Full Frame vs Crop

[NicoleScraps]

So hubby and I were having a big discussion about what the difference is between the two types of cameras and if I need a full frame camera. (I have a EOS Rebel T1i). He has the mentality in general about everything gadgety and electronic that we always need the best that is available. I, however, think that my camera is just fine for me. I don't have a studio and don't plan on having one anything soon. (I know that the more expensive cameras work better with studio lighting, that is why I am mentioning that part). I am interested in several aspects of photography, mainly candid of my kids, portrait, and landscape. I think that I am fine with what I have. He has talked about the possiblity of buying a Canon Mark 5 (I think that is the one), but I would rather have glass.
We googled and couldn't find a clear in english (for dummies) explanation of what the major differences are between the two types of cameras.
Can someone please explain it to me, please?

[Eastree]

In the absolute shortest terms, the larger sensor will collect more light, and it gives a wider field of view.

In some slightly longer wording, it will give better image quality, and gives a wider field of view than the same lense on crop.

As long as you know how to use what you have, that's really all that matters for good photography. Go for some glass, then consider upgrading to the 5D mkII (or whatever at that time) or the 1D series, if you so choose.

[dbevisjr]

Hello Nicole, Check out this link and see if it helps any.

The digital crop factor explained - Fred Kamphues

Hope it helps you. But there are other benefits to having a better camera beside the benefit of a full frame instead of a crop frame.

[LeeR]

It's kind of funny the way things go. There is always something better out there and always someone to complain that you just don't have the real thing yet. Back in my film days I started with 35mm camera and there was a lot of talk about how you could never really get the kind of resolution that you could with a medium format camera. (Pinky in the air as you sip your tea.) Of course, before that the guys shooting with 4 X 5 view cameras were saying that medium format couldn't do what a their cameras do. All of this is true to a point, but not necessarily pertinent. While the medium format guys complained and harrumphed at the guys with little cameras the industry changed. Magazines learned that 35mm was just fine for what they were doing and the smaller cameras became the norm. Now if you go to NYC to the fashion industry you will still find plenty of people shooting medium and large format. I read an article the other day about a guy who shot a portrait of Rudy Guiliani for the cover of Time Magazine with an 8 X 10 View and I had to ask myself, why? That means his negative was bigger than the image on the magazine! No, a lot of this is just snob factor.
I bought a medium format camera but it stays home most of the time. The 35mm sized camera is just so much lighter and faster, and let's face it, more fun. Yeah, it's nice every once in a while to make an enlargement the size of a big screen TV that looks razor sharp, but how often does that urge strike? And where are you going to hang it? Who will buy it?
I'd still like to get a view camera. The idea of wandering into the woods with the camera the size of a vacuum cleaner and fiddling with all the widgets to get that perfect shot is enticing, though it may be a romantic notion. I suspect a half mile in I would be longing for my small camera. Ansel Adams sometimes shot with a 16 X 20 view. (Think small refrigerator.) One of his most famous shots is from the top of half dome, 6000 feet above sea level. That's why he's my hero... he and the mule that carried all his equipment.
You are thinking along the right lines; what do I need right now? What would help me most at this juncture in my development? The top of the line Canon is a remarkable camera with amazing capabilities, including a sensor the size of a 35mm frame (full-frame). But I suspect you are right, Unless you are making a living at this, you are better off with more glass. And if the day ever comes when you do get the mack daddy, all your new glass will fit it.

[RichardTaylor]

I shoot with a Canon 350D (Rebel XT), 40D (both 1.6 crop cameras) and 5D (A full frame camera).

Beside the differences in field of view the other noticable image differences are.

(1) Improved low noise performance for full frame.

(2) Wide angle lenses are really do give you a wide angle on a full frame camera.

(3) A lot more shallow DOF when shooting a similar size subject that fill the frame, 60% shallower with the full frame camera for a "head & shoulder shot".

And on a purely "gut" feeling the 5D images just look "cleaner" although maybe that is because I am mostly using better lenses with it than the other cameras.

[NicoleScraps]

Thanks so much for the info! I really appreciate it and it helps a lot. I feel that I am fine with what I have at this point. Maybe later I can get a fancy schmancy camera, but right now, mine still feels pretty fancy to me. LOL.

[inkista]

Money you spend on glass lasts longer than money you spend on bodies. As long as your camera does what you need it to, then there's no need to go chasing upgrades. Tell your husband that the 5DMkIII is due to come out any time now (it's likely to be about six months after the 1DsIV is released). If he's into the "latest and greatest", that'll stop him from pushing you to get the "about to go obsolete" Mark II just now.

I will say, however, after making the move from the 350D to the 50D, that the mid-level bodies like the 50D/60D, 7D, and 5DMkII do have significant advantages in handling over the dRebels. Never having to hold down that flipping AV modal button again when in full Manual mode being the big one; having two separate controls for aperture and shutter speed makes a significant difference in handling. But whether that's worth the price in what is ultimately a disposable piece of digital electronics is a matter of personal preference.

[WVCoalMiner]

The Full-Frame Decision | Photography - PopPhoto.com Offers Camera Reviews and Exclusive Photo Tips

[Photologyst]

Originally Posted by LeeR

It's kind of funny the way things go. There is always something better out there and always someone to complain that you just don't have the real thing yet. ...

Interesting isn’t it, what the great “old” photo masters like Ansel Adams were able to do with not so much technology?

As a geek, an early adopter and all that jazz, I am a firm believer that the artist’s eye, skill and vision are much more important than any new technology in producing a memorable photo.

[sk66]

I would say you are best off if you spend your money top quality FULL FRAME lenses.
Based upon your photographic interests, portraits and landscapes, a full frame super megapixel camera would be best (one of those 24mp beasts). If your portrait work will be mostly available light shots, then a lower MP full frame would be the choice.

The only times a crop sensor is preferable is if you do wildlife/sports where the "apparent zoom" of a crop sensor helps with long shots, or in some cases where the smaller file size of a crop sensor means more frames in burst mode (camera model dependent).

Otherwise a FF is always better...either better low light capability (same MP's on a FF sensor as on a crop sensor) or better image quality (with suitable light) due to more MP's.

That said, you do not need one now....you may never NEED one. If you don't think you will ever go FF, DX lenses are cheaper, but keep in mind that the entry price to FF will come down in time.