Let's set the record straight on Crop cameras and telephoto advantage?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by landscape_shooter, Feb 5, 2009.

  1. I keep hearing different opinions as to whether crop cameras have an advantage with tele photo lenses or not. Some people say full frame will produce the same image quality by using let' say a 300mm photo and cropping in your computer compared to a 1.6 camera with the same lens. It probably is nicer to see let's say a bird closer when looking through your camera with a 1.6 camera than the smaller view of the bird in a full frame camera. Looking for answers from people that have tried both full frame and crop cameras side by side or fact based reviews etc.
     
  2. Some people say full frame will produce the same image quality by using let' say a 300mm photo and cropping in your computer compared to a 1.6 camera with the same lens​
    What cameras are you talking about here? If you use a 5D Mk II (21 mpx) and crop the image to an equivalent image of a 1.6 crop camera taken with the same lens I believe you would get an image of about 8 megapixel. So yes, same image quality as the old 20/30D but not as good as the newer 40D and the 50D.
     
  3. This is going to turn out to be a very long thread and will no doubt cause a few arguments.
    Here's my theory anyway:
    It is definitely nicer to see the bird fully in the viewfinder using a crop camera than it is to see it in the distance when using a full frame camera, knowing that you will end up cropping away 60% of what you see. That is definitely a crop camera advantage as far as I am concerned.
    With the latest crop cameras like the 50D which squeezes a massive 15MP onto it's APS-C sensor, you will get more pixels overall than you would if you cropped a 21MP 5D2 full frame shot down to the size of a 50D shot. Cropping a 21 megapixel full frame image down to one the size of the 50D would actually give you around a 9 megapixel image. In that respect, theoretically, the 50D image should give higher pixel resolution and better image quality.
    However, when you take into consideration the other benefit of full frame sensors - low noise and a generally cleaner image - then the gap is closed again. I have not done any testing but I really don't think there will be much difference between the two when printed to 16" x 12".
    If 80% of my work was long telephoto work I would probably go for a 50D if it was going to be my only camera. As it happens, my photography varies greatly and for that purpose full frame cameras definitely reign supreme.
    OK, let the arguments begin...
     
  4. I've always tried to argue the 1.6 is better for some uses and FF for others. It helps me rationalize my growing collection of cameras and lenses!
     
  5. However, when you take into consideration the other benefit of full frame sensors - low noise and a generally cleaner image - then the gap is closed again.
    It's more complex than that because when you crop and then enlarge a 35mm sensor image, you're also enlarging noise. A camera with higher per pixel noise can appear to have less overall noise in print if it has a higher density of pixels, i.e. each pixel is smaller on the print and has less visible impact. I'm not so sure the 9 MP center of a 5D mkII would look cleaner than a full 15 MP 50D image, though I must admit without testing I can't tell you which would be cleaner in print. Either way, this is only an issue at high ISO.
    I think there is an APS sensor telephoto advantage, but it's probably not a huge difference compared to a 5D mkII. It would be larger compared to the 12 MP sensors.
     
  6. I follow Chris Jensen's train of thought here.
    To my way of thinking, you see a subject fill more of the view finder and the final image with a crop camera than with a full frame camera. So if I want to use a telephoto lens, that's going to go on a crop camera and if I want to use a shorter lens, it's going to go on the full frame body.
     
  7. I like them both so I bought one of each. No arguments needed now...
     
  8. I keep hearing different opinions as to whether crop cameras have an advantage with tele photo lenses or not.
    In my view, this has very little to do with the facts and much more with the different definitions of 'advantage', which is a very subjective word. As is 'image quality'. There's many things to weigh against each other: price, weight, availability of lenses, noise, resolution, dynamic range, viewfinder image, etc.
    Remember that pixel pitch and sensor size are not necessarily related.
     
  9. I have never owned a Canon crop camera but have tested my Nikon DX (1.5 crop factor) vs FX (full frame) vs Canon full frame 5D). I have found in my testing that the 'cropped' full frame images (about 6mp) deliver equal or better results than the cropped cameras (12mp). It appears that fewer 'larger' pixels are better than more 'smaller' pixels under many shooting conditions (I am generalizing).
     
  10. I'm going birding for Eagles today. I'm leaving the 5D at home and taking the crop-sensor, and it's not for no reason. I love the 5D but having the birds bigger in the viewfinder, and shot on a crop sensor, with 400 and 500mm lenses, after much research and my own testing, is my preference. I also suspect that having the birds bigger in the viewfinder will help with in-flight AF, but that's just my opinion. Smaller viewfinder equals less space for the AF to focus on and get right.
    If I have the time to sit and frame a bird with a telephoto, then the 5D is great, but when the conditions require faster response time and faster FPS, I'm more comfortable with the crop.
    I know it's debated what the crop from a FF provides versus what the crop-sensor provides, but if you ask me they're similar enough (in my case) that I'd rather have the faster performance than the FF, at least today.
     
  11. I would love to hear from someone who has a 5DII or 1DsIII to see the size of the advantage of a 50D over the FF. The price of a 50D is small compared to that of my long lenses for birds, where I still find that I am most often heavily cropping with the 1DsIII.
    All things being equal (all things never are, and I'm guessing here that all pixels are not equal) it would take a 40mp FF to equal the pixel density of a 50D. I know that the 1DsIII has less noise, but given the above arguement that a greater enlargement factor increases noise, I'm really wondering if there indeed would be an advantage with the 50D in cases where the images of a FF would definitely be cropped.
     
  12. If you will go to the PN search box and type "crop vs. full frame" there is more material on this subject. Research that as well.
     
  13. There's a comparison at the link below between the 20D, 1D mkII, and 1Ds mkII. At least in this test it looks like there is an APS sensor telephoto advantage, although it's definitely not a large one unless you look at it from a price/performance perspective.
    http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm
     
  14. Desmond
    I tend to think of the crop cameras as 1.6x extenders now. If you're shooitng with your 1Ds3 and need more reach, instead of reaching for the 1.4x extender simply use a cheap Rebel (450D) or 40D etc. This will give you the same effect as adding the extender (actually 1.6x instead of 1.4x) but without adding the extra glass of the extender into the equation. The other major advantage is you'll keep the same aperture value. The 1.4x extender will cost you a stop of exposure, but you don't lose anything if you use a Rebel instead.
    I am waiting for a 5D2 to arrive. When it does I will be keeping my old 350D to use instead of a 1.4x extender. Think about it... you can buy a decent Rebel or 400D for the same price as a 1.4x extender these days!
     
  15. In terms of image quality alone, your best results are possible using the largest format with a lens of the focal length you need for the subject you are shooting. But sometimes the real world interferes with this simple - and correct - logic.
    Dan
     
  16. If you use full frame and never need more reach than your longest telephoto lens, this whole subject is moot.
    I don't own a crop body, and I never need to crop into my images to get more reach as I have sufficient focal lengths for my needs. However, if I found myself needing longer telephoto lenses all the time and was cropping my images constantly, I would buy a crop sensor camera in a heartbeat. I think in terms of "pixels on a duck" the advantage is very real, and I also see how how framing would be more precise and satisfying.
    It's just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job within any budgetary constraints - this really isn't rocket science.
     
  17. I use a 5D & a 50D for birding. The lenses are Canon EF 300mm F4 L IS & Canon EF 400mm F5.6 L.
    The 50D does take images with more detail, then if I crop the 5D. I have tested this multiple times with various subjects and always reach the same conclusion.
    The 5D is better when the light is dim and you must use high ISO above about 500.
    The 50D makes the 300mm F4 L IS more usable for birds then the 5D. It also makes the 400mm a nice birding lens for those of us who cannot afford one of the ulta-expensive uber-birding lenses such as 500mm F4, or 600mm.
     
  18. Thanks Paul. I am very often cropping, especially when using my shorter lens, 300 2.8, as it's easier to go on a long rocky hike with this than the 500 4.0 I use. I think the 50D with the 300, along with a 1.4x when needed, would be the ticket.
     
  19. I keep hearing different opinions as to whether crop cameras have an advantage with tele photo lenses or not​
    Crop sensors win every time if you end up with significantly more pixels than you would by cropping a full frame image (which is almost always the case). There's no "controversy" or doubt or discussion about this. It's a simple fact.
     
  20. I use both. 40D & 5Dmk2. I get great pictures from both cameras using the 70-200L. Surprisingly, my creativity doesn't typically diminish too much relative to megapixels and sensor crop factors :)
     
  21. But Bob, what the "facts" are is a matter of interpretation, at least according to those who have thought longer and harder about this issue than you or I (Nietzsche, for one).
    Anyway, as other posters have said, it's best to choose the tools most appropriate for your intended tasks. And, clearly, crop sensor bodies are better for remote subjects, while full frame bodies are better for almost everything else. Why else would Puppy Face, for example, have both a 5D Mark II and a 50D? He doesn't strike me as the kind of photographer who buys all the latest gear just for the sake of bragging that he has all the latest gear.
     
  22. But Bob, what the "facts" are is a matter of interpretation​
    No they aren't. With the same lens shooting from the same position a higher resolution sensor will give you a higher resolution image. Since many (and currently most if not all) crop sensor cameras such as the Rebel XT, XTi, XSi, 40D and 50D have higher resolution sensors than any full frame camera (5D MkII, 1Ds MkIII, Nikon D3x, Sony A900), they yield higher resolution images.
    If you have to crop a full frame image down because your lens isn't long enough and it ends up with fewer pixels than the equivalent crop sensor image, then the crop sensor image has higher resolution. It's not a matter of interpretation or philosophical debate, it's a simple matter of math and physics.
    I covered this in some detail in an old article I wrote comparing the 5D and 20D - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_5d_or_20d.html
     
  23. I don't think there is any great point in generalizing. Nikon people are working/playing with a different mix when it comes to cameras, the D3/D700, D300 and D3x than are the Sony people with the A900/A700 and the Canon folks with their ff and smaller frame cameras. I don't think that there are a lot of people in a position to swap systems every time one or another camera comes out that changes things a bit in another line.
    There are complaints about the "small" finder image on aps-c/dx cameras - is that bird filling that frame but when viewed in the FF camera finder, the same size but with all that extra space returned to view that was framed out?
    Probably more important is that if that bird is standing quietly, the results/considerations may be radically different than if it's flying about depending on how responsive the camera systems are, spread of focus points, types of focus points, etc. It may also make a difference how close that bird actually is.
    I happen to have a D200 now but still have some Maxxum lenses. If I were to want to go full frame, I could go to the Nikon D700 or Sony A900 with similar pain to the wallet and probably need to choose somewhat differently on how to best refit my lens selections and focal ranges. It would seem that for docile subject matter, quiet birds and landscapes, the A900 might be better, if chasing BIF, the D700 might be more responsive and the higher iso considerations might be relevant in other uses. However, my conclusions fit me and may not "fit" others.
     
  24. All other things being equal, the smaller the pixel, the less sensitive to light it is. This will have an effect on contrast, color
    and tone.
    <br><br>
    In astrophotograpy, there are explicit calcuations based on the image resolution (arc seconds) you require to match the
    sensor (pixel size) with the telescope (focal length) you have. But it is a bit more straight forward, as the subjects don't
    move closer and farther during an imaging session. But also, you are limited in the objects you can fully image, based on
    the sensor size.
    <br><br>
    There is no one answer to this question. Comparing an older generation full frame to a newer generation small sensor may
    seem unfair, but if the costs for the equipment are equivalent, then go with the one that gives the better performance for the
    imaging task at hand. Or for the range of imaging projects, if you can only afford one camera (system).
     
  25. While I have not attempted the tests you describe, I have read extensively about this subject. I keep coming back to the same question: Why are we still asking and comparing? All comparisons are are based on a film format! Sensor sizes are quite likely not going to become standardized as there are desirable traits to both "FF" and "Crop". The difference is technical. Shouldn't we be focused instead on what matters most. That we record the image we are after! Does it truly matter, other than in the mind's eye, what the sensor size or focal length of the lens in 35mm terms was? I believe this debate should settle as most are using sensors, which are not limited to a set size, and focus on the images instead.
    I realize that this is a very simplified reply and will likely get hammered as to the intricacies of FF and Crop, but please do not miss the point of my response. When will we stop the insanity?
    "A picture is worth a thousand words, a great picture is worth a thousand bucks."
    -Anonymous
     
  26. Why are people still arguing about this anyways? Does it really matter?
     
  27. Crop sensors win every time if you end up with significantly more pixels than you would by cropping a full frame image (which is almost always the case). There's no "controversy" or doubt or discussion about this. It's a simple fact.​
    But a fact that one needs to look at more closely than many do who start threads on this question over and over.
    One could write with equal or greater justification:
    Full frame sensors win every time if you end up with the same or more pixels than you would by shooting a cropped sensor image (which is almost always the case when you use the right lenses for the shot with your full frame camera ). There's no "controversy" or doubt or discussion about this. It's a simple fact.​
    It is generally true that you lose the advantages of a larger format if you end up cropping photos made in that format because you don't have the lenses you need.
    Dan
     
  28. Well, I am sure glad we got that one straightened out.
     
  29. LOL Dieter, yea I think we can call this dead horse well and truly flogged...
     
  30. This is so contingent upon which generation of sensors are being compared to which, that no simple answer is really possible. Hey, maybe a 5D Mk II image cropped will equal or better that with the same lens on a 10D. What's proved by that?
    Any such comparison has to be made of the same generation of sensors, etc. and I think that Bob is right when all other variables are controlled . It's really just simple physics, and if I am involved, it had better be simple... ;)
     
  31. If the only important factor were how many pixels are in used portion of the image, the answer would be easy. But that isn't the case.
     
  32. Someone mentioned that to get the equivalent photo on a FF, you have to keep in mind that you're cropping out 60% of the image. This is not so. The math does not work that way. 1.6 IS 60% larger than 1, but 1 is NOT 60% smaller than 1.6. It is 37.5% smaller (1 / 1.6). This means that an equivalently-cropped FF image from a 21.1 mp 5D II will be just over 13 mp, not 7 or 8 as someone stated....still bigger than the 40D's 10.1 and almost as big as the 50D's 15. Factor in the fact that the actual pixels are larger on a FF sensor than on an APS sensor, and there you have it... FF sensors have the upper hand ... on this one.
     
  33. Someone mentioned that to get the equivalent photo on a FF, you have to keep in mind that you're cropping out 60% of the image. This is not so. The math does not work that way. 1.6 IS 60% larger than 1, but 1 is NOT 60% smaller than 1.6. It is 37.5% smaller (1 / 1.6). This means that an equivalently-cropped FF image from a 21.1 mp 5D II will be just over 13 mp, not 7 or 8 as someone stated....still bigger than the 40D's 10.1 and almost as big as the 50D's 15. Factor in the fact that the actual pixels are larger on a FF sensor than on an APS sensor, and there you have it... FF sensors have the upper hand ... on this one.

    You just claimed that the APS center of a 35mm sensor will have more pixels than a 40D yet have bigger pixels. Those can't both be true :) You're dealing with area, not length or crop factors.

    A 5D II has 5,616 x 3,744 pixels on a 35.8 x 23.9 sensor.

    The 50D has a 22.3 x 14.9 sensor.

    ((5616 / 35.8) * 22.3) * ((3744 / 23.9) * 14.9) = 8,165,318

    Another way to figure this out is to determine the 5D II's pixel density, which is 156 pixels per mm. What Canon APS camera has the same density? The 8 MP 20D.

    You're cropping out 61% of the image (13 MP / 21 MP). It may not seem that way looking at a single length, but we're dealing with area, not just one axis.
     
  34. Daniel is correct Mark, pixel density also affects this, not just sensor area. Cropping a 5D2 down to APS-C size results in an 8 MP image.
    That's why I'm keeping my old 8MP 350D to use as a 1.6x extender when my 5D2 arrives. I won't be using the Canon 1.4x extender with my 5D2 to increase focal length. I'll just use my old 350D instead. It will give a 1.6x extender effect without losing 1 stop of aperture.
     
  35. Jamie, I might be mistaking but according to the table in this review the 350D and the 5D-II have exactly the same pixel size. In that case using the 350D as an extender is of no use. Using any Canon crop camera with more than 8 MP in good light would be of use because of the smaller pixel size on the sensor. However when the light starts to fall the matter gets more complicated...
    Kind regards, Matthijs.
     
  36. Yea i have to agree here.......my 12+ MP D300 is better then a 10.5 MP crop from a D3X. once it goes over my resolution, and down a few grand I might think about it as a possible upgrade.....till then.....I love my D300.
     
  37. Matthijs
    You're right, the 350D and 5D2 do have exactly the same pixel size. Using the 350D as an extender means I do not lose 1 stop of light like I would if I used the 1.4x on the 5D2. Not only that, the extra glass of the extender will not affect the quality when using the 350D.
    I don't have the 5D2 yet so I will need to experiment with this theory. The 5D2 has superior noise control which will also affect the balance of this experiment.
     
  38. Actually, I think that the original question has an obvious answer.
    As far as image quality is concerned, if you use the same sensor technology and same pixel density (i.e. same square millimiter per pixel, thus resulting in a 1.6*1.6=2.56 pixel ratio), the cropped photo from full frame is exactly the same photo taken by the smaller camera.
    If pixel density is different, it's not a matter of crop factor, but the well known trade off of resolution vs. noise and dynamic range. As Bob pointed out, crop camera usually yields higher pixel density and more resolution.
    If sensor technology is different, that's another matter and has nothing to do with crop factors.
    Nothing fancier than this.
     
  39. You're right, the 350D and 5D2 do have exactly the same pixel size. Using the 350D as an extender means I do not lose 1 stop of light like I would if I used the 1.4x on the 5D2. Not only that, the extra glass of the extender will not affect the quality when using the 350D.
    I think Matthijs point is that you don't need to use the extender. Cropping an APS frame out of a 5D mkII image will yield the same 8 MP as using the 350D. Probably better in fact because the 5D II sensor is newer technology. So why would you need the 350D?
    Now if you were comparing a 15 MP 50D against an 8 MP APS crop from the 5D II, it would probably be a different story.
     
  40. Bottom line: If your have a 5D2 it is a waste of money to buy another 20D/30D for better telephoto performance.
     
  41. One thing has been mentioned. For most lenses, the center area is better than other area. In these cases, cropped bodies with an equivalent sensor are better. Right?
     
  42. One thing has been mentioned. For most lenses, the center area is better than other area. In these cases, cropped bodies with an equivalent sensor are better. Right?​
    It is not that simple.
    Any image artifacts (e.g. blur, etc.) from a given lens will occupy a large percentage of the frame width on the camera with the smaller sensor.
    In addition, because you can stop down further without concern about effect of diffraction blur when you move to a larger format, certain issues that might effect the corners of the image can be counteracted even further by stopping down.
    (Note: I'm not saying the full frame is better than crop for all users in all circumstances.)
    Dan
     
  43. I have a 30D and 5D2. I took a picture of the deck railing with each, using the same lens, (70-200 f4) at the same focal length, 70 MM, NR turned off, 1600 ISO. I cropped both by counting 5 spokes (or whatever ya' call those things in the railing). I think each crop had the same pixel density. When I viewed them on my monitor, they looked the same. When I pixel peeped, each camera had different noise characteristics. The 5D2 had a large Chroma component. The 30D had a large Luninance component.
    When I used NR (DPP) to remove the Chroma from the 5D2 the picture (crop) lost detail ( in the wood grain). I did not use NR on the 30D.
    I suggest that others actually do the test instead of just saying what they think.
    Finally, I don't have the patience for a detailed, controlled test. Others results may be different.
    So, for what it's worth, there it is.
     
  44. I suspect that Bob is right and crop cameras have the advantage. I cannot do a fair test as the only crop camera we have is the Rebel XT which is nowhere near the best available and tends to be fairly noisy. My personal issue with crop camera is that I find the viewfinders rather small and dark (although the best one I have used is the 30D so the new ones may be better) and the camera always seems unbalanced when a large lens is used on it. If I only wanted to shoot with telephoto lenses though I suspect a crop camera is the way to go as it has the advantage of a wider coverage with it's AF points - at least compared to the 5D or 5DII
     
  45. "It is generally true that you lose the advantages of a larger format if you end up cropping photos made in that format because you don't have the lenses you need."​
    Which is exactly why this question is asked. For some applications such as birding, photographers will never have the lens they need because the longest of lenses is never long enough. There is also the cost and weight issue issue. For some of us, having 55-250, which feels like a 100-400 is justifiable, while owning the 100-400 is not.
     
  46. I am a bird shooter and I have done such comparison between 40D/50D and a 5DMKII, I own a 40D and owned a 5DMKII and a 50D for a short while during which I did the tests. Unfortunately I don't have the time to crop the RAW files and put them side by side and post it on PN, so it is up to you to take my word.

    A 5DMKII is basically a 20D/30D in terms of pixel pitch so difference between the center crop of a 5DMKII and a 40D is very marginal at ISO 100-400. Above ISO 400 5DII actually wins due to lower noise despite having 2 Mpixels less. So 40D has no visible advantage over 5DII for telephoto work in pure IQ sense.

    Things get more interesting with a 50D, the pixel density is so high that you need to take the lens into account. For consumer lenses like 70-300 IS (DO or non-DO) and even 100-400L at max aperture settings the lens becomes a bottle neck for 50D so in real world conditions the camera doesn't resolve much more than a 40D so you return to the conclusion above.
    For L super telephoto lenses 500-600 f/4, 400 f/2.8, 400 f/5.6 and 300 f/4 the lens still out resolves the 50D sensor so at ISO 100-400 50D will exhibit higher visible detail than the center crop of a 5DII. at ISO 400-800 50D takes a hit due to high luminance and chroma noise and the extra pixels provide less information than their numbers suggest but down sampling 15 mpixels to 5DII's 8 mpixel crop will even the noise out and results are identical with a slight advantage to 50D. At ISO>=800 5DII wins as 50D suffers from noise that smears out all the fine detail.
    So in general for ISO<400 telephoto 50D with super telephoto L lenses is going to win by a good margin, for 400<ISO<800 they are close with a 10% lead for 50D, at ISO>800 5DMKII will yield best results especially with no noise reduction and extra processing.
    Of course for birding 5DMKII is a no go because of slow shutter lag, low frame rate and slower AF.
     
  47. Mr. Hazeghi, thank you for your report. I find it informative and useful. I'm sure many others do also. Note: Others have contributed informative and useful information too.
    For me, there is only one more thing that I would like nailed down. Has anyone used a telephoto with a 1.4 TC on a FF and compared the photo to the same photo on a crop-sensor without the 1.4 TC? Mr. Atkins wrote on his web page that he thought the FF plus 1.4 TC would probably be better. I wonder if it actually is.
     
  48. I think I must be missing something (imagine that!) - If you crop a FF image down to get the same crop as on a crop sensor, I don't think you change resolution at all. What you change is the total number of pixels in the image. For me, resolution means how many pixels are crammed into, say, a 1" by 1" space. The density (resolution) of pixels in the center 2/3 of an image doesn't change just because you cropped out 1/3 of the original image. Or does it?
    If I'm wrong please let me know - gently :)
     
  49. ...somehow I think we'll still see the same comparison questions in the days...weeks...months to come.
     
  50. Greg's reply suggests an interesting - and I think correct - way to recast this question as two questions. OK, maybe three.
    1. What is the effect of image resolution provided by a given lens when you change the sensor size? Clearly, if a lens can resolve X lp/mm it can resolve more line pairs on a larger sensor. There is little disagreement about that fact. A more sticky question is how the overall image is affected by the larger image circle that must be captured with a larger format. It is my view, having used both formats, that this cuts both ways but that in the end the larger format "wins."
    2. What is the effect of increasing/decreasing the pixel dimensions of a photo? When enlarging an image to the point that pixel resolution (ppi) becomes a concern in the print, there would be advantages in starting with an image with a greater number of pixels. This is the argument of those who point out that you can end up with more pixels in your image if you shoot with the smaller format as compared to shooting the larger format and cropping. (The argument depends on the specific photosite density of the cameras being compared. In addition, it breaks down if you can put the "right" lens on either camera rather than handicapping one by using the "wrong" lens.)
    3. Both of these questions finally must be judged by asking: Does it matter? Let's say that we agree that the full frame image can produce higher resolution photographs. That may not matter if you don't regularly make prints larger than 12 x 18 inches, or if you always hand hold your camera, or if you need the faster burst rate of the small sensor camera. Let's say that we agree that the camera with the smaller sensor can put more pixels on the subject with a given lens. That may not matter if you don't shoot at extremely long focal lengths, if you have the right lenses for the larger format, or if your prints from cropped long lenses shots will look great at the sizes you print.
    I understand that we seem to have a cultural need to determine The Best of everything. (Witness American Idol, Top Chef, and a host of other examples - all bogus in the end.) Sometimes there is no clear "best" choice. In my view that is clearly the case when it comes to the choice of formats. There are great arguments for both formats - and for others not under discussion in this forum. The important thing is to figure out which of the various advantages and liabilities that come with choices make the most sense for your photography.
    Dan
     

Share This Page