CROP SENSOR - I don't get it (Page 4): For sure... Everyone knows that a ff camera has the crop advantage... The FF sensors image having the ability to be cropped to the crop sensor...

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Juy wrote:

I have struggled with this and my opinion is it does not make the lens more magnified it does narrow the field of view which as you stated gives a cropped image compared to a full frame, I don't feel it gives any better reach
Just my point of view

For sure...

Everyone knows that a ff camera has the crop advantage...

The FF sensors image having the ability to be cropped to the crop sensor image- print size is a better way to think of it than, the false idea of something being magnified... Use of the available lens area changes with sensor size.

CO

olemikey wrote:

The nice difference with APS-C or H sensor image compared to post processing crop is that you don't lose any pixels, since you use the whole sensor, but it is a smaller sensor, so you get that equivalent view of 1.4, 1.5 1.6 X, depending on which APS-C or APS-H camera, and even greater if a small superzoom bridge camera sensor since they are even smaller. If your APS-C or H is 24MP, you get all 24 MP, just on a smaller image than if FF.

It's good that someone finally mentioned the pixels. I thought that since smaller sensors usually have a higher pixel density you do get magnification - just not optically. You can have the effect of using a longer focal length lens than you would on full frame because high resolution is retained.

BebuLamar

CO wrote:

It's good that someone finally mentioned the pixels. I thought that since smaller sensors usually have a higher pixel density you do get magnification - just not optically. You can have the effect of using a longer focal length lens than you would on full frame because high resolution is retained.

Yes that's true because camera with small sensor tends to have higher pixel density but as I said tends to and not always true. If we compare the Nikon D500 and D850 then the DX crop image from the D850 would give about the same number of pixels as the D500.

User ID

catchlight.. wrote:

For sure...

Everyone knows that a ff camera has the crop advantage...

.........

Well, no. "Everyone" does NOT "know" that.

Cuz it's backwards ! If you tighten up your
framing by use of a 24MP APS-C body, you
have a 24MP image. If you tighten up your
framing by cropping a 24MP FF to the same
degree, the result is a 12MP APS-C image.

IOW FF has the disadvantage for cropping.

.

CO

BebuLamar wrote:

Yes that's true because camera with small sensor tends to have higher pixel density but as I said tends to and not always true. If we compare the Nikon D500 and D850 then the DX crop image from the D850 would give about the same number of pixels as the D500.

I see that. Some of the latest full frame cameras do have high pixel density - Nikon D850, Canon 5DS. Panasonic just announced a 24.2 and a 47.3MP full frame camera. Going back a little full frame cameras were 12, 16, 24, 36MP. My D750 is 24MP and my D500 is 21MP. In that case my D500 has greater pixel density.

Vincejr Loc: Northern Kentucky

One term I don’t hear anymore is normal lens ,like a 50mm for 35mm camera or a80mm for medium format 2.25 camera. Why don’t the new digital cameras say what the normal lens would be?

Vincejr Loc: Northern Kentucky

Mega Pixels don’t have anything to do with it.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Vincejr wrote:

One term I don’t hear anymore is normal lens ,like a 50mm for 35mm camera or a80mm for medium format 2.25 camera. Why don’t the new digital cameras say what the normal lens would be?

Because normal is relative?

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Not exactly...

QUOTE from Zeiss web page:

That said, full frame camera systems offer several distinct advantages over APS-C sensors. For starters, you’ll have more control over the depth of field because you’ll need to move in closer to your subject. This could be important for portraits or if you want to create other aesthetic effects.

A full frame camera/lens combination also delivers better image quality. The reason is the pixel pitch: a larger sensor with the same number of pixels means each individual pixel is larger; this allows more light to be captured. Hence, full frame systems also perform better when the light is weak, enabling you to confidently raise your ISO settings. For night photography, full frame sensors win hands down over APS-C sensors.

Full frame systems also produce more finer details because the pixels are larger, creating a better dynamic range than an APS-C sensor would with the same number of pixels. Because of a full frame sensor’s larger size and the larger field of view it projects, a full frame lens/camera combination is also more suitable for wide-angle shots, which is relevant for architectural, landscape or product photography.

(Quote): Cuz it's backwards ! If you tighten up your
framing by use of a 24MP APS-C body, you
have a 24MP image. If you tighten up your
framing by cropping a 24MP FF to the same
degree, the result is a 12MP APS-C image.

IOW FF has the disadvantage for cropping.

Here is another good link to read: http://reedhoffmann.com/size-matter-especially-with-pixels/

[quote=User ID]Well, no. "Everyone" does NOT "know" that.
Advantages of full frame sensors

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

My first SLR was a Canon Elan 2e with a 28-80mm and 75-300mm lenses. I thought I'd arrived, until on a vacation, my wife commented that I was grumbling about the weight. That was all the rationale I needed. Getting back home, I jumped on a Canon EOS IX coupled with a 24-85mm lens and its cute little film cartridges. I never gave the word or concept "crop" a second thought. It was the camera in my hand. I eventually sold it and kept the 2e until buying a Canon Rebel XSi. That eventually morphed into a 60d, then a 70d, etc and so on until the 7d2 and 6d2 I enjoy now.

Back to the subject, no one has mentioned that the f-stop has to also be multiplied by the same crop factor. So, a f/2 aperture becomes f/3.2 and so on in the Canon world. f/2 -> f/3 for Nikon, etc.

CO

[quote=catchlight..]Not exactly...

QUOTE from Zeiss web page:

That said, full frame camera systems offer several distinct advantages over APS-C sensors. For starters, you’ll have more control over the depth of field because you’ll need to move in closer to your subject. This could be important for portraits or if you want to create other aesthetic effects.

A full frame camera/lens combination also delivers better image quality. The reason is the pixel pitch: a larger sensor with the same number of pixels means each individual pixel is larger; this allows more light to be captured. Hence, full frame systems also perform better when the light is weak, enabling you to confidently raise your ISO settings. For night photography, full frame sensors win hands down over APS-C sensors.

Full frame systems also produce more finer details because the pixels are larger, creating a better dynamic range than an APS-C sensor would with the same number of pixels. Because of a full frame sensor’s larger size and the larger field of view it projects, a full frame lens/camera combination is also more suitable for wide-angle shots, which is relevant for architectural, landscape or product photography.

(Quote): Cuz it's backwards ! If you tighten up your
framing by use of a 24MP APS-C body, you
have a 24MP image. If you tighten up your
framing by cropping a 24MP FF to the same
degree, the result is a 12MP APS-C image.

IOW FF has the disadvantage for cropping.

Here is another good link to read: http://reedhoffmann.com/size-matter-especially-with-pixels/

User ID wrote:

Well, no. "Everyone" does NOT "know" that.
Advantages of full frame sensors

It seems like Zeiss is correct with full frame being better for portraits and wide-angle shots. The disadvantage comes in when you're trying to get more reach. What started as a 24MP image might be down to about 10MP. A 24MP crop sensor camera has retained all of the pixels in that smaller area.

Chuckwal Loc: Boynton Beach Florida

Its all a question of affordable
chuck

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

The hopper wrote:

Anotherview - thanks. Those pages seem to say that in terms a a reference standard i.e. a 35mm film frame, a crop sensor provides a perceived multiplication factor of 1.6 (in my case). However, in terms of any lens fitted to a camera, the lens just does what it is designed to do and there is no innate zoom but rather a crop factor sensor just picks up a portion of what a full frame camera would do. Is that correct??

You are absolutely correct. Lots of dealers that sell Lens use it as selling/marketing ploy to customers who are unaware what the lens will really do (eg) you’ll get more zoom which is not true! Remember it’s the FOV on a small sensor such as the APS-C camera.

BebuLamar

Vincejr wrote:

One term I don’t hear anymore is normal lens ,like a 50mm for 35mm camera or a80mm for medium format 2.25 camera. Why don’t the new digital cameras say what the normal lens would be?

Normal lens for APS-C is 30mm to 35mm. For M4/3 is 25mm.

sbohne

jerryc41 wrote:

If only camera makers would have made a digital equivalent of the 35mm SLR right off the bat.

Haha! If they had, you sure as hell wouldn't have been able to afford one! Very few people would have. The first Kodak DCS cameras were $28,000. A full frame camera is estimated to have cost $40,000 to $60,000 during that time period...had the technology been there to support it.

Even today, a Hasselblad digital camera is $48,000...and it's not even 6x6cm square! Anybody who buys one of those, please, adopt me. I know you're insane, but I might be able to live with crazy if you have that much money to p*ss away.

I had several friends who purchased those cameras. When they had $8,000 left on their loans, the cameras weren't worth $300.

Many of my fellow pros chided me for not going digital earlier. I didn't want to put money into a camera that was like a mobile home...the older it got, the less it was worth. And I didn't want to put a 2nd mortgage on my home.