my own film, and printed in my own darkroom, so the change in usage of the phrase has been quite obvious to me. Also, as a former translator, I have a keen appreciation of the significance of word choice. Young 'uns like you have swallowed the marketers' lure, hook, line and sinker.
Also, you never answered my question. I'll answer it now in case you don't know. 4x5 and larger formats have long been referred to as "large format". 120/220 roll film and sensors larger than 35mm have long been referred to as "medium format". In the film days, 35mm was referred to as "small format". Since there are now several formats smaller than "medium", the most accurate, descriptive, and precise way of naming them is to refer to their size. Just as smaller formats don't actually crop anything and can be referred to as "one inch", "Four Thirds" and "APS", 35mm format is not "full-frame" and should be referred to "35mm format". It's not that hard, just one more character. Any effort to imply that 35mm includes a "fuller" frame than any other format is mistaken or disingenuous, and the absurdity of such an implication is belied by the existence of even "fuller"...I mean, larger formats.
I didn't realize that homework was due. You are taking this way more seriously than I am.
Thanks for referring to me as a "young-un". My AARP membership belies that. As for the marketers' lure - i never even thought of crop-sensor as bad, and full-frame as good, etc. They always seemed like neutral terms to me. Never thought anything more than they were descriptive of size - kind of like the sizes at Starbucks. Although I think it would be a little funny to go to a Starbucks forum and read if anyone is upset that venti vs. grande is a nefarious plot to upsell.
I guess I just don't get triggered by things that really have no discernible negative impact on the world. I get fired up over injustice, and food insecurity. But, hey, that is just my thing.
We all have our crusades. I wish you luck in trying to change the camera industry. Hope it brings you joy.