Typically bigger is better. This is not always the case, although size does matter. Larger “full frame” sensors will no doubtably produce a file that is bursting with info and quality. However, depending on your particular photographic budget and application, bigger is not always better. Take for example a photographer who primarily shoots fast action sports and wildlife. His needs will be dramatically different than those of say a landscape or wedding photographer. The vast majority of sports shooters shoot on a “crop” sensor body like the Canon 1D Mark IV or the 7D. These small sensor bodies have a greater advantage over their big brother full frame counterparts. A crop sensor utilizes a significantly smaller, lighter mirror system, which enables the camera to have a dramatically faster rate of fire. The long and short of shooting a crop sensor body is this. With a smaller sensor the cameras mirror adds a magnification of 1.6x (APS-C) or 1.3x (APS-H) to the overall image that is captured. This has two effects on your final image that will differ slightly from the same image if shot on a full frame sensor. With the magnification on a crop body the effective focal length of your lens changes in addition to the depth of field. Using a lens like the Canon EF 24-70 2.8L on a camera like the 7D will change the effective focal length of the lens to the equivalent of a 38-112. What you gain in added focal length you lose in depth of field. When shooting on a crop sensor your depth of field becomes shallower. Example: When shooting at 70mm with a subject distance of 5’ and an aperture of f.4 you total DOF is 3” when shooting on a 7D. Given the same settings on a 5D Mark II your DOF is 4”.

Canon Crop Factor

Depth Of Field Comparison:

7D

5ft   @  f4  3″     f8   6″

10ft @  f4  11″        f8   1’11″

20ft @  f4  3’10″     f8   7’10″

5D

5ft   @  f4  4″        f8   9″

10ft @  f4  1’6″     f8   3’1″

20ft @  f4  6’1″     f8   13’1″

Let’s step back a moment now and turn the tables a bit. So at this point you might be thinking that the crop option sounds pretty good. They are cheaper, lighter, and give you a little extra length out of your lens. There’s a catch though, and that comes at the cost of image size and quality. A crop sensor packing 18 megapixels will have exceptional image quality for sure. However, more megapixels isn’t always the key to a better quality image. Take for example the Nikon D3. Its a 12 megapixel full frame camera and its image quality and high ISO sensitivity is incredible. That’s because the individual pixels are larger and have more room to “breath”. This in turn creates less “noise”  in your images across the ISO scale. So buyers beware; more megapixels does not necessarily mean a better camera. Example in point. My 40D at ISO 1600 is hardly acceptable by my standards however put up against the original 5D at ISO 1600 the results are passable. This is because the larger sensor in the 5D is able to capture and process light more effectively than the smaller sensor in the 40D. Canon and Nikon alike have come a long way with their chip technologies and the capabilities of the current DSLR’s and now HDSLR’s are incredible. At this stage in the game anyone looking to purchase a new camera will be in good standings because large or small the technology that is being used in cameras today is breathtaking. The most important factors to consider when investing in a new body are form and function. The T3i,60D, and 7D are all really great cameras all built off the same core sensor technology. However, they each have their own set of advantages and disadvantages, it is important to do your research before you make the commitment to buy.  The body is just one piece of the puzzle. The next topic we will talk about is going to be lens choice. Stay tuned for more on that in a future post.

The age old question to be answered is what’s better JPEG or RAW? Why one over the other? Some will argue that RAW is the only option. Why not take advantage of having a larger file that’s going to yield more information to manipulate in post? Simply put, some times its just not necessary. Don’t get me wrong shooting in camera RAW is an excellent choice. To be honest with you I shoot almost exclusively in RAW simply because I come from a train of though that more is better. However there are drawbacks to shooting in RAW over JPEG.

Shooting RAW is much like shooting traditional film. There is an exposure made on the image plane of your cameras sensor. That image is then shipped off to your “film canister” or memory card to await further processing. Once your images are downloaded they need to be developed much like a roll of film. Within this development process there are a number of variables that need to be addressed. Enter the Adobe Camera RAW image editor. This is where the development truly takes place. In a RAW image editor you have complete control over all of the various exposure related adjustments. You have the ability to manipulate the preset white balance of the image, the clarity and sharpness, and the overall exposure. Keep in mind all of these adjustments are global and effect the entire image. Once the basic overall adjustments are locked down its time to start manipulating you final image. This is where a program like Photoshop comes in handy. Using an image editor like Photoshop gives the user the ability to make both global and local adjustments. The Camera RAW Editor is a lot like the chemical process of exposing film. Its precisely controlled and is done across the whole roll (or single image in the case of digital). Moving from there into an Image Editor like Photoshop you then begin the process of localized final adjustments, which prepare the image for print. This process is very similar to being in a traditional darkroom environment where you are exposing your image onto photographic paper using an enlarger. The benefit when it comes to digital in this case is that your results are repeatable and much more predictable. Sounds quick and easy right?

Bring on the JPEG. Shooting a JPEG can be equated to a Polaroid. The moment you release the shutter the image is captured, processed, and ready to go. So what is it that makes a JPEG different from a RAW file? Everything! With a JPEG the camera dose all the work. Every variable is noted and accounted for from the contrast and sharpening to the white balance. This is why if you shoot in both JPEG and RAW you will notice a visible difference between the two files, often times preferring the look of the JPEG. Thats because the camera has done all the work for you and the image is more or less ready to print.

Every camera that has the ability to shoot both JPEG and RAW will have a basic preset image adjustment that can be changed from the camera menu. On the Canon platform these adjustments are made within the “red” menus and are adjustable through the “Picture Style” option. The important thing to understand about “Picture Style” settings is that those presets are only applied in-camera to images that are shot as JPEG’s. When shooting in RAW the camera bypasses all preset adjustments with the exception of your white balance settings to give you a completely raw and unprocessed image.

So now the question becomes when do you shoot JPEG or RAW. It really depends on what you’re shooting and your personal style. If the goal is quick turnaround time then JPEG might be a viable option. If you are looking to make poster sized prints then you might consider RAW for the increase in image information. Regardless of the format you choose it is important to consider two things. How will the images be used now and how will they be used in the future. If you’re shooting snap shots of your kids soccer game or you’re adding to your fine art portfolio the format in which you choose to record these events can have a great impact on the final results.