Full frame vs Crop

[william_p]

I'm planning to get a d7200 with sigma 18-35 1.8 and 50-100 1.8. I've been thinking about this vs a full frame d610 setup and was

wondering if people could shine some light on my thoughts. I'm aware this is a very simple way to look at things and there's probably no

way to truly compare them. Anyways...

 

So a 18-35 1.8 is sort of similar to a 27-52.5mm 2.7 on full frame, compare that to a 24-70 2.8 on full frame.bThe depth of field is similar

but the 2.8 is wider and longer.

 

And iso 1600 on crop is similar to iso 3200 on full frame. (Is this true or am I making it up? Haha)

 

Say I was shooting a full frame camera with 24-70 2.8 in a situation where my settings were Iso 3200, f 2.8 and 1/200sec. In that same

situation with a crop camera with 18-35 1.8 I could shoot iso 1250, f 1.8 and 1/200sec.

 

In this situation would the crop be the better low light camera, having less noise?

 

I realise a full frame camera with a sigma 50mm 1.4 vs a crop camera with a sigma 30mm 1.4 and the full frame would wipe the floor with

iso performance, but I only intend to own two zooms, no primes.

 

So my question is would a crop with 1.8 zooms be a better option than a full frame with 2.8 zooms? D7200 has more and better features

and it's zoom is 1.333 stops faster eliminating the ISO difference.

 

Are my thoughts right or am I missing something?

 

Cheers :)

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hi William. Well, firstly the D610 is very much a budget (and fairly old) full frame camera - it's not got a very new sensor, and notably it's got the consumer autofocus system from the D5x00 series (compromised further by being clustered in the centre of the frame, as autofocus modules on all the full frame DSLRs are). The D7200 is faster, has a pretty new sensor, has what was Nikon's top-of-the-line AF module from the D3/D300 through the D4s/D810, etc. Unless you specifically want full-frame low light (although check DxOMark for how competitive the newer sensor is) and depth of field, I'd normally say the D7200 is the better option - but it sounds like you <i>are</i> trying to match those factors.<br />

<br />

On the maths of the crop, you're more or less right. At the same aperture (ignoring any darkening at the edges of the frame), a full frame sensor gets a little more than twice the light compared with a DX sensor (the area is 1.5x1.5, or 2.25, times bigger - which is the equivalent of 1.17 stops). And yes, the f/1.8 zooms are effectively little faster than the f/2.8 equivalents. They also have a very good reputation optically - although generally it's much harder to control aberrations at wider apertures, so it may not generally be true that a faster DX lens keeps up with a slower FX one in image quality at the same "effective aperture". However, you're specifically talking about these two lenses and no others, so let's not be hypothetical.<br />

<br />

Bear in mind that the 18-35 is a 27-52.5mm equivalent (as you say) and the 50-100 is a 75-150mm equivalent, from a field of view perspective. That's effectively slightly-wide-to-normal for the 18-35 - the difference between 24mm and 27mm is moderately significant, and 50mm vs 70mm is what some would consider the difference between stopping at a group shot and stopping at a short portrait lens (which is the compromise you get for the aperture and performance). The 24-70 is a multi-purpose walk-around lens; the 18-35 arguably isn't, quite. The 50-100, meanwhile, covers the popular portrait focal lengths, but there's quite a gap between it and the 18-35 and it's missing quite a bit of reach for distant candids, wildlife and sports compared with a 70-200. Again, that's the compromise for the size, aperture, and optical performance. If you're happy with two specialist lenses and changing when you want to go between an environmental shot and a portrait. For photojournalism (the traditional target for the 14-24/24-70/70-200 f/2.8 triumverate, along with the 200-400 f/4) needing to switch is probably a no-no; that may not apply to you.<br />

<br />

What kind of things do you shoot? And, er, how sure are you that you're never going to get other lenses that could take more advantage of the bigger sensor size? (I've been down the "I'll never upgrade" path before and it's hurt me - but I'm not you.)<br />

<br />

Also, the D750 prices have dropped recently, I suspect in response to the release of the 5Dmk4. If you can stretch your D610 to a D750, that gets you better low light, significantly better autofocus, and a bit of speed - which at least partly balances the advantages of the D7200.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Your reasoning makes sense, if you limit yourself to the 18-35mm f/1.8 and the 50-100mm f/1.8 zooms. In addition, the D7200 has better AF than the D610. Of course, given your evident concern about low light performance, you might also want to consider the Nikon D500 with these two zooms.</p>

<p>A couple of questions: Do you need this kind of low light performance? Might you feel locked into your choices in the future, if your needs change? It is not likely that there will be many more f/1.8 DX zooms made.</p>

<p>You might want to purchase the two zooms and the body all at the same time, so that you can test the lens body combinations thoroughly for issues such as accuracy of AF, etc., and return everything if you're not happy with it. If you do go for it, let us know how it works for you. It's an interesting approach.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you have the budget to get into consumer or prosumer-grade FX, and your photography has no particular need to take the advantages of DX, my opinion is that you are better off to buy into FX to begin with. Unlike a decade ago, FX is quite affordable now.</p>

<p>For example, if you shoot a lot of wildlife, especially smaller birds as I do, DX along with super teles would make a lot of sense. In these days I use a D500 extensively with 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses. Prior to the D500, I used the D7200 and D7100 ... a lot.</p>

<p>In my mind, consumer FX would be something like the D600 or D610. Prosumer FX would be the D750 and perhaps D800/D810. The D600/D610 indeed has a second-rated AF module, the Multi-CAM 4800, which is not bad but on FX, the AF points are mostly crowded in the center area. However, the D750 is also quite affordable and up to 2015, it had Nikon's best AF system, now only surpassed by the Multi-CAM 20000 on the D5 and D500.</p>

<p>Coupling a D7200 with fast DX zooms such as the f1.8 Sigma zooms doesn't make much sense to me. Your high-ISO capability and shallow depth of field capability are still limited by the smaller real estate in DX. The Sigma 18-35mm is still limited by the flange-to-sensor distance in the Nikon F mount that was designed for FX/35mm film. You get better wide lenses in FX.</p>

[william_p]

I used to use only a 50mm and 28mm prime so the 18-35 1.8 fits nicely into that range. I mainly do street and a bit of

landscape, but I only shoot for my own enjoyment, nothing serious. I actually hate ultra wide focal lengths, even 24mm I

find too wide. I also shoot family portraits and events, at one time I had a canon 6d with 70-200 f4 which fit the bill well. I

will miss the range from 150-200 though. As for the 35-50 gap, I've been a prime shooter for years, so I'm used to a lens

change or two haha. The 2.8 equivalent depth field is more than enough for my odd portrait, even owning full frame I

found it hard justifying buying a f2 135mm, so I'll be happy from that angle. When I had my 6d ISO 1600 was my limit for

everyday shooting, but I had a 50mm 1.4 then, I also would go to ISO 6400 if it was the only option left available. Maybe

I'll miss the high ISO performance, but I want to step away from primes anyway, so maybe I'll miss the wide apertures too.

I think I'm about 95% set on the d7200.

 

Cheers for the input :)

[pete_s.]

<p>You are missing one thing to consider - image quality. The 18-35mm f1.8 has nowhere near the same optical performance at f1.8 on a crop camera as a 24-70 f2.8 does at f2.8 on a full frame.</p>

<p>Also regarding sensors, Dxomark measures sensor performance and top five of <strong>all</strong> Nikon cameras are D810, D800E,D800,D610,D600.</p>

<p>Another thing to consider is weight and size. FX cameras are a little larger and their lenses heavier in general.</p>

[william_p]

I had a 750d a little while back, so I know I'll be fine with the image quality, I just didn't enjoy the camera, hence the switch

to Nikon. I only used the kit lens and the 50mm 1.4 while trying it out too. So no anti alias filter and good quality glass can

only be better :) I've only ever had primes and f4 zooms on full frame, so I don't know the size of 2.8 zooms, that could be

a consideration. I've also had a 5d classic while I decide what direction to go in, so I know I'm not on the hunt for ultimate

image quality.

 

Cheers people, I think I've convinced myself I don't need full frame. As long as ISO 1600 is relatively clean. I know ISO

800 was good on the 750d and apparently the d7200 is better.

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>You are missing one thing to consider - image quality. The 18-35mm f1.8 has nowhere near the same optical performance at f1.8 on a crop camera as a 24-70 f2.8 does at f2.8 on a full frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are talking about the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, I strongly disagree. DxO testing shows that a Sigma on a D3300 sensor (same as D7200?) will clearly outperform a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 on a D610 in every parameter.</p>

<p><br />https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D3300-versus-AF-S-Nikkor-24-70mm-f-2.8G-ED-on-Nikon-D610__1140_928_175_915</p>

<p>Don't worry about that "a 50mm on a DX is equal to a ...... " stuff. It really doesn't matter, does it? Buy a wide to normal and a normal to long lens for whatever camera you use. When I went from D7100 to D800E, I did it mostly so I could use the excellent Nikon 24mm PC-E (shift lens.) I shoot a lot of architecture and landscapes and really wanted lens movements. I also make really big enlargements for paying customers. I found about a stop to stop & half difference in ISO between DX and FX. Not enough to justify the expense. When I went to FX, I ended up spending over $5,000 for lenses for it. The camera is the cheap part. If you are really into "street" shooting, which I assume means talking photos of people on the street in big cities, Nikon's best camera is the D5300 (series.) It's small and not intimidating. More important, you can flip out the folding screen, hold the camera at your waist, and take photos without obviously pointing a camera at people. Look at the work Vivian Meier did in Chicago using a Rolleiflex and you'll quickly see what I mean. That new Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 would be outstanding on a D5300 for what you want to do. It will be better image quality wise than a D610 with 24-70mm f2.8, be less conspicuous, AND be less of a loss if you get robbed. A no-brainer?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Glad we helped, William - although you still have me a bit nervious! I do just want to throw in a word in favour of the Tamron 24-70 if you <i>do</i> go full frame after all - it's smaller, lighter, cheaper and (at the wide end especially) probably better than the Nikkor versions, and only slightly heavier than the 18-35 (though it does cost quite a bit more).<br />

<br />

Pete: Are you sure about your claim the 18-35 doesn't keep up with a 24-70? It looks <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-on-Nikon-D610-versus-AF-S-Nikkor-24-70mm-f-2.8G-ED-on-Nikon-D610__1140_865_885_915_175_915">pretty close</a> to me.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I had a 750d a little while back</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That puzzled me for a brief moment, and then I realized that William was referring to the Canon Rebel 750D. The Nikon FX body I was suggesting is a D750.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>In this situation would the crop be the better low light camera, having less noise?</em></p>

<p>It is possible, but in practice the difference is likely to be very small. However, you have to also consider the effect of the smaller sensor area and lens MTF on the image detail. I am not familiar with the 18-35/1.8 but in general it is the case that FX lenses on FX cameras produce better defined detail especially at wide apertures than a DX camera with DX lens at a 1.1 stop wider aperture (which would be required to get similar noise and shutter speed). Basically you're asking that the DX lens (18-35/1.8) at f/1.8, sampled at a 1.5x higher spatial frequency resolve equally well than a 24-70/2.8 at f/2.8. This is unlikely to be the case. In my experience, FX is particularly strong where it comes to wide angle lenses and wide apertures.</p>

<p>However, the D610 has a less sophisticated autofocus system than the D7200. If you like off-center compositions and autofocus it may be worth considering also the D750 which has the same type of AF system as the D7200, although the D750 is more expensive, there are also bargains to be found. For indoor available light photography I would definitely choose FX, but if you're a more telephoto outdoor photographer kind, then the D7200 (and DX in general) can be very strong as well.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka: I think the issue here is that the 18-35 is optically extremely good for a zoom lens (irrespective of its maximum aperture) whereas the 24-70 Nikkors probably aren't their strongest lenses - not helped by having more range to cover than the 18-35. It more or less cancels out, as far as I can tell from tests. I agree with your general statements, it's just that we're talking about some relatively exceptional (though not perfect) glass. Still, we're talking a lot more money for the FX glass as well.<br />

<br />

Shun: I was confused there as well (or I'd not realised the connection between the 750D comment and the D750). Since I'm also advocating the D750 over a D610 if possible, should William go down the FX route, I hope he's now unconfused.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<blockquote>

<p>I actually hate ultra wide focal lengths, even 24mm I find too wide. (William)</p>

<p>If you have the budget to get into consumer or prosumer-grade FX, and your photography has no particular need to take the advantages of DX, my opinion is that you are better off to buy into FX to begin with. Unlike a decade ago, FX is quite affordable now. (Shun)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll take a different tack from Shun. Since WA FL's are not your thing, there is no clear advantage to getting an FX body (everything else being equal). So I would say buy the 2 Sigma lenses, and assuming you have the budget, get the D500 rather than the D7200.</p>

<p>You can compare the specs between those two bodies, but the FUN FACTOR goes to the D500 hands down.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>the 24-70 Nikkors probably aren't their strongest lenses</em></p>

<p>For the G version I would agree it has some flaws although a solid overall performer, but if you mean to include the E VR version than I disagree; I would easily put the 24-70 E VR in the best in its focal length as for the real world image quality that it produces. This is especially true when considering the autofocus performance, which in indoor events yields an amazing percentage of focus keepers (admittedly, combined with the D5). The colour rendition, contrast, flare resistance, LoCA, bokeh, and sharpness (especially at the 24mm end) are exceptionally good with the latest version. At 70mm it is slightly soft at near distances though, but overall it is easily the lens I trust the most in this focal length range. It may not be a test chart winner (I wouldn't know as I don't look at test chart sites for information on image quality of wide angle lenses) but in the real world it yields exceptionally pleasing images.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Since WA FL's are not your thing, there is no clear advantage to getting an FX body (everything else being equal).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keith, everything else is never equal. The main advantages for DX are:</p>

<ul>

<li>Lower cost, as the smaller sensors are still cheaper, although the difference is not as drastic as it was 10 years ago. And Nikon (as well as Canon, etc.) builds the lowest end DSLRs around the DX sensor, such that if the budget is limited, DX is the way to go. To date, there is no FX equivalent of the D3000 and D5000 series with just one command dial or no AF motor inside the body.</li>

<li>More advantage with long teles</li>

</ul>

<p>Neither one suits William's situation.</p>

<p>FX will give you more choices of higher-end lenses designed for that format (note I emphasis higher-end lenses designed for FX). William also mentioned low light situations; that also points to FX.</p>

<p>Once he buys the two high-end Sigma DX lenses, he is somewhat locked to DX with fewer options to upgrade. Selling those third-party lenses will likely lead to some financial cost, although that is not the end of the world.</p>

<p>For someone who can afford the D610, a couple of fairly expensive Sigma lenses, and no particular need for super teles, going FX is an easy choice. But this is William's choice; if DX is what he wants, that is what matters.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka - thanks for the report. I admit I've not personally used the new 24-70 - I've hired the previous version (with which I was happy enough, but I've also seen images with it that didn't convince me). The Tamron 24-70 is strongest at the wide end - which I decided I cared about given the lack of ability to put filters on my 14-24 and that I already have a 70-200 and primes covering the long end (I don't have any primes wider than 35mm except for a fish-eye, though I may reconsider if Nikon make a wide tilt-shift). The reviews I've seen of the new 24-70 have mostly claimed it's better than the previous one, but not necessarily by the extent one might hope for given the size and cost - but I don't think anyone's claimed it's actually a bad lens. Good to know you like yours.<br />

<br />

Shun: As you say, William doesn't seem to be asking for telephoto reach - although not wide angles either. From a flexibility perspective, my concern for him is that if he does want more than those two lenses (and I've been down the route of buying kit assuming I'll not upgrade other things) then, as you suggested and William himself mentioned, FX has the advantage.<br />

<br />

The counter argument is if William really is convinced that he doesn't need the 24-27mm, 53-75mm or 150-200mm equivalent ranges and really does never want more depth of field control and buy primes. Within their limits, the Sigma f/1.8 DC pair are slightly faster (equivalent) than the Nikkors - although we shouldn't forget Sigma's own 24-35mm f/2 full-frame lens. Even with Tamron (or Sigma) substitutes for Nikkors, I believe the Sigma DC lenses are substantially cheaper, if not as much smaller than you'd think. If a 24-70 and 70-200 Nikkor are in the budget, you'd hope that a D750 upgrade over a D610 would be a relatively small dent in the purse - though with that budget available one might also ask if the 18-35 and 50-100 are really the only lenses likely to get purchased. Of course, William may not yet have looked at the relative prices of the lenses, and that may make his mind up for him. :-)<br />

<br />

Anyway, I still think I'd say that <i>if</i> the two f/1.8 zooms really are all that's going to be needed (bearing in mind that neither of them is really a general-purpose mid-range lens - though nothing wrong with that, it's only recently that I got a 24-70 myself), they're probably at least competitive with the FX lenses whose ranges they overlap, and they're a lot cheaper. If this is the start of a photography habit which might include more lenses, I'd go FX now. Or wait until Photokina in case anything else shows up.</p>

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>Basically you're asking that the DX lens (18-35/1.8) at f/1.8, sampled at a 1.5x higher spatial frequency resolve equally well than a 24-70/2.8 at f/2.8. This is unlikely to be the case. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>OP specified 18-35mm f1.8 which is Sigma ART series, not the more consumer grade Nikon 18-35mm. And yes, the Sigma version on the latest generation DX sensor has more resolution than a 24-70mm on a D610. See the link I posted earlier clearly showing that. For "street" photography, my choice is still the smaller body D5300 with the advantageous folding screen (allowing camera to be used at waist level) than the larger D610 with larger lens. Truth be told, I still love using the Leica IIIc for shooting in downtown urban places. Very small, completely silent, and lots of fun!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

[photo_galleries]

<blockquote>

<p>FX will give you more choices of higher-end lenses designed for that format (note I emphasis higher-end lenses designed for FX). William also mentioned low light situations; that also points to FX. (Shun)<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True enough statements, except the OP has indicated that he would like those two Sigma zooms only. FF zoom lenses with equivalent offer no significant advantages especially given that IQ are likely on par with each other (or as the OP stated, good enough for him). As for high ISO needs, most of the OP's photography seems to be limited to 1600 ISO, and only up to 6400 if he "absolutely had to." He also does not want prime lenses.<br>

<br>

As you said, it's obviously up to the OP, but in this particular case, IMO the OP's needs are sufficiently met by a DX format. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>d7200 with sigma 18-35 1.8 and 50-100 1.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not much weight saving over a FX setup with 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 zooms. But the Sigma lenses are a bit more compact. And, at least when compared with the Nikon FX zooms mentioned, both can be had for the price of either the 24-70 or the 70-200. In other words, a slightly wider focal length range on D750 costs about twice as much as the DX combo the OP is considering.</p>

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>Not much weight saving over a FX setup with 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 zooms. But the Sigma lenses are a bit more compact.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not only that, those two very fast Sigma lenses are simply outstanding! I've been toying with the idea of building a small DX kit using the 18-35mm f1.8 and Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 myself, as a compact but excellent travel kit. I'm tired of carrying a d800E up and down mountains.<br>

<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>those two very fast Sigma lenses are simply outstanding</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. I was very close purchasing the 18-35 at on point but 18mm is just not wide enough. IF I were to invest in another DX lens, then the Tokina 14-20/2 would be my choice. The 50-100/1.8 doesn't really tempt me at all; for me, a 85/1.8 does just as well. And at least the later version of the 50-150/2.8 doesn't either; no size or weight advantage over a 70-200/2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>excellent travel kit. I'm tired of carrying a d800E</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I take the D810, 16-35/4VR and 70-200/4 VR over anything else when traveling light is what I am after. Unless I know I can make do with the D7100 and the 18-140 (which isn't often, but it makes a nice "walkaround" addition to the above mentioned combo).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>There are very good reasons that the 24-70mm/f2.8 and 70-200mm/f2.8 are highly popular for FX among indoor, low-light photographers. Both of those are fairly fast, (approximately) 3X zooms. I prefer the 24-120mm/f4 due to its convenient 5X zoom range, but there are definitely some optical compromises, especially on the wide end.</p>

<p>I have only one Sigma Art lens, the 35mm/f1.4 that is outstanding but also heavy (for a fast, moderately wide lens). I don't care how great optically those Sigma DX zoom maybe, both the 18-35 and 50-100 are 2X zooms such that their zoom ranges are quite limited, as Dieter finds out that 18mm is not quite wide enough, and to me 35mm is also not quite long enough. If those are the only two lenses you have, you will be changing lenses frequently and also missing a very important range from 35-50mm on DX; to some degree it is defeating the purpose for using zooms.</p>

<p>If I have to shoot a lot of portraits with DX, the 50-100mm/f1.8 maybe a good choice.</p>

<p>To me, the idea that those two Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 zooms are all the lenses the OP will need for quite some time to come is not a wise one. I can't speak for William specifically, but if it were me, I would find such a set up limiting and will need to add other lenses to supplement them.</p>

<p>Incidentally, if I want to travel light, I wouldn't consider any Sigma Art lens or any f2.8 (or faster) zooms from any brand. Those f1.8 and f2.8 zooms are for indoor or other low-light photography purposes. They are anything but light weight.</p>

<p>In any case, the Sigma 18-35 is $800 and the 50-100 $1100. One may be able to find some discounts. In case this whole experiment doesn't work out as planned, you probably lose a few hundred dollars selling those lenses; that is not the end of the world. To a point it no longer pays to keep listening to various opinions and just go for it to find out for yourself.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p> To a point it no longer pays to keep listening to various opinions and just go for it to find out for yourself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is a good advice to make the decision all by yourself.</p>

[rick_jack1]

<p>Just my two cents...<br>

Using a Sigma lens on your D610 is like using a Hyundai engine in your Mercedes.<br>

If you don't like primes, the AF-S Nikkor 24-70 F2.8G ED is your best bet (or even a cheaper used 24-85mm AFS Nikkor).<br>

The D750 is better with respect to noise.</p>

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>To me, the idea that those two Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 zooms are all the lenses the OP will need for quite some time to come is not a wise one. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It really depends on what & where you are photo'ing. In a crowded city environment, I think it would work well (although I might also add a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 at some point.) When I travel to major cities and walk around downtown, I often only carry a Leica IIIc with 28/50/90mm and rarely feel the need for anything else. Lately I've been using the D800e carrying only 20/35/85mm, or if doing landscapes/architecture where I need something much wider than 20mm I substitute the Nikon 24mm PC-E. At any rate, I can see where you could easily get by with either just two zooms or three single focal lenses in many scenarios. As for the Sigmas, everything in photography is a trade off, and you select based on that. Yes, they are heavy, but their phenomenal performance makes them worth for me. I looked at buying a Nikon 24-120 f4 as a one-lens general purpose solution, but looked at the loss of resolution I get from the Sigmas. I just couldn't do it, LOL.<br /> <br /> Kent in SD</p>