Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Crop Factor TRUTH: Do you need Full Frame?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 next>>
Feb 9, 2019 14:36:00   #
gwilliams6 (a regular here)
 
Warning, some math discussed here, but a fairly entertaining discussion with image examples. Tony Northrup has a scientific background so that comes into play somewhat here. What are your thoughts ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi_CkZ0sGAw&fbclid=IwAR22nBmDxB3VfALBa-IWl-2WY_k1BGj0YXTrBoz538SjerBfZugk_OcaSHo

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 15:05:03   #
robertjerl (a regular here)
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
Warning, some math discussed here, but a fairly entertaining discussion with image examples. Tony Northrup has a scientific background so that comes into play somewhat here. What are your thoughts ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi_CkZ0sGAw&fbclid=IwAR22nBmDxB3VfALBa-IWl-2WY_k1BGj0YXTrBoz538SjerBfZugk_OcaSHo


Different techniques for each size sensor to get the same result. Yes, a good crop sensor often puts as many or more pixels on a subject, but it is a smaller over all subject area than the FF. There are still uses where I will prefer to go for the FF or the APS-C as my choice. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. You can get by and do an excellent job with either one or the other but in my case I can afford to own both, so I do.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 15:06:04   #
CHG_CANON (a regular here)
 
Seems you need a reminder ....

Myths about full-frame cameras

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 15:06:18   #
John_F (a regular here)
 
Wonder if what Tony said has been reduced to a written article. The spoken words come too fast and you can't stop and consult other material. And of course reading is more my style than listening. Sigh.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 15:10:42   #
Blurryeyed (a regular here)
 
I liked the part where he explained how the crop factor effects backgrounds and the simple math used to compute f/stops to get the same results using different equipment. I still think that even after seeing his video that full frames handle noise and dynamic range a bit better, but maybe I am wrong, I can tell you that I was never impressed by the ISO performance of my 7DII that I no longer have.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 15:32:31   #
BebuLamar (a regular here)
 
It's OK. Nothing news. He blamed Thomas Edison for the FF format which is wrong. Edison didn't use that format. His camera would have frame size closer to APS-C.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 15:33:43   #
ken_stern
 
The ONLY reason I own what you call a "full frame" (24x36) camera is at the time I purchased my 1st DSLR I had already purchased the majority of my current lenses -- I did not want to compromise the angle of view of my lenses by mounting them to a smaller sensor camera

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 15:35:25   #
BebuLamar (a regular here)
 
ken_stern wrote:
The ONLY reason I own what you call a "full frame" (24x36) camera is at the time I purchased my 1st DSLR I had already purchased the majority of my current lenses -- I did not want to compromise the angle of view of my lenses by mounting them to a smaller sensor camera


Same for me! I didn't buy any lenses when I switched from film to digital. All my lenses work the same on either film or digital.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 15:39:00   #
Architect1776 (a regular here)
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
Warning, some math discussed here, but a fairly entertaining discussion with image examples. Tony Northrup has a scientific background so that comes into play somewhat here. What are your thoughts ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi_CkZ0sGAw&fbclid=IwAR22nBmDxB3VfALBa-IWl-2WY_k1BGj0YXTrBoz538SjerBfZugk_OcaSHo



| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 15:39:10   #
Bill_de (a regular here)
 
John_F wrote:
Wonder if what Tony said has been reduced to a written article. The spoken words come too fast and you can't stop and consult other material. And of course reading is more my style than listening. Sigh.


You can pause and restart videos all you want. Consult other materials and then go back to it.

---

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 15:44:24   #
BebuLamar (a regular here)
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
Warning, some math discussed here, but a fairly entertaining discussion with image examples. Tony Northrup has a scientific background so that comes into play somewhat here. What are your thoughts ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi_CkZ0sGAw&fbclid=IwAR22nBmDxB3VfALBa-IWl-2WY_k1BGj0YXTrBoz538SjerBfZugk_OcaSHo


Please give us a break! You put a warning on something with only multiplication and division. UHH's should all know those things.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 16:47:59   #
PHRubin (a regular here)
 
ken_stern wrote:
The ONLY reason I own what you call a "full frame" (24x36) camera is at the time I purchased my 1st DSLR I had already purchased the majority of my current lenses -- I did not want to compromise the angle of view of my lenses by mounting them to a smaller sensor camera


FF lenses work fine on APS-C cameras if you know the details involved with crop factor as described in the video (as applied to aperture and focal length). There are lenses available for APS-C bodies that give you wide angle capability comperable to FF.

Then again, try to get the reach of a 150-600mm lens on an APS-C body using a full frame. Financially, if not simply impossible. The opposite can't be said for FF. I have an 11-20 f/2.8 zoom (APS-C only) giving me 17mm field of view (as used on FF) that is financially reasonable.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 17:02:07   #
ken_stern
 
PHRubin wrote:
FF lenses work fine on APS-C cameras if you know the details involved with crop factor as described in the video (as applied to aperture and focal length). There are lenses available for APS-C bodies that give you wide angle capability comperable to FF.

Then again, try to get the reach of a 150-600mm lens on an APS-C body using a full frame. Financially, if not simply impossible. The opposite can't be said for FF. I have an 11-20 f/2.8 zoom (APS-C only) giving me 17mm field of view (as used on FF) that is financially reasonable.
FF lenses work fine on APS-C cameras if you know t... (show quote)


About 2 yrs prior to the purchase of my 1st digital I had bought a Canon 35mm 1.4 L for $1,300 -- When considering what would happen "if" I mounted it to a "brand new" smaller format digital --- I asked myself the question --
Would I spend $1,300 on a 56mm 1.4 lens? --
At that time - For me the answer was & remains today Hell-No!

In my case since I already had a collection of - for me pricey - 35mm prime lenses specifically chosen for their angle of view -- I eventually purchased a digital camera that fit my existing lenses

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 17:16:08   #
sloscheider
 
I've got full frame bodies for better low light performance. Crop factor is just one issue that I really don't care about. If I could get great low light image from a point and shoot or my cell phone that would be part of my kit.

PHRubin wrote:
...Then again, try to get the reach of a 150-600mm lens on an APS-C body using a full frame. Financially, if not simply impossible. The opposite can't be said for FF. I have an 11-20 f/2.8 zoom (APS-C only) giving me 17mm field of view (as used on FF) that is financially reasonable.

Just crop the image from the full frame body and you have the same "reach" as that of the crop factor body - that's why it's a "crop" factor. It's not reach, it's just recording a smaller portion of the light cone produced by the lens.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2019 17:45:35   #
PHRubin (a regular here)
 
sloscheider wrote:
I've got full frame bodies for better low light performance. Crop factor is just one issue that I really don't care about. If I could get great low light image from a point and shoot or my cell phone that would be part of my kit.


Just crop the image from the full frame body and you have the same "reach" as that of the crop factor body - that's why it's a "crop" factor. It's not reach, it's just recording a smaller portion of the light cone produced by the lens.


That only works if your FF has 2.56 times the number of pixels. A typical FF does not have 61 MP (24 MP X 1.6*1.6) to crop down to the same angle of view and the same resulting number of pixels as my 80D. Heck, I can crop from my photos too!

If the FF has 61MP, it won't have better light performance as the pixels will be the same size as the 80D.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.