Crop or not crop. practical advice

Something recently often, in a variety of places, and with the most different people, we have to speak about the so-called crop, which traditionally means 22-mm and similar APS-C-sized matrices, and in some cases (such as etc.) even more compact sensors. My position on this issue is simple - the crop is good, the crop has undoubted advantages, and it should not be considered flawed. I will explain this now, and then give a link here ;-)

First of all, I think that the term "crop" itself is stupid, more auxiliary, because this concept helps to quickly calculate the equivalent focal length in comparison with 35 millimeters. And this word, for obvious reasons, and how much in vain, has some kind of humiliating connotation. It all depends on the starting point - absolutely any matrix can be called cropped, so a fetish "full-frame" sensor can be called a crop from a medium format, and a medium format is a crop from a large one. But they are not called that, because it is not customary.

What to call these reduced matrices? It was possible to come up with a different name or, quite simply, get by with the same - 23 mm, 22 mm, 18 mm. But, since 35 millimeters is the de facto standard in mass photography (convenient, practical, but far from the best in terms of picture), and photographers with experience initially got used to counting the focal length from it, knowing full well that 28 millimeters is a wide angle, 50 "staff" giving the perspective of the human eye, and 135 millimeters "portrait", you need a reference point.

Fujifilm X Pro 1 | ISO 1600 | 1/50 sec | [email protected]

The concept of "crop 1.x" allows you to recalculate the focal length in EGF without too much mental strain, knowing that the multiplier is 1.6x, and quickly multiplying 50x1.6 in your mind to understand that on Canon cameras with an APS-C matrix, such as , 650D / 60D / 7D "fifty dollars" is already closer to a portrait than to a staffer. It’s not worth telling me in the comments that nothing turns into anything - I don’t believe in magic either, but I know the topic about changes in perspective and depth of field, depending on the shooting distance, well. So...

The wave of old smart publications, written at the time of the beginning of sensors of this size, makes its note in the negative, full of discussions about the size and density of the photosensitive pixels of the matrix, discussions about the amplification of noise with an increase in the density of dots on the sensor. Many years have passed since then, and modern camera with a 22mm sensor provides a picture so clear at high ISOs that you could only dream of on the "full frame" and the most expensive professional cameras recent past. Since then, we have gone far ahead in terms of dynamic range, in terms of in-camera algorithms, and this trend of moving forward continues, and along with the growth of megapixels, which in those days was considered something ungodly.

Fujifilm X Pro 1 | ISO 3200 | 1/30 sec | [email protected]

In fact, the evolution of photographic equipment goes almost in a spiral, and the trend of shifting consumer interest towards mirrorless cameras is proof of this. Always in the history of photography there has been a confrontation between larger and more compact cameras. Both the medium format and 35 mm appeared as an attempt to reduce the size of the camera and its optics to comfortable ones, with which it is not burdensome to walk around, shoot anything and everything. It is enough to recall the history of photography in relation to the Second World War, to recall that it was the advent of compact 35 mm cameras and film that allowed photographers to survive by shooting fighting on the principle of "leaned out, removed, hid."

This format itself was then only a technical compromise between quality and portability.

So why is crop good? Large cameras have been and remain the lot of a professional, and I know this well for myself, putting a 10-kilogram backpack with optics on my back, hanging two “adult” Canon 1D class carcasses with fastened professional lenses on my shoulder. Owners of large cameras are well aware of how difficult it is to motivate themselves to take a kit with them - each time you are going to choose what to take and what not, which lenses will be needed and which ones you can safely leave at home. Walking in "unloading" is a dubious pleasure, dragging such a set with you on vacation is still a curse.

Fujifilm X Pro 1 | ISO 1600 | 1/30 sec | [email protected]

At the same time, I am well aware that in the field a large set is most often redundant. Yes, I win in terms of image quality, rate of fire, focusing speed, but I'm more noticeable, I attract too much attention, I get physically tired faster, and shooting in extreme sports, when you need the same quality, speed and focus, is not so often, if you analyze result. Modern compact cameras have already learned high-speed continuous shooting, and autofocus has improved in speed to confident work in the dusk, and noise at ISO, up to 6400, on many models, is very low. A couple of years ago, when shooting with the Canon 1Ds Mark II, I tried not to go above ISO 1000, but today on the EOS M I easily allow myself ISO 1600 and above.

A bright plus of the crop is that a smaller sensor allows you to create more compact optics, and mirrorless cameras are an example of this. If you have to choose between a backpack that can kill and two pockets of a winter jacket, which one do you choose? It's obvious to me. If all the optics that cover the required range of focal lengths are placed in a case from an amateur hand-held video camera, as happens with a set of fixes for Fujifilm X-Pro 1, I am only happy, but if the picture quality is comparable, at the same time, with the Canon 5D Mark II, I'm happy.

When a conversation begins for mirrorless cameras, most often they compare the dimensions and weight of carcasses, they say Fujifilm X-Pro 1 weighs 450 grams, and Canon 5D Mark II is only 810, and three hundred grams of role does not affect. If I only had to carry a carcass with me, I would agree. But let's add inexpensive optics to the weight of the penny - 28 mm f / 1.8, 50 mm f / 1.4 and 100 mm f / 2.8 Macro (there is an equivalent set of standard lenses for the X-Pro 1 - 18/2, 35/1.4 and 60/2.4 macro). We get 310 + 290 + 600 grams, that is full set two kilograms, against 116 + 187 + 215 and a complete set of 968 grams. Again, a bag against two pockets of a winter jacket. But Fujik is one of the largest mirrorless cameras, right?

Fujifilm X Pro 1 | ISO 200 | 1/125 sec | [email protected]

Fujifilm X Pro 1 | ISO 3200 | 1/40 sec | [email protected]

Fujifilm X Pro 1 | ISO 6400 | 1/30 sec | [email protected]

Fujifilm X Pro 1 | ISO 6400 | 1/60 sec | [email protected]

The fact that on 22 mm matrices with the same depth of field aperture is also wider in some cases, in most cases even, a plus. Yes, it gets harder to lift the subject from the background in a wide shot, and yes, it's harder to blur the background into full milk at f/4. But more often I come across a situation where more depth of field is needed - shooting in the studio, indoors, reporting, traveling, groups of people - these are the scenarios when milk is not required in the background, and on a camera with a larger sensor, you even need to cover the aperture in order to everything was sharper. And here we get a paradox, when leaving the aperture wider open and shooting at lower ISOs, we get a more interesting picture.

Of course, there is a wonderful 5D Mark III, which we can consider working ISO 12800 and 25600, but then again - price, dimensions, weight. Both the flagship and its 4K counterpart 1D C are my personal favorites among all DSLRs - they are beautiful, they give, but imagine them as everyday cameras, for daily shooting, which are always with you just in case? Which are appropriate with a business suit or at a party where you are as an invited person, and not as a photographer? Are these cameras from the "take out of your pocket and shoot" category?

Fujifilm X Pro 1 | ISO 6400 | 1/9 sec | 35mm @ 1.4 handheld, by moonlight

Let's go over the pros of cameras with a smaller sensor one more time:

1. Excellent picture - detail, noise, dynamic range, elasticity RAW
2. More depth of field at the same aperture, while maintaining the ability to tear the object from the background
3. More compact optics, as a result, the smaller size of the entire set
4. The EGF of long-focus lenses increases dramatically, while a large depth of field is also not a minus here.

More and more amateur photographers are now turning their attention to cameras with full-frame sensors, which should provide better image detail, smooth transitions in the midtone zone and a greater sense of “depth”. However, a wide variety of myths and misinformation are associated with full-frame matrices. What are the main features and advantages of cameras with a full-frame sensor, and is it worth changing a regular camera with a crop sensor to an expensive full-frame model? We will talk about this in this article.

Full frame sensor

But first, let's define what a "full frame" is. We are talking about the physical size of the photosensitive matrix used in a digital camera. She, as you know, is responsible for the quality of the image. Full frame cameras are those that have the same sensor size as a 35mm film camera with a size of 36 x 24mm.

At the beginning of the development of digital photography, almost all devices had a light-sensitive sensor of a smaller format due to the emergence of technology and the too high cost of producing full-frame sensors. However, over time, the production of full-frame sensors has become less expensive, which has allowed leading manufacturers to offer full-frame cameras to users.

Although the price for them cannot be called low today, nevertheless, such full-frame cameras have become much more affordable. Examples of full-frame cameras are Sony SLT A99 or Nikon D700.

Matrices with a crop factor, that is, with reduced physical dimensions, are usually referred to as APS-C sensors. Nikon, however, uses its own designations: "FX" for full-frame models and "DX" for cameras with cropped matrices. Typically, a crop sensor is 1.5 to 1.6 times smaller than a full-frame sensor. However, today cameras are produced with matrices having a variety of physical sizes.

Naturally, the majority of cameras with truncated matrices are in mass sale, they are cheaper and more convenient for beginners. If you shoot an image with a normal full-frame lens and superimpose it on a cropped sensor, then the image at the edges will be cropped by about thirty percent, that is, it will be one and a half times smaller. The number 1.5 is called the crop factor. Each manufacturer of photographic equipment has its own, but on average it varies within exactly 1.5 - 1.6.

As we know, back in the era of film photography, it was generally accepted that the larger the negative, the better and more detailed the image will be. A full-frame sensor is on average one and a half times wider than an APS-C sensor and, of course, this cannot but affect the image quality. What are the benefits of full frame?

Features and Benefits of Full Frame Sensors

First of all, a feature of cameras with full-frame sensors is the viewfinder scale, which is noticeably larger than that of conventional cameras with a cropped sensor. This, in turn, provides excellent opportunities for convenient selection of shooting parameters and angles. But the most important advantage of full-frame sensors is, of course, the ability to get sharper and better images at high ISO values, with much less digital noise.

A large full-frame sensor allows you to “shove” a larger number of photocells into it, and even a larger one, which has a positive effect on the perception of the light flux. Therefore, for the same number of megapixels, a full-frame camera will always provide better results at high ISO values ​​than a conventional crop sensor camera. You have the opportunity to seriously increase the ISO value when shooting, while you do not have to worry that the noise in the image will become visible.

The difference between a full-frame sensor and a crop sensor also shows up in the effect of increasing the focal length. The cropped sensor captures a smaller area of ​​the image, so the final picture looks like you were using a lens with a longer focal length. That is, on crop, the equivalent focal length increases in proportion to the crop factor.

For example, if you use a 50mm lens on a camera with an APS-C sensor, your photos will look like they were taken with a 75mm lens (crop factor = 1.5). That is, in the case of APS-C cameras, increasing the equivalent focal length can work in your favor. It is impossible to talk about the unequivocal advantage of a full-frame camera here, because everything depends solely on what you are going to shoot. Someone needs a full-frame camera to shoot a wide perspective, and someone wants to achieve a closer approximation of the objects being shot, and therefore it is more expedient for him to use a camera with a cropped matrix.

Shooting with a full-frame camera adds a strong sense of depth to images. This effect is achieved due to the shallow depth of field. As a general rule, on a full-frame camera, you need to close down the aperture by about 1/3 stop in order to get the same depth of field as with a camera that has a crop sensor. In optimal shooting conditions, full-frame cameras are also able to provide images with better detail and greater dynamic range due to the increased number of light sensors.

However, all these advantages of full-frame cameras are offset by the use of old or cheap lenses with them. If you decide to upgrade to a full frame camera, be prepared to invest heavily in new lenses that are compatible with full frame. You should pay attention to the optics that can convey all the advantages of a large sensor. The use of cheap and low-quality lenses negates any improvement in image quality that a full-frame sensor can bring with it.

Each manufacturer of photographic equipment currently produces optics separately for full-frame cameras and cameras with truncated matrices. For example, EF-S and EF lenses can be mounted on Canon amateur cameras, the choice of which is very diverse. For full-frame models, a limited set of EF optics is provided. That is, for a full frame, the available optics park is less.

But some of these lenses have characteristics that are almost inaccessible to the crop. Accordingly, specialized and high-quality optics for full-frame cameras can really emphasize all aspects of the performance of large high-resolution sensors.

Disadvantages of full frame cameras

As already noted, the effect of changing the focal length on crop matrices can be a serious advantage for the photographer and a decisive criterion when choosing photographic equipment. All you have to do is take a 300mm f/2.8 lens and mount it on a crop sensor camera and you actually get a 450mm f/2.8 lens.

That is, the crop factor allows you to achieve an increased reach of the lens with significant savings. Therefore, conventional crop-sensor cameras can be very useful, for example, when photographing animals in their natural habitat, photographing sports events, or in reportage photography.

But the main stumbling block is still the cost of full-frame cameras. Models with full-frame sensors are still much more expensive than conventional ones, and therefore the question invariably arises as to the advisability of buying them. Full frame cameras tend to be the flagship products of any leading camera manufacturer. The acquisition of such equipment always hits the pocket. Moreover, when buying a full-frame camera, you will most likely have to buy additional lenses, because not all optics from crop cameras are compatible with full-frame cameras, and vice versa.

Due to the high cost, buying a full-frame camera for amateur photography is unlikely to be appropriate. For professional photographers, the advantages of a full frame compared to the cost of a camera are much more justified. In addition, experienced photographers know better how to properly use the features of a full frame sensor. Amateur photographers will have to improve their shooting technique when switching to full frame.

So, "full frame" due to the increase in the size of the receiving cell reduces the noise level at high ISO sensitivity, expands the dynamic range and increases the image detail. In addition, the lens on a full-frame camera gives a wider field of view, which can be required in many shooting situations. But if you decide to change your camera to a camera with a full-frame sensor, you should clearly understand for what purposes you will need it. Before buying a "full frame"

You also need to make sure you have compatible lenses so that you can take full advantage of your new camera. Beginning photographers often make a huge mistake by investing their entire budget in buying a more perfect and advanced camera, completely forgetting that it is not the camera that shoots, but the lens.

Recently, I have often been asked questions regarding the choice of lenses for crop cameras. That's why I decided to write this article. I haven't photographed crop for many years. Although I started with a Canon 300D back in 2003 (then this model had just appeared) with an EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens. Later, and were acquired for him. These are two great lenses. But now, given the widest range of optics, I would choose other models for crop.

This review is going to be partly speculative - I didn't shoot with all the models I'll write about later, as I work in full frame.

Choosing a set of lenses depends on what you shoot most often. Typically, when I ask this question to people, they answer something like: well, so that you can shoot portraits and landscapes and everything in general.

Lenses for shooting anything.

Lens for all occasions on crop: Canon EF-S 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 STM IS. And a wide angle and some kind of portraits can be shot at 135mm and quite inexpensive. From this series there is also a wonderful Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Better picture quality, convenient and not cheap.

But I would not choose zooms with such a large range of focal lengths and poor aperture. Luminosity is our everything. The f3.5-5.6 lens is sad. The 5.6 aperture at the long end of the above lenses is good for portraits with a very very large stretch. Also, 18mm on the crop is a comfortable angle, but not super wide. 15mm is better, but it still doesn't compare to .

There is another lens for all occasions from Canon, which is worth paying attention to - . In terms of focal length and aperture, this is an analogue of 24-70 f2.8L in full frame. Judging by the reviews, the image quality is also very good. I am personally very surprised that 17-55 f2.8 costs about the same as 15-85mm f3.5-5.6. The choice is clearly in favor of a lens with a larger constant aperture.

My choice

Personally, for myself, I would take the following set for crop:
1) - really wide angle
2) - standard lens for all situations
3) or - for portraits

1) The first lens will give a truly developed perspective. For a crop, it simply cannot be wider (only fish, but this is not for everybody). The lack of a lens in a weak aperture. But this is not critical for such focal lengths.

Alternatives to this model: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 and Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. Both models are more expensive and not worth it. As for all sorts of Tokina, Tamron, Sigma and others like them, I will write at the end of the article.

2) A 24mm pancake is wonderful. This is a very compact, sharp and fast lens. Also it is inexpensive. In terms of a full frame, this will be approximately 38mm. It's not a wide angle. But, at the same time, comfortable enough for most situations. You will need to remove it from the camera if you want to make a portrait with a strong background blur or the widest panorama. Although, if without art, you can shoot both on it. By the way, for work in the studio is also a convenient focal length.

3) Fast lenses or 85mm that will match 80mm and 136mm full frame is a great choice for a crop. I do not recommend taking. It’s not very convenient in terms of focal length even on a full frame, on a crop it will be horror (almost 200mm). If desired, of course, portraits can also be shot, but this is for enthusiasts.

This is my choice based on the specifics of my work: reports, portraits, photos in the studio. This set, in addition to the optimal choice of focal lengths and aperture, is also very inexpensive, compact and lightweight. I don’t shoot wildlife, so I didn’t consider long lenses here (take any 70-200L - you won’t regret it).

When I was just starting to comprehend the basics of photography, I constantly encountered the following incomprehensible terms: CROP, CROP, CROP factor. At the same time, I learned another concept - a full frame, and in any context, a contrast was made between them, which simply put me, an absolute beginner, into a stupor, and then I decided to still find out what these interesting terms mean, and what differences between them? Actually, I decided to write about this in this post.

Crop factor - what is it in cameras?

What does this strange word - KROP mean? Logic suggests that for the concept of this term one must turn to English language. And indeed, translated from English, "crop" means "cut". Okay, there's already something. Next, we turn to the technical characteristics of the cameras themselves: one, the so-called CROPPED (take Nikon d3100 for example), and the other full frame (for example, Nikon d800).

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

In the characteristics we can see the following values:

For a professional Nikon d800 SLR camera, the values ​​\u200b\u200bare slightly different:

As seen from specifications these two SLR cameras, it's all about the matrix, namely its size - the Nikon d800 has a matrix size that is almost 1.5 times larger than that of the Nikon d3100. Thus, we have defined main difference between CROP and full frame is a truncated matrix.

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

The history of the origin of the concept of "CROP factor"

In general, the concept of "full frame" has its roots in the past: in the days of film cameras standard size frame of 35 mm film had the values ​​of 24x36 mm. With the advent of the era of digital cameras, the film was replaced by a photosensitive element (silicon wafer), consisting of a large number sensitive elements (photodiodes), and similar in principle to the usual solar battery- the so-called CCD-matrix. Now matrix digital reflex camera with dimensions of 24x36 is considered full, or full frame (full-size). The manufacture and installation of matrices of such sizes is not only quite expensive, but also laborious, which is why cameras of this level are often several times more expensive than cropped ones.

In general, probably, it is not possible to “shove” a full-size matrix into an ordinary digital soap box or mobile phone, well, or a compact budget DSLR, and therefore manufacturers went by simplifying / reducing the cost / reducing the size of both the matrix and, as a result, the photographic equipment itself, and it was to indicate how much the dimensions of such matrices diverge from the reference dimensions of 24x36 and the concept of CROP factor was introduced . The CROP factor of the full-size matrix was taken as 1, and the size of all other "truncated" matrices began with this figure by comparing with the "standard" - 24x36.

How to calculate the CROP factor of a matrix?

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

Also, to determine the CROP factor, there is another simple formula:

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

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

16 2 + 24 2 = D 2

832 = D2

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

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

What is the difference between a shot taken on a CROPS and a shot taken on a camera with a full-size matrix?

In fact, everything is much simpler: with the same focal length of the lens on a full-frame camera, there will be more space in the frame than on a camera with a crop factor of 1.5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the other differences between CROP and full frame?

Less noise at high ISO . It is known that the matrices of full-frame cameras are much less noisy at high ISO values. The large area of ​​the photosensitive element in a full-frame camera, which exceeds the area of ​​​​an incomplete matrix with a CROP factor of 1.5 by 2.25 times (24 * 36 \u003d 864; 16 * 24 \u003d 384; 864/384 \u003d 2.25), allows manufacturers to install larger photocells. Large photocells are able to perceive a much larger amount of light, which in turn leads to a reduction in noise at high ISOs by the same number of times. For example, at ISO 1600 on a CROP, the sensor will be noisier than at 3200 on a full-frame camera, or at ISO 800, a full-size sensor will be as noisy as at ISO 400 on a CROP, i.e. noise will be almost imperceptible.

Larger viewfinder. Among other things, on full-frame cameras, due to the increase in the matrix, the size of the viewfinder itself has also been increased. This, of course, is much more convenient, from such a viewfinder the eye is much less strained and tired. It also makes manual focusing easier and auto focusing easier.

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

What to choose: CROP or full frame?

So, to summarize: the main advantage of the full frame, from my point of view, is the ability to shoot at high ISO without the appearance of noticeable noise. Second important point is that a full frame roughly can accommodate more space in the picture than CROP. The payoff for this is its increased weight and dimensions, as well as often for a cloudy high price. A cropped camera lacks these advantages, but let's say I shoot at high ISOs quite rarely, and in most cases I still have enough space on the CROPS frame, especially since I often shoot on, and this undoubtedly gives its advantages on CROPS, so for I myself decided to form a collection of high-quality optics for the time being, and only then, perhaps, switch to a full frame. If, for example, you buy your first DSLR, and still don’t know what you want from it at all, don’t chase the full frame promoted and imposed by the manufacturer, but buy a CROP for a start, and spend the rest of the money on high-quality lenses and learning the basics of photography - this will be the most reasonable decision - and only then decide for yourself whether you need a full frame?

On this I, perhaps, will finish the article, I hope it will be useful for you, and will clarify the question of what the Crop factor is, and also how the full frame differs from the Crop camera.

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

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

), i.e. with a one-to-one matrix corresponding to a film size of 24x36 mm, in photo communities, questions are increasingly being asked whether the game is worth the candle - in other words, is it worth switching from a digital standard DX or APS-C reduced by 1.5 (1.6) times.

At the same time, of course, everything rests not only on the justification of investments (and not even so much), but simply on the price / quality ratio, etc. Considering that the ratio itself price quality can also be biased (for example, it is an eternally floating denominator, when to "quality" many consumers plus and "quality" of the camera itself, more precisely, the functions demanded by different classes of photographers, for each person having a certain unique set), you should go a little further into the question and look at it a little from the other side.

We are talking, of course, about the numerator of this formula, namely, the price. 5D is in first place here (60,000 rubles - a record low price that his follower will not reach), but only until the fall, when it will be discontinued. You can talk as much as you like about his wretchedness, the fact remains - his advantage is completely different, just in full frame. The D700 and the second version of the 5D will cost 90,00 - 100,000 rubles, which is quite impressive for a consumer pocket.

The difference in price, in the first place, is determined by the full frame, however, “for the sake of importance”, cameras are additionally stuffed with “meat” - at least this is Nikon's approach. However, in terms of the number of functions, the differences from top-end DSLRs with a reduced frame size are not as significant as with older models also with a full frame. This approach, in principle, is justified - low-end full-frame DSLRs are bought only for the sake of the full frame, and not for functions, and professional ones - for the sake of both. The choice of DSLRs for advanced amateurs is also determined by functionality.

Therefore, if you are wondering about buying a full frame or a small sensor camera + a very good lens, you need to ask yourself a few questions, and if the answer to most of them is yes, go ahead and buy “affordable full frame”:

1. You are an experienced photographer and you know what a full frame is for and how it is fundamentally different from a cropped one and you earn, mainly or completely, photography (if the answer is “yes”, you don’t even have to read below).
2. You have a lot of experience in amateur photography using a SLR camera.
3. You have expensive non-digital lenses, especially wide angle ones.
4. You have lenses that are worth more than the difference between a top-end cropped camera and a low-end full-frame camera.
5. You often print photos in a really large format (on the wall, i.e., approximately 30x45 and 60x90).
6. You almost never crop photos in the editor by more than 10% of the area, and almost always build a frame through the viewfinder, watching its entire area, so this is not necessary when preparing for printing. On the other hand, if you crop almost all printed photographs by more than 30% of the frame area and always print small formats, buying a full frame is contraindicated.
7. You often shoot portraits and see the “difference between f / 1.4 in full frame and in crop” and it annoys you a lot.
8. You already have the "same" f/1.4.
9. You shot on film before you started shooting digital.
10. You already have a complete set of lenses and accessories necessary for shooting, which you definitely do not plan to replenish or change within the next year or two.
11. You have practically no (or none at all) lenses for downsized sensors.
12. You buy a full-frame camera with your own money (not on credit) and do not earn money from photography.
13. You have not updated the camera for a long time and are waiting for the transition to a “qualitatively new” level.
14. In a month, you earn more than the cost of the purchased camera.
15. You don't tend to drop your camera.
16. You have extra money that you can't wait to spend, and your wife doesn't mind.
17. You really answered all the above questions seriously.

It is not necessary to have a positive answer to all questions - one or two may not suit you at all. However, if you answered “no” to at least 4-6 questions, you should think about the justification for such investments. It might be worth taking a more humble approach or just buying a good lens.