Full frame versus crop sensor

The decision between full frame versus crop sensor still is eating away at me. I will be doing high end real estate photography and video.

Please give me loads of insight on whether a full frame or a crop sensor makes more sense. Don't have unlimited budget but I would

love as much insight on this topic as possible. I have read so much on this and can't come to a decision.

<p>For "high end" work I would think a full frame sensor would be essential. I moved to FF for architectural photography because the widest Canon Tilt/Shift lens at the time was 24mm, which on a cropped frame camera was not nearly wide enough. Now the T/S 17mm is available, which is great for interiors.<br>

Having said that, the FF option with T/S lenses is not an inexpensive set up. An alternative might be to use a crop frame camera and create panoramas to get the wide angles - you will need at least a nodal slide (if not a full panoramic head) for interiors where parallax errors are not correctable. The down side is all the extra processing required. Of course, a crop frame camera may not be helpful for video. For high end work you will also need to budget for lighting.</p>

<p>(Excuse me moonlighting from the Nikon forum... everything I say here applies to any crop format, except for the specific numbers.)<br />

<br />

In terms of "equivalence" a Canon crop body produces an image that is the same as a lens 1.6 times longer and 1.6 times slower (in f-stop terms) will produce on a full-frame body, shot at 2.56 (1.6 squared) times the ISO (which cancels out the f-stop reduction). Making the lens 1.6 times longer gives you the same angle of view; reducing the f-stop by 1.6 times on this lens gives you the same depth of field; increasing the ISO compensates for the reduced amount of light coming through the smaller aperture.<br />

<br />

The other way around, a full-frame body produces an image that is the same as a lens 1.6 times shorter and 1.6 times faster (in f-stop) produces on a Canon crop body, shot at 1/2.56 times the ISO. So a 160mm lens at f/3.2 and ISO 256 on a full-frame body behaves like a 100mm lens at f/2 and ISO 100 on a crop body.<br />

<br />

You can also think of a crop body as being a perfect 1.6x teleconverter - with the exception that the camera doesn't show you the "reduced aperture" and therefore doesn't show you the "ISO reduction".<br />

<br />

Any given lens is "longer" on a crop body (you get more reach for the same pixel count in the sensor, but less angle of view). Some very wide lenses only cover the crop sensor area (and are EF-S lenses, unless terminology has changed since my day, so they won't mount on full-frame Canons). Because the mirror box size is fixed by the lens mount (although EF-S gives a bit more leeway because of the smaller mirror), it is harder to design a good wide-angle for a crop body than for a full-frame camera. Mirrorless cameras should have an advantage here, but since the angle of light starts being an issue in very wide lenses on digital sensors it's not that clear cut. Still, if you want wide angles, full frame tends to have the advantage. Conversely, although teleconverters balace things out a bit, crop sensors tend to have the advantage for telephoto activities like wildlife.<br />

<br />

Any given lens is "faster" on a full frame camera (the bigger sensor captures more light leaving the lens). At the same f-stop, any two lenses will give a full-frame camera more light for the same reason. Since the same angle of view gives you a larger physical aperture, you have more ability to produce a smaller depth of field at the same aperture on a larger sensor. For big telephoto lenses this tends to balance out - a 300mm f/2.8 on full-frame isn't so different from a 200mm f/2 on a crop sensor (320mm f/3.2 is equivalent in Canon terms); at shorter lengths, shorter and faster lenses may simply not be available. In addition, it is hard to get the same quality from very fast lenses, since many aberrations get worse with aperture. Even if you could find a 125mm f/1.25 lens to use on your crop body, it's unlikely that it could produce the optical quality of a 200mm f/2 on a full-frame body; you can't get a 30mm f/0.84 (for a DSLR at least) that's the equivalent of full-frame 50mm f/1.4, and those companies producing f/0.95 lenses generally don't get very good performance from doing so. So if you want a very fast lens, full frame is probably your friend. The Sigma f/1.8 zoom pair (18-35, 50-100) are optically very good, but don't cover the range of the traditional 24-70 or 70-200 f/2.8 pro lenses. On the other hand, if you can live with a reduced aperture, suitable lenses for a crop sensor will be shorter and may be cheaper and lighter; a 200mm f/4 is much smaller than a 300mm f/4, and somewhat smaller than a 200mm f/2.8 (if you want comparable depth of field control) - very long lenses also tend to be expensive, although the primary price determiner for price (and weight) tends to be the size of the physical aperture: an 800mm f/5.6 is more expensive than a 400mm f/2.8, but not by all that much. Bear in mind that at shorter distances, there aren't so many uses for shooting at extremely fast apertures - the depth of field is so thin that you don't see much of your subject.<br />

<br />

At the same ISO, a full-frame body is less noisy than a crop body, unless there's a significant difference in sensor technology. A full frame sensor is 2.25x bigger, and receiving 2.25x the light at the same ISO - so you'd expect this. A crop sensor image needs to be magnified 1.6x as much as a full-frame image to produce the same result (this is more obvious if you think in terms of bits of film than sensors), and magnifying enlarges the noise, which explains the difference. Increasing the ISO on a full-frame camera to compensate for matching the depth of field (by reducing aperture) makes this approximately balance out. There are minor differences, such as that larger sensors tend to have better dynamic range by having larger electron wells.<br />

<br />

Full frame sensors require a bigger shutter, bigger mirror, and bigger prism, as well as the sensor itself being bigger. This all makes the camera bigger and heavier, and most importantly more expensive. Getting a flawless silicon sensor at full frame area is appreciably harder than at a crop size, so the price of the sensor is more than 2.56x. Crop sensor viewfinders tend to be smaller and dimmer than on full-frame cameras, partly because with the same lens they're working with a smaller amount of light and angle of view - magnifying to the same size (with something like an angle finder) would spread out the light and make the image bigger but dimmer. Budget crop sensor cameras (and some full-frame film cameras) make this worse by saving cost and weight with a pentamirror instead of a pentaprism, which is less efficient at reflecting light.<br />

<br />

That's probably most of the differences I can think of! So, in summary:<br />

<br />

If you want to use very wide angles, full frame is probably better.<br />

If you want to use very fast apertures, full frame is probably better.<br />

If you want more telephoto reach, a crop sensor is probably better.<br />

If you want a lighter, cheaper and more convenient camera (and lenses), a crop sensor is probably better.<br />

<br />

For real estate, I imagine you might want wide angles (if not tilt-shift lenses). You may be in dark environments, in which case full frame may give you some advantages in that you can use a faster effective aperture. For video, it's less clear cut because the effective aperture you want may be determined stylistically.<br />

<br />

I hope that counts as "loads of insight". Good luck with your choice!</p>

<p>Wait... Julie, I've just seen your other thread. Are you standing by the "not over $1000" requirement? Both in lenses and the body itself, that's going to be very restrictive in full frame unless you find a used model (with older technology). If that's your budget, I'd be sticking to crop bodies. (Which are fine - I can over-state the differences, and what you do with them will make more of a difference than the body itself.)</p>

<p>Hi Julie,<br>

In another thread you mention that you're planning to get a Canon 10-22, but here you're wondering about crop vs. full frame.<br>

Were you able to sort out things from the following threads back in March?<br>

<a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00dni6">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00dni6</a><br>

<a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00dno3">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00dno3</a></p>

<p>for real estate photography a crop model and Canon 10-22 and off-camera flashes and tripod should work fine</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>shorter and faster lenses may simply not be available. In addition, it is hard to get the same quality from very fast lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Fast lenses are totally unnecessary for real estate photography.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>At the same ISO, a full-frame body is less noisy than a crop body, unless there's a significant difference in sensor technology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Real estate photography, if it's done professionally, is always done on a tripod. ISO can be very low, below significant noise levels regardless of sensor.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Crop sensor viewfinders tend to be smaller and dimmer than on full-frame cameras<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Real estate photography is easily done with live view. The viewfinder size isn't relevant if you know how to turn on live view.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want more telephoto reach, a crop sensor is probably better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Telephoto "reach" is irrelevant for real estate photography unless it's on top of Mt. Everest.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You may be in dark environments, in which case full frame may give you some advantages in that you can use a faster effective aperture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Usually in real estate photography, you want to maximize DOF and you put the camera on a tripod. Fast aperture is irrelevant. <br>

<br>

If you haven't done real estate photography, you won't know these things, which might be an indicator.</p>

<p>I would mostly agree with Brett except that I see no reason to use flash. I use different color temperature light bulbs for lamps and haven't ever found flash useful. <br>

<br>

For the original poster, what do you mean by "high end?" The largest print size you will ever need is 8.5x11 and if it is that size on the sell sheet, it will probably have type over it. The web images aren't particularly demanding technically. Even a Canon Rebel will be fine for real estate photography. What is most important are a) a good lens, b) a good tripod, c) a remote release, and d) really good post processing skills. It's important to have the color balance similar in the photos and it's often tricky with light being different from room to room.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I will be doing high end real estate <strong>photography</strong> and <strong>video</strong>.". . . “I would love as much insight on this topic as possible.”</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You have two conversations current along the same theme but different specific questions: in the other thread you mention that you have a 60D and an 18 to 135 lens and that you are not happy with the results. You also mention that you are on a tight budget. And as Laura mentioned you were previously thinking about buying the EF-S 10 to 22 because you were not getting the results that you wanted. Consider that buying more gear might not the best solution at this point in time and also consider that buying a new lens or a new camera might not be the correct gear to buy, if you do choose to buy new gear.</p>

<p>Both LIGHTING and TECHNIQUE are important elements in Real Estate Stills Photography and Videography.</p>

<p>Arguably you could, achieve quite good STILL IMAGE results with the 18 to 135 with appropriate technique and knowledge and skills in LIGHTING.</p>

<p>HDRI (High Dynamic Range Imaging) technique is often applied for Real Estate Photography: that also requires an adequate Tripod and Head - this would allow you to use the 18 to 135 lens at around F/8~F/11 and at a low ISO, which, with appropriate Post Production, should render very high quality STILL IMAGES. Alternatively, multiple (often gelled) Flash Heads can be used to make the image in one shot, this would typically require more capital outlay. </p>

<p>My point being that, being on a limited budget, it might not be the best solution to be investing a new camera (or lens) if you haven’t already got all the other gear and/or skills necessary to produce the results that you want.</p>

<p>VIDEO is another genre and if you are looking for “high end” video results, then really you do need reasonable quality lighting and the knowledge to use it.</p>

<p>For example - whereas it is possible with good Post Production Skills (and the time), without employing any Flash Heads or Continuous Lighting, to merge three of four STILL images of an interior scene in daytime with open curtains and make a Final Image with a reasonable Colour Balance and both the interior and exterior exposed correctly: to make a video at that level of "high end” quality requires a reasonable Lighting Rig and the skill to set it.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Julie,<br>

Lighting and a tripod matter more than crop or ff.</p>

<p>i should have been a little more clear in my post. At my previous job I worked with a 60d it was not my own camera. I am now in the process of buying a new camera and was looking for insight as to whether the 60d should be good enough for what i need to do just with a better lens or if I should be upgrading to a better system </p>

<p>A 60D is fine. A Rebel would be fine. A wide enough lens will make far more difference than the camera.</p>

<blockquote>Fast lenses are totally unnecessary for real estate photography.<br />

Real estate photography, if it's done professionally, is always done on a tripod. ISO can be very low, below significant noise levels regardless of sensor.<br />

Real estate photography is easily done with live view. The viewfinder size isn't relevant if you know how to turn on live view.<br />

Telephoto "reach" is irrelevant for real estate photography unless it's on top of Mt. Everest.<br />

Usually in real estate photography, you want to maximize DOF and you put the camera on a tripod. Fast aperture is irrelevant.<br />

If you haven't done real estate photography, you won't know these things, which might be an indicator.</blockquote>

<p>I apologise for listing the differences between full frame and crop sensors rather than specifically the benefits for Julie's case. Of course, I do (even as an amateur) know that the primary focus for real-estate is to show the actual property, which implies an extended depth of field and, as Jeff says, paying for a larger aperture lens would in typical cases be false economy.<br />

<br />

Still, I'm interested to know what Julie considers "professional" in this case. It sounds as though a wide angle is considered useful (you <i>can</i> stitch stills from longer lenses, but it's fiddly and you tend to lose quality). A wide angle - possibly a fairly fast one, since the depth of field on a wide-angle is extended so even a fast aperture doesn't give much blur on distant subjects - is useful in part because I imagine part of commercial real-estate photography is being able to do it <i>quickly</i>, which might mean the ability to handle poor lighting and not spending a long time on tripods and camera set-up might be relevant. Better lighting and stability is the better solution, but if you've got half an hour to do a house, there's something to be said for a wide angle and holding a camera in the corner of a room with a monopod. This may or may not count as "professional", though. :-)<br />

<br />

On the less time-constrained side of things, part of selling a property is giving a feeling for it - and I can take the kind of shots used to persuade people to visit hotels as a similar category. If you have a room with nice lighting, there <i>is</i> an argument for an abstract shot at a wider aperture, with a foreground subject and a blurred background, making the house look lived-in. Obviously, this is in addition to smaller apertures that actually let the client see the details of the property, so this is definitely the exception rather than the rule.<br />

<br />

And I agree - if you need continuous lighting anyway for video, a flash set-up (probably a multi-flash off-camera configuration) is expensive and of limited use.<br />

<br />

I'm sure a 60D is perfectly capable for this, and, notably, going to even the latest 80D won't get you 4K image quality, which is probably the next thing I might start to worry about when it comes to camera capabilities. An 80D <i>does</i> have better dynamic range capture than the older Canon cameras for stills, which can simplify post-processing and HDR (making a tripod less necessary) - but it's not a full substitute for better lighting, and you may not find it worth the price difference between bodies just for that. Grading high dynamic range in video is another matter, and that's why I've suggested the Pocket Cinema Camera (which can record raw video) as a possible solution if that's a priority. There's no substitute for getting the lighting right in the scene, but post-processing can help.<br />

<br />

I think we're all on the same page, though - nothing wrong with a 60D, a wide lens will help but otherwise probably don't sweat it, sort out the lighting and possibly (if you have time to use it) bring a tripod? (On that topic, it doesn't sound like you'll be pushing the tripod demands excessively, so unless you want a fluid head for video panning reasons you can probably cut corners here which you shouldn't if you were, for example, shooting telephoto landscapes in a gale.)</p>

 

<p>Oh, and to continue being contrary, one could argue that a telephoto might be useful for picking out detail of the property. Gargoyles, for example. :-) (You could even argue for a macro at a push, particularly if you need to show details of railings or want to convince someone that some damage is superficial.) But I do agree that 99% of the time, telephoto reach isn't likely to be that important. Both the 60D suggested here and the 5D2 suggested on the other thread (if you're prepared to pay more lenses) are likely to be perfectly capable for your needs.</p>

<p>Wow!! Look at all those words.</p>

<p>I shoot a full-frame 5DS-R and a crop sensor 7D MKII.My lenses are the EF 14mm f/2.8 II, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS (soon to be II), EF 70-200mm f/4L IS and the EF 500mm f/4L IS II.</p>

<p>I wouldn't even think of taking the 7D2 on a real estate shoot. (Okay, it'd be in the bag, but I wouldn't touch it). Canon's best ultra-wide angle lenses are EF L-series. A crop-sensor works against you when shooting the wide angles needed in most real estate photography.</p>

<p>To keep the budget low, I'd go with a used 5D MkIII and some good, used L-series lens; otherwise, you won't be "high end." The sensor in the 6D is pretty good and a used 6D would be a super value.</p>

<p>Can you shoot real estate and architecture with a crop-sensor? Yes, but why? If starting from scratch, buy the right tool and never look back. Remember, you'll be writing it off for taxes, so the net cost is lower than you might think, particularly used equipment.</p>

<blockquote>Wow!! Look at all those words.</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, everyone. This is what happens when the Nikon forum goes into shocked silence after Photokina and I get bored (you're lucky I switched systems some years ago, or you'd get more of this). I tend to interpret the advice that "a picture is worth a thousand words" that I need to post essays in photo fora. Editing never was my strong suit.<br />

<br />

David: Out of interest, why the 5D3 instead of 5D2? The resolution is about the same, and the speed and autofocus advantages of the 5D3 don't look hugely relevant. I could believe video has improved, but they're both 1080p. Just curious.</p>

<p>Andrew, you're absolutely correct about the MkII and MkIII sensors being very close. I just think that the MkIII now enters the discussion because they're available at attractive used prices. The much improved AF system is welcome, but not essential for Julie's usage.</p>

<p>I just sold my 100,000+ click MkIII for $900. I think there are deals out there.</p>

<p>Wow - I'd not realised the mk3 had dropped so much. I might have bought it off you at $900, and I'm (99%) a Nikon shooter! Thanks for clarifying. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p> one could argue that a telephoto might be useful for picking out detail of the property. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

One could argue almost anything. How many real estate jobs have you shot?<br>

<br>

I take a full frame body and a 16-35 lens after finding that I never used anything else. I take a tripod, remote release, and a bunch of different bulbs to swap out for the ones that are there. But my photos wouldn't be any better if I took a Rebel body and the 10-22, it's not the camera body that makes low ISO, tripod-mounted, live view shots. The OP could save money by purchasing a used 50D or a new Rebel body and not have the photos look any different, assuming the 10-22 was used.</p>

<p>I think he was joking, Jeff.</p>

<blockquote>One could argue almost anything. How

many real estate jobs have you shot?</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely none, Jeff, although in my time I may

have inadvertently shot photos that made a room look

nice. I'd hoped I was clear. I was merely reaching for

what might be interpreted as the "high end look" that

Julie wanted and wasn't getting from her previous setup.

A wider lens will help cover a whole room (without

stitching) as Julie suggested, but I'm not sure I'd call out

that as more "professional". Most rooms are rectangular,

so a longer lens can still cover the room by shooting

from the short ends, if that suffices.<br />

<br />

Most realtors I've met have been highly time constrained

and would rush around the property with relatively

minimal equipment. They'd not even have time to set up

lighting or tripods (have we discussed the merits of a

gear head in precise framing? let's not go there...) But

they've also not been showing houses with many

distinguishing features and the main reason for photos

has been to help people visualise the floor plan.<br />

<br />

I imagine we're talking more high end properties in

Julie's case than for the circles I walk in, unless she's

just particularly conscientious. I was just suggesting

that a house which contains architectural features or

ambience more interesting than my own might benefit

from emphasising those features in a sales brochure,

and doing so might be best done with more than just a

16-35. If I had a custom carved door knocker, or filigree

on a spiral staircase, or a chandelier, I'd show it off with

a macro or long lens - along with wide shots of the

rooms. If there was a removal van outside the windows,

I might hide it with aperture (though again, a tilt-shift

would help).<br />

<br />

Maybe I'm stretching the bounds of what distinguishes

"high end" from whatever look Julie is currently unhappy

with. I'm certainly not suggesting otherwise than that

Julie get a wide lens, tripod and ability to control the

lighting. I was just suggesting that, as in all photography,

rules are made to be broken and every hard guideline

has exceptions which can lead to interesting (and

hopefully useful, in a commercial setting) shots -

including when it comes to the equipment needed. Julie

seemed to be looking to achieve more than the basics; I

apologise if I've offered more confusion than help. Jeff

is clearly more experienced in this field than me (and I

trust his knowledge from other discussions), so please

take my comments in that context.</p>

<p>The used prices for the 5D and 5D-II are coming down pretty fast. </p>

<p>If you don't mind used, you can get very good cameras for very reasonable prices.</p>