ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore

Light, as usual, is the great equalizer. Larger sensors perform better when there is less of it. Other than that....

"Crop" sensors (misleading phrase) have wider DOF and in good light will get you closer to the subject with shorter lenses without the loss in resolution you will get from a crop, no matter the size sensor. Because of the wider DOF you may not need to stop down your lens as much to enhance focus, which helps offset the difference in low light performance. As for resolution...I really don't see much difference between 6, 8 or 10 MP, blown up to one to one, and doubt if there is much need for anything over 10 except maybe for super macro or astrophotography.

I shoot four thirds and APS-C and decided to keep both, for different purposes. Used to really pine away for full frame but will save my money for a used EM-5 instead.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

dustywing Loc: North East WI

Boy I hope people can understand this now.
The crop factor is crap. There has to be a better phrase.
I can understand them not coming out and say " Hey that $300. wide angle lens you just bought not as wide as you think.
When I shot film I bought a 28mm. Now my 18-105, the 18mm just about the same as my 28mm.

ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore

:thumbup:

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

This is the whole truth and why I use my 1.6 crop camera body when I feel that my subject is just a little out of reach for my FF. When cropped, I will still have 12MP with the crop body and when cropped with the ff I'm lucky to have 6MP left.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

The baseline is still 35mm film for measuring focal length.
So, it's really easy for us 4/3 and m4/3 owners...we just double the focal length to get an equivalent length in 35mm terms.

My lenses 4/3 lenses:
7-14mm f4 (14-28mm f/4)
8mm f3.5 (16mm f/3.5)
12-60mm f2.8-4 (24-120mm f2.8-4)
50mm f2 macro (100mm f2)
50-200mm f2.8-3.5 (100-400mm f2.8-3.5)
1.4 x converter (adds 40 % more focal length with one stop loss)

My m4/3 lenses
20mm f1.7 (40mm f1.7)
45mm f1.8 (90mm f1.8)

I used to own a 135-400mm, but found that it was way too much reach for what I normally shoot. Of course my shot of the moon at (1120mm–this is with the 1.4 added to it) looked pretty darn cool.

As you can tell from above, I'm pretty much covered for any shooting experience. I have lusted over the the little or big tuna (150mm f2 or 300mm f2.8) but will likely never have the funds to purchase).

One last thing to add...the native pixel dimensions on my cameras are:
E-5: 4032 x 3024 (12mpx)
EPM2: 4608 x 3456 (16mpx)

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I did that also. Couldn't figure out if I was right or wrong both times. I think the main discussion here is like arguing the classic angels on the head of a pin.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Only true as far as it goes. Given the same technology, larger Sensors definitely have the advantage in low light but in addition, they also outperform the smaller Sensor in every measure of IQ.

I say, given the same technology because it would be pointless to compare a modern crop Sensor with an older FF Sensor.

You have to define your terms better than that. For instance, if you simply switch a lens from a crop camera to a FF camera, the large Sensor would have the most DOF. Only by increasing the distance to the subject so that the framing is the same will the crop camera show more DOF. Of course, the perspective has changed and that extra subject distance has a stronger influence on DOF than does image enlargement. Whether or not the crop camera has sufficient resolution to demonstrate the difference is another matter.

In practice no one will choose to crop an image to get more reach, a FF user will simply swap to a longer lens to get the required framing. Only at extreme telephoto lengths is there an advantage in choosing a crop camera and it's not as simple as that either. Unless the Sensor density is substantially higher, the crop camera advantage may not be there in real terms.

To be clear on what I'm saying, I use two 24MP Sony cameras, the a77 and a99 for Aircraft and wildlife. The a77 has a crop factor of 1.5 so the telephoto reach advantage is the full 1.5x; a 300mm lens has the same FOV as a 450mm on the a99 and no loss of resolution at 24MP. The IQ is not the same but still adequate. Were I to use a 16MP Sony crop camera, the advantage would be much less and non existent with a 10MP camera. In the latter case, an image cropped in Post from the FF camera would have much better IQ and maybe better than one from the 16MP camera.

It's hard for me to imagine any circumstance where that would make any sense. DOF and focus are not the same thing and focus on the subject will not be enhanced by stopping down. Neither does stopping down affect the low light performance, you can't change the light flux by stopping down. The better performance of the large sensor derives from it's larger surface area capturing more light; more light equalling less noise, simple as that.

I would say there's quite a difference between a 6MP and a 10MP file and I definitely need more than10MP which isn't to say that it's wrong for you. If 10MP is all you need, then that's fine with me.

We all have different needs and aspirations and that's no bad thing.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Why does this make any difference?

Let me see I think 1,000 angles can dance on the head of a pin!

Peekayoh Loc: UK

I think it's a pretty good tag because it describes exactly what a 'crop' camera does. The diagram below shows that the smaller sensor 'crops' a smaller part out of the full frame image.

What I would say is that, if you never owned a film SLR or a FF DSLR, forget about equivalences and just get used to the lenses you have.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Depends on the size of the angels. Weather they are 18 megapixels or 24

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore

Those images would be true IF we were only using the lenses designed for "full frame" cameras. Today's digital lenses are designed to project image circles compatible with the different sized sensors. Bob Atkins helps to clear things up a bit. http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/crop_sensor_cameras_and_lenses.html

ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore

Another opinion from Admiring Light: http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/2/

"The Fallacy of Aperture Equivalence

While crop factor has a use simply to compare focal lengths between formats and such, the constant comparison of a smaller format lens to its full frame ‘equivalent’ aperture is largely unevenly applied and misunderstood. It’s often used to show that a smaller format is inferior or not capable of the same things as a larger format. In some cases, this usage is correct, but it is also nearly never used the other way.

I’ve heard many times “Yeah, your 75mm f/1.8 is crap – it’s like a 150mm f/3.6.” No, it’s not, it’s a 75mm lens with an f/1.8 aperture and a field of view that is the same as a 150mm lens on full frame.

What IS true is that the 75mm f/1.8 is not capable of the same ultra shallow depth of field as, say, something like the Sony Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 on full frame. However, this is essentially the ONLY way that it is inferior. It passes the same amount of light, and it exposes as an f/1.8 lens because it IS an f/1.8 lens. If I’ve chosen a smaller format system, I’m already OK with the fact that it doesn’t equal a full frame camera in the noise department, so there is no ‘aperture advantage’ after the fact. Those who harp on aperture equivalence as it relates to shallow depth of field also IGNORE all the BENEFITS to having more depth of field for the same aperture:

Times you WANT a little more depth of field than your lens can provide wide open. (portraits where you want more than one eyelash in focus; indoor travel photos like shooting inside a cathedral, etc). Often these situations are situations where a tripod is not allowed or not practical.
Studio work, where apertures are typically f/8 to f/11 for full frame users to get a person’s face completely in focus. With the smaller format, you can use strobes at 1/4 the power as the full frame user can, allowing for flashguns instead of studio strobes, or faster recycle for the same strobes.
Landscape photography when it’s windy, or you’re trying to stop motion – being able to shoot at f/8 rather than f/16 can be quite helpful.
Macro photography, where inherently deeper depth of field is most desirable, especially when lighting is problematic.

These situations make up a LOT of shooting. Now, when light is limited in any way, these advantages come up. Now, sure, you can up the ISO two stops on the full frame camera to compensate (or 1-1/3 stops when comparing to APS-C), but now, the full frame camera has just lost ALL of its image quality advantages, and you’re still stuck carrying the larger and more expensive gear.

When do you need to stop down indoors? Group shots, any time you want to get two people at different depths in the image in focus, indoor architecture shooting when traveling (most European cathedrals won’t let you use a tripod), etc.

Most advanced photographers using a smaller format understand the tradeoffs"

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

my $325 45mm 1.8 produces more than enough bokeh