Full Frame Sensor vs Crop Sensor – Which is Right For You?
DX, full-frame, APS-C, FX, crop factor, 24×36, image circle. Confused yet? Good.
With the new Nikon D700 hitting store shelves and the Canon 5D MkII imminent, now is a good time to clear the air on the whole sensor size thing.
Back in the film days, the rectangle that captured the image on a standard SLR (the film) was one size: 24mm x 36mm. That was all there was to it, and nobody really gave it a second thought.
Every camera manufacturer is slightly different; models from the same manufacturer are even different. People usually refer to a sensor’s size by its “crop factor.” That’s the number you use to find the 35mm equivalent of a given lens. It’s just like taking the middle of an image and throwing away the outside edges. If a sensor is 24mm x 36mm, then there is no crop factor, since it covers the same area as 35mm film.
Nikon has two different sensor sizes: full frame (FX) and 1.5x (DX).
Canon has three sensor sizes: full frame, 1.3x and 1.6x. Other manufacturers are in the same range, with Olympus being the notable exception, at 2x.

Some people don’t like the term “full frame” because it isn’t specific. Full compared to what? For the sake of simplicity, when I say “full frame” I mean a sensor that’s roughly 24mm x 36mm.
That’s all well and good, but why should you care? Sensor size is important when you’re trying to pick a camera because full frame sensors have distinct advantages and disadvantages in different situations.
In general, full frame sensors have better image quality across the board, but they really shine when it comes to high ISO performance.
Take a look at the Nikon D300 and it’s full frame sibling the D700. The D300 is widely considered to be pretty good in low light, but the D700 is much better. In the real world, my D700 gives me 2 full stops of useable ISO over the D300; I can shoot at ISO6400 on the D700 where I wouldn’t shoot above ISO1600 on the D300. This has a lot to do with the size of the sensor. Both cameras have 12 megapixels, but the individual imaging sites on the D700 are farther apart, giving you a cleaner image.
Full frame sensors also give photographers more options when it comes to wide-angle work. I can use my $300 24mm f/2.8 instead of the $900 Nikkor 12-24 f/4, and the 24 is faster.
The downside is that full frame sensors and lenses are bigger than their cropped counterparts. Full frame bodies are also more expensive.
There are also some situations where the crop factor helps you. Many people have gotten used to having a little big of extra reach with their long lenses and may not want to give that up.
Crop Sensor vs Full Frame Sensor: Choosing Which is Right For You
After you figure out the difference between a crop sensor and a full frame sensor, you’ll need to decide which one suits your needs.
For the average consumer, a smaller 1.5x or 1.6x sensor will be fine. If you’re the kind of person who has the 18-55 kit lens and maybe one other lens, it just doesn’t make sense to spend the extra money on full-frame.
If you have lots of glass from the film days, it might be worth looking into a full frame body. Modern Nikon bodies are compatible with nearly every lens Nikon ever made, and Canon bodies all work with EF glass.
Photographers who enjoy shooting landscapes and architecture will definitely want to check out a full frame body (if they don’t already have one). Full frame image quality and wide-angle options are far better than their cropped siblings.
If you shoot in natural and available light, you’ll definitely want to check out a full frame body too. The high ISO performance on my D700 is simply unmatched by any body with a smaller sensor. I can shoot at ISO6400 without worrying about excessive image noise, and I have more options when it comes to using (or not using) strobes and artificial light.
For nature, wildlife and sports enthusiasts, it might make more sense to stick with a smaller sensor. You can take advantage of the crop factor to get maximum detail at long distances.
Jamie De Pould is a DPS critique moderator and freelance photographer. He is currently pursuing a M.S. in Photography at Syracuse University in Syracuse, NY. See some of his work at pbase.com/jdepould.
Read more on this topic in our previous article – Crop Factor Explained where we specifically look at the topic of Crop Factor and how it impacts the different lenses that you might use on your DSLR.




41 Responses to “Full Frame Sensor vs Crop Sensor – Which is Right For You?” - Add Yours
August 20th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Excellent article highlighting the details needed to understand crop factors. Good practical advice for consumer-level photographers.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
What will happen if I mount the current “digital lenses” (Nikkor DX and such) in a full frame body?
August 20th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I don’t think there’s a right answer to the question of full-frame vs. cropped. I use two Canon 40D bodies with cropped sensors in my professional work and I enjoy the extra reach that I get from them. The Canon system is nice in that I can take any lens in their current lineup and use it on my bodies without worry. Plus, if I really want the same view as a full-frame sensor, I just step back 1.6 times!
August 20th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Thanks for that – I had never considered the low light advantages of a full frame. Now to rethink my next purchase :D
August 20th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
For zoom lenses, you’ll need to zoom out a bit otherwise you’ll get extremely heavy vignetting. How much you zoom is roughly the lower range times the crop factor of the camera the lens was designed for. For example, you can use the 17-55DX on a FF Nikon, but would need to zoom to about 26 or so to use it without seeing the vignetteing (17 X 1.5 = 25.5). However, the new Nikon FF cameras automatically crop the image for you, though in the process you lose MP.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:04 am
This is a good article. It’s easy to understand, and it conveys the differences between the different sensor sizes really well to the reader.
I for one didn’t know that full frame sensors are better in low light conditions, and that they handle noise better than the cropped counterparts. That’s a good thing to remember when it comes to buying my next cam. So thanks for that.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:22 am
Another item to think about when choosing full frame vs smaller ccd sensors is where in the lens the image comes from. Many lenses, especially less expensive ones, have less contrast and more distortions closer to the edge of the glass. Shooting with a full frame sensor places the image in the boundary of those glass problems. Using a smaller sensor tends to place the image in the premium part of the lens. This can make your image in a $300 lens as good as one in a $1,000 lens.
It’s certainly a trade off between where in the glass the image comes from and the higher ISO’s with less noise!
David.
http://outdoorimages.blogspot.com
August 21st, 2008 at 2:24 am
Good perspective on sensor cropping… I use both a DX and FX body and they each have their purpose, but it is hard to remember the crop differently when looking through the viewfinder.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:41 am
HA HA HA…
I JUST NOW posted in the DPS forum asking for someone to explain crop bodies with full-frame bodies, and then I click over to the blog and VOILA! you’ve answered all my questions!!
Talk about timing!!
August 21st, 2008 at 4:34 am
@ João Almeida,
When you use the DX lens on a D3 you’re dropping from 12mp down to 5mp.
Pete
http://www.petelanglois.net
August 21st, 2008 at 5:35 am
When using a DX lens on a D3 or D700 you’re dropping to 9mp surely?
August 21st, 2008 at 7:51 am
So do they make it pretty clear in the specs what kind of frame you’re getting? Which Canons are full frame?
August 21st, 2008 at 8:21 am
THANK YOU – I’ve been looking for the short explanation of this! Finally it clicks :)
~Melanie
August 21st, 2008 at 10:29 am
Canon’s full-frame models are the 5D and 1D. Personally, I’m very happy and satisfied with my 40D.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I think you need to have a special need (usually meaning Serious Pro) to justify a Full Frame Sensor digital camera. The performance of Crop Sensor cameras is remarkable.
I had some jingle in my jeans late last year and hoped Canon would produce the 5D MkII everyone knows is on the way. It has yet to happen. I bought a XSi (to join my XTi) and am not looking back.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:14 pm
“…I can shoot at ISO6400 without worrying about excessive image noise…”
Wow, that is amazing! Yet it is obvious – when you think about it. A large sensor means more pixels, meaning the image will be less vulnerable to noise. The problem has been the incredibly high price tag on full frame sensor cameras. But I guess those prices are coming down more and more, so maybe the day I upgrade I can afford one.
Kai the Sunnyman http://www.a1phototips.com
August 21st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Update – I guess I missed a fine point here: it is not just the number of pixels, but also how they are spaced on the sensor surface. And that is also why a large sensor performs better. Excellent article!
August 21st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Can I add one more argument (as a full-frame shooter) in favor of the cropped sensors?
In Canon camera’s full-frames come with higher Megapixels than their equivalents, thus larger filesizes to store in memory. Therefor the frames per second are higher in the cropped sensorbody’s. Together with their ‘improvement’ of telelenses makes them the better choice for sports (EOS 1Ds vs 1D)
August 21st, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Hi, I have a question that pursues me ever since I realized cameras can have sensors of different size :)
Say we have two cameras with different sized sensors.
Let’s assume we are metering on the very same area with both cameras. Let’s also assume that the cameras have the same ISO settings, same aperture and equivalent focal length.
How does that affect the shutter speed?
I understand that the aperture is a ratio of focal length and the diameter of the opening. Unfortunately, I can’t figure out the consequences..
Is the amount of light hitting the sensors higher in case of the larger sensor, thus allowing shorter shutter speed? Or is the amount of light equivalent for the two cameras, resulting in same exposure time?
A simple answer is much appreciated..
a mathematical formula would be a very nice bonus! :)
Thank you
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:55 am
The argument by Rolograaf is only true for Canon.
With Nikon, the D700 is as fast as the D300 and the D3 is even faster then it’s smaller sisters. All three cameras
have about 12 MP.
Nikon will probably introduce another FF with much more than 12 MP soon. That camera will be slower than the D3.
I think the best solution would be to own two bodies. With Nikon I would go for a D300 for wildlife and birds and a D700 for the rest.
With Canon a 40D (or 1D Mk III) for wildlife and a 5D (or successor) for everything else.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 am
I definitely agree with Markus. I have a D300, and was a bit disappointed to realize that only a few months later they released the D700, since I shoot a bunch of architecture and enjoy landscapes. But, instead of running out to sell my D300, I’m going to keep it for awhile since I’ve really enjoyed the 1.5x reach it gives me on my full size lenses for birds and wildlife. I have a 70-200mm, which ends up being a 105-300mm on the D300, and then if I add on my 1.7 teleconverter, I now have a ~500mm equivalent lens for only a fraction of what a ‘real’ 500mm would cost me on a FF body.
That all being said, I’d LOVE to pick up the D700 in 6 months or so when the price (hopefully) drops a bit.
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 am
Please Could You Explain Olympus 2X Crop Factor
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 am
Isn’t there a depth of field advantage to the full-frame sensor as well…as in you can do more blurring?
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:02 am
“João Almeida Says:
What will happen if I mount the current “digital lenses†(Nikkor DX and such) in a full frame body?”
Nikon cameras will crop down to a 5mp image. The DX lenses don’t fill up the entire FX image sensor, so to keep a “normal” image (instead of one with horrid vignetting) the cameras crop down to 5MP.
Canon won’t even let you put digital lenses on full frame bodies.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:19 am
I have a cropped sensor canon, some of the reasons for me not upgrading is the size of the full sensor cameras are ginormous if you like walking around and being nimble. And the price of the bodies are pretty high. At least with the 24-105 lens I get extra close!
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:16 am
João Almeida Says:
What will happen if I mount the current “digital lenses†(Nikkor DX and such) in a full frame body?
On Canon, if you mount the EFS lens on a 35mm or full size sensor camera the mirror in the camera body will hit the back of the lens when you snap the shutter. Thats why the EFS lens had a rubber bumper on the back of the lens. So you don’t break the mirror if you don’t follow directions. My understanding is that by moving the rear element of the lens closer to the focal plain of the camera, you get a sharper image, in theory anyway.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Where does the APS-C format referred to in the title fit in?
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
In terms of the so-called ‘crop-factor’, what I don’t understand is, is the magnifiaction factor in a (say) 1.5x sensor a real magnified image, or is it just the cropped part of the full sized image printed out on a photo of equivalent size. In other words, everyone says you are getting 1.5x your normal focal length from a lens using the 1.5x crop factor sensor. I want to know if that enlarged image is actually being enlarged by the lens, or isn’t it just a piece of the full-sized sensor image (24mm x 36mm)which is being enlarged after it has already passed through the lens, so it is being enlarged on the sensor, or post sensor, by software, etc., and not by the lens itself? In other words the camera is producing a 1.5x image, not the lens? If this makes sense, one is not really getting a true 1.5x image from the lens. So all this hype about your lens suddenly becoming 1.5x more powerful is hogwash. It only appears so. The image quality itself is probably downgraded from the original 24 x 35mm image quality by the 1.5 times magnification factor??????
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
The APS-C size crop is 1.5 of 35mm
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:17 am
@David: it’s a crop, not magnification. It’s just like pulling the middle of the image out.
@Stan: the Olympus crop is 2x. The 4/3 system uses a smaller sensor, so it crops more.
@Gregg: you can get a little bit more shallow on the DoF, but it isn’t a huge difference. On the other end, diffraction isn’t nearly as bad as it is with the smaller sensors. You can stop down to f/16 without taking a hit on the quality.
Just a point of clarification: the 1D is a crop body (1.3x), the 1Ds is FF.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:13 pm
@Thomas,
I guess no one answered your question yet about equivalent cameras and different size sensors asking what will the exposure value be. Thomas, for a given film speed, aperture and lightvalue, the shutter speed will be the same regardless of whether the sensor has a 1.0 crop factor or any other crop factor. This is also true about digital vs film and different film sizes. I.e., the shutter speed you get for the DSLR is the same for a 35mm negative and a 4×5 negative. The relationship between the light value and aperture is the same by definition. This is also why you can use a handheld light meter and get the correct exposure regardless of the camera. Hope this helps!
October 24th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I’m just getting into photography, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think a crop sensor gives you any extra “reach” as you claim in the article and as some of the comments claim. The focal length on a lens doesn’t change when you put it on a crop body vs. a full body. Its only the field of view that changes. This means that you can get the same shot standing in the same position at the same focal length with the same lens using a full frame body vs. a crop body and the only difference would be that the image with the full frame body would contain more “picture” so to speak. You could then crop that picture (taken with the full frame camera) down to the same exact size as you would get with a crop lens. I guess if you don’t want to post process your pictures, or you want to frame them perfectly right when you take them, this might be important to you, but otherwise, I don’t really see any technical advantage to using a crop lens, and I don’t think it gives you any extra “reach”.
See: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/crop_sensor_cameras_and_lenses.html
Again, I could be wrong, since I’m new to this, so if I am, please correct me.
November 27th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Very informative write-up. It has definitely helped me understand and appreciate my gear even more.
June 22nd, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I’ve just got a 5D MkII after owning a 30D and a 40D. The 40D is a great camera and i’m more than happy to use it except…
I do a lot of low light shooting and i have to say that the 30D and 40D doesn’t even come close to the abilities of the 5D MkII under low light conditions. Next, i am looking at making a living from photography and am starting off by using image libraries. Outputting a picture at 21mp allows me to have far greater control of IQ for an image library than having to scale up via interpolation which is necessary with the 30D and 40D.
Did full frame over crop come into my equation when choosing to buy this camera? Only as a curiosity factor to see what the difference was. For my type of photography the 5D MkII is ideal – i don’t need the 5 & 6 fps provided by the 30D and 40D bodies – but i will say this. For any one looking to get into DSLR photography using Canon kit i would most definitely recommend the 40D – you won’t go far wrong.
August 9th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Hi
I am seeking advice on what sort of camera to get and i am torn between the canon 50d vs the full frame of canon 5d mark 2, sony a900 and the nikon d700. i have 2 different sales man tell me i need 2 different cameras, one said i need the canon 50 d and the other one told me only go nikon. i want to get a good camera that is going to last me for many years and one that does not become outdated within a year. i like taking pictures of kids and family and of landscapes and i do not plan on it being my profession. i like the faster frames per second that sony, nikon and the 50d offer. i have been reading on numerous websites about cropped vs full frame and on the ISO. i am confused on what would be the best for me.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:32 am
I have a hard time understanding the argument that a smaller than full frame sensor is better because you get more reach. This just doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s really a function of pixel density. If I have a full frame and a 1.3x crop sensor with the same pixel density then I should be able to zoom in on the full frame image to get the same 1.3x picture. Am I missing something here?
I could see that if I have two 12 megapixel cameras, one at a 1.3x and one full frame that I would have more reach with the 1.3x. However, this is at a loss of image quality. This would mean the pixels on the 1.3x camera were smaller and therefore would contain more noise.
What’s so great about having a smaller than full frame sensor?
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
The article and comments here have been very helpful. I also found a great write up bu Ken Rockwell about the advantages of full frame cameras. Granted it’s from 2007 but I think the principles still hold true today. Now if I could just convince my wife that I need to drop some $$$ on a D700
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:40 am
I am upgrading from 20D to 5Dmk2 next month… I want the low light performance which is far superior. I’ve played with one, it’s incredible the difference but then my 5D is long in the tooth.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:49 am
I think the key consideration is the type of photography you are doing. For portraiture in good light or studio conditions, either will work just fine and give outstanding results with good glass. For outdoor sports, I actually prefer the crop sensor. I get more distance from the same lenses and they tend to be faster (although the new canon’s with the dual processors should be able to keep up). For weddings and other low light conditions, I think it is important to go with the full frame for the reduced noise. My 50D gets banding at ISO 1600 and has visible noise above 800. The 5D Mark II is acceptable to 3200 which gives several stops of headroom.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Hi,
Thanks for the great article. At last now i know when someone says 35mm film. Or a full frame on why it is more expensive than a dslr that’s not a full-frame sensor.
Just a question (maybe out of topic though), when it comes to Macro lens, is it better to get a 100mm than a 50mm? is the focal length higher the better?
-Prince
February 7th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Hello!
Thanks for the excellent article.
“Photographers who enjoy shooting landscapes and architecture will definitely want to check out a full frame body (if they don’t already have one). Full frame image quality and wide-angle options are far better than their cropped siblings. ”
Just what i needed to know.
Leave a Reply