crop sensor vs full

[private]

Why is it better? I still cannot get it.

[inkista]

That's because full's better than crop.

[candleman]

umm.. same as why APS-C size is better than a P&S size.. more sensor to make the same number of pixels.. so greater clarity/colour rendition.

plus the DOF/bokeh thing (although, i believe thats quite a hot debate)

personally.. i wouldnt go FF until i was full time... or could afford it.
crop works well for me.

but i'm no expert

[private]

yeah, crop works for me, but I am trying to figure out WHY full is better - is it just clarity? (my 10 year is coming up... and that is the Tin gift, and I am sure there is SOME metal in a new camera) Are the photo dimensions the same - I think mine is 2:3

[OsmosisStudios]

Photo dimensions are the same. The sensor goes from 24x18 to 36x24 (doubles).

The big plus you get (more noticeably on the NIkon side) is insane high-iso performance. In the Nikon lineup, all the top cameras are 12.3MP, but the upper two are full-frame, so they spread that 12.3mp onto twice the space as the others. How's that sound?

In canon this remains true, but somewhat less so. Its kinda like how some people are lamenting the D3x: its got the same pixel density as a crop-body, and thus has similar (though slightly better) ISO performance.

[candleman]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Its kinda like how some people are lamenting the D3x: its got the same pixel density as a crop-body, and thus has similar (though slightly better) ISO performance.

aaah i see.
i was wondering what everyone was whining about.. appart from the pricetag.

[dcclark]

My short explanation is: full-frame gives you better high-ISO performance, yes, but also the ability to use a wide range of older lenses correctly -- that is, without any weird crop factors. So, in particular, ultra-wides really are ULTRA-wide, and not cropped!

But so far, all full-frame cameras are MUCH more expensive. And of course, if you don't need the benefits, why not go with a cropped sensor? It's not a huge difference for most people.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by candleman

aaah i see.
i was wondering what everyone was whining about.. appart from the pricetag.

Admittedly, though, it does have 25mp, which can be nice for those posters you ABSOLUTELY need printed to 36x24 at 300 native DPI.

The D3x is for studio and landscape shooters that either A) have flashes or B) a tripod.

Photojournalists still prefer the D3...

... or if youre Ken Rockwell, a holga!
"What's a Holga? It's a camera favored by many of the world's top photojournalists." (scroll down to 6 April)

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Admittedly, though, it does have 25mp, which can be nice for those posters you ABSOLUTELY need printed to 36x24 at 300 native DPI.

The D3x is for studio and landscape shooters that either A) have flashes or B) a tripod.

Photojournalists still prefer the D3...

... or if youre Ken Rockwell, a holga!
"What's a Holga? It's a camera favored by many of the world's top photojournalists." (scroll down to 6 April)

Funny enough, 25 MP at 24x36 inches will only give you about 170 DPI. You need 77 MP to get 300 DPI at that size.

But yeah, I agree, the D3X is best for crazy landscape folks who desperately need maximum resolution.

[kirbinster]

I think it is similar to pro photographers off the olden days used film that was much larger than 35mm -- larger is better when you talk of your imagine media.