On: Crop Factors and Zooming: In a discussion about cameras differences, one comment was: Many users think that the crop factor on a four-thirds camera allows more zoom. The truth is...

ygelman Loc: new -- North of Poughkeepsie!

In a discussion about cameras differences, one comment was:

Quote:

I have the 7D and 5D III. . . I also like the crop factor of the 7D when I shoot wildlife that I know is nesting a little farther out than I would like to shoot with a full frame. . . . So I use the 5D for some wildlife when it's closer up. . .

Many users think that the crop factor on a four-thirds camera allows more zoom.

The truth is, however, that you can get exactly that same image when using a full frame camera if you remove the outer portions and enlarge the rest.

A four-thirds camera loses (or, crops away) information that would be available on a full frame camera with the same strength lens.

The main difference between the images from the two cameras is that the four-thirds camera can't get as wide an angle as the full frame.

sbesaw Loc: Boston

ygelman wrote:

In a discussion about cameras differences, one com... (show quote)

I have a 7-14 Panasonic lens on my O-MD E-M5 that is equivalent (14-28) to my 14-24 2.8 on my D3s and D600

ygelman Loc: new -- North of Poughkeepsie!

sbesaw said: "I have a 7-14 Panasonic lens on my O-MD E-M5 that is equivalent (14-28) to my 14-24 2.8 on my D3s and D600"

I don't understand your point. I implied that your O-MD camera cannot go as wide as a 7mm on a full frame.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Yes, but given a 24 megapixel FF camera and a 24 megapixel crop camera using the same lens and MM I don't lose any megapixels on the crop camera photograph as I would lose on the FF camera photograph when cropped.

ygelman wrote:

In a discussion about cameras differences, one com... (show quote)

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

No, you don't get exactly that same image.
Assume both cameras are 18 megapixel.
The image from the crop frame camera is made up of more pixels than the cropped image from the full frame.

ygelman wrote:

In a discussion about cameras differences, one com... (show quote)

ygelman Loc: new -- North of Poughkeepsie!

Brucej67 wrote:

Yes, but given a 24 megapixel FF camera and a 24 megapixel crop camera using the same lens and MM I don't lose any megapixels on the crop camera photograph as I would lose on the FF camera photograph when cropped.

Now we're getting into finer points.

The pixels on the crop camera in your example would be smaller than the pixels on the full frame.

Although the number of pixels in the image is smaller on the full frame, after enlarging the image quality is probably equal to (or maybe better?) than with the crop camera.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I have Nikon D800, D2X, D7000 and D7100 and use FF lenses on all my cameras. The crop frame does give me more reach without having to crop as in the D800 and in tight situations the DX cameras provide better images.

ygelman wrote:

Now we're getting into finer points.

The pixels on the crop camera in your example would be smaller than the pixels on the full frame.

Although the number of pixels in the image is smaller on the full frame, after enlarging the image quality is probably equal to (or maybe better?) than with the crop camera.

ygelman Loc: new -- North of Poughkeepsie!

lighthouse wrote:

No, you don't get exactly that same image.
Assume both cameras are 18 megapixel.
The image from the crop frame camera is made up of more pixels than the cropped image from the full frame.

OK, here's a technical reference, leading to a much deeper discussion. I take back my claim of "exactly" the same, but still maintain there's no "zoom advantage" with crop cameras but there is still a "wide angle loss".

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/#sensorconstant
and here is a quote from it, but note that it begins with same sized sensor rather than same number of pixels:

"The argument for smaller pixels goes like this. Smaller pixels in the same sized sensor record finer details. You can always average pixels to get back to effectively larger pixels. In high signal parts of an image this argument is correct except for one factor: smaller pixels have lower dynamic range.... If your smaller pixel blow the highlights, you have lost all the image detail. But if you don't blow the highlights, smaller pixels are better when you have plenty of light. The noise in the image will be dominated by photon noise (the best one can do) and you can in software trade noise for resolution. And by averaging pixels, one can improve the dynamic range. So higher megapixel cameras have merit."

sbesaw Loc: Boston

ygelman wrote:

sbesaw said: "I have a 7-14 Panasonic lens on my O-MD E-M5 that is equivalent (14-28) to my 14-24 2.8 on my D3s and D600"

I don't understand your point. I implied that your O-MD camera cannot go as wide as a 7mm on a full frame.

I'm not surprised> Please point me to 7mm Full Frame lenses. I am not familiar with all manufacturers but as far as Nikon goes their widest Full Frame (FX) lens is 14mm. Their Full Frame Fisheye is 16mm.

I don't understand your point. Where can I go get 7mm on Full Frame and for how much? May have been some specialty lenses but so expensive that few can afford them.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

The 7-14mm on a 4/3 is with a crop factor of 2 so it is the equivalent field of view as a fullframe 14-28mm is what he meant.That is why he made the comparison to the Nikon 14-24mm.

sbesaw wrote:

I'm not surprised> Please point me to 7mm Full Frame lenses. I am not familiar with all manufacturers but as far as Nikon goes their widest Full Frame (FX) lens is 14mm. Their Full Frame Fisheye is 16mm.

I don't understand your point. Where can I go get 7mm on Full Frame and for how much? May have been some specialty lenses but so expensive that few can afford them.

sbesaw Loc: Boston

lighthouse wrote:

The 7-14mm on a 4/3 is with a crop factor of 2 so it is the equivalent field of view as a full frame 14-28mm is what he meant. That is why he made the comparison to the Nikon 14-24mm.

LH, not sure who you are replying to but OP stated "I don't understand your point. I implied that your O-MD camera cannot go as wide as a 7mm on a full frame." My point is who has 7mm on FF? Nikon current widest is 14mm for non distorted and 16mm for fisheye. So the 14mm on FF is roughly equivalent in field of view to the 7mm on micro 4:3 unless I am missing something and that wouldn't be a first :D :D

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Woops, my bad. Sorry.

sbesaw wrote:

LH, not sure who you are replying to but OP stated "I don't understand your point. I implied that your O-MD camera cannot go as wide as a 7mm on a full frame." My point is who has 7mm on FF? Nikon current widest is 14mm for non distorted and 16mm for fisheye. So the 14mm on FF is roughly equivalent in field of view to the 7mm on micro 4:3 unless I am missing something and that wouldn't be a first :D :D

sbesaw Loc: Boston

lighthouse wrote:

Woops, my bad. Sorry.

No worries, it gets confusing. I think I once replied to myself and contradicted me. :-D

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

sbesaw wrote:

No worries, it gets confusing. I think I once replied to myself and contradicted me. :-D

LOL, I like that!

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I'd still prefer to take my epm2 with my oly SHG 7-14 f/4 (with adapter) on any hike rather than lug a full framer with an equivalent lens...heck, I'll even toss my 20mm, 45mm in my coat pocket, just in case I need a little zoom.

Now if I were just driving around in my car...I may change my mind...nahhhh.

http://douthittfamily.smugmug.com/2013/January-2013/i-GQqGstC/0/M/P1125436-20130112-M.jpg