Crop identification

This article is written in photographic slang and, moments, filled with my subjective opinions. This article describes the nuances of using cropped cameras and lenses, which few people pay due attention to.

Crop identification

Crop identification

'Crop', 'Crop', 'cropped camera', 'cropped camera', 'cropped sensor', 'cropped sensor' are synonyms for a camera with a reduced light-sensitive element (matrix, film). These concepts are strongly intertwined with the concept crop factor and basic information about crop can be found in the section ' Crop factor '.

Full-frame, full-frame cameras, Full Frame, FF, FF, Full sensor size are synonyms for cameras that have an original, not reduced photosensitive element. Nowadays, many amateur photographers believe that FF cameras are a panacea and the peak of the evolutionary development of modern digital cameras. Due to the fact that the price for amateur cropped cameras is several times lower than for full-frame cameras, a lot of amateur photographers use cropped cameras and dream of switching to full frame. Matrix size full format cameras are the size of standard 35mm film (135 type film). But full frame is not the limit.

There are medium and large format cameras where the sizes of the photosensitive element are several times larger than the sizes of the photosensitive elements in full-frame cameras. Oddly enough it sounds, but modern full-frame digital cameras are narrow format... It turns out to be a kind of deception - on the one hand, a full frame is something beyond, on the other hand, a full frame is just a narrow format.

Photographers who have shot in medium or large format all their lives often look down on today's prohibitively expensive 'Full Frame Cameras' Nikon D4s, Canon 1DX etc. I am writing this to the fact that there should be a clear understanding that full-frame cameras are just one of the steps in the evolution of the camera industry.

Crop Excellence

Crop Excellence

Since I use the Nikon system most of all, I will give examples based on Nikon's photographic equipment.

Basically, everyone knows that using the FF camera is easier to control the depth of the sharply depicted space. With a full-format camera, it’s easier to achieve fine depth of field, blurring the far and near plan.

But there is a second side to the coin, in which crop surpasses full frame. To get the same viewing angle with a full-format lens Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm 1: 2.8G ED N used on a full-frame camera, on the crop you need to use an analog - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM DX. We assume that 17mm crop and 24mm full frame give approximately same viewing angle and omit the difference 1.5mm EGF (Эequivalent Фsnack Рdistance, 17mm * 1,5-24mm = 1,5mm). But due to different real focal lengths, lenses have different depth of field and different hyperfocal distance... In practice, this has the effect that 17mm is easier to achieve a wide depth of field than 24mm full frame. For example, this is expressed by the fact that when I photograph a group of people in low light (for example, in a temple), the thin depth of field of the 24mm@F/2.8 lens is very strongly felt in the full frame and some of the people who 'fall out' of the field of focus are blurred. I do not need anyone to be blurred in the picture at all. At the same time, if you shoot the same scene with a 17mm@F/2.8 lens on a crop, the field of focus will be larger, this will allow you to capture all people in the field of focus, and when you print such a picture, all participants in the shooting will admire their sharp image. In this case, the lenses use the same aperture, and photographing occurs at the same shutter speed.

Often you can see a recalculation of aperture for cropped lenses. For example f / 2.8 for Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM DX on cameras Nikon DX will have the equivalent of f / 4.2. You can look at the example of Nikon 14-24 2.8 on photozone.de. This does not mean that such a lens has a real darker aperture (smaller real aperture in terms of T-stops) when used on cropped cameras - this only means that the depth of field for such a lens will be F / 4.2 equivalent for full-size cameras. Attention: this recount does not affect the exposure, it only affects the recalculation of the depth of field.

Thus, using Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM DX at 17mm and F / 2.8 we get the equivalent of 25.5mm and F / 4.2. That is, to get the same large depth of field as with a cropped lens Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM DX, using Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm 1: 2.8G ED AF-S N we will have to close the aperture to f / 4.2. But in the case of a full-format lens, this will entail not only an increase in the depth of field, but also a decrease exposure. The exposure will have to be compensated either by a longer shutter speed, or a higher ISO sensitivity or a higher flash output.

When you change the aperture by one stop, the depth of field changes in two times. F-stop numbers are F / 1.4, F / 2.0, F / 2.8, F / 4.0, F / 5.6, etc. The difference between f / 2.8 and f / 4.0 is one stop (two times). It turns out that when using a cropped lens, we gain more than twice the depth of field in magnification (F / 2.8 versus F / 4.2). To be precise, the depth of field is 2.25x for Nikon DX cameras. The increase in depth of field is linearly related to the size of the matrix. In fact, Nikon FX and Nikon DX sensors differ in their area by 2.25 times. The number 2.25 is very simple, you just need crop factor (Kf = 1.5) squared: 1.5 * 1.5 = 2.25.

This trick is used in many soap dishes for macro photography. The tiny sensors of digital soap cameras can produce huge DOF with small aperture numbers, which is very important for macro photography. So, to get similar pictures with a simple soap dish and Nikon D3s + Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 1: 2.8D on a soap dish it will be possible to calmly remove on F / 5.6 from hands with a short shutter speed, and on a large full-frame lens, you will have to close the aperture very strongly to get the same DOF.

Personal experience:

I described the difference in depth of field in detail only because I often shoot various kinds of wide-angle lenses on an open aperture baptism, weddings, etc. I usually use a 28mm lens. In the full frame at 28mm F / 3.5, it is already very noticeable that people are falling out of the depth of field. When printing in a format of 20 X 30 and more, it is already quite noticeable that some of the people are in focus, and some have 'floated'. Sometimes clients complain to me that part of the image is not sharp. Using a crop camera and a lens with a similar EGF, you can increase the depth of field by 2.25 times while maintaining the aperture and simplify this kind of shooting. I understand that you can close the aperture and get a wide DOF, but in some cases you cannot shoot at F / 11.0, since there is very, very little light for the scene, and using a flash is highly undesirable.

Conclusion:

Equivalent focal lengths when using cropped lenses allow you to get a large depth of field, more objects in the focus area, more satisfied customers. At the same time, we need the same aperture the lens.

Ultimatu crop

Ultimatu crop

After the previous point, the crop has risen to its feet and can now compete with a full frame. But there is one very serious problem when using cropped cameras. And this problem is the lack of lenses. In general, this concerns the absence good professional fast lenses with convenient EGF. Professional photographers, such as wedding planners, studio photographers, and storytellers most often use a specific set of lenses with a certain focal length. Usually this is a range of 14-200mm.

But for cropped cameras there are simply no lenses for comfortable shooting. For example, for Nikon DX cameras there is nothing to replace Nikon 14-24 F / 2.8, Nikon 17-35 F / 2.8, Nikon 70-200 F / 2.8, Nikon 80-200 F / 2.8, Nikon 85mm F / 1.4. There is only a replacement for the Nikon 24-70 F / 2.8 in the form of the Nikon 17-55 F / 2.8 DX (and then, there is a Nikon 24-70 F / 2.8 VR, which, again, has no replacement).

Lenses have historically undergone a number of adjustments to suit the needs of photographers when working on narrow 35mm film. We have developed our own optimal standards. For example, reporting in 'close combat' is easier than ever to shoot with the Nikon 17-35 F / 2.8, and for portraits, weddings, use the Nikon 70-200 F / 2.8. These lenses complement each other to provide the photographer's desired coverage of the focal length range, are very easy to use and are a kind of standard. These lenses have undergone a number of modifications, have been hardened by time, and their focal lengths were chosen for a reason.

As a result, for the Nikon DX crop, there is neither a wide aperture-panorama (14-24 F / 2.8), nor a reportage-wide (Nikon 17-35 F / 2.8), nor a portrait-TV (Nikon 70-200 F / 2.8), no fix portraiture (Nikon 85mm F1.4).

In general, for 'professional photography' on a crop, only the Nikon 17-55mm F / 2.8 can be used as a versatile replacement for the full-frame Nikon 24-70mm F / 2.8.

When using lenses from full-frame cameras, the EGF changes and full-frame lenses lose much of their functionality on the crop. To support my words, I will give an example from my personal practice. When using a Nikon 70-200 F / 2.8 lens on a full frame camera, I can easily shoot a wedding walk and small groups of people at 70mm, I just need to step back a little. But when using the same lens on the crop, I have to run back and forth from 70-200mm to film witnesses, young people and a few other people. As a result, the 70-200 does not fulfill its function as a normal 70mm lens. For serious photography, crop is a road to nowhere due to the lack of a set of lenses the photographer needs.

There is one more thing - third-party manufacturers have realized the nuance described above and released equivalents. For Nikon 14-24 F / 2.8 there is Tokina 11-16 F / 2.8, for Nikon 70-200 F / 2.8 there is Tokina AF 50-135mm F / 2.8. Nikon 17-35 F / 2.8 replacements were never invented. On the one hand, I often recommend third-party lenses, but I only do this for hobbyists. On the other hand, there is one unwritten rule for professionals to use only 'native' lenses on their cameras. Let me give you an example, so I came to a wedding with 'Tamron', 'Sigma', 'Tokina'. They ask me, what is this lens? I answer - 'Tamron', 'Sigma', 'Tokina'. In response, I only hear “There ... What? ... Sigma? Bokina? " And all my professionalism and trust in me is multiplied by zero. It is difficult to prove to the client that important how to take pictures, and not using any technique. Give everyone only Nikon, Canon, Sony.

Of course, it should be understood that the concepts of 'professional photographer' and 'professional photographic equipment' have very vague boundaries.

We can also mention Canon cameras with APS-H sensor - Canon EOS-1D, 1D Mark II, 1D Mark II N, 1D Mark III, 1D Mark IV, which have crop factor 1.3 and for which neither the native manufacturer nor third-party lenses are manufactured with crop in mind. Only full-length native lenses are suitable for such cameras.

Conclusions:

For full-frame cameras, there are lens solutions with a convenient set of focal lengths. For cropped cameras, there are practically no such lenses.

Crop evolution

Crop evolution

In the previous paragraph, I tried to defeat the crop. At this point, I will try to finish it off.

Not only professional lenses have evolved, but also a number of unpretentious 'dark' zooms. Usually the 28mm-XXXmm range is used for comfortable, uncomplicated photography. For example, 28-50mm, 28-70mm, 28-85mm, 28-100mm, 28-105mm, 28-200mm, 28-300mm. Such lenses are called universal, with their help you can practically shoot anything. Most of their versatility lies in the ability to use a 28mm wide viewing angle on a full-frame camera. The equivalent of 28mm on the crop is 18mm, for example 18-55m, 18-70mm, 18-105mm, 18-135mm, 18-200mm, 18-300mm.

For example, Nikon has over 10 universal autofocus lenses of 28-ХХХ class and their modifications. All of these lenses are almost unprofitable when used on Nikon DX crop cameras, since they completely lose their versatility due to the fact that 28mm gives EFR of 42mm (almost fifty dollars). Now the good old lenses, for example, Nikon 28-105mm F / 3.5-4.5 Macro with exorbitant image quality and super fast focus, sell for 150u.e., since nobody needs them.

This applies not only to universal lenses, but to almost all full-frame lenses that were developed for full-format cameras. Black magic happens on crop, constantly full-frame lenses with specific goals and objectives'turn into something'. For example, a fifty-kopeck piece in a short-portrait, any shirik into a standard lens, over a shirik into a wide one. The only thing unchanged is the telephoto. Televik and televik on the crop.

The main advantage of crop marketing experts highlight 'free' increase in equivalent focal length... In fact, such an increase is needed only in very rare tasks. For example, I rarely need a lens longer than 200mm on a full frame. This advantage can be used by few photographers with real value for shooting distant objects. An ordinary amateur photographer often does not need such an increase in EGF. Many remain deceived by what they usually say about increasing the EGF for telephoto lenses. Everything is extremely simple there - the longer the focal length, the better. But due to the fact that the EGF increases not only in the body of the lenses, but also in all lenses, this wide angles suffer greatly... That is, the wide angle of a wide-angle full-frame lens simply disappears when using such a lens on a cropped camera. In general, it is better to shoot wider than narrower - the image can then be cropped, but not vice versa. Therefore, I really like the expression: 'crop eats frame'.

Conclusion:

When using cropped cameras lost the ability to use a huge number of old full-frame lenses with excellent optical and mechanical performance. Often such lenses cost a penny, and their image quality is at a high level.

Crop accuracy

Crop accuracy

Another important point is accuracy of the focusing system when used on crop and on a full frame of FX lenses. It is connected with hyperfocal distance and a feature of the focusing system of each lens separately.

To shoot the same subject with the same full-format lens on a crop and on a full frame with the same cropping, you need get closer or further to the subject. The difference in shooting distance between the Nikon DX camera and Nikon FX will be 1.5 times... For example, if you need to shoot something with a cropped camera and a full-frame lens from a distance of 6 meters, you will need to shoot something with the same lens and a full-frame camera with the same framing from a distance of 4 meters.

The focusing system is often easier to sharpen the lens at medium focusing distances. This can be related to the step of the focusing ring. When focusing in the infinity region, the focus ring pitch is very small, which may cause more problems with focus accuracy in this range. When using an FX lens on a crop, focusing is shifted toward infinity, which generally degrades the accuracy and smoothness of focusing. This is a very subtle nuance that can not always be traced. It takes a lot of practice to feel the difference.

And also an important point - the shorter the focusing distance, the visually the subject appears sharper (although the depth of field decreases).

Crop weight

Crop weight

It is often said that cropped cameras weigh less than full-size cameras. This is not always true. For example, camera Nikon D700, D800, Nikon D800E, Nikon D600 weigh less than the cropped Nikon D1, Nikon D1h, Nikon D1x, Nikon D2x, Nikon D2xs, Nikon D2h, Nikon D2hs. Also full-length Nikon D600 weighs about the same as a cropped ruler Nikon D500, D300, D300s, D200, D100. In the general case, the weight of the camera is determined not by the size of the sensor, but by the belonging of the camera to a certain level, for example, professional or amateur. The weight of the camera is very dependent on the materials of which the housing is made. Typically, professional cameras have an all-metal body, unlike amateur cameras that use plastic. So it turns out that professional flagship (with combo case) cropped cameras of the Nikon D1, D2 series weigh more than amateur full-format Nikon D600 or professional Nikon D810, D800, D800E. The weight of the camera can be both a plus and a minus, like everything else in questions about crop.

Crop speed

Crop speed

The implicit advantage of the reduced sensor on cropped cameras is the ability to quickly read the signal from the cells of the matrix and lower power consumption. In fact, this greatly affects the video. So, the first Nikon camera that could shoot video was not Nikon D3s, Nikon D90. Now Nikon D7100, D7200, D5200, D5300, D5500 can shoot Full HD at 60 frames per second, and more expensive cameras Nikon D600, D610, D800, D800E, D4 can squeeze a maximum of only 30 frames per second in Full HD mode. This also affects the photo shooting speed. So cameras with interchangeable lenses Nikon 1 J1, Nikon 1 S1, Nikon 1 V2, Nikon 1 V1, Nikon 1 J2, Nikn 1 J3 and  Nikon 1 AW1 can take pictures at a speed of 60 (sixty) photos in one second. It turns out that crumbs Nikon 1 s crop factor 2.7X shoot 5 times faster than Nikon D4s or Canon 1DX... Such high-speed performance is possible precisely due to fast readout and signal processing from the 'small' matrix.

Crop cutting

Crop cutting

Unlike Canon cameras, Nikon full-format CZKs can operate in DX image mode. This means that any full-format camera can use only the central part of its sensor, in size completely identical to the classic Nikon DX crop. To do this, just select the DX image area in the camera menu. Thus, using any Nikon FX camera, you can simultaneously have an analog of a cropped camera on hand. For example, in Nikon DX mode, the camera Nikon D800 takes 16MP pictures, in size and quality almost the same as when using cropped cameras Nikon D7000 or D5100. True, in Nikon DX mode it is inconvenient to sight through JVI. By the way, some Nikon DX cropped cameras can work in their specific optional cropped mode. These cameras include Nikon D2x и D2xs with an additional crop for high-speed shooting Kf = 2X and Nikon D7100 with the possibility of additional crop Kf = 1.3X.

The future of crop

The future of crop

Of course, crop cameras have been and always will be. But here in the professional segment, cropped cameras no longer have a place... For example, Nikon no longer releases TOP cropped 'combo monsters', the last of which was Nikon D2xsreleased back in 2006. In 2007, the line of TOP professional Nikon cameras was replaced by a full-format line, the first of which was Nikon D3. In the future, the entire model range of such cameras includes exclusively full-size models.

The same fate befell the line of cropped TOP cameras Canon with an APS-H sensor. Latest model, Canon 1D Mark IV, was released in 2009, in 2012 replaced with a full-size camera Canon 1D X.

Crop quality

Crop quality

All the previous ones are just flowers :) (which are on the screensavers). For me, as a photographer, full-frame cameras are valued more than cropped ones due to the lower noise level at equivalent ISO values. Full-format cameras have higher ISO values, allowing you to capture acceptable quality pictures. If you take cropped and full-frame cameras of the same generationthen shots from a full-frame camera will always be more flexible in post-processing, they are much easier 'draw out'and finalize (especially when shooting in RAW).

Take the latest full-frame Nikon camera - D4s, and the last advanced crop is D7100, even on synthetic tests it is easy to see that the 'working' ISO Nikon D4s 2-3 times higher than that of Nikon D7100 (link dxomark.com) I can confidently say that not a single Nikon camera has yet grown in noise at high ISO even to the very first full-format Nikon D3. The same situation can be observed with Sony and Pentax cameras. And if you do not take into account Canon EOS-1 DS then Canon has exactly the same situation :).

In the comments, you can ask a question on the topic and they will answer you, as well as you can express your opinion or describe your experience. For the selection of photographic equipment, I recommend large catalogs, for example E-Catalog. Many little things for the photo can be found on AliExpress.

Global output:

Crop is insidious. Now you know that:

  • A full frame can be considered crop from medium format cameras;
  • Crop has the advantage of greater depth of field with the same F number and the same viewing angle. This is important for shooting using wide-angle optics;
  • For crop there is no line of professional lenses with convenient focal length. In my opinion, this is a very serious drawback of crop;
  • Cropped cameras cannot be used normally with a huge number of old solid full-length lenses;
  • When using full-length lenses on the crop, the smoothness and convenience of focusing changes;
  • Cropped cameras are not always lighter than full-size cameras;
  • Full-frame cameras have a significantly lower noise level at high ISO;
  • Among professional cameras, there is less and less space for crop.

Extension here.

The material was prepared by Arkady Shapoval. My Youtube channeland Radozhiva's group on Facebook и VK.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 305, on the topic: Identification of crop

  • Nicholas

    Good afternoon. Technically, I'm zero, but the essence of the FF-Krop case is roughly clear, but not completely. Now I have 2 Canon cameras: 7D and 6D. For my everyday “masterpieces” I absolutely do not need maximum resolution, because I don’t deal with dermatology and I don’t look at the seams in brickwork at 200% magnification. Therefore, I use 99% SRAW (I try to build a frame right away, so that I can sprinkle almost nothing later) and very rarely MRAW, when I know in advance that it will be necessary to crop a little too much .. I do not know about digital values ​​of pixel sizes, but I know that a pixel is 6D is fatter, more light-sensitive, etc. I have on 7D 18 megapixels in full resolution, 10 megapixels in mRAW and 5 megapixels in sRAW. To get the capabilities of TELE as a crop, I need to make a 6D frame in full resolution of 20 megapixels, and then crop it to the size of the APSC sensor, i.e. 2,5 times smaller and I get a picture with the maximum possible resolution of 8 megapixels (this three times for the eyes!), BUT ... these are fat light-sensitive pixels by an order of magnitude better technically than pixels in 7D! If I use MRAW (11 megapixels), then I get a 4,4 megapixel image of CROP from FF (which also suits me perfectly). Am I reasoning correctly or not? I just can't decide on the second 7D camera - to sell it and lose TELE or not sell it (I really, really like this wonderful camera even for our days and will give odds to any Canon crop, except 7Dm2. I am not interested in any videos, screens, Wi-Fi , GPS, dual pixels, etc.) and use, when necessary, 6D as a MORE QUALITY crop? If I get a better quality CROP with a size of 6 megapixels and 8 megapixels with FF 4.4D, then it suits me, because I don't want to carry 2 bricks with lenses for free! Moreover, I get a better quality CROP with a low noise level and a more beautiful picture. This means I can raise ISO without compromising image quality, which is very important in TELE modes. Am I reasoning correctly or not? Could you advise me how to proceed in this case. Thanks . Nikolay

    • Oleg

      You can not "sprinkle" anything, but simply buy another lens with a larger focal length. You can sell one of the cameras and buy lens / s. Or not to sell if you have the funds, and keep one camera as a spare. Or put one lens in one camera, and another lens in the other, in order to change lenses on one camera as rarely as possible and, as a result, reduce the likelihood of dust getting onto the matrix.

      • Nicholas

        I have a Tamron 70-300 VC USD (I was lying and waiting for FF) - a good lens for a reasonable price and has proven itself well on crop, I don't like only 112 mm on Crop, so I bought Canon 55-250 is stm. I don’t want a heavier and larger Tamron, and I don’t need such focal ones. I also do not like changing lenses and once bought a second Canon crop camera specifically for a telephoto camera, but I sold it without ever using it. I'm just thinking: if KROP from 6D is a better quality KROP (compared to a crop camera), and I don't need a TV range very often (I specially put the Japanese-assembled Canon 28-135 wagon as a staff, it is much better than the Thai one. two, tested and Thai sold), then wearing one camera is preferable. So I was interested in the question - will the crop from the 6D be better (due to the thicker and more sensitive pixels) of the crop camera or not? For example, if we compare a 20 megapixel camera 70D (I bought it for trial - I sold it, because I didn't like it) and 20 megapixel 6D, then at the same size we will get 20 megapixels of small, less light-sensitive, and therefore noisier and with a worse DD , and in the case of 6D - 8 megapixels of fat photosensitive ones, with low noise and high DD! That is the question!

        • Vasil

          I will add a few words about the physics of processes in the matrix.
          Nikon D5200 and Nikon D610 or D750
          Both there and there are 24,7MP matrixes, but the physical dimensions are different. If you count (23,5x15,6mm 6000x4000 and 35,9x24mm 6016x4016), then it turns out that,
          the pixel size on the FF matrix is ​​2,35 times larger, which means that
          FF has a better signal to noise ratio, respectively, you can use a higher ISO.
          pixel transistor saturation occurs at large values ​​of charge (amount of light), respectively, a wider dynamic range
          All this can be seen in the comparative evaluations of two cameras (matrices).

          • Peter Sh.

            You won’t believe it, but there are people who are sure that the crop gets as much light as the ff. From here there is no difference in ISO. I could not convince them.

            • serge

              We take the magnifying glass, go out to the balcony and focus the sun on the palm. When the radius of the light spot is 35 mm, we will not feel anything, we focus in a radius of 24 mm - oh! it has become warmer, focus on a point - there will be "wava". Therefore, energetically, the light hits the same with the same composition of the frame, but on the FF this energy is distributed over the area 2 times larger. Hence, the maximum IRR at ff is 2 times higher. These are just my thoughts, I do not pretend to be accurate. :)

              • Peter Sh.

                A lens has only one focal point. The little ray on the palm is not at all the same as the image in the camera.))

              • Peter Sh.

                Lenses are considered the height of engineering. It's not so simple here. To understand why everything is just like that, and not some way, you need to understand geometric and physical optics.

                If you really want to, it’s easy to find university textbooks in these disciplines on the Internet.

            • serge

              No, of course, if you put a lens on the crop for a full frame, then black velvet will swallow the light pieces by the difference of matrices with appetite. And then really less light will fall on the crop matrix.

              • Peter Sh.

                No, lenses from a full frame have nothing to do with it. If in a nutshell, the smaller the area of ​​the focused image on the matrix, the more rays need to be refracted. As a result, energy is lost, and most importantly, additional aberrations appear that need to be corrected. After correcting these aberrations of energy (brightness), even more is consumed.

            • Onotole

              I think the ambush here is that you and your opponent each understand the purely humanistic concept of “more light”.
              In fact, there is a luminous flux and there is illumination, that is, the same luminous flux, but reduced to the area where it falls. And if the luminous flux itself in the case of crop is, of course, reduced, then the illumination of each square millimeter remains the same, all other things being equal, because the area of ​​the matrix is ​​also reduced.
              Take any FF frame shot with certain exposure settings. Cut a crop of any size from it in the editor, at least 1 to 100 (similar to darkening part of the matrix). Is there less light?
              To answer this question, you need to compare the exposure parameters and exposure. The frame did not become darker, and the parameters remained the same. This means that the illumination of the matrix from the crop does not change. All other things being equal, the total amount of light depends directly on the area of ​​the matrix, so FF (as opposed to crop) shows good results in low light conditions. If you make the pixels fatter, up to the FF level, then the crop will stop showing worse results, in fact it will be the same cropping of a part of the frame in the editor.
              So this is which side to look at.

              • Sergey

                All right said. The larger the area of ​​a pixel, the more light falls on it, and, as a result, the pixel gives more accurate information about the light incident on it. Thus, matrices (FF and crop), consisting of the same letters (in size and in hardware) will have the same sensitivity to light.

              • Alexey C

                On this topic, I liked the articles on DPReviw with competent reasoning and cool pictures.

                Here, about how the size of the matrix affects the photo
                https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

                Here, about the effect of pixel size on noise:
                https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise

                And here about the types of noise:
                https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise

                In short, on the fingers, then the F number (more precisely, the T number) of the lens determines how much light will physically fall on the conditional square millimeter of the matrix, regardless of the size of the matrix itself.

                If the writings in the compared matrices use approximately the same technology / characteristics, then their KDP for processing light in this 1 square meter. mm matrix is ​​approximately the same.

                If matrix A (FF-864mm2) is 4 times larger than matrix B (4/3 224mm2), then it will receive a total of 4 times more light, despite the fact that their pixels have similar efficiency and are illuminated with the same intensity a stream of light.

                The more light the matrix has retained from the original real-world object (over the entire area, and not just a specific pixel), the better the signal-to-noise ratio during processing, and the cleaner the final image (in its entirety).

                If very, very rough, then with 4 times less matrix area, we will get 4 times more noise, all other things being equal (pixel efficiency, illumination per sq. Mm., Etc.).

                The size of a pixel is a separate story that affects the efficiency of a single pixel (by the pixel-by-pixel result), but not always on the final image (which is what we get after the cut). I’m not sure that I can briefly state what is indicated in the article, let alone make it better. And I’m also not sure that it will be interesting to anyone.

              • Peter Sh.

                Onotole, if you have not noticed, I use scientific and technical terms.

              • Peter Sh.

                Onotole, once again. With the same lens, the same pixel size, lighting and more, you should literally move away from the subject to get the same frame on the crop. In this case, you will have at your disposal exactly 2,25 times less light rays incident on the matrix. I'm not talking about reducing the brightness of these same rays in the size of the square of the distance. Therefore, to say that if the pixels are the same, then the crop will show the same result, to put it mildly, not correctly.

                Another thing, yes, it will be noticeable only in low light. With good lighting, these brightness losses can simply be neglected.

              • Peter Sh.

                If they tell me again, so I took my favorite camera with a full frame, took a picture, changed it to crop, moved away and took another picture, but my camera did not change anything in the exposure. Everything is simple. First, the light should be dim. Secondly, you need to excommunicate noise reduction.

                After that, shoot, and most importantly, do not forget to then compress your picture to a full frame to the size of the crop.
                I ask the result in the studio, we all want to see how much these pictures will be identical.

  • Dmitriy

    Thanks for the great article. Very informative)

  • Alexey

    The FX camera has a DX mode. I would like to know if the DX mode degrades the picture quality or is the picture quality still the same as with FX shooting, only cropped around the edges to crop size?

    • Valentine

      Only cropping.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      It all depends on what is meant by "picture quality"

      • Alexey

        I mean the dynamic range, low noise at high ISO, the volume of the photo. Will they stay the same as in FX mode?
        Resolution will drop due to cropping, but that's okay.

        • Peter Sh.

          Alexei, if I take an oil painting and cut a piece out of it. Will the piece have the same quality as the whole picture?
          You will answer me that I am engaged in garbage and ask meaningless questions.
          And you will be right, because these things are incomparable.
          You can compare the whole finished oil painting with another of the same, whole and finished. Or you can compare pieces cut from them.
          That's all.

          • Arkady Shapoval

            It is not that simple. Full-frame, or full-format cameras can be considered crop from medium or large format. With such thoughts and such logic, we can come to the conclusion that if Mona Lisa is taken off Nikon 1 crop three times, then only her smile will remain from her. But this is not so.
            As for the quality of the crop mode for full-frame cameras, there are many nuances. As in photography in the sense of art, so in photography in the sense of technical quality, the maximum number of variables and nuances should be considered.
            Not entirely obvious, but the same noises strongly depend on the physical size of the sensor. As an example, these are cameras whose sensors are manufactured in almost the same process and at the same time have huge variations in noise level (for example, d7000 and d800). In this case, each pixel separately makes a similar noise, but the overall picture is completely different, because the area and the number of photosensors are different.
            + A million other things, such as cropping aberrations of a full-frame lens at the corners and edges of the frame when used on crop. Etc. etc.

            • Peter Sh.

              So I say, you can not compare the crop with the frame from which it was cut. What if we compare, then the final result, completed frames with the composition and more. What is the use of guessing about quality only for those. the characteristics of technology and optics, and even separately from all that for which this whole thing was designed?
              Otherwise, the same horses are obtained in a vacuum, which are already full on the Internet.

            • Valentine

              The first question is, will the same Nikon D700 image be shot in FX mode, and then cropped to a DX format on a computer, and the image taken immediately in DX mode will have a different noise level if we do not consider all other parameters? The second question is, will any other parameters of these two pictures significantly differ in the same experiments?

              • Peter Sh.

                If you shoot at the limit of the capabilities of technology and optics, then the difference will be very significant.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                1) there will be no difference
                2) the answer to this question depends on what exactly is meant by “the same image”. This issue is partially covered in detail by me. here.

              • Valentine

                Arkady also think thanks. I know about bokeh and some nuances. In general, there is practically no particular difference in how to sprinkle (directly in the camera or on the computer).

          • Alexey

            Rephrase the question.
            Is there any sense to remove the DX lens with the Nikon D7000 and put it on the Nikon D600 and shoot in DX mode? Let’s drop all the points and compare only the high ISO parameter that is important for me?
            I’ll ask another way, is the noise level at high ISOs the same in FX and DX modes?

            • Anders

              1) If there is no other lens, then this may be a decision for not changing another.
              2) The same, since the matrix producing the image remains the same, and the exposure mode (and ISO as well) does not change, since the light flux (density) does not change either ...

              The benefit of DX mode is essentially that the files are smaller. And they can be processed faster - the higher the rate of fire of the camera.

            • Valentine

              If you are thinking that you can change the D7000 to the D600 and use it with DX lenses, then the idea is not the best. Parameters (including the working ISO) will, of course, be better with the D600, but if everything weighs well, the solution is not justified. Take, so with the appropriate optics and other body kit.

              • Alexey

                The D600 just got it, there aren't many FX optics, 50mm af-s and 70-300 AF.
                But there are a bunch of lenses from the D7000: 18-55, 18-105, 55-200, 55-300, 35. I plan to sell something, leave something for a spare DX camera. Until I buy something from FX optics, I have to use what is. Therefore, the question is whether it makes sense to rearrange the optics from the D7000 to the D600 and use it in DX mode.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                My advice is to sell everything and take normal optics on the d600. All these DH modes on d600 with whale 18-55, 55-200, 55-300, 35 1.8 in 90% are not worth a penny. The bicycle has already been invented. By the way, you can carry out your own experiments, since you have both cameras and lenses at hand. This is 200% more efficient than waiting for a response from other users.

            • Arkady Shapoval

              In the general case, it makes little sense to shoot on the D600 in the DX mode, this is an additional feature, intended only for rare cases. Personally, I sometimes use this feature to increase the EGF of the lens (reach out).
              As for the noise: the situation here is very difficult to understand. Now many users will come running and indicate that the d600 in the DH mode will make less noise than the d7000. But it is not so. Users assume that the noise level (often referred to as the maximum "working" ISO) will be the same for the FX mode and for the DX in the D600. But in reality, d600 in dx mode will + - make noise like d7000 and maybe even stronger. Here mathematics and linear and quadratic dimensions, primarily the area of ​​the sensor and pixel, play a cruel joke.

              • Alexey

                Yes, I want to sell everything, there is no sense from them, the picture is not interesting. Recommend FX optics for portraits. I think I’ll take a native fix at 85mm and I need some kind of zoom with near-portrait focal lengths. Is there anything good from NOT Nikon's optics? Nikon is very expensive.

              • Alexey S.

                Alexei, if you like the numerical representation, then you can get some estimate by clicking on the link
                http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D600,Nikon%20D600(DX), Nikon% 20D7000

                If you want to better understand the issue, then I recommend the above article by Arkady and several additional links
                about crop factor (a DX mode is essentially what it is)
                https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/4
                about the noise
                https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise
                and about pixel size
                https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise

                About the portrait lens - I personally really like the 80-200 mk3 (which, in principle, is not expensive). But it may not suit you for a number of reasons (for example, weight).
                I advise you to decide that you need a fixed or zoom, focal, and aperture, how important autofocus is and what is the budget.

              • Valentine

                Arkady, I'm probably very wrong, but in all the documents I've seen, the DX mode of full frame cameras is called “cropping”. That is, I have not seen direct indications that the camera is using a smaller sensor area at the time of shooting. On the contrary, the description rather says that recording (including in raw) is taking into account cropping. Even if DX lenses are not able to fully cover the entire matrix, and that means some deterioration should take place, but with my eyes I did not notice it, maybe because I had too little to do with it.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                Yes, about it and speech, or what?

  • SERGOS

    lens Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM DX, when using Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm 1: 2.8G ED AF-S N we will have to close the aperture to f / 4.2. But in the case of the full-length -UV. ARCADY, apparently AF-S N should be removed-the slip \ otherwise it does not fit. This is in the section below the photo "the superiority of the crop"

  • Denis

    Hello!
    Unfortunately, I have a Nikon D5100. When I bought, I did not know about such subtleties as crop and FF. In the future, perhaps I will exchange it for FF. Right now I need a wide angle lens. Looking forward to the future on the Tamron 17-35mm F / 2.8-4 Di OSD for Nikon
    But I can’t find anywhere how the photo from the FF lens will look on a cropped fotik. How much will they be cut and how?
    Thanks in advance for the answer :)

    • Valery A.

      Hello. Nobody will trim anything, you will see the same width picture as on 17-35mm on the whale 18-55 (-105). The wide zooms on the crop are tokins, sigma, and nickor with focal lengths of 10 (11) -16 (20) mm.

      • Denis

        Valery? Yes? They just told me in the photo store that such a lens would not work and would crop the picture very much.

      • Denis

        Can I use a Tamron 17-35mm F / 2.8-4 Di OSD for Nikon on a Nikon D5100?

        • Novel

          Denis, Tamron 17-35 on crop will give you the same picture as your kit lens 18-55, if you use it only up to 35 mm (well, one almost invisible millimeter from the bottom). The difference is that a full-frame Tamron will be able to work on a camera with a full-frame sensor, and your whale 18-55 will form a smaller circle on a large sensor, so Nikon will cut out only the central part of the image equal in area to the sensor of a cropped camera. And vice versa, Tamron forms a circle larger than the size of the crop matrix, so part of the image will be roughly "cropped" - this was what the store said.

          It makes no sense to use full-frame widths on crops. They are big, heavy, expensive and you won't see much difference. 35 mm, well, 24 is still all right - this is the limit, then it is better to use widths for the crop matrix.

          If you had it - yes, you can use it, there will just be a gain in aperture ratio. And buying it on purpose - you just won't feel much difference with a whale lens. It is better to take for the future at a wide angle either high-aperture fixes, or telephoto lenses (well, unless they offer you this lens for a very cheap price).

          If the capabilities of the whale are not enough and you want even wider, Valery offered an alternative. 11-16, 11-20, 12-24, extra wide-angle sigma 8-16. It is for the crop.

          • Denis

            Roman, the problem here is that shirikov for Nikon crop cameras ... Not available in Ukraine: / I can't find ANYTHING ...

            • Novel

              Yah? I just went to OLX and immediately on the request “Tokina 11-16” found a bunch of offers, about a dozen of them for Nikon.

  • anonym

    Hello everyone. The experiment took the Olympus from 40-150 and the Nikon D90 from 18-105 and the target indicated below and got the result of 70mm Olympus = 90mm Nikon (58 = 75,82 = 105, etc.) the crop between m4 \ 3 and DX is understandable.
    Then he took a Nikon D90 from 18-105 and took a picture from a distance of 1,5 m of a frame measuring approximately 75x50 cm at a focal length of 50 mm, then he set Nikon 50mm f / 1.8D AF and took a picture from the same distance and the same frame and got the same result , and where is the crop between FX and DX?

    • Michael

      Duc 50mm should have been put on FF, then you will see. Focal length is a characteristic of the lens, not the matrix

      • anonym

        OK. But someone said here that when using an FX lens, say 100 mm, on the DX camera I get a bonus of 50 mm (total 150). where is the bonus?

        • B. R. P.

          Bonus? A narrower viewing angle on the crop, compared with the viewing angle on ff, that's the whole bonus.

        • Novel

          Roughly, the cropped sensor works as a 1.5x (Nikon) - 1.6x (Canon) tele-converter without a drop in aperture and not as significant a drop in image quality as when using an optical tele-converter. The teleconverter enlarges the image, introducing its additional distortion, and the crop cuts out the central part of the image, exacerbating the lens flaws. Drop in sharpness and chromaticity. But on most good lenses, this is almost invisible, especially if you do not chase high-resolution crops.

          • anonym

            "A crop cuts out the center of the image, exacerbating the flaws of the lens."
            Maybe reducing the flaws?
            After all, soapy corners and edges "fall off" on bad lenses.

            • Novel

              And that too. But when testing for sharpness and aberration, it is extremely rare that a full-frame lens shows comparable results on the crop and never the best.

  • Ali

    An interesting article, although written a long time ago. I read it with pleasure, thanks. I noticed that they forgot to mention the professional cropped camera D300s. Superb camera in its characteristics. At the time of writing, there was no such jump in cropped cameras in the signal-to-noise area at high light sensitivity. Now modern cropped cameras, such as the D500, D7500, are noisier at higher ISOs than the famous D700.

  • Ivan

    there is an opinion that medium format lenses transmit twice as much light, is that so? And does this mean that in order to get the same exposure under the same lighting conditions, shutter speed and ISO:
    - SF lens on a medium format camera, the aperture will be f2,8
    - on a full frame with an SF lens, the aperture will be f4
    - on the crop with an SF F8 lens
    That is, in other words, on the crop and the SF lens, can I shoot late at night by unscrewing the aperture by 2.8 and not lifting it ??
    Is it possible? Or is it partly true?

    • Roman

      Wrong opinion. That a medium format 80 / 2.8, that some full-frame 85 / 1.8, covered up to 2.8, that some telephoto lens designed for a crop at a focal 80 and aperture 2.8 will give you the same aperture when photographing the same scene (well, with correction by 1/3 - 1/2 stops due to different light transmittance).

      The difference between all three lenses is in the size of the image circle. For medium format, the frame should be 60x60 cm, for full - 36x24 mm, for crop - 24x18 mm.

  • Igor

    Hello everybody! Please tell me (do not scold too, just completely confused):
    There is a Nikon D3500 with a whale lens 18-55 DX VR 3.5-5.6G. If you buy a fixed Nikon 35mm f / 1.8G AF-S DX lens, then the picture was taken on an 18-55 DX VR lens with the focus set. 35mm distance will be the same as the 35mm f / 1.8G AF-S DX? Or taking the last lens, I get a closer shot (that is, as 35 * 1,5 = 52,5 mm focal length)?
    Thank you for your reply!

    • Anonymous

      In both cases, you will get a picture at 35 * 1,5 = 52,5 mm focus. distance

  • Igor

    Good afternoon, experts. Please help with advice. I want to use my sprinkled Nikon D7000 to measure the exposure for Zenith ET. What is the exposure ratio between the cropped matrix and the full frame?

    • Michael

      1 (unit). It does not depend on the frame size.

    • BB

      It does not depend on the frame size. It depends on the light transmission of the lens (T-stop), and if you use different optics, they will have different light transmission (for example, Jupiter-37a with 4 lenses and some kind of zoom with 17 lenses).
      The b / w film ('silver') has a rather wide DD, so that film allowed errors up to 1.5-2 stops, and stretching the frame when printing. With color negative inexpensive films it is worse.

      • B. R. P.

        Slides are even worse.

      • Igor

        Can you say specifically in my situation. The crop is Nikon D7000 + Nikkor 1.8 50mm, and the manual is Zenith ET + Helios 44-2 2.0 58mm. So I can set the desired aperture on the Nikon, in mode A, ISO 200, like on film, and the shutter speed will tell me the automation, then transfer the settings to Zenith and just take pictures without correction?

        • Roman

          Well, ideally, the camera’s exposure meter measures the amount of light entering the sensor and corrects for the light transmittance. On average, you can shoot one film, look at the result. If there will be an overexposure or overexposure everywhere, compensate for the future.

        • Rodion

          In short, yes)

        • B. R. P.

          It will not always be possible to set the shutter speed prompted by Nikon on Zenith.

      • Rodion

        By the way, the light transmission of Jupiters is very low - due to the use of thick lenses and simple enlightenment.

        • Roman

          Yes, therefore, it is not a fact that the 17-lens zoom on its 3.5 will not be really brighter than Jupiter.

      • BB

        And also, if you don’t get bored with carrying another camera, you can buy a light meter, the Soviet ones cost a penny. Compare the accuracy of the measurement with DSLR and check by practically shooting the test film.

        If the Zenith is fifty dollars, and the crop is fifty dollars, then “measuring the exposure” while standing in one place Nikon will take into account only the central “cropped” part of the frame (plus, take into account the exposure metering mode).

  • Nikolaj

    Hello everyone! I have such a question, how do I know that the video shot on the camera is cropped, by some characteristics or already by the captured video? If possible in more detail with an example, if not difficult! For example, I do not quite understand where to look.

  • Alexander

    Arkady, good hour! The question is off topic. I have a canon 600d. actually it doesn’t matter. The question is, what is the RAW + JPG format for? And how does it affect the life of the cameras?

    • Alexey

      Often this is used in order to reduce the amount of processing - a well-shot frame can be taken in JPEG, and if it is required to stretch the exposure or WB misses, then they take RAW, this does not affect the camera resource in any way, because the frame is physically the same.

      • Alexander

        Alexey, it turns out that in the RAW + JPG format they shoot for safety, in case the image in JPG does not satisfy in some parameters? And also, the other day in social networks, "experts" claimed that when shooting in RAW + JPG format, the camera records RAW + JPG on a flash drive in maximum quality. For some reason, I always thought that the quality was determined by the camera and lens, but not the chosen format - RAW + JPG.

        • B. R. P.

          Most likely, the “experts” had in mind the settings of the RAW and JPG formats themselves.

        • Ivan

          RAW + JPG is not a format, but a shooting mode in which both formats are written to the card for the convenience of the user if he needs an unprocessed file and a file with processing settings of the camera itself. The RAW format does not have any settings, this is what the camera “sees”. The JPG format from the camera is convenient in that it can already be used without wasting time processing the RAW file. Read here: https://radojuva.com/2011/03/jpeg-vs-raw/

  • Yan Serov

    But Oleg Zotov took a Nikon D 3200 crop with a whale lens for the experiment and took a number of photographs in his studio: almost no one noticed the difference. Because this is Oleg Zotov! Draw your conclusions, gentlemen-theorists, who think that FF is everything. Otherwise, you talk like you all have a one-man show in Manhattan every week.

    • Roman

      In the studio, the light and the model are decided so much that any glass with a hole pressed down to 5.6 - 8 will give approximately the same result. I do not like idols, but in a sense you are right - the photographer took it, it is 80% of talent and 20% of technique. And of these 20% of equipment, at least half of the D3200 with a whale lens will provide, if everything else is equal.

  • Alexander

    Arkady, good hour! The question is off topic. But I think it will be interesting to many. Shooting with Canon EOS 600D. I bought it in 2013. Two days ago I changed the lens on the grass by the lake to take a macro. There was a gusty wind. When I changed the lens, it seemed to me that dust had flown into the camera. The camera itself has an automatic sensor cleaning function. Actually, I installed this option a long time ago. The next day I was shooting a landscape, I noticed that one distinct speck is visible in the viewing window, and a few more pieces, like with a dusty matrix or lens. But when I showed it, the monitor is clean. I cleaned the lenses a week ago. On all four lenses, it shows dust particles in the same place. The question is: why is the dust visible in the viewing window? As far as I understand, there is no dust on the matrix, where is it then and what to do in this case? Thanks in advance for your reply!

    • Alexey

      strange question)) we look at the picture

      • Alexander

        Alexey, if I disassembled the camera and knew its structure, I would understand where and what. and so, nothing is clear.

        • Alexey

          Well, it's much clearer that the picture is drawn)) all the main elements are there, and the path of light is shown.

    • Alexey

      and another picture

      • Alexander

        I understand that there is dust on the mirror?

        • Alexey

          dust can be on anything from the mirror and up
          mirror -> focusing screen -> pentaprism -> OVI lenses

          • Alexander

            Alexey, thanks! I figured it out, this is a focusing screen. It remains only to disassemble or change, change the order for a long time, probably I'll just disassemble and blow it with a pear.

            • Alexey

              it is important to remember that nothing can touch the PV. air can be blown, but without fanaticism.

    • Trueash

      The dust gets on the sensor in the last turn, because there is a shutter curtain in front of it, and a mirror in front of those. Take it for cleaning anyway, otherwise God forbid it gets into the curtains ...

    • Oleg

      If you see dust in the optical viewfinder, it is definitely not on the sensor, because the dust on the sensor cannot be seen in the viewfinder.

Add a comment

christening photographer price Photography for lovers

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2021

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2013/05/the-crop-identity/