Crop Factor
Jun 11, 2014 10:14:14 #
LFingar wrote:
Your original question was not about the ability to frame, and using different shooting ratios definitely crops the sensor. Cropping the photo itself in PP is not something hidden in the camera, unless there are cameras where cropping can be done in-camera. I have no idea if there are.
Sure. Putting a DX lens on a D800 will automatically change the sensor area to the DX format. Instant in-camera cropping, but why not frame or crop in the PP so you can determine the best framing? Granted, when ever you crop, you reduce the pixel resolution by the same ratio, so there is some limit to how much any photo can be cropped though before pixelization begins to occur.
Jun 11, 2014 10:56:55 #
singleviking wrote:
Sure. Putting a DX lens on a D800 will automatically change the sensor area to the DX format. Instant in-camera cropping, but why not frame or crop in the PP so you can determine the best framing? Granted, when ever you crop, you reduce the pixel resolution by the same ratio, so there is some limit to how much any photo can be cropped though before pixelization begins to occur.
I shoot Canon so I wasn't considering the Nikon DX/FX capability, but it is not variable as you mentioned in your OP and the only reason I can think of to use that feature is to be able to make use of a type of lens that, with Canon anyway, would be useless on a FF. As you mentioned, cropping in PP is a better option then using a DX on a full frame.
BTW, cropping has no effect on pixel density. The only time pixelization becomes a factor is when the photo is enlarged. Print it in the reduced size that cropping creates and the resolution is unchanged.
Jun 11, 2014 11:06:16 #
LFingar wrote:
I shoot Canon so I wasn't considering the Nikon DX... (show quote)
The reason a DX lens would be used on a FF camera is that the OP already owns them and does not want to reinvest in FX lenses. Also, technically cropping does not change the pixel density but in practice the process is to crop and then enlarge to the original image size.
Jun 11, 2014 11:23:20 #
Eagle2352
Loc: Oxford, Ga
Not going to a lot to conversation but my oly e m10 offers different aPect ratios but have not investigated them as of yet any comment as to usefulness
Jun 11, 2014 12:48:48 #
joer wrote:
Aspect ratios is the correct term. Couldn't think of it at the time.
...I'm doing some printing, and for this, changing aspect ratio is a must for me. I've fallen in love with the 8x24 look...it just seems to me we're in a prison of sorts, imposed by someone designing the initial 35mm SLR's, that is so ubiquitous as to be boring. The sameness of 2x3 is easily changed, however, with today's equipment and post-processing options (not that you couldn't do it pre-digital...it's just alot easier). My D800 allows for a high density pixel count that is ultimately croppable...and even my newer D4 gives me enough room...both of these bodies allow me to engage a crop factor feature, too, but that's not the point. Aspect ratio is what it's all about.
Jun 11, 2014 12:57:29 #
mikecanant
Loc: Texas
"Did you know that hidden in every camera there is a crop factor and it is infinitely variable up to a point." By definition, it can't be infinitely variable and up to a point. Infinite means without limit! If it is only variable up to a point, then it is not infinitely variable.
Jun 11, 2014 13:00:46 #
joer wrote:
Did you know that hidden in every camera there is a crop factor and it is infinitely variable up to a point.
No such thing as "crop factor". Only different sensor sizes.
Jun 11, 2014 13:30:07 #
mikecanant wrote:
Infinite means without limit! If it is only variable up to a point, then it is not infinitely variable.
I like the way you think. Welcome to the Forum!
Jun 11, 2014 13:40:52 #
joer wrote:
Did you know that hidden in every camera there is a crop factor and it is infinitely variable up to a point.
Of course not, because for so many reasons it is not true.
The main point is that a camera sensor has a single crop factor, and that is the ratio of the width of a full frame 35mm format sensor to that camera's sensor.
Jun 11, 2014 13:41:00 #
chasgroh wrote:
...it just seems to me we're in a prison of sorts, imposed by someone designing the initial 35mm SLR's, that is so ubiquitous as to be boring.
I've never seen any logic in that the "standard" print sizes, 4X6, 5X7, 8X10, 11X14, are all different shapes. Easy to accommodate by allowing extra image space around the edges and cropping, but then why be constrained by off-the-shelf print, mat and frame sizes?
Jun 11, 2014 13:42:26 #
Hey! He is just yanking your chains because he has a known bug-a-boo about the term crop factor.
Jun 11, 2014 15:06:26 #
Jun 11, 2014 15:53:21 #
banjonut wrote:
No such thing as "crop factor". Only different sensor sizes.
The OP mentioned putting a DX lens on a FF. The sensor size doesn't change but a cropped image is produced. In that case, at least, there is a resulting crop factor. Otherwise, as you say, it's just different sensor sizes, although, for most of us, "crop factor", or "cropped sensor", is a handy reference term, regardless of it's accuracy.
Jun 11, 2014 18:23:47 #
skiman wrote:
I just did a track meet and it does make the difference in high jump, long jump, and crossing the finish line. I wish I had a D4s with 12fps but 6.5k is not in my budget.
........and you won't find 12fps on the D4s! You can get that and more on the Nikon 1 J4 (20fps).
Jun 11, 2014 20:30:50 #
speters wrote:
........and you won't find 12fps on the D4s! You can get that and more on the Nikon 1 J4 (20fps).
Close though. D4s does do 11 fps at full resolution. Not sure about only JPEG though.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.