Does Panasonic FZ1000 have a cropped sensor? I know that Canon Rebels have a 1.6X cropped sensor, and my Panasonic GX85 has a 2X sensor. But does the FZ1000 (25-400mm) bridge camera...

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

I know that Canon Rebels have a 1.6X cropped sensor, and my Panasonic GX85 has a 2X sensor. But does the FZ1000 (25-400mm) bridge camera utilize a cropped sensor, or is the 25-400mm exactly that.....as it would be on a full frame camera or 35mm camera? I know that the FZ1000 has a full 1" sensor if that's important to you.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Yes, it has a Sensor size‎: ‎116.16mm (13.20mm x 8.80mm)
--Bob

BobT wrote:

I know that Canon Rebels have a 1.6X cropped sensor, and my Panasonic GX85 has a 2X sensor. But does the FZ1000 (25-400mm) bridge camera utilize a cropped sensor, or is the 25-400mm exactly that.....as it would be on a full frame camera or 35mm camera? I know that the FZ1000 has a full 1" sensor if that's important to you.

JPL

BobT wrote:

I know that Canon Rebels have a 1.6X cropped sensor, and my Panasonic GX85 has a 2X sensor. But does the FZ1000 (25-400mm) bridge camera utilize a cropped sensor, or is the 25-400mm exactly that.....as it would be on a full frame camera or 35mm camera? I know that the FZ1000 has a full 1" sensor if that's important to you.

Yes, the 1" sensor is a 2.7X crop sensor.

cedymock Loc: Irmo, South Carolina

Sensor Size. A full frame sensor is the size of 35mm film which is 36 X 24mm. I understand your question because all specifications online don't use the words crop sensor for the FZ1000.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

BobT wrote:

I know that Canon Rebels have a 1.6X cropped sensor, and my Panasonic GX85 has a 2X sensor. But does the FZ1000 (25-400mm) bridge camera utilize a cropped sensor, or is the 25-400mm exactly that.....as it would be on a full frame camera or 35mm camera? I know that the FZ1000 has a full 1" sensor if that's important to you.

You lens is (I believe) a 9-147mm lens, which after the crop factor of 2.72x is applied gives you the 35mm EQUIVALENT of a 25-400mm lens. If it were ACTUALLY a 400mm lens it would be 3-4 times as large as it is now.
(Exact focal lengths of your lens are usually listed somewhere on the lens portion of your camera, not just the advertised equivalents.)

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I wonder if we photographers will ever adopt "field of view" in degrees instead of relying on 35mm equivalent field of view in millimeters.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Bill, I'm a bit confused by your question. Field of view is degrees. The size of the sensitive surface is a 35mm frame. These are two different items.

The field of view is the angle a particular lens can "see". It's actually a cone. Within that cone is a 3 dimensional scene which is, by projection, mapped onto a 2 dimensional surface. The size of the photosensitive surface. The "field of view" is already expressed in degrees.
--Bob

bsprague wrote:

I wonder if we photographers will ever adopt "field of view" in degrees instead of relying on 35mm equivalent field of view in millimeters.

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

I must agree that it would be nice to talk "focal length" without having to qualify with "35mm equivalency". So my FZ1000 says on the outside of the lens 25mm-400mm, which is exactly what it is after having taken the cropping issue into account. So why couldn't Panasonic take their 100-300mm lens (used on my Pan. GX85)and print onto it 200-600mm instead; since that is how the camera sees it?

repleo Loc: Boston

rmalarz wrote:

Bill, I'm a bit confused by your question. Field of view is degrees. The size of the sensitive surface is a 35mm frame. These are two different items.

The field of view is the angle a particular lens can "see". It's actually a cone. Within that cone is a 3 dimensional scene which is, by projection, mapped onto a 2 dimensional surface. The size of the photosensitive surface. The "field of view" is already expressed in degrees.
--Bob

I think what dsprague meant was 35mm equivalent focal length. I'm sure you knew what he meant and I suppose it was appropriate to correct him. However, I think the point is, wouldn't we all be better off if we referred to lenses by their 'field of view' instead of focal length and cut out all of this 'equivalent' and crop factor business. I can understand how those who grew up with film SLR's think of field of view in terms of focal length, but field o view would be much more universal across all of the different formats and sensor sizes. It would take some getting used to, but would make life so much easier for newcomers - and old timers once they got used to it.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

rmalarz wrote:

Bill, I'm a bit confused by your question. Field of view is degrees. The size of the sensitive surface is a 35mm frame. These are two different items.

The field of view is the angle a particular lens can "see". It's actually a cone. Within that cone is a 3 dimensional scene which is, by projection, mapped onto a 2 dimensional surface. The size of the photosensitive surface. The "field of view" is already expressed in degrees.
--Bob

Through my 400mm lens I think I get a field of view of (about) 3 degrees which is what a Nikon 800mm gets. So instead of saying my Panasonic lens has a "35mm full frame equivalent field of view equal to 800mm" it would be more logical to me to say I'm using a "3 degree" lens.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

bsprague wrote:

I wonder if we photographers will ever adopt "field of view" in degrees instead of relying on 35mm equivalent field of view in millimeters.

I don’t think so......

SteveR Loc: Michigan

BobT wrote:

I must agree that it would be nice to talk "focal length" without having to qualify with "35mm equivalency". So my FZ1000 says on the outside of the lens 25mm-400mm, which is exactly what it is after having taken the cropping issue into account. So why couldn't Panasonic take their 100-300mm lens (used on my Pan. GX85)and print onto it 200-600mm instead; since that is how the camera sees it?

Because a 100-300mm focal length lens is always a 100-300mm focal length lens. It always "projects" the image that a 100-300mm lens would project. It's not the lenses fault that the sensor doesn't capture the entire image. What if it were used on a different camera with a different sensor? Understanding the crop factor may be one of the first challenging things that a new photographer needs to grasp, but once the light goes on all the misconceptions are cleared away. That's how it was with me. There is, for one thing, no "lens equivalency." That may be a salesperson's gimmick, but it has nothing to do with photography. That extra "reach" that a crop sensor supposedly provides is merely because the camera crops the field of view. Nothing that can't be done in post processing. However, it can come in handy at times. It doesn't, though, actually make anything "bigger." It the lens were actually equivalent to a 450mm lens it would make things BIGGER. It doesn't.

epd1947

BobT wrote:

I know that Canon Rebels have a 1.6X cropped sensor, and my Panasonic GX85 has a 2X sensor. But does the FZ1000 (25-400mm) bridge camera utilize a cropped sensor, or is the 25-400mm exactly that.....as it would be on a full frame camera or 35mm camera? I know that the FZ1000 has a full 1" sensor if that's important to you.

The FZ1000 has a 1" sensor - the crop factor for that size sensor is 2.7

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

I may still be a bit confused. I have a FZ1000 with a 2.7 crop factor and a Panasonic GX85 with a 2X factor. So are you telling me that an object shot at the same tele range on either camera will appear the same size? For example a shot of a deer taken with the FZ1000 at 300mm, and the CX85 with 300mm lens at 300mm will appear the same size if made on equal sized print? A basic reason for my asking this question in the first place was to determine which camera would be better served for distant wildlife for upcoming trip in Yellowstone.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

BobT wrote:

I may still be a bit confused. I have a FZ1000 wi... (show quote)

That should be the case, as this range of camera rarely has the actual focal length quoted. The manufacturer always gives the equivalent.