Crop sensor...I just don't get it.
May 10, 2012 19:09:56 #
Things my MT taught me:
1. The Nikon crop sensor is about 23.7mm in length as opposed to a full frame's sensor 35mm. This is where the multiplication factor of 1.5 comes in.
2. The viewfinder on a crop sensor camera is smaller because of the smaller effective size of the camera lens that is being used. Even if an FX lens is being used, only the center portion of that lens shines (?) onto the sensor and through the viewfinder.
MT...does that say it correctly?
1. The Nikon crop sensor is about 23.7mm in length as opposed to a full frame's sensor 35mm. This is where the multiplication factor of 1.5 comes in.
2. The viewfinder on a crop sensor camera is smaller because of the smaller effective size of the camera lens that is being used. Even if an FX lens is being used, only the center portion of that lens shines (?) onto the sensor and through the viewfinder.
MT...does that say it correctly?
May 10, 2012 20:29:10 #
mdorn wrote:
quote=frederdane I'm wondering if people who post... (show quote)
Interesting thing to ponder. So, do you plan to keep track, the results might be interesting.
May 10, 2012 21:34:24 #
rpavich wrote:
Basically no matter what camera you slap a lens on... (show quote)
Awwwwww. I get it now. Finally!!! Thanks.
May 29, 2012 10:07:00 #
2th
Loc: Tehran
the reason that the normal lenses are getting expensive is that people thought when they buy a normal lens on a lets say crop factor 1.6 it makes them a portrait holder lens like 50 mm 1.4 becomes 80mm 1.4 a sharp portrait lens while the perspective does change and the angle of view becomes narrower.while it is not so . what did I say did it help ?
May 29, 2012 10:17:40 #
2th
Loc: Tehran
the depth of field remains the same .so it looks you just cropped a part of the picture. but a 90 mm or 105mm lens is different story.
May 29, 2012 10:20:35 #
2th wrote:
the reason that the normal lenses are getting expensive is that people thought when they buy a normal lens on a lets say crop factor 1.6 it makes them a portrait holder lens like 50 mm 1.4 becomes 80mm 1.4 a sharp portrait lens while the perspective does change and the angle of view becomes narrower.while it is not so . what did I say did it help ?
What the sensor will see with a 50mm is basically the same as a 75mm, or 80mm, lens on a full frame camera.
Jim D
May 29, 2012 13:47:36 #
oldtool2 wrote:
What the sensor will see with a 50mm is basically the same as a 75mm, or 80mm, lens on a full frame camera.
Jim D
2th wrote:
the reason that the normal lenses are getting expensive is that people thought when they buy a normal lens on a lets say crop factor 1.6 it makes them a portrait holder lens like 50 mm 1.4 becomes 80mm 1.4 a sharp portrait lens while the perspective does change and the angle of view becomes narrower.while it is not so . what did I say did it help ?
What the sensor will see with a 50mm is basically the same as a 75mm, or 80mm, lens on a full frame camera.
Jim D
If you put a 50 on a a full frame camera, it will 50 mm, yet on a cropped sensor it will be equivalent to a 75 or 80.
See for yourself at
http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/IMG/Images/Micro-Sites/Lens-Simulator/simulator.htm
You can choose your lens and either a cropped sensor camera or a full frame camera.
May 29, 2012 14:08:53 #
traveler90712 wrote:
quote=oldtool2 quote=2th the reason that the nor... (show quote)
I agree with you. We have been kicking this around for months off and on, and what we really have is a semantics issue. Technically, when I put my 17-40mm on my 7D, it is still a 17-40mm, but it sure as Hell looks like a 27-64mm to anyone but a blind person. That is why I usually use that lens on my 5D (Full Frame). When I am using a 70-200, I often put it on the 7D, because "in effect" it makes it a 112-320mm, which gives me more "apparent" range without using a teleconverter. I'm sure the view is not exactly like a 112-320mm (if there was such a thing) would look on a 35mm camera, but is is close enough for my purposes.
May 29, 2012 14:20:05 #
ThomasS wrote:
When I am using a 70-200, I often put it on the 7D, because "in effect" it makes it a 112-320mm, which gives me more "apparent" range without using a teleconverter. I'm sure the view is not exactly like a 112-320mm (if there was such a thing) would look on a 35mm camera, but is is close enough for my purposes.
When I am using a 70-200, I often put it on the 7D, because "in effect" it makes it a 112-320mm, which gives me more "apparent" range without using a teleconverter. I'm sure the view is not exactly like a 112-320mm (if there was such a thing) would look on a 35mm camera, but is is close enough for my purposes.
Your 70-200 on the 7D has the same angle of view as a 112-320 on a full frame camera and the depth of field of the 70-200. Close enough works for me too!
May 29, 2012 14:42:53 #
GoofyNewfie wrote:
quote=ThomasS br br When I am using a 70-200,... (show quote)
Thank you! The nice thing is that you can easily adjust the depth of field. I always knew you were a logical sort of guy.
May 29, 2012 15:21:49 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.