Sunday, December 06, 2009

Why I Sometimes Shoot With a Cropped Sensor Camera

I have two camera bodies in my bag: A Canon 5D and a Canon 20D. As a rule, the 5D is my primary camera and the 20D serves as my backup. That aside, I sometimes decide to shoot with my 20D.

We all know the 5D sports a full-frame sensor on board while the 20D, like all Canon's double-digit-DSLR-cams, feature 1.6x cropped-sensors. The exception is the new 7D: Single-digit nomenclature yet also with a 1.6x cropped sensor.

When I go with my 20D, it's not to obtain further "reach" in an optical sense, i.e., to somehow magically turn 100mm into 160mm. That doesn't happen. You don't suddenly turn a lens into a longer lens because you're using a cropped-sensor camera. No-sir-ee. Technically and optically, you don't get more "reach" with a 1.6x cropped sensor. It only seems like you do because of the crop factor. But the fact that it "seems" like you do is what causes me to, sometimes, reach for my 20D.

When I go with my 20D, it's also not because I suddenly decide I want less pixels capturing the reflected light. More pixels can be a good thing but pixels aren't everything. For the most part, the 20D has sufficient pixels for most of the work I perform. Yeah, the 5D has a superior processor and other technology that trump the 20D but that's getting way too technical for me to write about and, frankly, those aren't huge factors when it comes to capturing good images, especially when shooting the kind of stuff I normally shoot.

Back to "it seems like" you get more reach...

While, technically, more reach from your glass does not happen with a cropped-sensor camera, what you see in the viewfinder appears as if you do. Sure, I could later crop an image captured with a full-frame sensor to match the crop obtained with a 1.6x sensor but cropping in post is not always the same as framing in production.

I prefer to frame my images, when shooting, in a way that most closely resembles what the finished image will appear like, composition-wise. Perhaps it's a product of my many years shooting with video cameras? You know, where there is no cropping later on, in post. Regardless, I try to avoid excessive "loose" framing other than with a nod towards text and graphical elements that might later be used with the images in ads, or for DVD cover art, or for other uses.

I prefer framing in-camera, I suppose, because there's something spontaneous, something in the moment, something in the way the model moves me that affects my framing and composition. (Sorry if that vaguely sounded like the lyrics of a Beatles tune.)

Often, there's a rhythm a photographer and model get into when shooting. I'm fairly sure many of you have experienced this. It's an awesome thing when it happens! Maybe not as awesome as sex but pretty cool, nonetheless. And that rhythm, leastwise for me, affects my framing and composition. If, instead, I simply relied on post (only) for cropping my way to finished composition, that composition might sometimes, certainly not always, suffer as a result. Why? In post, the rhythm with the model no longer exists and that something that was special in the moment is now history in terms of how it might have affected my framing and composition... if that makes sense.

The gratuitious eye candy at the top, with me sitting between her legs (great seating, btw) and her shining a light on me, is Kayla. I've probably posted this pic before but, due to my recent move, I'm still living out of boxes and my desktop computer, with its hard-drives containing so many images I've shot, remains unavailable to me.

16 comments:

James said...

typo: "effects my framing" should be "affects my framing".

jimmyd said...

@James,

D'oh!@#

Thanks. I hate when I make dumb-shit mistakes like that! Worse when I don't catch them myself!

Thanks again! :-)

Javier G said...

What do you mean except the 7d? the 7d sports a 1.6 APS-C sensor like the xxD series cameras...

jimmyd said...

@Javier,

Yeah, I know. Actually, that's what I was trying to say but, apparently, I didn't word it very well. I've edited for better uderstanding. Hopefully, it makes more sense now; what I was trying to say, that is.

Thanks, dude!

:-)

John said...

Your comments remind me of an article a long time ago in which the author described visiting a cemetery and being overwhelmed with the image possibilities. He shot a single frame, and then enlarged and cropped a small image into a graphic image.

I tried that many times, but never successfully. If I can't see something close to an acceptable crop, I rarely shoot. Just not creative enough, I guess.

Von R Buzard said...

Man, I just love the photos you post here. Most Excellent!

Ken said...

The 1.5 crop/multipler actually is longer "reach" because you're mapping something into a fixed rectangular area of pixels. If you took a FF image and cropped, you'd get the same image but less pixels. More pixels = bigger enlargements, so I'd have to say it's virtually more reach :-)

If we were shooting film (assuming we haven't hit the film "pixel" limit, we could argue validly about the fake "reach"...

jimmyd said...

@Ken,

Okay. But it doesn't increase optical reach. Regardless, my reasons for using the 20D (when I do so) remain the same, whether the "reach" is real or not. :-)

Anonymous said...

Ken,

I think your reasoning is flawed. Full frame sensors have more pixels so when you "crop it" you are back to the same amount.

It is a cropping factor, not a magnification factor.

Anonymous said...

Hey let's test this idea. Jimmy, shoot a full frame image of a painting or poster with both of your cameras and see how big the files are?

jimmyd said...

@Anon,

I already know which will be a bigger file: The image shot with my 5D.

BTW, file size isn't just about pixels. I could shoot an image with my 20D that would be a bigger file than one shot with my 5D.

Beyond pixel count, file size also has much to do with the complexity of an image, i.e., how much detail is being captured.

An image of a blank, white wall, shot with my 5D, will yield a smaller file than an image, shot with my 20D, of thousands of people sitting in the stands at a sporting event.

Anonymous said...

That is why I said shoot a picture of a picture or poster, so the image info would be the same.

jimmyd said...

@Anon,

That is why I said shoot a picture of a picture or poster, so the image info would be the same.

I understood that. But if I shoot the identical thing, framed the same way, I already know the file size of the 5D will be larger because of the pixel count on the sensor. I've, pretty much, done this experiment before with a model in front of the same BG. 5D had a larger file. The file size would only be bigger, with the 20D, if whatever I shot was significantly more complex in terms of detail, color, contrast.

Anonymous said...

Shoot a loose frame and crop it to 1.6 and then compare the pixel count.

jimmyd said...

@Anon,

Ahh! Now I get what you're saying. Sorry. Yeah. I'll try that sometime soon. :)

Ashley Karyl said...

My main camera is a 1DsII but I still have a 20D, though I use it very very rarely these days and I much prefer working with full frame cameras. I'll never regret purchasing the 20D though because it has paid for itself countless times over with image sales.